Saturday, 28 July 2018

Civilisation?

When we look back through time to ancient history, we often read about earlier 'civilisations', such as the Mayans, the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztecs. We read of their great achievements, such as architecture,engineering and philosophy and literature. We also read about the casual slaughter of their fellow humans.

how civilised

HUNDREDS of human skulls harvested in bloody human sacrifice rituals and put on public display were discovered by Mexican archaeologists studying the lost Aztec city of Tenochtitlan.


The tzompantli were first described by the Spanish conquistadors in 1519 when they landed in Central America.
Some historical accounts of the ghastly skull racks estimated as many as 130,000 decapitated heads out in public display.
The bizarre skull racks where assembled into multiple rows of severed heads expertly threaded onto wooden poles which held thousands of skulls at once.
INAH bioarchaeologist Ximena Ch├ívez Balderas said the skin and flesh were most likely peeled away from the skulls after sacrifice.

At the time historians were shocked to learn from the finding men, women and children were all selected for human sacrifices.
Rodrigo Bolanos, a biological anthropologist investigating the dig said: “We were expecting just men, obviously young men, as warriors would be, and the thing about the women and children is that you’d think they wouldn’t be going to war.”
The blood-soaked temple was the city’s main place of worship and human sacrifice dedicated to the god of war Huitzilopochtli and the god of rain Tlaloc.
They had a god of rain, and they thought that he needed human blood to make the rain fall. It's hard to put oneself into the frame of mind of a society that will slaughter its own children just because they think it will produce some rain. Or is it? We'll see later in this post that it's really quite easy to see how they reached such a barbaric level, as they had no moral authority.

What about the Romans? Everyone seems to agree they were a remarkably civilised Empire as far as I can tell. They fought some bloody wars and conquered many nations, but that's part and parcel of being human, war is always on the horizon. Were they civilised? No, they weren't. 

 'Gladiators were an expensive investment for those who ran the gladiator schools, so it was preferable that the fighters did not die on the field – meaning they had to be strong enough to last more than one fight. Contrary to popular belief, not many gladiators actually fought to the death. Some historians say one in five died in battle, others one in ten, yet most only lived to their mid-twenties anyway – shocking when compared to today’s average! However, it was also commonplace at fights held at the Coliseum for the Emperor to have the final say as to whether the combatants lived or died – often invoking the opinions of the audience to help decide the matter. So whether you fought well or not, your fate could lie ultimately in the hands of your ruler.'

Have you noticed that these 'civilisations' share a love of blood and death, especially when it's their fellow humans involved? Imagine fighting to the best of your ability to survive, and then another man who happened to be Emperor, along with a crowd of blood-thirsty drunkards, all gave you the thumbs down, and suddenly you're dead. What does that tell us about the Romans love for their neighbour, or the value they placed on human lives?

Well, they eventually came to value their entertainment so much that human versus human became a little too boring to satisfy their blood-lust, so they spiced things up by introducing wild animals into their 'games'.

'The cultural juggernaut known as the Roman Games began in 242 B.C., when two sons decided to celebrate their father's life by ordering slaves to battle each other to the death at his funeral. This new variation of ancient munera (a tribute to the dead) struck a chord within the developing republic. Soon, other members of the wealthy classes began to incorporate this type of slave fighting into their own munera. The practice evolved over time — with new formats, rules, specialized weapons, etc. — until the Roman Games as we now know them were born.
In 189 B.C., a consul named M. Fulvius Nobilior decided to do something different. In addition to the gladiator duels that had become common, he introduced an animal act that would see humans fight both lions and panthers to the death. Big-game hunting was not a part of Roman culture; Romans only attacked large animals to protect themselves, their families or their crops. Nobilior realized that the spectacle of animals fighting humans would add a cheap and unique flourish to this fantastic new pastime. Nobilior aimed to make an impression, and he succeeded. [Photos: Gladiators of the Roman Empire]
With the birth of the first "animal program," an uneasy milestone was achieved in the evolution of the Roman Games: the point at which a human being faced a snarling pack of starved beasts, and every laughing spectator in the crowd chanted for the big cats to win, the point at which the republic's obligation to make a man's death a fair or honorable one began to be outweighed by the entertainment value of watching him die.
Twenty-two years later, in 167 B.C., Aemlilus Paullus would give Rome its first damnatio ad bestias when he rounded up army deserters and had them crushed, one by one, under the heavy feet of elephants. "The act was done publicly," historian Alison Futrell noted in her book "Blood in the Arena," "a harsh object lesson for those challenging Roman authority."
The "satisfaction and relief" Romans would feel watching someone considered lower than themselves be thrown to the beasts would become, as historian Garrett G. Fagan noted in his book "The Lure of the Arena," a "central … facet of the experience [of the Roman Games. … a feeling of shared empowerment and validation … " In those moments, Rome began the transition into the self-indulgent decadence that would come to define all that we associate with the great society's demise.'
I'm a cat lover, but I feel sad when my cats catch a mouse or a bird, so I doubt I would have enjoyed the sight of humans being ripped to pieces (whilst still alive) just for an afternoon's entertainment. Perhaps I have a different view of what it means to be civilised?

The Greeks though, surely they were the most civilised of all previous civilisations?  No, they were just as bad.

In ancient times, the inhabitants of the Greek island of Crete practiced human sacrifice to appease gods whom they believed threatened them with earthquakes. In a December 20 lecture at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, archaeologist and lead excavator Maria Vlazaki-Andreadaki addressed the evidence of ritual sacrifice that occured at the ancient palace of Kydonia, located on a hilltop on Crete.
Vlazaki-Andreadaki explained that a “great disaster”—which per calculations from the Technical University of Crete corresponds to an earthquake around 6.5 to 7.5 on the Richter scale—prompted the ancient Kydonians to perform human sacrifice to appease the deities they thought were responsible, according to Archaeology News Network. In addition to various animal skulls, Vlazaki-Andreadaki and her colleagues discovered the skull of a young girl that had been “cut up” by a sword in an incredibly precise manner.
“It is a shocking image,” she told the audience, according to Archaeology News Network.

The earthquakes did not abate.

“We cannot avoid mentioning human sacrifice in Minoan Crete,” Vlazaki-Andreadaki, who also serves as the Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture and Sports, said according to Archaeology News Network. “Finding the bones of the young woman, studying them, reassembling them on the skull, and observing their being split with a sharp instrument at their ‘seams’ in conjunction with ritual acts, should not be surprising.”

The reason it shouldn’t be surprising is that Greek mythology is rife with stories of human sacrifice, especially of young virgins. Periods of famine and natural disaster, as well as just before the onset of war, were the times in which ancient Greeks most typically turned to such practices, Archaeology News Network reported Andreadaki-Vlazaki as saying. These accounts tend to portray such victims meeting their fate willingly, if not particularly happily, and feeling a sense of duty.
In the lead-up to the Trojan War, King Agamemnon unwittingly angered the goddess Artemis by killing one of her sacred deer, upon which she essentially held the winds hostage—putting his fleet dead in the water—until he sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia. In the setup of the tale of Theseus and the Minotaur, King Minos of Crete forced Athenians to compensate for the death of his son by sending seven young men and seven young women into his labyrinth, where the Minotaur would eat them. Those chosen were generally described as beautiful and virginal, according to Ancient History Encyclopedia.'
I like beautiful virgins as much as the next man, but prefer to keep them alive, call me uncivilised if you like, but 'thou shalt not kill' carries more weight for me than trying to appease an earthquake god. Oh, and the Greeks seem to be taking steps backwards as far as their choice of gods is concerned, so watch out if you're a Greek virgin female, who knows what may lie ahead? Mankind is intent on a certain kind of civilisation isn't it, the lust for human blood is always there. You ever wonder why, or more importantly, how we can turn into something better, something that is worthy of the word 'civilised'?

How about if we look at more recent civilisations?  The Japanese for example, what a fantastic country, great culture, so polite and deferential as a people. Surely they're near the pinnacle of civilisation? Actually, no, they'd be down at the bottom of the pile.

There's a long list at that link of the Japanese atrocities during the period of the Second World War, it's interesting that they even resorted to cannibalism:


Lord Russell relates the story of a young American pilot who was captured, murdered, and eaten by Japanese officers on the island of New Britain. The story is narrated by Havildar Chandgi Ram who had been shipped to New Britain with other Indian Army prisoners of war and forced to work as a slave labourer for the Imperial Japanese Army.
"On 12 November 1944, I was digging a trench for the Japanese in the Totabil area of New Britain. About 1600 hours, a single-engined United States fighter plane made a forced landing about a hundred yards away from where I was working. The Japanese from Go Butai Kendebo Camp rushed to the spot and seized the pilot, who could not have been more than twenty years old, and had managed to scramble out of the plane before the Japs could reach him.
"About half an hour from the time of the forced landing, the Kempei Tai * beheaded the pilot. I saw this from behind a tree and watched some of the Japanese cut flesh from his arms, legs, hips and buttocks and carry it off to their quarters. I was so shocked at the scene and followed the Japanese just to find out what they would do with the flesh. They cut it in small pieces and fried it.
"Later that evening, a senior Japanese officer, of the rank of major general, addressed a large number of officers. At the conclusion of his speech, a piece of fried flesh was given to all present who ate it on the spot."
Most would describe the Japanese as civilised back then, so how come they were merrily eating their fellow humans, and taking others as sex-slaves? What is missing from their nation is a set of rules, rules that set man apart from blood-thirsty cannibals, rules that don't come from other men, but from the only God that gives us wisdom and justice and freedom (from our own barbaric natures). You know his name, Jehovah, the God who also gave us His Son as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of those who believe in Him.

And so what about England and Wales today (and America too), the cradles of Western Christian faith? Surely we're civilised, even though we're no longer faithful Christian nations? We can't have forgotten the rules that Alfred the Great adopted from Jehovah (via Moses) already can we?

Sorry to disappoint you, but we're as bad as all of the civilisations mentioned above, if not worse.


The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year  (2014) was the highest in five years, driven by growing numbers of women in their 30s and 40s who are terminating a pregnancy, official figures show.
More women are having multiple abortions, according to the annual statistics released by the Department of Health. Almost four in 10 terminations are now carried out on women who have undergone the procedure before. Fifty women had each had eight terminations, the figures revealed.
In all, 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales last year. That was 1,253 (0.7%) more than the 184,571 performed in 2014, and the largest number since the 189,931 carried out in 2011.
(The Department of 'Health' is doing its job so well).

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service said: “The last decade has seen a considerable rise in the proportion of women having terminations who are either in a relationship or married.” Last year 70% of women ending a pregnancy were either married or had a partner – a big rise from 48% in 2005.
 (Tough luck fathers-to-be, but you have no say whatsoever in the life or death of your children these days, it's entirely up to the woman and the state, a lethal combination if ever there was one).

It's no brighter elsewhere in the West:

The West has, with the help of the suicidal progressive movement, caused its own decline. Italy has the lowest birth rates in 150 years, with a 1.4 percent fertility rate, Denmark 1.7 percent, Switzerland 1.5 percent, Portugal 1.2 percent and Germany 1.4 perent, according to 2016 numbers from World Bank. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and other surveys, abortion rates in Scandinavia, U.K. and France rate as high as 20-30 percent, Germany, Finland and Benelux 11-14 percent. Since abortion was first legalized in the 1970s, Germany has removed 120,000 annually, France around 200,000, Netherlands 30,000, Norway 15,000 yearly and Sweden 35,000. Tally the numbers; they are massive.
In the U.S., over 50 million have been lost to abortion since 1960, according to former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham in what he calls “The end of Christian America.” If you add the pictures of the screaming women, fuming with anger and rage in pro-abortion parades, you know you are watching the end of a culture. No childless society can survive.
During university fieldwork among Muslims in Kenya in 2004, I was confronted with the following paradox: A Muslim leader asked me why Westerners call Saudi Arabia “barbarians” when they chop off the hands of thieves as punishment for stealing. He was amazed that this Arabic custom could be so harshly denounced, with reference to human rights. Yet in the West, he pointed out, “The woman has the right to kill her own child,” saying that, unlike thieves, these children are innocent and gifts from God, and have committed no crime. He asked me: “Which culture is really barbarian? Which culture is most inhumane?”
The Mayans, the Aztecs, the Greeks, they were all sacrificing their fellow humans to their gods. Whilst that is still pure evil, the West today encourages women to sacrifice their own children simply as a lifestyle choice, just to supposedly give them more choices about how to live their lives, more freedom. It's the ultimate expression of progressive liberalism: murder your own innocent child whilst it is still in the womb, for your own freedom to live a life of debauchery, and don't spare a thought for the father either. Society generally doesn't blink an eye at these murders today, and in fact your rulers force you to pay taxes that are used to murder your own children.

The only route to a truly civilised nation is the one followed by Alfred the Great. Follow Jehovah and His laws. It's not complicated and it's not difficult to do. Be on guard for the evil-doers who will constantly be trying to move you away from God's ways, cast them out of your lands, or put them to the sword if need be, as long as you follow Jehovah's word on the subject and take His guidance, you can rest assured you will be creating civilisation and destroying evil-doers.

As always, I will finish up with a word of advice to my readers, some of whom may not be Christians. If you rely on men for your rules, you will turn to evil. If you rely on men to fight your battles, you will lose. If you rely on men to plan your economy, or to run your nation's affairs, you will end up with barbaric chaos. You may be aware that the West is nearing chaos, within 20 years, we'll be there.

Do not be so vain and foolish to think you can regain Christian civilisation with just the empty shell of Christian values, but without the faith. Jehovah will not be interested in a veneer of obedience, or a nod to His laws and commands and statutes. You willl only win this battle by personally seeking God, finding Him, and committing to live according to His ways. Not only will you win here on earth, you will win for eternity, and you will live a life full of love for your neighbours (not the whole world, just your neighbours), and a life blessed with huge families and cohesive tribes of your kith and kin. I pray that our men will wake up to this fact, and begin reading or listening to the Bible, as time is not on our side. Amen.

'When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.'

Saturday, 14 July 2018

Trousers for men, skirts and dresses for women


 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.'
                                                                        (Deuteronomy 22:5)

As the nation has (been) turned away from Jehovah, we've seen a rise in feminism, and feminists love to wear trousers, believing it makes them somehow equal to men? That's impossible of course. Cultural pressures mean that even non-feminists mostly wear trousers these days. The madness has yet to swing the other way very much, although transvestites and others of that ilk who are male do wear skirts sometimes. They literally are an abomination to look at, but God hates it because it seeks to subvert and pervert His natural hierarchy, as laid out in the Garden of Eden, whereby woman is subject to her husband:

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'
                                                                   (Genesis 3:16)

Women become depressed when they don't have a man to rule over them, because God gave them that desire. Those who seek our destruction want the roles reversed in order to increase the chaos that results. Family formations shrink, births drop, and the very stability of society vanishes when the natural order ordained by Jehovah is turned on its head, and clothing is simply a part of the natural order, and was adhered to by this God-fearing nation for well over 1,000 years, vanishing in the blink of an eye from the 1960s onward.

But now the evil one is taking aim at our children, as the anti-Christian crusades are now being targeted at school uniforms, and more and more schools are simply banning skirts.

The writer of that linked article is a woman, obviously one that hates men, and so she is keen to de-masculinise schoolboys and masculinise girls, by seeking to switch the clothing they wear. I see that some schools are attempting to justify these moves as a way to avoid upsetting the transgender children they have brainwashed into believing they're another sex. I'd be upset if I was a boy who thought he was a girl and saw other girls wearing skirts, surely that would be most upsetting. Like me, you may not grasp the logic of their argument, but when you're dealing with the father of lies and his progeny in state education, they don't much rely on logic, more on lies. When I was at school, any boy that fancied he was a girl would have literally been treated as mentally ill. Of course it was incredibly rare in England and Wales to see that sort of thing back in the 70s and 80s, mainly because TV and the state weren't yet promoting it to our children. Now it's heavily promoted and indeed it is now part of 'British Values' that such nonsense is forced into children's impressionable minds from a very early age (home-school your child if you want to help to save their soul and sanity).

From the Guardian article linked above:

'That schools want to move on from outmoded definitions of gender and create a safe environment for trans children is a genuinely laudable step forward. It’s just a shame that it couldn’t have happened through a braver conversation about which versions of gender identity are safe to express in public, which ones are not, and what power dynamics might lie behind those differences. I want to live in a world where boys can waltz into school wearing a full-on taffeta gown (as long as it’s in the uniform code), and the only comment anyone makes is on the quality of the needlework. Challenging boys to be more feminine is a more productive way schools can challenge the gender binary, and there’s no reason why it can’t be done. Come on, headteachers and governors: let your pupils know it’s OK for the boys to wear skirts if they want to. They have nothing to lose but emotional repression.'

It's incredible to read such nonsense, and at the same time realise that her view is now mainstream.
Perhaps you can see why Jehovah states that men and women wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is an abomination to him. He knows where it leads, He knows because he saw it when Eve was duped in Eden by the serpent.

Well, Jehovah did also tell us that our children would be cursed if we turned away from following His laws and statutes, so don't say you weren't warned, this is just the start of the storm that lies ahead, and we deserve all of it.

I still pray the South West of England will turn back to God's ways, and Wales too, the Celts of Dumnonia embraced God's word long ago, after dark times, so there is hope that we will once again turn to our God, but I suspect we have a long period of suffering ahead before we realise how badly we've let God down and before men start to realise the revival of Christian faith is literally the only way back to blessed times. In the meantime, husbands can help matters by instructing their wives to wear skirts and dresses. Try it, see what happens, you may be surprised. Then try listening to the bible, the surprises will come thick and fast.

Sunday, 8 July 2018

Free will, not Omniscience

I was marginally involved in a Twitter spat between Christians and atheists yesterday. During the 'debate', an atheist questioned how we can have free will, and yet have a God that is omniscient? The Christian involved in the 'debate' weakly responded 'why can't both be true'?

The atheist correctly challenged him over that, saying 'foreknowledge precludes free will', and the Christian incorrectly responded 'just because God knew ahead of time, does not negate our will to make decisions'.

I had the opportunity to comment this morning, as the other participants were American, and had been commenting whilst I was asleep. I wrote the following:

'Jehovah does not know ahead of time what we will do, that's Islamic predestination. Please understand your own God, Jehovah mostly leaves the humans to get on with things, only entering the action when called, or according to His will.'
I then quoted some scripture to prove that Jehovah really has given us total free will, and hence (logically) cannot know what we will do from one moment to the next:

 '12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for NOW I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. '
I've emphasised NOW to illustrate the point that Jehovah only realised Abraham's faith AFTER the offer to sacrifice his son for God. Neither the Christian or the atheist responded to my two tweets above, so I declare victory against the atheist, and hope that the Christian is now more enlightened about his faith.

It's sad to see Christians who don't understand their own faith, but it's very common in these dark times, so I pray that this blog will help others to recognise the wonderful gift that free will is for us, as opposed to the predestination that Islamists believe comes from their god Allah. Like programmed robots, they know from a very early age that nothing they do in their life really matters in the end, as it's already been decided beforehand. A very sad state of affairs. I give thanks that my God Jehovah blessed us with free will to live our lives, knowing that this was a mirror image of His own free will.

The next time a Christian responds to you by saying 'God willing', please challenge their misunderstanding and remind them that our God is perfect, unlike all of the others. 

This point was explained to me a while ago by a good friend and mentor who was the main influence in me finding my own faith, through his own obscure blog, so I want to dedicate this post to him, and thank him for his support and patience with a new believer, and I pray my obscure blog may help others, especially some local men here in South West England and Wales, to find their own faith, or to feel strengthened that they are not alone, we stand together and we shall prevail eventually, one way or another, we know victory is assured. Amen.

Saturday, 7 July 2018

Fake Christians 1

There are millions of fake Christians these days, they're everywhere, and are often referred to as 'churchians'. They tend to ignore the Bible totally, or twist it to suit their own agendas, or sometimes, they lead a flock astray, as is the case with my first example of a fake Christian.

He's the pastor at a church I attended for around 7 months. The church is small and independent, and run along democratic lines (always a recipe for disaster and heresy). Sadly the number of female members is higher than the male members, so it's a church under the indirect authority of women (that's against the teachings of St. Paul, in case you didn't realise that). It also means the church is extremely weak, as it lacks any man with authority, and so it is dying a slow death, as the average age of the congregation must be over 70 (the post-war generation that sat by whilst allowing their nation to be turned against God).

This pastor used to focus many of his sermons on the letters of St Paul as it happened, whilst at the same permitting women to have their heads uncovered in church, and allowing them to speak in church too. I say 'allow' and 'permit', but in fact he had no authority, as they were his collective boss and paid his wages too, so he had to do as they desired, and they really desired to sit and chat in church. He was a very weak man, and a hypocrite in many matters of faith.

I experienced a few instances of false doctrine over the period I was at this church. The first cropped up when I was talking to the pastor about a good friend of mine who lives in Morocco. I had given my friend an Arabic bible to read and some other Christian literature, and mentioned to the pastor that my friend's wife had told him that if he became a Christian through believing Jesus to be the son of God, that she would also choose to believe in Him, and would convert too, and so would their children. 

The pastor looked horrified, and said 'Well, she can't call herself a Christian unless and until she has a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ'. As I was still relatively new to faith I didn't say anything in response, although I knew that didn't sound correct. Subsequent reading confirmed that the 'personal relationship' mantra is a key plank of modern evangelism, but it's pure fiction, and something I will cover in another post. For now, let's just remind ourselves that Jesus is in Heaven, sat alongside God, and He left us the Holy Spirit to be our comforter here on earth. Simple enough.

Back to the pastor's comment, here is some scripture that confirms his words were totally inaccurate:

 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.'

 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.'

 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.'
You'll note it doesn't mention any 'personal relationship' at all. 

 'Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.'
So believing and confessing that Jesus is the Christ, son of God, that seems to do it, John's epistles are very clear and helpful. Perhaps the pastor has forgotten these verses, or perhaps he feels offended that simple folk in Africa can be saved just by literally having faith and belief in the fact of Jesus' status as the resurrected Son of God? Either way, he's a hypocrite and a liar.

I attended home groups with this church, for a while. They involved some bible study and some group prayer and a bit of chat. I stopped attending when one of the women prayed for the survival of the NHS (National Health Service in Britain). That's the same NHS that kills tens of thousands of unborn babies every year, and euthanises  elderly people in their care to save money. And carries out hormone therapies on young children who have been convinced they are of the opposite sex. Everyone said Amen to the prayer though (except me). Foolish and hypocritical people, all of them, with no real grasp of their faith at all, or perhaps led astray by a weak pastor.

The final straw for me was when a friend and I were organising a trip to distribute some military surplus clothing we'd bought to the local homeless folk. I'd asked the pastor if he wanted to be involved, or whether we could route the funds to purchase the clothing through the church in order to claim some tax relief on the money, and hence buy some extra supplies. I also asked him whether he could help with publicising the endeavour, as it would glorify God amongst local people, and may encourage some to consider coming along to church and finding their own faith. His wife had been very negative about seeking publicity for the mission, saying 'Christians aren't supposed to shout about the good works they do'. She was wrong, and I wrote to him to point out what scripture has to say on the matter:

'Regarding the need for us to publicise our works, it is specifically called for by Jesus Himself in scripture:

'Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Given the state of the nation, if we don't shine our light (and our good works) as the Lord commands, but seek to hide it under a bushel, we're doomed, and we're also ignoring our side of the new covenant by not glorifying God, and deserve His judgement. Yes, we are saved, but we need to obey the word of God and His son in everything we do. I'm not sure why your wife would have contrary views on the issue, but hopefully reading the above will cause her to reconsider.'
Here's his reply:

'I do feel that if money is being put through the church account and tax is being claimed back from the govt in the name of our fellowship, that the membership knows about it and is fully supportive of the purpose for which it’s being used.
You said that you are planning to do this with someone else. Is he a believer in Christ? Which church does he attend? Perhaps his church organises things differently and the money can be put through them instead.
I’m cautious about seeking publicity for what we do through the secular media. They love it when we do good public works like helping the homeless and running a food bank. However, as soon as the gospel is mentioned or people are challenged concerning life-style choices etc their attitude immediately changes and they don’t want to hear about the ultimate purpose of what we do (I.e. that people turn to Christ from sin and be rescued from eternity in the lake of fire).'
So, in order to claim back around £40 in tax relief by routing the money for the clothes through the church, he felt he needed the whole of the membership to know about it, and to be supportive of it. How's that for saltiness!

He then chose to completely ignore Jesus' own words about shining our light through the world for the glory of God, and instead to behave cautiously for fear that the media may not give a good hearing to any gospel message. So brave of him, and I'm sure that when judgement day comes this pastor will face a question or two on his choices. Weak, weak, weak, and a saltiness rating of 0% with his cautious approach. 

So, if you attend a church like this, watch out, you are being led astray, and I suggest leaving and starting your own small church, something that I plan to do in the very near future, so keep reading here if you're a Dumnonia resident.

We'll give the final word on this subject to St John:

'And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.'
Be an authentic salty Christian, not a fake. Follow scripture, keep His commands, tell the truth, confront evil, and don't worry about the consequences here on earth, instead focus on the glories that await us in heaven, for eternity no less.

Saturday, 30 June 2018

Defender of The Faith



The Queen in 1957

Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne in our nation for over 66 years now, and is the longest-serving monarch we've known. She was a beautiful young woman, who would probably have lived a quiet life had it not been for the weakness and dalliances of her uncle, Edward VIII with an American divorcee, resulting in him eventually choosing someone else's wife over his role as King, what a man. He abdicated from the throne and the Queen's father became King George VI. Interestingly, recently, the Queen blessed Prince Harry's marriage to an American divorcee, perhaps a fitting sign of the state of the nation today, which has been in steep decline during this Queen's reign.

The Queen has many titles, but this is the formal styling for this woman:


Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

You'll note that it's still acknowledged that her sovereignty is 'by the Grace of God', as are all things we enjoy on this planet. It's hard to believe that as recently as 1940, her father called for the whole nation to pray to God for the efforts to evacuate our forces from the beaches of Dunkirk:

 When Britain was close to defeat during the 2nd World War, and the entire British Army was trapped at Dunkirk, in desperation George 6th called for a National Day of Prayer to be held on 26th May 1940. In a national broadcast he instructed the people of the UK to turn back to God in a spirit of repentance and plead for Divine help.  Millions of people across the British Isles flocked into churches praying for deliverance and this photograph shows the extraordinary scene outside Westminster Abbey as people queued for prayer.  Two events immediately followed. Firstly, a violent storm arose over the Dunkirk region grounding the Luftwaffe which had been killing thousands on the beaches. And then secondly, a great calm descended on the Channel, the like of which hadn’t been seen for a generation, which allowed hundreds of tiny boats to sail across and rescue 335,000 soldiers, rather than the estimated 20-30,000. From then on people referred to what happened as “the miracle of Dunkirk”.  Sunday June 9th was officially appointed as a Day of National Thanksgiving.

Yes, miracles do happen, and Jehovah hears our prayers, especially when millions of hearts are raised to Him. Can you imagine the same thing happening today?

You'll have noticed that one of the Queen's titles is Defender of the Faith, and although this role appears last in the list, we know that the Queen professes a strong personal faith in God. But those are mere words, so let's have a look at how well she's performed in defending THE Faith, our Christian faith in Christ and the Father.

Here is a link to the Queen's first ever televised Christmas message to the nation:


Here are a few excerpts from the speech:

That it is possible for some of you to see me today is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us. Because of these changes I am not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard. How to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.
But it is not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery.
They would have religion thrown aside, morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.
At this critical moment in our history we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world if we just abandon those fundamental principles which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and Commonwealth.
Today we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.
As I consider the thousands of laws that this woman has authorised during her reign, I realise that she has lacked the 'special kind of courage' she refers to above. She somehow identified which way the wind was blowing (leftwards) in the 1950s, and warned the nation about it. And then, for the next 60 years she's approved legislation that has dismantled Christian life in these lands and allowed the march leftwards to accelerate.

Marriage, divorce, abortion, the Sabbath, sodomy, our very independence, she has never refused to sign any new law, no matter how far away from our 'ageless ideals' they have been. These ageless ideals date back to Alfred the Great and his humility and wisdom in fully accepting Jehovah's law as dictated to Moses at Sinai, and ensuring Britain became a God-fearing and obedient nation, enjoying all of God's blessings. It's ironic that her husband, a Greek chap named Philip, whinged when he had children and they took his wife's (fake) surname of Windsor, saying "I am nothing but a bloody amoeba. I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children." No doubt the millions of fathers in the decades since would offer him no sympathy whatsoever as they were systematically robbed of their children by the (anti) family court system over which his wife nominally presides, let alone those would-be fathers who saw their would-be children torn from the womb and thrown away thanks to the murderous abortion laws that his wife approved. Never a word from her, nothing to convey her disgust or horror at signing laws that went directly against the laws of our God. One can only suspect that she places a higher value on her earthly realm and her children's material legacies than on the heavenly realm and the spiritual legacies of her faithful subjects, she's certainly been totally lacking in courage in defending our faith, so that, in fact, on her watch, the faith has vanished almost entirely. Well done Your Majesty.

She has been the worst monarch in this nation's history, and as a result we have turned away from our God, and He now curses us. Her son appears to be a Godless man, engaging openly in adultery and a firm follower of socialist fashions, so I suspect he will be the last of that line, and good riddance to all of them I say, they shall reap what they have sown, their subservience to the liberals and their father of lies will no doubt be their undoing. Here's what the next King had to say about defending The Faith: 'Charles, Prince of Wales, the present heir apparent, expressed a preference to change the style and the spirit should he succeed to the throne as expected. He commented in 1994, "I personally would rather see [my future role] as Defender of Faith, not the Faith". He'll be remembered as the King who completed the work of his mother to forsake Jehovah.

The speech the Queen gave to the nation in 1957 would serve us well today, were we to even begin to recognise the dire straits we are now in:

I would like to read you a few lines from 'Pilgrim's Progress', because I am sure we can say with Mr Valiant for Truth, these words:
"Though with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage and my courage and skill to him that can get it. My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought his battles who now will be my rewarder."
Thanks for the warning Your Majesty it's a shame you chose to ignore your own words and surrendered to the liars and deceivers, and you've reigned unscathed, with your head cowed to the will of man, and turned against the God by who's Grace you reign.

I call upon the men of England and Wales today to prepare for the tribulations that lie ahead. You all have much suffering ahead, as the nation will be torn apart by wars and famine and economic collapse. You may not see it coming, but it's already started, quietly. Within just a few years everyone will recognise the perils we face.

The only question is whether you turn back to God? If you do, if you renew the covenant that Alfred the Great made with Jehovah, once more this nation will be blessed. If you don't turn back, you will never recover those former glories, you will face only misery and turmoil, for all of your days.

So, don't be stiff-necked, wise up, grab a bible, or better yet listen to it with some fellow men, it's really not hard to understand, and the truth will set you free. And maybe you'll spread the word and it'll grow like wildfire. These calm days are nearly past, the wrath of God will soon be seen and heard, let's open our hearts to His will, to His love, to His faithfulness, to His salvation, so that we may prosper once again.

Sunday, 17 June 2018

The Laws of Men





How does one walk contrary to God? It's simply by totally rejecting His ways, notably His laws and statutes. Modern 'Christians' would have us believe that the Law of Moses has been cast aside, and that we are (more or less) free to do as we please, and everything will be forgiven. They're wrong of course, but what about at the national level?

Well, Leviticus 26 (part of which is quoted above) makes it clear that if the whole nation turns away from God and His ways, that He'll chastise and punish us with great fury. Has England and Wales turned away from God's laws, or are we still holding on to the last vestages of obedience to God?

We're already suffering God's curse, and I will give you some examples of why we're lost now, and until we turn back, we'll remain accursed.

Let's start with a view from the other side, a servant of the father of lies commented on this issue in 2010, when a married couple were prevented from fostering children due to their opposition to homosexuality, based on God's views on the subject. The judge that heard the case decided in favour of the state (what a huge surprise) and against the couple and against God. In his summary, he gave his view on the legal and justice system that now exists in our nation:


  1. In the circumstances we cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society. We preface what follows with the obvious point that we live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.

  2. Religion and the law: the common law
  3. We start with the common law.

  4. Although historically this country is part of the Christian west, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century. Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. But one aspect of its pluralism is that we also now live in a multi-cultural community of many faiths. One of the paradoxes of our lives is that we live in a society which has at one and the same time become both increasingly secular but also increasingly diverse in religious affiliation.

  5. We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to "do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric; at least since the decision of the House of Lords in Bowman v Secular Society Limited [1917] AC 406 it has been impossible to contend that it is law.

I'm sure the honourable judge doesn't realise the incoherence of his position on the law these days. He might believe that he seeks to 'do right to all manner of people', but that's simply not possible. Laws are by their nature discriminatory, and as evidenced by this particular judgement, he has happily discriminated against a Christian couple seeking to foster children, and he's discriminated in favour of the state's desire to promote homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, he's discriminated against God and His laws and he's discriminated in favour of satan and his lies.  But it's noteworthy that the judiciary were quite open about this fact as far back as 2010, and I am sure they were clear amongst themselves a long time before that, although perhaps that fact was hidden from the people? And yes, the 'common law' is very common, whereas God's Law is perfectly just and right.

Also from this judge's long anti-Christian diatribe, we find the following comments, which contains an erroneous view, I wonder if you can spot it?

The starting point of the common law is thus respect for an individual's religious principles coupled with an essentially neutral view of religious beliefs and benevolent tolerance of cultural and religious diversity. A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state. It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. The court recognises no religious distinctions and generally speaking passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society. All are entitled to equal respect.

Britain is still a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen our head of state. This same Queen holds another title that proves that the honourable judge lies through his teeth:

 The Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. These titles date back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who was initially granted the title 'Defender of the Faith' in 1521 by Pope Leo X. When Henry VIII renounced the spiritual authority of the Papacy in 1534 he was proclaimed 'supreme head on earth' of the Church of England. This was repealed by Queen Mary I but reinstated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was proclaimed 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England.
So, the Queen is head of state, and is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is Defender of the Faith. How, in a monarchy, can we find a way for the Queen to NOT represent the merger of state and Christian faith? You tell me, as I don't believe it's possible, it's just another lie from the mouth of the servant of his father, the prince of darkness. I will write in the future about our Queen, who has proven to be the most useless Defender of the Faith this nation has ever had as a monarch, but in this post, we should recognise that the judiciary no longer consider us a Christian nation, with laws that owe anything to God. He's right of course. You may 'feel' we're still a Christian nation, you may go to church, you may 'believe', but the vast majority of our people have no interest in God, and even those that do ignore His commands and laws, and just play the part of Christians. For example, if you tolerate a female pastor, you're running a very high risk of not being recognised as a true follower of Christ. Woe unto you.

The judgement also makes some interesting points on the nature of law and its relationship to God:

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."

So, my fellow Dumnonians, you can see that this judge thinks you have a choice between a theocracy (yes please) and something else. He lies again however, by stating that a theocracy is autocratic. No, if the law is from God's word, and is administered by Judges who stick to that word, there is no one man in control, no need for a King, or President, or Prime Minister, just God, His law and God-fearing judges and people.

The 'something else' this judge believes we enjoy in our modern enlightened democracy is also a big fat lie. Let's drill down on this sentence:

The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So I, as an individual Christian with a consience, I am free to accept God's law.
But 'The State', an entity that didn't even exist until recent times, has the duty of thinking for itself.
(NB, we never really ever hear an explanation for who or what this 'State' is precisely).
But be reassured, the reason why the State must think for itself, and ignore God's laws, is only because it wants you, its beloved people 'to be free'. 

I am pretty sure this Christian couple didn't feel free. I am pretty sure Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans and their parents didn't feel 'free' when other liberal judges decided to deny them treatment overseas. So we need to recognise that liberalism, the seductive offer of freedom is just another big lie, and we all know who provides these lies, it's always the same, always the father of lies, who delights in trying to beat God and send men and women to their deaths, separated from their God. Do you feel free in Britain these days? Are you able to speak your mind freely about issues that concern you? Are you able to rely on The State to protect your interests and respect your privacy and allow you to be the master of your home? No, none of that applies, you have to do exactly as The State tells you these days, they will not hesitate to do as THEY please, even if it means murdering the innocent child in the womb:


“A ‘very damaged’ 13-year-old girl was ordered to have an abortion by Britain's most senior family judge, it has been revealed.
The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was impregnated by a 14-year-old boy and initially wanted to keep her baby.”
That’s right. This girl, because she was considered mentally incompetent, was forced—forced—to have her child dismembered, decapitated, and disemboweled by the medical establishment because one Sir James Munby decided that capital punishment was most appropriate for being the child of a someone he described as “very…impaired.”
Is this China, or the United Kingdom? The UK’s government intrusion has gotten draconian, mind you, but really? They also have the right to forcibly enter a female’s uterus and kill and extract her pre-born offspring?
Apparently, yes. In spite of the fact that the court was informed that she “had set her mind against a termination,” the witless fascist Munby responded that, "Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination."
Oh, good. We already shrug when children are aborted for any number of frivolous reasons, but now the State can step in and “leave to the side” the wishes of those who possess sufficient maternal instinct to desire life rather than “termination” for their offspring, and decide what is in her best interests.
Munby, by the way, demanded the abortion for this girl against the wishes of experts testifying at the trial, who warned that, "If the pregnancy were terminated I believe that this would cause considerable harm to this young girl, who would see it as an assault….Continuing the pregnancy...may have a less detrimental effect on her given her current circumstances."
Right. Because a male judge ordering a thirteen-year-old girl, against her will, to have her cervix forced open by a stranger and have her innocent pre-born child suctioned into bloody scraps is basically medical rape by any definition. And demanded, not just sanctioned, by the State, represented here by Comissar Munby.
In addition to the medical expert, the psychiatrist charged with evaluating her warned that the girl would fully understand what the abortion entailed (for some, apparently, there is still a visceral opposition to the killing of our own young), and told the judge that based on her “unambiguous” opposition to having an abortion, she should not be forced to have one.
Sir Munby’s response to the girl’s refusal and the testimony of medical experts and her psychiatrist?
"It was clearly appropriate for me to supply the necessary consent to enable the termination to proceed."
Guess what? The judge referred to in the first example is the same judge who gave the order to murder the unborn child in the second article above. Now, if only he was a Christian, he'd remember a simple law 'Thou shalt not murder' and he would throw the case out of court. But he's a liberal, he believes in your freedom, and The State wants you all to be free. What a guy.

And more recently the same judge has been advocating for the abolition of the family itself, because (obviously) he and The State want you all to be FREE to live in any way that you feel is right. Surely we all know that the family is just a throwback these days? Surely we can rely on The State to look after all of the abandoned children anyway? Yes indeed, we truly are accursed.

Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The elite seems to have lost confidence in marriage and appears intent on diluting and dismantling it. Last month we had the first same-sex ‘marriages’.
“Now we have the country’s most senior family judge suggesting that the protection of commitment be significantly downgraded.
“If divorce becomes still less serious, it will be children and the most vulnerable who suffer most.
“What we need is renewed confidence in marriage and a new institution that reflects the high values to which we once aspired and which, in the main, worked.”

Andrea Williams mentions 'the elite'. If you ever wonder who is behind the constant move leftwards, the destruction of our Christian nation, the wrecking of God's ordained family with the man as its head, wonder no more. They aren't 'elite' at all, they're just evil liars, who want to create misery in our lands purely for the sake of profit. They enjoy turning a God-fearing nation into a lost nation, but they seek to profit from the chaos that ensues. We have no excuses at all, the truth of God's ways has always been with us in our nation, for over 1400 years, and we have ourselves to blame for being duped by these profiteering liars.

Here's the honourable judge referred to in this post:


Look into his eyes, his cold dead eyes, as he attempts to smile. He is the guardian of your 'freedom', and others like him.

Just pray that you don't want the freedom to prolong your child's life, when The State decides otherwise, that's the justice of men, rather than the Justice of God's great Law.

Let's pray that we repent as a nation, with urgency, and turn back to God and His ways, as that is our only hope to avoid Hid terrible wrath. Think of Egypt, once a mighty nation, but their Pharaoh decided to do battle with God, and God smote the Egyptians, and they've never been the same since, forever a cursed nation. Let us pray that enough of us repent and turn back to God, so that He may feel able to bless us once again. I have faith this will happen, but it will be after the collapse of our nation as we know it, The State will die through its own lies, and good riddance to it. Let's allow that to happen, and be ready for the aftermath, when God will bless those who return to His ways:





Sunday, 10 June 2018

Daughters of Eve

The end of our 'civilisation' is at hand. It is here today.

We already live in a nation where very basic levels of acceptable behaviour have been cast aside, as people feel able to do and say exactly as they please, with no thought for manners, politeness, or any kind of respect whatsoever for their kith and kin, and also with absolutely no concern if what they say is true or not.

The problem is terminal now as it has spread to our women, both young and old, who have no idea how to control the emotions spinning wildly around in their heads, and so they spew them out into the world with a healthy dose of venom and pride. Like Eve, these women fancy themselves to be as smart as God, with their knowlegde of good and evil. But like Eve, they really haven't got a clue about anything at all, they're just selfish and prideful and stupid.

I'll give you two examples, both of which have crossed my path this past week, both online, rather than in real life (although I had another instance in real life just a few weeks ago too).

The first example came via a Christian online dating site that I have been on for the past 4 months, as I seek a God-fearing wife. My profile description mentions that I seek a virgin wife. That has resulted in plenty of messages from overseas (notably Asia), but none from the UK so far. Until this week, when a 50+ year-old divorced woman decided to send me a message (see below):








My reply was succinct and fairly blunt:

I assumed that perhaps she would leave me alone at that point, but no, she replied with a fine display of female rage and incoherence:

 My reply below was the final message, as I blocked her at that point, wondering what sort of a (supposedly) Christian woman would choose to address a fellow Christian in this way? For a clue, I've copied the woman's profile below, and you will no doubt draw your own conclusions:


This older woman, the same sort of age as me, has no manners, and no respect for a fellow Christian. Based on her messages I think the Holy Spirit is weak with her, if there at all. If our nation is going to thrive, we men need to keep all women firmly under control, this sort of behaviour is intolerable in a God-fearing nation, and is a sign of the perilous state of the nation today, as civilised behaviour vanishes and women feel entitled to send their silly thoughts to men, despite their wrongness.

Also during this past week I have had an online encounter with a much younger woman, who I discovered via a re-tweet appearing in my twitter feed. She appeared to be firmly pro-Brexit and anti-immigration, but her profile and twitter feed also revealed some strong liberal biases (environmentalism, pro-homosexuality, and pro-feminism). Also, she revealed that she's proud of having just one sexual partner thus far in her life, with whom she's co-habiting, but the man has yet to make an honest woman of her. Here's her twitter profile:

Some of my readers will notice the deep eye sockets and the brow ridge, both typical facial features of those with Neanderthal heritage, and she confirmed that she has a few percent of Neanderthal genes (I do too, being of Welsh heritage). I decided to communicate with her, on her twitter feed, and by direct messages and finally by asking her a couple of questions on her ask.fm link.

I am thankful to God for the encounter with this woman, and I offered to send her a spare KJV bible I have, but she didn't respond to that offer at all.

It was quite clear from her timeline that she was left-wing on many issues, and also that she was unhappy with her financial situation, working in London. She wants to have some children, and at the same time wants a career. For some reason I felt sorry for her, so I sent her a few links about neanderthal matters. As she is very pro-homosexuality, I sent her some links with facts about the terrible negative impact of that lifestyle on the men concerned, in an attempt to open her eyes to the price of sin.

Her reaction was to say: 'You sound like a radical Muslim'. She attempted to defend a homosexual lifestyle by asking: 'Why is love inherently evil? Why would God make a person gay, and then condemn them for it? It's not a choice.' I told her that 'love' doesn't enter into the equation at all, it's a fact that gay men have very promiscuous lifestyles and merely seek sexual pleasure, often in very dark and dangerous ways. Jehovah clearly states it's an abomination, and rightly so. Also, I told her that God doesn't condemn any man for his sexual orientation, as He provides both instruction on what is right and wrong, and He also gives us the Holy Spirit to help us to fight against all sin and temptation. She didn't reply to those comments, perhaps she was confused? She was certainly unaware of the impact on young people and children from the constant barrage of education and propaganda from the state, media and big business on a pro-homosexual lifestyle. Oddly unaware, even though she's bought the story hook, line and sinker. I pity the poor kids at school and the foolish parents who so freely give their children to satan's helpers. How he chuckles at their irresponsibility and naivete. 

We also had a discussion about marriage on her twitter timeline, and she was of the view that men aren't entitled to sex from their wives within marriage, only if the wife wants sex should the husband actually get it. She believed that rape was a crime within marriage in the UK, and I disputed that fact. Sadly, much to my horror, it was America I was thinking about, as the law changed in the UK in the late 1990s to allow state prosecutions of men for marital sexual abuse. She felt this was as it should be, and was ignorant of the biblical view, so I will take the opportunity to share it here:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
 As usual, the bible has God's perfect design to hand to show us how sex within a marriage should be handled. St Paul cautions against fornication, and mentions that marriage is the perfect defence against casual loveless sex, perhaps one of the easiest ways for both men and women to lose their way and their eternal souls. The husband and the wife are both instructed to 'render due benevolence' and to submit power over their bodies to one another, so that each may satisfy the other when their desires arise. Just perfect. Paul also warns against denying one's spouse their sexual marital rights, except by mutual consent, as he knew that the devil will appear with temptations in that case.

This poor young woman had experienced the aftermath of both her father and grandfather having sex outside of their marriages. I wonder if the husbands were tempted as their wives were not obeying God's commands as far as sexual relations are concerned? I'd bet money on it myself, as women do like to feel they're in control, rather than their husbands, and God barely gets a thought at all. Perhaps any woman reading this will stop to consider that the Godly Christian set-up is perfect, and ensures both husband and wife commit to one another and to satisfying their mutual sexual needs. Sex is a blessing from God, He wants us to enjoy that within marriage, in a loving way, rather than like rutting animals with strangers we barely know. The exchange with this woman on this matter did cause me some distress, as I had to accept the fact that a biblical version of marriage is literally outlawed in my nation today, which is terrible, and it's no wonder so many marriages end up in divorce, the whole thing is barely a shadow of the institution God ordained. Finally on this subject, this woman wonders why her 'boyfriend' hasn't asked her to get married yet? It's amazing how self-deluded women are to the state of affairs as regards sexual relations in this nation. They have it all, but they don't realise it's a hollow victory, leading only to their misery. And satan chuckles at their gullibility and hubris, he loves to work through the daughters of Eve, and today she tweeted: 'I wish my life were as easy as taking care of kids/a house'. It could be, so easily, but our nation's Christian traditions and laws need to be reinstated first.


Our final interaction came when I asked her a couple of questions on her ask.fm link, and I asked them anonymously, although she guessed it was me. The first question was about why we exist, although she dodged that one and just answered a different question altogether. The following questions demonstrate both her ignorance of our nation's foundations in Christianity and her own incoherence, as well as the same incredibly impolite method of communication that we saw from the older version of womanhood above. It's a sign that women in the nation are virtually feral these days, they have no self-awareness, both proclaiming they love our nation and its traditions, and at the same time behaving like children, or animals, with no self-control whatsoever. It's a very sad state of affairs. I apologise in advance for the foul language she uses:








It's terrible, really, this woman is our future, can you imagine what her children will be like?
She only cares about the nation's culture in the here and now, she hates everything that was true of our culture and values that vanished only 70 years ago, even though they stretch back over 1,000 years to tthe time of Alfred the Great. She doesn't care. 

I often think of my grandfather at these times, a proud and brave Welsh man, who died in World War 2 in his early 30s, leaving behind a wife and two children. Why did he die? We won a pointless war, but have convincingly lost the peace to the left, to satan, to evil. I wonder if this young woman ever gives one single thought to the millions of men who died for their nation, or who built everything she enjoys in her life, as she spouts her incoherent leftist evil nonsense? I doubt it, utterly self-obsessed, utterly miserable, utterly lost. If she used such foul language to my face, she'd have felt the back of my hand across her pretty face, and perhaps would have learned a valuable lesson. Perhaps this post will sting her a little bit, what do you reckon?

It's easy to finish writing a post like this one thinking 'how on earth can our nation escape this level of sin, lawlessness and feral behaviour'? I don't believe it can, and so I pray that God continues to punish and curse us as He promises us He will do for turning away from Him. Only as matters become worse can we hope to see a widespread return to faith and eternal truths, especially from the Men of the West, where faith is still alive, just about, in a few places. All it takes is a few God-fearing men, a new covenant with our God, and we will be a blessed nation again, Dumnonia can rise again, and with God behind us, we will be a great nation. 

I pray that we see this happen in the years ahead. Amen.