Kevin Rudd has spoken of an outmoded liberty in

W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for this Volume What is New

Chapter 9

BETRAYAL

of what was

2800 Hundred Years Ago Foretold

2000 Year Ago Realised,

and is

Today Applied

Luke 4:16-30, Isaiah 61:1-3

Not Political Hope, Not Social Dope, but Spiritual Life …

There are things other than renewal available. One of these which currently seems to threaten not least in Australia, is noted below.

PM Kevin Rudd has spoken of an outmoded liberty in 'capitalism' which he is to correct by a social intervention. He speaks in large phrasings, as if the emperor of economic understanding (Keynes^*1PLUS) were at work.

In fact, however, there is a perilous pronunciamento here. It is not for nothing that Alexander Downer (The Advertiser, February 2, 2009) has much adverse to say of it, though the matter goes much further. He prefers the more usual term 'market-driven economy' to Rudd's politically minted 'neo-liberal' taunt to the Howard past. From the Thatcher era, Downer^*2has much to say concerning governments after this, which were of a very different type, with a very different result, in Britain in that case. There are balances in these things, when truth is itself under attack; and they are rarely met because without spiritual light to avoid both the normal exploitative trends, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, stumbling is commonplace. Let us however to the spiritual point.

Obviously, the term 'capitalism' is tendentious. If you mean, by that term, that there is here an economic system which stresses the importance of the provision and exercise of capital, of powers of monetary kind by private individuals, so that the other agencies in production are relatively insignificant, then when and whether it applies is a searching question which often would involve value judgments extraneous to the process, based on moral principles to which one feels a pull, or which may be found to be objectively true (cf. SMR Ch. 1, and pp. 375ff.).

	If on the other hand, leaving such rather passé terms of abuse -
	and sometimes there was a directional movement such that labour was exceedingly undervalued, just as there was a time in some places, where wives were grossly misused in the very area of finance, and it seems there was a time when General Motors in the USA may have faced demands such as health care for the work force, which in context, eventually tended to threaten its very existence – we instead think about what is actually happening at the level of man as such, then things would be clearer.
	To regard man’s spirit and his motivation, his morals and his psyche, his prescriptive past and his deserved future, with his movement towards that future, which has long been unwisely fast and unhappily profound, it is this which is foundational. Then perhaps we would have a less prejudicially construable term, like free enterprise for an agent of thought.

It is, after all, something which looms large in the history of individuals, legal entities and commercial ones. One simple illustration to mind is this: one large communications company has made it clear that PROFIT is the criterion, and that any thought of public-spiritedness or such ethical concepts is not to the point. Shareholders are to the point; and of course management figures largely in that area.

Such jejune and blind approaches are enough to alienate many from ANY freedom, and they often tend to seek some liberation from such misuse of mankind for one result, without any apparent regard for the welfare and correlative consequences in all departments of life. Often they seek some kind of revolution which normatively leads to less freedom because those running it tend to be just as selfishlyl (not necessarily at the individual level) vamped by their own ideas and relatie evaluations of this and that among mankind, that it becomes like a horrible operation. On that, you could ask such a figure as Robespierre, in French Revolutionary days, his opinion, were he available, or Trotsky; but why stay with these, there are many millions who, were it possible, might give leading edge interviews about conditions without farms, seized by liberators, working environment in Siberia, and the use of body fat as an economic additive, slowly letting it go, as starvation plus labour indicated the freedom from life, towards which such regimes gave special attention.

It is not merely HOW people rebel, it is WHY and for WHAT. Unfortunately, all three considerations seem relatively rarely to be even considered in history, when feckless rages at real enough outrages, specially changed by charged words, lead to new forms of exploitation. But let us return to the concept of freedom in commercial matters, to free enterprise in that area, and not in that alone.

After all, the RELATIVE liberty accorded to labour (to negotiate, strike, threaten to quit, sue and other things likely to induce employers to avoid their own role), and to accumulated purchasing power, as two front runners if you will: this is something which it is not always easy to determine in the massive overlays and inlays of laws and rules and customs and pluses and minuses, governmental legislation and syntheses and collective bargaining and modes of it, and rules for it and the like.

Free enterprise on the other hand, is relatively easy to gauge. If you are considering perfect liberty and actual liberty in the entire operation as one whole, this is not so difficult. Employers either are or are not subjected to vastly intrusive and exceedingly graded income tax (whether or not this be a good thing, in this or that measure), to parallel governmental performances in rules, procedures, inhibitions, requisitions, principles and compliances, till the prospective employer, once again, will consider well before putting on so drab a coat of inhibition for his imagination.

Is it worth employing at all, when again, the legal aspect may be so tilted to exploitation of those said to be guilty of this or that error in employing them, that it becomes a sort of dance or bazaar, in which words and lawyer's fees multiply, and uninhibited follies stretch as guile and greed on both sides, are met by some measure of variable restraint, as this and that philosophy moves in the hearts of the exponents of justice, as judges are sometimes thought to be (but not notoriously so, in the case of Charles Dickens).

Let us take the other side. Again, labour is or is not free, without union domination, free to move and to agree or disagree with conditions offered and to give or withhold labour on those terms; and monopolies which could make life for prospective entrants to the labour market so difficult as to disinduce prospective workers, are or are not present. Competition for talent is or is not free, and is or is not limited, restricted, overseen, till the point comes that the prospective Christian school for example, may opt not to teach, since it could not use teachers who even understood (cf. Ephesians 4:17-19) what it was about, let alone who could rationally be expected to have their heart in what is explicitly and expressly alien to it. Miracles have their place; but being heartily engaged where your heart is absent, and heartiness is prescribed for the operation in view, this is not one to be expect on any regular basis.

Non-discrimination is the inventive term deployed to enable such mismatches, as if any sort of discriminating mind, that is one which sees differences and acts with wisdom, MUST go before anything is done. Principles that all things are one and that ideologies are subservient to people as such, and entrepreneurial liberties to employ agencies of production suited to a given task are to be curtailed till it becomes a lottery: these become anti-liberty licences which like excessive drinking, intoxicate society, harass enterprise, act seductively to religious principles and mismatch words and facts. It appears to be a rather popular form of torture for Christian bodies in particular. Gross physical abuse is not always the mode in persecution, intimidation, exclusion of liberty and defilement of godly enterprise, to take but one case which serves well in that field.

If employers cannot select workers to fulfil the vision of their entrepreneurial desires, because of ethical bombast - that is, morals founded on no rationally defensible basis^*3 - and they must be willing to have people who systematically neither do, nor could fit into their conceptual envelope and summit of understanding for the post; but instead, workers can select schools, even if these institutions are distant in intent from their own, what then ?

Why, then of course liberty lies in ruins, and free enterprise is a mockery. We have big brother directing by social constraints, by politically correct ideas which are often the very dregs of spent philosophies and the residues of neglected religions, by things having a twilight existence in the confused minds of the religiously vague and the politically vigorous, a common combination.

Leaving, however, some of the components of freedom and of free enterprise, one of the so-called factors of production (though one prefers the term 'agency' as being less abstractly distant in its overtones), we come to the Rudd 'idea', his revision of his concept of 'neo-liberal' ideas in economics.

In fact, there have for long been laws, or rules, or understandings, or limits imposed, whether in industrial arbitration, collective bargaining protocols and procedures, using templates or standards of producer and product maintenance. We are not by ANY means moving from uncontrolled 'capitalism', whatever that may be thought to imply, or better, from a merry liberty in free enterprise, at last to some idea of the rules of the game. Rules come and go, and so do ideas back of them; a and significant aspects of socialism were not invented or applied in no small measure, in Australia or other lands, only yesterday.

The concepts of liberty and law, in commerce and politics in combination, have been debated and instated, embroiled and applied, in ever so many ways by ever so many devices in ever so many countries for ever so long that it is stale, like bread left in the sun for three straight days. It even smells bad. Confusions of social intentions and religious mores, with commercial enterprise, and political motivations affecting economic thought in confused and largely unanalysed flurries are like snow flurries in Canada. They come ... oh yes, and they go. Of course a sufficiently heavy load of snow and ice ... this could be obliterative. Is it coming ? here ?

To introduce more rules to control greed, there is nothing wrong or new in that. To inhibit counter-productive gambling (after removing all pokies first, since that case is direct), this is nothing radical. Various indices and constraints are nothing new in concept, if added to liberty in any game, or the fluctuating gamings inherent in industry, although there are some who take it more soberly, who should be encouraged, since imagination is one thing and gluttony is another.

Graduated income tax is already a most massive intrusion into liberty on the past of law, and arguments for it are strong, the question being one of degree and what you really think you are doing, not only FOR people who work, but TO those who employ.

To have prudential measures in place, whether in industrial law or procedural rules is nothing in the least astonishing. What is excluded is not in itself a reduction of freedom, if the misuse following from its inclusion inhibits liberty of enterprise, imagination and performance.

The main reason, however, why one is constrained to deal with a topic which at first sight might appear rather far from a spiritual discourse, is this. IF - in speaking in this strangely dramatic way of what is already a major feature of our own Australian approach to the operation of a measure of free enterprise economy - his topic itself is not in any way NOVEL, Rudd appears merely to be exhibiting the not always attractive oratory of the political wing. If this is so, so be it. IF however this is to be an avenue for the ILLICIT because unacknowledged intrusion of a set of NEW MORALS, and NEW SOCIALIST SOVEREIGNTY (out with the King and on with the Revolution type of thing), then it needs spiritual attention.

In the end of January edition, 2009, of The Australian, we find the headline, "PM's plan to rescue capitalism." But why should 'capitalism' be rescued, and where is it to be found in Australia, that it might be rescued by the gentleman who is its current Prime Minister ?

There is no noticeable emphasis on free capital to the point that other agencies of production are left baying in the wind, at the wonders of liberty some have and they lack, in the co-operation that becomes production. To be sure humane, caring and watchful provisions for the welfare of workers is of vast importance, though attitudes of spirit are hard to teach unless the heart be immersed in the truth of God; just as faithful, loyal and co-operative approaches of employes are hard to induce in an increasingly depraved society, where employer and employe alike are constantly barraged with teeming ethical follies, like a downpour of torrential rain.

Meanwhile, there is a marked decline in free enterprise, by no means on the side of the angels (which would not hurt if it stopped bullying and the like), and this not at all only in ways which make it a more sober and sage procedure. Let us illustrate. Obviously, if you want a high-skill, cranial type of game involving feet and footballs, you could move very significantly away from the manner in which much Australian rules football is IN FACT PLAYED. If you wanted to give maximal freedom for THAT kind of a game, in which physical violence has much weight against it, intimidation is regarded like leprosy and co-ordinated brilliance is richly enjoyed and ripely acknowledged, then it would seem that there would need to be changes.

Similarly, if you WANT a type of economic system which enhances the tendencies of enterpreneurial imagination and utilisation skills to be wedded in harmonious interchange, then there are numerous refinements which could move yet FURTHER in this direction than they already do. There is nothing novel in the concept.

If however you want to introduce a SOCIAL SOVEREIGNTY type of situation, where objective morals (cf. News 19) do not exist, so that today morals are this and tomorrow that, so that again, what is just and right is no more even conceived, but what is DEEMED socially acceptable (in various rules about how PEOPLE MUST INTERCHANGE, in terms of a quasi-religion), then it is necessary, in terms of HONESTY, to admit this.

The really fundamental question is quite simple. Do you want to remove the term 'Almighty' from the Australian Constitution's pre-amble, and any sense of enduring morals of a biblical kind, and invent a whole new set, founded on such outworn managing misconceptions as those of the predatory and preyed upon, class way and other brilliant concepts so productive in the past that a whole empire of evil shone with their dark light ? Is it this perhaps ? Is it in this, or some other frozen moment of conception, to be a matter of inducing new ways for this sort of imposition to happen, in which, as so frequently found, a dictatorial REGIME replaces dictatorial workers or employers (depending on whom strikes most, and with what!), and lords it over both ?

If so, it is necessary long before the next election to say so. You need to make it clear that morals are to become malleable, that popular thoughts about what is right and wrong are to take a new surge and innovations in all domains of thought are ON. If freedom is to become a social derivative and not a divine grant; if it is to be an odd component amid obstruction and constriction, with little wisps allowed to escape, like little clouds on an Autumn day: then let it be said before the next election.

Those who turn the switches for this kind of thing, they are no more GOD and His word (which many millions believe), the Bible, but various combinations of religions or ideas, moving like a mighty, surging stream (ask Adolf, he was a skilful transformationist before his lunacy enabled his strong armies to be overcome by dictatorial buffoonery, as in the Stalingrad case). If that is what is wanted (and you hope for a benevolent dictator, whether it is to be found in orchestrated meetings of clever people, shown the way and then showing others to follow it with pseudo-religious zeal, but without parallel logical ground), then let it be stated. Let it be acknowledged, then, so that those who do not like dictators, whether as employers, or employees or governments or this or that mode of revolutionary reconsideration incorporated, can move in an orderly way to something that still has a significant relationship with liberty.

The triune being, that is here a merely conceptual one, ECONOMIC MELT-DOWN, SOCIAL KINGDOM, TRANSFORMATION BY NEW TRUTH, is one not vastly different in type, from the French Revolution and many another idiotic sweltering in illusory ideals, not least the Communist one, that have lambasted their devotees, many of whom died at the hands of their brethren, in both cases. LIBERTY does not approve. FREE ENTERPRISE, protected by RELEVANT rules, to enhance it, not suppressed by religious nostrums from nothing, to enchain it, is or is not sought, responsibly. Balancing liberty to defend truth with desire for comfort is a work of the lost. Truth is not for sale. As the Bible declares, Buy the truth and do not sell it. In this country, buying it, avoiding dictatorial invasion to enable liberty, has not been cheap. The gift of God needs no price from man; but the defence of this land had liberty in view for its people. It is in grand danger of being lost to subtlety, which was aided in defence in yesteryear by courage and sacrifice.

But what do you want ?

Is it godlike attributes in a novelty government transforming the entire ethical and social fabric of this land in the directions of variable and undemonstrable philosophies that are sought (cf. SMR Chs. 3, 10, pp. 422E-W, and per contra Ch. 5). It may come to that. Let the people have the issues put clearly, and the basis exposed without fear of retribution from any over-confident government, which might wish for reasons of politics, to keep its place and ultimate principles out of sight. Indeed, governments like people are readily confused. Let it be, at least, that if the people are to institute such follies, they are aware of their self-inflicted wound before they make it. MANY are those who giving up liberty for false visions, have regretted its bite when truth becomes an outlaw, free speech a peril and governmental folly a virtual object of worship. There are millions and hundreds of millions in this globe now, who SHOULD have reason enough to add their warning to this.

Let the people say yes or no to all of this; but let them not say nothing because they do not even realise the confusion of religious and moral, social and economic questions!

The move from what is rather wantonly referred to as 'neo-liberalism' which has all the clarity in depth, of the surging seas, to neo-socialism, which is presumably to have its claws cut, is not attractive. It would be better to move from free enterprise with reasonable rules to enable its enhancement, while excluding mere exploitative approaches by labour or employers or government, to free enterprise with yet more watchful and relevant rules, to outlaw STILL MORE than is already the case, what is erratic dabbling and to facilitate imaginative creativity in production.

When the people of Australia want a government which will call the shots on religion and morals with ethics, one to invent its own schemas on the same, and then to impose this variable collection of currently desired nostrums on the plastic people (or neo-plastic people ? different from other revolutionary days perhaps, in intention at least), not only in labour-employer relations, not only in governmental laws for each, but in INTERNET FREEDOM^*4, let them, being informed, say so.

If they want a government to be making ludicrous efforts to ban things which, if read, are too strenuous for a quiet life of sybaritic or other self-fulfilment, one where convenience outdoes truth, where assumption dismisses experiment and experience, where plastic social surgeons may at any time cut off the wrong member (as we find is by no means unknown in our hospitals), lest some under-age people might find something that makes them think or face value realities, EVEN IF THEY BE EXPRESSLY NOT INVITED or are warned: when the people want this: what then ? Then let them vote honestly for it, and apply the dictatorial heel to their fellow citizens if this must be.

Dictators are two a penny. Myself, I despise the very name. I love the Lord, who never acts as dictator, and would WEEP for a Jerusalem about to be destroyed (after a generation of warning, some 40 years back in the first century AD), rather than legislate it into conformity. Sacking liberty which is itself a pre-condition of love, is sacking man. What is the good of the residual post-human mess, when its nature is so negated! The Bible predicts the cost of this sort of thing as in Revelation 13, 16-17, where governmental power is augmented by a second beast, a MORAL one with RELIGIOUS nails.

It will come. It is just not a good idea to be so hypnotised that the coming is hastened. It is the coming of Jesus Christ, logically inviolable^*3, which is to be sought; not that of a wantonry of subtly intrusive new morals, new religious conceptions and human innovations, genetically modified to match the plant regimes, at the biological level. In fact, this is one sort of modification which you CANNOT achieve while that magnificent feat of creation, mankind, continues to exist. It is one of the last throws of powers, coming to act as if God, who has long told He Himself is coming , as at the first to suffer as sacrifice (Psalm 2, Isaiah 42, 59-55), so at the last in righteous reign (cf. Habakkuk 2:15, Zechariah 14:5, Psalm 72, Isaiah 11) to divest the evil and demonstrate righteousness on this earth, before its time past, it is sent off.

The self-revealing God has made and provided for remaking, in Jesus Christ. The uncomprehending darkness obscures the issue, but the light shines in the darkness, and some are given grace to find it.

But what of the coming perturbations from neo-divine desire (essentialised as in II Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, 16-17, 19)? Their regime will tilt before it is spilt. Come quickly Lord Jesus, and thank God for your making of us, and power to keep our spirits from spiritual subjugation by neo-moral manifestos.

NOTES

Lord Keynes has exhibited a strange fascination for many, in his views. One aspect is so simple: if people don't want to buy then do things so that things will HAVE to be bought, like building new bridges or roads, so that outlay being made, production will be stimulated, jobs will be needed to produce and the down in the dumps fear and apprehension, seeing and finding action, will relax and come to life. Cure depression with production, production with governmental action, and push promptly before depression becomes a condition, not a phase!

This nostrum, it has many dangers, some perils. Thus for example, the very concept of inveterate lending and credit has a degrading feeling, because no more are you spending what you earn; you are spending in a sophisticated, amoral sort of way and hoping it will somehow make the machinery go once more.

You may say, Where is this inveterate bit ?

Why, it is so common in history, that if once you relax keen moral standards, and become self-indulgent, then soon laziness, criminal cosiness and various other pathological phenomena to which man is prone, tend to circumvent your original little idea, and you pay at leisure for your pleasure.

Thus a little debt to tide things over becomes ... two trillion ? and an indebtedness (to WHOM ? in the famous case of the USA, to China not least, a government that is atheist and HENCE amoral in fact: for there morals to measure are, and CAN only be, only ersatz cf. News 19) ... part of the hypocrisy of artificiality. This neither is nor can be any obligation to follow anything that happens, for occurrence to become duty, or describable the imposable. Description has no way to grow in these waters to prescription. It is all confused, intrusive confusion. Yet they do it, and the USA is borrowing greatly ... just there.

This grows. Perhaps a new trillion this year ?

You OF COURSE, whoever the borrower may be, have no obligation to do what they tell you, even if they are financing your activities at the level of your desire.. ? Naturally, they would not dream of lending no more, nor consider not renewing existing loans and so finding sophisticated international problems. Really ?

Thus debt, which is always a limitation, sometimes fatal, becomes a way of life. Then brinkmanship (as with Obama) with debt and international relations comes to be, and expansion of spending correlative with so great a nation comes just in time to add to it. Equity is not the same as luxury.

Not only so, you import perhaps a little more freely from your benefactor-lender, and so your own goods become less and less of a self-sufficiency case, so that in this way you are more and more prone to .... problems ? of having what you need from your own lands, when you need it, and making more AS and when needed.

You become meanwhile more and more self-explanatory of why your so great system is in such woes ... You WON'T pay the income tax over the bounteous years, and so you borrow, and is this a system or a folly of human nature! What 'system' made you do that ? ALL liberty depends on responsibility, and no system produces it. If you try to manufacture it by law, you can remove some evils, as in Italy, where such a work as Peter Robb's Midnight in Sicily shows you ... to what extent such means are successful.

Pills of philosophy and lavish laws are not the way to health. Corrupt governmental leaders, in Japan or Italy, these things are not verging on the unique!

Meanwhile, playing with God, in increasing dissolution without grounds (cf. News 121, 122), this becomes its own death knell. Nostrums may make a symphonious performance out of the death rattle, and it may be prolonged; but it is not greatly distanced by these drugs. What thrust a nation to power, fallen into lust and through indolence left to rust, naturally aids it to devastation. As good as was the former emphasis in the nation (and it was very great), and as surely as it led to wisdom and righteousness, SO surely - unless mercy intervene massively - will the departure aid decline.

In fact, in the case of the USA, it is not so many years ago that some politicians interested in the presidency were offering a plan to remove the debt. It would be courageous and require discipline. They changed their thoughts however.

Ideals for angels are not the same as wisdom for those who are not.

A prescription for a rampant disease is not the same as a way of life. Integrity and so less crime, morality and so less attempts at ludicrous exploitation, wealth through indolence, these are things that count, and more than that, understanding through having the God who made you live in your heart , and His word prized in your procedures, this makes for stability and strength (cf. Isiah 33:6). It is still true that righteousness exalts a nation.

Further, it helps to prevent that nation-toppling routine where the self-indulgent and the morally weak come to the point of playing with their captors, who cease to be playful.

Tossing money about, as in Australia, can also become a prodigal action, inventive rather than effective, a complex situation with a simplistic solution.

A deeper work is needed. One more superficial, however, is simultaneously flexing its well-fed muscles (cf. Lead Us not into Educational Temptation! and TMR Ch. 8, as merely one aspect of this confused muddle and meddling, which enhances decline, an unrealism which is neither self-consistent nor rational. Naturalism comes in like an LSD dose to distance reality (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!), and even in some segments of science, many exponents seem to shudder at manifest empirical fact (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6), and become rationally incoherent in the process. Yet the facts bask in restful sunshine, though unpopular (cf. TMR Ch. 1).

This is dangerous work, even perilous, yes in education and politics alike. It is like learning to walk on a precipice, or teaching a child of 7 the finer points of curve taking when driving at 110 km/hour. It CAN be done, for a time.

Alexander Downer, former federal Treasurer, in The Australian, February 2, 2009, has some interesting comments of a negative variety on the Rudd initiative, and it is useful to compare these two sides, in looking for something more profound because encompassed by matters of principle as well as practice, and reasoned necessity rather than the merely pragmatic, useful as this can be in its own limited domain.

*3 See News 19 on morals.

On what is rationally defensible, indeed unable to escape the warrant of reason, namely the Bible as the sole authorised written word of God to mankind, see for example:

1) REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER

Irresistible Reason for Certain Faith

in 2 volumes,

with specialisation on method:

REASON LEADING TO REVELATION
and the REDEEMER

REASON LEADING FROM FALSE REVELATION
and to Verification

2) DEITY AND DESIGN, DESIGNATION AND DESTINY

3) LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST

WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES

AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS

Bible or Blight, Christ or Confusion:
The Comprehensive Resolution of Man's Intractable Problems
is Found Only in the Bible, the Word of God.

4) SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD

AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION

EXCURSION ON THE WAYS OF LIBERTY and the
WAYS TO MANUFACTURE CHAINS WITH TAX MONEY

The Australian, January 27, 2009, relates the point that an extended time is being set out by the government for filtering internet items. It may take most of this year.

The usual tack in this sphere, appears incredibly simplistic. How does it go ? What is the intellectual anaesthetic being used, to chase away thought ?

It seems to move like this. First step: Genuine and general agreement is not hard to obtain that filthy litter on the internet is undesirable. THAT should be filtered out. Yes say many, including concerned parents. This however is merely the basis on which the guns are placed, as inter-continental missiles are weirdly fired into quite different territories.

What is the basis then ? WHEN and IF this objectionable material in view is defined in terms of adults on the internet seeking to seduce minors sexually, whether in physical or emotional or distant or intimate mode, or perhaps in devising schemes to induce the unwary to be exploited in monetary fashions, then the basis is squarely laid. However, it does not retain that shape.

As far as it goes, yes indeed. How horrible! certainly, nothing should be allowed to convey such physiological disintegrative devices into our race, or psychological adjuncts. There is room for action here.

Then comes step 2, as reasonably related to step 1 as is ice to boiling water.

The idea of a FILTER to REMOVE the not good stuff, being in place in the public mind, then the rockets fly.

Next, then, you have apparently irrational additives seconded. They appear like ghosts out of the mist, sensational, illusory, unkempt.

According to the present state of the psyche and the moral innovatory premises of someone or other who has this or that relevant power in government, NEW and very DIFFERENT things are now to be added. THESE TOO, these must go. These things, they are opprobrious, unworthy, to be condemned and HENCE to be filtered. Like braying sheep, many intone, Yes, yes, you must be right, of course yes!

They strum the fingers. Let's think. There MUST be other things that can go, while we are in cutting mode. Look, how much we do not desire people to say things which upset people! Cut that out. Truth hurts ? Nerts! Forget it. People's sensitive psyches must be subsidised, and truth can go hang. They may not say or even think this, but the mode seems to take over. Political self-indulgence has a way with it, like the gastric variety.

So they add (in this or that manner of speech)! Let us put into this unacceptable category, what offends people, and ... yes, let's call it ALL THAT obscene, just for kicks or votes or something or other! Why not ? We are the socialist dictatorship and we WILL do what we want. Try to stop us. Our nation fought for freedom ? Well that is past. Now the mission is as in the economic past, too much indulgence. Hence obscene is liberty which gives grounds for truth! this seems to ooze from liberational pores, dedicated to some esoteric kind of liberty, which leads to prison and fines.

How Victoria played the fool on that sort of commission

(cf. Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 6,

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15412.htm, and the account at

C:\awwww\freedomdocumentandthelaw.html) !

Mercifully, that folly was terminated over a few years and hundreds of thousands of legal fees.

Now the case moves... and what will its content be federally, in our new prohibitioninst era?

Why should other people be the only ones to enjoy this sort of paranoid misuse of power ? Is this to be the theme, if not its formulation ? How nice to cut out what you do not personally find comfortable, and to have others of the same mind well, help you plot the prohibitions nicely.

Why not make any religious stuff that is too strenuous, and anything which digs deep into the human psyche, in the name of this or that god and all that stuff, make it off-limits, criminal ? certainly finable or prelude to imprisonment. Take it off the net. Don't worry about PEOPLE, they all have their ideas. WE have ours. Let's see if enough people of influence can drown the objections in the interests of getting the really obscene stuff away. Let's remove anything which is contrary to the sacred wishes of Moslem thoughts, just to mention one, and so have a tempered time of pseudo-peace. We can supply a broad range of anti-biotic laws, to remove life and ensure that militants rule! Good ?

Hurrah! say some. Bah! say others. So the government does a magnificent job of dividing, and perhaps deluding the people. Will it come to this ? It very nearly did in Victoria VERY recently. Enough has already been said - one high profile figure declaring quite directly that there was a wide range of OTHER objectionable material that might very profitably be REMOVED. Psychic dyspepsia MUST NOT HAPPEN! If truth hurts, let it go. If this were to proceed, Australia would already be defeated, despite the wonderful courage of soldiers in two world wars. It would become an intolerant relic. The best of it is this: it would be intoned as if it were a moral thing which was divorcing truth from licence, rather than an extension of the first crucifixion!

When such things take to the waves to fight, and have tax-payer funding, the idea of liberty is trampled on as if it were the bones of Stalin, beneath the shoes of those whose parents and grand-parents he dedicated to slavery and death in icy conditions, while their very biological reserves where slowly and ECONOMICALLY (that is, thriftily) used to get more ... production, yes that was the word.

On the general topics of Web liberty and the governmental intrigue situation, to use one bad thing to dismember others by a type of salient slander of what they are about, see below useful sites in this Web address and elsewhere.

But what ? The concept of a democracy which is NOT a dictator in religion and morals and ethics then becomes outmoded. We are here, we would then find, in order to direct, dictate, thrust out what is not liked, and thrust in what on the whole, has the most popular zest involved.

Who are 'we' ? Why the rulers, construe them how you will. These are the moral innovators, the pseudo-religious value creators, digging into nothing to provide what has no ground (cf. News 19).

They might even try to manufacture for wide use by the social commissars, a zest-metre. At least, this could be the first step, for as in the ONCE incipient USSR, you first offer something (there land) land as an incentive and then take it from them, for your own good as a government, in order to FORCE man into a new shape that APPEALS.

It wasn't very photogenic, in the Russian case. Grave-yards seldom are. They are not always named grave-yards, however, just perhaps REMOVAL VAN cases, to remove what probes and presents, perhaps in the name of the Bible, what is not desired.

Like Three Self Churches in China, however, another dictatorship already installed and not at the merely problematical level as here, you could have LIMITED LICENCE to speak, provided governmental inspectors approved your religion or values or whatever else. In the case of the New Testament, now current for Christians, VIOLENCE is prohibited. Perhaps then there could be a crusade to obliterate their testimony cheaply ? It might be more subtle to make it appear violent (to the emotions perhaps ?, just as the surgeon's knife is violent to flesh for a little while, but with good reason, and therapeutic intent).

ANYTHING strong and well-attested could be said to be violent, or even TOO INTENSE, to get a little nearer to some of the existing classification challenges.

It is therefore necessary to look ahead and weigh the price of the loss of liberty.

Thus as shown in this Chapter:

	the 'god' they want, who will assuredly be shown in his outer clothes as the new templates for values and morals and social rest are chosen from the available crowd
	without rationality or ground,
	a social construction based on number of heads and feel-power, or other interesting substitutes for spirituality in the light of the Lord (as in Ch. 8, *1 above),
	may already be under construction.
	He may indeed come to provide with due largesse, the legal strictures from his quasi-scripture.

This will Australia do as the nation ?Will it come to this ? Not if people consider where they are going.

It is already a nation going downhill with a will, sending increasing signs of seeking to establish a humanitarian substitute for the glory of the Lord. It will be so very democratic, confused and abusive. On the other hand, the people may awaken in time.

Just because folly is to be the name of the game before the Lord returns to judge (II Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13), this is no ground for being blind in its pursuit in any one given nation, in the meantime.

RELATED MATERIAL

For a site in this Web address dealing with government, internet, liberty, law and Australian happenings in this field, see the following.

Classification Bill. This extensive document took the form of a letter to Parliamentarians.

In addition, some exposition is found in the following Web sites:

lhttp://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html

The articles noted above may be added here:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15412.htm, and the account at

C:\awwww\freedomdocumentandthelaw.html) !

More generally on liberty, see

The Pride of Life Ch. 3 (democracy, freedom, force and truth in the nations),

Galloping Events Ch. 7, esp. *2 - political, religious and educational liberty, on which also see Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 6, *7 and
Pall of Smoke and Diamond of Joy Ch 10, (incl. Victoria).