When therefore you see [these things] . . . flee to the mountains.
Jesus – Matthew 24:15-16
It is an interesting observation which seems to hold true among all peoples of the Earth in all generations: geography controls behavior. Geography both provides opportunity and imposes limitations on human action.
To illustrate, oil is not everywhere, spices cannot be grown just anywhere, and oceans and mountains create both a barrier and a passage. Men may march to war, but if the battlefield is too far away – if they must sail the turbulent seas or climb rugged mountain passes – they will exhaust themselves and not have anything left for the fight.
Napoleon understood this principle, and if any single stratagem can account for his meteoric rise in Europe, it was his ability to move troops and to use terrain to tactical advantage.
However, while he understood European geography, he did not comprehend the vastness of Russia. Historians have chronicled the disaster which followed: his army was destroyed by the Russian winter of 1811-12. Both unprepared for the severity of the cold and the distance which his supply trains had to traverse, he faced desolation as the Russians burned their crops and homes in retreat. The French troops had no shelter and no subsistence from the land.
Hitler thought a mechanized army could overcome the challenges of distance and time to “celebrate Christmas in Moscow.” He forgot that the Russian winter is preceded by the mud of autumn rains.
As a side note: the Russian winter is coming again to Europe this year. The Western elites have made the same mistake at an economic level. And it will be just as devastating.
Aside from war, geography impacts social values and attitudes. Flat-landers have different priorities than mountain-dwellers. City people differ from the country folk. This fact can be demonstrated from personal observation, but it has been chronicled in the lessons of history, including the Bible itself.
The Bible tells us that Abraham’s flocks and herds were becoming too numerous and that he and his nephew, Lot, needed to separate. Abraham let Lot make the choice. As a younger man, Lot saw the well-watered pastures of the plain and chose a path “towards Sodom.” Abraham turned towards the high country.
The values of flat landers tend to be materialistic. The experience of plenty and leisure lends itself to pleasure-seeking and decadence. “Idleness is the devil’s workshop” is an appropriate aphorism even though it is not a quote from the Bible. City folk want “nice things.”
Lot became wealthy evidently, eventually selling his flocks and moving into town for a comfortable life in retirement. He sat at the city gate. Working men do not have the leisure time to sit at the city gate to watch the passers-by.
Abraham, in contrast, lived in the mountains and had to contend with its hardships. He lived in tents, a fact mentioned more than once in the Scriptures. The need to find fresh pasture requires frequent migration which a permanent structure does not allow.
His wife, Sarah, was a beautiful woman. She would have been the talk of the town, had she lived in a town. Her beauty was the solitary prize of her husband. No opportunity for adultery there.
The biblical narrative focuses on the tension and failures of Mr. & Mrs. Abraham. Sarah, perhaps, felt isolated on her mountain-top among her sheep and goats, and frustrated at her failure to provide an heir for her husband. She understood the big picture. Mrs. Lot did not. Mrs. Lot provided no heirs and didn’t need them. She had daughters, sons-in-law, and a house. Her future was tied to the fate of the city-state of Sodom. Urban life tends to weaken familial bonds because it is so easy to find temporary replacements for them. Succession becomes a political concern, not a familial one.
However, in spite of her shortcomings, St. Peter tells us that all godly women should emulate Sarah for this singular reason: she called her husband “lord”:
Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters ye are . . . (1 Peter 3:6)
The Apostle’s reference is found in Genesis 18:12 and it is the Hebrew adonay (#113, 136) for “lord,” the word reserved for God. While it is frequently used throughout the Old Testament as a title for God and does reflect the divine attribute of sovereignty, it is not a word equivalent for God. God is a lord, but a lord is not necessarily God. That is why there can be human lords.
Sarah was also Abraham’s sister, half-sister, actually. They shared the same father but different mothers. A discussion on the genetic impact of the future magnetic reversal/solar nova disaster will have to be saved for another time, if ever. A massive extinction event will severely narrow the gene pool and the role of incest will have to be revisited by the survivors, both as to the hazards of inbreeding weighed against the results required to perpetuate the species and also to protect the integrity of the family unit. Currently, our society is too damaged by sexual predators to psychologically or emotionally cope with what will be necessary when the world is returned to a state of nature. The subject needs to be vetted but I may never bring it up again because it is likely a moot issue. Survivors find a way and rationale to survive. Our society will not survive.
If anyone knows the dynamics of sibling relations, sisters have difficulty in obeying their brothers. The “familiarity” of the relationship breeds contempt, or certainly a demand for deference. Sisters do not have to perform sexual favors to obtain the aid and assistance of their brothers because as joint-heirs of the same father, they share in the rights and privileges which grow from that filial bond. A brother would be wicked to demand sexual favors of his sister.
The Apostles teach us that Christian men are to treat the women of the Church as sisters “with all purity” (1 Timothy 5:2), including their wives because, like Sarah, they are “joint-heirs” with Christ (1 Peter 3:7).
Conversely, however, while the man must treat his wife as a sister, the woman must treat her husband as a lord. Lords are not only meant to be obeyed, but to be adored and worshipped, even at the human level of the marital relationship (Psalm 45:11). This creates an interesting dynamic: a wife is her husband’s personal tramp who he is required to treat like a lady, because, if she is loyal to him, she is a lady.
The Bible does not provide many glimpses of bedroom practices in its narratives, but certainly, Sarah’s willingness to use a concubine for her husband indicates an earthy and practical approach to sex, not a prudish one. The results were less than satisfactory, but it did represent Sarah’s understanding of the bigger picture and the need for an heir.
Succession is an integral need of a society’s “command and control structure.” Its continuity depends upon it.
Abraham was a sheik. He could field a small army of 300 fighting men “born in his house.” Assuming the addition of women and children, Abraham’s tribe should have been well over a thousand. Abraham did not need a large family to supply workers. He had plenty of them already, probably inherited by him from his father’s estate. What he needed was an heir.
By calling her husband, her “lord,” Sarah set the foundation for tribal government. If the lady of the house calls him lord, certainly all the servants, workmen, and their entourage were required to show the same deference. That was why Hagar’s contempt and insubordination was unforgiveable.
The modern feminist, of course, grates at such a standard. She says, “I could never obey my husband.” To which it could be asked, “Then, why did you ever marry him in the first place?” In our feminist era, a companionate view of the marital relation dominates. It is the men who must perform sexually and be judged by the women. It is the men who must sacrifice, without the consideration of sexual reward. It is the men who must lead without the expectation of obedience. An absurdity by any standard.
City dwellers usually gravitate to feminism, as the goddess cults of the ancient world attest. The state does not want strong men in a culture because strong men are potential rivals and rebels. States form an alliance with religion to control access to marriageable women. They use the honey-trap to subordinate the men.
For many years, I have compiled studies for a future tome on “The Institutes of Biblical Terranomics.” Time is slipping away and I may not reach my goal. Many of my other books, including this Survival Praxis series, are spin-offs from my research. After God’s Great Eschaton, a new social order will be required. What will it look like?
You will not survive alone. The comforts and security provided by family and tribe will be necessary. Modern man does not understand these things. He is accustomed to command and control structures which are impersonal, often invisible. Able bodied and resourceful men are capable of taking care of themselves in a “Stone Age” scenario. But women are not. Their bodies do not produce enough testosterone.
Women will have to learn to barter their sexuality, along with their labor. On this score, modern women, especially Christian women, are at a disadvantage. They have been taught the fantasies of romance couched in a spurious “Bride of Christ” doctrine. Romance is based upon a magical view of the universe and hazards witchcraft in some of its manifestations. It cannot be sanctified by sprinkling it with Christian jargon. (See The Mother Heart of God & the Pneumatic Role of the Woman for a more complete discussion).
Christian love must be more practical and dedicated to a higher calling. It must teach the values of the mountain top.
The story of Sarah will lead the way.
— JWS, 9/18/22
Survival Praxis is published bi-weekly only to the 2046AD.org website.
Copyright (c) reserved 2020-2022.
