When Women Rule a Land

„Why do you keep quoting the Bible?“ readers ask. I could set out the familiar verse about nothing new under the sun one more time:

What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new.

– Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

We might be surprised by any number of current events. We might be at a loss as to what we are supposed to think about them, what we are permitted to feel.

I tell you, the time is not far off when quoting the Bible will be illegal. Already today it is at the very least „problematic“ (and therefore denied by cowards) to say out loud that the Bible could not be more unambiguous about practiced homosexuality (Old Testament or New, Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27).

Further subjects and passages come to mind, such as this curse-like description of his own people by the prophet Isaias:

As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them. O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive thee, and destroy the way of thy steps.

– Isaias 3:12

That those who call us blessed „deceive“ us is beyond doubt. Some are even moving to become „oppressors,“ that is, dictators. And several of them are knaves in the old sense anyway. But as long as you put it generally and in the occasionally antique language of the Douay-Rheims – neither concrete nor funny, in other words – the risk that the authorities will send the police to your door over it stays manageable.

I am certain, though, that the business with the women did not escape you. Isaias describes it as a curse when women rule a land.

This scarcely feminist statement is so disruptive to the leftist world of lies that the woke Bible interpretation „Luther 2017“ falsifies the word for „women“ (נָשִׁים) here into „usurers“ – standing practically alone in the history of translations. (See also Rudolf Ebertshäuser, 25 March 2017.)

If one insists on reading this passage „freely,“ then „women“ need not be read as rulers in the sense of a king; it can also be read as when women „call the shots.“

Or more generally still: it is a curse upon a land when „feminine principles“ determine its fate.

For decades sociologists have argued that in the West rationality as a principle of thought has been displaced by feelings.

Merkel’s Re-Markable Trick

It is now a decade since I wrote the essay „Merkel and Her Re-Markable Trick“ (and before that the Talking Points book). Merkel regularly anaesthetized debate by perverting argument from reason and reality into talk about feeling.

Whether the reaction to Fukushima or the migration initiative demanded by Soros & Co.: Merkel spoke of being concerned and of „ugly images.“ Merkel’s mode of argument resembled the most vulgar female clichés about womanhood: the woman who places emotion above reason and in this way brings grievous suffering upon everything in her charge.

She Finds Them All Likeable

A headline published at stern.de is circulating on social media these days. It actually dates from January of this year, but it is boiling up again now.

A female judge is quoted: „I find almost all my defendants likeable.“ (stern.de, 18 January 2026)

The judge quoted hands down rulings for the juvenile chamber of the Hamburg Landgericht [regional court of general jurisdiction]. And one does read reports about her in the context of „surprisingly“ lenient sentences.

In the „Stadtpark trial,“ for instance, this judge imposed mere suspended sentences on most of the accomplices in a gang rape. When a storm of outrage broke out over it, the judge was styled by the left-wing (= perpetrator-friendly) press into a victim, namely the victim of „hate speech“ (see for instance taz.de, 1 December 2023).

Inside the leftist tra-la-la bubble the speculation runs: „Perhaps the hatred would not boil over so violently if those convicted were white Germans instead of youths with a migration background, and if the judge were not a woman.“ (ibid.) – Correctly phrased in the subjunctive, because it is contrary to fact. Not even the most left-wing commentat_ors can call to mind a recent case in which „bio-Germans“ as a group raped a migrant woman and were afterwards „punished“ by a judge „read as male“ with nothing more than „probation“ – which is to say: could walk out of the courtroom free.

I am not saying that this judge’s verdict was wrong. Or that it ought to have been handed down differently. I am saying that at first glance this case seems to confirm a general perception: societies in which women decide and bring their „female empathy“ to bear tend to be perceived as „perpetrator-friendly.“

Suicidal Empathy

A number of books on the „feminization“ of society have been written by now. Most recently the theme surfaced as „suicidal empathy.“ (On this see also the essay „When Empathy Turned Suicidal“.)

The problem is as simple as it is politically incorrect: men and women are „wired differently“ not only in the body but in the head.

Among the many dangerously absurd features of whatever-suits-me-right-now feminism is that women pride themselves on being more empathetic – while it is denied at the same time that this very trait, which really is natural, can constitute a genuine problem in legal judgments.

It is extensively documented that women tend politically toward the „modern left“; and by „modern left“ I mean: love of the farthest, feeling good in the moment, symbolic politics. (See for instance academic.oup.com, 13 June 2025 and many others.)

But simple observation also tells us that men and women hold different roles in traditional families and tribal communities, and are „wired“ accordingly.

Women are traditionally the „judges“ over children – and men then handle the „big politics.“ Organizing a family requires wholly different innate abilities than directing a bison hunt or organizing an entire tribe.

If men led the family with absolute justice and free of empathy, every family would break apart. Within the family and toward children, what is needed is empathy and an eternal second chance, even for the little rascal. That is why it is important and right that women decide about the daily life of children.

But that same empathy, necessary for children and families, applied to a society will lead to disasters! Perpetrators would learn that even the vilest deeds remain de facto unpunished, so long as they can appeal to the empathy of the female judge.

Why I Quote the Bible

„Why do you keep quoting the Bible?“ readers ask, and one true and important answer remains: that what has been done shall be done again, and that there is nothing new under the sun. Why learn anew what earlier generations – some of them at great cost – had already learned? Why grope about blindly where divine counsel is available?

Yes, study the Bible (might one finally do so again?) – and prepare yourselves for the possibility that the (halfway correctly translated) Bible could soon be banned again.

There are people who know perfectly well that the Bible warns us against dangerous errors, and who therefore do not want us to read the Bible. Perhaps because these people actively want to commit those very errors. To destroy a society, for example, by extending excessive empathy to perpetrators.

By the old translations quoted above we may indeed call such people knaves, in the most archaic register – and „deceivers“ in any case.