Poverty and the Money Changers

Poverty in Christian nations is fast approaching epidemic proportions, although in many nations, especially in Eastern Europe, it has steadily remained a problem for over 70 years, under communism and later mismanagement by corrupt capitalists. In those countries, unemployment often rises above 20% of the population, industries lie dormant among the concrete ruins of steelworks and factories, and prostitution and extortion by criminal elements is common.

In the west, we have been a bit more fortunate. Our own heavy industries and manufacturing based economies collapsed in the 1930s depression. In the years following, our satanic leaders had three options: collapse and allow the oppressed Christian conservative people to take control, go communist and enforce the economic division through force of arms, or create an elaborate system of pretended value in order to maintain a shell of prosperity.

They chose the third option. The money was printed, and cash was made easier to acquire, but the intrinsic worth of it was close to nil, as it was no longer backed by the labour of the people that created it, but by the empty promises of the governments that they would reimburse investors for their contribution to the system.

As long as the investors believed they had a good chance of continuing to profit, the support for governmental reserve notes was maintained. This system of imagined value was common in biblical times, where taxes and tributes under the Babylonian system that was later introduced to the Roman Empire ensured that the parasitic class of Pharisees and money changers would grow fat on the interest and inflation that they themselves created.

In the 20^th century, this system allowed the governments to create wealth without having the industry to back it up, in effect putting the cart before the horse. By increasing the numbers of service sector jobs and allowing unemployed workers to claim dole money leeched from taxing the moderately well off, the illusion of national wealth was maintained, but at the cost of making a debtor out of every taxpayer.

In actuality, the Babylonian money system had made a slave out of everyone who engaged in commerce, even to the level of grocery shopping. As long as the illusion was maintained, the money was good, and everyone remained complacent.

The problem with this system is, when the moneylenders lose confidence, or the national debt grows too large to handle, the illusion is shattered, and as is happening now, our standard of living begins to fall, prices rise as the value of our money falls, and jobs are lost as cutbacks are made across the board.

The moneylenders do not actually lose out, as inflation and high interest rates increase their own wealth even as everyone else becomes destitute. Even when they do lose out, it is the taxpayer that is the debtor, and so the taxpayer must pay to support those who create the false money system.

This system is in direct conflict with Christianity, as it pits man against his brother in the desperate fight for resources, it breaks families down under the stresses of the loss of wealth, and it encourages secularist pursuit of money in place of God.

The solution to this ruinous cycle of extortion and debt is to support a belief system that opposes this. Jesus’ example in driving out the moneylenders shows us how we must reject this satanic system of usury and interest. In fact, the Israelites were forbidden from paying or claiming interest, even discharging all debts after seven years. This means that the danger of debt was much lower, making wealth a less pressing issue compared with the other things in life. With the rejection of interest, no man was required to pay more than he had originally borrowed, and the opportunity for abuse on the part of the lender was significantly reduced.

In the long run, if we want true economic stability and long term prosperity, we should reject the Babylonian money system in favour of a Christian organisation of our finances.

The Metaphysical Gamble

The philosopher Blaise Pascal’s wager shows the inherent gain to be had from believing in God. If there is one, your belief will lead to salvation, and unbelief to death. If there is not one, your belief and unbelief lead to death. You stand to gain more through belief, as the consequences are either neutral or positive.

But there is more to faith than merely taking a metaphysical gamble. It is possible to choose the wrong God, and that belief leads to death as well. Far from being a choice of two, it is actually a choice of countless thousands. That is why the nihilist viewpoint that it does not matter what you make of your life does not hold true.

Richard Dawkins tried to counter this by saying that one should look at the life wasted and problems caused by your actions if you choose the wrong path. This is entirely true, but not for the reasons he thinks.

The many conflicting religions mean that if we are to discern which God is the path to salvation, we must examine the evidence and test the weight of these many conflicting Gods to determine how to live our lives. It is certainly a more productive way of living than merely plodding along in a cycle of consumption and excretion.

And even if you are wrong, it will still be possible that many good deeds were done in your life that bettered the wellbeing of others. Hence it is more valuable to society and to individuals if those around them believe in a moral code which compels them to do good. Christianity has proven itself over the years to be a force that revolutionises nations, brings them stability and technological advancement, even where the underlying culture was not one that encouraged that sort of thing. 

Most of the early scientific endeavours were organised by monks with access to the observations of their forebears, which among other things has purportedly given us modern gunpowder, astronomy and an early attempt at aerodynamic flight. 

Pointing out the imprisonment of Galileo Galilei and the ridicule of his work misses the point that his work would not even have been encouraged had it not been for the way Christianity values learning. It is only the short-sighted and power hungry clergy that suppressed him, more concerned with perpetuating their own hegemony than on truth or science. 

In the long run, even atheists want to live in Christian nations, as they are the only places where they can practice their apostasy in relative peace.

The very empowering nature of Christian society ought to be evidence that its creeds are divinely inspired. It is why when our nations were Christian they could put men in orbit and cut canals through continents, but now that we are overrun with heathens we cannot even get the trains to run on time. 

Before one chooses a path of belief and reason to guide one’s actions, one must consider whether the tenets and laws of that religion create a better society or a worse one. If the overall result is for the better, it can reasonably be assumed that on the evidence as we have it, that religion and that deity represents the path of truth.

Abortion and Choice

One must look at the effect on the wellbeing of the child, beyond the mere “mental health” of the mother. It is generally considered to be a worse fate to die than to be depressed, otherwise we would be euthanizing those suffering from depression.

It is also necessary to consider that the child has rights to life that trump the “choice” of the mother. It is even possible to state that the mother has already made her choice before she fell pregnant.

Choice is not always the ability to do whatever one wants, it is often merely the capacity to decide between two conflicting outcomes. If it were freedom the woman desired, it has already been exercised before she fell pregnant. So it is not really a question of choice, but a question of natural consequences, which the mother should either live with or, through adoption, make arrangements for others to deal with. Any such action would be a lesser evil than allowing the child to be murdered.

To claim that the unborn child is acting as a parasite which the woman may defend herself from is nothing less than a wilful shutting of the eyes to the laws of nature. No species lasts very long if it considers its own young to be some sort of horrific curse, and yet through five decades of propaganda, we have been left with many women afraid of their own fertility.

In any case, when one acts in self defence, in law it must be proportionate and reasonable in relation to the assault complained of. It cannot seriously be suggested that it would be proportionate to kill an aggressor that has no control over its actions, will only do so for a period of nine months, and will be very unlikely in that time to cause serious injury to the mother.

Even in cases of rape, it does not justify the killing of the child to save the mother’s regrettable mental pain; allowing the child to be born would be the lesser evil, especially if it could be put up for adoption.

There is also the problem that having such easy access to abortion will cause women suffering from self doubt, depression or a host of the other pricks and pangs of life, to make a rash decision and abort a baby that she would otherwise have kept, or at least given to a couple who would provide for it, once she accepted the hand that fate had dealt her. 

Abortion kills the innocent, makes murderers out of vulnerable women and transgresses the natural laws of motherly love, and for these reasons, we can see that from a Christian standpoint, abortion is completely indefensible.

Why Theocracy is better than secularism, and Christians should advocate Theocratic rule

My nation is in fact officially Christian (at least a form of it in any case) but I know most nations out there have no state recognised religion like Anglicanism. This means that whenever anything remotely connected with religion occurs here, men like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens pop up to suggest that we ought to have no state religion.

These atheists that so readily can be identified as either the enemy themselves or a kind of useful idiot. It is certainly the case that they can easily be mimicked by irreligious and poorly educated people who enjoy the pseudo-intellectual air it grants them.

“Why should the country have an official religion when most of us don’t believe in it?” they say. They ignore the fact that their country was built on that religion, of course, because their own degenerate pop culture and social mores cannot be traced back to Christianity.

The more intellectual of the atheists smile placidly and reassure us that under secularism, everyone would be free to believe in whatever “sky fairies” (and it is always sky fairies) they wished to. Naturally, though, secular humanism, and all that goes with it, would be the default. And given that most people will lazily accept whatever is given to them that requires the least work, most will accept this label, especially if it confers extra intellectual credit.

This suggestion probably sounds reasonable to most irreligious people, and given how the question is usually phrased (always in terms of religious freedom, never atheist control) most well meaning Christians would go along with it.

It does of course aid the Muslims and Hindus as well, for removing establishment Christianity represents an increase in their power, and as the courts can always be counted on to interpret hate crime legislation as favourably as possible, it actually puts their religion on a higher pedestal than Christianity.

Naturally, the atheists will note, the removal of Christianity from the establishment means dismantling the social traditions that have sprung up around it. It would not be acceptable to hold prayers in Parliament, or observe any sort of public display of Christianity, lest it offend a Muslim and demonstrate favouritism.

No Christian would ever be able to defend his actions by reason of his beliefs, either. If one refused to cooperate with or employ degenerates or unbelievers in your business, one would be ordered to comply with the hate legislation, and be told that we can believe whatever we want, but we must act tolerantly towards others, lest we damage their freedom to believe what they want.

This does not take into account the basis of religion. We do not merely believe, but allow our actions to be governed by those beliefs. If we do not have the freedom to act according to our beliefs, we do not have freedom of religion, something which the Human Rights Act purports to offer us.

And so we see that any belief that does not fit within the boundaries of multicultural secular humanism will not in fact be tolerated. Far from allowing everybody greater freedom, secularism merely restricts religious practices to those deemed to be of trifling threat to the secular establishment.

In the long run, the presumption in favour of atheism will mean that religious belief will gradually tail off, as there is no benefit in believing but quite a few disbenefits in following an unfashionable creed. Eventually it would disappear completely, as parents fail to pass their beliefs on to their children.

This was actually attempted in the Soviet Union, where religious activity was prohibited before the age of majority, at which point they were unlikely to break the habit of a lifetime. These things would be advocated by atheists as soon as they gained total secularism, on the grounds that religion was fomenting bad feeling. It could just as easily be considered that atheism was fomenting bad feeling amongst Christians.

Hence secularism and religious freedom are merely the freedom of unbelievers to restrict the practices of believers. Any nation that was officially secular, therefore, could never be a nation ruled by true Christians. For us, democracy ought merely to be a mechanism by which we would hope to achieve theocratic rule, rather than a force for good in and of itself.