What a week. It’s been just fascinating watching what’s happening in the domestic violence industry which funds much of the feminist enterprise in this country. Our Watch, the engine room for the mighty $3 billion business, is under attack. Feminists are suddenly eating their own, as key players go public with revelations showing Our Watch’s utterly ruthless suppression of data that challenged their prescribed orthodoxy about gender inequality being the main cause of domestic violence. Michael Salter, a UNSW feminist criminologist, has launched a major assault on Our Watch in an article in The Saturday Paper, which revealed that, back in 2014, the Victorian government asked him to conduct a review of “drivers” of violence against women. When he produced it, Our Watch wasn’t happy with his conclusions and demanded he delete evidence about the role of alcohol and poverty in family violence. When he refused, his “review” was then rewritten by other researchers. Our Watch wasn’t going to cop any distraction from their gender transformative project – which, under the guise of tackling domestic violence, was actually intent on “social, cultural and structural and systemic change” – essentially redistributing power between men and women. (Read more about Our Watch’s audacious plan for resetting our society in my blog from three years ago.) The Saturday Paper quotes Professor Slater saying that he was assured by a representative from the Victorian government that he shouldn’t be too concerned about his evidence being omitted. “We need to imagine this future society that we want to live in. And that vision is not about alcohol. It’s not about class.”  Indeed not. Their vision is about neutered men, kowtowing to women.  There was no way any pesky researcher could be allowed to state there were other complex drivers for domestic violence. This was just at the time the ideologues behind Our Watch were planning their massive “Stop it at the Start” television campaign, designed to demonize boys and men. By the following year, Malcolm Turnbull, in his first act as Prime Minister, was solemnly pronouncing that domestic violence was all about respect for women. This was to be the only permitted narrative. Big bucks were at stake, with Michael Salter claiming on Radio National this week that about $300 million was spent on that attitude change campaign, most of it funding the Our Watch bureaucrats. He’s made it clear in his tweets that Our Watch was ruthless in only funding people who ran the party line.   Around the same time another person who ran into this censorship from domestic violence bodies was Professor Peter Miller, an expert on research on alcohol and violence from Deakin University. Miller was also commissioned by the Victorian government to do research on alcohol’s role in interpersonal violence. Here too, the research was not published because they didn’t like his conclusion that alcohol was a causal factor. In his evidence to the 2016 Victorian Royal Commission into domestic violence, Miller made it clear that the prescribed approach was wrong: “A sole focus on the gendered nature of family violence which labels men as the perpetrators and women as the victims and which identifies gender inequity as the principal ‘cause’ of family violence is problematic at a number of levels.”  His advice was ignored by the Commission.   For over a decade, the domestic violence industry has kept a lid on any objective discussion of the complex causes of domestic violence, let alone the fact that half of the perpetrators are female. Controlling the cash cow has proved a very effective means of keeping control of the narrative. So why has it all blown up now? Well, the trigger was the manufactured crisis following several domestic homicides earlier this year which led to talk from the Albanese government about needing to do more. Under pressure, the government announced a review of  Our Watch’s prevention strategy by a new  “Expert Panel”. Interestingly this excluded the Our Watch CEO but included prominent journalist Jess Hill who has built her career promoting the feminist line on domestic violence. Intriguingly, just before Hill found herself on this committee, she had broken ranks with the sisterhood, producing a provocative paper, co-authored by Michael Slater, Rethinking Primary Prevention, which showed the strategy of promoting respect for women and attempting to reduce gender inequity wasn’t working. The campaign was failing to produce any change in attitudes they claim were linked to gendered violence. The Saturday Paper uses as an example of that failure the fact that 41 per cent of Australians believe domestic violence is committed equally by both men and women. Hmm, so almost half of all Australians know the truth about domestic violence but that’s evidence of a failed policy. The lunatics are clearly running the asylum.   Another feminist hero who found a place on the new Expert Panel is veteran Anne Summers, who obviously also has it in for Our Watch. Most of the Expert Panel are now openly lined up against Our Watch – promising troubled times ahead for this key body which so long has controlled the domestic violence narrative and funding in Australia. Yet we mustn’t get carried away thinking any of this means these critics are actually going to come to their senses and look at what the international evidence says about prevention of domestic violence. It is a good start that Hill and Slater admit that shaming males isn’t working as primary prevention: “Telling men and boys that if they make sexist jokes, or fail to challenge the attitudes of their mates, they are personally responsible for the physical and sexual violence, or homicides committed by other males has not proven a compelling or successful argument.”  But the fact remains that none of these players recommend tossing out efforts to change male attitudes. Michael Slater is on the Advisory Group of the White Ribbon Australia, which is responsible for shaming boys in schools and running male-bashing workshops in endless organisations and workplaces. With the new push against toxic masculinity, efforts to reform men are actually on the rise. Note also that Slater, Hill and colleagues are still maintaining that tackling gender inequality is critical – they only concede that other approaches are necessary as well. Listen to Anne Summers speaking at the Elsie Conference earlier this year: “I hope we can understand more about the monster we are confronting, and I hope this will lead us to rethink our approach. While gender equality is essential, it is not enough.” And this mob only ever talks about violence against women. They never mention female violence.  Women’s violence against men and against their own children never makes it onto the agenda. The CEO of Our Watch, Patty Kinnersly has been very busy this week appearing on Radio National and The Project, pretending she is not aware of her organisation ever suppressing data, and sticking to her guns claiming the key factors in predicting violence against women are sexism, gender stereotypes and disrespect for women. (See my article refuting her claims here.) The one concession she has made is to acknowledge that alcohol and poverty are amongst various “reinforcing factors” that underpin the key driver of gender inequity. The latest twist in this week’s excitement came with the release by Our Watch of a report card claiming that they have been successful in driving down domestic violence: The national tracker from Our Watch, the national organisation for preventing violence against women and their children, found a significant 66% decline in women killed by men’s violence over the past three decades, and a decline in the harmful attitudes that drive violence over the past 20 years.  Hmm, talk about a desperate strategy. The claim that Our Watch’s primary prevention strategy has been successful in driving down incidents of domestic violence was obviously designed to ward off the critics. But it will really piss off the rest of the industry which relies on claims of an ever-growing epidemic of violence to keep raking in the government funding. Plus, it was destined to get up the nose of the media who supports this feminist industry. It was most amusing hearing an interview with Patty Kinnersly on Radio National this week when the host, Patricia Karvelas, grilled Kinnersly through gritted teeth about how she could possibly claim decreased violence given the current epidemic of domestic homicides. Karvelas’ irritation was very telling.    It’s all hogwash, of course. The domestic violence industry is constantly manipulating the rates of domestic violence by moving the goal posts – expanding the definition of violence to include coercive control, for instance. Or making changes to family law which further incentivise false allegations. None of this does anything to protect genuine victims of violence, and certainly increases the risk of suicide for falsely accused men. Current policies are killing people, men and women. As for Michael Salter…. when he’s not throwing grenades into the domestic violence industry, he’s recently been busy trying to clean up after another feminist meltdown. His good friend Grace Tame, sexual abuse victim and former Australian of the Year, has been forced to step down as CEO of her charitable foundation. The Australian cites “a donor backlash over its questionable governance and a half-hearted leadership style that left a scattered strategy and produced few tangible results for sexual abuse survivors.” Amazingly, Salter is the Grace Tame Foundation director, clearly someone who should have known that this charity was running off the rails. He has apparently been making it known around town that Tame will soon cease in the position and recruitment efforts will begin to identify a successor. Our captive media is, as expected, ignoring this important story about the fall of this feminist icon. I remember years ago asking a well-known journalist why no one bothered to properly investigate Grace Tame’s story. He laughed and said that to expose Tame would be like “killing Bambi.” A career-ending move for any journalist. But the good Professor Michael Salter certainly gets around. It turns out he is also on the Expert Advisory Group of the eSafety Commissioner where we find another prominent feminist, Julie Inman Grant, totally running amok. The man seems to have a talent for getting involved with women who mean trouble. I’m tempted to suggest he might consider a new project - on toxic femininity.

In the culture I grew up in, children were seen as blessings, not burdens. My grandmother would often remark that a full house—however chaotic—was a happy house. It’s a mindset that feels increasingly foreign in today’s world, where we trade the fullness of life for the sterile comforts of control. Among the social circles in which I find myself, a new fad has caught on with surprising fervour — the DINK lifestyle. Dual Income, No Kids. The acronym alone carries an air of smugness, a badge of honour that suggests its practitioners have outwitted the drudgery of parenthood. These are typically people employed in white collar professions that, while demanding are not unreasonably so, granting them both a respectable income and a lifestyle of conspicuous ease within India's most developed and cosmopolitan enclaves. In an era that genuflects at the altar of self-fulfillment, this trend is seen by its acolytes as a mark of contemporary enlightenment and a rebellion against the tyranny of tradition and biology. Two incomes, unfettered by the grubby demands of infants, represent freedom, self-actualization, and an unencumbered pursuit of personal pleasure. To me, however, it represents a hollow triumph, a short-sighted pursuit of comfort at the expense of meaning and legacy.  Of course, the appeal of the DINK arrangement is obvious. The modern DINK couple, unburdened by the inconvenient cries of an infant or the looming spectre of college tuition fees, can indulge in what marketers euphemistically call “experiences.” They can tour the vineyards of Bordeaux or lounge on the beaches of Bali — all without interruption from a toddler tugging at their sleeves. But at what cost does this freedom come? To dismiss children as mere impediments to personal pleasure is to misunderstand the very nature of fulfillment. True satisfaction does not lie in the accumulation of experiences or possessions; it lies in the assumption of responsibility, and in the knowledge that one’s life contributes to something greater than oneself.  DINK adherents often frame their choice as a rational decision, the product of self-awareness and a refusal to conform to outdated societal expectations. But beneath this veneer of sophistication lies a deeper malaise—one that reflects not just a rejection of parenthood but a rejection of responsibility itself. The modern ethos insists that individuals owe nothing to anyone beyond themselves. At its core, the DINK philosophy sees life not as a duty but as a buffet, from which one is entitled to take only the choicest morsels. In this worldview, children are not a continuation of the human story, nor a source of joy, growth, and meaning, but rather obstacles to a lifestyle of comfort. This hedonistic calculus — where the value of an action is determined solely by the inconvenience it might impose — betrays an impoverished understanding of what it means to live a fulfilling life. The Infantilization of Adulthood Among the more disquieting consequences of the DINK lifestyle is its perpetuation of what might be called the infantilization of adulthood. In eschewing parenthood, many DINKs remain arrested in adolescence, their lives revolving around self-indulgence and immediate gratification. Parenthood, whatever its tribulations, compels one to reckon with the unrelenting reality of sacrifice.  In avoiding parenthood, the DINK couple often avoids the moral and emotional growth that comes with it. They may delight in their freedom to flit between exotic locales or attend late-night concerts, but this freedom comes at the cost of an engagement with life’s most pressing questions: What do we owe to the future? How do we find meaning in the face of inevitable mortality? In renouncing parenthood, DINK followers leave behind not just the cries of infants but the echoes of posterity. As someone raised in the frugality of a middle-class household, the DINK philosophy appears to me not only shallow, but impoverished in its understanding of fulfillment. I think of my father, who wore shoes so worn that their soles were patched with glue, yet ensured that I had the indulgence of choosing footwear to match my outfits. My mother would recount the 'hard years' with a mixture of nostalgia and pride, describing how they saved up to acquire one luxury at a time: first a refrigerator, then a washing machine, then a television, piece by piece transforming their modest house into a home. I remember my father’s old scooter, its rattling engine carrying him to work through the sweltering summers and biting winters. On Saturdays, he would stop by a kebab shop near his office, the aroma of grilled meat marking his early return home to share lunch with us. Yes, for all their sacrifices, my parents’ lives were  well-lived and my childhood, happy. A False Sense of Virtue What makes the DINK phenomenon particularly galling is the self-righteousness with which it is often promoted. Its adherents frame their choice not merely as a personal preference but as an ethical stance. They claim, for example, that forgoing children is an altruistic act, reducing their carbon footprint in an overpopulated world. This argument, while superficially appealing, collapses under scrutiny. First, it assumes that the world is better off without their hypothetical offspring, a curiously self-loathing position. Second, it ignores the reality that the most sustainable societies are often those with stable populations, not declining ones. A world filled with DINKs would soon face the grim consequences of demographic collapse: aging populations, economic stagnation, and a cultural void where once there was vitality. Moreover, the notion that one’s contribution to humanity ends with paying taxes and living a "low-impact" life is a starkly reductive view of human potential. Human beings are not merely economic units or environmental burdens; they are creators, thinkers, and contributors to a collective legacy. The childless DINK may plant a tree or adopt a dog, but these acts, however admirable, cannot replace the immense, intangible contribution of raising a child who might grow to cure diseases, compose symphonies, or simply bring joy to others. In rejecting parenthood, the DINK couple unwittingly undermines the very social structures that allow their own lifestyle to exist. Who will care for them in their old age if not the children of others? Who will sustain the institutions, economies, and communities they now take for granted? The irony is stark: DINKs depend on the sacrifices of parents who choose to raise the next generation even as they disavow the necessity of such sacrifices themselves. The Meaning of Life A few months ago, I attended a wedding where many of the guests were DINKs. The event was luxurious—an open bar, gourmet food, a live band. But what struck me was the absence of the familiar chaos that comes with bringing children to Indian weddings: no running around, no whiny voices, no spilled juice.  In criticizing the DINK phenomenon, I do not mean to suggest that all couples must have children or that parenthood is the only path to a meaningful life.  There are, of course, many ways to contribute to the human story. Yet the celebration of the DINK lifestyle as an aspirational ideal reveals a troubling impoverishment of our collective imagination. It reveals a society that has lost sight of what it means to live well, mistaking convenience for contentment and individualism for fulfillment. The issue is not simply one of demographics or economics but of existential significance. To live for oneself alone is to live a diminished existence, one that denies the richness and complexity of the human experience. Parenthood, for all its challenges, offers a glimpse of transcendence—a chance to participate in something greater than oneself, to leave a legacy that endures beyond one’s brief time on Earth. A society of DINKs may be rich in comfort and leisure, but it will be poor in purpose, and eventually, it will be poor in people. Image source: Gilmore Girls (2000-2007)

The question might seem, at first glance, to be a simple one. But the devil— or perhaps, in this case, the God— is buried deep in the details. It would be tempting to answer in haste, to offer platitudes about humanity rising above such quarrels, but that would be a lie. Up until now, I have sat quietly with my thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I have my own views, of course, but they mean little, for I have no personal stake in it. But now, something has stirred in me, something that compels me to write. I cannot help but see echoes of something similar in the ground I call my own and in the stories that shape my people’s lives. Of course, there is more than one reason why several Western nations choose to support Israel, but I’ll focus on just one in this piece — the religious and cultural one. Why the West Should Support Israel Returning to the question — is a fight over land justified? To answer that, one must first reckon with the land in question, for it is not just any plot of earth. This is a land that has woven itself into the fabric of a people’s identity, a land that has, through centuries of bloodshed, faith, and longing, become a symbol, a dream, a promise. To speak of this land is not just to speak of ownership, but of heritage.  When you consider the unbroken thread of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it becomes clear why the West stands with Israel. It’s not just a political alliance, but a continuation of an ancient bond—a shared history of faith that runs through the veins of Western civilization. Israel’s fight, in a sense, is their fight too. Israel represents more than just a nation-state. It is the physical manifestation of the promise etched in sacred texts—one that echoes through the halls of cathedrals, the pages of the Bible, and the ideals upon which the West built its foundations.  The land of Israel is the birthplace of a faith that gave rise to the moral compass by which many of the Western nations today measure their lives. It is the cradle of the very traditions that have defined their understanding of justice, sacrifice, and redemption. So when Israel fights, it is not just a struggle for its own survival—it is a battle to protect a shared legacy, a legacy that the West sees as part of its own soul. Why It Matters to the Rest of the World Of course, I have little stake in this matter, given that I do not belong to the Judeo-Christian faith, nor to a nation that is part of the Western civilization. Yet, I cannot casually disregard the values that this civilization has bestowed upon the world. Not forgetting the colonial history of how these values came to be spread, still, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that the principles of freedom, equality, and individual dignity, values upon which the Western world is founded, are those that we, in the rest of the world, look to the West to safeguard. Even with their imperfections and contradictions, these ideals have become the yardstick by which many other nations measure progress. I do not want to imagine what would happen if the West were to fall—if the moral compass that has steered so much of the modern world were to lose its bearings.  Readers in India might interpret this to mean that I dismiss the values of Indian culture or the rich traditions of the wider Asian world. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I have deep respect for my own culture, for the wisdom and values it has contributed to the ever-expanding repository of human thought and achievement. India’s spiritual depth, its values of balance, duty, discipline, non-violence, pursuit of knowledge and the individual spiritual journey remain invaluable to the human story and will continue to enrich the human experience. But when it comes to the principles of freedom, equality, and justice — those ideals that have shaped the trajectory of modern governance, law, and social equality — it is the West that has gifted them to us. Those in my country familiar with the history of our nation’s constitution will know where the influence of a good part of the legal framework we now live under, can be found. Why it Matters to Me Recently, the government of India completed the construction of the Ram Mandir in the city of Ayodhya. For many Hindus, it was a celebration as full of joy as the festival Diwali. The significance of this event goes beyond the physical walls of the temple; it is rooted in the land itself, for the site where this temple now stands is considered to be Ram Janmabhoomi—the birthplace of Lord Rama, the hero of the epic Ramayana. For those who hold this belief, it is not merely a plot of land but a sacred place where the divine first touched the earth. Lord Rama, the ideal of dharma, virtue and righteousness, is a figure whose stature in Hinduism is no less than Jesus in the Christian faith.  The site of the temple has long been a point of communal tensions in India. A slogan that echoed across decades, "Mandir wahin banayenge"—"We will build the temple there (at Rama’s birthplace)"—became a rallying cry for many Hindus. This ground, however, was also the site of the Babri Masjid, a mosque constructed by Mir Baqi, a commander of the emperor Babur, who invaded India in the 16th century and established the Mughal empire. In 1992, this mosque was torn down by activists affiliated with a Hindu nationalist group, who claimed that Babur had built the mosque atop the ruins of a Rama temple, which he had ordered destroyed. The demolition triggered widespread unrest and riots in the country. An excavation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India unearthed evidence of a massive, non-Islamic structure beneath the remains of the mosque. (Interesting fact: the said excavation was headed by a Muslim, KK Muhammed.) After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu claim. It directed the disputed land to be handed over to a trust for the construction of a temple dedicated to Lord Rama. To address the communal balance, the court also allotted a larger plot of land, some distance from Ayodhya, for the construction of a mosque. The story of this temple resonates deeply with the tale of Rama himself. In the Ramayana, Rama, the prince of Ayodhya, was unjustly banished from his kingdom and endured years of exile, only to return triumphantly with his wife, Sita, and his brother, Lakshmana, after vanquishing the demon king, Ravana. That homecoming was celebrated with the lighting of lamps, a tradition that gave birth to the festival of Diwali. In many ways, the completion of the temple and the installation of Lord Rama’s idol felt like another kind of homecoming—a symbolic restoration of a divine figure to the place where, as believers hold, his mortal journey began. For countless Hindus, it was a moment of fulfillment, a belief realized after centuries of waiting and decades of strife. It felt as though the lord himself had come home once again. Critics may call such devotion misplaced. They argue that land, in the grand scheme of things, should not hold such significance. Why should religion take precedence over the broader ideals of humanity? They question the need to cling to temples and mosques when the same land could serve a more pragmatic purpose—why not build a school or a hospital that would provide tangible benefits to people? These voices also took issue with the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in the rituals of the temple’s inauguration, pointing out that such overt religious participation by the leader of a nation undermines the secular fabric of a society where the separation of church and state is meant to be sacrosanct. There were also accusations of political opportunism. Some claimed that the government’s active role in the temple’s construction was a calculated move to secure the loyalty of millions of Hindu voters, which it may well have been. Others contended that it was not just about faith or history, but also a strategic ploy to boost pilgrimage tourism, turning the sacred into a lucrative enterprise. Again, there is no denying that the temple will boost tourism revenue. Still, such critiques failed to grasp the depth of what this temple signifies to those who revere it. To dismiss it as merely land, or to reduce it to an economic strategy, risks overlooking the emotional and cultural resonance it holds for millions. For millions of Hindus, Ayodhya is not just a city; it is the birthplace of a god who embodies the ideals of dharma and virtue. To stand in that place is to feel the weight of centuries, the echo of voices that have never stopped calling it sacred. So even for those of us who stand outside the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel’s fight for its land, for its faith and its legacy is understandable. Just as millions of Hindus see the Ram Mandir as more than a temple, as the reclamation of something intrinsic to their identity, so too does the West see Israel as a kind of affirmation that all that they stand for, has not been extinguished. When these narratives are under siege, the response is often one of solidarity—not merely political, but deeply personal and ideological, rooted in the belief that some stories are worth protecting because they define who we are. We fight not over land. We fight so as not to be erased.

Feminism, at its core, claims to champion the empowerment and equality of women. Yet, over the decades, the movement has evolved in ways that often feel disconnected from the everyday realities and complexities women face. What started as a pursuit for basic rights—like suffrage and access to education—has transformed into something more divisive, frequently promoting narratives that seem to oversimplify societal dynamics, and in some cases, even backfire against the very women they seek to uplift.  Not all victories belong to feminism Feminism is often credited with much of the progress made in advancing women’s rights, from improved social status to increased participation in the workforce. While the feminist movement has played some part in promoting gender equality (in the context of suffrage for instance), many of the changes in women's roles and opportunities can be traced back to technological advancements and historical events that had little to do with feminism itself and are often underplayed in discussions within feminist circles. One of the most overlooked but transformative advancements for women's improved social status and freedom is modern plumbing. Before the advent of indoor plumbing, women spent a significant portion of their day fetching water and maintaining household cleanliness under much more labour-intensive conditions. The introduction of plumbing, followed by other domestic innovations like washing machines, refrigerators, and electric stoves, freed up time that was previously devoted to arduous household chores. While feminism advocates for women’s freedom to choose careers or engage in public life, these technological advancements were vital in making it possible for women to reduce the time they spent on domestic labour, granting them the ability to pursue goals outside of the household.  Besides this, war (particularly the world wars) was instrumental in shifting societal norms about women’s participation in the workforce. As millions of men left for battle, women were called upon to fill essential roles in factories, offices, and other sectors. Women took up jobs in manufacturing, engineering, and other male-dominated industries to keep economies functioning during wartime. This temporary shift allowed women to prove that they could excel in roles previously considered beyond their capabilities, thereby challenging traditional gender roles. The post-war period did see many women return to domestic life, but the war experience had already planted the seeds for long-term changes in women's participation in the workforce. The rise of women in non-domestic roles was thus more a byproduct of necessity rather than a direct result of feminist movements. The Industrial Revolution further consolidated these gains over time. Advances in transportation (which were also, in large part, a consequence of war) dramatically increased women’s mobility. Before these developments, women’s roles were largely confined to the home and local community. The ability to commute and travel gave women the freedom to pursue education, jobs, and leisure activities that were once inaccessible due to geographic limitations. The bicycle, for example, was hailed as a symbol of women’s emancipation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, offering unprecedented freedom of movement. The Pernicious Message of Contemporary Feminism Feminism frequently attributes every societal problem to patriarchal structures, absolving young women of personal responsibility. It is too simplistic to place all blame on patriarchy for modern issues given that women today have more opportunities than ever before in history, in education and professionally. For a movement that claims that its primary purpose is to empower women, feminism doesn’t do enough to encourage women to take responsibility for their actions and decisions, so much as it perpetually frames them as victims of circumstance. Narratives that seek to find a culprit to blame for one’s “lot” in life often hold one back from taking charge of one’s life because one has a ready excuse if one should fail. If one’s setbacks are always the fault of a rigged system, then one's successes are equally out of their control. Is there any greater disempowerment than believing the game is unwinnable from the start? No Place for Chivalry One of the byproducts of modern feminism is the notion that chivalry is inherently patronising. Acts of kindness, such as holding the door open or paying for a meal, are now viewed as perpetuating gender inequality, when they can simply be gestures of love or care. In this rush to abolish traditional norms, the distinction between genuine respect and oppressive behaviour has become blurred. Feminism's strict rejection of chivalry alienates men who wish to show courtesy in small but meaningful ways. When a man offers to pay the bill on a date, it's not a suggestion that the woman is incapable of paying her share, but rather a symbolic gesture of his willingness to provide for her. Similarly, when a man buys an engagement ring—often at the cost of several months, or even years, of his salary—it reflects his deep commitment to the relationship. This significant investment shows that he is serious about building a future together, a gesture he wouldn’t extend to just any girl he might pick up at a bar. It signifies his intention to make her happy and create a lasting bond. As a woman, would you prefer a man who is unwilling/ incapable to do heavy lifting, is inattentive in public so that you have to be extra vigilant for the both of you, or can't hold a steady job that would support you if you needed to take time off while your children are young? Or would you choose the man who only makes grand speeches about feminism, hoping to win your favour, but lacks the strength or reliability to back them up his promises with action? What’s wrong with building up your man? Mutual support in relationships is crucial. However, encouraging women to build up their partners emotionally, professionally, and personally is often viewed as regressive or submissive. Feminism's focus on independence and self-reliance can overlook the benefits of nurturing one another in a healthy partnership, which is necessary for true equality.  Feminism sometimes clouds women’s thinking so insidiously that they end up bringing larger societal issues into their personal relationships, which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Disputes over tasks like doing the dishes are rarely about the actual chore or the people involved, but rather about the perceived imbalance of household responsibilities between men and women as a whole. Conflicts where you feel you're fighting a battle for the greater good on behalf of all women oppressed by men throughout history are unlikely to leave you open-minded or empathetic towards the man you're trying to build a future with. Constantly calling out what you believe to be “toxic masculinity” or trying to “defeat” your partner with your intellect will win you the argument but leave you with a defeated man—and it won’t be long before you lose both respect and attraction for him. Why not build up your man, especially when you stand to benefit tremendously from his strength, competence, and confidence, and from everything that comes his way as a result? Excessive focus on the impulsive interests of young, unmarried women Increasingly, modern feminism has begun to cater almost exclusively to the interests of young, unmarried women while neglecting the needs of married women, mothers, and older women. This is understandable, because the latter are more likely to have built fulfilling relationships with the opposite gender and would find fault with such a narrative that pits men against women. Issues like daycare facilities, abortion regrets, the emotional pain of infertility, the emotional and financial impact of widowhood, empty nest syndrome, etc. often receive less attention than topics like sexual freedom, abortion rights and equal pay.  Not to mention, women who disagree with the feminist narrative, regardless of which demographic they belong to, are often labelled as "pick me" or accused of proving that "aurat hi aurat ki dushman hoti hai" (women are their own worst enemies), implying that they are upholding patriarchy instead of supporting "fellow women" in dismantling it. This leads to another issue: feminists frequently accuse these women of “pulling other women down” when they criticise entitled or unpleasant behaviour. Why should you, as a woman, be expected to show false solidarity with another woman simply because you share the same gender, rather than be free to debate and disagree based on her opinions and actions? Teaches the fun of working without the provider responsibilities This one cannot be stressed enough. Modern feminist discourse teaches young women about the fun and independence that comes from earning money without discussing the responsibilities that come with being a provider. Just as men historically have faced pressure to be sole breadwinners, women now too must grapple with the realities of financial responsibility, taxes, and long-term career planning if they wish to compete with men in the professional domain. By portraying work as a path to freedom without addressing the pressures of providing, feminism risks offering an incomplete picture of what economic independence truly entails. Feminism also perpetuates the lie that the primary source of meaning that a woman will derive in life will be from her career, while significantly downplaying the value of motherhood and family as sources of fulfilment. Many feminists often look down upon women who choose to take time off work to care for infants or young children. Those who disagree with this perspective may argue that they advocate for women's right to choose whether to work, rather than insisting that every woman must work. However, this choice is not equally available to the men with whom they seek to be equal, is it? As a woman, I would hesitate to choose a man who is unwilling or unable to keep a job for any extended period of time. At the very least, a woman expects a man to have some plan for his life, even if he hasn’t yet established a career. Don’t get me wrong; I do not advocate for men having the “choice” to work or not either. I believe men realise their potential well when they embrace their responsibilities as providers, just as women achieve their potential when they fully embrace motherhood. However, the “choice” of women to work or not often depends on various factors: having a supportive husband willing to provide, not being in a position of extreme poverty, and having a support system to help with child-rearing, among others. Calls for imitation of men’s negative behaviours In a bid to dismantle stereotypes, modern feminism sometimes encourages women to emulate behaviours traditionally associated with masculinity, even when these behaviours are negative. Clubbing, casual sexual encounters, violence, drinking, and smoking—previously considered the pitfalls of toxic masculinity—are now championed by some as symbols of freedom and empowerment. Mimicking these behaviours does little to advance equality. Instead of seeking to adopt what is often unhealthy in men’s behaviour, feminism should advocate for women’s freedom to choose without feeling compelled to conform to male standards of rebellion. Turns activism into consumerism As is often the case, where there is demand, an industry quickly rises to supply it, and create more of it—and feminism is no exception. A wide array of products, from mugs and t-shirts emblazoned with feminist slogans to movies, books, and even music artists whose entire image capitalises on the wish-fulfilment of women influenced by feminist ideals, are marketed under the banner of empowerment. Many women, who have been sold on the idea of feminism, have internalised a strong sense of perceived injustice and insecurity, and continue to buy these products under the mistaken belief that they are “doing their bit” to dismantle the patriarchy. Companies and creators exploit this "do good" sentiment for profit, turning empowerment into a business model. What many fail to realise is that they’re being taken advantage of, much like when food chains and corporations marketed fast food and processed food as a liberating alternative to home-cooked food, convincing women they were "too important" to spend time in the kitchen. This led to a cultural shift that redefined cooking as outdated or regressive, ultimately contributing to rising obesity rates and a loss of connection to traditional, healthier lifestyles. Rather than bring any meaningful change, the focus is often on superficial activism and moral superiority, driven by corporate interests. Focuses on trivial concerns Feminism has, at times, focused on relatively trivial matters like period leave policies or the "free the nipple" campaign, diverting attention from more pressing and impactful issues. These low-hanging fruits often overshadow far more significant battles, such as improving access to education for girls in developing countries, making affordable child healthcare available to women in lower-income communities, and ensuring that daycare facilities are widely accessible so women can remain in the workforce after childbirth. Counterproductive for women Finally, implementing this form of feminism on a large scale creates a culture where women hold ultimate veto power over a range of issues, from defining what constitutes "toxic" behaviour in men to making unilateral decisions about whether to abort a child. This dynamic often leaves women feeling more isolated, as their increasingly unpleasant nature can become off-putting, not just to men but even to other women. It creates unrealistic (and often unreasonable) expectations for men without encouraging women to raise their own standards. The idea that women shouldn't settle for the "bare minimum" in relationships falls flat on its face when "not settling" doesn't involve working to improve the relationship, but instead means leaving or avoiding commitment over exaggerated concerns while engaging in casual flings with multiple partners. Traditionally, older women have passed down wisdom to younger generations—not just in the realm of homemaking, child-rearing, and relationships, but in cultivating the grace and dignity that defines womanhood. Mothers and grandmothers, often the fiercest protectors of their daughters’ futures, rarely raise them to view the world as a battlefield where every man is an enemy to outwit or a prey to subdue. Much like fathers with sons, mothers are strict with their daughters and set high expectations from them, aware of both the joys and burdens of womanhood. When advising their daughters about relationships, older women don’t arm them with a checklist of demands or expectations for how men should behave. Instead, they offer a vision of what a partnership can be—one rooted in mutual respect, shared goals, and a commitment to a lasting union. The man a woman chooses should be willing to work hard, provide protection, and strive for a monogamous relationship that leads to marriage, while also handling practical tasks and allowing her to fully embrace her femininity. In turn, she should be willing to have and nurture his children, put some effort into her appearance for him, offer emotional support, and cultivate a harmonious home life, trusting him in areas where he has expertise. She might strive to regulate her emotions, ensuring conflicts don’t become unnecessarily hostile, while refraining from making him compete for her attention, and show him respect—especially in public—while letting him lead at times. These qualities, neither rigid nor required from the start, can develop naturally over time, as long as both partners are committed to each other’s growth. Ultimately, the challenge of any narrative that seeks to address the problems of a particular group lies in balancing the message of empowerment with the realities of life, relationships, and individual desires, and this is where modern feminism frequently falls short. True empowerment may lie not in rejecting traditional roles or pitting men and women against each other but in forging strong, meaningful partnerships with men—romantic or professional and in embracing the multifaceted roles women can play—as mothers, professionals, caretakers, or partners. In the end, it seems to me that the advice passed down from mothers, grandmothers and mother figures—rooted in wisdom, reality, and a little common sense—offers far more genuine empowerment than the hollow battle cries of modern feminism ever could. Image source: Little Women (1994)

Rule(s): noun – 1 – one or a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere. Law: noun – (often phrased as “the law”) the system of rules that a country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members usually enforced by the imposition of penalties upon those who violate same. Creation has always had “rules” and “laws.” These are natural according to physical reality. Most of the laws we acknowledge involve the behavior of matter and energy and have nothing whatsoever to do with man save only when he misuses them often in an attempt to create (or destroy) something or someone. These rules, as noted, cannot be broken! They are part of creation itself and can only be “changed” by the Author of Creation – God Himself! Ergo, obviously the above title cannot refer to such “laws” as gravity or the speed of light &etc. No, we are speaking here of those “rules” and/or “laws” created by Man regulating mankind’s behavior and activities under varied circumstances.  The main “rule” of nature itself is simple: the survival of the fittest. No one who has studied the natural life on this planet – and we must assume any other planet that contains life – believes that Mother Earth is a forgiving deity. Nature always maintains a balance that leads to both life and death, the latter sometimes on such a massive scale as to be called “mass extinctions” of the life on the planet that existed during such periods. There have been five such in our planet’s history:The end of the Ordovician period (444 million years ago)Late Devonian period (360 million years ago)The end of the Permian period (250 million years ago)The end of the Triassic period (200 million years ago) The end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago) – the event that killed off the dinosaurs. In none of these periods of time did Man exist on the planet, so our “carbon footprint” cannot be blamed for the disaster. And today we are nowhere near any such an ELI (Extinction Level Event) – barring, of course, some calamity such as the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs (see 5 above). It is true, however, that Man has proved capable to doing a great deal of damage to himself and his environment by both accident and design. Still, we apparently appear to present more of a danger to our planet and our fellow man in our supposed efforts to prevent such an outcome than otherwise, a good reason to be wary of those who counsel and demand “action!” in planet-wide matters of apparent concern.  On the other hand, the difference between “natural law” and “man-made law” is, as noted, that the latter relates directly to man and often addresses his ability to influence and even possibly destroy himself as well as often doing damage to “nature” itself (see Fukushima).  Now, of course, we have moral law as laid down to us by the God of the Bible – in the much heralded Ten Commandments: 1.     You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.     You shall make no idols. 3.     You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain. 4.     You shall keep the Sabbath Day holy. 5.     You shall honor your father and your mother. 6.     You shall not murder. 7.     You shall not commit adultery. 8.     You shall not steal. 9.     You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10.  You shall not covet. These “laws” are not of Man, but of God and are (or were) acknowledged to be rather universal. The first four involve Mankind’s association with God Himself while the rest dictate as to how Man is to behave within his own civilization, so as to receive God’s blessings and thrive upon the earth. Even those who do not recognize the God of the Bible understand that these Commandments provide a moral structure more than adequate to promote a healthy and thriving civilization! Indeed, most of these “laws” are found in cultures quite outside the religion that gave them to humanity in the first place! That is, they are known instinctively by Man in general as being essential to civilization itself! And from those strictures, all other “laws” and “rules” obtain and it is by those same subsequent laws that we actually have a human condition called “civilization!” For the simple fact is this: when these moral codes are discarded, mankind descends into chaos and darkness. However, it is also possible to have too many laws! In the work, The Annals of Imperial Rome, the philosopher Tacitus exclaimed, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” This is not an overstatement. To begin with, the more numerous both those employed by the State and the laws one must follow within the State, the more power accrues to the State and, subsequently, the less to the People. Today there are those who declare that in the present United States of America, everyone probably breaks some kind of a law almost daily if not more often. It may not be a federal or even a state or local law but it’s bound to be some sort of mandate or declaration that is counted as a law even if it never underwent the necessary steps to create that legal condition! When such a situation is present, it makes of the general population, lawbreakers – and therefore a people less worthy of legal protection. After all, as the old saying goes, [Latin phrase removed] or, “ignorance of the law excuses not (that is, is no excuse)." And since one is not permitted to plead ignorance of the virtually endless list of things that are forbidden, whatever you do, you can be held responsible for doing it despite the fact that you were unaware that you were, in fact, “breaking” a law! The rationale of this particular doctrine is simple: if ignorance were a valid excuse, a person charged with criminaloffenses or the subject of a civil lawsuit could merely claim that he was unaware of the law in question so as to avoid liability – even if that person really did understand the law involved. As a result, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the accepted jurisdiction, no matter how transiently, though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a government’sactivities. Nonetheless, this is the price that must be paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis on which to claim innocence.  Of course, the doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated (that is, proclaimed), by being published and distributed, in, say, a government publication, or made available over the Internet, or reproduced in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. The need to provide this understanding is expressed in the ancient phrase of Gratian, [Latin phrase removed] ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated.”) After all, it is clearly recognized that a “secret law” is, in fact, no law at all. But laws are nothing more than words. They have no force in and of themselves. They gain force by their enforcement (!) through those agencies in the body politic assigned that duty such as the police and the courts. Therefore, the expected understanding of the law is that it has meaning; that it is created to provide strictures; that is, boundaries surrounding a situation in which certain behaviors are not permitted in and by the society and that to abrogate said strictures will result in the determined retribution provided by the laws so breached. So now we understand the general basis of the concept of “The Law!” The Law is statutes delineating and defining behaviors, both acceptable and forbidden that are created by and through various established processes in order to become “law.” Depending upon the governmental structure under which this takes place, said “laws” are intended to maintain and defend the culture of the nation and the people under which these “laws” are promulgated or proclaimed. Meanwhile, individual persons study to become proficient in the creation, the use and the enforcement of said laws in order that the people will benefit therefrom. Of course, it goes without saying that the better the culture and its people, the better the laws that arise! Barbaric cultures usually have barbaric laws while enlightened cultures produce, per se, enlightened laws. But there is a further matter that influences the law to a far greater degree than the mere “interpretation” – or even ”misinterpretation” – of any statute, and this occurs at the highest level of the legal vocation. It doesn’t usually concern the police who enforce but do not interpret the law – though they may be “permitted” – or even “instructed” – by their overlords to misuse their power to achieve some desired end! And it is in this matter of “desired ends” or “agendas” that situations diametric to the “Rule of Law” may be found. For it must be realized and accepted that laws and rules themselves cannot survive unless those mandated to make use of those laws in the society do so honestly and with justice for, though the Rule of Law can survive error, it cannot survive deliberate duplicity. Yet, often in the past, judges and others mandated to pursue and enforce the law have yielded to a desired agenda and abandoned their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land as written and interpreted over time – a matter referred to as “legal precedent.”  Of course, these efforts to achieve a goal by abandoning one’s sworn duty to legal fidelity have been known to occur in the past. Below is an article that appeared in the Daily National Republican of August 17th, 1876, in which the editor of that newspaper points to a letter written to the New York Herald, a paper on the other side of that year’s presidential election in which the writer speaks eloquently of the failure of New York judges to do their duty under the law because of “politics:”  Daily National Republican – August 17th, 1876 The Ishmaelite of the New York Sun does not relish the following paragraph in a recent letter of Col. John S. Mosby to the New York Herald: “It was only about twelve months ago that Tweed was released from prison on habeas corpus by a decision of the New election of that York Court of Appeals, composed of seven Democratic judges. Mr. Charles O’Conor, the Nestor of the New York bar, in a letter published at the time, charged that the decision was procured through the corrupt influence of Tweed’s money. Here was a splendid case for investigation, far excelling in enormity the sale of a suttlership; yet these judges remain unimpeached, and are still wearing the ermine of justice. I allude to this fact to show the tone of political morality of the party of which Gov. Tilden has been the acknowledged head ever since the retirement of Tweed.” The letter writer’s beautiful allusion to the fact that the judges involved are still sitting on the bench and therefore capable of rendering further illegal and immoral rulings – “ . . . yet these judges remain unimpeached, and are still wearing the ermine of justice.” – indicates how quickly the legitimacy of any government or society can be destroyed not by men with guns, but by men in robes, as referenced to in the phrase, “the ermine of justice.”  All during the period from the faux “election” of 2020 to date, we have seen very suspicious matters declared as being “sent to the courts” for consideration and in reading that, most Americans hoped for these matters to be corrected and any wrong-doers involved punished by law. But time and time again, nothing has happened! And when some judgment does come back declaring what was done to be questionable or even actually illegal, the matter is soon swallowed up in a mass of intentional confusion and distraction; that is, by being sent to another court or jurisdiction or challenged yet again, eventually to simply fade away, out of sight, out of mind and out of all hope of rectification. Meanwhile, little by little, elites like George Soros and leftist groups purchase members of the American justice system and fill our courts with people who care nothing for the law or the People or the future of the nation because they are loyal to an agenda that those same laws reject and refute! So, what has happened to the Rules – including the Rule of Law? Alas, the present generations have decided that they prefer fiction to fact, fantasy to reality and global tyranny to national liberty. As Milton once said of the English as they embraced Charles II at the Restoration, “ . . . they have chosen bondage with ease over strenuous liberty.” However, what today’s Americans don’t seem to realize or understand is that they will not get “bondage with ease;” they will get the slavery George Orwell and Ayn Rand predicted. They will serve without hope, without recompense and without release – all because they allowed the Rules to be broken by their “leaders” without the same resistance that arose against another tyranny in the year 1776.  Almost 250 years ago, Continental Army Commander George Washington crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night with little hope that his efforts would allow his wretched “army” to continue the struggle for American independence should he fail, while also knowing that, if captured alive, he would undergo the hideous fate of being hanged, drawn and quartered on the gallows at Tyburn in London! On that night, Washington chose the password, “Liberty or Death” – and, indeed, those were in fact the only choices that he, his army and his country had left. I believe we have arrived at a similar “crossing” and if we do not become aware of what short a time we have left to stand and fight, there will soon be only one outcome for America and Americans – death.

The Crisis of Modern Secularism One of the primary reasons modern society has dismissed the Christian worldview is the perceived disconnect between what it teaches and the realities of contemporary life. The Church’s assertion of offering a transcendent, universal truth often seems irreconcilable with the secular narratives ingrained through personal experience, societal norms, and the pervasive influence of modern media. In previous generations, much of what an individual knew and understood was shaped by their local community and the shared religious framework that, in the West, was predominantly Christianity. This close-knit environment provided a sense of stability and assurance, as people’s beliefs and values were largely aligned with those of their neighbors. However, advancements in technology — especially in communication, travel, and information — have fundamentally reshaped this dynamic. The modern individual is now inundated with an overwhelming influx of ideas and perspectives from across the globe, creating a kind of information overload. This unprecedented exposure has profoundly challenged the shared certainties of the past. As modern individuals encounter competing ideologies and gain direct knowledge of people once considered enemies, they discover that these individuals, their beliefs, and their practices are not as foreign or unreasonable as previous generations may have assumed. Confronted with this complexity, a modern person often feels compelled to choose between two equally troubling paths: either accept all perspectives as equally valid, leading to relativism and a rejection of absolute truth, or dismiss all perspectives entirely, turning instead to secularism and scientific materialism. The latter path is particularly alluring in an age where scientific advancements offer tangible and consistent results, making them appear as the only stable and reliable source of truth. In contrast, religious practices — once central to human life — are increasingly viewed as psychological crutches for those unable to adapt to modernity. With no immediate or measurable outcomes, these spiritual acts are often dismissed as relics of a superstitious past, tools designed to comfort the fearful and uncertain rather than genuine connections to a transcendent reality. The Church is frequently regarded as an archaic institution, steadfastly adhering to rituals and doctrines that many deem irrelevant in an age of rapid progress and innovation. Whether immersed in material abundance — manicured lawns, pristine homes, technological conveniences, and curated lifestyles — or striving for the perceived attainability of these comforts, which are presented as normative in modern culture, people often question the Church’s focus on sin, grace, and redemption. The false promise of stability and fulfillment offered by modern life obscures the deeper existential struggles that Christian teachings aim to address, leading many to dismiss the Church as a relic of an unenlightened past, incapable of addressing the complexities of a progressive, globalized society.Desensitized and Disoriented In contemporary society, media plays a paradoxical role in shaping our perceptions of suffering, negativity, and normalcy. Its relentless portrayals of violence and tragedy desensitize us, leaving many emotionally unmoved by real suffering. At the same time, it inundates us with advertisements and entertainment programs that depict idyllic lifestyles and curated images of happiness, fostering false expectations of what is normal and achievable. Together, these extremes distort our understanding of life’s true nature, numbing us to its harsher realities and trivializing genuine struggles. These programs and cultural influences not only normalize destructive behaviors but also perpetuate the illusion that individuals are inherently entitled to material prosperity and unassailable self-esteem, irrespective of moral conduct. Additionally, they promulgate the erroneous belief that negative outcomes are aberrations and fictions rather than inherent aspects of the human condition. For decades, this distorted paradigm has led many to misdiagnose the root of their struggles, attributing them to flaws in their mindset rather than deficiencies in their actions. Society repeatedly advances the narrative that the remedy lies in cultivating greater self-love, heightened self-esteem, and unconditional self-forgiveness. In pursuit of such ideals, countless individuals have turned to modern self-help philosophies, aspiring to attain personal enlightenment and alleviate the existential dread that permeates their inner lives. Yet, no amount of positive affirmation or meditative practice can fully dispel the profound guilt, shame, and existential darkness that reside in the depths of the human soul. Upon deeper introspection, many individuals recognize that feelings of inadequacy and despair are not as unfounded as modern thought leaders often claim. Life’s inherent fragility reveals itself in the stark reality that failure and collapse often come far more easily than success. Countless variables beyond our control can unravel, leaving us powerless to alter their course, while moments of serendipity remain exceedingly rare. Achieving anything truly meaningful requires focus, determination, and a considerable amount of hard work. Failure, on the other hand, takes no effort — it happens simply by letting things fall apart. This dynamic extends to the moral and spiritual realm. Moral compromise often presents itself as the path of least resistance, offering immediate gratification, while sacrifice and the pursuit of holiness demand discipline and fortitude that can feel nearly impossible to sustain. Modern society has exacerbated this tension by promoting the belief that success is an entitlement, irrespective of one’s efforts. This entitlement mindset has led many to harbor resentment — toward life, toward others, and even toward whatever they perceive as their creator. For those who still cling to false hopes, this resentment often feeds into a cycle of compromise that unknowingly breeds greater failure, anxiety, and despair. Even for individuals striving to lead virtuous lives, small moral compromises or missteps often masquerade as moments of respite, offering temporary relief from the unrelenting struggles of life, both internal and external. Yet this reprieve is fleeting, ultimately compounding the weight of the burdens they seek to escape.The Gnostic and Modern Understanding of Suffering This dual crisis — of relativism on one hand and secular reductionism on the other — has parallels to challenges faced in early Christianity. Gnosticism arose among certain early Christians who, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, struggled to reconcile His teachings with their understanding of the God of the Old Testament. Confronted with the undeniable suffering and brutality present in the world, Gnosticism proposed an alternative theological framework: the material world was intrinsically evil, the creation of a lesser or malevolent deity, and salvation could only be attained through esoteric, hidden knowledge accessible to a select few. For the Gnostics, the stark realities of the natural world — cycles of predation, decay, and suffering — were evidence of its inherent evil. A striking example can be found on Fernandina Island, part of the Galápagos archipelago, where thousands of racer snakes lie in wait each year to ambush newly hatched marine iguanas. The hatchlings, guided by instinct, attempt to make their way to the safety of the shore, but many do not survive the journey, relentlessly pursued by waves of snakes in a grim display of predatory efficiency. Such brutal scenes seem to reflect the disorder and cruelty Gnosticism associated with the material world. In contrast, Modern secularist’s tendency to romanticize creation often leads to a selective focus on its beauty and a purposeful ignorance of its brutality. This sentimentality obscures the harsher realities of nature’s unforgiving side, such as the raw spectacle on Fernandina Island, which disrupts idyllic views of the natural world. Yet this evasion of reality extends beyond how we perceive nature. Just as the modernist glosses over the violence of the wild, so too do they seek to deny or escape their own suffering. Pain, loss, and existential uncertainty are anesthetized through layers of distractions — endless entertainment, consumer comforts, and, most prominently, medications and therapies that promise relief. These means, while often necessary and beneficial, can also serve to mask the deeper, unavoidable struggles of human existence.The Christian Understanding of Suffering The Christian worldview, in contrast to both, provides a profound and cohesive understanding of creation’s suffering. While it acknowledges the fallenness of the world, it also proclaims that creation retains its inherent goodness and purpose. The suffering inherent in creation is not evidence of its inherent evil but a reflection of humanity’s sin and its far-reaching consequences. As stewards of creation, humanity’s rebellion against God introduced disorder into both the moral and natural orders, leading to the predation, decay, and death we observe today. Far from being a sign of divine cruelty, such suffering underscores the interconnectedness of humanity and creation. St. Paul speaks to this in his letter to the Romans: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God… in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–21). The suffering of the Cross stands at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work, revealing the depth of God’s love for a broken world. On the Cross, the full weight of cosmic disorder and estrangement from God was borne by Christ, embracing pain and rejection to bring about reconciliation and renewal. Far from being merely a symbol of human suffering, the Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love, where God confronted the brokenness of creation. Through this redemptive moment, suffering itself is can be transformed into a pathway for renewal.A Groaning Creation and the Hope of the Christian Worldview While Gnosticism saw creation as irredeemable and modern secularism often ignores or trivializes its harsher realities, the Christian worldview offers a more integrated and redemptive vision. Rather than retreating into sentimentality or denial, Christianity confronts creation’s suffering with honesty, affirming both its disorder through sin and its enduring goodness as God’s handiwork. The Christian worldview, when properly understood, addresses both the complexities of human experience and the profound truths of divine revelation — a reality that even many Christians struggle to fully comprehend. Within this framework, God’s omniscience encompasses the unfolding of events within His providential plan, yet humanity’s sinful nature profoundly shapes the outcomes of our reality. Sin’s effects extend beyond personal or societal consequences, reverberating throughout creation and introducing cosmic disorder. These outcomes are not arbitrary decrees of a wrathful Creator but the inevitable consequences of humanity’s departure from divine harmony. Modern cultural forces, however, obscure this truth. By minimizing the reality of sin and suffering or distorting them through narratives of self-sufficiency and superficial solutions, society prevents individuals from confronting their need for divine grace. This misunderstanding often leads to a view of God as either wrathful or irrelevant, driven by a lack of theological depth and engagement with tradition, Scripture, and Christological catechesis. Yet, the Christian worldview reveals a God who is neither indifferent nor cruel but profoundly merciful, actively guiding humanity and all creation toward ultimate redemption. Central to this redemptive vision is the Incarnation, where God, in His infinite love, entered the very fabric of the created reality. God, in a profound paradox, both offered His Son for our sake and simultaneously entered fully into human suffering, bearing the weight of sin and disorder not only for humanity but for all creation. Through His Passion, death, and resurrection, Christ affirmed the inherent goodness of the created world, transforming suffering into a means of redemption and renewal. This act of self-giving love reveals a divine mercy and compassion that transcend human understanding, offering hope and restoration to all of creation. Far from divine cruelty, creation’s groaning reminds us of humanity’s estrangement from God and the hope of restoration. This suffering reveals not the absence of God’s goodness but the consequences of humanity’s rejection of His love, disrupting both the moral and natural orders and creating dissonance across creation.Conclusion The Christian worldview calls humanity to confront these realities with honesty, recognizing the profound need for salvation and repentance of sins. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the path to reconciliation with God and the gift of eternal life are made available to all who respond in faith and seek to live according to His teachings. This message of hope transcends the illusions propagated by cultural forces, offering true transformation through the redemptive power of divine grace. Moreover, the Christian vision extends beyond humanity to encompass all of creation. The groaning of the natural world, visible in predation, decay, and natural disasters, is not meaningless but part of a larger story of renewal. Through Christ, creation itself is invited to share in the hope of redemption. This promise is not abstract but concrete, culminating in the ultimate restoration of all things, as foretold in Isaiah’s vision: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6) and the revelation that one day, all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5). Embracing the Christian worldview calls humanity to transcend modern distortions — denial, desensitization, or despair — through a transformative recognition of our brokenness and dependence on divine grace. In Christ, we discover the ultimate source of meaning, healing, and restoration — not only for humanity but for all of creation. Through Him, what was once broken will be made whole, and the groaning of the world will give way to the glory of a renewed cosmos united with its Creator.

There is something deeply comforting, one might almost say delicious, in despising the rich. They make, after all, the perfect villains in so many narratives: the champagne-swillers, art-collectors, the degenerates whose very existence serves as an affront to our collective sense of virtue. The stage for this indignation is not some bleak Dickensian street corner, but the gaping maw of social media. This is where hatred finds its fullest expression.  A casual scroll through the comments on social media posts of celebrities, public figures, or otherwise rich people in our own lives reveals a great deal of outrage. This contempt, however, is rarely self-reflective. People in my own circle, most of whom would be in the top 5% in the country — a fact they often overlook — are the loudest in condemning those richer than themselves. Indeed, to judge the rich, one need not be poor; one need only be sufficiently hypocritical. This is quite funny to someone who periodically zones out of such situations: the affluent decrying the affluent, the middle class deriding the upper class, and so on down the socio-economic ladder, until one reaches the poorest of the poor—who, perhaps mercifully, are too busy surviving to engage in such petty jealousies.  A big, fat wedding (which is quite common in India) invites comments like “Why waste so much money? Give it to charity.” The venom reserved for the rich has undertones of socialist righteousness — an unspoken belief that wealth, any wealth, is inherently ill-gotten, and thereby immoral, while poverty is a badge of honour and moral purity. It is almost as if we long for a world in which we were all equally miserable, huddled together in the egalitarian squalor of scarcity. The irony of the fact that such anti-capitalist posturing is greatest in societies that have benefitted the most from capitalism, is glaring. But I ask a simple question: If wealth is so contemptible, why do we all pursue it? Why do we rise early, endure the tedium of work, and strive for promotions? Why do we invest, save, and dream of a better tomorrow? What is the plan when we, someday, become what we now scorn? Are we going to suddenly find ourselves loathing the trajectory we’ve worked for all these years? The answer, of course, is that we do not truly despise wealth; we despise its absence. The world has managed the remarkable feat of elevating one of the basest human emotions—envy—into a virtue. The hatred of the rich is often nothing more than the envy of the not-yet-rich. It is easy to scorn the destination when one has not yet arrived.  This hypocrisy manifests in the smallest of interactions. Not long ago, I was rebuked by an acquaintance for being "too invested in first-world problems." This from someone who spends his days debating gender-neutral washrooms in the workplace and agonizing over the carbon footprint of his coffee. The truth is, if you’re in the upper middle class, if work at a corporate office and/ or live in a metropolitan city in India, chances are you live in the so-called first world for most of your day. You’re surrounded by calls for political correctness in your workplace, debates over pronouns among your colleagues, and climate-change pressures from your circle of friends. It is fashionable, of course, to profess concern for the downtrodden—the villager in Bihar who cannot feed his children, the labourer in Delhi who toils in the shadow of prosperity. Yet this concern is, more often than not, a way to signal virtue while living comfortably insulated from the realities one claims to lament. I grew up in a middle-class household in which people worried about fuel prices, the spike in onion costs after a bad crop season, or how to stretch a bar of soap just a little longer. Today, my conversations are different. Now, I talk about the rising cost of airfare, the impossibility of affording a home, or the political correctness in my office. Am I to feel guilty that I no longer have to worry about onions or soap? Should I pretend I can’t afford these things to placate the morally indignant ones? Should I apologise for the world I inhabit? Another experience comes to mind, one that fits perfectly into this theme of moral guilt-tripping. Just last week, a woman appeared at my door with a clipboard, demanding a donation for her NGO that, supposedly, feeds poor children. The month before, it was someone else, pushing for donations to save koala bears. And before that, it was a man insisting I contribute to a fund for autistic children. It seems that every few weeks, a new cause materialises at my doorstep, clipboard and all, demanding my charity.  Now, don’t get me wrong—asking for donations isn’t what I have a problem with. It’s the manner in which they do it. These people weren’t remotely polite. From the moment they knocked, they were rude, as if my refusal to donate was some kind of personal affront. The moment I said "no," they attempted to guilt me. One lady even pointed to my apartment and sneered, "You live in such a nice neighbourhood, can’t you spare something for hungry children?" As if the price of my rent made me morally obligated to hand over my wallet on command to whoever asked. And when I did agree to donate? That wasn’t enough either. They’d then shame me for the amount, pointing to other names on their clipboard with larger contributions, implying that my donation wasn’t worthy unless it matched the most generous. I once offered to donate clothes and rice, instead of cash for the homeless—something tangible, something I could be sure would go to those in need. But that, too, was beneath them. They turned up their noses as if I’d insulted them by suggesting an alternative. And when I asked how I could even be certain that my donation was reaching the intended cause, they didn’t even bother with an answer. Instead, they shrugged and said, "You’re rich enough to not worry about a few thousand rupees." It’s astonishing, really—the audacity to not only demand my money but also to judge my level of compassion based on the square footage of my home, by the visible trappings of ‘privilege’. And the worst part is, that while I am disagreeable enough to refuse, I know there are many people who are agreeable and shame-sensitive who would relent unwillingly. But what, one might ask, is the purpose of this relentless guilt-mongering? It is not to alleviate poverty or to redress injustice; rather, it is to enforce a new form of social control. The wealthy must not only give but also grovel, not only donate but also atone. They must apologise for their air conditioning, their vacations, their apartment, their car, their soap and onions.  And so, the wheel turns. The man who walks dreams of a bicycle, the man on a bicycle dreams of a car, and the man in a car dreams of a chauffeur-driven ride. But let a man reach his destination, and suddenly, the road itself is suspect—crooked, unfair, paved at the expense of those who still walk. It is not equality that people long for, but mobility. Equality is not the natural state of things; it never has been. It is a wish, a longing, a dream. But mobility is real. It exists in the sweat of the worker, in the gamble of the merchant, in the silent, desperate prayers of those who wish their children to have more than they did. And if there is resentment, it is for the unbearable knowledge that the ladder exists and must be climbed. There is nothing more bitter than the sight of another man ascending. Image source: Gossip Girl (2007-2012)

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32 of New King James Version.) Until very recently—in at least most of the West—these words were understood and acknowledged as the foundation of all civilization and the bedrock of decent society. Unfortunately, what was once commonly understood by enlightened human beings has now been pretty much rejected out of hand. Beginning with the “Enlightenment”–and never has an era been less aptly named!—truth and objectivity began to be replaced by the concept of relativism: that is, a belief in changeable standards.  An example of relativism is, for instance, the claim that even the most atrocious of crimes might be absolved under the proper mitigating circumstances. Those who hold this philosophy boldly contend that “everything is relative” while, in turn, failing to recognize that the statement is itself an absolute! Eventually the very concept of absolute truth was utterly rejected by the 20th Century’s dominant moral philosophy, Post Modernism.  Of course, the problem with this type of worldview is that it fails to take into account that certain things simply aren’t open to “interpretation.” No amount of wishing or believing can change physical reality. Two plus two does in fact equal four! Physical laws such as gravity and inertia cannot be contravened by human desire or a positive attitude. Old adages such as “you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” and “time and tide wait for no man” were expressions of those existential realities that could not be wished or ordered away! Today, however, we are constantly afflicted by the visions of people who believe that reality is determined by feelings, sincerity and desire. The motto of the current Age has been pretty much defined in the statement made by leftist actress Jane Fonda so many years ago, “I must be right, I’m so sincere!”  And yet, today’s nimrods have actually managed to, if not change reality, then to act as if they had done so and the rest of the culture goes along for the ride. It makes one wonder who is more insane: the habitually offended or those around them who do not respond to their flagrant idiocy by giving them a swift boot in the backside. For instance, in a further attempt to achieve “fairness” or “equality,” it would seem that today’s “educators”—and there is another word that has been perverted!—have declared that mathematics is “racist!” And whence comes this idiotic idea? Apparently large numbers in a certain elect and protected group do not do well in that discipline. Now if everybody was equally poor in math, all well and good—but that would still not make it “racist! However, because the problem appears to exist only in that same “elect group,” it is reasonable to believe—according to today’s “educators”—that the problem is mathematics, not the people in that group. That’s the kind of “sense” being made today—and it has a name: nonsense!  The real damage being done to mankind by this failure to embrace reality is that when reality actually does intrude into society, wishful thinking is a poor defense against the resultant catastrophe. Remember, mankind was never all that rational and reasonable when absolutes were understood and acknowledged! Take as an example, the Indians in Pennsylvania who tried dissuade white settlers from building a city at the end of a valley containing the confluence of three rivers! Of course, those settlers believed that they knew better than the “primitives” who had lived for generations in the area and so they went and built the city of Johnstown! The result has been the three catastrophic floods, the worst in 1889 and the others only slightly less disastrous in 1936 and 1977!  The people in Johnstown believed that they could build their city in a dangerous place because they wanted to believe it. Post Modernists believe there are no moral or any other absolutes because they want to! For a long time the people of Johnstown were spared the prophesied disaster, but all they had to do was look with a clear and reasoning eye at the existing situation and they could not fail to have anticipated the inevitable consequences and perhaps even take steps to ameliorate those consequences—but they didn’t; they were blinded by a desire that overcame reality. Yes, the city remained where it was built, but all of their determined desire could not protect those who perished when reality returned—as it always does!  Another clear example of a belief being destroyed by reality can be found in the field of women’s sports, especially in academia. Remember Title 9? That decree was enacted by the government to force schools to provide financial support for women’s sports. Since these did not draw the same attendance and revenue as did men’s sports, schools put more funding into the latter. Title 9 forced schools to finance women’s sports whether or not the public had an interest in them. Score one for the feminists—or so it was believed.  Then came the current sexual apocalypse led by the “Trans-Gender Movement.” Under this “movement,” an individual can “self-identify” as whatever gender he-she-it chooses. As a result, many women’s sports have become dominated by “transgender” males whose physical strength and size overwhelm biologically female competitors! The result is a travesty wherein women who were supposed to benefit from the increased interest in and funding of “women’s sports” now find themselves overwhelmed in those same sports by males masquerading as females!  Even worse, the present politically correct interpretation of the whole gender-transgender movement prevents women athletes from protesting their subordinate situation lest they be branded as intolerant! Consider how much time and money would have been saved if women had simply been allowed to compete in men’s sports! After all, that is pretty much what is going on now! However, this situation is also very dangerous. A young woman boxer had her skull fractured in a bout with a transgender male illustrating the reason why society didn’t let girls play on boys’ teams in the first place! In the end, most female athletes can no longer successfully compete in their own sports when a “trans-gender” is present in the same competition!  As the rejection of reality grows ever more absolute, it also becomes apocalyptic; that is, the dangers involved increase both swiftly and exponentially through the creation of conditions that no one could have predicted and therefore addressed once they occurred. When the direct consequences of actions are ignored or rejected because they are not desirous, the results are often without precedent. Open borders and “sanctuary cities” have become repositories of diseases long dead in the West or, in the alternative, never before seen except in textbooks. Most diseases in Africa are due to what is called a “fecalized environment.” Human feces is very dangerous especially in the transmission of disease, and when the streets of our cities–-even some of our most beautiful and wealthy cities–-are covered with human excrement, the results are devastating. Several police officers in Los Angeles have already been diagnosed with typhoid! This is a disease arising from filth and human waste, a condition that killed countless millions in the days before Western techniques of public health and sanitation became routine.  Of course, where this sort of environment obtains, the rat is also found in great numbers! Apparently, Los Angeles is badly infested by these creatures. And where there is the rat there is the flea, and where there is the flea, there is the plague. The Medieval “black plague” is still with us in both its bubonic and pneumonic forms. It remains endemic in parts of Mongolia and is even occasionally found in the American Southwest, carried by prairie dogs and their fleas. How much would it take to make San Francisco or Los Angeles of 2020 into London or Paris of 1300!? And while there are now drugs that can address the plague, it is by no means easily cured or terminated! Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, most people didn’t travel very far, but today, modern transportation can carry people everywhere during the plague’s ten day incubation period, thus spreading death far beyond the liberal sanctuary cities that spawned it.  And what is the cause of this madness? A refusal by far too many people and their government hirelings to accept reality when they prefer to embrace false prophets and ideologies. The danger to all mankind grows daily but the sad thing is that those of us who do accept truth and recognize absolutes are not immune to the disasters perpetrated by those who do not. To quote that great Western philosopher, Walt Kelly, the creator of the comic book character, Pogo Possum, “We has met the enemy and he is us!”

For most Americans, our homes are one of the most important concerns in our lives after our families—usually because of our families. The concept of a man’s home being his “castle” remains even today. Of course, many years ago, America became far more mobile than we had been. Into the early 20th century, most people lived all their lives in the same neighborhoods if not the same houses. But at the end of World War II, Americans began to move about the country, something that required the purchase of new homes. Real estate agents soon recognized that people were willing to pay more and accept less to acquire good schools and neighborhoods for their children and themselves. With the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, efforts to “racially integrate” neighborhoods began using a strategy known as “blockbusting.” Now not all black people lived in slums; there were very wealthy black neighborhoods where the lower middle-class white could no more afford to live than the middle-class black could move to Beverly Hills! The divide was economic as well as racial. At the time, middle and lower middle-class housing was usually divided by “groups” as people wanted to live among their own. Thus, you had “little Italy,” Chinatown, Jewish Williamsburg, Harlem and so forth. Because of the lack of political clout of the white lower middle class, blockbusting usually involved their neighborhoods and often poor blacks were inserted into such neighborhoods without being able to afford to live there! What resulted was usually a catastrophe for the people—white and black!—and the neighborhoods.  The first blacks who moved into these white neighborhoods were little different than their white neighbors; that is, they were socially and economically “on the same level.” The result was that there was very little reaction. As I remember it (and I lived through it!), there was no outcry from white residents many of whom had lived for generations in these neighborhoods. However, not long after the first black families moved in, still more appeared and these later arrivals were people who soon created the same slums from which they had so recently departed! Swiftly, black ghettoes with their outré behavior and rampant crime overwhelmed the traditional lower middle-class white community. Overnight “for sale” signs appeared everywhere and the demographics swiftly changed – often within months or even weeks. In other words, all attempts at forcing “assimilation” and “association” did not work!  Historically, no one had a problem with people choosing to live among their own kind whether it was a matter of race, ethnicity or religion. Real estate businesses avoided the sale of houses to people who did not “belong” within a particular community. And while this was not entirely “fair,” as that word is understood today, it allowed people to legally protect their property rights and to associate with those whom they and not the central planners wished. There is no constitutional right to live wherever one wishes especially if the issue involves private property. Even landlords have (or used to have) the right to deny a rental property to people whom they considered bad risks or otherwise unsuitable!  Sadly, the current philosophy of entitlement has convinced people that such standards and the rules by which property values and decent communities were maintained are “racist,” – but “racist” or not, they maintained order and decency allowing a community to avoid undesired behavior including rampant crime. However, with enforced “diversity” came the police and the police state—and that was no coincidence! Freedom of association is illegal now. If a real estate agent is too obvious in directing a buyer toward or away from a particular area, he or she faces disciplinary action from the real estate board and, if found wanting, forfeits his license. A homeowner who refuses to sell or rent to whomever shows up no matter what the reason, will find himself in front of a judge. Freedom of association has joined freedom of speech in that it is no longer a guaranteed right in America. Everyone has to seek permission from the state before they can buy or sell or rent and as a result, often finding a suitable place to live or, conversely, selling one’s home has become difficult for white middle-class families. Long ago, modern conservatism gave up fighting for freedom of association and accepted the Left’s assertions that discrimination was the vilest of sins requiring an extraordinary remedy that forced people into undesired living situations. Many remember Barack Obama’s stated intention to have HUD legally prevent what he termed, “white enclaves!” Once Americans accept the contention that people don’t have a right to say with whom they will associate, all that remains is begging the Left to make exceptions in order to obtain civic order. Of course, as we all know, the Left doesn’t give exceptions to its rules. Only the Right seems willing to do that. Freedom of association is not just forbidden, as an issue, it is not even allowed to appear in the public square! It is easy to imagine what would happen if someone—especially a white someone!—appeared on TV and said they didn’t want to live next to a minority. Their life would be ruined! This is why few if any “principled conservatives” came forward when the LBGT types started attacking Christian bakers and florists! Even libertarians are silent when the topic of free association is raised because we have conceded the “moral high ground” to the Left. This also explains the failure of conservatives to back then President Donald Trump on illegal immigration or acknowledging that America has the right to refuse Muslim immigration as Muslims are openly declared enemies of our nation and our people. Americans never needed permission to say “no!” when it comes to importing the “diversity” that is destroying us, but we have turned that former right into a sin against humanity.  All natural rights are premised on the freedom of people to live apart from those with whom they do not wish to associate and to choose those with whom they do. If we can restore the freedom of association, all of our other natural rights will, of necessity, follow.