It Makes No Difference

For decades, the share of U.S. children living with a single parent has been rising, accompanied by a decline in marriage rates and a rise in births outside of marriage. A new Pew Research Center study of 130 countries and territories shows that the U.S. has the world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households.

Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%). The study, which analyzed how people’s living arrangements differ by religion, also found that U.S. children from Christian and religiously unaffiliated families are about equally likely to live in this type of arrangement.

In comparison, 3% of children in China, 4% of children in Nigeria and 5% of children in India live in single-parent households. In neighboring Canada, the share is 15%.

U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households

Right now, it makes no difference in our lifestyle, whether we are Christian or not.

This is going to have to change.

Now, there are extenuating circumstances that I am forced to acknowledge:

  • the article simply assumes that all who call themselves Christians even attempt to live in a way that please God;
  • there are so many Christians in America, that it’s hard to separate their influence from that of the general culture.

But still. If there are so many Christians in America, why is Christian behaviour noticeably worse than in China, or Nigeria, or even (more) unbelieving Canada?

Even worse, why is there no difference between believers and unbelievers in this (bad) choice of lifestyle?

(True: there is no welfare state in China or Nigeria, to be the let’s-pretend father. But there IS one in Canada.)

We must remove the log out of our own eye, before we can take the splinter out of the eye of our neighbour.

And, if that means that wealthy and successful Christians need to go out of their way to assist the less wealthy and less successful believers, then that is exactly what we should do.

(In reality, this will probably mean that the middle class and working-class believers help out the working-class and truly poor believers. Rarely do truly wealthy people – of whatever religion or ideology – rub shoulders with the poor.)

This is where churches can help, as well as groups of Christians who are not merely “concerned”, but “active”. Helping the poor man get on his own feet, and produce his own wealth for his family makes the entire local community stronger.

Real happiness isn’t someone who was earning $100,000 rise to earn $1,000,000 a year.

Real happiness is someone who was earning $0 rise to earn $20,000 a year. With some guidance and support from his real friends.

That’s where the victories kick in. For your town, and for the world.

Also: churches who really help the poor earn real respect from the world.
As is right and just.

Yes, More COVID Nonsense… and How It Ends

Vaccinating Children

From Tom Woods, They’re coming for the kids next

—<Quote begins>—

“The vaccines work so well that in order to protect people who get them, we need to do only one small additional thing: banish everyone else from society.”

Yeah, that message is sure to get people excited about vaccines!

Naturally Fauci favors requiring children to be vaccinated, and we’re now being told that authorization for children aged 5 to 11 to get the shot could be coming as early as next month.

This is no big deal, said Fauci: “I don’t know what school you went to, but the school that I went to, you had to be vaccinated for measles, mumps, rubella, polio or otherwise you couldn’t go to school. So it is not something new to mandate vaccine for school children.”

Well, thanks for treating us like we’re 7.

The point here is that COVID is of borderline zero danger to children. The CDC reports that “a total of eight in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths in persons aged 0–17 years occurred during August 2020–August 2021.” And vaccination appears to be more dangerous to them than COVID itself.

So brace yourself for massive fights over COVID vaccination in schools. And then, on a smaller scale, as part of the hysterics’ ongoing destruction of society, unvaccinated kids being told by their parents that they can no longer play with some of their longtime friends, because those friends’ parents are lunatics who won’t allow their children to associate with the unvaccinated.

Total fiasco.

Homeschooling will get a shot in the arm (so to speak) from all this, and normal people’s disdain for government at all levels will grow, but these silver linings are slim pickings when set against the damage the crazies will try to do.

Remember: evil bastards don’t say, “We’re extending our power over you because we’re evil bastards.” Duh. They say, “We’re extending our power over you for your own good.”

I’m hopeful that the order to vaccinate children will wake up at least some people. Who knows. We have a discussion about it taking place inside the Tom Woods Show Elite, the uncensored discussion group for normal people.

Join me there:
Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

This stopped being about the health of children — or even the health of the elderly and the obese — a long time ago.

It’s just power and control now. Fuelled by pumped-up fear and mania.

Professional Destruction over Vaccines

From Tom Woods, They’re scared: health-care workers are resigning

—<Quote begins>—

A few months ago normality was actually taking shape, at least in the United States.

In New York, Andrew Cuomo declared that since 70% of eligible state residents had been vaccinated, he was dropping COVID restrictions. New York!

By contrast, these days it’s hard not to feel demoralized, what with all the hysteria and hatred toward the unvaccinated, and with the horrific COVID regimes around the world that show no sign of letting up.

Here in the United States we have a ruling class that doesn’t hesitate to denounce other countries for their human rights abuses. Yet Australia has turned their country into a prison camp and imposed restrictions with exactly zero scientific basis, and children’s lives are being flat-out destroyed — and not a word from the U.S. regime.

That should tell you something.

—<Quote ends>—

Well, the US has always been buddy-buddy with oppressive regimes when it suits them against the common enemy.

At the current moment, the common enemy is the free man, peacefully going on about his business without a mask and unvaccinated, regardless of his health, or his natural immunity to a specific, and admittedly a rather bad, flu that is unusually fatal to the old and the obese.

“All must Conform. All must Obey. Regardless of his medical situation, or susceptibility to the disease.”

—<Quote begins>—

Today a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that prevents New York from proceeding with that mandate because it failed to include an exemption for health workers who object to the vaccination on religious grounds.

Chris said, “Never in the history of New York State, never in the history of the world, has a government sought to forcibly impose mass vaccination on an entire class of people under threat of immediate personal and professional destruction. This is just another example of how Covid regimes are completely out of control. The federal judiciary has a duty under the Constitution to put a straitjacket on this institutional insanity.”

Chris is great, as you can see.

And many health-care workers are sticking to their guns. At Olean General Hospital, for example, 11 employees have so far indicated that they will resign rather than get the vaccine.

This, said a hospital spokesman, is “enough to push the hospital into a disaster status should these employees elect to leave the organization as a result of the mandate.”

Keep fighting. There are more of us than they think.

Meanwhile, many people tell me that even their own family members are shunning them over their decision regarding vaccination, regardless of the more robust protection afforded by natural infection.

I can’t fix that. What I can do is offer you instant support and friendship inside my private group, where normal people gather for sanity and rational discussion.

Now is the time, my friends:
Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

The power-seekers are having a field day, unfortunately.

Now, things are better than in the 1930s & 40s, when the Loving, Caring, and Scientifically-Grounded power-seekers were filling the mass graves, the gulags, and the concentration camps.

Still, the unjust destruction of a man’s livelihood is a demonic act. Regardless of the victim is a man or a woman, or a doctor or a nurse, that man was harmed lawlessly.

“Good thing the Christian Church has been mocking God’s Law for centuries now, or many more – or even all – of those victims might actually have been able to fight back… and win!”

Shut Up and Obey, Now.
Or Else.

From Tom Woods, They’re trying to shut one of our heroes up

—<Quote begins>—

Oxford’s Carl Heneghan and Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff are reporting that Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford who’s been a voice of reason in a sea of monomaniacal COVID hysteria, has been the subject of an anonymous attack for his well-founded position against masking, and masking children in particular.

Posters featuring Bhattacharya’s portrait have appeared around campus that link him to COVID deaths in Florida, even though Florida (contrary to the impression you’d get from the media) has one of the best rates of age-adjusted COVID mortality in the United States.

Further, Melissa Bondy, who chairs the university’s epidemiology department (you know, the profession one third of whose members polled were afraid of opening their mail, out of fear of catching the virus from an envelope, as late as the summer of 2020), has circulated a petition criticizing certain faculty members for allegedly offering “recommendations [that] are disturbing and contrary to public health standards; they foster uncertainty and anxiety and put lives at risk.”

The petition names no names but quotes Bhattacharya, who correctly observed that “there is no high-quality evidence to support the assertion that masks stop the disease from spreading.”

“It is hard to understand,” write Heneghan and Kulldorff, “how any scientist can claim there is high-quality evidence that masks on children are an effective public health measure.” Again, hard to dispute this, since the evidence needed to do so does not exist.

This assertion should be uncontroversial even without reference to the relevant studies. The charts from all over the world show widespread masking to correlate with precisely nothing in the COVID numbers, and appear at entirely random points along the various countries’ curves.

Countries with mask compliance rates of 95 percent and above have continued to see outbreaks that should not be occurring if masks had the effectiveness claimed for them. Masks have surely been the most outstanding and embarrassing public-health failures in living memory.

When it comes to masking children in order to “stop the spread” in schools, the fact remains that no randomized studies exist. What we know is that in Sweden, which kept schools in session and didn’t mask children at all, teachers fared no worse than people in any other profession, and not one of that country’s 1.8 million school-age children died.

The New York Times excitedly reported on a study out of North Carolina showing low COVID rates in that state’s schools, but since it had no unmasked schools to compare them to, the study was worthless.

The recently touted Bangladesh study is alleged to show the effectiveness of masks, but most people reporting on it neglected the confidence intervals involved, which in fact lead us to the conclusion that masks have either no effect or a very limited one.

To act as if this question isn’t even debatable, when all of the existing evidence is on Bhattacharya’s side (spare me the mannequin studies, or studies that begin with the assumption that masks work), is inexcusable for anyone, but especially a scientist.

And to try to create a chilling effect on campus for dissident voices, well, that’s typical of the totalitarian instincts we’ve seen throughout this mess. One dissident voice, to these control freaks, is just one too many.

Unlike the thought controllers at Stanford, I believe in open discussion. I also believe that never in our lifetimes have we needed it more than we do at the present moment.

If you agree, I’ll see you inside my haven for normal people:
Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

Note the mysterious lack of evidence, supporting all these power-n-control muzzles on the masses.

Nope. It’s all “Shut Up and Obey, Or Else.”

NOT “You are wrong, and here is the evidence.”

NOT “At a conference, the thirty most respected authorities recommended…”

NOT “After a three-month experiment under rigorous conditions, it was demonstrated that…”


It’s all “Shut Up and Obey, Or Else.”

YouTube, Not Medical Science, Shall Determine what Medical Truth Is

From Tom Woods, Guess what YouTube just punished me for

—<Quote begins>—

Last week I interviewed U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie about the Biden vaccine mandates.

Today I was informed that YouTube had removed the video on the grounds of — get this — “medical misinformation.”

We made precisely one medical claim during the entire interview: the now-commonplace one from the Israel study that has been making headlines around the world, and which says natural immunity confers better protection than the current vaccines.

I’m not exaggerating, by the way. That Israel study was discussed all over the place, and even some well-known hysterics treated it with respect and said its conclusions needed to be taken seriously.

But not the experts at YouTube! The conclusions of this Israel study may not even be mentioned.

—<Quote ends>—

Modern, Establishment-backed censorship regimes do not exist to “protect the people from Bad Ideas”.

They exist to promote ignorance, and so weaken and enfeeble the people.

But you knew that already.

—<Quote begins>—

So from now on, whenever there’s an episode that I strongly suspect YouTube will dislike, I’ll post a placeholder video on YouTube where that episode would belong, and there I’ll give people a simple link to find the episode on my Odysee channel.

Here’s a link to that channel, which contains all of my content, even the censored content:
Most people listen to my show via podcast apps, so the numbers for my YouTube and Odysee versions aren’t reflective of my audience, of course. I actually don’t understand why people consume my content on video platforms when it’s an audio show and there’s nothing to see, but I share it there anyway because I might as well.

—<Quote ends>—

I quite like Odysee, by the way. You should take a look into it.

As YouTube, Google, and Facebook puts more and more (and more and more) restrictions on available content — because Our Betters always view liberty, a.k.a. challenging their power, with distaste — dissidents, medical and otherwise, would be wise to plan out alternate platforms for their ideas.

It’s Not About the Science.
It’s Not About the Numbers.
It’s Not About the Math.
It’s About the Need for Control.

From Tom Woods, The dagger through the hearts of the totalitarians

—<Quote begins>—

A lot of the folks you talk to, whether online or in real life, have a superficial and uninformed opinion of the virus, what works, and what we ought to do.

To this day many if not most people still think the numbers go up and down according to people’s behavior. When the numbers go up, that means people are misbehaving. When they go down, people must have started listening to public health officials again.

The fact that people in completely different states with completely different policies see their numbers go up and down at exactly the same time doesn’t faze them at all, because they don’t bother to inform themselves about what’s actually happening.

As if this needed refuting for a thousandth time, I present to you the hospitalization graph for the southern states around the time of the recent spike:

Can you tell which of these states has had a mask mandate during this time?

Can you tell which one has the highest vaccination rate? The lowest?

Of course not: the trajectories and in large part the lines themselves are all the same.

You would think we would be having a discussion about why this should be. Why do these states look exactly the same despite their varying policies implemented at varying times?

Some other interesting charts:

Washington state, which has had all kinds of irrational restrictions but also heavy vaccination, has seen death numbers that look like the following, recently surpassing the height of their worst spike:

Since it’s fashionable to blame Florida governor Rob DeSantis for everything, Ian looks at this chart and jokes, “Why did Ron DeSantis not do more to promote vaccinations in Washington?”

Now let’s check in on Maine:

Miller writes:

“98% of everyone over 65 in Maine is at least partially vaccinated, 93% are fully vaccinated, yet hospitalizations are nearly as high as they were last winter. Let’s see, do we blame this on Ron DeSantis, Sturgis, or college football fans in the South? So many tempting choices!”

Before we wrap up:

Should you wish to protect yourselves against any future 2020, here’s my 30-minute crash course on how to build a simple, one-person online business of the kind I myself operate (much of it will look familiar because you see me doing it regularly). Costs you nothing, and man is there a lot stuffed into these 30 minutes:
Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

You would be wise to learn how to set up a small, independent online business.

Certainly, this is far better than relying on government, or even corporate, masters for your daily bread.

An End to Mass Fear

From Tom Woods, DeSantis just dropped a ten-megaton bomb

—<Quote begins>—

Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, keeps lobbing bombs at his enemies.

Today he introduced to the press the new surgeon general of Florida, Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

An immigrant from Nigeria, Ladapo holds his medical degree from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. from the Harvard School of Public Health. He will be joining the faculty at the University of Florida as well.

And as it happens, his name is affixed to the Great Barrington Declaration, which condemns lockdowns as a public-health measure.

Ladapo didn’t waste time letting the press know that he is their enemy.

“Florida will completely reject fear as a way of making policies in public health…. That’s been something that’s been a centerpiece of health policy in the United States ever since the beginning of the pandemic. And it’s over here. Expiration date, it’s done.”

“The risks and benefits of decisions haven’t been considered wholly and thoughtfully,” he added, because policymakers and the public have been operating from a position of fear.

He went on:

“Public health is not one thing. Public health is not about a single item. It’s not [only] about how many cases of COVID there are in a location…. As all of you know, that’s how public health has been treated for the past year and a half. So that’s over. It’s not going to happen here.”

Vaccination, he said, “has been treated almost like a religion.”

And he denounced lockdowns, which he described (citing a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research) as both ineffectual and wrong.

The COVID hysterics are already trying to claim that this man, whose credentials are as long as my arm, isn’t qualified to speak about the virus. Ha! Good luck with that!

Evidently the only people qualified to speak about COVID are nutsos who are monomaniacally obsessed with it. People urging reason and balance? Close your ears, citizen!

Now, on another happy note:

The Tom Woods Show 2000th episode event in Orlando, coming up just a few short weeks from now, is looking to be very well attended. So much so that I’ve had to close registration for the pre-show receptions for Supporting Listeners. It’s far more people than I expected.

But registration is still open for the main event itself, and I hope you can join me! It’s free to attend, and it’s going to be an amazing time in a huge ballroom filled with like-minded people. For a year and a half the human spirit has been crushed, and this is an affirmation of life.

I have an evening of pretty darn good entertainment in store for you.

Get the details, and be there — everyone else will:
Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

It’s now time to get off the track, and tie this new government promotion of cringing fear with their enemy, the One who declares, Fear Not!

Massive quote fro Bojidar Marinov, Fear as a Motivator:

—<Quote begins>—

I want to start with the following two questions: First, what is the most powerful motivator for man’s behavior, and the most powerful factor behind man’s action, mentioned in the Bible? And, second, what is the most commonly repeated commandment in Scripture?

The answers may surprise you.

A little over a year ago, while writing an article titled “Terrorism: Biblical Analysis and Solutions” (you can find it on, I conducted a small experiment, asking a dozen of Christians these same questions. I picked only people who were Reformed seminary graduates; two were church elders, preaching on weekly basis. The rest of them had some active ministry of one sort or another, even if they were not professional ministers of the Gospel. I asked them to answer based on their knowledge so far, without doing a special research on the questions. The answers puzzled me somewhat; only one got it right. The majority of the rest picked “love” as the most powerful motivator, and the commandment to love as the most commonly repeated in Scripture. I am not trying to criticize or judge these men, I can assure you, but this does show we need a better understanding of Biblical psychology.

Indeed, far from judging or criticizing these men, it is understandable why they would think that love should be the most powerful motivator mentioned in the Bible and why the commandment to love should be the most commonly repeated commandment. After all, God is love, and for us to be faithful to the image of God in us, we should be expressing God’s love to our fellow human beings. The commandments to love God and love our neighbor are indeed the two greatest commandments – if we measure them by hierarchy, according to Jesus’s words in Matt. 22: 37 and Mark 12:30. obviously, God Himself would want our whole being and action would be controlled by this motivator of love – love toward God and love toward our neighbor. That’s what Jesus came for, to demonstrate the love of God in the strongest and most direct manner, by giving His life not just for his friends, but even for His enemies (John 15:13; Rom. 5:8). God wants us to be motivated by love first and foremost, and such must be the foundation of all our action and thought. As it was in the example of Jesus, love as a motivator requires a negation of self, a self-sacrifice. When we are driven by love, we are not seeking our own, we are seeking the welfare and success of others. In Scripture, God doesn’t forbid self-love and self-preservation; otherwise, God’s promises wouldn’t make any sense, nor would the commandment “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” And yet, true love goes beyond that, namely, we are given a new commandment, to love out neighbor more than we love ourselves, and to love God with all our heart and all our strength – which would naturally leave next to nothing to loving ourselves before God.

And yet, after the Fall, while love remains the most important motivator and commandment, it is not the mots powerful motivator. Something else is.

The correct answer is: fear. Fear is the most powerful motivator for man’s behavior. It is everywhere in the Bible; it seems to control every man in it. Every single character in the Bible – whether good or bad, righteous or wicked – is at some point motivated by fear of something or someone. (With one notable exception: Samson.) Even righteous men, men who in everything else loved God and obeyed God, succumb to fear at one or another point of their lives, showing that they don’t have the perfect love of which 1 John 4:18 speaks: “perfect love casts out fear.” Even Abraham, for all his faith, was overcome with fear twice – in Gen. 12 and Gen. 20 – and lied to local rulers that Sarah was his wife. (She must have been a gorgeous 90-year-old lady, a natural object of desire for the heathens.) If Abraham, the father of all who believe, could be so overcome with fear, fear is obviously a very serious challenge to all men, including the most faithful ones. And even those who have almost perfect faith and love can be sometimes overcome by fear, we should expect that the rest of mankind would be driven by fear in a much deeper and more powerful way.

Fear, indeed, is ubiquitous in the world after the Fall. A simple statistics shows that the word “fear” in all its variations (“fear,” “dread,” “terror,” “dismay,” “distress,” etc.) is mentioned more than 1,400 times in the Bible. To compare, the next most mentioned factor for human behavior, “love” (including “charity,” “affection,” etc.), is mentioned only about 700 times. If we take in account the multiple cases where fear is not directly mentioned but is clearly implied as a motive for action or public policy, we will have an even greater margin in favor of fear as the most important factor controlling all human behavior.

In fact, God used a form of fear even before the Fall. If we define fear as a feeling or mindfulness of imminent danger, then God’s warning in Gen. 2:17, “in the day that you eat of it you will surely die,” was meant to strike some form of fear in their hearts. Of course, it was not meant to be the defining characteristic of God’s covenant with man – that defining characteristic was the Dominion Covenant in Gen. 1:26-27 – but it was still present. In the same way, after the Fall, God does use a limited form of fear to move man to repentance and obedience: Deut. 28:15-64, the cursings for disobedience are a clear evidence of it, as is the definition of wisdom in many places in the Bible: Fear of God. Just as in the Garden, that fear, as righteous and beneficial it is, is not supposed to be the defining factor of our behavior: we would become legalists if it was. But it is still there, in the life and the motivation of the covenant people of God.

It is to be expected, therefore, for fear to be a much greater part of the life of the reprobate. The New Testament, in fact, specifically describes the bondage of the reprobate in terms of fear, and salvation as deliverance from that fear; Heb. 2:15 says that Jesus “frees those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” Indeed, if it is love that casts out fear, and if the unbelievers are devoid of God’s love, they are left with nothing against their fear of death. If God is not on their side, and if they can’t bank on the promises of God for the world after their death, what else is left but an expectation of judgment. And what else is that expectation of judgment if not the very definition of fear of death? We should expect the unbelievers, therefore, to be almost entirely dominated by such fear.

If fear is such a defining characteristic of the slavery of the reprobate, we should also expect that human rulers who are in rebellion against God and want to take God’s place in ruling over their fellow human beings, to try to imitate God by sowing fear in the hearts of men. Cain left God’s presence in fear of what might happen to him after he murdered his brother. Five generations later, Lamech, a descendant of Cain, was now openly bragging of his ability to kill other human beings: “Listen to my voice, you wives of Lamech, give heed to my speech, for I have killed a man for wounding me, and a boy for striking me” (Gen 4:23). And what’s the purpose of this bragging? It is to issue a threat against anyone who would dare stand against Lamech, in the very next verse: “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” God’s threat of covenant sanctions which was supposed to use fear to warn man against disobedience was now transformed by a rebellious man into a man’s threat against his neighbor. From there, it was a small step to powerful men using fear as the mainstay of their political rule.

This progression, towards using fear as a government policy, is clearly visible in the OT. In his journeys, Abraham as a private citizen – although, quite powerful himself, given that he could defeat four kings using just his own resources – met only rulers who were still ruling in a benevolent way, as popular leaders. Some of them feared God to the point of voluntarily repenting of their actions and even paying restitution to Abraham for the crimes they committed against him. In the times of Joseph in Egypt, the Egyptian state already used prisons used as a government policy – and that policy, judging from the examples, had nothing to do with justice but with the whims of politically powerful men. Still, even then, Joseph as a ruler could not institute a compulsory government policy of confiscation of life, liberty, and property; he had to bargain them with the people of Egypt, using their desperate condition as a lever. (Contrary to those who claim that Joseph was acting as a modern socialist. He wasn’t. The Egyptians voluntarily surrendered themselves. Each one of them had the opportunity, during the years of abundance, to follow Joseph’s example and save his own grain instead of selling it. Or sell it at a higher price to Joseph. None of them read the signs, and none of them acted on them. They were too short-term-oriented. This is what enslaved them, not government compulsion.)

After Joseph, things went downhill quite quickly. In a few generations, the Egyptian state was now using fear on a large scale. The Egyptian state was motivated by fear of the Hebrews: Exodus 1:12, the Egyptians were in dread of the sons of Israel. The response of the Egyptian state is make the Hebrews fear the Egyptian state. More and more, fear entered the picture as a motivator and a policy. In the final account, the Hebrews, without God and having forgotten God in their prosperity, were so overcome by fear that the thought of resisting the Egyptian state never even occurred to them.

Fear continued increasing its hold on the nations after that. The entire journey of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land was a battle between faith and fear. The opposition of the pagan nations to Israel was entirely motivated by fear. Fear was the number one motivator of the people of Jericho, as reported by Rahab to the spies in Joshua 2:9. Fear was also the reason why Israel did not complete the conquest of Canaan in Joshua’s time, according to Joshua 17:16. At every step from now on, we will see fear as the chief, and sometimes the only motivating factor in the life of nations and of individuals.

It became even uglier when it was adopted as official government policy by the surrounding pagan nations. We often wonder in our own day, sanitized and sanctified by two millennia of Christendom, how the ancients could tolerate the unspeakable cruelties of the ancient empires. The Assyrians were particularly cruel to their enemies, to the point of flaying alive thousands of prisoners. Why did they have to do it? The answer is: Their only way of forcing obedience was through fear. Fear was the preferred policy of Rome from its very beginning. In fact, the very founding myth of Rome has one of the founding brother, Romulus, killing his brother Remus for his mockery of Romulus wall and his leaping over it. Romulus words after the murder of his own brother remind us of Lamech and his bragging and threats: “So perish everyone who leap over my wall.” Rome developed this to the point of sentencing to torture and death everyone who in one way or another displayed any kind of defiance or disagreement with the Roman state. Out of this policy came the cross, and out of this policy came death by wild animals in the Coliseum. The cruelty so endemic to the Roman society – to slaves, to gladiators, to conquered nations, ultimately, to Christians – was a deliberate policy of sowing fear in the hearts of everyone who would stand in the way of the Empire. The Romans themselves were not without fear; when Augustus became and emperor, his propaganda was entirely addressed at the fear of his fellow Romans, promising them to not allow anything to change, and keep things as they have always been. The Roman society was the ultimate pagan society, the final version of what Satan could produce as a kingdom upon the earth. And its cohesion was entirely . . . fear. Not love, not honor, not even greed or desire for growth; it was all fear. By this we know the perfect pagan culture: it is driven by fear more than anything else.

It is for this reason that the most frequently repeated commandment in Scripture is . . . “Do not fear!” Being used by pagan rulers and their gods to produce worship of the pagan state, fear is not simply a state of mind or a feeling; it is not religiously or ethically neutral. In a pagan context, fear now becomes worship in itself; it is a religion rival to the faith in the God of Scripture. Fear itself becomes idolatry, for a man who has surrendered to fear, has nothing to surrender to God, he is entirely under the power of the enemy. So antithetical is fear to faith that Israel was condemned to wander 40 years in the wilderness because of fear – which was interpreted as lack of faith. And if you think this was a little too harsh, wait until you find out who is the first to be thrown in the lake of fire. That’s right, folks, Rev. 21:8 describes all the types whose portion is in the lake of fire, and the list starts with the . . . cowards, that is, the fearful. Some of Christ’s most important lessons to His disciples had to do with training them to courage in the face of adversity and persecution; when they failed, his reply was, “Ye of little faith.” Very obviously, fear is not considered a religiously neutral feeling or state of mind; it is a religion itself, an idolatrous religion, and God does not tolerate it in His worshipers.

In the face of the pagan culture of Rome, entirely dominated and motivated by fear, Christians threw a gauntlet: A faith which not only did not succumb to fear, but actively detested and rejected fear and defied the threats of the empire. Not even the worst punishments could shake their faith, not even death. It is not that Christians rebelled against the Empire; they just defied the very foundation of its power, that same fear of death which, according to Hebrews 2:15, keeps all unbelievers in slavery. Despising death and overcoming fear, they became too dangerous for a world which had known no more powerful motive than fear of death.

—<Quote end>—

It is not that Christians rebelled against the Empire; they just defied the very foundation of its power, that same fear of death which, according to Hebrews 2:15, keeps all unbelievers in slavery. Despising death and overcoming fear, they became too dangerous for a world which had known no more powerful motive than fear of death.

I write for Christians who want to expand the Kingdom of God.

For Christians who are tired of cringing before their Betters.

For Christians who want to WIN.

You know what to do.

Do not fear.

Regardless of what the Masters want.

Then or now.

Why Go To Lawless Courts?

Lawless pagan courts, that loathe who you are, and despise what you stand for?

Lazy Christians, people who just don’t care about justice, and worthless servants who are COMPLETELY SATISFIED with Satan’s rule — so long as their own rice bowl is safe — are not expected to care.

Christians who place justice and the Kingdom of God over power, control, and safety are going to have to do something about it.

This is the time of small victories, small things, small-scale reconstruction. The zone of authority of God’s word will have to start small as well, in bringing justice in family matters, intra-Christian disputes and merely financial matters.

To be granted great authority, handle small matters well, pleasing the eyes of the Lord who watches your every move, hears your every word.

Now I can get to Rushdoony’s words on Power and Authority.

Church Law
Power and Authority
Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

—<Quote begins>—

Our scripture is 1st Corinthians 6:1-3, Power and Authority. 1st Corinthians, the 6th chapter, verses 1-3. Power and Authority.

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”

This sentence: “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world” Can be translated, as it has been by modern translators: “Do ye not know that the saints are to manage the world?” the word judge here has the same sense as in the book of Judges in the Old Testament; the book of those who governed Israel. And thus very clearly, the whole point here is that the early church was told that they should not go to the pagans and the pagan courts for judgement. They should go to their own authorities.

Now when Saint Paul wrote these words he was not writing anything new. It was a new matter to the Corinthians because the Corinthians included many Gentiles, but to any Jew it was a familiar statement.

To this day, in many Jewish communities, there is no resort in any conflict between Jews to outside courts. This particularly true among Orthodox Jews. They resort to their own religious courts. The judgment that is given is binding, even though it may involve thousands of dollars. Even though it may involve great properties. Thus Paul, in writing to the Corinthians was simply transferring from what was a practice in the Old Testament, a practice in Israel, of Palestine at that time, and a practice in the early church, to the Gentile Christians. And this practice continued among them until such time as Civil courts became Christian in their law.

—<Quote ends>—

Justice is defined by the law-book of God. Not from the word of powerful and politically-connected men.

Even five year olds who fear God make better judges than fifty year olds who don’t.

For one thing, believing five-year-olds are not interested in filling mass graves for The People, or Keynesian financial theory, or sheltering too-big-to-fail banks. They also have a godly sympathy/empathy for the homeless and the poor that grown-ups largely don’t share.

“The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good — anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name ‘leaders’ for those who were once ‘rulers’. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”
― C.S. Lewis, Some Everyday Thoughts

Ah, grand old man, you don’t know the half of it.

Fortunately, the current set of Mighty Men are as doomed as all the others. But that’s the easy part.

The hard part is teaching Christians to stop crying out for more Mighty Men who will save them. The hard part is finally taking responsibility for our own lives, our own world. Facing a well-earned loss without wailing about how unfair the world is, seeing others – yes, even pagans! – prosper without indulging in envy or jealousy.

Help your neighbour, help yourself.

Free your neighbour, free yourself.

—<Quote begins>—

The point of the whole requirement was that the courts of the world that had not been affected at all by Gods law, had no sense of justice. How shall we understand that?

Well, let’s look back into the ancient world, to Homer. Your humanists exalt Greek society, and Greek civilization, and Homer ostensibly gives us the classical, the heroic period of Greek life. It represents in the eyes of humanistic scholars something of an ideal. When we go to Homer we can find a great deal that is outrageous to any Christian conscience. But instead of going to the more outrageous episodes, let us take one that comes from the end of the Odyssey, and is something that is rarely ever remarked about. Odysseus, or Ulysses, after having fought in the Trojan wars, wanders for many, many years, experiences a great many interesting adventures before he turns up again at home. Now we would assume that anyone that long-lost, as far as his family knew, would have been presumed to have been dead. But not so in this case. During this long period, when the other soldiers who had fought in the Trojan war had returned home, and resumed their family responsibilities, it was assumed by these many persons, at home, that Ulysses or Odysseus was dead. Therefore, because he left a very wealthy estate, a great many men, many of them far, far younger than his presumed widow, began to pay court to her.

She however, stalled all of them. During the time that they were paying court, and his young son was growing up meanwhile to manhood, she was not in any position to throw her weight around, because many of those who were paying court were from some of the most prominent families in the community. As a result, while they were within the house of Odysseus or Ulysses day after day, they made themselves very much at home. Odysseus had fifty slave girls. They raped 12 of them, and treated them thereafter as their own private property as it were whenever they came onto the premises, ate food, and banqueted as they courted Penelope.

Finally of course Odysseus returns home, and together with his son Telemachus he wipes out all these suitors. But then, the two of them take the twelve slave girls who had been raped, and they hung them. There was no fault in the girls. It is very clearly admitted in the text of Homer that these girls had not been the offenders, they had been offended against. 

But their presence was shameful to Odysseus and Telemachus. It reminded them of the insult they had endured. SO they hung them, and no one thought anything of it.

Now the point in citing Homer is this: the only concept of justice that existed in Homer was that a man should do what he pleased. If he was strong enough. And if it was on his own property, involving what was his. It never occurred to anyone that there might be anything wrong in hanging these 12 girls. The only trouble he got into was that some of the suitors came from some of the wealthiest families in the community.

He had the power to do what he wanted with what was his own, but then there might be quite a coalition of angry men against him, so he decided to take another journey and leave his wife Penelope alone for, who knows how many years, because the story ends there. The law, in other words, had no higher reach than man. The world of Homer was a world in which justice was whatever any man said it was in his own domain, or whatever state said it was within its domain. There was no concept of a higher justice, above and beyond men.

—<Quote ends>—

Plenty of lawless pagans – more than a few, sitting in the pews or at the pulpit – are more than happy with this situation, “so long as it’s OUR guy in the power chair.”

Unlike Marxist and Darwinians, Christians understand that there is a law above that of powerful men. It’s time we worked for it… and bring it about, too!

—<Quote begins>—

“But,” Saint Paul says: “The saints are to manage, to govern the world in terms of Gods law, which means they must know that law.” Now this brings us to the problem of power and authority. Because the whole question of law is a question of power and authority. Leopold and Loeb were denying both the power and the authority of God. Plato was affirming the power and the authority of the state. The question of authority is inseparable therefore from law, especially from law in any biblical sense.

—<Quote ends>—

The Church has spent the last 300 years, at least since Luther and Calvin, pouring contempt on the Law of God.

And now we stand, our mouth agape, at the rampant injustice and lawlessness all around us. Gutting our liberty, burning down our wealth, all at the arbitrary word of some Expert or Leader or Judge who enjoys and profits from centralized power, shifting the costs to the Little People.

To the univocal approval of the press, as always.

It’s about time – long past time – that Christians started taking the Laws of God seriously.

Yes, even the Mosaic quarantine laws, where those who are sick had to stay in their homes, but the rest of society was free to live their life.

—<Quote begins>—

Before we continue to discuss the question of authority, let us analyze the meaning of authority. In the dictionary sense it is: “The right to command and to enforce obedience, the right to act officially.” The origin of the word authority is the Latin “Augio”: to increase. This is a very interesting fact. Because authority has a natural increase to it. True authority prospers and abounds, it increases; the more a person exercises true authority, the more he increases in that true authority. The more you hear, for example, anyone faithfully expound scripture, the more authority his statement has with you. The more you go to a doctor you find reliable and trustworthy, practicing medicine in terms of basically sound concepts, the more his authority increases. In other words, the moral authority is true to itself, the more it increases. The more your father or your employer, or anyone in authority over you exercises that authority in terms of a basically faithful concept to what it is, the greater his authority becomes. 

Now power and authority are not identical. They are very closely related, but they are not identical. Power is strength, it is force. Power can and very often does exist without authority. The power of Odysseus and Telemachus was a very real power, but it lacked authority in any Biblical sense.

Rome, in the days of Saint Paul, had very real power. it had formal authority in that it was legitimate government in terms of succession, but it was illegitimate in the sight of God. To make the illustration modern, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon had formal authority. They were properly elected, they held office in terms of civil law, but they did not have true authority because they did not rule in terms of God. We have a requirement to obey their formal authority, but we must recognize that essentially what they have is a formal authority, and very great power, but not true authority in terms of the word of God, because they pay no attention to it.

Denis de Rougemont has very ably cited the difference between power and authority. He writes and I quote: “One does not become a father by stealing a child. One can steal the child, not paternity. One can steal power, not authority.”

The authority that God requires of us, must come from Him. We cannot exercise any authority except in terms of His word. Jesus Christ declared: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” And in Jesus Christ there is the perfect coincidence of power and authority. All the authority He has, He has total power commensurate with that total authority. The church is required to “teach all men and nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” 

But in our world today there is no coincidence of power and authority, not even an approximation. And as power becomes divorced from Godly authority, it becomes progressively demonic. Thus, a father has authority over a child. Over his wife. But if he begins to abuse that authority and exercise it illegitimately, to abuse them, to take advantage of them, to beat them, then that power is separated from His true authority. And the greater the gap between power and authority becomes, the more demonic that power becomes.

Christians therefore must seek the approximation of power and authority in society, in their lives, and in their imagination. And at this point, many Christians go astray.

—<Quote ends>—

Nobody else is going to even try to restrict and limit power to due authority. It’s all “Dear Leader/The Experts/The Bureaucracy will save us!”

Only (a few) Christians are even aware of the question. Obviously, it will be our work to get the spade work done.

Nobody else will do it, as nobody else cares. The only thing modern culture has to offer, from either the left or the right, is “Obey The Leader. Follow the Consensus.”

God expects better of us than that.

—<Quote begins>—

This problem can best be illustrated by what one very fine man mentioned as he was discussing some of his own thinking. It suddenly came to him that some of his day dreams were satanic. Why? Being an intense conservative, and a man who, as a Christian conservative was giving a lot of money, a lot of time, energy, effort, to try and fight communism in this country and trying to fight socialism; he said that he came suddenly to the recognition that what he was daydreaming about was having enough power to line up all the communists and all the subversives and executing them. And enough power to convert all the other people suddenly to become Christians, and to make this the wonderful country it should be. That was his daydream. And it suddenly came to him that he was wrong. That his dreaming was in fact satanic.

I had been speaking on the temptations of Christ. Satan tempted Christ to compel belief by miracles, and to provide security from problems miraculously. And that was exactly what he was day dreaming about, to compel faith and to provide security from problems miraculously. 

And so the recognition came to him: “I am fighting something satanic out there, but in the course of waging war against it, I am myself becoming satanic in my daydreams.” And he was right. Because he was separating the concept of power from authority. He was not making the two together as scripture requires. […]

—<Quote ends>—

Power without a price.

Stones into bread.

Such are the satanic dreams of men.

And some of those satanic dreams reside in the minds of Christian men.

For only the very best of reasons. As always.”

Be careful out there.

—<Quote begins>—

And so the recognition came to him: “I am fighting something satanic out there, but in the course of waging war against it, I am myself becoming satanic in my daydreams.” And he was right. Because he was separating the concept of power from authority. He was not making the two together as scripture requires. But then he raised a discerning question. He said: “Is the alternative then merely the way of conversion and love, without any law order and coercion, and without miracles? Or do miracles, laws, and coercions somehow have a place?” That was a thoughtful question and a difficult one. But scripture does deal with it.

In Matthew 13:58 we are told that Jesus in his own country Nazareth did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. The miracles were not conditional upon belief, He performed some. His power was entirely from Himself, it was not faith healing. But the purpose of His miracles was to glorify God. It was a part of Gods governing care over His own. So miracles have a place. God again and again has used miracles to deliver his saints, whether Elijah, or Moses, or the elect in the New Testament.

Similarly, there is a place for coercion. Justice and law require it. But, if there is not a people with faith, all the coercion in the world will not maintain and develop a social order. It is an impossibility. If tomorrow all the internal and external enemies of the United States were miraculously destroyed, the major result would be further decline and decay in the United States. Then men would have a freedom to sin with impunity! The citizenry would not be changed. Thus, the point of the daydream was humanistic. Its purpose was national peace and freedom; it was man’s order, not Gods purpose that was in mind. 

The primary purpose of Gods miracles and of conversion is that man be reconciled to God, and that Gods purpose be furthered. Now, a by-product of this reconciliation of man with God is reconciliation of man with man and of man with himself. It is a freer country. It is peace and prosperity. But these things are by-products, they cannot be the goal.

Thus we cannot expect a society to prosper where power and authority are not brought together, where they do not work, one in harmony with the other. In our society they have separated. As a result our society has become demonic. But the requirement of our text is: “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge, or manage, or govern the world?” This is the goal. Conversion is the starting point, Gods law is the means. The goal is that the reign of God prevail in the hearts of men and of nations.

And to that end, the word of God must be taught, and it must govern he hearts of men. The power and the authority of God must prevail in every realm. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we thank thee that as we see the powers around us become progressively more and more demonic, that it is Thy power which prevails. And that before Thee all the powers of this world are as nothing, and Thy power shall rule and over rule in the affairs of men. We Thank Thee our Father that Thou hast called us to authority and power in Jesus Christ, and we pray that in faithfulness to Thee and obedience to Thy word, we may grow in power and in authority. That we may bring things progressively under Thy power and authority, exercising dominion over them in Thy name, and subduing them, in terms of Thy word. Bless us to this purpose we beseech Thee, in Jesus name, amen.

—<Quote ends>—

If tomorrow all the internal and external enemies of the United States were miraculously destroyed, the major result would be further decline and decay in the United States. Then men would have a freedom to sin with impunity!

This is pretty much what happened across the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, interestingly enough.

Well, really, after the collapse of Nazi Germany, the end of academically defendable White Supremacy, and the rapid end of the European Empires. The end of the Soviet Union only accelerated a process that was well under way.

But you knew that already.

The primary purpose of Gods miracles and of conversion is that man be reconciled to God, and that Gods purpose be furthered. Now, a by-product of this reconciliation of man with God is reconciliation of man with man and of man with himself. It is a freer country. It is peace and prosperity. But these things are by-products, they cannot be the goal.

When most Christians understand this…

When even a substantial minority of Christians understand this…

There will be a GREAT DEAL of changes, coming down the river.

We live in a Christ-centred universe.
Not a Man-centred one.

To reiterate:

The primary purpose of Gods miracles and of conversion is that man be reconciled to God, and that Gods purpose be furthered. Now, a by-product of this reconciliation of man with God is reconciliation of man with man and of man with himself. It is a freer country. It is peace and prosperity. But these things are by-products, they cannot be the goal.

Thus we cannot expect a society to prosper where power and authority are not brought together, where they do not work, one in harmony with the other. In our society they have separated. As a result our society has become demonic. But the requirement of our text is: “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge, or manage, or govern the world?” This is the goal. Conversion is the starting point, Gods law is the means. The goal is that the reign of God prevail in the hearts of men and of nations.

And to that end, the word of God must be taught, and it must govern he hearts of men. The power and the authority of God must prevail in every realm. 

In Christ’s Name, by His Holy Spirit, Amen.

Fascism: Socialism for Hypocrites

I was reading one of your dad’s position papers, and he called fascism “socialism for hypocrites.”

Right on the money!

We are going to have to learn to be free again.
To once again govern ourselves, in terms of the Law-Word of God.

Just because the Great Default is inevitable, doesn’t mean that the masses won’t roar for a new Leader and a new Control System. “Masters and Experts to Keep Us Safe!”

  • Lots of Russians would like to bring back Stalin, and the current Chinese administration are pushing for a Mao-lite form of Communism.
  • But the demographics of both nations point to a no-future destination. Just more dreaming to restore lost glory.
  • Note that the Western position – in the US and Europe – is not much different.

I expect lots of people, including lots of churches, are going to blow enormous amounts of money and energy in the post-Great Default era, flailing about trying to resurrect rotten old corpses of political power, national glory, and social security nets.

But salvation is not by politics, and the carcasses of our erstwhile political saviors are going to stink up the place for quite a while.

(How do you know that the situation is hopeless for the Lord’s enemies?
Look at their birthrates.)

We need not stick around for the stink of the evil political corpses, never mind the bloat and the maggots. We should spend our time creating new, local, decentralized groups, with the myriad of independent and (if they wish) networked, mutually-supporting groups based on Biblical Law and the Priesthood of All Believers.

Work now, with your people around you, for the trials and the victories to come.

When the masses realize that the Good Old Days are dead and gone, then, one by one, they can be shown the light of reality.

It’s quite likely that their children and grandchildren will learn to love liberty, as much as their forefathers loved their safety. That is, their chains and the reliable supply of leeks and onions.

“You can’t have one without the other!”

Equality Under the Law: Domestic Violence Edition

Quora: What made you emotional/happy/turned on recently?

—<Quote begins>—

Jamie Mic. Music Lover and Vedio Editor at Self-Employment

These screenshot made me to think 🤔 that what should I have to feel after reading it😅 whether to be happy or emotional. Basically these screenshots are showing the biprism which are going in our society. Giving us the lesson that We should have to see things on the bases of right and wrong not on the base of gender💔. When a boy abuse a girl everyone comes in behalf of a girl but when a girl abuse a boy everyone find it entertaining 💔🥺.

Hope you will also agree with me, Thanks ❤️😊.

—<Quote ends>—

It’s going to take a while, to set this right.

Ivermectin, India, and Oddities

I don’t know if Ivermectin is a useful drug or not.

I do know that it is the focus of ideologically-driven hostility, so I find India’s use of the drug interesting:

—<Quote from
India State of 241 MILLION People Declared COVID-Free
After Government Promotes Ivermectin


The state of Uttar Pradesh in India, which has the equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population, has been declared COVID-free, the state government announced last week.

There are no more active cases of coronavirus in the 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, which has a population of 241 million people.

“Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent,” Hindustan Times reported.

Credit: Google COVID statistics

How is it that Uttar Pradesh has fully recovered from COVID despite the fact that only 5.8% of its population has been fully vaccinated, compared to the USA that has 54% fully vaccinated?

The answer is likely because of the government’s early use and distribution of ivermectin to its citizens.

From the Indian Express:

Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.

He added that based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients.

Claiming that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave has helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density, he said, “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population.”

He said that apart from aggressive contact tracing and surveillance, the lower positivity and fatality rates may be attributed to the large-scale use of Ivermectin use in the state, adding that the drug has recently been introduced in the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management. “Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself,” Vikasendu told The Indian Express.”

One would think the World Health Organization, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, and Dr. Anthony Fauci would be overjoyed by this development that ivermectin is undoubtedly saving lives.

But don’t count on them celebrating that, because that would hurt their bottom lines of profit and power from their experimental and ineffective vaccines.

That’s why they’ve been melting down over ivermectin after Joe Rogan successfully used it to treat his COVID infection earlier this month.

—<Quote ends>—

It would be nice to conduct scientific research without the blare of media noisemakers. To weigh all the evidence & information, without having that evidence and information pre-filtered by Our Betters at YouTube, Facebook and Google.

That’s not going to happen. Too much money, power, and control is at stake.

So the laborious and time-consuming work of knitting together alternate information networks (note the plural) will have to be done. Slowly, and with mistakes and setbacks.

I expect that it will take many years — say, 2025, maybe even 2030 — before we get the free flow of news we had in 2016, before Trump’s style (not substance, just style) upset the Upper Classes.

In the meantime…

—<Quote from
There is a demented war against Ivermectin – Andrew Kenny

But look at what the mainstream media have to say about Ivermectin! Rolling Stone magazine at the beginning of the month carried this sensational headline: “Gunshot victims left waiting as horse dewormer overdoses overwhelm Oklahoma hospitals, doctor says”. The idea was that the hospital was overrun with stupid people who had been taking too much Ivermectin. The story was a complete lie from beginning to end, 100% fake news. But this did not stop The Guardian from repeating it. According to our media, Ivermectin is a dangerous veterinary drug only taken by crackpots. Merck itself, which developed the drug and praised it heavily for thirty years, has now changed its mind, without giving good reason. Why the hysteria against Ivermectin?

Change of mind

The obvious conspiracy reason is that “Big Pharma” can make a fortune through the vaccines but not through Ivermectin. That probably explains Merck’s change of mind. It doesn’t explain the behaviour of the woke media establishment. The Guardian is seldom the champion of huge profits by “Big Pharma”. On the contrary, it could condemn “the obscene profits” capitalist drug companies make from human suffering. It seems that, somehow or another, the vaccines have become associated with the “progressive” or “left-wing” elite, and Ivermectin with the vulgar or “right-wing” rabble. The right likes a cheap drug that has saved millions of poor black people; the left regards it with derision and wants expensive vaccines developed under Donald Trump. Rather odd, but that’s the way it goes.

I have nothing against the drug companies making fat profits provided they do so in a free market. If they did so with a cure for dementia or Parkinson’s Disease, I’d be delighted. I think the Covid-19 vaccines are beneficial but don’t think they should be compulsory. I’d probably take one myself if I hadn’t been annoyed by all the disinformation. So, for prevention I take Ivermectin – despite the look of horror from my pharmacist when I show her the prescription.

—<Quote ends>—

Note that for quite a while, many people will continue to look to Google and YouTube and Facebook for news, just as they turned to NBC, CBS and ABC in the vanished past of the pre-internet era.

The old mainstream media, replaced by the new mainstream media… but without the decades of trust built up bu the Old Guard.

I suspect that it won’t take decades for serious researchers to abandon YouTube and Google. And after a while, the masses will follow.

It takes time for the Empire to fall. But fall it will.

COVID Controls, COVID Delusions

From Debunking Biden’s Claim We Must “Protect the Vaccinated from the Unvaccinated”

—<Quote begins>—

The official line on vaccines is that they are extremely effective at protecting against serious illness. And yet these same people are also claiming that the unvaccinated are a major threat to the vaccinated.

More specifically, President Biden claimed on September 10 that vaccine mandates were to “protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”

In other words, it is claimed that vaccines are remarkably effective, and that the vaccinated must also be protected from the unvaccinated. How can both claims be true at the same time? They can’t. The idea that vaccinated people are being frequently harmed by the unvaccinated is a complete fabrication, based on the promandate crowd’s own mainstream data.

As Robert Fellner points out, according to the official data,

The odds of a vaccinated person dying from COVID are 1 in 137,000.

The fatality rate for seasonal flu, meanwhile, is at least 100 times greater than that. The chance of dying in an automobile accident is over 1,000 times greater. Dog attacks, bee stings, sunstroke, cataclysmic storms, and a variety of other background risks we accept as a normal part of life are all more deadly than the risk COVID poses to the vaccinated.

Moreover, the risk of death to vaccinated people is similar to the risk of having an adverse side effect to the vaccine. And as the spokesmen for Big Pharma and the regime never tire of telling us, you shouldn’t care about having an adverse reaction, because it is so very rare and inconsequential.

So by that reasoning, vaccinated people shouldn’t worry about getting very ill from covid. Those cases are just as rare as the so, so rare cases of adverse reaction.

And yet, even after all of this, the backers of vaccine mandates are trying to whip up hysteria about how we must “protect the vaccinated,” who are in grave danger, thanks to the unvaccinated.

The level of mental and logical incoherence necessary to come to this conclusion is quite a feat.


This drive for vaccination no matter what can also be seen in the effort to vaccinate even those who have already recovered from covid. The claim here is that those who have natural immunity should get jabbed because they have a higher incidence of reinfection—although it is admitted cases of reinfection tend to be far milder than the initial case.

Specifically, those pushing vaccination in this case may point to a study suggesting the unvaccinated are 2.34 times more likely to be reinfected than the vaccinated.

Yet, according to the promandate crowd, this is 2.34 times larger than an extremely small number. After all, we’re frequently told that cases of reinfection for the vaccinated are “extremely rare” and inconsequential. So, that means that for the unvaccinated the odds of reinfection are a little more than double an inconsequential number. Now, I don’t have a degree in mathematics, but I have taken enough calculus and statistics classes to know that 2.3 times “basically zero” is also “basically zero.”

(It should be noted, that many other studies show natural immunity is far better than vaccination. According to Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins: “A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated.”1

But that is the math being used by those who insist that the risk of reinfection for the vaccinated is negligible while the risk of reinfection for the already recovered is an enormous public health crisis.

According the mandate pushers’ own data, the drive to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated makes no sense at all. But I suspect they’ll stick with the slogan, or even double down on it. 

—<Quote ends>—

COVID madness has nothing to do with protecting people, and everything to do with enforcing controls on them.

From Covid Lockdowns Signal the Rise of Public Policy by Ransom

—<Quote begins>—

There are two main diagnostic signs that indicate when the mode of governance has gone beyond legitimate conditional policy formulation and has entered the domain of public policy by ransom. The first sign is when there is evidence that policy formulation is motivated by a desire to punish noncompliance with behavioral prescriptions for its own sake, rather than optimizing the response to the problem at issue. For example, in a recent cabinet meeting of Israeli ministers, health minister Nitzan Horowitz was caught on tape (prior to the meeting) explaining to his fellow ministers that although certain public movement restrictions lacked any good epidemiological or public health basis, they would nonetheless assist in incentivizing people to get vaccinated in order to alleviate public restrictions.3 The second sign is when governments (and related public commentators) encourage the public to view their own policy responses to behaviors as immutable, and to therefore view individual members of the public as causally responsible for negative impacts from government policies. Such ominous thinking is on display among many public commentators, who view restrictions imposed by governments as an unavoidable consequence of public behavior. Journalist Celia Wexler claims that covid vaccine sceptics are “ruining the return to normal,” and her emotional reaction is somewhat similar to that of Marcotte. She says that “[e]xperts recommend using soft skills of listening and empathizing to persuade holdouts to get vaccinated. But instead our hearts are hardening. Every day, more of us are supporting mandates and penalties.”4 (Observe here the attitude of some commentators who present themselves as models of tolerance: to such people, listening and empathizing are desirable, but only as a means to manipulate behavior; similarly, mandates and penalties are undesirable, but must be the ultimate result if people do not conform to desired behavior by choice—thus do people self-indulge as models of tolerance and charity even while advocating odium and mandates against those they seek to coerce.)

—<Quote ends>—

Obey the Leader.

The Leader and the Party is never responsible for the destructive price of government controls.

Only those who challenge the Leader and the Party are responsible.

—<Quote begins>—

A secondary aspect of public policy by ransom that is noteworthy is that it has remarkable parallels to certain well-known modes of justification for domestic violence. “See what you made me do!” becomes the explanatory approach of public officials quizzed on public policy choices, as citizens are left cowering in the corner with bruises. Perhaps the most striking similarity between these two phenomena is that they both involve the attribution of causal responsibility to initial behavior that causes those in power to respond with coercion, and so blame for negative outcomes lies not with those who impose those outcomes, but those who caused them to do so. “If you don’t have dinner on the table when I come home, I’ll go crazy on you and the kids, and it’ll be your fault!”

—<Quote ends>—

If you don’t Obey the Master, then any punishment Master crams into your teeth is All Your Fault.

As the mainstream press will joyfully announce.

From Social Justice and the Emergence of Covid Tyranny

—<Quote begins>—

The covid regime is postmodern “science in action,” to quote Latour. It has never been about legitimate science or public health. Otherwise, known remedies for covid-19 and the dangers of the vaccines would never have been suppressed.

Wokeness set the stage for full-blown covid tyranny—the lockdowns, the masking, and now the demonization of the unvaccinated and the institution of the vaccine passport. The weaponization of fragility by the snowflake totalitarians has been extended and amplified by the covid regime, which construes all who oppose it as “domestic violent extremists.” The unvaccinated are the new “dangerous persons,” reprobates who should be locked down, quarantined, and, according to some, shot.


The covid regime involves practical postmodern science. “The science” is whatever the authorities claim is true, and all other scientific inquiry is banned in advance. Those engaged in open scientific inquiry and debate are ridiculed and dismissed a priori, and their reputations destroyed.

Like the assembly of postmodern theorists, the covid regime is a convention of charlatans. Lord Fauci makes declarations ex cathedra, despite their contradiction of accepted epidemiological standards and his own earlier statements, while the medical establishment and the media go along for the ride.

The covid regime is a consensus of postmodern hysterics. The compliant observe superstitious rituals and direct their outrage at the unvaccinated rather than at the authorities responsible for their madness.

All of this adds up to the continual elimination of individual rights and the growing power of a delusional bureaucratic state.

Only a post-postmodern turn can bring about the overthrow of covid totalitarianism. The tide must turn against the practical postmodern consensus, leading to a reinstatement of the competent over the promotion of the unqualified, the reestablishment of legitimate science, a renewed regard for the value of truth, and the subsequent elimination of authoritarianism from the public sphere. In short, it will require the complete reconstruction of the social order.

—<Quote ends>—

To repeat: COVID madness has nothing to do with protecting people, and everything to do with enforcing controls on them.

The Ninth Amendment, and A House Divided

You Can’t Change One Thing

Even if you are a forthright pervert.

In Why the Federalists Hated the Bill of Rights written by Murray Rothbard, we read about the aggressive fight that the Federalist had against any limit and any restriction on the scope and power of the centralized Federal government.

(The scam that was the Constitutional Convention is also discussed in book form here, and in brief articles/excerpts in

The Tenth Amendment was supposed to be the great weapon that the designers of the Bill of Rights were to use against the ever-expansionist claims of the Federal empire. However, as noted by Rothbard,

This amendment did in truth transform the Constitution from one of supreme national power to a partially mixed polity where the liberal anti-nationalists had a constitutional argument with at least a fighting chance of acceptance. However, Madison had cunningly left out the word “expressly” before the word “delegated,” so the nationalist judges were able to claim that because the word “expressly” was not there, the “delegated” can vaguely accrue through judges’ elastic interpretation of the Constitution. This loophole for vague “delegated” power allowed the national courts to use such open-ended claims as general welfare, commerce, national supremacy, and necessary and proper to argue for almost any delegation of power that is not specifically prohibited to the federal government—in short, to return the Constitution basically to what it was before the Tenth Amendment was passed. The Tenth Amendment has been intensely reduced, by conventional judiciary construction, to a meaningless tautology.

The quest for centralized power continued unabated.

However, there came a time when the desire to eliminate/kill the future — to reduce the cost of enjoying women — conflicted with the desire to secure the power of the state against all challenges. Thus, it was time to rediscover the Ninth Amendment:

Ironically, the most potentially explosive weapon of the anti-nationalists was ignored then and for the next 175 years by the public and the courts. This was the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” With its stress on the rights of the people, rather than on state or federal power as in the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment is even more acutely the answer to the Wilsonian argument than the Tenth. The enumeration of rights may not be so construed as to deny other unenumerated rights retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment has unfortunately (a) erroneously been held to apply only to the federal government and not also to the states, and (b) has been reduced to a simple paraphrase of the Tenth Amendment by the courts. But then why have a Ninth Amendment that simply repeats the Tenth? In truth, the Ninth Amendment is very different, and no construction can reduce it to a tautology; unlike the formulaic Tenth Amendment, the Ninth emphatically asserts that there are rights which are retained by the people and therefore may not be infringed upon by any area of government. But if there are unenumerated rights, this means that it is the constitutional obligation of the courts to find, proclaim, and protect them. Moreover, it means that it is unconstitutional for the courts to allow a government infringement on any right of the individual on the grounds that no express prohibition of that act can be found in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is an open invitation—nay, a command—to the people to discover and protect the unenumerated rights and never to allow governmental invasion of rights on the ground that no express prohibition can be found. In short, the Ninth Amendment expressly commands the judge to be “activist” and not “literal” in the construction of rights retained by the people against government encroachment.

Moreover, if it is asked what “other rights” were intended, the context of the time dictates but one answer: they meant the “natural rights” held by every human being. But a commandment that the courts are duty-bound to protect all of man’s natural rights, enumerated or retained, would reduce the powerful scope of government action to such a degree as to give the last laugh to Herbert Spencer over Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was in the early twentieth century to twist the strict constitutional judges of their day from holding that the Constitution endowed the individualist-libertarian social philosophy of Spencer’s Social Statics (1851). While the taunt was directed against enabling the judges’ personal preferences into Fundamental Law, the spelling out of the implications of the Ninth Amendment might well reinstate Social Statics, and on a far firmer legal and constitutional basis.2

Misconstrued as it was, the Ninth Amendment lay forgotten and made no impact whatever on American history until the year 1965. Then, suddenly, the Supreme Court, in a landmark of constitutional law, rediscovered the lost amendment and relied on it in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) to prohibit the states from interfering with the individual’s “basic and fundamental” right to marital privacy (in outlawing birth-control devices). The enormous implications of the decision for constitutional law and for wider liberty in the U.S. were adumbrated in the concurring opinion of the Justice Arthur Goldberg (agreed to by the Justice William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren):

The concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court’s opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment….

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery, and may be forgotten by others, but, since 1791, it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment, and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment….

Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.3

Satan’s house is truly divided: the dream of comprehensive control conflicts with the dream of private, cost-free pleasure. “The One and the Many”, once again.

The solid majority of Americans of all races and economic strata remain uninterested in the actual Rule of Law, or actual Justice: they just want Free Stuff. Fair enough: the solid majority of Christians, clergymen and laymen alike, prefer mysticism, escapism, and building their tiny (but profitable and ego-stroking) religious empires to the difficult and laborious work of expanding the authority of God’s Law-Word into the real world.

But as a minority of Kingdom Expansionists slowly grows, they are presented with opportunities to force the enemy to live up to his own rules. The New Order is a legal mess, as well as morally busted and an economic joke and utterly sterile. There are numerous peaceful ways to push a failing social order out of the way of the King of Kings, decade by decade.

There are just no cost-free ways of doing so.

The Millennium

Just a bit of cut-n-paste from Warfield’s The Millennium and the Apocalypse, from the Monergism website.

When quoting Warfield, I will be bolding a few lines that seem especially interesting to me, and perhaps to you too.

Nothing, indeed, seems to have been more common in all ages of the Church than to frame an eschatological scheme from this passage, imperfectly understood, and then to impose this scheme on the rest of Scripture vi et armis. To realize this, we have but to recall the manifold influences which have wrought not only on eschatological dreaming, but on theological thought and on Christian life itself, out of the conception summed up in the term “the millennium.” Yet not only the word, but, as Kliefoth has himself solidly shown,3 the thing, is unknown to Scripture outside of this passage.4 

The “passage” here is Revelation 20. Both the word “millennium” and the concept of a thousand year period of peace is unknown outside of Revelation 20: it is not to be found outside of this chapter.

The section opens with a vision of the victory of the Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all His enemies. We see Him come forth from heaven girt for war, followed by the armies of heaven; the birds of the air are summoned to the feast of corpses that shall be prepared for them: the armies of the enemy – the beasts and the kings of the earth – are gathered against Him and are totally destroyed; and “all the birds are filled with their flesh” (xix. 11-21). It is a vivid picture of a complete victory, an entire conquest, that we have here; and all the imagery of war and battle is employed to give it life. This is the symbol. The thing symbolized is obviously the complete victory of the Son of God over all the hosts of wickedness. Only a single hint of this signification is afforded by the language of the description, but that is enough. On two occasions we are carefully told that the sword by which the victory is won proceeds out of the mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). We are not to think, as we read, of any literal war or manual fighting, therefore; the conquest is wrought by the spoken word – in short, by the preaching of the Gospel. In fine, we have before us here a picture of the victorious career of the Gospel of Christ in the world. All the imagery of the dread battle and its hideous details are but to give us the impression of the completeness of the victory. Christ’s Gospel is to conquer the earth: He is to overcome all His enemies.

It is primarily through the power of the Word (a.k.a. not swords, or even miracles most of the time) that Jesus Christ gains His conquest over the world.

Not the might of Man and his guns and money and political power-grabs. The power of the Holy Spirit, coupled with the Truth, in and of itself, proclaimed across the world, gets the job done.

It is the Kingdom of God that is to be our focus. Not some ecclesiastical institution. Or yet another murderous empire, secularist or religious.

Now comes a lengthy quote, required to let Warfield get his point across without a distorting summary which, by sheer necessity, cut out and simplify and summarize and drop off what Warfield is getting at.

With the opening of the twentieth chapter the scene changes (xx. 1-10). Here we are not smitten in the face with the flame and flare of war: it is a spectacle of utter peace rather that is presented to us. The peace is, however, it must be observed, thrown up against a background of war. The vision opens with a picture of the descent of an angel out of heaven who binds “the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan,” for a thousand years. Then we see the saints of God reigning with their Lord, and we are invited to contemplate the blessedness of their estate. But when Satan is bound we are significantly told that after the thousand years “he must be loosed for a little time.” The saints themselves, moreover, we are informed, have not attained their exaltation and blessedness save through tribulation. They have all passed through the stress of this beast-beset life – have all been “beheaded” for the testimony of Jesus. And at the end we learn of the renewed activity of Satan and his final destruction by fire out of heaven.

This thousand-year peace that is set before us is therefore a peace hedged around with war. It was won by war; the participants in it have come to it through war; it ends in war. What now is this thousand-year peace? It is certainly not what we have come traditionally to understand by the “millennium,” as is made evident by many considerations, and sufficiently so by this one: that those who participate in it are spoken of as mere “souls” (ver. 4) – “the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God.” It is not disembodied souls who are to constitute the Church during its state of highest development on earth, when the knowledge of the glory of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. Neither is it disembodied souls who are thought of as constituting the kingdom which Christ is intending to set up in the earth after His advent, that they may rule with Him over the nations. And when we have said this, we are surely following hard on the pathway that leads to the true understanding of the vision. The vision, in one word, is a vision of the peace of those who have died in the Lord; and its message to us is embodied in the words of xiv. 13: “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth” – of which passage the present is indeed only an expansion.

The picture that is brought before us here is, in fine, the picture of the “intermediate state” – of the saints of God gathered in heaven away from the confused noise and garments bathed in blood that characterize the war upon earth, in order that they may securely await the end.8 The thousand years, thus, is the whole of this present dispensation, which again is placed before us in its entirety, but looked at now relatively not to what is passing on earth but to what is enjoyed “in Paradise.” This, in fact, is the meaning of the symbol of a thousand years. For, this period between the advents is, on earth, a broken time – three and a half years, a “little time” (ver. 3)9 – which, amid turmoil and trouble, the saints are encouraged to look upon as of short duration, soon to be over. To the saints in bliss it is, on the contrary, a long and blessed period passing slowly and peacefully by, while they reign with Christ and enjoy the blessedness of holy communion with Him – “a thousand years.”10

Of course the passage (xx. 1-10) does not give us a direct description of “the intermediate state.” We must bear in mind that the book we are reading is written in symbols and gives us a direct description of nothing that it sets before us, but always a direct description only of the symbol by which it is represented. In the preceding vision (xix. 11-21) we had no direct description of the triumph and progress of the Gospel, but only of a fierce and gruesome war: the single phrase that spoke of the slaying sword as “proceeding out of the mouth” of the conqueror alone indicated that it was a conquest by means of persuading words. So here we are not to expect a direct description of the “intermediate state”: were such a description given, that would be evidence enough that the intermediate state was not intended, but was rather the symbol of something else. The single hint that it is of the condition of the “souls” of those who have died in Christ and for Christ that the seer is speaking, is enough here to direct our thoughts in the right direction. What is described, or rather, to speak more exactly – for it is a course of events that is brought before us – what is narrated to us is the chaining of Satan “that he should deceive the nations no more”; the consequent security and glory of Christ’s hitherto persecuted people; and the subsequent destruction of Satan. It is a description in the form of a narrative: the element of time and chronological succession belongs to the symbol, not to the thing symbolized. The “binding of Satan” is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to a sphere; and his “loosing” again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested. There is, indeed, no literal “binding of Satan” to be thought of at all: what happens, happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented as happening to Satan for the purposes of the symbolical picture. What actually happens is that the saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan’s assaults. The saints described are free from all access of Satan – he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on. This is indicated, indeed, in the very employment of the two symbols “a thousand years” and “a little time.” A “thousand years” is the symbol of heavenly completeness and blessedness; the “little time” of earthly turmoil and evil. Those in the “thousand years” are safe from Satan’s assaults: those outside the thousand years are still enduring his attacks. And therefore he, though with respect to those in the thousand years bound, is not destroyed; and the vision accordingly requires to close with an account of his complete destruction, and of course this also must needs be presented in the narrative form of a release of Satan, the gathering of his hosts and their destruction from above.

We may perhaps profitably advert to some of the traits that go to show that it is the children of God gathered in Paradise that are in view in the description of the rest and security that occupies the central section of the vision (vers. 4-6). We are told that the seer saw “thrones, and those that sat upon them, and judgment was given to them.” Our Lord, we will remember, is uniformly represented as having been given a Messianic kingship in reward for His redemptive death, in order that He might carry out His mediatorial work to the end.11 Those who, being His, go away from the body and home to the Lord, are accordingly conceived by the seer as ascending the throne with Him to share His kingship – not forever, however, but for a thousand years, i.e., for the Messianic period. Then, when the last enemy has been conquered and He restores the kingdom to the Father,12 their co-reign with Him ceases, because His Messianic kingdom itself ceases. These reigning saints, now, are described as “souls” – a term which carries us back irresistibly to vi. 9, where we read of ” the souls of them that had been slain for the Word of God resting underneath the altar,” a passage of which the present is an expanded version. Similarly here, too, we are told that these souls are “of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand.” The description in the symbol is drawn from the fate of martyrs; but it is not literal martyrs that are meant in the thing symbolized. To the seer all of Christ’s saints are martyrs of the world. “For in the eyes of John,” as has been well said, “all the disciples of a martyred Lord are martyrs”: “Christ’s Church is a martyr Church, she dies in her Master’s service and for the world’s good.”13 These all, dying in Christ, die not but live – for Christ is not Lord, any more than God is God, of the dead but the living. We must catch here the idea that pervades the whole of Jewish thought – inculcated as it is with the most constant iteration by the whole Old Testament revelation – that death is the penalty of sin and that restoration from death, that is resurrection, is involved, therefore, in reception into the favor of God. It is this that underlies and gives its explanation to our Lord’s famous argument for the resurrection to which we have just alluded. And it is this, doubtless, that underlies also the seer’s designation in our passage of the state of the souls in Paradise with their Lord, saved in principle if not in complete fruition, as “the first resurrection.” “This,” he says, “is the first resurrection”; and he pronounces those blessed who have part in it, and declares that over them “the second death” has no power. Subsequently he identifies “the second death” with eternal destruction (ver. 14) in the lake of fire – the symbol throughout these visions of the final state of the wicked. To say that “the second death” has no power over the saints of whom he is here speaking is to say at once that they have already been subjected to the “first death,” which can mean only that they have suffered bodily death, and that they are “saved souls” with their life hidden with Christ in God. That is to say, they are the blessed dead – the dwellers in the “intermediate state.” The “first resurrection” is here, therefore, the symbolical description of what has befallen those who while dead yet live in the Lord; and it is set in contrast with the “second resurrection,” which must mean the restoration of the bodily life. As partakers of this “first resurrection” they are set in contrast with “the rest of the dead” – who were to “live not” until “the thousand years should be finished.” This phrase advertises us once more that those of whom the seer speaks are themselves in a sense “dead,” and as they are declared repeatedly to be living – living and reigning with Christ – this cannot refer to spiritual death, but must find its reference to bodily death. Though dead, therefore, in this bodily sense, they were yet alive – alive in the paradise of God with Christ. The rest of the dead, on the other hand – those not alive with Christ – wait for the end to live again: they are in every sense dead – already suffering the penalty of sin and to be restored to even bodily life only to be plunged into the terrible “second death.”

Now, turning to postmillennium, and the victory of the Kingdom of God over all His enemies, across the world:

What, then, is the eschatological outline we have gained from a study of this section? Briefly stated it is as follows. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to conquer the world to Himself, and this He does with a thoroughness and completeness which seems to go beyond even the intimations of Romans xi and I Cor. xv. Meanwhile, as the conquest of the world is going on below, the saints who die in the Lord are gathered in Paradise to reign with their Lord, who is also Lord of all, and who is from His throne directing the conquest of the world. When the victory is completely won there supervenes the last judgment and the final destruction of the wicked. At once there is a new heaven and a new earth and the consummation of the glory of the Church. And this Church abides forever (xxii. 5), in perfection of holiness and blessedness. In bare outline that is what our section teaches. It will be noted at once that it is precisely the teaching of the didactic epistles of Paul and of the whole New Testament with him. No attempts to harmonize as the several types of teaching are necessary, therefore, for their entire harmony lies on the surface. John knows no more of two resurrections – of the saints and of the wicked – than does Paul: and the whole theory of an intervening millennium – and indeed of a millennium of any kind on earth – goes up in smoke. We are forced, indeed, to add our assent to Kliefoth’s conclusion, that “the doctrine of a thousand-year kingdom has no foundation in the prophecies of the New Testament, and is therefore not a dogma but merely a hypothesis lacking all Biblical ground.”17 The millennium of the Apocalypse is the blessedness of the saints who have gone away from the body to be at home with the Lord.

But this conclusion obviously does not carry with it the denial that a “golden age” yet lies before the Church, if we may use this designation in a purely spiritual sense. As emphatically as Paul, John teaches that the earthly history of the Church is not a history merely of conflict with evil, but of conquest over evil: and even more richly than Paul, John teaches that this conquest will be decisive and complete. The whole meaning of the vision of xix. 11-21 is that Christ Jesus comes forth not to war merely but to victory; and every detail of the picture is laid in with a view precisely to emphasizing the thoroughness of this victory. The Gospel of Christ is, John being witness, completely to conquer the world. He says nothing, any more than Paul does, of the period of the endurance of this conquered world. Whether the last judgment and the consummated kingdom are to follow immediately upon its conquest – his visions are as silent, as Paul’s teaching. But just on that account the possibility of an extended duration for the conquered earth lies open: and in any event a progressively advancing conquest of the earth by Christ’s Gospel implies a coming age deserving at least the relative name of “golden.” Perhaps a distinction may be made between a converted earth and a sanctified earth: such a distinction seems certainly more accordant with the tone of these visions than that more commonly suggested between a witnessed-to earth and a converted earth. The Gospel assuredly must be preached to the whole world as a witness, before the Lord comes. These visions seem to go farther and to teach that the earth – the whole world – must be won to Christ before He comes: and that it is precisely this conquest of it that He is accomplishing during the progress of this inter-adventual period.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, demand victory over His evil enemies, in time and on earth.

He is going to get it, too.