Over the last week, I’ve caught up on some reading, delving into biblical history and Near East archaeology. It’s a field that inspires an immense amount of literature and controversy due to the passions it evokes, so it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but the good stuff is some of the best of its genre.
One book I’ve been reading is called Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth Of Israel. The title was designed to drum up controversy, and the author, Thomas L. Thompson of the Copenhagen School, has long been in the habit of provoking the powers that be, largely by challenging the historical accuracy of the Bible. When studying at a Catholic university in the 1960s, his doctoral dissertation was rejected by the recently retired Benedict XVI himself (then known as Joseph Ratzinger). It was not, according to the former pope, a proper Catholic work.
Thompson has drawn the ire of others as well, including Israelis, American Evangelical Christians and some conservative biblical scholars, such as William Dever. Over time, though, some of his ideas, which were considered heresy back in the 60s and 70s, have been accepted by the academic establishment. After wandering in the wilderness for years, academia finally called him back again in the late 80s, and by the 90s he was a professor at the University of Copenhagen.
However, I’m not as interested in Thompson’s arguments concerning the historicity of the Bible as I am in the regional history he uses to make those arguments. Although I am curious, whether or not King David existed is not my most pressing concern. What is most interesting about the book – to me at least – is Thompson’s description of the chaotic situation in what is now known as Israel in the 1st millenium BC.
Caught between multiple competing empires, the people of the region were battered by successive invasions and land grabs. As an economically and strategically important location, it couldn’t escape the armies of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Macedonians and Romans. Every century or so a rising power would sweep in and overrun the land. This is the context in which the Bible was compiled, so it’s no wonder that there’s such a preoccupation with war and exile in the world’s preeminent holy book.
Each new conqueror came with the intent to consolidate rule. To press his advantage, he would enact policies to crush resistance and, when possible, to garner support from various factions. Typically, the new ruler would accuse the vanquished power of having neglected tradition, of desecrating religion, and oppressing the people. It was imperial propaganda that was not all that different from the 20th century equivalent.
In addition to propaganda, however, population transfer and forced labor were widely used to control natives. Residents of cities such as Jerusalem and Samaria were rounded up and shipped off to other regions, Babylon being one of them. People from far-flung regions were then imported to take their place. The Elamites, for example, were transplants from Afghanistan, which is a long, long way from Israel (could this be why Aristotle thought the Jews were originally from India?).
These displaced peoples were dependent on the ruler for their very lives, and could be counted on to support him against disgruntled native populations. Furthermore, having been removed from their land and kin, they were atomized individuals without a family network to rely upon.
To justify this, imperial powers would preach a form of democracy, and practice redistribution. The idea was that although people had been uprooted and reduced to dependence, and in some cases outright slavery, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, or whoever happened to be the overlord of the time, was their savior. He and he alone could protect these hapless people from vicious, xenophobic enemies, ready to cut their throats at any moment. Only he could enforce equality between his subjects. It’s exactly the same reason partisan Democrats are so enamored with illegal aliens (well, at least with the idea if not the actual people) — they constitute an essentially captive, dependent population that can be counted on for rock-solid political support.
From this history of the ancient Near East, it becomes clear that fostering dependence is a very old political trick. And the easiest way to do that is to break up independent support networks. First, you subjugate the community by force of arms. Then, you drive people out of their homes. Finally, you destroy family ties through conscription, forced labor and slavery. Sometimes, as in the East German regime, you might even do it by encouraging family members to denounce each other.
The goal is to prevent people from living independently, because such people are strong and might resist. They are a headache; they are defiant and cause trouble.
Does any of this sound familiar?
When looking at our family law regime from such a perspective, it is hard to see it as anything other than a systematic program of forced dependence. Single mothers rely on government largesse, divorced fathers play the role of conscripts or forced laborers, and children belong, for all intents and purposes, to the state. Men are turned out of their homes by decrees that are enforced by armed henchmen, their pay is seized without a hearing and turned over to the state for disbursement. And all in the name of equality.
Family law in the US is an expression of the logic of power. Feminism is merely a convenient tool. The goal is not to empower women – single mothers are amongst the most miserable of all our citizens, after all – but to shatter the power of the people in general by breaking the family. It may not be a conscious decision, but it doesn’t have to be. If bureaucrats can figure out how to squeeze another one percent of revenue out of men by enacting this or that policy, they do it. If a politician can more effectively create a base of support by fostering dependence, he’ll happily do so. The consequences to the people don’t matter — what’s important is that the people on the make keep the system working for them.
Given the biblical context, perhaps fathers who have been through the system will recognize the sentiment behind the following passage from Psalm 123, which is from the exile period:
Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy upon us, for we have had more than enough of contempt.
Our soul has had more than enough of the scorn of those who are at ease, of the contempt of the proud.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
The problem is that the Elite don’t suffer any negative consequences for all the suffering they impose on us. That has to change. And there can be no change within the system at this point. And as your ruminations indicate, Whites are on their own. Even Asians voted with the other minorities for Obama. I mean I hope no one still expects all the men of the world to unite against the Feminists and Liberals. That’s not the way it works.
“…single mothers are amongst the most miserable of all our citizens, after all…”
I agree with the premise of this article, and I think that the US is heading towards the same trajectory as the East German model (minus the massive doping of athletes in the name of national pride; that wouldn’t fly these days), but I would dispute the assertion that the average single mother (as a result of divorce or as a result of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but not as a result of widowhood) is amongst the most miserable of all of our citizens.
I would say that many all-male or supermajority-male demographics are far more miserable than a whorish single mother or a single mother who filed for divorce under spurious reasons (like being unhappy).
Here are some more miserable demographics where the majority of said demographics are male:
1) death row inmates;
2) prisoners overall, especially since in apples to oranges comparisons women get shorter sentences for more severe offenses;
3) employees in fatality-prone occupations, since it isn’t gaining traction that a hostile work environment involves fatalities, not misogynist epithets once in a great while;
4) child support payees;
5) alimony payees;
6) the homeless;
7) combat soldiers;
8) soldiers in general; and
9) ex-cons who can’t pay their debts to society, because for example, they have no way of being rehabilitated due to laws requiring them to reveal the felony conviction to employers
Any commenter below want to give me other examples of supermajority-male demographics that are almost guaranteed to be more miserable than whorish single mothers with out of wedlock pregnancies or divorced mothers who filed for divorce for clearly suspect reasons?
I guess 4) and 5) should say “payers”
Brilliant post
Immigration is slavery, & consolidates a group of slaves who see’s their plantation masters as saviours
Price you really need to take things all the way
We have single mothers, precisely because single women are the ultimate slaves
Single women, the ultimate slaves to government, theyre under-education & refusal to do real work,
Automatically makes them the ultimate slave
Which is also why race & immigration is brutally forced in the U.S
It’s not just about destroying families & mens ability to work
Its about enslaving them & forcing them to see corporations & government as their saviors, not out of choice, but out of desperation
Desperation DELIBERATELY built by the government & the military
THIS is the REAL shape of politics & the military & the courts… THIS is what REAL politics is really about
My apologies Mr price. I do not wish to hijack your excellent article. Thought I better make another flying visit to make you ( Americans) aware of what is happening in Europe i.e Cyprus. It does seem the news is always slow to reach you.
The people of Cyprus have just discovered ( Saturday ) that the pending bank holiday will see anyone with less than 100,000 Euros deposited in the bank to have approx 7% confiscated by the government anyone and 10 % for anyone with over 100,000 to help pay for the EU bail out ( of the banks )
This could be the domino for the predicted next global financial crash ?
America next ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEupDM-kfhA
The great Cyprus bank robbery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDXtHsz2q6Q&feature=player_embedded
@geographybeefinalisthimself
You can add married men who are dually enslaved by their mortgage and job on one hand (they can’t quit, falling behind on your mortgage very quickly gets your house and car seized and sold) and their marriage contract on the other (he can’t divorce, she too would liquidate him)
Corporations know married men are in a weaker position than single men and exploit that fact.
@W. F. Price:
If you’re interested in reading on the historicity of the Bible, there’s a book called ‘A History of God’ by Karen Armstrong. Here is a good video summary of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8
The videos are part of a series that you might find interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A
Anyways, read it or check out the summary and let me know what you think.
And since you mentioned the Pope, I’m very interested in what you have to say about his recent retirement, especially the real causes of it.
Off topic, I was wondering why you didn’t make an article about Congress passing VAWA in its new version.
@oddsock:
This will kill the saving habit for the Middle Class. Rich people can always move their money to foreign bank accounts, Middle Class people are stuck. This may also lead to a bank run where large numbers of people withdraw their money from the banks to make sure no more of it gets seized. A bank run on such a scale is very likely to trigger a financial crisis in the short term (which could, in turn, lead to a recession or a depression) and, in the long term, will lead to the freezing of savings for the Middle Class and a drop in upwards social mobility.
The fiat currency system is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the destruction of the value of the existing money supply through inflation and printing more money. Meaning, those who save will be punished because their money will be worth less even if none of it is seized.
In addition, Keynesian “knob-twiddling” policies of lowering interests to encourage spending (and thus growth and economic activity) simultaneously punish savers.
All these together spell doom for savings for the Middle Class.
Regarding debt, it is built into the monetary system, so even if a proper (IMO progressive) taxation scheme coupled with frugal spending was implemented and all the loopholes for rich people (to avoid taxes or move their income and wealth to tax havens and offshore bank accounts) were closed, debt would still exist and accumulate, because money, under the current, fraudulent, monetary system, when it is created, it is created AS debt.
Obliquely related to what you wrote: http://toqonline.com/archives/v6n4/FaussetteV6N47x10.pdf
And the West must be the first place to happily inflict this family destruction on themselves.
@ George B.
Thanks for the heads up.
The master plan is to marginalize the caucasian male, who has so dominated the rise of western civilization. When references are made to increasing “revenue” by taxing “those that can afford to pay a little more”, they’re talking about a tax on white male hedgemony – old rich white men and the corporations they control.
This is why if you’re a single woman and/or minority you vote Democrat; because Democrats seek “fairness” by paying for the expansion of government via taxing the “rich” more. This is “justice” for white male hedgemony; control and domination over people of color and women. The Democrats seek to “equalize” this imbalance by making rich white men pay for health care and other entitlements.
Liberal white men feel quite righteous about this because “it’s about time” women and minorities are equalized, even if it’s through redistribution of privilaged white male capital. This is Obama’s domestic doctrine.
On a more contemporary note, destruction of the ‘nuclear family’ was one of Marx ‘ten planks’. We’ve allowed most of the rest to be implemented as well. Seem’s despite the intent of men all societies progress from liberty, to republic, to communism, to despotism and ultimately to revolution – then the cycle begins again. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to evaluate where we are on that continuum.
This is right on. I have written on the concept, but never read this book. Now I will have to. It is very hard to separate what supposed female bashing ancients did in the past. However, as we now are slowly moving from the feminist narrative of history we will start to see more of this.
The funny thing is, many of these rulers knew exactly what they were doing, and how it would work. We forget that though they did not possess English translations of every work known to man; nor the internet; they still knew which policies were effective based on their nations past experience written in their native tongue.
The more of them we discover, the more of ourselves we discover; and feminists will have a whole nother family size can of worms to contend with.
oddsock
Americans have taken their money out of savings and have invested in ar-15′s , magazines and ammunition.
You Might Also Like :
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah
Family destruction is one of the ways Communism is making it’s way into the west. Kruschev said communism must be given to the west in small doses then one day they will wake up an be Communist.
Kind of like putting a frog in water and very slowly turning up the heat to the boiling point.
Why do govts. follow Kensyian anyways. He was a bigot and a perv, but then aren’t many people in govt.
PS. I saw part of a documetary(don’t remember the name) in the 1990s where it said in 1993 archeological evidence was found to prove King David existed.
Top post, you definately have a superior knack for drawing seemingly disparate topics into a unified whole.
I often wondered why empires practiced population transfers (from the Babylonians to the British) and this post is the most well thought out explanation I have read to date. To tie it to modern state family policy is simply brilliant.
Definately gives an inside view into how the power elite operate.
I don’t believe any of this is done purposefully. I think it is all just the natural result of powerful people without moral codes doing what is in their own best interests. You cannot fight it because their is nothing to fight. The devil is a phantom. I do not mean to sound pessimistic. However, the more you study history, the more you see that this is just the way of things. You can only save yourself. That is why all wise men eventually retreat to philosophy and mythology.
The new favored barbarians and pet mercenaries at the gate include:
1. Sodomites and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
2. Buggerers and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
3. Beastials and Incestees and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
4. Whores, Harlots, Prostitutes and Parasites and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
5. Illegal migrants / Foreign criminals and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
6. Single mothers, Divorcees and Sexually Deviant Separatists and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
7. The Drug addled and Drug addicted and the lifestyle class of its practitioners.
Yet, the creation, maintenance and protection of these class demographics of loyal captive dependents must include mention of not only the parasitic redistributees but also the paid redistributors and enforcers.
The vast army of these repulsively ugly and thoroughly detestable bureaucrats as salaried redistributors and paid enforcers stand head and shoulders in destructive potency above all the other human vermin mentioned already … as an omnipresent, omnipotent force in support of more and more social perversion for careers, benefits and profit.
And when the taxed, borrowed, confiscated, seized and printed cash monies needed to pay these pen-pushing animals runs out, they forcibly impound and commandeer peoples property, children, incomes, homes, bank accounts and savings.
“The Elamites, for example, were transplants from Afghanistan, which is a long, long way from Israel”
Some of these Elamites are still a problem
@ Poiuyt
Initially after my divorce, the ex and I shared custody fifty fifty and there was no child support “ordered” for either of us and I was happy because of this. But, I found out I wasn’t off the hook. It took the ex about two years to spend the settlement that I had to pay her after four years of marriage misery and being her sole support. At that point, she still didn’t get a job and with fifty percent custody was able to go on state aid for all the state aid bullshit. Other than continuing to think she was an insane leach, I didn’t think too much about it until I got the letter from the DA notifying me that I was going to have to pay back some of what the state had given to her. The rationale? The state aid given to her was “for the children”, and the state determined that I, as the father of the children, should have to pay them back that money the money based on my “ability to pay.” Before that, I didn’t know what a case law was. But, someplace in my state an idiot judge decided that the rationale made sense and it then became law. After an insane and trying day in court, I asked the judge if I could talk to him personally afterwards and he said yes. So, with him, the district attorney, my attorney, the typist lady and the Sherrif, we went into the judges office. I first told the DA that the state had already had a big hand in making my life a living hell by tempting my mentally unhealthy ex-wife into neglecting me and extorting me. And, as this meant the state had a big hand in destroying my marriage, it means the state also had a big hand in harming my sons, who no long exist in a family. Regarding the payback of money’s to the state, I told the DA that if Iowa wants to support women who desire to leach off the system, that is their choice and has nothing to do with me whatsoever. And then I addressed everyone in the room and told them all that they were making their livings at my expense and the expense of other men just like me. The judge said that I’d made a lot of good points, but that he could only follow the law. I remember chuckling to myself because everyone in the room, including the DA could tell that I so desperately wanted to get my hands around his neck. I’m not positive, but I think that they might have actually understood why. God bless all you guys on the Spearhead even if you don’t believe in God, it doesn’t hurt to cover your bets.
And what do we actually get for their services? Wives from hell, destroyed families and men that have to go through hell.
The natural family has always been an important counterweight to the power of the state, so it only stands to reason that totalitarian states should attempt to break it apart. Note the Soviet experiment to turn children into wards of the state. The Soviet experiment ultimately ran aground, but it appears that the current experiment to achieve the same thing in Western societies might actually achieve its frightening goals.
@ Norm
Yes, you are very correct. After the Soviet empire collapsed and the west had access to many of its files, much of what was feared about Communistic infiltration into the USA was correct. While communism collapsed in Eastern Europe it continued to grow in the USA led by a movement of people who were first set up by the Soviets. Their ultimate goal was/is the destruction of American Society. One of the ways to doing so was the destruction of religious and moral values. Another was the destruction of the American Family. I am not saying that the liberals (and some conservatives) that promulgated all the absurd family and divorce laws are communist. I am saying that they were stooges of a wider movement. Communism seeks to make itself appealing through the basest of human impulses including greed, avarice, jealousy and pride. This is what probably drives the majority of divorcing women to leave their husbands.
Took a minuet to see the outline of your argument but , Your right . Feminism is a tool (and it sounds great ) . The Power grab is From HHS .
Feminism is a tool “would make a great shirt .
Thompson May be wrong all day about his Metaphysical idea’s of God , But write on the money about civil religion . Civil Religion being solid and easy to nail down .
The problem is when pundits mix the two up and can no longer tell the difference . We see this all the time now in Media . This developing Civil religion can be spotted by men of great intelligence like Thompson. Because of there ability to see the historical truth of the Bible .
Nice .
Oh The Feminist spoiler .
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives
these narratives are written as expressions of Israel’s relationship to God.
Not looked at by any Logical man as Historically true .
The shimmy is the Church was just giggling a little bit when he suggested the Historical facts as the Topic and not the byline .
Feminists Do this all the time , Blah Blah Blah , Why are all the figures in the Bible Men , Blah Blah Blah .
The same Logic applies .It was written as a narrative to Israel’s relationship to God , Not as Show me” How to” book on Life .
Simply insert the name of your favorite Baseball player in any verse and you will see the logic . I personally use Micky Mantel .
Looks like you made the list of the wanna be manosphere Welmer
http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/women-and-manginas-will-resurrect-hitler-rather-than-accept-men-have-rights/
I am against Universal Suffrage because of the exploitative nature of “democracy.”
An FB post of mine:
“This may not be a popular idea, and also may fly in the face of my libertarianism in some of your minds, but I honestly don’t believe in Universal Suffrage.
“Let me define Universal Suffrage: Any adult who is a citizen of a given nation and subject to the governing body of that given nation can vote in any public election.
“Let me state why I am against this idea: because, it never seems to fail throughout history, that peoples eventually learn that they can vote for more treasures from the treasury, at the expense of those who are forced at gun-point to contribute to that treasury. GOVERNMENT (note: not private) welfare is the candy Mr. Predator Politician uses to lure in Mr. Down-on-his Luck to vote for him. Sure, you can say tax cuts act the same way, but this doesn’t count as the tax is the theft, and a cut in theft is NOT a gift.
“Anyhow, people who receive money from a body that is capable of extracting more money, without the requisite contribution that goes into fair trades, are at a conflict of interest. It is infinitely easier to vote for some political shark that promises you a guaranteed meal 3 times a day than it is to guarantee yourself your meals via your labor. Making that meal available has to be at the expense of someone who could make two meals available to themselves 3 times a day. Government creates nothing and cannot print and feed.
“This includes workers of a given governing body. Whether the person is on welfare, or is trading time for money, they both have a conflict of interest when they are given the right to vote in elections that could earn them a bigger paycheck. I must include the government worker, the social security/medicare recipient, and the welfare recipient into the same group.
“None of these people should be casting ballots, as it’s likely very few of them would cast a ballot for someone or something that would /reduce/ their gifts from the treasury. When people who receive government pay can vote, it skews the winners of these races toward those who promise the biggest treasures to the most voters!
“Now, who do I think should have the vote? Any citizen, subject to the laws and influence of a governing body, who is resident for a minimum reasonable period under given body, who doesn’t receive money from a given body, who pays any kind of tax to that body, should have the right to vote in elections involving that body. Recipients of SocSec should be barred from Federal Elections but not State Elections. Recipients of free state healthcare or food assistance should be barred from state elections but not federal or local elections.
“If you’re a government contractor for the Feds, no federal vote for you. If you’re an employee of a prison in a given state, no state vote for you. If you’re a clerk or judge in a given county, no county vote for you.
“I think this is quite fair. I only state this because the government can forcefully take your money away from you and spend it as they please. It is not right for a group of people to come together, steal from another group of people by proxy via an organization called “government”, and pay themselves with those stolen funds. Now, if instead of forced domestic taxation government merely taxed imports/exports and provided their services on a VOLUNTARY BASIS where you bought those services, and implemented a poll tax on any voter rich or poor, then I’d say lift the voter restriction.
“Forcing group A to pay for group B, because there’s more people in group B to vote for that forced payment, is WRONG WRONG WRONG! Supporting such policy is akin to supporting thievery!”
I used to be a libertarian and it’s funny how they don’t realize that you need a few restrictions to keep people from voting for more restrictions.
“These displaced peoples were dependent on the ruler for their very lives, and could be counted on to support him against disgruntled native populations…”
Plundering the Peter Tribe to buy the support of the Paul Tribe was and is always a temporary situation. Rulers die, empires wane, and the people they wronged exact a terrible revenge. I quote John Glubb’s excellent book, “The Fate of Empire”:
“The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.
“Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”
Absolutely brilliant article which exposes the paychopathy of our current leadership and its population of dependents. Why think independently or actually work when you can enslave someone else and use their own children as an excuse? Uncivilized.
Today I met a charming young lady from Armenia- who was coming around to do a space survey at the office. Before long- we started chatting about all kinds of things (travel, Armenia, music, social trends, etcccc.) – it went on for a delightful 15 or 20 minutes. I ended up showing her my collection of Eurasian artifacts and my personal stash of non-work books on Eurasia. What a breath of fresh air — especially after dealing with that sorry excuse for a woman AKA American Professional Woman. I didn’t detect one shred of the bitterness and hunger for power that Amerikunts exude as naturally as they breathe. May G-d pave the way for their own self-destruction!
“…single mothers are amongst the most miserable of all our citizens, after all…”
Most miserable?
Is there any other class of people who:
- collects so much money from government?
- gets so many other social benefits from government?
- always has the courts and the police on their side, in any conflict?
- participates so little in the real economy by their own labor?
- and, despite all this, can still profile themselves as victims, even though they became mother 100% by their own decision?
I would not call them miserable, I rather call them very clever and very successful.
And many young women see them too as successful and role models, and will follow in their footsteps to choose this parasitic lifestyle.
bruno-
Have you actually TALKED to some of these women? It’s not just bitchyness, somewhere inside a lot of them KNOW that they fucked up badly someplace.
It usually takes until they are post-menopause and feeding a herd of cats to realize the truth, that they were fucking miserable the whole time they were riding the gravy train.
There is literally an epidemic of ‘successful’ women taking antidepressants. It’s not just to get high, it’s to smother this huge feeling of emptiness and uselessness they get despite being career-driven leeches. Cover it with a warm blanket of uppers to make them feel like they are leaving something with the world.
They are incapable of recognizing WHAT they are missing, since they will fight to the death to maintain their point of view, but have a hard time fighting the subconscious screaming that tells them that a few years after their death they will be lucky to be a wikipedia entry, and no one will leave flowers on their graves. If they are lucky and canadian, some tasteless feminist twit will make a bench with a pussy on it basically pointing to the one real, tangible job that they ignored and eventually failed.