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





Former PM, earlier this month of January, 2013, suggested the removal of States and the concentration on the Commonwealth. There is advantage, the concept is, of one way, one government, one for all, all for one.

It is the same in many areas, provided that

1) the ONE is absolutely right. Otherwise, the competition, mutual inspection, criticism and exposures will mean more follies and more errors, more self-assurance and more virtual monopoly, with more philosophies, among many errors, allowed to rule this way or that, because there will be less criticism of duds, so that missioning zeal can carry a nation more readily, like a corpse casket, to its doom.

2) It deals with an intimate and savvy sophistication with local matters, issues, diversities of people and movements, ideas, requirements in different matters at different times, with due sensitivities to different ways apt for different phases, cases, persons and localities for different reasons.

3) Distancing from localities does not distance from that blessed and needful intimacy of understanding, humility of heart, sensitivity of treatment, awareness of detail and concern for realities, with the result of iron assurance replacing knowledgeable perceptions.

In other words, local arrangements leading onward to more general surveys do not give any assurance of making of the more general the better. Thus, a centralised singularity in government is no signal of an improvement, but merely a enablement for the recipients of power to act cohesively in greater issues of national importance, that do NOT destroy, manipulate or seek to condition all with their manipulative grandeurs. It is precisely this destructiveness of ambition and power to which flesh is so enormously prone, as history with monotonous mutinies from reason, tolerance, temperance and even balance, provides testimony.

Indeed, the same lust for the large is to be seen in the recent Anti-Discrimination Bill in Australia, which with the above NO STATE, uniformitarianism, has much in parallel with painting fashions. Take for example cubism. Now it is obvious that not all things are measurable satisfactorily in terms of cubes. Yet there is a tendency for such a thing to be interesting in outcome, when it is forced into reality, as an expressive technique. It is said to "avoid emotional and narrative expression to depict almost colourless shapes split up into a series of semi-geometric facets, overlapping, interlocking and semi-transparent."

Here you see in an art form:

bullet i) the desire for an abstraction, emotion in abeyance.
bullet ii) the effort to have some kind of uniformitarianism - that is, a geometric sense of interpretation, penetrating beyond, ignoring, or both, relative to reality.
bullet iii) the merging, semi-transparency and overlapping that indicate uniformity
working in the midst of individuality, with an effort to give it
some kind of classification, formatting, generality, over-arching
or under-writing simplification.

The same desire is found underlying ludicrous efforts to make a "painting" out of a single colour, almost as if it were simply a wall to be covered in a house, but there is no house.

The same again, is found featured in container-unit concepts, where there is ONE container and whatever it has, is a UNIT. The units are mathematically itemisable and it is in the overall glance, so many cases of "stuff".

The same, once more, is found in the anti-factual treatment of human gender, often allied with the word "sex" as though a mode of reproduction were the point and not the far more total fact that reproduction has almost countless elements which conjoin in conjugality. The fact that it is, as given, one procedure which is THE method that is natural without intervention, for human reproduction is, as in cubism, that from which a certain distancing is desired. It is simply not what is being focussed on, but rather the stress is this: that despite unarguable gender-difference, only the peripheries even arguable, the DESIRE is to make things uniform, ONE KIND only. The same occurs often in the case of races. There is to be one kind only. In one way, this is laudable, since the human kind is one, though with much diversity.

When however within that kind, you focus on an aspect, which happens to be a DIFFERENCE of a categorical character, relative to reproduction, and the very mode itself for this process, and seek to declassify the difference, it is merely a travesty of truth. People may want cubism, containerism, uniformitarianism, but desire does not alter facts, only the power to force it onto people does this, in terms of rupturing peace or enhancing injustice.

Even with parents and children, there is a tendency to make the latter quasi-adults before maturity, in revulsion from abuse, which grows as morals become leaner and more mere matters of pleasure and preference, with results intensively observable. There is a difference; it does matter; there is a similarity, that too matters; all things have to be considered comprehensively, and not mere action and reaction as if minds were benumbed. Rather however the current mode and mood is for mores instead of morals, with more and more mortification within, of anything to be appealed to as objective basis, till all are encouraged to do what wins, overcomes (whatever is picked on as to be overcome), and confusion results, aims mingling like ants, but with less purpose.

When in addition, factuality becomes subject to legal hatred, enabled by governmental law from the cockpit for flying about with Moral Machinery, whirling from side to side, and discrimination is exercised against those who prefer fact to fancy, reality to imaginative recasting without objective features, what has been provided rather than its abrogation, you have a sort of cubism, an insistence on a unity where the point at issue is the nature and extent of difference.

Then however it is not an interesting aspect of artistic addition to the halls of aesthetics and imagination, but a repressive suppression of the natural, of logic and of the wonders of differentiation in favour of some contemporary preference for engineering society, forcing man on pain of penalty, multiple in kind, to follow one particular imagination.

The precise character of differences can be a good and sound academic topic; b ut it should be regarded as truth must be, for what it is and what it is not.

When truth is not enough, and people are penalised for insistence on it, it is exceedingly implausible to dissociate it from other religious wars, where various gods having different ideas attributed to them, conflict with each other while devotees discipline each other with spears, or swords, or electric chairs, or plutonium in tea, or atomic warfare, or electronic warfare, or simple fines and the destruction of the reputations of those factually inclined. Indeed, all these things have religious bases, the irrational and purely voluntaristic insistence that such and such is the REAL, or DESIRED, or the NECESSARY, or the REALISTIC thing and the rest fiction.

This leads new traumas and tragedies. When you force fiction there is  friction, such as the resulting death of a few tens of millions as the last century has illustrated. Now Australia is moving more vehemently into this knowledgeable ignorance. It extends to education, where whether the topic gender (of persons) or generation (of the universe), or engendering of ideas, rule makes shapes into studied forms which do not abide by reality, but enforce the throes of politico-religious presuppositions. On whom ? Why for some decades now, it has been  on the young, as if this were not child-abuse, the intrusion of fashionable adult ideas by passionate preference, onto the growing. In this, the State becomes like a tyrannical parent, but with more clout, even disabling much of parental responsibility in its surge to manufacture midgets, State-processed, intellectually denied.

Yes, there is a unity. There is a background to these delusive techniques of governmental supervision in the best lineage of other forces which have so often led to dictatorship. There is a unity behind diversity indeed. It is just that it is in the CREATOR of diversity, just as there is a unity of a kind among all the earth-moving objects wrought from the mind of Le Tourneau, for example. Yet the diversity does not have to legislated against, as though tractors were REALLY a kind of line-marker; and the fact-abusing does not need to take off and bomb reality because there is a sense of frustrated unity. Creativity comes from thinking individuality, in whatever groups these may act, and differentiation is one of its modes.

When fiction faces up to fact and proclaims against it, seeking to overthrow it, and to invade minds for the same purpose, the current trend, multiply apparent, understanding tends to become frustrated, because as these modes and moods become more manifest, so does the force and extent of Christianity become less so. What is the point of that ? It is just that this is the sole demonstrable source of divine instruction for man (cf. ).

As such, it can AFFORD to be tolerant of untruth, merely preaching, not killing as in the Inquisition, which countermanded Christ's non-violent prescription concerning the faith (John 18:36, Matthew 26).

As such it enables liberty to challenge and attack, back down and retreat, surmise and suggest, scholarship to move and demand objectivity, folly to be discounted. It is not that it has not been abused by those who have seized its name and violated its nature; even Christ was murdered by those deviously claiming authenticity, and Isaiah 59 shows the trend among men which at the end of that Chapter, which is the end of the Age,  is ended not by human amendment but by the return of the Messiah, so carefully and accurately predicted in Isaiah 2, 7, 9, 11, 22, 32, 35, 40, 49-55 and so on. As it was to be, so it has been. 

It is  God only who has the schema and the programs, the personal and individual liaison and knowledge, the intimate and the extended, the inner and the outer, the principles and the power, the direct perception and the understanding so that when HE is KING as He will be in the most direct fashion on His return with His saints (Jude, Psalm 72, 110, Isaiah 11, 59, II Peter 3, Matthew 24, II Thessalonians 1), ALL needs will be covered. It is THEN that He whose right it is to rule (Ezekiel 21:21, Jeremiah 23:5), will at the reconciliation of many with Him, and the ending of the Age in His own righteousness and peace (Isaiah 9:7, Daniel 7:13-14), have dominion over all the earth, till the final purge is past, and the universe is dismantled (Isaiah 51:6, II Peter 3), and a new one formed, where righteousness is as natural as the air, and renegacy and rascality, blindness of heart and opacity of mind have gone to their own place, leaving no remnant.

A new car would perhaps seem inconceivable to an ant, were it able to think in those terms and be watching humans; but it is less so to men. A new universe likewise may seem incredible to man, mere model from God, but to God it is not so.

The answer to men in their alienation from God and their increasingly godless governments as were predicted (Revelation 13, 15, 19), is God. He HAS what it takes, and man has tended  to take what he wants, rather like a child, insisting on fairy floss bulk or driving at 7 year of age. Underneath lie such distrust, envy, aspiration, ambition and other noxious psychological and moral weeds, that the culmination of evil comes before the consummation of the rule of God. What then, in this advanced stage of the evil phase, is happening ?

The current trend, as in Isaiah 59, is a matter of making truth more and more a relic, as was the case in Belsen with bodies: now the body of truth is to be starved, or more accurately, the body of understanding is to be sacrificed to the bone, in order that the theme songs of desire should shout down the realities of diversity. The other option is to accept the source, as done in every other sphere of creativity with law, order and imaginative testimony, note the similarities, differences, the use for this and that task objectively, stop worshipping any one type or source or idea, and return to the worship of Him who made all minds, spirits, idea-production persons, wills and their liberties: for the very good reason that without Him, nothing as a source is simply uninventive, defying the actuality that we exist.

As for what is the basis, what IS inventive of law and supra-genius order with startling testimony to super-human imagination and power, there  is nothing less than an eternity required, for nothing having no future, there could be no advent. The eternal being with mind, matter and spirit as attestations, requires all that is adequate for all results as noted in this volume at various sites, and in The gods of naturalism have no go! It has one testable and verified, validated expression for the mind of man, the Bible, one performance of what is needed by a desperate race, the Messiah whose death-date was foretold*1 and whose ways; and who Himself foretold the human predicament as it now is*2, as prelude to His return, having given freedom its options for millenia (cf. II Peter 3:9).

On these things, see further

bullet SMR,
bullet TMR,
bullet Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny and
bullet 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.


Various other sets, as noted in Search, bring out other specialised aspects in this field, not least, that of predestination and freewill, solved uniquely in the Biblical Revelation. That is seen in the






See for this, Daniel 9:24-27 and for example,  The Christian Prescription Ch. 2.



See Answers for Questions Ch. 5.