Liberty: a finite concept

Not only do we have a substantial epistemological crisis in the world that has largely produced two irreconcilable strands of thought concerning the source of human identity but also a conflict of reason and intellect within them used by adherents of either strand putting forward their political religious theories. Science has always been underpinned by a philosophical narrative by those who need to justify a moral position vis a vis its destructive application but these days the dichotomy of fact and value, liberty and aggression, individualism and social engineering is requiring a new regulative process called ’the creeping tyranny of State intervention at the philosophical level’. Science is not the issue. The mother of all tyrannies is a philosophical one based on Greek Myths.

One strand argues the origin of human identity is God and the other, nothing but a void. The shades of grey between God and nothing is infinitesimal, compounded by the inadequacy of language, but the polarisation is a bipolar phenomenon. The polarisation of believer and unbeliever is widening fast, to such an extent that even local council directives in the UK have abandoned the non-aggressive libertarian tolerance of individual rights for the more legalistic approach of outlawing faith groups all in the name of the Greek Myth called ‘Democracy’. The reconstruction of society following cycles of self defeating conflict is like a merry go round; spinning on the mono-culture of the war economy. The urgency on both sides is to knock each other off the road map to heaven without having a single clue as to what it is that constitutes heaven, the ideal state of existence. Instead the epistemology is about regurgitating Ancient Ideas as a kind of continuity of design.

Expressed in this simplistic way the argument looks as if we have a crude choice between God or nothing, Heaven or Hell, eternal gain or oblivion. Without a deep analysis of the semantics of language, or indeed a full proof explanation for the etymology of every symbol, every form of expression, it is possible to organise any orthodoxy you like that will inevitably win a jury over to accepting your point of view. Winning the argument is what conflict is all about and the direction of a dialogue is generally driven by the one who possesses more knowledge than the other in this arena of appropriated knowledge.

Jesus Christ had few friends when he started out with his mission to talk about his identity as the Son of God. In fact, he had more enemies than he bargained for and spent a lot of time ducking and diving from stones and angry people (men and women). Cherished by the close knit community in which he was nurtured one would have thought that his life was secure in the hands of a society of friends who had bonded together in a shared common identity. However, as things turned out, this ‘social bonding’ turned out to have little substance when their terms of reference for their identity was suddenly put under the pressure of some criticism from their little ‘naïve’ acolyte. Social norms gave way to a much deeper spiritual identity that lay beneath the veneer of social etiquette and middle class posturing.

Jesus got up in the Synagogue, as was the custom, to read something from their venerable book of Oracles, while heads nodded, ‘Look, there’s our son of Joseph, hasn’t he grown up to be such a handsome young man…’ By the time this squelchy sublime approbation had oozed into their territorial minds, Jesus had already commented on the passage he was reading by telling them plainly that the person their Oracles had been blarting on about for centuries had arrived and was standing before them. No sooner had they wallowed in a little community pride, a much less benign thought had already rebooted their mental system – totally. Isn’t Windows frustrating!

Oh Gosh. Oh really badly, awfully Gosh. What happened next, as recorded by John with such economy, is the beginning of the movement of a tectonic plate underpinning the whole artifice of a nation and the uprooting of their spiritual anchors to their Oracles, which has been slowly shaking their foundations ever since.

The dichotomy of identity is expressed violently in this passage from John’s Gospel in the way the ‘bonded community’ reacted. Jesus had no friends and no protection when he was set upon by a mob at the beginning of his trek into the dark and murky world of philosophy. For a good reason he attacked their identity and immediately the dichotomy of fact and value, the polarisation of the fact they identified with their ancestors and the value they placed on it by abandoning any concept of the sanctity of life when they tried to throw Jesus down the cliff, is where the split personality derives its impetus.

This narrative of philosophy has undergone paradigm shifts since the eloquent reasonings by Socrates and Plato towards adopting a more sinister totalitarian lexicon that has today become a science of control and social engineering that quiet frankly would scare the crap out of the metaphysical world it is trying to manipulate, if such a world had a voice.

Well, it has. Jesus Christ rising from the dead is a manifestation of the metaphysical world but the philosophical narrative surrounding this event requires no instruments of social and political theory to prove their truth and their value. The words themselves bear testimony to themselves that they are true. Moreover, the way countless philosophical societies have ingenuously tried very hard to discredit Jesus is a testimony to the gravity and power of his voice. A voice from the dead is a voice that is eternal.

A friend of Christ is a friend of mine but his enemies are also my enemies. If social bonding is the key to social development then I would rather bond with Christ than with communities like the one that turned on the young man Jesus. The flow of hostility towards Christ is a corollary of his universal authority.

Communities in the UK are being shaped by an army of unbelievers in every section of society where identity with their world view is becoming less of an option but more of a social and ‘moral’ obligation. The philosophical argument is about cohesion, the headache of 19^th century rationalists, but the agenda is to win the perceived war against believers by using force; by using the threat and fear of social exclusion in Government regulated workplaces and/or imprisonment. Such practices reveal intellectual perversion.

Be very aware fellow followers of Jesus, the spirit that hated him before he was born, is a spirit that inhabits the narrative of secular philosophy, psychology and sciences. And they will have their way – for a short while.

Jesus points to an everlasting Kingdom that is way way beyond the asphyxiating and finite philosophy of aggression and violence.

Jesus trembled at the violence of the world the first time round but on His next visit the same narrative will be used in a slightly different context. The context will be as a means of judgment upon all the bloodshed caused by nations that have raged against him since Adam.

I'd rather be fearful of God than of irrelevant UK Directives trying to control life on a sinking ship.

Clumsy Political Science

He said: "A debate has to take place and all views must be expressed. What better place than parliament for this? I tell you, we must not be ashamed of our values, we must not be afraid of defending them."

Monday 22nd June saw Nicolas Sarkozy make this ambiguous statement in the French Parliament, referring to ‘defence’ as being part of the parliamentary tradition of ‘debate’. The phrase ‘not be ashamed of our values’ is a worrying aspect of political rhetoric not in the least because there seems to be no moral high ground these days on which to peg values that give the right of one section of society to dictate by mob politics of parliament how another section of society should dress. In a multi-cultural, pluralistic, diverse society, where moral relativism is preached as the modern framework for social discourse, here we have a plutocrat telling the French nation that they must defend values that are opposed to the values of others. What Neanderthal values are these then?
Are these values expressed as part of a psychopathological back draft from the political psychosis de la French Revolution? On one side we have the French obsession with mythologizing their historical place in the process of social revolution where the endless rhetoric about a more equitable, fair and diverse culture based on compassion and acceptance is dribbled out in the EU, while on the other, we have a spokesman for a partisan intelligentsia, obsessed with subjective values ascribed to a mythical collection of people whose existence is inferred by the collective possessive pronoun ‘our’, as in ‘our values’, who proceeds to allude to a framework for the ‘debate’ with a not very subtle use of trigger words like ‘shame’ and ‘defence’.

Parliament is the place where mob rule takes place under the guise of ‘democratic debate’. Here, members are coerced by the Party whip into conforming to the type of political narrow mindedness that is exemplified by Party acolytes like Sarkozy who is clearly lost in a fantasy world of an internalised schema of values and beliefs from which he extricates himself by making a sublime call to arms of the Party faithful by externalising them as being ‘common’ values and beliefs in need of defence.

Party politics is mob politics run by little mobsters. Its mobsters naively – I hope – use subliminal references as a tool to incite the base instinct of the animal to protect an identity. An identity that is manufactured by the State anyway. (See my booklet ‘Blasphemy & Identity’) This is an identity of values and beliefs that is ideologically territorial, that articulates the defence by an invisible herd of people bonded by their occult tattoos, signs, symbols and totems, to erect barriers of social exclusion to ostracise and then murder their fellow humans. The nice décor of political science is its ability to paper over the spirit of murder and violence that lies just beneath the surface of a recycled Aristotelian sophistry.

An attack by State figurines on the religious practices of a group of people is an attack, not on religion, but on the thin veneer of their two faced politics. On one hand they use high minded principles of morality and ‘social responsibility’ to outwardly give credibility and intelligence to the political revolution of creating an utopian society, citing exclusion as a necessary evil (as do the lecturers from Zeitgeist), while on the other hand inwardly concealing a fear of difference that expresses itself in the language of defending an abstract collectivisation of souls under the vague title ‘our values’. In the Reith Lecture this discussion about identifying the purpose of social dialogue takes us into the very same region of mob politics, where information supporting particular theories is kept on track by the doyens of culture operating the push and pull levers in the twinned towers of Media and Educatia, to create enough critical mass in the public mind of an evidence based dialogue that can occupy the high moral ground for justifying inhumanity to man all in the name of ‘social progress’. Witless utopian gutter talk.

The war in the Middle East is the fruit of this kind of mob politics. The critical mass of public support for murdering their own kind in a far away land is properly kept on track by a sophistry of words that lulls the conscience into believing that the moral question of murdering men, women and children can be resolved by ‘looking at the evidence’. Even if these Neanderthals in power have to use the false flag operation to create more convincing proof of evidence, what is critical to them is the indoctrination of the public consciousness by a regular news feed that keeps the public mind anaesthetised from seeing the reality of the evil they support.

Jesus Christ is here to expose it all. Because He lives, therefore I am. My common bond is with Jesus Christ – the only human being who suffers not from psychological dissonance.

All the fabricators and engineers of fear in the State machinery of death will be exposed for what they are. DESTROYERS OF LIFE. Their two faced political theories will be exposed as nothing but a shoddy veil covering a deep seated psychotic hatred for Creation and The Creator.

God's love is amazing but human love aint....

The idea of an emerging new world headed up by a philosophical junta boasting the supremacy of the human race over its environment is a very dangerous one. Not in the least because it is an idea that is as old as the Neanderthal whose offspring has produced a whole series of ‘civilisations’ that have mostly dried up through excessive blood letting.
The ideas proposed by the Zeitgeist sect are extremely worrying, for hidden within the sophistry is a logic reductio ad absurdum that forcefully reduces the individual to excepting that he/she is nothing but an extension of the group. The absurdity is menacing since non-conformity to this world view, that humans are an integral part of unified systems they call ‘natural’, necessarily requires regulation by a form of punishment called ‘ostracism’. I quote, ‘Your personal beliefs, whatever they may be, are meaningless when it comes to the necessities of life’. And what constitutes necessities of life I presume excludes a belief in a God who can love a damn sight better than humans can?
According to their perceptions of the ‘natural’ world, whatever that means, we are all connected ‘naturally’, like cogs in a big anthropological clock, and our success in creating this new emerging reality is dependent on conforming to their view that social integration only works if we deny the existence of a God whom they claim separates people.
This is a nihilist ground zero philosophy that at its heart is a sophistry concealing a hatred toward those who give thanks and who give verbal credit to God for whatever kindness they receive from their environment. It is only God who is capable of love anyway and it makes me cringe when I hear people say they love each other when they haven’t clue where divine love originated, and how undivine they are in their present state of sin.
‘We love you Mark, but get out of our church, you are ostracised for not conforming to our world view’.
Human love is always missing the mark in God’s eyes, that is why He came as Jesus Christ to COVER us with HIS LOVE so that we can be certain of God's love while living in a world where human love fails.