Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-26-2017 02:47 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Also I recommend that every young man does some time in the forces, either military or law enforcement. Gives you an enormous sense of taking on responsibility and separates you from the rest.

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

A good three to five years is enough. During that time you're threshold to deal with stress will increase a lot higher and you'd have a lot of good experiences to tell at the end of it.

Jordan Peterson talked about this a lot; the breaking down process that a man has to go through before he can reinvent himself as a stronger version. The likes of Sir Richard Francis Burton had to endure the discipline that the military gave him. At the end of it, he went down his own path of learning over a couple of dozen different languages/dialectics and eventually writing the karma sutra.

Being a policeman or soldier does require servitude to the government, and it is completely thankless in today's post modern society. But you'll still be serving a useful function in day to day life. Government/elites or not, these jobs have existed in one form or another since the beginning of time for a reason. And they have also served as an useful tool to channel and develop masculinity.

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-26-2017 02:47 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Also I recommend that every young man does some time in the forces, either military or law enforcement. Gives you an enormous sense of taking on responsibility and separates you from the rest.

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

Constitution explained it best above. However, let me put another spin on it.

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it. This is a good reason to join.

Let me guess. You spend a majority of your time in front of a keyboard?

My girlfriend isn't pregnant after taking the pill. What fucking pill are you guys talking about?

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it. This is a good reason to join.

Let me guess. You spend a majority of your time in front of a keyboard?

I highly doubt you have the balls to meet me in Kiev and ask me the above question face-to-face.

P.S. I've told NYPD fools that I hate their guts. And yes, I did call one of them a bitch while he was wearing a uniform with a gun in his holster

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

Let me guess. You spend a majority of your time in front of a keyboard?

You: 2,025 (0.82 posts per day | 0.12 percent of total posts)
Me: 19 (0.14 posts per day | 0 percent of total posts)

You guessed wrong, keyboard jockey!

Quote: (11-27-2017 08:30 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it. This is a good reason to join.

Let me guess. You spend a majority of your time in front of a keyboard?

I highly doubt you have the balls to meet me in Kiev and ask me the above question face-to-face.

P.S. I've told NYPD fools that I hate their guts. And yes, I did call one of them a bitch while he was wearing a uniform with a gun in his holster

What was the point of that ?

Quote: (11-27-2017 10:06 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 08:30 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it. This is a good reason to join.

Let me guess. You spend a majority of your time in front of a keyboard?

I highly doubt you have the balls to meet me in Kiev and ask me the above question face-to-face.

P.S. I've told NYPD fools that I hate their guts. And yes, I did call one of them a bitch while he was wearing a uniform with a gun in his holster

What was the point of that ?

Self-expression.

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-26-2017 02:47 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Also I recommend that every young man does some time in the forces, either military or law enforcement. Gives you an enormous sense of taking on responsibility and separates you from the rest.

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

It's got downsides, but it can still be a way to learn teamwork, leadership, accountability and physical fitness while getting paid something for it in the process. It doesn't have to be a permanent lifestyle and if you pick the right avenue you'll spend less time working with women - the ultimate emasculating experience no matter what someone is paying you to do.

While the military in particular would have been a more honest and convincing patriotic experience all around back before citizenship was given away like candy and the borders were erased, there can still be some nuggets to gain from the time spent. Instead, I'm guessing you'd most likely be using that time to drive for Uber, sling Java down at Starbucks to save up for that unique tattoo and getting baked on "medical" marijuana. Maybe you have a better plan, but it probably involves working for somebody in some context, at least initially.

If you go through life with a "Fuck workin' for the man!" attitude, good luck to you, I hope you are independently wealthy from birth or were an early investor in Facebook.

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:08 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

It's got downsides, but it can still be a way to learn teamwork, leadership, accountability and physical fitness while getting paid something for it in the process. It doesn't have to be a permanent lifestyle and if you pick the right avenue you'll spend less time working with women - the ultimate emasculating experience no matter what someone is paying you to do.

While the military in particular would have been a more honest and convincing patriotic experience all around back before citizenship was given away like candy and the borders were erased, there can still be some nuggets to gain from the time spent. Instead, I'm guessing you'd most likely be using that time to drive for Uber, sling Java down at Starbucks to save up for that unique tattoo and getting baked on "medical" marijuana. Maybe you have a better plan, but it probably involves working for somebody in some context, at least initially.

If you go through life with a "Fuck workin' for the man!" attitude, good luck to you, I hope you are independently wealthy from birth or were an early investor in Facebook.

As a part of American military, you have to kill in the name of mostly offensive wars on foreign soil.

As a part of American LEO, you have to enforce idiotic DV laws and are trained escalate - rather than de-escalate - the conflict to the point of shooting to death with no warning shot first.

Have I missed anything?

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it.

A few nights ago I met three Canadian policemen who are presently training Ukrainian police. They looked completely out of their element and were simultaneously fidgiting and name-dropping non-stop. Next time I see them in a Blues Bar on Mikhajlovskaya I will ask them exactly that - "Why have you decided to be some Trudeua's bitch?" and report the outcome here.

By the way, I did ran into the one I called a bitch a few weeks later at the local Russian bakery while off-duty. I turned out to be 100% correct - his balls were in his wife's purse!

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:21 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:08 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

It's got downsides, but it can still be a way to learn teamwork, leadership, accountability and physical fitness while getting paid something for it in the process. It doesn't have to be a permanent lifestyle and if you pick the right avenue you'll spend less time working with women - the ultimate emasculating experience no matter what someone is paying you to do.

While the military in particular would have been a more honest and convincing patriotic experience all around back before citizenship was given away like candy and the borders were erased, there can still be some nuggets to gain from the time spent. Instead, I'm guessing you'd most likely be using that time to drive for Uber, sling Java down at Starbucks to save up for that unique tattoo and getting baked on "medical" marijuana. Maybe you have a better plan, but it probably involves working for somebody in some context, at least initially.

If you go through life with a "Fuck workin' for the man!" attitude, good luck to you, I hope you are independently wealthy from birth or were an early investor in Facebook.

As a part of American military, you have to kill in the name of mostly offensive wars on foreign soil.

As a part of American LEO, you have to enforce idiotic DV laws and are trained escalate - rather than de-escalate - the conflict to the point of shooting to death with no warning shot first.

Have I missed anything?

Plenty. Most people who serve never have to pull the trigger - you'd be surprised how few people are actually doing the fighting. Regardless, the people who get targeted pretty much all deserve it - not counting collateral damage. We can go on all day about the bigger picture - but you don't need to drink the political mission kool aid to get something out of the experience nor does it have to be a career.

You did not challenge the basics I cited for reasons to join, which was based on why another poster suggested it - a way to build character. You don't do that by "Fuck the man!" your whole life.

Domestic violence is the call that is most likely to result in violence against a police officer. If the law is stupid, the suspect could do a lot for his case by going along quietly but that's often not how it goes.

As for how cops are not trained to de-escalate, you need to stop getting your perspective on police training from BLM. Modern police training is very much geared towards de-escalation and verbal manipulation, not indiscriminate beat downs. If you find a department with too much of the latter, easy enough - find another.

Your overall approach comes across as an SJW inclined - are you sure you are in the right forum for your interests?

Get your shit straightened out (internal and external). Enjoy attracting attractive women. Find a good girl. Have kids. Don't skip a step or change the order. It won't work.

Start doing Jujitsu.

Be a producer, not a consumer. This applies with friends, girls, career.

Never complain, never explain.

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:24 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it.

A few nights ago I met three Canadian policemen who are presently training Ukrainian police. They looked completely out of their element and were simultaneously fidgiting and name-dropping non-stop. Next time I see them in a Blues Bar on Mikhajlovskaya I will ask them exactly that - "Why have you decided to be some Trudeua's bitch?" and report the outcome here.

By the way, I did ran into the one I called a bitch a few weeks later at the local Russian bakery while off-duty. I turned out to be 100% correct - his balls were in his wife's purse!

Being in law enforcement they are used to dealing with idiots all the time. You think that you'll be making a point but you will just make the evening awkward.

Besides how much of policing and soldiering is really political. Not a lot.

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:59 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:21 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:08 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

It's got downsides, but it can still be a way to learn teamwork, leadership, accountability and physical fitness while getting paid something for it in the process. It doesn't have to be a permanent lifestyle and if you pick the right avenue you'll spend less time working with women - the ultimate emasculating experience no matter what someone is paying you to do.

While the military in particular would have been a more honest and convincing patriotic experience all around back before citizenship was given away like candy and the borders were erased, there can still be some nuggets to gain from the time spent. Instead, I'm guessing you'd most likely be using that time to drive for Uber, sling Java down at Starbucks to save up for that unique tattoo and getting baked on "medical" marijuana. Maybe you have a better plan, but it probably involves working for somebody in some context, at least initially.

If you go through life with a "Fuck workin' for the man!" attitude, good luck to you, I hope you are independently wealthy from birth or were an early investor in Facebook.

As a part of American military, you have to kill in the name of mostly offensive wars on foreign soil.

As a part of American LEO, you have to enforce idiotic DV laws and are trained escalate - rather than de-escalate - the conflict to the point of shooting to death with no warning shot first.

Have I missed anything?

Plenty. Most people who serve never have to pull the trigger - you'd be surprised how few people are actually doing the fighting. Regardless, the people who get targeted pretty much all deserve it - not counting collateral damage. We can go on all day about the bigger picture - but you don't need to drink the political mission kool aid to get something out of the experience nor does it have to be a career.

You did not challenge the basics I cited for reasons to join, which was based on why another poster suggested it - a way to build character. You don't do that by "Fuck the man!" your whole life.

Domestic violence is the call that is most likely to result in violence against a police officer. If the law is stupid, the suspect could do a lot for his case by going along quietly but that's often not how it goes.

As for how cops are not trained to de-escalate, you need to stop getting your perspective on police training from BLM. Modern police training is very much geared towards de-escalation and verbal manipulation, not indiscriminate beat downs. If you find a department with too much of the latter, easy enough - find another.

Your overall approach comes across as an SJW inclined - are you sure you are in the right forum for your interests?

You deserve to die.

Quote: (11-27-2017 02:46 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:24 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  

I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it.

A few nights ago I met three Canadian policemen who are presently training Ukrainian police. They looked completely out of their element and were simultaneously fidgiting and name-dropping non-stop. Next time I see them in a Blues Bar on Mikhajlovskaya I will ask them exactly that - "Why have you decided to be some Trudeua's bitch?" and report the outcome here.

By the way, I did ran into the one I called a bitch a few weeks later at the local Russian bakery while off-duty. I turned out to be 100% correct - his balls were in his wife's purse!

Being in law enforcement they are used to dealing with idiots all the time. You think that you'll be making a point but you will just make the evening awkward.

Besides how much of policing and soldiering is really political. Not a lot.

I picture it going something like this:

Robert Augustus Masters: "You guys are Trudeau's bitch" (may or may not be slurred from drink)
Canadian Cops: (thinking about their well-paying and likely career-advancing gig in Ukraine, understanding instinctively none of it is worth wasting time on the drunk guy in the track suit) "Whatever, dude." They return to their drinks and resume their conversation.

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:23 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:59 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:21 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 01:08 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2017 03:41 AM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

To be "in the forces" is to be a peon, a pawn, a beta-slave to an idiot of a master. Why would you conciously choose to be some other man's bitch?

It's got downsides, but it can still be a way to learn teamwork, leadership, accountability and physical fitness while getting paid something for it in the process. It doesn't have to be a permanent lifestyle and if you pick the right avenue you'll spend less time working with women - the ultimate emasculating experience no matter what someone is paying you to do.

While the military in particular would have been a more honest and convincing patriotic experience all around back before citizenship was given away like candy and the borders were erased, there can still be some nuggets to gain from the time spent. Instead, I'm guessing you'd most likely be using that time to drive for Uber, sling Java down at Starbucks to save up for that unique tattoo and getting baked on "medical" marijuana. Maybe you have a better plan, but it probably involves working for somebody in some context, at least initially.

If you go through life with a "Fuck workin' for the man!" attitude, good luck to you, I hope you are independently wealthy from birth or were an early investor in Facebook.

As a part of American military, you have to kill in the name of mostly offensive wars on foreign soil.

As a part of American LEO, you have to enforce idiotic DV laws and are trained escalate - rather than de-escalate - the conflict to the point of shooting to death with no warning shot first.

Have I missed anything?

Plenty. Most people who serve never have to pull the trigger - you'd be surprised how few people are actually doing the fighting. Regardless, the people who get targeted pretty much all deserve it - not counting collateral damage. We can go on all day about the bigger picture - but you don't need to drink the political mission kool aid to get something out of the experience nor does it have to be a career.

You did not challenge the basics I cited for reasons to join, which was based on why another poster suggested it - a way to build character. You don't do that by "Fuck the man!" your whole life.

Domestic violence is the call that is most likely to result in violence against a police officer. If the law is stupid, the suspect could do a lot for his case by going along quietly but that's often not how it goes.

As for how cops are not trained to de-escalate, you need to stop getting your perspective on police training from BLM. Modern police training is very much geared towards de-escalation and verbal manipulation, not indiscriminate beat downs. If you find a department with too much of the latter, easy enough - find another.

Your overall approach comes across as an SJW inclined - are you sure you are in the right forum for your interests?

You deserve to die.

Hm, well, How are you going to make that happen so long as you steadfastly refuse to get the necessary training? Or did you already get rejected down at the recruiters office?

Women are irrational creatures.

Quote: (11-27-2017 05:51 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Hm, well, How are you going to make that happen?

Zombies.

Quote: (11-27-2017 02:46 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Besides how much of policing and soldiering is really political. Not a lot.

How many times have you been street-stopped? Handcuffed? Seen insides of a cell?

I was with some 19 year old girls the other night, take in mind this is in London. The propaganda really runs strong with them, they are very happy just in general because they are young I guess. But also because they have high sexual market value, they are being inundated with feel good messages on a constant basis. And then there is the victim complex as well which gives them a sense of taking a the moral high ground, as that is how our protestant ethic based society works.

I do notice a big difference though, even at the age of 25 years old. As a man, I feel a lot more clearer and focused on my goals. My ability to get women has increased a lot more as I have experience under my belt. But then at the same time, my desire for them as lessened. I can avoid a girl quite contently due to her red flags, even if she is attractive and right in my face so to speak.

I don't know if anyone else started noticing these changes around this age.

From speaking to a couple of friends of mine, they noticed the same kind of thing occurring. Which leads to another thing, girls now want to have kids with you. There are the younger ones who want to settle down and don't want to mess around and play games. And then there are the older women who want to settle down with a young man who still has his shit together.

I think it's important to still stay frosty, and realise that the game has changed so to speak. Those 19 year old girls I was with last night. Were unabashedly talking about getting up to all sorts of degenerate stuff in clubs and stuff. In four years time, if they are smart, they will try to settle down with some fella, and try to miss out that part of their history.

Quote: (11-18-2017 07:25 AM)Mortay Wrote:  

6) Even though Christianity is good for society, there is still the possibility that it may be a Jewish creation to enslave gentiles.

This is a very interesting theory.
This is something that needs to be discussed in depth in its own thread.

The Christian concept of so many normal human behaviours being "sinful", the constant hesitation in taking action cause of moral considerations, the endless praying/begging for forgiveness, the required love and mercy for enemies who have attacked you, and finally the feelings of guilt over past acts of strength that were totally justifiable, certainly have prevented gentiles from openly fighting (and eliminating) their mortal enemies.

Enemies who (if still left unchallenged) are eventually going to destroy them.


Pre-Christian Pagan religions in Europe were certainly not this weak.

1. Consumerism is a tool by which the elites control everyone. You don't need a new car, more things for your house, etc.

2. Sportsball serves no purpose, it's a tool to distract people. Fraternity/group bonding can be found in military, mens group, church, etc.

3. University education does nothing for you and tremendously over-valued. Everyone has a university degree these days and lots of debt. Better to learn computer programming or get a STEM degree.

4. Media bias is real, and media often creates their own narratives- Perfect example is the whole RV meetup controversy a few years ago. I can't remember now, but i'm pretty sure that's what piqued my interest in ROK-- the media's hysteria made me think something in their narrative didn't add up.

5. Deep State. Started with Snowden, and became more and more aware. Esp. with Trump now, it's clear they're throwing up obstacles to keep the status quo.

Quote: (11-29-2017 09:50 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (11-18-2017 07:25 AM)Mortay Wrote:  

6) Even though Christianity is good for society, there is still the possibility that it may be a Jewish creation to enslave gentiles.

This is a very interesting theory.
This is something that needs to be discussed in depth in its own thread.

The Christian concept of so many normal human behaviours being "sinful", the constant hesitation in taking action cause of moral considerations, the endless praying/begging for forgiveness, the required love and mercy for enemies who have attacked you, and finally the feelings of guilt over past acts of strength that were totally justifiable, certainly have prevented gentiles from openly fighting (and eliminating) their mortal enemies.

Enemies who (if still left unchallenged) are eventually going to destroy them.


Pre-Christian Pagan religions in Europe were certainly not this weak.

Christianity isn't supposed to be synonymous with pacifism nor was it meant to be weak. It's only relatively recently that they've been pushed over into becoming so cucked. So many preachers and clergy are false teachers nowadays. Good (but very long) essay here, albeit from an incarcerated domestic terrorist.

Quote:Quote:

His [Jesus's] recognition of the appropriate role that the secular authorities play–“give unto Caesar what is Caesar's”–in the world, is a recognition that there is a time and a purpose for the use of force in organizing society, for the power of the state and its laws rest upon force. If he was an absolute pacifist, he would not have given the talent to Caesar.

and

Quote:Quote:

Every historian of the faith realizes that Christianity survived because of the sharp steel and dry powder of Christian armies and fleets. But for these men of steel, Christendom would have gone under years ago. You see dear pacifist, for a thousand years Christianity lived on the defensive. Except for the brief excursion to the Holy Land (Crusades), Christians fought defensively against Islam and the barbarians as they battered at the gates of Europe.

There is no more poignant example than the great Charles Martel (The Hammer), the Frankish king and grandfather of Charlemagne. In 711 A.D., the Islamic Moors of North Africa invaded and conquered almost the whole of Spain, pushing the Christians into a small enclave in the northwestern corner of Spain. These great Muslim armies seemed unstoppable as they crossed the Pyrenees mountains into southern France. All of Christendom was held in the balance, a decision was to be made whether Christian Europe would remain as such or succumb to the Muslim hordes. The decision would not be made in the comfort of some legislative body; it would not be made by fashioning signs with cute slogans written on them and marching in nonviolent protest. It would be made on the battlefield. It was time for Western steel to answer this question. In the path of the Muslim army stood Charles Martel. On the bloody field of Tours in 732 A.D., he stopped them cold, sending them back across the Pyrenees into Spain. If not for his violent actions dear pacifist Christian, you would be praying toward Mecca today.

(he continues with more examples of Christian warfare)

Quote:Quote:

These are just a few examples of a glorious history of Christian warriors. There are many, many others, their precious bones lie beneath our feet, and are the very foundation stones upon which Western Civilization is built. How about Wallenstein, Cromwell, de Saxe, Frederick “Barbarrosa,” Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry II of England, Gustavus Adolphus, Charles V of Spain, Charles XII of Sweden, Louis XIV, Henry of Navarre, Elizabeth I, Washington, Clive, “Mad” Anthony Wayne, George Rogers Clark, Robert E. Lee, “Stonewall” Jackson, and Patton. All were Christian warriors and rulers, part of a long tradition. And now we are to learn at the weak knee of some Christian pacifist that they were a pack of brutes, lacking in “true” Christian virtues. Or some left-wing secular pacifist perched on his pink pedestal is going to tell us that these heroes were “ativistic,” “backward,” and unrepresentative of Christian compassion. We are supposed to believe these “progressive” people as they cast their darts at these giants. They lack even the courage to think of the many things these giants have wrought for them. Without the efforts of such heroes it is hard to see how Western pacifism could have ever developed, let alone survived. There are few pacifists in the Islamic world; it was only Christian ideas about compassion and charity that has allowed this idea to flourish. It was the bloody deeds of such men that permitted Christianity and its ideals of charity to survive. For almost 1,000 years this was a near thing. And as the planes crashing into the building on 9/11 showed clearly, the Western world will once again be called to the barricades. Does this mean that might makes right? No, but might secures the existence of the nation, and might makes and secures obedience to the laws. Whether or not a particular nation and its laws are right or wrong, in this world without the might of such men and women as above, neither the nation nor its laws would exist. So, dear pacifist, bow down and thank these men of steel for their exertions on your behalf, kiss the precious white stones where they are buried. Thank them each day that you have the right to parade your pacifist ideas about, for without them, without their deeds, you would not exist.


Despite its tendencies to pacifism and asceticism, Christianity is not a pacifist religion. Christ taught like a prophet. He was not a political activist. Although he stopped on the way to engage persons in daily life, he was interested in the next world and taught a message about the individual's relation with that world. Even though he did not involve himself in the issues of his day, he did not mean that we should follow suit. It was purely a matter of a division of labor. As Paul later said, there is a place for all members in the body of Christ (Church):
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. ... If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ... But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.

We are being called to the barricades once again, like it or not.

Quote: (11-30-2017 11:28 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

snip

Wrong.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/do...vowams.htm

Quote:Quote:

II. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO MILITARY SERVICE

A. General Historical Perspective

"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5

"The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority. G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ‘until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.’ Harnack’s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4). After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century."6

"During its first three centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war and others forms of violence. Christian opposition to war early expanded into a denial of rightness of all coercive action on the part of the civil power. Thus arose that form of conscientious objection which has been designated as political non-participation."7

"For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession. Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."8

"During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain...that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death. These facts are indisputable: ‘It is easy,’ says a learned writer of the 17th century, ‘to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.’ Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."9

"Christ and his apostles delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct. It was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice in life. And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had been delivered? They applied them to war; they were assured that the precepts absolutely forbade it. This belief they derived from those very precepts on which we have insisted: They referred, expressly, to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear arms. A few examples from their history will show with what undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war, and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of peace."10

"Our Savior inculcated mildness and peaceableness; we have seen that the apostles imbibed his spirit, and followed his example; and the early Christians pursued the example and imbibed the spirit both. This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age, There are more quotations in the apostolical fathers, of texts, which relate to these points than any other, Christ’s sayings had struck them."11

"If it is possible, a still stronger evidence of the primitive belief is contained in the circumstance, that some of the Christian authors declared that the refusal of the Christian o bear arms, was a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. (Is 2:3; Mic 4:2) The peculiar strength of this evidence consists in this: that the fact of a refusal to bear arms is assumed as notorious and unquestioned." [Regardless of the validity of the prophetic interpretation.]12

"A very interesting sidelight is cast on the attitude of the early Christians to war by the serious view they took of those precepts of the Mater enjoining love for all, including enemies, and forbidding retaliation upon the wrongdoer, and the close and literal way in which they endeavored to obey them. This view and this obedience of those first followers of Jesus are the best commentary we can have upon the problematic teaching in question, and the best answer we can give to those who argue that it was not meant to be practiced save in a perfect society , or that it refers only to the inner disposition of the heart and not to the outward actions, or that it concerns only personal and private and not the social and political relationship of life."13
B. Affirmation of Early Church Orders

1. THE DIDASKALIA

"The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ‘from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,’ etc."14

2. THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD

"The Testament of our Lord,’ which dates in its present form from the middle of the fourth century or a little later, arose among the conservative Christians of Syria or southeastern Asia Minor." It embodies a list of rules and regulations governing the "acceptance of new members into the Church and (deals) with the question of the trades and professions which it is legitimate or otherwise for Church-members to follow. It will be observed that...’The Testament of Our Lord’ is consistently rigorous in refusing baptism to soldiers and magistrates except on condition of their quitting their offices, and forbidding a Christian to become a soldier on pain of rejection (from the Church):

"If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or o rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But let those rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the post of authority, and if not let them not be received. Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt."15

3. THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA

"The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and authoritatively laid I down that ‘it was not fitting for Christians to bear arms.’"16
C. Writings of Early Christian Leaders

CHRISTIAN CONDEMNATION OF WAR

"The view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of Christ can have nothing to do. This sentiment was expressed, though with varying degrees of lucidity and emphasis, by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origenes, Athanasius, Cyprian, and Lactantius."17

ARISTEIDES (HE) "says of the Christians: ‘They appeal to those who wrong them and make them friendly to themselves; they are eager to do good to their enemies; they are mild and conciliatory.’"18

ARNOBIUS (300 A.D.) "The treatise of Arnobius abounds in allusions tot he moral iniquity of war. Contrasting Christ with the rulers of the Roman Empire, he asks: "Did he, claiming royal power for himself, occupy the whole world with fierce legions, and, (of) nations at peace from beginning, destroy and remove some, and compel others to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him?’ "‘What use is it to the world that there should be...generals of the greatest experience in warfare, skilled in the capture of cities, (and) soldiers immovable and invincible in cavalry battles or in a fight on foot?’ Arnobius roundly denies that it was any part of the divine purpose that men’s souls, ‘forgetting that they are from one source, one parent and head, should tear up and break down the right of kinship, overturn their cities, devastate lands in enmity...hate one another... in a word, all curse, carp at, and rend one another with the biting of savage teeth.’ "Addressing himself to the pagans, he says: "Since We...(christians) have received (it) from his (Christ’s) teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one’s own (blood) rather than to stain one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ...But if absolutely all...were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquillity, and would have come together in healthy concord...’ "(HE) speaks as if abstention from warfare had been the traditional Christian policy ever since the advent of Christ."19

CLEMENT "In the third century Clement of Alexandria contrasted war-like pagans with the peaceful community of Christians.’"20 "Clement of Alexandria calls his Christian contemporaries the ‘Followers of Peace,’ and expressly tells us that ‘the followers of peace used none of the implements of war.’"21 "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings. For (it is) not those who abstain from evil by compulsion, but those (who abstain) by choice, (that) God crowns. For it is not possible for a man to be good steadily except by his own choice."22

CYPRIANUS (250 A.D.) "Cyprianus declaims about the ‘wars scattered everywhere with the bloody horror of camps. The world, ‘he says, ‘is wet with mutual blood (shed) :and homicide is a crime when individuals commit it, (but) it is called a virtue, when it is carried on publicly. Not the reason of innocence, but the magnitude of savagery, demands impunity for crimes.’ He censures also the vanity and deceitful pomp of the military office."23

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) "Justinus told the Emperors that the Christians were the best allies and helpers they had in promoting peace, on the ground that their belief in future punishment and in the omniscience of God provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than any laws could do." "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all." "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27

LACTANTIUS (300 A.D.) "Lactantius also, in his Divine Institutes, again and again alludes to the prevalence of war as one of the greatest blots on the history and morals of humanity. Speaking of the Romans, he says: ‘Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and) slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence of their crimes...If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think I right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.’ "In criticizing the definition of virtue as that which puts first the advantages of one’s own country, (he says): ‘All which things are certainly not virtues, but the overthrowing of virtues. For, in the first place, the connection of human society is taken away; for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder of the human race, and wherever arms glitter, she must be put to flight and banished...For how can he be just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills? And those who strive to be of advantage to their country (in this way) do all these things.’ "If God alone were worshipped, there would not be dissentions and wars; for men would know that they are sons of the one God, and so joined together by the sacred and inviolable bond of divine kinship; there would be no plots, for they would know what sort of punishments God has prepared for those who kill living beings."28 "And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier-for justice itself is his military service-... And so, in this it is always wrong to kill a man whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature."29 "There cannot be a thousand exceptions to God’s commandments: Thou shalt not kill. No arm save truth should be carried by Christians."30

LUCIFER "Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, professed that the Christians should defend heir greatest possession, faith, not in killing, but in sacrificing their own lives."31

ORIGENES (240 A.D.) This great Alexandrian scholar took occasion to defend early Christian pacifism in his rebuttal to "A True Discourse," which was a attack on he Christian community by the heathen philosopher Celsus, written in 178 A.D. Arguments of Celsus: "Towards the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe. And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians, he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction."32 "(Celsus) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military command (with him).’" Reply to Celsus by Origenes. First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says: "On this supposition" (that all did the same as himself and took no part in war...) "the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor would the world’s affairs fall into the hands of the most lawless and savage barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, a; ; were to do the same as I do, clearly the barbarians also, coming to the Word of God, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the Christians would hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls." "How much more (reasonable it is that), when others are serving in the army, these (Christians) should do their military service as priests and servants of God...And we, (in) putting down by our prayers all demons-those who stir up warlike feelings...and disturb the peace-help the Emperors more than those, who, to all appearance, serve as soldiers. We labor with (him) in the public affairs-(we) who offer up prayers with righteousness...And we fight for the Emperor more (than others do we do serve as soldiers on his behalf, training a private army of piety by means of intercessions to the Deity."33 "It is noteworthy that both Celsus and Origenes write here as if the refusal to serve in the army was not the universal attitude of the Christians. We know that this was not quite the case...(after 170 A.D.). Still the language of these two writers is significant as showing what, at both their dates (178 and 248 A.D.) was understood by well-informed persons to be the normal Christian view and practice."34 "Origenes happily lays great stress on the positive service which he claims is diviner, more needful, and more effective than that of the soldier or magistrate...Of this service, he specifies two forms: (a) Intercessory prayer, which he rightly regards as exceedingly effective when coming from Christians: this prayer is that the Emperor and those associated with him may be successful in their efforts , in so far as their purposes are righteous. (b) Influence for good over other by the activities of the Church and the power of Christian life, ‘educating the citizens and teaching them to be devout towards...God’... and working effectually for their moral and spiritual salvation."35 "To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn any more to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs)." "He points out that God united he warring nations of the earth under the rule of Augustus, in order that by he suppression of war the spread of the gospel might be facilitated: for ‘how’ he asks, ‘would it have been possible for this peaceful teaching, which does not allow (its adherents) even to defend themselves against (their) enemies, to prevail, unless at the coming of Jesus the (affairs) of the world had everywhere changed into a milder (state)?’ Later he says: ‘If a revolt had been the cause of the Christians’ combining, and if they had derived their origin from the Jews, to whom it was allowed to take arms on behalf of their families and to destroy their enemies, the Lawgiver of (the) Christians would not have altogether forbidden (the) destruction of man, teaching that the deed of daring (on the part) of his own disciples against a man, however unrighteous he be, is never right-for he did not deem it becoming to his own divine legislation to allow the destruction of any man whatever.’"36 "And the reason why Christians avoid the public services of earthly life is not because they want to evade them, but because they are reserving themselves for the more Divine ad more needful service of the Church of God, taking the lead-at once needfully and righteously-in the salvation of men, and being concerned for all men..."37

TERTULLIANUS (210 A.D.) "You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned, to whom I is applicable."38 "...the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and cultivating the earth. And so...the new law...has shown forth in acts of peaceful obedience." Dealing specifically with the question of military service, Tertullianus writes (in his Apology "(The question) also concerning military service, which is concerned both with rank and power, might seem (to have been) definitely settled in that (last) chapter. But now the question is asked on what (very point), whether a believer may turn to military service, and whether the military-at least the rank and file, or (say) all the inferior (grades), who are under no necessity of (offering) sacrifices or (padding) capital sentences-may be admitted to the faith. There is no congruity between the divine and human ‘sacramentum,’ the sign of Christ and the sign of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness: one soul cannot be owed to two, God and Caesar. And (yet, some Christians say), Moses carried a rod, and Aaron (wore) a buckle, and John was girt with a leather belt (the allusions are to various items in the Roman soldier’s equipment), and Joshua...led a line of march, and the people waged war-if it is your pleasure to sport (with the subject). But how will (a Christian) make war-nay, how will he serve as a soldier in peace (time) -without the sword which the Lord has taken away? For, although soldiers had come to John and received the form of a rule, although also a centurion had believed, (yet) the Lord afterwards, in disarming Peter, ungirded every soldier. No dress is lawful among us which is assigned to an unlawful action." (The military oath asks too much of a man who owes his allegiance to Christ.)39 In other work, (De Corona Militis) , written in 211 A.D., Tertullianus writes: "Do we believe that...(a Christian) may (give a promise in) answer to another master after Christ...? Will it be lawful for him to occupy himself with the sword, when the Lord declares that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace, for whom it will be unfitting even to go to law, be engaged in a battle? and shall he, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, administer chains and imprisonment and tortures and executions? Shall he now go on guard for another more than for Christ, or (shall he do it) on the Lord’s Day, when (he does) not (do it even) for Christ? And shall he keep watch before temples, which he has renounced? And shall he carry a flag, too, that is a rival to Christ? And shall he ask for a watchword from his chief, when he has already received one from God? And (when he is) dead, shall he be disturbed by the bugler’s trumpet-he who expects to be roused by the trumpet of the Angel?...(and) how many other sins can be seen (to belong) to the functions of camp (life) -(sins) which must be explained as transgressions (of God’s law)...If the faith comes subsequently to any (who are) already occupied in military service...when faith has been accepted and signed, either the service must be left at once, as has been done by many, or else to resolve to endure death for God...Faith knows not the meaning of the word ‘compulsion.’"40 Commenting on these forceful views of Tertullianus, Cadoux says: "It is a mistake to regard Tertullianus as an individual dissenter from the Church as a whole on this question of whether Christians ought to serve in the army or not...When we consider these views...agree with the testimony of Origenes and the oldest Church-Orders as to the normal Christian practice in the earliest part of the third century, and were apparently endorsed by so representative a churchman as his own fellow countrymen and admirer Cyprianus, we shall hardly be inclined to believe that at this time he was voicing the opinion of a minority of Christians, still less that he represented the views of a mere handful of fanatical extremists."41

LETTERS FROM CONFESSORS IN PRISON AT ROME (250 A.D.) "The confessors of Rome wrote from prison to their brethren of Africa: ‘What more glorious and blessed lot can fall to man by the grace of God, than to confess God the Lord amidst tortures and in the face of death itself...to become fellow-sufferers with Christ?...Pray for us, then...that the Lord, the best captain would daily strengthen each one of us more and more, and at last lead us to the field as faithful soldiers, armed with those divine weapons (Eph 6:2) which can never be conquered.’"42
D. Example of Early Christian Believers

1. ATTITUDE TOWARD MILITARY LIFE AS A VOCATIONAL CALLING

"No Christian (from 70-110 A.D.)...would voluntarily become a soldier after conversion: He would be deterred from doing so, not only by fear of contamination by idolatry, but also by a natural reluctance-and doubtless in many cases by a conscientious objection to using arms."

"There were certain features of military life which could not have failed to thrust themselves on a Christian’s notice as presenting, to say the least, great ethical difficulty. The shedding of blood on the battlefield, the passing of death sentences by officers and the execution of them by common soldiers, the judicial infliction of scourging, torture, and crucifixion, the unconditional military oath...the average behavior of soldiers in peacetime, and other idolatrous and offensive customs-all of these would constitute in combination an exceedingly powerful deterrent against any Christian joining the army on his own initiative."43

Harnack: "The position of a soldier would seem to be still more incompatible with Christianity than the higher offices of state, for Christianity prohibited on principle both war and bloodshed...We shall see that the Christian ethic forbade war absolutely (uberhaupt) to the Christians...Had not Jesus forbidden all revenge, even all retaliation for wrong, and taught complete gentleness and patience? And was not he military calling moreover contemptible on account of its extortions, acts of violence, and police service? Certainly: and from that it followed without question, that a Christian might not of free will become a soldier."44

"It had been sometimes said, that the motive which influenced the early Christians to refuse to engage in war, consisted in the idolatry which was connected with the Roman armies. One motive this idolatry unquestionably afforded; but it is obvious, from the quotations which we have given, that their belief of the unlawfulness of fighting, independent of any question of idolatry, was an insuperable objection to engaging in war. Their words are explicit:’I cannot fight if I die .’ ‘I am a Christian, and, therefore, I cannot fight.’ ‘Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier,’ and Peter was not about to fight in the armies of idolatry."45

"It is also interesting that neither Celsus, nor Origenes in replying to him, alludes explicitly to the fear of contamination with idolatry as the Christians’ (sole) reason for refraining from military service: Celsus does not say what their ground was; but Origenes makes it perfectly clear elsewhere in this treatise that it was the moral objection to bloodshed by which they were mainly actuated."46

"The prohibition of military service was partly due to the consideration that the soldier was required to compromise his faith by participation in the pagan rites associated with Roman warfare, and to jeopardize his character by association with brutal and licentious comrades, but objection was also taken on principle to the military profession, and was supported by arguments such as these-that the military oath was inconsistent with the pledge of loyalty to Christ, that Christ has warned His disciples against taking the sword (Mt 26:52), that, if the lesser strife of litigation be forbidden, much more is the greater (1Co 6:7), that, if it be unlawful to fight on our own behalf, it is also unlawful to fight in the quarrels of others, and especially that in war men fight to kill, and that intentional killing is murder."47

"Christians objected not only to war, but also because soldiers were called upon to execute death sentences. Then, too, army service was intimately bound up with the religious-political system of emperor worship, which Christians believed was a form of idolatry."48

"Gibbon, writing in 1776, said of the imperial Roman armies: ‘The common soldiers, like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind.’ Harnack says: "The conduct of the soldiers during peace was as opposed to Christian ethics as their wild debauchery and sports at the Pagan festivals.’ Marcus Aurelius called successful soldiers robbers; but he was a soldier himself, and was obliged to fill his ranks with gladiators, slaves, and Dalmation brigands."49

"This collection of passages will suffice to show how strong and deep was the early Christian revulsion from and disapproval of war, both on account of the dissension it represented and of the infliction of bloodshed and suffering it involved. The quotations show further how closely warfare and murder were connected in Christian thought by their possession of a common element-homicide...The strong disapprobation felt by Christians for war was due to its close relationship with the deadly sin (of murder) that sufficed t keep the men guilty of it permanently outside the Christian community."

"It has already been remarked that the sentiments expressed by (early) Christian authors in regard to the iniquity of war, the essentially peaceful character of Christianity, the fulfillment of the great plowshare prophecy in the birth and growth of the Church, the duty of loving enemies, and so on, all point to the refusal to bear arms as their logical implicate in practice."50

A. summary OF OBJECTIONS TO MILITARY SERVICE (1) Refusal to kill-on authority of Ten Commandments and Jesus’ teaching. (2) Refusal to bear arms-on authority of Master’s command not to take sword. (3) Refusal to violate Christian principles-love, gentleness, and patience replacing hate, revenge, strife, and envy. (4) Refusal to abide by unconditional military oath on ground of inconsistency with the pledge of loyalty to Christ. (5) refusal to comply with military life which necessitated: Extortions Police service Acts of violence, scourging, torture, crucifixion Association with brutal and licentious comrades Contamination by idolatry, emperor worship, and pagan rites

2. CHRISTIAN REFUSAL OF INDUCTION: MARTYRDOM MAXIMILLIANUS (295 A.D.)

"Maximillianus, a young Numidian Christian, just over 21, was brought before Dion the proconsul of Aficia at Teveste (Numidia) as fir for military service. This was in 295 A.D. during the reign of Maximillianus." "Maximillianus answered, ‘But why do you want to know my name? I dare not fight, since I am a Christian.’ ‘Measure him,’ said Dion the proconsul; but on being measured, Maximillianus answered, ‘I cannot fight, I cannot do evil; I am a Christian.’ Said the proconsul, ‘Let him be measured.’ And after he had been measured, the attendant read out ‘He is five feet ten.’ Then said Dion to the attendant, ‘Enroll him.’ And Maximillianus cried out, ‘No, no, I cannot be a soldier. I am a soldier of m God. I refuse the badge. Already I have Christ’s badge...If you mark me, I shall annul it as invalid...I cannot wear ought laden on my neck after the saving mark of my Lord.’ To the proconsul’s question as to what crime soldiers practiced, Maximillianus replied, ‘You know quite well what they do.’" Maximillianus was beheaded. Unknown to most Roman Catholics, Maximillianus has been honored as one of the canonized saints of the church, though he died as a conscientious objector!51

TYPASIUS (305 A.D.) "Typasius, who (earlier) had served honorably as a soldier in Mauretania and had been discharged because he desired to devote himself wholly to religion, refused to re-enter the service when recalled to the ranks and suffered martyrdom."52

Women do not understand the first thing about men. Remember being a pimply faced teenager thinking that girls were these mysterious creatures? That's how they see us. We're weird and mysterious to them too. The key difference is, they couldn't care less if they understand us. There's literally nothing in it for them.

Furthermore, no woman, not even the most kind-hearted and ostensibly caring, is capable of empathizing with a man. Women do not give a shit about male struggles, hopes, and desires. Showing weakness to a woman under the guise of "opening up to her" is always a bad idea. Every woman, even one you think is your "soul mate," would be repulsed if you expressed your innermost thoughts to her. The only attitude women respond to positively is a strong, dominant, don't-really-give-a-fuck demeanor. (And it's not because they're bad people. It's nothing to get bitter over. Women are naturally programmed in a certain way, just like we're programmed to love hot cheerleaders instead of fat frumps.)

This principle explains many societal tendencies, for example:
-It explains why disproportionate male loneliness, suicide, and workplace fatality are non-issues while women having their asses grabbed is seen as a major national crisis.
-It [partially] explains the staggering correlation between boys being raised by single mothers and having negative life outcomes.
-It explains why women insist so hard upon "male privilege." They naturally dismiss male struggles because they have zero respect for any man who tries to convey them.

This one realization has given me so much clearer a picture of reality.