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

CHAPTER 5

 

CHARACTER IS NOT OF NO CONSEQUENCE:

LET ALONE IN A NATION

 "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people,"

Proverbs 14:34

cf. Volume 10, Ch. 2

 

News

The Australian December 22, 2010

 

AN ANALOGY

THE THEME in this Chapter is that character matters, and its surrender is like declaring bankruptcy financially, or the fall of the admirable into the pit of pollution, writhing amid scorn.

Take an illustration before we turn to the national case. Suppose a young man is well brought up, has morals that make him reliable when he speaks, faithful in contract, mellow when possible, gracious without being lax, thoughtful but not intrusive, merciful but not weak, apparently knowing not only where he is going, but why and how he plans to get there.

Then a harlot entices him and he gets syphilis; a mountebank deceives him and he loses his credit funds; a storm overtakes him and he car is wrecked, drugs entice him and he becomes pre-occupied with internal conditions - self-induced,  false friends extort from him in the name of an illusory camaraderie. Do we consider this the universal law of things, the necessary development, or an abysmal failure to be grateful in the first place, and to show that gratitude in attitude! And the RESULTS! do we think of them as inevitable, or merely the consequences of what, consciously or unconsciously, was opted for, desired, received only to make for a downward spiral, later made more direct!

A NATION

Take now a nation. It has been brought up on themes of justice, equity, law, even the concept of the law of God, founded by a Protestant nation, protected by it, and developed with capital from a secure base. Churches proliferate, and some are even given land in terms of the percentage of the immigrants. For God, country and literature, becomes the motto of one of its most triumphant colleges, the school for some of its most famed characters. The wealth of the land increases, its people become objects of independence in war, and acquire a reputation for strength of will.

Then its churches begin to be subverted, many of the largest, by various idolatries, and the generic trend, even in some of them, comes to be this: to criticise the word of God, the Bible, or to add to it. Seminaries blast away at it as if it were a quarry, to be extended by assault with machinery; and salaried Professors of religion, paid to be pure to it,  become agents of assault against the Lord Jesus Christ, to re-make Him on  various substituted scriptures, while sects which downgrade Christ, move like mould in the midst of the formerly relatively wholesome midst. Direction becomes a criterion, what it is to be or even should be,  confusion becomes a central official, moral and strategic questions teem, as teams become more divided and counsel is as varied as the products under the sun. Freedom, long fought for against such as the oppressive Hitler, becomes negotiable. Sexuality becomes for many in principle, a plaything; and laws to enable this are not only created, but schools TEACH that it is ENTIRELY up to you what you do with the undoubted procreative equipment which is used to keep the race going, between the genders. It becomes illegal, in varying shades and degrees, to open your mouth against such biblically defined perversion of design, morals and the race. You are to receive prison or fine if you upset people on religion, one State had it.Moreover,  the truth and your intention not even the criterion. This has been an accelerating trend.

When  a nation makes it illegal to point to a better path, in peaceable ways, or to seek strenuously to make available warning to those who are moving from the past greatness and the associated bases, it is already poisoned, and without the miraculous from God, ruined beyond repair.

Such is Australia,  in its new mode and direction. In many of these things, it has much in common with the USA, which has just managed to pass a law that no longer is there any impediment in the Army, upon those who wish to live their sexual lives with those of the same gender, contrary to the procreative design, one of great complexity and ingenuity. Rather is it conceived as just an oddity, and indeed perhaps even that would seem unacceptable, just a method of living. Morals bite the dust, where the serpent attacks the ankles, interested in the developments. Complex emotions with guidelines now enter into a complex military situation; and the nation which loses its clarity and perspective in accord with what it IS, has been and by the very book which once held so many leaders and peoples in entire delight, for its guidance, moves into the deep. Its Bible in political practice and legislative trend,  is despised and re-created with other ideas, to form a total department-store mentality.

You shop for your religion, and the nature of the nation is sold. It becomes the epitome of idolatry, and the idol is oneself, soon taken over by popular community idols, till force and confusion alike begin to rule, and even the mouthing of fundamental morals becomes offensive, and even the subject of litigation: as if people with whooping cough could sue those who gave a diagnosis of their disease, which by the nature of our bodies, tends to be infectious. Sexually, for example, there are protections inbuilt which cater for procreative acts which do not appear in certain variants. Psychic problems arise in the appropriation of leadership, and innovative ways produce spreading problems.

When it comes to truth, it is the same. Opportunism becomes the master, and the lie the weapon of choice. The nations learn deception as the norm, not as something new, but as a thing most sacred, prosecuted to the  point that none trusts the other, and what had previously been a blight becomes a rule. Methods of torture now become more available, since morals do no more matter, according to the inventions of the day in that field. Nations begin to resemble each other more and more, governments deceiving themselves, their people and their neighbours, and with more power from atomic weaponry, riches from oil help some to seek to laud it over others, seeking to intimidate, even when themselves relatively unproductive and weak, through the purchase of such weapons. Others simply throw rockets into the skies, talk of atomic power and seek free wealth or security.

Religious strategists can seek immigration as a means of subverting a target nation, and in Australia, boat-people, a new governmental vulnerablility accentuated by both blindness and carelessly crafted management, allows one particular religion, which as noted in the last Chapter, has many components at war with this land, to be selectively LANDED here. Closing down of a former extra-territorial reception station for such boat-people, enables them to be brought to parts of Australia, then the more menaced by the potential of such immigrants, selected by themselves, in terms of numerous Islamic terrorist movements; whilst mosques may be build in proportion to desire, not statistics, to change the face of the nation; even if they do not become potential sites for training of subversive elements.

Madness becomes a more usual norm, and protection is a thing of the past. God, to whom once many clearly prayed and whom the nation sought more clearly, and the only way in which truth could be known, becomes not only an option with decreasing impact through legal exclusions wrought by courts, or by minorities in the name of confused principles, but is viewed increasingly as a fantasy option in the mistaught minds of the naturalistically indoctrinated young. Destruction is courted like a serpentine danger,  seething with enticement to the open mind, and the closed heart. Instead of care being taken, as noted in Ch. 4, to prevent take-over dangers (easily mocked, but there is an accelerator effect when implicit threats of violence are involved, from other nations or sources outside the country), or avoid sleeping agents, awaiting the time of this or that attack, and dangerous augments of this or that religious approach, in the arena of militancy, what happens ? Instead, the results of policy actually favour such things, if not promote them.

Delusion appears as if a downpour, like a stormy one recently found in much of Australia, with great destruction and loss. The spiritual way is obscured. The UN ideas on brotherhood of all, become more like the brothel-ship of many, at the moral level. It is as in the Bible, say in Ezekiel 20, 23, where the depiction is of various naturalistic gods as if they were other women, and the wifely dependency on the Lord were adulterously departed from for the ways of a baud.

In such ways, more and more this our land runs amok, in search like Israel of old, of new-boy gods (Deuteronomy 32:17-18), of crypto-fashioning forces, with talents entailed but not detailed, automatic authors of profound treatises in code, concerning the most brilliant composition for engineering construction ever known on earth: man, quite apart from the phenomenal addition of an analytical mind and discerning spirit. Engineering is offhand; mentality in concepts enshrined in words and outworked in forms and functions is like leaves falling. Causality is withered; the nursery of mind is laid waste, but its contents are to continue. Nature becomes investigable by mind, its laws formulable by the minds of man; but this is another episode. Mentality is free; language requires no ground; conceptual formulations are like the clouds, wafting in form, but unlike the clouds, anything but nebulous. So does man hypnotise himself, and worse still, so is the country increasingly in thrall to nubilous dreams, more productive than the greatest minds of man!

"They sacrificed to demons, not to God,

To gods they did not know,

To new gods, new arrivals

That your fathers did not fear.

 

      "Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,

And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

       And when the Lord saw it, He spurned them,

Because of the provocation of His sons and His daughters."

 

Such is the citation from Deuteronomy 32. There lies a parallel with the contemporary.

It is all in the interests of something different, diffusion, profusion, cultural decoys, escape hatches, logically comic, causatively incompetent, like smugglers bringing in unauthorised provisions into the land.

Freedom is curtailed to enable them to become established without criticism, exposure, to an increasing degree. The nation suffers and loses some of its virtue as these hidden gods, not wanting names, are exposed, truth is suppressed, children are dragooned by secular myths with religious attitudes entrenched, adults are harassed by secular missionaries, paid State salaries and truth lies fallen in the streets to no mean degree. It becomes increasingly as in Israel of old, as shown in Isaiah 59.

The undemonstrable and demonstrably false proposition that nothing is demonstrable in religion, is applied with ravenous gluttony for change*1. It is vain to say that we were always utterly free; that is untrue, for there was a clear statement of dependence on Almighty God, in the preamble to the Australian Constitution, and various laws and approaches to information and condemnation were providing limitation to mere power pushes by these or those groups.

Now we are near to filtering on the Internet, which the US Secretary of State has noted as being an enemy of liberty and contrary to the best interests of our nations: and that, from a nation going steadfastly in direction, in much the same way as this nation. Even in this, then, it still has some principles to resound! There is a brake which this country of Australia is in great danger of ignoring to its even greater devastation. In these things, as with the war by Hitler, much sounding for a long time before the first assault, so fast in Europe, can readily breed complacency, against in that case, Churchill long and valiantly fought; but the results are not complacent, as when after a long drinking habit, at last expanding, you find yourself with broken arms and legs, and no more smiling in sophistication at all.

Yet if certain preliminary laws, concerning Classification of films, extensible readily to other forms of expression, come to be applied as would be very simple, given the current state of Australian law, even the internet could soon become that of a Nanny-State, where

bullet

people's internal feelings, even if unjustified, just by being there, can surpass truth in importance, and
 

bullet

good intentions for the good of many, may become classified as evil,
since it upsets moral innovators even to HEAR others even  SPEAK
things with which they do not agree.

This, amazingly, yet not so very much in view of the direction of State oversight coming up to the level
of the very throne of God, without the wisdom He has, can occur even when the material has to be accessed by the offended party, who of course can use this subjective idolatry to force the issue without grounds.

On these things see the volume,

FREEDOM, THE NATION,

THE INTERNET

AND THE NEXT GENERATION.

 

 A COMPARISON

Consider now the position. If a personal character, as in our first heading, fails and falls as described, or in any such way: are we impressed ? Some may be, saying, at least it was his own idea; but was it ? or was he enticed, mystified, confused, led by temporary and intemperate desire, spoiled to the point of functional ruin and untrustworthy folly by a slippage of discipline, like a pen, used as a potato peeler!

The Bible states this: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people," Proverbs 14:34. The Bible defines righteousness in terms of the nature of God, equity between people and peoples, mercy (mercy and truth should always be hung around your neck), goodness and vigilance against forces corruptive of truth, reason and reality. You are to love your neighbour as yourself, but the nature and nurture of love is first defined in terms of God's own revelation of Himself (Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:36-39).

There is much more to it, but it all depends on having mutual involvements  with each other and with God, which relate to reality. In the mutual case with people, it relates to concern, justice, equity and understanding; and before God, with reverential trust in His wisdom and power, to follow Him as He leads, rather than the imaginations of one's heart. The latter occurs when people fail to distinguish between the liberty to deploy the strength given in the paths of Him who made it, with great innovation and delight in creativity, and the subversive liberty to change the nature of the paths, so that they no longer accord with the 'vehicles', ourselves, which have been placed on them, in the first place.

The subversive becomes something insisted on, like children insisting on driving the family car because they have little cars of their own. Hence arrives, has arrived and will arrive tragedy, both in particular, and in general for the race (Romans 5:1-12, 8:1-10).

Thus when a given nation, like the USA, or Great Britain or Australia, has certain character, at the first (though of course far from perfect, but still discernible in terms of the God of the Bible, in no small measure, in institutions, laws, government and measure of order), then consider movement and change, its kind and its direction.

If the idea comes forward, as has been the case, that really the past does not matter, is indifferent, all but inconsequential, or indeed, even a thing to be changed since it meant that innovations were not given enough scope, and then with this readiness to change,  immigration occurs,  then certain results may accrue quite fast. A comparable picture would be someone who once took great pains to avoid disease, by hygiene and medicine and care and self-discipline, but then came to consider pathology an interesting field, and to invite some diseases in order to taste them. Some immigrants bring great excellence; some bring subversive agencies, ideas and force to implement these things; some bring a willingness to advance their (often) militant religion, whatever events and leaders may say, when the time comes.

It might be said that the analogy to an individual is not neutral, true; but then neither is the Bible neutral, and it is departure from it in cultural movement and dynamic, which is the ultimate aspect of our discussion, and which weighs. In other words, in principle there is apt comparison at the leading point of danger and change, between individual and nation: both are complicated, both have many phases or elements competing for attention, each is vulnerable, each has a past and a potential, for each change has scope to ruin, and for each rationality helps, reality is crucial. Dreams do not make it; and to follow them without warrant can be as devastating to a nation as to an individual.

For example, to take a Muslim case, there are some in our midst who do not approve of certain rather extensive practices to be found amid many of those of that religion. Female genital assault, wrongly named 'circumcision' with which there is only superficial comparison, could then become - not quite yet perhaps - a necessary liberty, insisted on by certain immigrants,  and some might call for those who disapprove of it and give reasons for this, in terms of male domination and oppression,  for example, to be deemed law-breakers. They are not sufficiently elastic in concept to be submissive amid such violence.

The Lord's prayer in schools, in the comparable USA case,  has already been a case as important if not more so, and the cultural mutant group managed to quash that. Then Moses and the 10 commandments associated with a Law Court became objectionable, so that the undoubted strength of such matters in the formation of the nation, the USA, was being assailed if not removed by a judicial interpretation. More and more argued that NOT what the Constitution SAID, was determinative, but what certain judges, lawyers, thought might well be the opinion that would be held now by those who wrote then, if they were  exposed to our nation. This would rule. That is simply outrageous and flagrant intrusion of a small group in its opinion, to mouth for those given the authority, what they did not say. Thus, subjectivity held sway, given to a tiny group of people of a given background in education, who had been exposed  to a narrow type of philosophic opinion.

To this extent, the USA ceased to be democratic. A ruling class sat above the Congress. If laws were not made to change this, if this were possible in view of the body required to interpret the Constitution! then that too became a surrender of the past, and not only this, but of its legal constraints which made the nation in the first place. It was if the rules of cricket were laid down to stand; and then came to be interpreted by what a specialised type of player thought that the ones who made them would probably have thought they should be now, if they had been living now, though of course that is contrary to fact. When people stand for such subversion, is it any wonder that a nation falls, now into a debt situation so vast that it is not just a matter of having in one decade something like a fall from the world's greatest creditor nation, to th largest debtor, but of making records in indebtedness!

Thus if a nation, any nation, allows immigrants, or any other sub-group, to wreak havoc with its customs, laws, ways, by allowing them to appeal to tolerance or some UN ideas about intolerance, and implements the idea that it is intolerant not to treat all new-coming concepts (called culture) with open arms lest any be offended, then it is simply surrendering its character.  At the national level, there is indeed a close parallel between these approaches and those in an individual, as traced here at the first in this Chapter. Becoming characterless,  to be led BY LAW by any innovative culture that enters, or to be made vulnerable to this in terms of 'goodwill' is a confusion so basic that it is hard to see how it could have been made in the past few centuries, in Britain for example, which had something of a national character (though it has been sharply reduced in recent years in its involvement as a member of the EU*2, a type of national surrender).

France has been recently notable in making it clear that some things are part of its national character and some are not, and immigrants who WANT the land can want it as it is, not as they plan to alter it on arrival by upsets and appeals, based on a desire to have their new land reconstructed or realigned by tailoring as requested. It is not the only such nation which has some tenacity. Tenacity for the past is by no means unmitigated good; but it can prevent irrational alteration, and ill-considered and massive mutation without cogitation.

It is not necessary to abandon the natural character in an obsessive-compulsive, UN-pushed heterogeneity of models, as if BEING ANYTHING is liable for prosecution as intolerant, and NOT changing to taste of immigration cultures, is immoral. Why ? What are morals ? They are entirely meaningless without God (cf. News 19), in that model, that is, the godless one, being merely a desire expressed in a cultural formation, extinguishable or extensible without concern.

In effect, the UN type of formulation of things being such that the brotherhood of man is to underlie eventual determinations, assumes that God is not there, has not spoken, has not directed; and that objective morals do not exist; that man is the author of man and the authority, and the UN is his mentor. That, a basis implicit, becomes a new religion which is being pushed onto nations of another religion, or group of religions of a vastly different character.

To permit this is insufferable confusion. If the DESIRE of a democracy STATEDLY by vote is for the omission of God and the substitution of humanly contrived ideas, then that would at least be democratic, if devilish (cf. Deuteronomy 32). But to allow such things without facing the underlying issues is mere confusion, invasion and a yielding to forces to which such models have appeal.

Some  might wish to have more and more immigrants of religions vastly different from the one at work in the founding of Australia, precisely in order to change it from a country of ANY Christian cultural thrust, to one of NO such thrust. It could be used as a powerful implement, surreptitiously to make such change. Again, using the UN ideas can be made a method of oppressing those who do not regard all men as brothers in the sense of direction and purpose and background, but see them for example, as children of God or else of very different sources in spirit and mind and being (cf. John 8 and the words of Christ, who still for some has some relationship to the religion He founded, Christianity). Ruling out such a position by cultural desire, is religious dictation, which the UN*2 thus exhibits at the same time as it condemns it!

Seeking to bring all people up on the idea that men are all brothers, and hence any opinion or way is as good as another within certain little limits, the UN thus quietly disposes of God, and brings a quasi-moral tone to the despatch!

The concept that some entry to this land can OBJECT to public displays of various traditional kinds at Christmas, for example, becomes an arrogance almost unthinkable. It is rather like being a guest in a storm, especially when the immigrant is received in terms of deliverance from oppression, and telling your hostess what pictures should be on the walls. To be sure, immigrants may become citizens (and some concepts in that connection are shown in the last Chapter), but then it is not as an immigrant group that they are to speak, as if they are offended that ALL of Australia is not according to their pre-existing culture and that such a state of affairs is intolerable! Rather it is as citizens they might in due course appeal to principles that relate to all, and not merely to a new minority.

If a land has a rest day on a Sunday, should this be a matter of appeal because some who chose this land, would like the country of choice to become fast, the country of change to meet their pre-existing personal specifications ? Is a country to be characterless, moving by a combination of innovative moral ethos and confusion about intolerance, towards a totally different nation ? Why ? What is it that defines the past as wrong and the future as both blind and binding, harassing the nation into self-imposed hand-cuffs ?

Is desire to replace thought, intolerance of an adopted country on the part of immigrants, to become a cause of endless mutation, law-assisted, and made to appear a just thing, induced  by a national cultural suicide! Is feeling to become a news godlet, and pouting a new criterion ? Already, the  following of naturalistic religious juntas in education, staging take-overs in the Class-room, has become all but incredibly received by some religious and independent schools (cf. TMR Ch. 8, with Beauty for Ashes Ch. 4). It is not merely a matter of immigrant, which simply tend to illustrate and dynamise the changes, but of philosophic monstrosities which belabour all with a religious imposition wholly contrary even to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of prejudice in religion. That insists that nothing must be lost because of religious conviction, in the way of services; whereas in schools, approaches which do not indulge naturalistic fantasy on the topic of creation and organic evolution, books for this, teachers who present wide-ranging options for preliminary thought and encourage tests for the same, ARE EXCLUDED by Departmental law, rule, curriculum.

Such national suicide, it is possible, but its sheer madness becomes apparent when you see truth becoming increasingly irrelevant, even intentions, and limits and licences, prohibitions and requirements on speech arising, to make freedom of speech increasing on newly sensitive approval ratings. The sickness becomes seething in type, as well as scheming in origin,  when moral changes, legally reflected, are imposed on the basis of toleration, as if truth itself were intolerant, and the concept that there IS any truth is itself intolerant, so that whatever comes must routinely be accommodated, within some very vague limits, often including the use of physical violence as an exclusion. In one famed case, ONE person from another nation excluded a vastly appreciated comic performance! ONE! On what basis ? It was that it would be intolerant to allow someone to be offended because of the interpretation which he  happened to put on the meaning of the joke! This precisely illustrates the disproportion, and the cyclotron effect of these ludicrously slanted cultural morals.

So the nation SO attractive that thousands if not millions would like to enter its portals and enjoy its provisions, is in a form of character-prohibition, allowed to become the plaything of alien desires, imported, exploited and applied without understanding. Truth is already seen as dead, the past as close to irrelevant, while feelings are to teach both purpose and principles what what they should be, or become, and what must be taught or sought or even tolerated. It is becoming such that, and indeed in much it now is, that anything contrary to any guest means that the guest-house must alter, lest that one, who chose the place in the first instance, should be offended. This is not a guest-house in abandon, however, but increasingly, the nation.

This is merely a moral assault, forged in subjectivity, alien in character even to possible truth, so that in this model, the truth that this should be done, because it is right, CANNOT CONSISTENTLY BE KNOWN, and hence rightly stated. If THAT could be known, so could truth more generally, and thus subjectivity COULD not be the what truth shows. In this model of thought, it becomes what it is, a mere delusive departure from objectivity BY DESIRE. It becomes in principle, and in the end, government by psychic impulse, and wisdom is excluded in the new birth of a nation, born to die.

It is neither an accident that Britain and the USA became amongst the most powerful and prosperous nations in history, nor that their current decline is so marked and so sudden: Britain in debts mounting, morals moving *2 , increasingly encompassed by the EU (even though Britons never, never would be slaves*3), and the USA in debts even to a most alien land, compared to its own state, namely China, with whom it has often enough been on the brink of wars, not least in Korea. Character has much to do with career, and when a land goes careering into vast religions and academic changes, legal innovations and augmented power to tiny groups of people, principles imported from international idea-cultures, then its nature can become so changed that it becomes all but unrecognisable.

It is above all about morals, not direct power, about faith, not fidgets and midgets, about direction more than immigration; but all these things are vast in scope. When faith biblically defined in the living God is left by a nation, becomes more and more remarkable by its absence in governmental plans, associations and reliances, then the quality and character of things changes inordinately. Defence and mutual reliance, these change; even attitude to indebtedness changes, anda though the present effort to reduce debt is very commendable in Britain, the associations preceding it and the purposes in it are another matter!

If any nation WANTS to free-wheel morally and religiously, and to seek to accommodate new religious forces at the governmental level, to please religions of any character, and make itself a hotch-potch of clangorous contests, some backed by international force, so be it. If it is willing  to be bashed and smashed in its face, according to requests from its neighbours, or those who share its compartment by entering it, then that is that. It is just that it needs to realise what it is doing. The results of sin (as biblically defined) are a shame, "a reproach to any people".

Nor is England by any means a chief focus. It is an international movement, thrusting hard at any nation which retains any degree of likeness to the word of God in the Bible, to the things of Jesus Christ.

Take Australia. What then of the former position ? You do not believe it ? you want to change the basis from what it substantially was to some new thing ? you are dying to get rid of "Almighty God" from the preamble to the Constitution ? so be it. That is your option; and as in any take-over of a company or a land, it has its place. If cunningly used, such a desire might have more than majority support, if only the populace can be made to consider that for a country, losing its character is always and necessarily good, and if people are dying to enter you land, you should show wisdom by changing it to meet their very different cultural wishes as soon as possible. You should let the surge urge new cultural norms without thought, of if any, only to put some moderate restraint on take-over moves. Nothing is the direction, nowhere is the destination, and normalcy is to be found in the abnormal.

Found yourself on people, not those in a highly specific and distinctive domain, but ANY people, ALL international repositories available, and then what ? Then you merely act if possible to shoo away God. You cannot have two bases wholly different. Unfortunately for the rigorous moral revolutionaries, this is not possible. Results arise, like the sun; and they set in, like the darkness after the brightness of the day is over. Tempt God, instead of relying on Him, and you can find out how that way works. Ingratitude to God is a painful topic, but the results of it are still more so. It is well to awaken, before this occurs; for to bathe in confusion, is like plunging into sulphuric acid, because you hate chemistry and will not listen. It is important to know where you are going and why; and why you should change to approximate more the nations which surge to become immigrants; and the freedoms to be lost in order to be anything: that is, anything but Christian, serving anything but God, except a god who is plastic, with replaceable unit members, made in the world!

As to the reality of God and the truth of the Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ and the fact that we are not immersed in the meaningless, manfully making something of it, though this is itself a contradiction in terms, see for example, SMR, TMR, Light Dwells in the  Lord's Christ, Who Answers Riddles and where He is, Darkness Departs).

 

NOTES

*1

If nothing in a given area is demonstrable, then the concept that this is so, being in that area, is not demonstrable. When on a given model of thought,  truth becomes subjective in the realm, indeed unavailable, having no absolute medium, source, origin or place, then Its assertion as truth becomes itself,  a contradiction in terms, demonstrably false.  See Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Barbs ... 6  -7, SMR Ch. 3, Deity and Design ...   8

 

*2

See for example on the downpressing embrace of the EU on Britain: Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming, Ch. 3.

On UN self-contradiction and religious intolerance, see

Mystery of Iniquity; and The Holocaust of Morals ... Ch. 1, News 42 .

 

*3

See reference 2 above.

Since defence tends to buttress independence, the recent announcement that Britain and France would share various naval vessels, and so make a joint maritime force was startling. In The Australian, December 22, 2010, we not only learn once more that it seems certain that two new carriers in construction are expected not to be ready for years, and at that,  to be unable to have airplanes on them (a labour dispute), but that this is almost a token.

Thus there has been what the article in question deems an irresponsible cut-down in British defence to almost unbelievable smallness of scope and power, deemed amidst some listing of changes,  "national betrayal". It expressly moves in terms of JOINT defence within groupings, so that the British submission on morals as in the above reference, in turn is becoming a submission to defence mutuality, with increasing inability to defend the realm. This is merely one indication of growing inter-dependency, increasing vulnerability; and while we can only congratulate the motherland on its immense courage in the case of the First of the Few, there is now a Last of the Many feeling becoming all too apparent.

Even the Church of England has had enormous shifts in emphasis, as is natural when you have a State Church which, when biblical Christianity was strong in the land, minimised the peril of having a populace through parliament, direct the Church (not by any means all even CLAIM to be Christian). Now that a possible 'head of the Church of England on earth,' namely Prince Charles, has express desire to be a Defender of Faiths, and has sought to impress President Bush with the conceived merits of Islam, we are seeing what was once a doughty nation, with a strong missionary movement, turning to indifferentism, apostasy, sharing almost anything for almost anything. If some things are still  clear, the path, the vision, the future, the meaning: this is being lost to the extent that one commentator had an interesting comment. Thinking back to what had been Britain, he was finding the current movement and results so difficult to relate to this, that he not only impressed the alteration on his readers, but a major question.

What and where, he asked in effect, is the 'national glue', what makes it one, keeps it together, is the raison d'Ítre and the meaning of the nation! The glue, he felt, had gone.