The Making of a Recalcitrant Public

The Government's perception of the public will is based on a top down view of what is meant by the word ‘sovereignty’. The idea that a King or a Government had the sovereign right to rule with an autocratic system of direct control may have been the system since the age of primitive civilisations like the Romans but that fact that it still shapes how people in power today view the word ‘sovereignty’ makes our system look positively derelict.

I have heard politicians often repeat the axiom that the public need to be represented by politicians because of the gap of knowledge between what the politicians profess to know and what is available in the public domain. In other words, the only way the public can exercise their sovereign right to rule their own affairs is through the elliptical and sometimes very discursive top down prism of information the State presents to them via a system that still does not open it’s corridors of power to proper public scrutiny. (A reading of the transcript of Dr Kelly’s interview with the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee concerning the affair embroiling the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan and the Internal State Machinery of Security suggests that Parliament has severe limitations when it comes to actually practising the safeguarding principle of political representation.

The word ‘sovereignty’ in this context takes on a rather dubious meaning that describes a political system bearing the characteristics of an autocratic State in practise and a democratic system in theory and rhetoric only.

The Government’s perception of the public is always based on the presumption that their collective knowledge of prognostic and diagnostic data concerning the future security of the State is a collection that the public would quantitatively and philosophically endorse as their priority for agreeing or disagreeing with the policies that eventually crawls out of this data pool as the beast of ‘Government Directives’. This perception is born out of a historical view of the public as being the ‘rabble’ that needs to be managed and controlled in every way possible other than by referendum, which is a perception that underscores the obstinate resistance by Government to the DEMAND made by the PUBLIC over centuries for a radical change in the system of governance.

My feeling is that the longer the Government delays referendum politics the more ungovernable the citizens will become. The more the Medieval characteristics of cronyism and autocracy resist change the greater will the public psychosis of rejection and detachment build a deeper mistrust of their peers until the whole megalith, whether full of intrinsically good and well intentioned people or not, from the Tax Office down to the Local Planning Authority, becomes so fractured and dysfunctional it creates the poltical cradle for another authoritarian regime to be born. It is the viscious cycle of A RECALCITRANCE.

The IRAQ WAR is a classic symptom of this ISSUE that undermines the fundamental right of the PUBLIC BODY to choose their destiny. It will not be buried by other events, regardless whether the events are orchestrated by Government. Government ministers will be held to account when the public eventually will be forced to act against the Government, to register their contempt and disillusion, by being aggressive and non-compliant in the work place, in their relationship with the police who represent Government autocracy (in their eyes), in their dealings with all State run institutions and services, in their view of the press and media whom they regard has having close ties with the seat of power in Government.

All in all, the Government is ignoring the signs that will lead to a greater alienation of the public, perhaps in areas that the Rowntrees POWer Inquiry did not cover, and the ensuing gradual breakdown in authority and rule, as we have seen with youth descending into nihilism in recent years, will be a situation that the Government has brought upon itself by being arrogant, distant, and deliberately insulting public opinion with their twisted perception of the public will and intellect. Increased civil disobedience is inevitable.

The Pentagon may well think they have sufficient contingency plans for the economic fallout from global warming that is fore casted but I doubt their crowd control technology will be able to neuter hysteria quite on the scale they imagine, which is a contingency that the UK Government is most likely to imitate like everything else they have imitated since the last world war.

My apologies, but Christ is all there is.

It is hard not to feel pity looking at the historical development of orthodoxy in church life; of a community of people so disconnected from the author of their faith and so disjointed in their thinking about the essential character, will and mind of God, that they spend more time ministering to each other’s hurts, suspicions and fears arising from doctrinal oppression through thought control than reaching out to a world that has not experienced the saving grace of God.
What Jesus tried to do was make the experience of God a simple affair but immediately when the Romans got a sniff of free thinking believers ‘following the Holy Spirit in an attitude of love’ they applied the rule of faith, the doctrinal straightjacket of half-wits, the rubber stamp of ecclesiastical authority, on a spiritual Kingdom that has no beginning, no middle and no end and certainly no master other than Jesus Christ.
As a result of fundamental errors in understanding the role and purpose of Christ in the world the life of the church suffered an early imprisonment to the thoughts and traditions of men instead of to the words and teachings of Christ. An imprisonment that expresses itself in the many denominations that have arisen since in which membership of a rigid formulaic system of belief, often at odds with its pioneering origins, is a prerequisite for acceptance. Christ is sidelined, orthodoxy is worshipped.
Not even Brian McLaren, writing in the parlance of next wave orthodoxy, under the title of ‘A Generous Orthodoxy’ could get his head around the source of the problem.
A problem it most certainly is. My contention is that the way the Bible has been presented by the Roman scholars as having contents entirely God breathed is a very serious indictment of all the Christ taught about the supremacy of His words. For example, a book that presents Christ as a product of culture rather than One who brought the law to bear upon human culture, is a book that mixes the humanism of unrenewed men together with the humanity of God that did not require renewal into one homogenous canon called the inerrant word of God. The inference is that the lives of sinners reflect the same truth as the life of One who knew no sin thus creating a testimony of man and of God on equal footing, which is exactly what happened in the Garden of Eden.
The Law, that the Prophets tried to champion, came to us in the flesh as a living testimony of its perfect form who requested politely that we listen to His voice and none other.
By stuffing Jesus in the Bible in the careless way they have, the Romans 1> Disobeyed Christ 2> Then twisted His words to mean something that He never intended.
The root problem of Christian witness has been that the foundation stone upon which the whole building of the Kingdom of God, a spiritual Kingdom, was designed to stand has instead been laid on the rubble of other writings by Roman architects who by their actions demonstrated they didn’t have a clue what Jesus meant about the cornerstone.
The word ‘Roman’ stands for the culture and ideas of a band of lunatics who chucked out the Etruscans, who set up a dynasty in Rome, and who then expanded their economic and ideological hegemony by creating wars with their neighbours (in similar fashion to today's Globalisation of the American Culture) , then by writing laws and canons to which the then known world was forced to obey and to be collectivised into or suffer the label of heretic or enemy. (Sounds like the Bush speech, 'Either you're for us or against us'.) A pattern that repeated itself in the administration of the Christian belief that they hijacked for their own egotistical purposes.
My advice to any believer who is confused about the way the Old Testament presents a testimony of God’s character that is wholly different to the testimony that Christ brought is to read ‘The Bible that dethrones Christ and the Bible that doesn’t’. It is a book that will give you an invigorated view of what the axiom, 'Jesus is Lord over all things', means in reality and it will give you a clue why so many Christians, throughout the history of the church, have erroneously believed there is scriptural basis for embarking on bloody crusades against God's creation. Satan has duped many into forming false religions based on lies, of which perhaps the most extreme manifestation is the Illuminati whose adherents exhort each other to insult Christ by following a man-made orthodoxy that cannot distinguish the difference between Lucifer and God.

God does not inspire holy wars

I have always been perturbed by the cultural practise of getting rid of evil by murdering people and then using transfer ideology to replace murder with ‘justified killing’ as an explanation for evil actions. The complex ideas that support the transfer of meaning from one word to another to explain the difference between two kinds of murder very often calls upon an entity or truth that does not exist in reality.

For example, the idea that God instructs people to murder each other in order to get rid of evil, has no basis in truth. Its not that God doesn’t exist; it’s the warped view of God that for millenniums has been instituted by man as an orthodox religion. Nor does truth sound very convincing coming from the lips of lawyers and priests who deftly argue that it is OK to murder a few people if it benefits the greater number.

With regard to the divine inspiration for murder that people believe is holy and just I regret to say this does not stack up with the revelation of God that Jesus made fully known to the world two thousand years ago Jesus Christ repudiated the source of this abominable idea in the face of those around Him whose father He described as Satan, the murderer and liar from the beginning, who believed that the divine inspiration to murder people was the truth and with this truth they believed they had divine authority to devise every tactic to get rid of Jesus because they regarded Him as evil.

The idea then that Christians can wage holy wars or crusades against evil by murdering people does not come by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but by the inspiration of the evil one who has been doing this since the beginning of time.

Satan’s time has come to an end because his lies have now been exposed.

All things have been committed to me by my Father

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”

The idea of knowing God by revelation is not new. It has served ancient people back in history since the beginning of time and, until Jesus came upon the scene, the reliability of the revelations about the form, character and will of God has been a somewhat contentious matter. Jesus showed to both the Galileans and the Samaritans that the conduit of the human spirit as a reliable source of knowledge was highly suspect.

For many cultures the greatest difficulty in defining who God is, in terms of specific attributes, is discerning precisely where the external nature and character of God begins and the internal projections of mankind’s imagination upon God ends. The less troublesome solution is the belief that God has no separateness but inhabits everything as an amorphous spirit devoid of a distinct and authoritative personality. Generally known as the pantheistic option it is the easiest to adopt because it requires no obedience to a higher moral authority even though it requires the ego to surrender itself to a higher consciousness of an impersonal being who/that is totally without shape, form, character, will or purpose other than being a large spiritual pool into which the collective human ego is dissolved. Cosmic consciousness does what it says on the tin, ‘Reduces the substance of God to a state of mind’

In a vacuum of identity the human spirit is capable of forming whatever picture of God suits it’s existential purpose in order to find meaning and identity beyond the material comfort of a short and meaningless existence. A myriad of words have been formally canonised by various cultures as reliable scriptures for defining who God is and a priesthood is officially delegated the responsibility of ensuring these canons are written into law and into death as the ultimate weapon of imposing conformity of thought and ideas. Both religion and philosophy have their guiding priests, whether by inspired unction or by scholarly regimes of truth, both roles are simple - to control.

Jesus comes along and turns the whole priesthood idea upside down by saying things that humans aren’t allowed to say. Doing away with priests as the vehicle of definition for the character and form of God he informs his listeners that the priest from heaven has arrived. Some took it rather well, except the priests, philosophers and lawyers. They were threatened by his outright challenge to their authority and they only wanted to see him dead as soon as possible. No man spoke like Jesus. None that have come before him nor none that have lived since can come anywhere near explaining the gravity of eternity. What compelled Jesus to speak in this manner is based on knowledge he brought with him as a person who has always existed. With this knowledge he came as the priest of a canon that is not written anywhere but in the mind of God who came as flesh to dwell among us. He referred to scriptures that his immediate hearers were familiar with and certainly he endorsed whatever agreed with his canon but whatever didn’t, he chucked into the bin. ‘You’ve heard it said, but I say to you this..’

But the priest reveals nothing without it being operated on by the Spirit of God. Jesus words meant absolutely nothing to the world that heard him then and to the world that hears the same words today there is no understanding without his Spirit revealing what the words mean. The few who understood in his time were those to whom the Spirit of God chose to reveal himself and this act of God hasn’t changed since the beginning.

In the next part I will explain exactly the reason why this revelatory understanding is necessary for a relationship with God and why the gnosis way, the way of acquiring knowledge by auditory synthesis without repentance, is an attitude that blocks the open communication channel between God and man. Predestination is a word for eternity that does not fully describe it’s prescient nature. When eternity speaks, it is with words impregnated with the fragility of the present.