W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for this Volume What is New
THE DIRECTION OF FLOW:
WHERE THE VICTORS ARE MOVING FAST TOWARD AN ATTACK
ON THE GREATEST VICTOR OF ALL
I Corinthians 15:48-58, Revelation 19
In his book, The Victors, sub-titled Eisenhower and his boys, The Men of World War II, retired history Professor, Stephen E. Ambrose in detail notes the resilience, adaptability and aspirations of democracy as exhibited in the efforts of Britain and the United Stated in the 1940s, and lauded these elements, competitively with the thrust of totalitarian regime types. The stultification, counter-initiative and crushing aura of hegemony (somewhere, to lead, to delegate, to require, to order from a distance, to be utterly hedged about with inflexibility) appears in a nation given to orders, not always understood, amid a clash of qualities.. Thus: the old Germany, with some elements of the new, was making direction confused and orders a shallow substitute for understanding.
Russia for its part, benefited enormously from the liberties of wealth, with timely provisions flung at the USSR, together with lively co-operation from free forces. However, its soldiers as is attested vigorously, were far from morally equipped in dealing with women, a better testimony coming from those of the USA. ONE REASON for this, he cites, was the death penalty for murder or rape by soldiers, where the case was proven. Many GIs were shot, fatally, he notes, for this offence! People mattered more, somewhere in the background; and it came out in the foreground, though the case declines as the national mood in the USA is changing not a little.
Nevertheless, with those merely ordered by command and illusion, from the Nazi hierarchy, blankly ruled and sent, usually on an illusory charter, as thrust into the armed forces in the war, things became more apparent as time passed. The mood as the outcome drew nearer is contrasted with the enduring character of the attitude of many in the US Army, in their exceedingly painful and numerous thrusts. Included in their motivations was a thirst for liberty and to advance victoriously against the pretensions of immoral might in its most obvious frame. For many, this was a matter as deep as life, and as stimulating to its deployment!
The acme of such democracy both in Britain and in the USA (Eisenhower, on the whole, in his relationships with other commanders, himself the chief, showing much tact and care, and desire for discussion also with his own countrymen), has in fact been the product, to a huge degree, of Christianity in both lands, here a moral thrust, sermon, address, youth movement, not drab in meaningless verbiage, but based on Jesus Christ, His reality, His Gospel. Indeed, His kingdom was immensely prominent in the USA in its foundation, and nationally recognised in Britain in its Constitution and even Coronation.
At many levels, from the simple hearth and home to the village, national and learning life, both despite later falls, contributed much to the advancing thrust of Christianity; and many were the great leaders of this persuasion. It gave reason and point, with precept and performance from the uttermost authority, even God. For this, came also example, explanation, inspiration and the fulfilment of what had meaning, not vacuity at its helm. This still significantly applied even as more and more, in both lands, fell to naturalistic myths and arrogant lusts; for there were still, at that time, enough thrusts from this godly source for Britain in the dire day of Dunkirk, and the USA, in Eisenhower's speech of committal to the Normandy affair, to call on the Lord. This for example was found, whether by prayer of a national formally Christian body, England itself, dedicated at the fateful hour, to a day of prayer; or in the words of the Commander in the Normandy invasion, when before all he was committing the battle to Almighty God.
It is when such things as these go, even the last rays of the setting sun of truth being ignored, when these visions and intimations are left to wither, and this reason for love, restraint, kindness, toleration together with truth, not of the rule of evil, but of those caught in its results, also goes, that turgidity begins to oust truth, and policy to become intemperate before it.
it is then that you generate the
'meaningless socíety' to which these two once leading national examples
now are swiftly moving. Then comes the
'immoral society,' rejoicing in systematic breach of former restrictions,
like a dog off its chain. With this comes
'the seductive society' seeking to intimidate by uses of various functions,
such as the education of the young, in which the powers-that-be
tyrannise over many in trying to force on the populace any new set of values
that happens to appeal enough to some, to become a mode. Then comes the
'tyranny over truth society', which requires conformity,
while still mouthing freedom, using Christian tolerance in a confused mode,
to instil anti-Christianity, without acknowledgement
either of the vice or of the viciousness empowering the putsch.
New forces, such as making some mandate for not offending anyone, or assumptions that one fashionable, almost pervasive idea is correct, contrary to evidence, as if society became moved by an obsessive daydream*1, have arisen.
In parallel, there are efforts to try to outlaw freedom of speech in such terms as a Bill of Rights (really often an obsessive attempt to impose concepts of wrongs to reduce freedom to an official recipe, by which to trample truth at will), suppress the Press, or enforce pagan perspectives.
In this phase, often applicable to students, the powers that be, grow less and less willing to allow their students liberty to differ, or in many educational establishments, even to present a case, Indeed, not infrequently this even happens to those lecturing at tertiary level*2, as happened to this author in what is now a South Australian University, the Supervisor not finding the reasoned insistence on due coverage of all phases in truth, to be 'convenient'. Challenge was made to show any error in what had been presented, but this passed without any response to the point; and challenge again, in terms of truth, with no academic response, the refusal being based more narrowly on what was deemed to fit. Truth was emphatically NOT the criterion.
Far less is a case presentable by an educative authority, in any systematic manner, with some sense of shame if nothing else!*3 Resources both tutorial and literary tend to be used pre-emptively for an empty philosophy*4.
By various means, the blind are led by the blind; but there is vision available, and it retains its call and appeal, where reason relishes ALL the aspects of issues, and wisdom finds the source for man, without stopping at inchoate concepts, and irrational substitutes*4, *5.
This is a partial outline of the position on which currently Australia in general, and South Australia in particular, perilously is poised.
Democracy without the gracious lift from the governance of the God of creation and redemption, restraining itself so that even if authoritative, it comes to stressing power to differ and develop contrary views, thus and then becomes liable to be replaced, even notionally, by rule by ruffians. The PRINCIPLE of force and exclusion on grounds of cultural preference makes man more like glorified ants, inefficient bees, shearing from him all the glory of being in the image of God, at least increasingly at the external level, bare and bereft, controlled and quashed.
This readily occurs as more and more are caught in the dreaming, drifting dynamic, which wakes up when in power, and then operates almost as if cataleptic in convulsions, to thrash what stands in its way. The ostensible liberty of democracy is soon overturned, vulnerable as is any drifting dynamic, to be blown by winds of social opinion or gales of desire. And by what ? by cultural oppression, not the triumph of truth and its blessed way stations. And for what ? for the dissemination of lie, inadequacy, foolish philosophical hang-ups, serial crimes of mind, abuse of the entire system for something less, divergent, the way of error. There is a head for that too, a principal operator called the devil (John 8:40ff.). Where God goes down and naturally made things go up, then freedom dies and folly has a boom. But no boon is to be found there!
In particular, whether it be Moslem or aboriginal elevation, or any like them, among any race or group or pre-occupation, or a matter of the glory of empire or agents of this or that, you have here a trend toward enshrinement of what is famous for forceful takeovers. Indeed this is the case of the Islamic example, while claims far above parity equity, for any group such as aborigines, being made on its behalf, become racist. Contrary to our UN commitment, this reduces liberty, tending to the demolition of freedom, should it be caught in the active inequity of differential laws for different races, currently one of Australia's blights and follies.
NO NEED TO BE
PREPOSTEROUS OR PRESUMPTUOUS,
JUST FOR AN EQUITABLE EYE,
AND AN AWESOMELY CAREFUL PROCEDURE:
THEN BE PREPARED FOR THE RESULT!
Why not return to simple factuality. Australia once had aborigines in some parts of it, before other significantly large immigrations added to these, by all the evidence.
Whether they were the first, is not certain. That they came from India seems most probable genetically, linguistically and by some direct testimony. That appears in the main, simply fact. There is strong evidence of two things. Just as these were very possibly the first sizeable immigrant body to come to this land, to occupy it in part, so the British-founded colony was the first overall and formal government of the entire land, in an integrated and proclaimed basis.
Firstly, if one, then both of these facts need celebration; and again, if one immigrant body, possibly the first, needs recognition, so in all equity and fairness, let it be attributed to all the others from Ireland, and Scotland and England, France, USA, Europe, South America. Celebrating but one is a directly inequitable paralysis of vision and prone to the ignoring of the multiple mixtures and contributions.
There should be no presumptive let alone pre-emptive superiority assigned to any group: ALL have come. As noted, it seems likely but not certain that the aboriginal population was the first relatively large-scale migration. The current is the first total government, the Commonwealth, formally known or compellingly testified, for this entire land. There are various distinctives, and due recognition of each in its place may be desired, as may be ascertained by a just referendum. History has no favourites. That comes from another source and on most equitable grounds (cf. Ch. 2, above, with Ch. 4 above); but we as a people, we must be just. As for the biblical Christians, it is God, and not to themselves (Psalm 100), that they attribute all ground of distinction, all elevation, and on Him they rely.
Actually, there is considerable evidence that aborigines had significant aspects of creation in their own religious orientation (cf. TMR, Ch. 8, *1), which of course had various elements. They might well be recognised along with and in balance with all others, in their diversity amidst parallels with others. Naturalistic indoctrination in schools can impact negatively on some of their tradition, if you want to consider the whole, and not just some parts. Freedom is far to be preferred; to let it stand on its own two feet, meeting scrutiny and rebutting assault where it settles. Self-preserving lies have often complicated the issue, but they never prevail. Like walking through a field of stinging nettles with bar legs, it can be borne for a time, but in the end it has its cumulative consequences.
But what of the national generic ? Truth should be free in any non-servile society. While it may freely propose its own standards, or re-affirm them, none should be forced to forego evidential realities, or truncation instead of truth, or dictation to the mind by tyrants, be they academic or other. Moreover, kindness and special generosity to any group is a matter for discretion in its amplitude, in assisting them to focus, feature, fulfil their labours and contributions to the whole. That can be as need is; but not as inequity insists. It is not a matter of right and wrong, but of love and grace, equity and care, concern and watchful aid, not to unman any group, but to manage needs while they achieve what others may desire for them, a capacity to act with strength and to make contributions with integrity.
No one but God has owned Australia, because He made its continental base; and He needs no payment, having made man as well. Requirements to assert or accept the contrary are religiously slanted, and clash with the UN offensive against Discrimination in matters of belief or religion. His creation alone is even logically defensible*1. Liberty can lasso some alternative, and seek to live by it; but not to force others to share its desires and be subject to its dreams. Standards, as now, may be chosen, but not force-fed into enslaved souls.
What further is in danger of gate-crashing into the culture, conditions and concepts ruling in this country ? The idea of the inadmissibility of being offended! or something so like this as to require a special lens to find it!
Again, if ANY must not be 'offended', then NONE should be. But since people are always being offended rightly or wrongly, such a criterion, let alone a differential one, must be scrapped. Obviously, selective tyranny even over free speech is simply a capitulation to inequity for certain ideological reasons, from which truth is partly, if not largely, exempted. THAT changes the whole nature of our society into cases of special pleading, differential strata of power, intimidation and irrelevance in place of genuine preservation of free speech for all, not tainted by compulsive elevation of some over others. Governments have begun to err greatly in these things; but if they insist on such transformations of national character, let the people say, and take what is coming to them, whether it be the one or the other. In the end, it is they who are to rejoice in due course, or to suffer...
To foster such
folly as increasingly being found,
To deny your own character is mere folly, unless you find something better
It should be realised that multiculturalism and its tolerances are not a stray dog substitute for character, to be taken up by any passer-by or group who become negatively vocal about our present situation or past ways. It is a kindly spirit of non-persecution and just interest in others, as PART of one's character, not a substitute for it. Thus if constitutional reference to one race who appear certainly to have come to this land, migrants, and not to the others who have made it what it is for anyone to lay claim to it, then it is a violation of mere justice and equity. Special provisions WITHIN THIS are always judicially possible, but not in terms of differential justice, which is injustice. Whether in the Pre-amble to our Constitution or not, such statements should have balance, be true, and not inclined to be read in this or that inequitable emphasis of deployment, leading to more injustice.
Mercy and kindness may of course make special provisions WITHIN THIS judicial equality, but not in terms of differential justice, which is injustice; nor in terms of some generic apology, as a virtual slander of so many who in so many ways did so much to help and then are virtually denounced. Vague and vapid generalisations are not the point, nor the shifting of blame; but active and unslanderous realism, seeking diligently to do good to all, with special relationship to actual need, not some presumptuous governmental recast of character into cultural dependency. Whether in the Pre-amble to our Constitution or not, such statements should have balance, be true, and not inclined to be read in this or that inequitable emphasis or deployment, leading to more injustice.
Similarly, in the Schools, an incoherent naturalism has long in practice ousted creation, as the mode, despite the compelling evidence to the contrary (cf. Ch. 4 in Department of Bible, Vol. 4, in the context of Ch. 2, with The gods of naturalism have no go!); and it may be that some will want the reference to reliance on Almighty God, found in the Preamble to the Constitution to to be ruled out, while some other reference to man or beast or nature or some surrogate, is put in instead. Again, if this is the desire of a suitable majority, let it be found out by referendum. NOTHING is a given here; and what IS currently given in our Constitution has been part of our national character. Change it ? then first KNOW what you are doing, then be TOLD that it is the question, and then VOTE specifically on this point, whether or not you want it.
In all these things, Australia needs to be honest with itself, clear and not given to shady deals inoffensively blurring issues or confusing clients (that is, in this case, Australians). It needs to be carefully realised that IF a land has been slowly moving in a given direction (in this case, amid vast protest, on this site alone, for the last 18 or so years), then so far from that being reason to carry on with the radical changes involved, it is reason for caution. A fixed obsessive compulsion or jaded tiredness is one way to betray the national character. Care eluded becomes mind deluded very readily. Speaking in a meaningful situation such as a referendum with clear questions on each separate point separately, is one way to make any change responsible.
People who WANT TO CHANGE the Almighty God reference, indicating the states coming together as relying on Him, could show that in their preference indicated by vote; and people seeing no reason to do so, could show the other, what is theirs. It is no question of fairness, but of commitment. Within that, there must be liberty that does not find dictation of the mind of some swallowing up children and minds like some great chaff-cutting machinery, both ignoring and slashing what is put before it.
THAT is the national basis as outlined, and shown in many parallel ways. Changing it is an option, not a matter of justice. In fact, in all equity, the change to the naturalistic hypothesis in exclusivistic, totalitarian education (now largely in force), should never have been brought in on the illusory basis that the case is simply factual, either, not only because it is the precise opposite*, but because it is a change so vast and intolerant, as on both counts to violate the manner of our initial commitment. It is not the change which here is the main point; it is the MANNER and assumptions of it, robbing realism by constant propaganda, like other corrupt nations and regimes in the past, not excluding Hitler youth, which had elements similar in its indoctrinative dynamic, with results to match, so well illustrated in the work of Stephen E. Andrews, The Victors.
Whether the topic be racism or science, constitution or the turning from the laboratory to desire, whether it be a matter of pompous and counter-productive preference for nature myths, and confused philosophic monopolies, as in much current pseudo-science, in the domain of origins and power*2, or that for any one race in specifiable judicial aspects, it is not treaties or dictation, but truth itself that matters here. To move towards founding such things on a particular set of presuppositions in learning, or set of migrants who did not any more than others, own or even govern as one the whole country, or show evidence of occupying all of it, is simple inequity. Let each be what it is, and none envelop; and if change is desired in our national character, let it be with significant thought and thankfulness, and clear-cut choice by all the people.
It is ALL the data which is to be regarded, not a prescribed sub-set to the shame of many in science; it is ALL the migrants, in the same way, whether this or that one be chosen. Equity and reality are good friends.
But equity is no great competitor amid the nations, against desire, against indifference to duty and evasion of the vision of truth by those whose models HAVE NO TRUTH, while they yet proclaim it, like a chook without head, still waling round and round.
Giving up God has become more and more routine since World War II, and even Europe in trying to frame its constitution, could find none with which to agree, as if baseless, prodding time and talking of a 'common destiny'! But where did it all begin ? and where is the non-nothing eternal basis from which alone, as adequate and never missing, it can be, whether nation or nature or rebellion or hatred, or love or friendship or high principle or morals or might!
Returning to His reality, one notes for example, that since God alone MADE the lands, they are His to assign as He will (Acts 17:23-27), men being passengers of transit.
Amid all this, the path for pilgrims is to seek to maintain the truth, be gracious but not irresponsibly conformist to the ways of this throbbing, aching world, and to help others not to be forced in one's own land, where their conviction does not rule, into oppressive conformity to what has neither rational basis nor sustainable rationale, an area where biblical Christianity lacks nothing (cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock for example). Where vision fails, the country is already apt for failure with it: indeed, as Proverbs 29:18 declares, "Where there is no vision, the people perish!"
When a land lacks vision, or quashes it, then its weakness of heart, subversion of spirit and weakness of mind becomes liable for invasion by force type religions, whether admittedly so or merely by implication, putting out their ideas as lords. As VICTORY, the work in view, shows so well, the spirit back of the conflict raises levels past weaponry, in the end. Tyrants are forever boasting, whether educative and social ones, as in Australia increasingly; and forever being undone (Proverbs 14:34, Isaiah 25 cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4).
Peace will not be obtained without the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7, Ezekiel 21:27), and if vitamins are needed for function, how much more is He for victory where truth persists and righteousness continues, where love is not ashamed and wonder is not daunted.
This is seen in such sites as Chs. 2 and 4 above, TMR Chs. 1 , 8 and more broadly in The gods of naturalism have no go! See also SMR Chs. 1-3.
See or example the article with research basis, Contemporary suppression of the theistic world view, by Dr Jerry Bergman
See TMR Ch. 8, and the account of Approach to Government.
See *1 above. See also SMR Chs. 3, 5, 10. Ch. 5 provides a contrast.
See also: Secular Myth and Sacred Truth.
See for example, Department of Bible ... Ch. 11.
See also * 1 above.