Blog

  • The American Paradox: When the Paper Architecture Fails the Wilderness

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    There is a distinct spiritual vertigo that comes when a society realizes its foundations are fracturing. As we look out at a landscape shifting under multi-directional threats—hyper-polarization, macroeconomic instability, and geopolitical chaos—the world suddenly feels like a barren, trackless wilderness.

    On paper, America rejected the idealism of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed a state could force its citizens to conform to a singular, collective “General Will.” Instead, the American Founders built a mechanical fortress designed to prevent tyranny. They fractured power into three competing branches, built a maze of checks and balances, and anchored the entire experiment in John Locke’s vision of “negative liberty”—a system where the government’s primary duty is to protect individual rights and stay out of private lives.

    Yet, very early in our history, the ink on the Constitution was met with a brutal reality check. When confronted with the raw pressures of expansion, economic ambition, and a literal territorial wilderness, the republic proved it could talk like Madison but act like an autocrat.


    Table of Contents


    The Weaponization of the “General Will”

    By the 1820s, the sovereign Creek (Muscogee) Nation sat on highly coveted, fertile land in Georgia. The Creek National Council had enacted a strict law: anyone who signed away tribal lands to the United States without the collective consent of the nation would face the death penalty.

    • The Compromised Leader: Chief William McIntosh, a wealthy leader and slaveholder, chose the “Mountain Kingdoms” trap of personal survival.
    • The Illegal Treaty: In 1825, McIntosh and a small, unauthorized faction signed the Treaty of Indian Springs, illegally ceding millions of acres of Creek land.
    • The Systemic Betrayal: The U.S. government knew McIntosh did not speak for the Creek Nation. Yet, the American executive branch eagerly accepted his single signature as the voice of the entire tribe.

    This was Rousseau’s dangerous philosophy weaponized in real time. The American state bypassed actual law and institutional contracts by manufacturing a hand-picked proxy to represent a false “General Will” of the people. McIntosh was executed by his own people for this betrayal, but the legal wedge had already been driven into the stone wall.

    When the Courts Fail to Hold the Line

    The true systemic collapse occurred a few years later under President Andrew Jackson. When the state of Georgia attempted to strip neighboring Cherokee and Creek sovereignty, the issue went to the United States Supreme Court.

    In the landmark case Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled clearly and unequivocally in favor of indigenous sovereignty. The American paper architecture had worked exactly as designed: the judicial branch checked the unconstitutional tyranny of the majority.

    But a system of checks and balances only works if those in power respect the boundaries. President Jackson famously ignored the ruling, allegedly stating:

    “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

    When the executive branch refused to enforce the law of the land, the American republic officially pivoted to authoritarianism. The forced, state-sponsored migrations that followed—the Trail of Tears—were not caused by a lack of laws. They occurred because a populace and a government chose to smash their own institutional checks to get immediate results.

    A Warning for Our Modern Digital Wilderness

    Let us be entirely clear: our modern wilderness cannot be conquered on a physical battlefield. Today, our systemic challenges exist in the digital cloud, in global tax havens, and in impersonal macroeconomic shifts. Taking up physical arms in an era of bureaucratic decay would be a civic disaster, not a victory.

    If we look to history, the ultimate warning is found in the quiet, structural decay of reality rather than romantic battlefield charges:

    • The Lesson of Constantinople: In 1453, the last Byzantine emperor fought with breathtaking physical courage on the breaches. But his bravery came too late.
    • The Internal Rot: The civilization had spent decades hollowing itself out through internal polarization, institutional neglect, and an arrogant belief that its ancient walls made it inherently immune to history.
    • Our Modern Temptation: When we face modern multi-directional crises, the slow, grinding mechanisms of American gridlock become exhausting. We are tempted by Rousseau’s ghost to crave a political savior who will smash through boundaries and ignore the courts to restore our comfort.

    If we allow our internal institutions, our local courts, and our constitutional boundaries to rot because we are frustrated by the slow grind of the system, no amount of late-stage, frantic courage can save us. The battle for the republic is won or lost in how we maintain the integrity of the law today, long before the walls are fully breached.

    Standing at the Breach

    During the chaos of Culloden, the government forces managed to breach a crucial stone wall on the Southern flank of the battlefield. This allowed the government cavalry to charge through the gap and threaten to completely roll up and annihilate the retreating Jacobite lines. Major Gillies “Mor” Macbean was the senior major in Lady Anne’s Clan Chattan regiment. Seeing this catastrophic breach, he stationed himself directly inside the breach of that stone wall.

    He did not stand there because he possessed a mathematical strategy to reverse the global rise of the British fiscal state. Gillies Macbean stood there because it was his post. He held the gap single-handedly against an entire advancing column, buying time for his retreating comrades with his life.

    The lesson of the wilderness is that when the great structures fail, your macro-influence ends, but your local duty begins.

    The Test of Our Character

    When the wilderness presses in, the test of our character is not how fiercely we can demand a king to break the rules for us. The test is whether we have the courage to stand shoulder-to-shoulder defending the slow, painful integrity of the law—even when it doesn’t give us the immediate victory we want.

    The honorable reputation outlives the world. We stand shoulder-to-shoulder at the stone wall.


    Sources & Further Reading

    • Political Philosophy: Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) & The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762).
    • The Treaty of Indian Springs: The Muscogee (Creek) Nation: A History by Michael D. Green.
    • Constitutional Crisis: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) & Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars by Robert V. Remini.
    • Culloden History: Major Gillies Macbean’s stand is in the archive of the National Trust for Scotland and commemorated at McBain of McBain.
  • The Blameless Center Line: What Clan Chattan Teaches Us About a Rigged System

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    The morning after a devastating political defeat, the silence can feel heavier than the loudest campaign noise. You watch the maps change, feeling a suffocating mixture of disappointment and deep, exhausting discouragement. It feels as though a massive, impersonal machine has rolled over everything you value. You did the work, you held the line—and the system failed you anyway.

    If you are standing in that quiet, anxious modern wilderness today, I want to take you out of our current media echo chamber and place you onto a marshy moor in Scotland on April 16, 1746.

    Because centuries ago, a community was driven into that exact same wilderness. They were called Clan Chattan.

    Culloden

    Clan Chattan stood at the dead center of the Jacobite front line at the Battle of Culloden. Surrounding them was an era in violent, terrifying transition. The old world they knew—built on localized kinship, sacred oaths of personal loyalty, and historical legitimacy—was being systematically whittled away. First, their ancient kingship had been feudalized; then, great monarchs handed land titles to Norman warlords who turned clansmen into rent-paying tenants.

    By 1746, the financial systems of the early Enlightenment had completely rigged the game. Bankrolled by central banking power, global trade networks, and industrial logistics, the British fiscal-military state faced the clans. From a structural and economic standpoint, the old way of life, or rather the Stuart vision for the future of Scotland, never stood a chance. The wilderness of a new global epoch had enveloped them.

    The Specter of Betrayal

    Worse than the external military threat was the internal rot of the desert. Many neighboring clan chiefs had already succumbed to the ultimate wilderness temptation—the Machiavellian compromise. They collaborated with the new regime, took government commissions, or stayed home to secure their private wealth while their culture burned. They chose comfort and survival over fidelity.

    But Clan Chattan was different. In a wilderness defined by betrayal, they chose absolute, unyielding faithfulness to one another.

    The chief of the Mackintoshes (the leaders of the Chattan confederation) held a government commission and refused to let his clan participate in the rising of 1745. Yet, in an astonishing act of defiance, his wife, Lady Anne Farquharson-MacKintosh, raised the men of the clan for the cause anyway. She refused to let a compromised leader dictate her clan’s honor.

    The highlanders were obligated to fight by their oath to their clan leader, to Prince Charles Edward Stuart, their rightful king, and to their clan. Of course, there were conflicts of interest between the clans and the Stuarts. The clans were fighting for their lands and for the legal succession of Charles Edward Stuart, while the Stuarts were fighting for a divine king. However, they all fought a common enemy. The enemy was the British global financial system.

    The Highland Charge

    Immediately after the order to charge the clans were paralyzed under devastating government artillery fire. It was the men of Clan Chattan, standing at the center, who broke forward first into the grapeshot. They could bear the passivity no longer. They charged the lines with staggering physical courage, fighting not because the mathematical odds favored them, but because they refused to betray their identity and each other. And they were systematically mowed down by the more sophisticated weaponry of the British army.

    The Blameless Center Line
    Culloden (Editorial Credit: ROBIN MACGREGOR / Shutterstock.com)

    The Ultimate Meaning of Culloden

    From an analytical, geopolitical standpoint, Culloden was a total defeat. The old clan system was broken. But from a metaphysical standpoint, Clan Chattan achieved an absolute victory over the wilderness. They survived the spiritual test of the desert by refusing to let outer chaos dictate their inner honor.

    But it seems to me this is true of Clan Chattan’s entire history. Since the time of warlords and feudal kings they fought to defend their own lands. They were not trying to increase their own wealth. Fighting for their land was a matter of survival. This was also true at Culloden. They fought to honor their obligations to their clan and their king.

    In a time of conflicting motives, Clan Chattan was blameless. Today, history does not honor the compromised chiefs who stayed home to count their silver. We honor the blameless center line.

    Rethinking One’s Orientation in a Globalized World

    When the macro-systems of your world disappoint you, your duty changes. It shifts away from trying to fix a massive, rigged global machine, and moves toward horizontal fidelity—protecting, loving, and standing uncompromised alongside your people.

    If the wilderness is here, stop looking to the mountaintops for a political savior or a miraculous rescue. Look to your left and to your right. Double down on your localized values. Fast from the constant consumption of anxiety, audit your life with radical realism, and build deep, unshakeable commitments to your immediate community.

    When the systems fail, hold the center line. Protect your own clan.

    Long live the clan!

     

    For the Historical Analysis see: The socio-economic evolution of the Scottish clan system from kin-based societies to feudal tenure, and its ultimate clash with the British fiscal-military state, is documented in The Highland Clans by Alistair Moffat and Culloden: Scotland’s Last Battle and the Forging of the British Empire by Trevor Royle.

    For Clan Chattan Specifics:  The role of Lady Anne Farquharson-MacKintosh (“Colonel Anne”) and Clan Chattan’s position at the center of the Jacobite line is detailed in the historical archives of the National Trust for Scotland and the Battle of Culloden Visitor Centre records.

  • The Wilderness Crucible: Gospel Perspectives, Old Testament Parallels, and Application to a Vulnerable America

    The Wilderness Crucible: Gospel Perspectives, Old Testament Parallels, and Application to a Vulnerable America

    Reading Time: 6 minutes

    I wrote Justice of the Rupture  after our attempt to elect Bernie Sanders to the presidency. Shortly afterward, Nina Turner, the national co-chair of Sanders’ 2020 campaign, identified the nature of our grief when she said “Progressives are in the wilderness“. Nina was raised in the church. She was talking about the wilderness that Jesus experienced after has baptism. Sadly, the entire country is here with us today. The important thing at this time is to recognize it for what it is. The wilderness crucible is not a punishment. It’s an opportunity.

    The Wilderness Crucible
    The Wilderness

    The Wilderness Crucible: Biblical Theology and Modern Application 

    The wilderness narrative of Jesus is not merely a historical interlude but a profound spiritual, psychological, and metaphysical blueprint for navigating civilizational crisis. This article explores the structural nuances of the text across the synoptic Gospels and examines its Old Testament typologies. It will then analyze the symbolic anatomy of the three temptations and apply these insights to contemporary Americans.

    The three-fold dimension of the wilderness framework is adapted from classic synoptic gospel analysis (Matthew 4:1-11/Luke 4:1-13), utilizing Deuteronomy 6-8 as the primary textual subtext for testing national identity under deprivation.

    The American Wilderness Shift

    America is shifting from an era of radical comfort to an age of profound multi-directional volatility. When a society conditioned on radical comfort, predictable material prosperity, and geographic invulnerability faces friction from several directions at once (macroeconomic, geopolitical, and domestic hyper-polarization), it defaults to the exact pathologies tested in the wilderness. As we enter a cultural wilderness, the original temptations of Jesus are bound to repeat themselves as systemic pathologies. The biblical framework provides a precise diagnosis:

    The Bread Crisis (Economic Anxiety & Material Idolization)

    When inflation, resource scarcity, and economic volatility threaten the modern standard of living, the natural temptation is to compromise ethics for survival. This is the ‘stones to bread’ trap. Americans are tempted to believe that physical, financial security is the ultimate good, leading to frantic consumerism, hoarding, and an abandonment of neighborly solidarity. The remedy of Jesus requires recognizing that structural crises are moments to realign with baseline moral truths and spiritual realities, rather than worshiping economic metrics.

    The Temple Pinnacle (Political Radicals & The Illusion of Immunity)

    Under multi-directional threat, citizens often demand public, structural guarantees of safety, or fallback into the toxic presumption that ‘America is inherently immune’ to the laws of historical collapse. This manifests psychologically as a demand for a performative savior or a weaponized civil religion that expects God (or the State) to validate our specific group or nation without demanding our repentance. Testing God via institutional hubris replaces quiet civic duty and moral accountability.

    The Mountain Kingdoms (The Allure of Authoritarian & Machiavellian Power)

    Faced with geopolitical instability and domestic breakdown, the temptation to embrace corrupt mechanisms to achieve protective ends becomes overwhelming.  This mirrors the offer of all earthly kingdoms. Americans are increasingly tempted to look to total political control, institutional weaponization, and Machiavellian compromises to preserve their comfort. The wilderness teaches that acquiring power at the expense of our foundational values is an absolute metaphysical and structural defeat.

    The Purpose of the Desert

    The fundamental error of Israel was viewing the wilderness as an unmitigated punishment to be escaped at all costs, leading them to long for the slavery of Egypt just for its food security. Jesus demonstrated that the wilderness is actually a place of essential purgation. For modern Americans, this era of disruption is not merely an inconvenience; it is a crucible. It strips away the illusion that comfort equals safety, exposing our idols, and offering an opportunity to build an unshakeable inner resilience that does not depend on outward geopolitical or economic tranquility.

    Core Analytical Frameworks of the Desert

    As we have seen, the Modern American application of the wilderness is based on a more ancient framework. This includes the synoptic comparison (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and the Old Testament typology.

    The Synoptic Comparison

    Each Gospel writer anchors the wilderness differently. Mark framed it as a sudden, violent cosmic boundary shift where the spirit ‘drives’ Jesus into an apocalyptic war with wild beasts and angels. Matthew positioned it as a royal, legal debate over the fulfillment of structural righteousness, culminating on a high mountain. Luke emphasizes Jesus’ perfect humanity under intense dependency on the Holy Spirit, shifting the final temptation to the pinnacle of the religious establishment in Jerusalem.

    The Old Testament Typology

    In the Old Testament portion of the analysis, the wilderness acts as a diagnostic mirror for a nation. First, the story of Jesus represents a 40-day/40-year reversal. Jesus enters the precise geographical and spiritual microcosm where the corporate ‘son’ (Israel) failed during their 40-year journey.

    In addition, this typology includes the Deuteronomy strategy. Every scriptural response Jesus makes after his temptations is from Deuteronomy 6 and 8. These verses are a sort of manual given to Israel to explain why God allowed them to be hungry.

    But the nature of the wilderness also encompasses three additional dimensions: the spiritual dimension; the psychological dimension; and the metaphysical dimension.

    Theological Analysis

    The wilderness of Jesus was a spiritual and metaphysical battleground designed to test his messianic identity and obedience.

    Historical and Psychological Analysis

    Jesus’ wilderness was an intense period of physical deprivation and preparation that mirrored Israel’s 40 years in the desert. The idea that Jesus succeeded where Israel failed is a common interpretation.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] He also succeeded where Adam failed. But we shouldn’t forget that Jesus was a product of both Israel and Adam. Christian theology tells us he succeeded for the entire human race.

    The Spiritual Dimension

    In Christian theology, the wilderness was a direct confrontation between the divine and the demonic.[1, 6]

    Cosmic Showdown

    The Spirit affirmed Jesus as the Son of God at his baptism; immediately the Spirit led him into a spiritual crucible where Satan tested him.[1, 7]

    The Baptism of Jesus (godongphoto)
    Messianic Purpose

    The temptations were spiritual tests of his mission. Would he rely on miraculous power for personal needs (turning stones into bread), seek worldly domination, or test God’s protection?[8, 9]

    The Word as Weapon

    Jesus overcame this spiritual adversity by utilizing the spiritual authority of scripture (quoting Deuteronomy), demonstrating that spiritual victory comes from reliance on the Word of God.[10]

    The Psychological Dimension

    The wilderness tested the limits of Jesus’ humanity, representing an extreme test of mental resilience, focus, and human endurance.[7, 11, 12]

    Vulnerability

    After forty days and nights without food, Jesus experienced acute physical hunger, emotional exhaustion, and severe isolation.[7, 13]

    The Human Condition

    The ultimate test of doubt, ambition, and the temptation to take the path of least resistance to achieve his goals was a psychological ordeal.[2, 8, 13, 14, 15]

    Identity and Calling

    The wilderness was a period of mental clarity where Jesus rejected human desires and embraced the psychological and emotional suffering necessary for his ultimate destiny on the cross.[2, 13]

    The Metaphysical Dimension

    In biblical tradition, the wilderness is a place outside of human society, often viewed as a metaphysical realm of chaos, desolation, and spiritual danger.[1, 16]

    Kingdom of Darkness vs. Kingdom of Light

    The encounter with Satan involves metaphysical phenomena. This encounter demonstrates an attack by the Kingdom of Darkness on the Kingdom of Light. For example, Satan transports Jesus to a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world, only to change his location in another moment to the pinnacle of the temple. First he tempts Jesus with power and control over the kingdoms of the world. then he tempts Jesus to demonstrate a dare-devil leap into space in order to be rescued by God. They were metaphysical phenomena, but the effects of Jesus’ capitulation would have been real. [8, 13, 17, 18]

    Transcendent Intervention

    The Gospel of Mark further emphasized the metaphysical nature of the the wilderness. In this Gospel, Mark notes that Jesus was ‘with the wild animals, and angels were ministering to him’. This verse bridges the physical world with the transcendent realm.[4, 16, 19]

    Angels Ministered to Him

     

    Ultimately, the wilderness represents three things. It represents a physical location, a severe mental trial of Jesus’ human faculties, and a spiritual-metaphysical triumph over the forces of evil.[6, 20, 21, 22]

    Is the Wilderness Only a Place of Passive Meditation?

    Some might object that the course laid out in this article is too limited. We seem to be left with an important question: is true wilderness resilience simply a retreat into passive meditation? The wilderness does have something to say about physical strategy. This will be the subject of the next article.

    (In the preparation of this work, digital research assistants and language modeling tools were utilized to organize source texts, verify historical timelines, and cross-reference literary citations.)

    [1] https://www.youtube.com

    [2] https://www.new-covenant-church.com

    [3] https://feedingonchrist.org

    [4] https://learn.ligonier.org

    [5] https://bibleproject.com

    [6] https://www.youtube.com

    [7] https://medium.com

    [8] https://www.logos.com

    [9] https://www.logos.com

    [10] https://connectionpointchurch.org

    [11] https://www.wildernesstrek.org

    [12] https://lifespringschristianchurch.org

    [13] https://www.youtube.com

    [14] https://swedenborg.com

    [15] https://www.viewchurch.co

    [16] https://www.behindthegospels.com

    [17] https://www.youtube.com

    [18] https://tidings.org

    [19] https://laurenbdavis.com

    [20] https://renewcm.com

    [21] https://scripturecentral.org

    [22] https://storage2.snappages.site

     

  • Patriarchy in Modern Society: Historical Roots and Future Implications

    Reading Time: 11 minutes

    Historical Origins of Patriarchy

    We know the approximate origin of patriarchy in modern society. It appeared in the West approximately 1200 BCE. But the credit goes to Homer (750-700 B.C.) who sang of the struggles of distant heroes. He was the first to describe a patriarchal system. Homer’s poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, told of men who gave law to their children and wives. Next, we have the influence of Solon (630-550 B.C.). Solon’s actions may have advanced patriarchy in a more concrete way than Homer’s poems. He was considered ‘one of the Seven Wise men of Greece’. So, when he built a brothel in Athens and dedicated its profits to the erection of a temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, he gave patriarchy cultural and religious standing. However, it was Socrates (c. 470-399 B.C.) who immortalized disdain toward women1 Distain toward women is inseparable from patriarchy.

    I will argue that the first patriarchs were foreign invaders. They married women from the indigenous conquered populations and imposed their own demands on them. This required them to police their new system in order to perserve it.

    These invaders clearly demonstrated that they were rapists and looters and foreign adventurers. They never intended to assimilate into the conquered population. Instead, they remade the known world in their own image. But eventually the outrageousness of their behavior combined with their new positions of authority, motivated them to justify themselves. The Greeks used mythology and philosophy; the Romans used law. They both used misogyny.

    Early Patriarchs Were Synonymous With Warfare

    There were no early patriarchal societies. Patriarchy did not form societies. It destroyed them. The examples of Greece and Rome illustrate this characteristic. 

    Greece

    The context of early patriarchy in Greece was destruction and upheaval caused by the Achaean invasion. It was basically a bloody coup in which the invaders slew entire colleges of priestesses. But interspersed with the carnage were furtive and piecemeal tactics, such as sly manipulation of ancient marriage practices and occassional murder.

    Socrates and his students are our most familiar patriarchal authorities, but they didn’t invent the system. They were following a script written by earlier Greek conquerors. In Socrates’ time, all that was needed was continuing reinforcement and justification. Homer wrote his stories in the fourth century B.C. but he set them around 1200 B.C.  That is how the process worked. His poems were constantly adapted to please aristocratic patriarchal males. They also helped cover up crimes committed in the takeover.

    Rome

    Romulus founded the city of Rome as an asylum for runaway slaves, outlaws, exiles, and criminals from across Italy. There were almost no women there; the outlaws and outsiders were all male. So, the Romans invited a neighboring tribe to a festival and forcably kidnapped their daughters. This is known today as the Rape of the Sabine Women. The Roman home was treated like a conquered territory because that’s what it was. 

    The Modern Evolution of Patriarchy

    Today, the politically correct version of these stories are all that most people know. They are what comes up first in a Google search. This illustrates the modern evolution of patriarchy. We swim in a patriarchal ocean…

    Greece

    If you were to do a Google search for the question, Did Theseus conquere Crete?, you would get the official story. Theseus was sent to Crete as captive youth in tribute to the Minotaur. He successfully slew the beast, stopped the tribute, and escaped Crete with King Minos’s daughter, Ariadne.

    However, if you supply additional information, the full story can still be found. But you have to know what you are looking for when you begin. 

    If you reply for example, In reality, Theseus won property through bigamy and even kidnapped Helen when she was a child. You will get the following answer: Yes, in the context of Greek mythology, you are completely correct. While Theseus is often celebrated as a noble hero, his mythological history includes many deeply problematic and villainous acts, including the kidnapping of a young Helen.

    This answer includes a general outline of the story–Helen’s age, where they kept her, and the consequences of Theseus’s villainy. However, sources may hedge a little. For example, according to the source linked above, Theseus was motivated by his desire to marry a daughter of Zeus. That may be technically true, but it meant that he wanted access to what Helen would bring to a marriage: the throne and control of the related territory.

    Other sources fill in the blanks. Theseus used the same technique in Crete. When he married Phaedra, the sister of Ariadne and daughter of King Minos of Crete, it solidified Athenian ties to Cretan wealth and power. However, it ultimately ended in a family tragedy.

    Rome

    If you ask Google where Roman Patriarchy comes from, again the first answer is the politically correct one. Roman Patriarchy was the result of brutal practical realities. These ‘practical realities’ include early agrarian survival, warlike tribal foundations, and strict property law. The Sources listed are Reddit and Brewminate.com

    The explanation continues: While the Greeks used philosophy to keep women away, the Romans used codified law. Their law turned the male head of the household into a micro-emperor.

    Supposedly the economy of cattle and the danger that they might be stolen made this necessary. Men monopolized the warfare necessary to protect the herds. Therefore, the male line controlled the property. 

    There are many ways to say the same thing. For example, the early Roman agrarian state was surrounded by hostile neighbors and had to organize itself like a military fortress. The family was not an emotional unit. It was an economic corporation headed by the oldest male in the family. The sources listed are: Worldhistory.org; Wikipedia; bbc.co.uk; and medium.com.

    Nevertheless, we get the impression that the position of women in Rome was not as pitiful as Athenian women. 

    Objection: Why Didn’t the Indigenous People Become Patriarchal?

    There is one important objection to these justifications for Roman patriarchy. Indigenous peoples faced the same threats but they didn’t subjugate their women. This objection is quickly validated by Google’s AI.

    Your point about indigenous cultures (like many Native American tribes) developing matrilineal systems despite facing hostile neighbors is completely accurate. This proves that external threats do not inherently force a society to adopt an extreme patriarchy. 

    This thread provided the story of Romulus, which I related at the beginning of this discussion. It concludes with the following statement :

    While indigenous matrilineal societies relied on deep, stable kinship networks where women held the continuity of the community, Rome was an aggressive, synthetic military state built by rootless men.”

    The Stories of Ancient Greece and Rome are Actually Defense and Coverup

    In Greece, Plato and Aristotle provided an intellectual defense for the Hellenes’ brutal conquest during the Bronze age, centuries earlier. When they arrived, the Aegean was dominated by the Minoan Civilization on the island of Crete. This culture was centered around female power. (The reason for Greek hatred of women couldn’t be more clear.) 

    These were Mycenaeans, the first true Greeks. They arrived from the mainland around 1450 B.C.E.,  overthrew the Minoan centers, smashed the matriarchal structures, and replaced the Mother Goddess with their own sky-father warrior god, Zeus. (Quora.com and Internationalschoolhistory.com.)

    By the time Socrates and Plato came along, the physical violence was over, but the guilt and anxiety of that violence remained. Classical philosophy was the ultimate coping mechanism: it allowed Athenian men to look at the subjugated women around them and say,We didn’t violently steal your power; nature and logic dictate that you never should have had it in the first place’.” (LiteratureandHistory.com)

    The Weaponization of Name Calling and Outrage

    The Greeks in Herodotus’ times knew of four generations who were responsible for a period of social upheaval. One example is the renowned Heroes who slew many mythological beasts: Bellerophon killed the Chimera; Hercules or Herakles ended the lives of many monsters in his Twelve Labors; Theseus killed the Minotaur and founded Athens. We know now that these are pleasant ways of describing a more brutal reality. 

    The Chimera was one of the symbols of the Mother Goddess cult; we are really being told that Bellerophon ended the cult by killing its priestesses. He may have even used one Mother Goddess cult to wipe out another. The Pegasus, which he used to kill the Chimera, was one of Her favorite animals. However, he may also have experienced a revolt. In the end, he fell from Pegasus and died2, p. 129-130.

    The killing of the Minotaur by Theseus probably represents the Achaean invasion of Crete, and Herakles’ Second Labor was the killing of the Hydra of Lerna. The killing of the Hydra probably represents the elimination of a college of priestesses at Lerna. And when Herakles shot the Stymphalian birds with his arrows, his Sixth Labor, he was really suppressing a Goddess cult at Stymphaly. That’s how the myths are interpreted today.

    Herakles was Fighting a Religious War

    Herakles was fighting a religious war. His myth had vestiges of ancient Goddess worship, but it was distorted. Before he arrived, the Goddess cult had deified many Heroes, but in the end he was the only Hero who remained. (This is the same as Palemon, whose story is described below.)

    The myth states that Herakles worked for Hera. However, this isn’t exactly right. By this time, marriage was an Achaean weapon. Generations of Heroes before him had achieved political and religious status by marrying a sacred queen. In the case of this Herakles (his real name was Palemon) he was following orders to marry the Queen and become the Hero-King of that Euzkan region. He was accompanied on his mission by Theseus, Iolcus, Peleus and many others. When he took the Golden Girdle from Hippolyte the Queen of the Amazons on his ninth labor, he actually deflowered her. That led to a battle in which the Amazons were killed.

    The voyages of the Achaeans were not particularly focused. They included the exploration of trade routes and general mischief, so it took some time to understand what they were doing. Sometimes a king would simply leave the kingdom. It was a violation of religious tradition and a shocking lack of piety with no explanation, but it was considered a one-time thing. In addition, the period of kingship was gradually increased by the invaders, sometimes up to twenty years and only then would a king fight to avoid being deposed. The pattern wouldn’t become clear until later. After all, the indigenous population lived within the established system. It had been part of a sacred reality in that region for as long as anyone could remember. But finally the priestesses recognized the danger.

    Jason and Medea

    Jason married Medea, a Sacred Queen, and when the time came to escape he took her with him. When she discovered what his real intentions were, it was not possible for her to return. She was disgraced and she would have been punished. Instead she chose to advise King Aegeus of Athens of the threat posed by Theseus. She tried to poison Theseus, but he escaped to Crete where he seduced Ariadne. Then he returned to Athens, killed Aegeus, took the throne, and banished Medea.

    Palemon

    It is thought that Palemon married sacred queens at least three times, probably many more. As stated previously, the Achaeans were able to do this by taking a leave during their kingship. In this way they could unify or control a wide region. The social psychic instability continued for centuries, and most Greek tragedies are based in this period.

    Deianeira

    When Deianeira, the current wife of Palemon, realized what was happening, she took advice from the Centaurs, Pelasgian horsemen. They knew Palemon very well because he had had killed their king, Cheiron, and many others. This had been particularly outrageous because Centaur Cheiron had trained him in archery and the art of hallucinogens.

    Deianeria annointed one of Palemon’s shirts with a poison supplied by Centaur Nessus. He died while wearing this shirt. Palemon was deified after his death even though he was not the last Hero or even the last Herekles. For the indo-Europeans he was the only one.

    The old religion continued for some time, but the information war continued too. And eventually, Homer wrote his version of the drama in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

    What We Know About the First Patriarchal Systems

    Among Indo-Europeans women were very low on the social scale. For Latins and Greeks, they were just a little above other reproductive animals. They had no social rights at all. Rather than enjoying an independent lifestyle, they were transferred from their father’s authority to that of their husbands. If they survived their spouses, their male children assumed authority over them.

    Greek writers such as Theopompus and Hesiod, and their Roman compatriots like Cato, agreed that the only purpose of a woman was to provide legitimate children. The education of women was limited to weaving and cooking, and they never appeared in public.

    In ‘settled, lawful Rome’ until the rise of the Empire, women could not own property, or anything else for that matter. They were owned. They were so unimportant they had no names. Emilia and Claudia were family names indicating that they belonged to an Emilii or Claudii man.

    Women prepared the meals for their men and their guests but they did not eat with them. The same was true in Rome. Roman and Greek conservatives were disgusted by the conduct of Etruscan and Ionian women. Yes, disgusted. Not surprised, not curious, not disapproving. Disgusted!

    What was the Character of the Indigenous Society?

    A different sort of society existed in the same region during this period. The indigenous societies they took over had been in Europe thousands of years before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. They were the remnant of the Paleolithic population in that region.

    Ionian women for example joined their husbands at their businesses. They had their own businesses too, and could inherit and pass on property. Love in the couple was common. The women were competitive, and their husbands didn’t mind. 

    We know from my original patriarchy article that women in Egypt had similar rights before Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great. Alexander was a student of Aristotle; Aristotle was a student of Plato; Plato was in the vanguard of the regime-change campaign.

    Alexander the Great consciously strove to spread Greek thought, language and culture to all of the peoples he conquered. Thanks to him, the writings of his mentors, Plato and Aristotle, have been perpetuated in Western philosophy. And as Alfred North Whitehead famously said, Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.

    Women’s Rights v Disgusted Indo-Europeans

    One of the accounts I am using focuses on the Basques. This is The Oldest Europeans by J. F. del Giorgio. I’ve discovered a few minor errors in this work, but I’ve found it useful for the most part. He argues the traits of these societies were shared by populations in other areas of the West, for example, Britons, Scandinavians, Irish, Welsh, Celts, Etruscans and Pelasgians–the Oldest Europeans. It is interesting that hatred for these cultures resurfaced before World War II. 

    The trait that had most bothered those early invaders was the independence and self-assertiveness of European women. Before World War II Asiatic anti-European propaganda claimed independent women were a modern symptom of European decadence. 

    del Giorgio argues that modernity had nothing to do with it.

    The independence and other remarkable traits of European women are not modern, It all comes from ancient, very ancient times.

    Actually, it is not now that they are more independent. They have not gained independence during the last millennia, but have almost completely lost it. European women were not merely independent in the past. They seem to have enjoyed a remarkable high status. They were practically in command (del Giorgio, p. 86)

    Patriarchy in Contemporary Society

    The impact of patriarchy on modern social structures is so total it is almost invisible. Many modern women assume they are liberated, or they did until the recent American backlash, but this perception was always delusional. The overriding structure of the world is patriarchal and it will remain that way until our institutions and economic agreements change drastically.

    Challenges to Patriarchal Structures

    An effective challenge to patriarchal structures does not exist in today’s world. The feminism allowed by our culture is part of the power structure. Take Hilary Clinton for example. She and Bill together have been good soldiers for the Anglo-Saxon-leaning power-base for their entire careers. And I would venture to say that Hilary has always been in awe of Bill’s political ability, regardless of her independent feminist stance. She is talented in her own way and hard-working, but her only claim to fame in the 2016 election was being female. She didn’t win, but she fulfilled her assignment–to do whatever was necessary to defeat Bernie.

    The Same-Sex Marriage Movement as Women’s Rights Strategy

    The same-sex marriage movement has its own dedicated lobbyists who are working toward some invisible goal. Feminist theory may be the source of this movement, but as a strategy for women’s rights, it’s wrong-headed. 

    Greece and Rome fostered same-sex relationships, but this did not help Greek or Roman women. Same-sex relations were not a threat to the Achaeans. Women as women were the threat, and the Achaeans destroyed the cultures that honored them. 

    The Romans loved Greek art, architecture, and literature, and they assimilated some of it into their arts and mythology. They were also heavily patriarchal but their patriarchy had a different character than Greek patriarchy. The Romans rejected certain Greek institutions. They especially despised the classical Greek social structures which they believed made Athenian men weak, effeminate, and psychologically soft. For that reason, they criticized gymnariums and nakedness. These institutions were a recipe for laziness and corruption in their view. The Romans exercised for military training, but they kept their clothes on. (thehistorianshut.com; onlinelibrary.wiley.com)

    Rome also rejected Greek pederasty. They thought it violated a citizen’s dignity. They did form same-sex relationships, but they protected Roman youth. A Roman citizen could only have same-sex relations with slaves or non-citizens, and he must always take the dominant penetrative role. They viewed the Greek system of courted free citizens as a complete breakdown of patriarchal authority.(rlesser.sites.gettysburg.edu; thoughts.com)

     

     

     

    1. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really said About Women. HarperCollins Publishers, NY, 1988. []
    2. J.F. del Georgio, The Oldest Europeans. A.J. Place, 2005. []
  • Desperados

    Reading Time: 2 minutes

    desperado is a desperate or reckless person, especially a bold criminal or outlaw. The term is most commonly associated with dangerous characters from the American Old West who were pushed by desperation to commit violent acts. That word now describes the government and political system of the United States of America. In this and subsequent articles I will address the desperados directly.

    Rational Versus Irrational Empires

    If responsible leaders of an empire want to protect the well-being of citizens, it is to their credit. Citizens depend on the world’s domestic and international economies and they contribute to the Empire. Rational leaders operate accordingly.

    By this standard, you are irrational. You act as if everyone but you is expendable. In reality, the end of empire is not your calamity alone. It affects all of us. You are trying to come out on top with a worldview that is not even real. This is the behavior of desperados.

    The Example of Cain

    Consider the story of Cain. In the book of Genesis, Cain killed his brother Abel in a fit of jealous rage. Banishment was the punishment for murder in those days, and Cain’s punishment for spilling his brother’s blood was to be sent away by himself. The spilling of another’s blood on the ground was an offense against the land, and such a person could not remain among his people. It would put them all in danger. But who exactly sent Cain away?

    Cain Was Not Banished by a Race or Class of People. He Was Banished By God.

    Some of you think God was unfair when he chose Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s. So, because you sympathize with Cain’s state of mind, you excuse his crime. It has come to the point that you identify as a race or even a nationality in competition with the descendents of Abel. This too is madness. The Bible says it was God who banished Cain, not a race or class of people. You might be able to defeat entire groups of people, but you are no match for God.

  • A Message From the Iron Age

    Reading Time: 2 minutes

    This is completely off the subject of what we’ve been talking about here but I’m in a hurry to tell you about it. What I’m going to say is more pleasant to think about than the madness going on all around us. This is a message from the Iron Age.

    The Ancient Egyptians and Picts Had Something in Common

    I would like to share with you something the Picts and the ancient Egyptians had in common. I believe I’m the first person to figure it out. Either that or the scholars are keeping it secret. They claim no one can decipher the symbols carved by the Picts on their stone slabs in Scotland. However, I’m going to argue that the Picts were doing the same thing the Egyptians were doing in their temples, tombs and coffins. They were making maps and writing instructions to aid the dead in their journey to the next life.

    It is known that the ancient peoples had contact with each other. For that reason I think it’s safe to assume that the Pictish and Egyptian religions were similar. They both focused on the hazardous journey everyone must take when they die. The Egyptians made maps and wrote instructions on their temples and tombs. The Picts made standing stone slabs to mark their graves and carved them with plants, animals, hybrid creatures, and miscellaneous symbols. The clue that the Picts had the same intention as the Egyptians is the Pictish cross slabs.

    After the the Picts were converted to Christianity, they carved crosses on the back side of the standing slabs. This tells me they were carving instructions for the dead, like the Egyptians. Why? Because that was the purpose of the symbols on the front of the slab. The Picts obviously took Jesus’s promise literally, and the cross served the same purpose as the other symbols.

    In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be. Where I am going you know the way.

    Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    John 14:2-6

    The Picts took this to mean that Jesus will return for them when they die and take them to his Father’s house.

  • Something I Said

    Reading Time: < 1 minute

    What if we are giving the Zionists too much credit? What if they believe war with Iran is their last stand, and what if it was something I said?

    Giving the Zionists Too Much Credit
    Was it something I said?

    I have a new theory. It’s possible that at least some of the craziness is a reaction to, well…me, and what I’ve been saying in my blog. I know this sounds self-important, but if I really thought I was important I would have come to this conclusion much sooner.

    I don’t know if I will continue to blog. Things have gotten far too serious in the world, and nothing I can say will change that. It can only add to the furor. It’s in their hands now, as it always has been.

  • Who Are These Americans?

    Reading Time: 7 minutes

    America is supposed to be a melting pot. However, a certain cultural-religious group of people claimed ownership from the beginning. Not just ownership of industry and government, but ownership of Americanism. This should be obvious when people outside of the United States refer to Americans as Anglo-Saxons. However it doesn’t seem to register with ordinary Americans. Does anyone wonder about the nature of these people? Who are these Americans?

    Angles, Saxons and Jutes Meet in Britain

    The Angles, Saxons and Jutes originated in modern-day Denmark and Germany. They migrated to England after the withdrawal of Rome from 410 to 450 AD, and eventually merged to became the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons ruled England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. However, in their day they adopted Christianity and established kingdoms that spoke Old English. The Anglo-Saxons shaped English culture, language, and law.

    For Britons on the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon takeover was an unwanted incursion. Often it was deadly. Perhaps that explains why the US government makes immigration so difficult; they haven’t forgotten that they were once immigrants to Britain.

    The English Civil War

    In the seventeenth century, Anglo-Saxonism was a major ideological construct used to justify the English Civil War (1642-1651). The so-called Norman Yoke was another ideological construct and was used in a similar way. Adherents to these constructs could pose as people who were reclaiming ancient liberties that the Norman conquerors stole from them. These liberties included free parliaments and common law. In this way, English parliamentarians and radicals were able to invoke a romanticized, pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon past as marching orders for the politics of their time. Specifically, the Norman Yoke construct provided the rationale for challenging the divine right of Kings.

    Many of these concepts sound universal. But it’s important to note that these constructs belonged to a unique culture and religion at a specific time. The doctrine of the absolute authority of kings was no more universal than the doctrines of Anlo-Saxonism and the Norman Yoke. It arose after the religious wars spread chaos, instability and destruction all over Europe.

    In addition, it can be argued that the position of the parliamentarians and radicals in the seventeenth century was politically convenient. Divine kingship may have been a problem in itself, but the problem only became pressing when the radicals disagreed with Charles I. And subsequent historical events demonstrate that some of them wanted to take upon themselves the powers of kingship. Anglo-Saxonism and the Norman Yoke constructs were useful tools.

    The English Civil War ended with the execution of Charles I and the takeover by Oliver Cromwell, who proceeded to act like a dictator from 1653 to 1658.

    Factions in the Church of England

    It is also true that Charles acted recklessly. It was as though he was unaware of the fragility of the political and religious consensus that he enjoyed. The Church of England had been dealing with competing factions under Queen Elizabeth and James I, but everyone remained united by a Calvinist theology of grace. This consensus broke under Charles I.

    The king’s policies tended toward Anti-Puritanism in matters of liturgy and organization. The theological equivalent was Anti-Calvinism. Charles’s authoritarianism would prove his undoing at the hands of the Puritan faction. However, neither his behavior nor the parliament’s displeasure dictated his execution. Many of the agitators merely hoped to force his cooperation.

    The Puritans

    People in the United Kingdom and the United States often hear about how King Charles I overreached his powers as a king. But his execution was not a foregone conclusion. Many of those who opposed him were shocked when he was killed by the radicals and parliamentarians. But as argued above, this faction was acting according to its own peculiar beliefs.

    The Puritans were ethnically English, predominantly of Anglo-Saxon descent, and identified with this ancestry. As 16th and 17th-century English Protestants, they viewed themselves as a “remnant” continuing a divine, Anglo-Saxon tradition of piety and liberty. They were not genetically distinct from other English people, but were primarily a cultural/religious group from East Anglia. 

     Antonia Malchik

    Traditional Freemasonry

    Anglo-American style Freemasonry has played a part in the cultures of the United States and Great Britain. (This branch of Freemasonry is distinguished from Liberal Freemasonry.) It is the traditional, conservative branch of Freemasonry requiring belief in a Supreme Being and avoiding political/religious debate within the lodge. Anglo-American Freemasonry may not have played a part in the English Civil War because it only appeared in England as a formal organized fraternity in 1717. However, the first recorded initiation of an English gentleman, was of Elias Ashmole in 1646.

    But regardless of its past influences, I would argue that the most problematic influence of Freemasonry in our time stems from its adoption of Tubal Cain as its founding ancestor. This goes at least as far back as Albert Mackey.

    Freemasons believe there are two strains of people in the world. One comes from the line of Cain, and the other comes from Seth. The term, Sons of Cain, is derived from the Freemasonic tradition of referring to Tubal Cain as their ‘Masonic ancestor’.

    The Temple Legend

    Albert Mackey wrote about Tubal Cain in the Legend of the Craft. Mackey also wrote about him in the Lexicon of Freemasonry : Tubal Cain…

    …introduced many arts into society which tended towards its improvement and civilization. Tubal Cain is the Vulcan of the Pagans, and is thought to have been closely connected with ancient Freemasonry. Faber says that “all the most remarkable ancient buildings of Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor, were ascribed to Cabirean or Cyclopean Masons,” the descendants of Vulcan, Dhu Balcan, the god Balcan, or Tubal Cain. Oliver says, “In after times Tubal Cain, under the name of Vulcan and his Cyclops, figured as workers in metals and inventors of the mysteries; and hence it is probable that he was the hierophant of a similar institution in his day, copied from the previous system of Seth, and applied to the improvement of schemes more adapted to the physical pursuits of the race to which he belonged.”

    (As cited by Freemason.com)

    The mention of ‘the previous system of Seth’, is interesting, to say the least. The Book of Genesis, says the entire human race is descended from Seth. It doesn’t say anything about a system that follows it. In verse 4:25 Eve says that God granted her Seth in place of Abel. Then, Genesis chapter 5 presents Seth as the ancestor of Noah. The descendants of Seth survived the flood through Noah. The descendants of Cain did not. More to the point, if Seth was the ancestor of Noah he was also the ancestor of Christ. This claim is never made for Cain.

    The claim that there are two strains of people in the world is especially troubling when one considers Rudolf Steiner’s embellishments on the Temple Legend1. Steiner interpreted the Temple Legend symbolically, and argued that it represents humanity’s evolution.

    The New Temple Legend

    In The New Cain, we are told the Temple Legend was originally introduced into Europe by Christin Rosenkreutz. Later it became the core of diverse types of masonic rituals. However, Steiner did not adopt the Temple Legend from masonic sources. He reconstructed it from his independent spiritual research.2 He also incorporated his version into masonic rituals. The New Temple Legend is an occult-imaginative means to school and develop the soul’s spiritual capacities.

    From the very outset, the Temple legend points to humanity’s dual origins in the children of Cain and of Abel. The former emerged from asexual procreation, the latter from dual-gender procreation. The origin of the sons of Cain reaches back to the pre-Lemurian period, that of the sons of Abel – or of Seth, who was given to his parents as a substitute after Abel was killed – to Lemurian times. The first became tillers of the soil, scientists and technologists, who had to elaborate everything for themselves, while the latter became shepherds, priests and artists who were given inspiration from above. In a soul-spiritual sense, we can also speak here of a masculine and feminine spirit.

    We have before us here, therefore, a primal opposition in humanity’s evolution. To reconcile this was the aim of the theosophical, and now and in future of the anthroposophic world impulse, as well as of a freemasonry renewed through anthroposophy.

    (p. 10)

    One could argue that Steiner’s interpretation is more extreme than the original Temple Legend, implying that the original Legend is more benign. But the original version had already traced Freemasonry’s ‘masonic ancestor’ to Tubal Cain, in spite of the fact that his descendants did not survive the flood. Steiner merely expands on the occult implications of this mythology. In Steiner’s version, Freemasonry is the worship of Cain in the condition he had been in before his sin.

    It’s important to add that we are not presented here with the story of an ongoing rivalry. Cain’s vision is presented as the final victor over the vision of the sons of Abel-Seth. (p. 11)

    Paradise Lost

    It has been said that Milton’s Paradise Lost is the Protestant epic equivalent to Dante’s Inferno and its Catholic view of sin. The two poems clearly demonstrate corresponding differences in theology and focus. Although neither one of them is scriptural, they both exert some influence in the thought of religious believers.

    For the purposes of this article, it’s important to mention that Milton was influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture and history. In addition, he was very much a part of the English Civil War. There is a YouTube Video on the Chris Hedges channel that elaborates on the important points in Milton’s work. The interview covers important points and issues that resonate with American culture. Once you start to look for similarities you will find them everywhere.

    Misjudging Milton?

    In the Hedges interview, Orlando Reade argues that the finest moments of Paradise Lost are true to the New Testament. I am aware that I haven’t studied this poem as much as it probably deserves, but I still think it’s fitting to discuss Paradise Lost in an article that also deals with the rehabilitation of Cain. I worry about the modern ability to deal with such material on a poetic or literary level because the religious concepts these poems deal with are not fictions.

    In this work by Milton, the devil is a somewhat sympathetic character who was treated unfairly by God. Milton seems to identify his own plight with the devil, and he’s not the only one to do so. But of course, the devil was a sympathetic character because Milton created him that way. Other oppressed peoples have identified with Milton’s characterization of the devil in the same way. But if you take biblical concepts seriously, there is a difference between oppressed people and the devil.

    For one thing, Milton rebelled against the king while the devil rebelled against God. At best, you could argue that this is a powerful object lesson against divine kingship. For Milton, rebelling against the king was almost the same thing as rebelling against God. But, killing a king is another matter. Surely the comparison breaks down there?

    Donald Trump and the Idolatry of Kingship

    Today, history seems to be reorganizing itself with Donald Trump acting as an absolutist king who presides over a willing Anglo-Saxon government. In a rational world this would end Anglo-Saxonism as a meaningful construct.

    Who are these Americans? They are all of these things.

    1. Rudolf Steiner, The New Cain: The Temple Legend as a spiritual and moral impulse for evolution and its completion. ed. T. H. Meyer. Temple Lodge Publishing, 2017 ↩︎
    2. Ibid. p. 9 ↩︎

  • Strangers and Pilgrims in Anglo-Saxon Country

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    For several decades our government has behaved as if this country doesn’t belong to us. This can be explained in two ways. Either the country is ours and the government is cheating us, or it never belonged to us at all. Foreign political analysts like to call us Anglo-Saxons. Maybe they know something about our government that we don’t know. Christians say they are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Maybe it’s fitting for Americans to acknowledge they are strangers and pilgrims in Anglo-Saxon country.

    America and the Anglo-Saxon Outlook

    I criticized Professor Wen Yang recently when he said Anglo-Saxons are the worst people ever. There may be some truth in this, but it’s too extreme. I think it would be better to explain Anglo-Saxon behavior as the result of a flawed social organization.

    Wealth Inequality and the Plight of the Male Sex

    Anglo-Saxon wealth inequality stems from a long-standing flaw in social organization. It is fostered and perpetuated by the institution of boarding school. According to Alan Macfarlane, this institution may have even created our economic system. He has argued that boarding school was the beginning of capitalism.

    Before boarding school, economic activity took place in the household. However, sons who were sent off to boarding school ceased being part of that household. This severed the link between economic activity and the household.

    Boarding school breaks the social bond between a boy and his family and makes him vulnerable to generic male influences and organized male cabals. In addition, his former household looses the connection and benefit derived from his economic activity. He loses benefits as well when his household ceases to participate in his efforts. This explains how capitalism became the stomping ground of independent (i.e. lonely) men.

    Great Personal Wealth leads to Radical (i.e. antisocial and inhuman) Independence

    There are additional dangers for men who become radically independent. I would put it like this: A man’s mental and spiritual health depend entirely on his family ties. Unaccountable wealth destroys family ties. I would argue that seizing wealth from these men would be more rescue than punishment.

    There have always been proposals for small improvements in ruling class behavior. Policy-makers, politicians, and religious leaders in the mold of Pope Francis hold out hope that the existing system can be preserved. However, that hope has proven to be futile.

    Conservatives Should Have Appreciated Pope Francis When They Had Him

    Pope Francis was economically pragmatic. He fought for justice within the economic system and preached against ‘unfettered capitalism’, but he defended everyone’s part in the system. If the wealthy had listened to him perhaps they could have prolonged their privilege. However, in the last ten years they have demonstrated that capitalism itself is a run-away train. Furthermore, they enjoy riding on that train. The more unequal things get the better they like it. This position never was acceptable, but now the spell has been broken.

    Wealth Inequality is a Curse

    There is no justification for wealth inequality. It is a curse that can no longer be tolerated. The world’s wealth must be returned to families. That’s where it began and that’s where it should be used. Wealth does no good to anyone in the bank accounts or tax havens of a handful of sociopathic men.

    However, in order for a seizure to work, the system must be overhauled. Otherwise these people will return to their old ways. The system must protect the wealth of families first. this can only be done by something like bridewealth, which I have argued for previously. This system served to safeguard a family’s wealth and protect mothers at the same time. Husbands benefitted from the system as well, but there were limits in place. By contrast, economic limits do not exist today. Instead, additional burdens are imposed on women.

  • The Shocking Fate of Superman

    Reading Time: 2 minutes

    The ruffians have us on the run. All the signs are here. Whether the signs signal the ‘fall of the empire’, a worldwide annihilation, or the end of days remains to be seen. But if we take a philosophical stance for a moment, we will understand that something fundamental stands revealed: We see before us the shocking fate of Superman.

    I’m not talking about the trustworthy fictional Superman of the movies. Nor am I suggesting that the Superman I refer to is going to get his clock cleaned while we watch. Our Superman has been waiting in the wings since the end of World War II and he has already met his fate. He just doesn’t know it yet.

    The Conservatives have had their way at least since the assassination of JFK. Since then they have been busily corrupting the key structures of a free society. They may have thought they could slowly ease on to the throne without being noticed, but in 2015 the progressives called their bluff. Their response was to call out their heavy artillery. I admit it is intimidating, but there is something vaguely ridiculous about it. Superman is a cartoon.

    Superman is a Cartoon

    Our superman, or supermen, have been stewing in their juices since World War II, and dreaming of a final victory. But that isn’t what caused the present ridiculousness. They have always been ridiculous. It’s just that we see them now against the background of climate change and mass migration so their solutions appear as absurd as they are. The situation calls for a farsighted, compassionate manager but instead we are offered solutions from a superhero cartoon. The bright ideas of these characters float in space surrounded by microchips, high finance, gears, and jet fuel. And they themselves have long since ceased belonging to the earth. In fact, they despise the earth.

    So now that it’s finally time for their big reveal, they are completely unsuited to lead. But how is it possible that their cartoonish plans continue to be so honored in this day and age? We have all been blind together.

    They Never Accepted Their Defeat in World War II

    They were defeated in World War II because their ideas were just as stupid then as they are now. That should have been the end of it. However, they were allowed to keep their stolen loot and their societies rebuilt themselves exactly as they had been before the War. The thinking that led to the carnage stayed exactly the same, wrapped in a thick veil of denial. The lessons that they should have taken from their defeat have been biding their time–until now.

    Maybe This Is Justice

    It’s possible that what we see now is justice. If it makes you feel better, you could say it’s the fault of the World-War leaders and their societies, not to mention those who have supported cruel actions of their governments since that time. In any case, the outcome is no longer in our hands. Behold the shocking fate of Superman.