“Turning point” is a figure of speech, not a mathematically precise concept.
I wish I could show you the training areas I saw in Europe. There’s this place Hitler created for training his tank division during WW2 — Grafenwöhr. His predecessors had used the area before, draining off a large swamp. The result was a massive bowl with high ridges all around. Hitler shipped in boatloads of sand to make parts of it resemble desert terrain. Today, NATO units still train crews of tanks and other large weapons systems there. You’d be amazed at what a single tank company can do to the ground when they decide to change directions. The modern Abrams tank weighs over 60 tons empty, and the tracks are very wide. It would be a major physical challenge to cross the resulting mess on foot.
Most “turning points” are actually big sloppy areas. The burial of Pompeii under the ash of Vesuvius took all day. The Fall of Rome took years. The Battle of Thermopylae took three days, but the larger action was a full week. There are some truly sudden full catastrophes, but they are vastly outnumbered by slow ones that drag on forever in the consciousness of those directly involved. What we face as the West declines into oblivion is a long, slow process. Forget all the dramatic crap you see in movies. It will be painful all the way, so get used to it. And once this thing is “done” by any measure, it will hardly mean hellish misery for everyone involved.
There is a core group of international bankers who have been herding national governments into massive overspending. At the same time, they’ve been doing the same thing to consumers through various intermediaries. They control a vast amount of debt obligations. The process has been deliberately aimed at enslaving humanity. It can’t be done suddenly; it’s not quite finished yet. But they may be satisfied with the results nonetheless. They are surely aware this will cause most economies to collapse in a certain sense. I doubt they are concerned in the least, though I also doubt it’s their direct intent. Rather, they are taking advantage of a system their predecessors helped to create. Having pushed it this far, there’s no reason to change. They aren’t nearly so coordinated as popularly imagined. It’s a simple matter they all play the same greedy game so long as it seems they can win.
The system presumes something not at all certain — that there will always be some recognized authority in place to enforce the debt obligation. While I admit it’s been a good bet so far, you can’t forget Iceland. The Icelanders have one magnificent advantage: Their government is very close to the people. The place is small and so is the population. Most of the world is bound up in vast imperial governments. These are all subject to fragmentation whenever the central control weakens beyond a certain point. Even as I write this, The Powers That Be are struggling to cement their control, while the entire system is cracking apart. So the likelihood that the international bankers can keep their economic debt control alive is fading at the very climax of their power. In the past few weeks, several of the fifty states have defiantly passed laws that bind their agencies to actively fight federal mandates, mandates which most certainly do reflect the wishes of the bankers. While much of what we see publicly is noise and smoke, it reflects a very real breaking point. Notice this “point” is quite large, though. In truth, it’s not a point, but a highly variable threshold that constantly moves.
That’s because it involves people — millions of people. What makes the Social Sciences so utterly fascinating is this very lack of precision. It’s as much art as science to guess what will happen next. It has nothing do with what I feel or what you feel; it has to do with so many factors that no human mind can possibly track them all. Even when we have the concrete evidence before us, it’s not scientifically certain what it means. We all see it differently. So on any given day, on any given hour, some critical mass of ordinary people may well panic and the whole thing comes down. Even then, it’s not certain whether the stampede really changed much.
Populist predictions of cataclysm do hold a grain of truth, but if you read into it all the drama and special effects from recent movies, you’ll end up very disappointed. Those movies and video games are so entertaining in part because they bear little resemblance to reality. The sweet spot between clearly fantastic and approximately real is also highly variable, so the business of virtual reality gaming and video entertainment will ever be more art than science.
Yes, things are changing. Expect it to more resemble a tank brigade turn-around than a running back’s pivot on the playing field.
Think about it.
We are passing through a rare economic shift, says Charles Hugh Smith. He summarizes Peter Drucker’s Post-Capitalist Society. Taking his thesis, you suddenly realize that we no longer need mass capital to advance technology and production of goods. The potential is there. Let’s assume for a moment you actually paid attention in high school. You can purchase some raw materials and go to any modern machine shop with information you found on the Internet and produce a custom made high technology firearm. Part of it can be produced in your own home on a 3D printer. It would cost you maybe a week’s wages, and the costs are falling precipitously. Pretty soon you won’t need the machine shop. What happens when you can print your own computer mother board at home, bake your own chips? What will it do to the telephone oligopoly when homemade cellphones can network spontaneously across long distances without towers? People are already writing the software for that.
We are just about there. Anyone could theoretically produce anything for the cost of materials and their own time.
What does that do to our society? It’s not just the economics, which Smith emphasizes in the opening to his investment seminar. He’ll get some suckers. People who can actually think realize the future of investing will change dramatically, and people like Smith will have to find some other way to make a living. Artificial Intelligence will obviate the need for that kind of knowledge.
The arrival of word processors and decent home printers has very nearly killed the paper publishing business. People still want stuff on paper, but one guy can do most of by himself, replacing a vast army of typesetting technicians and press operators. For less than the cost of a new car, you can purchase a fully self-contained printing shop that fits in your office. Meanwhile, more and more work is done without paper and really cheap used laptops can produce ebooks to current standards. The only people making money in that industry are the specialist middlemen, those who connect content producers with those who mass market to consumers.
Similar story with the drafting industry. CAD has killed that already. Software houses have been pairing engineering software with CAD. Only government regulation keeps us from having our own full engineering software package for home use so that any literate Joe Sixpack can design his own home. He can already order the pre-built modules delivered to the assembly site for far less than current home building costs. Same story with motor vehicles and a lot of other things people use every day. From spacecraft all the way down to subatomic particles, the engineering decisions based on known tolerances are just about farmed out to AI. I rather believe DNA engineering will take a little longer simply because we have way too far to go with learning the tolerances. That sort of thing reaches out and touches entirely too many other life forms in coexistence, but in theory, it’s there. Yet, medical AI is already running off and leaving physicians behind.
At what point can we rely on AI to extrapolate choices to which the human mind tends to be blind? I’m not sure I want to be around for some of it, but it’s coming nonetheless. It’s not Science Fiction any more. Did you ever wonder why Fantasy is eclipsing SF? I think it’s more than mere vagaries of fashion. Too much of what we dream up is on top of us as science fact, not fiction. We have to branch out into directions we cannot go to find entertainment. I wonder what fiction types will sell most when even some of the fantasy crap becomes possible.
Still, mankind will remain fallen and reality broken. Spiritual awareness is the one thing you can’t farm out to AI. That, brothers and sisters, is the future “market” for us.
For those who share some of my beliefs, it is utterly necessary we arm our souls for what’s coming.
It is impossible to overstate the necessity of understanding how propaganda and various forms of psychological warfare work. My personal experience is widely varied. If there is anything about my experience that gives me an advantage, it would be the awareness I had going into it. Somewhere early in my life I was alerted to the psychology of manipulation. While I remained vulnerable to various measures for a long time after, I was able to evaluate the experiences and make some effort to shed the long term effects. I know without a doubt there are great many others out there who are stronger and know more than I.
But I was trained in methods of interrogation and the ways most people respond to conditioning. One thing stood out in that training: There were two kinds of people you can’t interrogate effectively. First, there will always be someone sharper than you. They’ll win every encounter; you discover them by the first couple of questions and comments, as well as minor subtle techniques in how they are handled while in custody (some of it is specifically designed to provoke a reaction). Second, there will also be a tiny handful so completely different from the mainstream that there is not a thing you can do with them. They might be some degree of mentally disturbed, but for whatever reason, they simply do not respond to the standard expectations. They are wild cards who are totally unpredictable.
Only your DNA and education can make you the first kind, sharp enough to challenge highly trained manipulators. But everyone who seeks true spiritual development can graduate from being sheeple and become part of the second group.
A critical element is learning the instinct to pull away from the habits that channel you and keep you vulnerable to the programming. While I doubt there is a single human entity running the whole show in the US, you are surely aware of the various sources of subtle and nasty conditioning being pushed into our faces every waking moment of every day. I’ve discussed Game Theory and feminist mythology programming in our society here. I’ve talked about key words, hot button issues and emotional stirring, etc. God knows I’ve spilled trillions of electrons countering Western epistemology and all the intellectual manipulation we see across the face of much of this world.
So I generally hate videos as a means to propagating information. The medium itself is well known for conditioning people to lower their internal barriers to propaganda. It has been used that way for quite some time. I can’t get Christians to understand that, just because videos seem effective, it does not mean they are good for godly training. The apparent effectiveness is part of the larger deception that Satan uses to keep people weak and easily manipulated. Spiritual growth makes you resistant to such means; it doesn’t capitalize on them. If you can’t stop watching TV and movies, you will remain vulnerable like an addict. I don’t mean religiously avoid them, but develop a high conscious resistance. Don’t watch TV for entertainment, but only for information. Learn to turn away when it becomes too interesting.
I am still forced to use video from time to time because the people with the information and the skills to present it don’t understand; they actively participate in keeping their viewers weak to the very threats they are warning us about. So I’m going to link to one today:
In no uncertain terms, let me warn you: The US government hates Christian Mysticism. Standard evangelical Christianity has long been tamed and is currently well enough controlled to serve the State’s purposes. Evangelicals only imagine they are persecuted because of the false partisan divisions used to keep society distracted. But if you embrace the otherworldly mindset of Scripture, you are a living threat to their system of control. Were I to write a complete manual on resistance, I’m not sure it would contain anything different from the material I’ve already piled up on this blog and my static website. The government has their manuals already in place, too, as the video indicates. Yes, the purpose of this military document is sinister, as is a great deal of what the military has been doing for a great many years. I can’t tell you how often I read something or was taught something in the military that God directly condemns in Scripture.
The whole idea is not to play their game, not to live your life in the shallow portion of your soul where they want you. This isn’t about getting you to do what they want; for the most part Our Savior encourages that. This is about displacing Him in your heart. The US government insists on being your God. This is same thing First Century Christians faced with the worship is Caesar. The difference is, now you are required to worship the impersonal State. This is the thing you must resist.
The things we fear most are hard-wired into our civilization.
Here in the US, there are a handful of hot-button issues that can be guaranteed to elicit much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention. I’ve dealt with some of those in the past, such as child sexual molestation. So long as we are materialistic and worship youth, there is no way to escape pedophilia and child molestation. It’s built in. The very panic reaction is symptom of precisely the same underlying cause. If we weren’t so panicky about it, the acts would happen far less often.
For this post I’m going to pick on bullying. Everyone recognizes how wrong it is. Almost everyone has done it at some time in their life. Almost every political activist is guilty of bullying. If you don’t see that, you have no clue to the definition of the term.
Again, it starts with the fundamental Western assumption of a unitary reality. This is blasphemous, but no one wants to poke around at the foundations of Western Civilization to see that. They just assume Western Civ is manifestly superior and refuse to think about it. Folks, this reality is temporary; it’s fake and it’s broken. God said so. But because the West assumes unconsciously this reality is all there is, the only possible result is materialism. Say what you want, but your Western gut reaction is to consider this life precious. In the Bible, all the way up to the last published portion of the canon, this was bluntly denied. The West is inherently anti-Christian.
Feminism lends itself extremely well to materialism. Since women are hard-wired by God to follow that nesting instinct, the only question is what she considers her “nest.” Because of the Fall, women get this pretty mixed up; our Western culture amplifies the worst of this. Women with little or no spiritual awareness are viciously materialistic as the fundamental definition of maternalism in our civilization. Correct the false assumption of a unitary reality, add in a sense of eternal aspirations, and feminism dies. It’s replaced by a mature and sensible feminine aspiration to make this sorry life more bearable for everyone in reach.
Western thinking drives you to live all your “should-have-done” thoughts through your children. We call it “smothering” versus mothering. It rears its ugly head most prominently in the middle classes, where materialism is about as bad as it gets. So when a kid gets roughed up, we get all these horrific calls for rules and laws to change things. What no one is permitted to notice is how such regulation inevitably makes it harder for everyone to breathe. It’s the same burdensome stupidity we see in the so-called “political correctness” observations. There is no possible way to change the rules without making things worse.
Simple social pressure would be fine, if it was aimed at the real problem. It is not. The real problem is kids are not taught to be thick-skinned. It never occurs to us because the whole concept is virtually missing in human development studies connected to childhood education. Kids who live in a household that doesn’t take themselves nor this life too seriously produce children phenomenally more mature than just about every person living under Western Civilization. Jesus was like that. We can’t imagine it in our American life.
Want to stop bullying? Teach your children not to care, and the bullies will seek other targets — very quickly. Teach them to expect humans to be shitty, because they are. You’d be amazed at how early kids can pick up on this kind of mindset. Smother them and they will never cease whining, even as adults.
We so easily forget the Fall touches the human intellect, not least because the Fall is almost entirely based on the decision to place human intellect as master over the will. This is entirely contrary to what God had in mind. The intellect is not capable of operating on the level of the Spirit Realm. The intellect is fallen as part of humanity’s fallen nature; any other view is a heresy, since it is bluntly stated in Scripture several places.
Thus, if we enslave the intellect in service to the Spirit, all is as well as it can be. If we allow the intellect to actually rule, we will inevitably fail to please God.
Systematic Theology is a primary example of intellect attempting to usurp the Spirit. The mind is granted by God to organize how we shall implement the imponderable imperatives of the Spirit. If we somehow conclude our individual organization is binding on others, we are walking in sin. Your mental organization of serving Christ need not apply to others simply on the basis of a presumption your theorizing is logical. The human standards of logic are a pitiful excuse for ignoring the Spirit. God’s logic is well outside the boundaries of ours.
The same can be said of any political theory. God’s Laws don’t lend themselves completely to human logic. Ignoring the fundamental assumptions behind God’s Laws will inevitably leave you standing without any grasp of moral imperatives. Given the entire range or Western rationalism is built on the a priori rejection of revelation, it’s no surprise every current political philosophy at some point violates God’s Laws.
Communism seems logical until you realize it works only when everyone is a saint. Socialism seems reasonable as a compromise until you realize socialist government inevitably draws the very worst of available humanity. The brightest and most productive minds are too busy and have no interest in government. What’s left are people who only carry a pretense of genius as a cover for the insatiable urge to control others by some internal vision of logic. Good moral people don’t want to govern others. The same applies to any of the various forms of democratic, republican or parliamentary governments. They all are built on the human intellect as the ultimate rule. Libertarian government would be morally the same as communism, in that it falsely assumes man’s mind can work out the logic of what matters most. All of them presume the necessity of the state.
All of them fail. The Laws of God elevate one guiding principle they all ignore: social stability. Even when you can get them to admit this matters most, all those theories insist getting there must follow some rational orthodoxy created on the basis of rejecting God’s Laws. God’s Laws presume only your kinfolks are permitted to decide on daily operations in pursuit of social stability. The individual is an asset — property, if you will — of the family, not of the civil government. Social and civil affairs are never, ever to be joined under one authority. When you reject God’s Laws, the moral fabric of the created universe will work against you, without fail. That the rational approach ignores the underlying assumptions guarantees none of these theoretical frameworks will ever notice what the problem is. They will always propose some mythological answer that appears rational on some level, but still fails to meet the demands of morality as God defines it.
What we are left with is a set of practices which cannot obey any particular theory, since none of them actually work. Your political orthodoxy is blasphemy.
She was provocative, always dressed inappropriately and flashing as much flesh as she dared. She played the sexual tease game with consummate skill already, having just turned 14. She was attending a tiny private Christian school; always in trouble. She tried flirting with the male teachers to get her way. Not missing anything intellectually, either, she was all too smart and crafty.
One day during the religion class, the Associate Pastor was teaching. She said something about her feelings, to which the vicar replied he didn’t care about her feelings on that matter. She retorted petulantly, “Well, you should.”
Constantly jockeying for power by any means available is a fundamentally Western feminist trait. I recall reading one of those subtle propaganda manuals issued by various government or government sponsored agencies claiming to help parents understand their children. A major element in the manual was viewing children’s behavior as jockeying for power. The book tried to portray this as a fundamental human trait. It’s not; it’s entirely culturally derived. It is specifically the result of feminism.
In the Medo-Persian Empire, we see it once rearing its ugly head. In the ruling class, most marriages were politically arranged. Thus, precious few men married within their own national roots. The latter days of the empire were quite cosmopolitan, and it was not a good thing, contributing greatly to their demise at the hand of the Greeks. A critical manifestation of the weakness was the practice of these foreign wives asserting their own preferences, developing a shadow court within the the household. There she would gather people who spoke her native tongue and her husband would have little idea what was going on. At some point, this sort of thing actually threatened the reputation of the Emperor himself, so he issued a decree which turned back these practices rather sharply. The men could have their wives executed for rather minor infractions, but presumably in pursuit of correcting this business of politics and power plays against the man’s stated policies.
I’ll save you the time: You can call me a sexist or misogynist. Like the vicar above, I’m not interested in your feelings and I’m not interested in your protestations that I should care. The Bible approves of the change in Medo-Persian imperial policy. In a Hebrew household, the woman called her man “my lord.” This has nothing to do with dark visions of primitive European feudalism. It arises from Eastern feudalism, which is entirely different; it’s all about people and them as the principle measure of man’s wealth. Whether he actually ruled over people or simply had friends, this was his treasure. His land and other real property could all be replaced, but good people were hard to find and cultivate. That includes a good woman.
The Bible does not lay out and description of womanhood. Rather, it offers manifestations and symbolism. In a given context, she would do this or that. She certainly exercises her own brand of dominion, but she never, ever forgets whose team she is on. If she is not the single most powerful support of her husband, he is better off tossing her out on the street. The whole social fabric is better off. That’s how humanity is wired. It’s not like software where you can reprogram it; this is hard-wired. Any other model will fail every time.
From the narrative of the Fall, we learn — bluntly stated — women will seek power over their men. In wider terms of symbolism, it’s acknowledged this tendency is the result of the damaged mothering instinct. Women since the Fall will be possessed of an instinct to control everything with any bearing on her nest-building instinct. That instinct manifests in a very wide range of ways, but the whole thing boils down to nest-building. Whatever she regards as her nest becomes the subject of political wrangling unless she seeks the face of God and tries to understand her own weaknesses. The woman of God builds her household largely by building up first her husband. She knows how he is wired, too.
Most of the revulsion and arguments from modern feminists assumes the Western model of broken manhood. You cannot get a feminazi to even discuss this part of the whole question. They are building on that European mythology and any other view of reality is unacceptable before it’s even mentioned. Like a rotting rug, pull out that false covering over the ground of truth and feminism dies. If there is anything Satan loves it’s a Western feminist.
In Hebrew language and culture, context is everything. Sometimes a person’s actions or words might be inappropriate because it was tantamount to assuming prerogatives from a role they couldn’t claim. A typical Hebrew response would be to correct impertinence by pushing things to the logical conclusion. Seize the wrong role and you’ll be treated accordingly. “Is this really what you want?”
So it happened at the Wedding in Cana. Jesus was fresh from announcing His mission, spending more than a month in seclusion to clarify His thinking on that mission, then selecting the first members of His crew of apprentices. They all returned to the Nazareth area in time for the wedding in a nearby village. Keep in mind, this was often a week long affair, with guests feasting and sleeping on site the whole time.
The standing joke among Jews is every Jewish mother believes her son is the Messiah. Mary knew it for a fact in Jesus’ case. She was just as ambitious for her son as every other Jewish mother would be. Unfortunately, she suffered many of the popular delusions about what the Messiah should be like. She expected Him to play a socially prominent role, and relished the glow such a thing would reflect on her. If Jesus was a real human, His mother was no less so.
Weddings could be make-or-break social affairs for just about anyone involved, not merely the bride and groom. It was not unknown for one family to sue the other family involved in a wedding if there was some kind of embarrassment, something which put them in a bad light. The caterer noticed the wine was running low, and it was the groom’s responsibility to fix the problem. It was time to panic.
Mary prompted her son to play the big shot rabbi and solve the issue. Surely among His entourage was someone who could pull strings and get some good wine even in this remote nowhere village? Jesus had no intention of playing her social games. What He said to her was a colloquial equivalent of, “If that’s your game, I’m not going to admit you are my mom.” Undeterred, she simply advised the servants to keep pestering Him until He did something. It’s doubtful she in any way expected what followed, since He had performed no miracles up that point.
Turning water into wine was for the benefit of the Twelve. That others knew didn’t matter. It inaugurated the ministry of restoring justice. Not so much because the party needed wine, but this sign was because the disciples needed to see something of His very real authority as Messiah, that His teaching was backed by God’s own power. They would recognize this as some part of the Messianic Expectations — miraculous supply of the best quality food — and He couldn’t help that, so He used it to His advantage.
Word got out, of course, and when they eventually went back to Nazareth, we discover what a mean and nasty little town it was. This was what was behind that smart-alecky remark made by Nathaniel: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” The folks tried to lynch Jesus, but failed. Calling Him “Jesus of Nazareth” provided a strong distinction among all the other guys named Jesus, but it wasn’t necessarily a positive association. On the other hand, Nazareth clearly didn’t claim Him.
That, along with His mother’s pushy interference, were pretty good reasons for Jesus to move His base of operations to Capernaum. It was still out of the dicey political situation in Judea proper, yet within the nation’s borders. It was rather like the rebel hero hiding out in pirates’ nest. The city was an Imperial crossroads, but also bore the nasty history of idolatry associated with the likes of that breakaway clan of Danites during the Period of Judges. Traveling north they chasing out the pagan Canaanites, only to turn and build even worse religious practices than those they were supposed to cleanse. Then there was Caeserea next door built over a Jewish graveyard, of all things. The area was reputed a moral black hole, passively hostile to the nosy Pharisees who avoided the place, yet perfectly happy with Jesus and His crew.
It’s hard to know precisely how long Jesus stayed here, but His early ministry lasted at least some months, and is the context for His early fame as a prophet who worked miracles, with massive numbers healed and fed from nothing.
I know what I like. You can lock me in a chair where I have to listen to your favorite music, but even after days and weeks of this torture, I’m not likely to appreciate your taste in music.
Humans tend to calcify their tastes rather early in life. As the current trends in which their awareness developed drift farther afield, they become less interested. But that’s pop music, and we do have a body of scientific research which has identified a type of music which is of such genius, it manages to work for just about everyone at any time in history after its publication. This sort of thing comes from people who don’t suffer that developmental calcification.
Head-bangers can be made to tolerate, even appreciate, carefully selected Classical pieces. I’ve done it myself. It’s the same musical pieces Chinese audiences in remote regions still like.
When you ask the aficionados, you aren’t likely to get a safe consensus on what’s truly genius in art. Too many of them are unable to pull back with that separate category of genius which notices the human response. They only understand the depth of passion with which they are moved, and simply do not accept the idea you aren’t so moved. Thus, a huge swath of good art is really just popular with the “in” crowd who are allowed to announce their tastes. This is why many “great” novels are boring, because politics had much to do with their selection. Yet I can sit down children from almost any subculture which understands my American English tongue, read Dickens, and they’ll be absorbed. (Okay, I do have some skill with dramatic reading.) Dickens tends to be actually great, drawing approval across generations and cultures. He even translates well into other languages, I’m told. Simply because we understand the part played by some “great” writers during the various periods of English Literature does not mean they are going to reach across the ages of the English language and entertain everyone. We don’t deny the greatness of their art, only note it’s not quite in the same class of genius.
It won’t matter what the experts say from within the field of a given art form, if no one else pays any attention. It’s not a matter of my tastes, either. It’s the question of how easily we can draw at least a modicum of interest across cultural barriers. This eliminates mere passing fashion and taste as a factor. Perhaps the artists themselves would not be able to tell you how they did it, but we recognize Beethoven as one of them, along with Dickens, da Vinci, and so forth.
It’s okay for you to ignore the experts. Don’t let them intimidate you; their position is often wholly political in nature. Politics is more often wrong than right, and when right, often so completely by accident, as if it were some sort of error.
One of the biggest mistakes we make is underestimating human adaptability. A much bigger mistake is assuming you can steer that adaptation on a large scale.
It never ceases to amaze me how Progressives get this backward. They have no trouble referring to human shortcomings, so long as you don’t apply such understanding to their noble selves. They’ll castigate any number of individuals for a long standard list of moral failures. Yet, they somehow imagine they are wise enough to formulate a valid plan of action to correct human truculence on the broader scale. I suppose that’s in part because they refuse to recognize their own truculence. It’s always justified one way or another.
Virtually every progressive solution has failed, miserably, publicly and often more spectacularly than the grandness of their efforts. But they always blame the people involved who refused to change at the snapping of their fingers. It’s really odd the faith they have in human adaptability — “anyone can figure this out” — but they insist all it takes is a little more education. In other words, none of us is more than a lump of clay in their capable hands. That there could ever be something in human nature which cannot possibly be fixed is a heresy in their minds.
Yes, we ought to raise a high moral standard, but ought also be wholly unsurprised when any significant portion of any population won’t embrace it. There are factors in human character which cannot ever be accounted for in the sense that it could be something you’d resolve with enough effort. Man can be manipulated until he knows about it, suspects it, or simply imagines it falsely. Sometimes not even then. Flee from fools who say, “There ought to be a law…”
The social sciences are not pointless, because humans tend to be predictable in some ways. But those sciences only go so far. Pushing too far makes you a fool. This is why I opposed anyone using a personality inventory unless they know enough to write their own. A part of any realistic moral standard is preparing for failure of adoption. Never assume you understand why any particular individual opts out. At least one-third of the questions on, say, the Myers-Briggs Assessment infuriate me in forcing me to choose an option which simply does not fit me. I do not fit into their nasty little matrix, but idiots will presume I’m simply suffering an attitude problem. Even if they are correct, it still invalidates their matrix, because I know what most of the questions are trying to prove, and I can make the assessment say almost anything I want. Other similar assessment tools are worse. They do fine when you want to get a feel for populations, but only the most shallow and thoughtless portion of humanity will fit into their assessment matrix. Do you really want to promote that kind of thing?
Worst of all, most assessment matrices tend to steer people into a frame of reference which may not actually be honestly where they are. This is probably the biggest abuse charge I can level at psychometrists, as the majority have far too much progressive self-assurance they can solve the world’s problems if everyone could be forced to take their little tests. What’s the Type for an arrogant know-it-all who wants to force others to fit their elegant dreams? Who are willing to promote hatred and random bloodshed in order to promote their vision? Sounds like a psychopath to me. It’s the same crap we face when you hear about such wonderful movements as “stop slut-shaming” or “make guys more sensitive” or any number of other demands we all agree to force some group or agency do something which simply cannot be forced.
In the end, it all falls well under the umbrella of Western materialism. People aren’t allowed to be people, whereas Scripture promotes the idea everyone should be encouraged to take their own path before the Lord, because the human soul is the only part of Creation which will outlast Creation. Most of the various assessment tools, both for groups and individuals, are anti-Christian abominations.
Modern society typically gets the most important elements of human life backwards.
We call it “perversion” when some force throttles the message of truth and twists it out of shape. I take my truth from the Bible specifically, and ancient Hebrew culture generally. So far as I can determine, little else can offer a more thorough and accurate prediction of how humans generally act. Sometimes you have to read between the lines, but that’s fundamental to Hebrew literature. It’s there, whether you notice it or not.
Often enough, within any given civilization or cultural context, you’ll find echoes of that truth. All truth is God’s truth. We can debate endlessly about whether something only appears to work, but that in itself may be a reflection of your bias. Mine is clearly stated, and I believe I’m pretty consistent. I find modern American culture deeply perverted and there’s no hope of fixing what’s wrong. Somewhere between the ideal situation revealed by God and where we are today, we can always find a better answer. If you understood the assumptions behind the various social requirements in Ancient Hebrew societies, you would understand how things need to be done today.
That includes human sexual attraction. Fundamental to human nature is men as peacocks. They put on their best show, strutting their stuff, and win the interest of the hens. It’s up to the hens to decide, but they must act. The idea a man must pursue the woman as the prize to be won is almost entirely a product of European culture. To be specific, it arises mostly from the Germanic tribal mythology. It’s wrong.
In our modern society, the man who walks with God stands alone and has no other need. His calling and mission are all he needs. He trusts in His Lord to bring all necessary support and resources. He acts with total devotion, his eyes on the mission. In this he will be as close to the manly ideal as he can ever be. He is frankly better off alone, but that’s just a basic premise. Most of the time, God finds the man needs supporting cast and crew. It is God who prompts and leads a godly woman to desire a part in that mission.
Yes, there are variations in how this works out in details, but given where we are today, the above description is as close as we get to what’s in the Bible. Women don’t have to be brazen and direct, but it’s not wrong if they are. In more popular terminology, the man has to work on his Game. Not in the sense of obsession with attracting a mate, unlike the peacocks, but simply as the result of obeying his calling. If that doesn’t work, he needs to pay attention to his mission until God provides. A needy man is a failure. So is a needy woman, but in a different sense. She has to be mature enough and confident in her God and obey His prompting. It’s not as if He doesn’t care and won’t give you a clue.
A woman who chooses a strong service role, or leadership role, must either be an accomplished woman in her own home first, of regard herself as called to have no home, as it were. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to avoid the whole issue of marriage, but not if you are simply putting it off until it’s more convenient. Need I state the obvious? God regards all sex as de facto marriage in one sense. There is absolutely no place for losing virginity, for either sex, outside the intent to obey the Lord and keep it in the marriage bed. Notice the issue is intent to obey.
But ladies, in broad general terms, you have to make the move. The Bible assumes you’ll have help from family and friends, but we seldom do that right these days. Don’t wait for your man to chase you down. He’s supposed to be too busy for such things. When the Lord makes it clear you’ve got a live one, work within the context of your personality and life context to make that connection.
Any other approach is pure mythology, a reflection of social perversion and an insult to God’s revelation.
I moderate comments. Take a moment to scan the "Readers Note" tab on the menu bar at the top of the page.
As a minister of God, I do accept donations. Please click the "Donate" tab above.