Welcome to

www.themindweb.com
Recommend this Site to a Friend

This site is for those who want to know what is happening to their world, and why,
and what they can do about it. This information is already on site, just start reading.

Retired Editorials

Editorial # 2 - March 16, 2003

Just Answers
Readers mid-March continuing from Readers February.

The Truth of Creation: Until we get this right our culture, based on corrupt belief, will be corrupt! Few see the real consequences of corrupt belief but creation belief is the engine for philosophy/ideology. To expose false creation belief is more important than a cure for cancer, heart attacks and all wars current or about to begin. If we want to make this a better world we must look to the heart of today's problems. We need to realize that decisions based on false belief create disastrous consequences.

The belief that life is a meaningless chance event is the major cause of human problems including careless or self-serving decisions in design, maintenance, business, health, transport, creating disasters for 'kicks', wars, suicides, political lies etc.

The true creation force is revealed by modern science!
At the time life first appeared on our earth, life as we know it today, could not survive; early life helped prepare our world for our occupation. All we normally see as life is based on one system; therefore we can accept that the force that created "our life" also created the needed development process to allow the end product to achieve its planned purpose.

For instance: to begin there was no coal or oil! Life-forms created these! I am not able to study every subject but expect there will be readers able to tell us of other substances created or modified by living things in past ages of earth, things needed for life's future development. Expect to find quite a few of our needs would not have become available without a programmed activity of organic life.

To say that we are the descendents of trees would be just as silly as saying that we are descended from apes, in fact the reverse would likely be more correct, though only by design; i.e. trees and apes were designed in our service. We, be assured, are part of a plan based on a genetic structure of such flexibility as to be able to carry the design of all life needed to attain the purpose of the life enterprise. An enterprise to provide the creative and development needs of a humanity that would itself be a final stage; at this stage it had also to provide humanity with a special intellect to continue its own further development.

Rather like creating an egg that would be able to ensure that the food and environment needed for survival after its hatching would be present when it finally hatched. Yes elegant is the word to describe this design. That, realistically, is a parable of our creation. We are now at our 'hatching' stage. As it could not happen under the laws of chance why, now that we have the intelligence to appreciate it, are we too stiff necked to accept it? Well some (those who have cracked their shell) see reasons; as a community we just need time for the 'break out' and then to proceed to the stage when we take up our inheritance.

It may, at first, seem incredible that a genetic code could be assembled to carry the genetic codes of all individual life forms ever to have lived. However we are now able to see so many amazing life programs (e.g., caterpillars to butterflies) and know enough of living structures that we should not see the larger creation as unreasonable. Such precise design is clearly possible, not because we believe it has happened but because we know enough of genetics to be able to glimpse the amazing potentials of this system.

The genetic system has such possibilities for creating life forms as does our system of writing have the possibility to describe all created. The genetic system only needs an intelligence to assemble it in such intricate way as to achieve the planned result. Do not expect it was arranged in so crude way as my description. Pre-designed patterns of life forms are 'triggered' by environmental change to serve transient purposes. Individual life-forms are refined by 'chance and natural selection' deleting surplus genes and those not advantageous to particular forms in particular environments. Fossils do not reveal a chance creative force they reveal the achievements of a creative intellect.

By the above process planned life-forms became activated and, by adaptation, fitted to particular and progressive environments as science now describes. We only need turn the picture right side up to see it correctly. Deleting unwanted genes from group species means that they become too specialized to adapt to following environmental change, these forms, as we see, then die out. We can not be descended from apes because apes are more specialized then we are.

  • We also note that the difference, genetically, between apes and man is small. This reveals that the amount of genetic material needed to create a wide range of life-forms is not so massive as might have been thought, especially when, as science has now shown, important basic features are universal over time. Environments change and life-forms to suit emerge from basic stock; by the specializing process they serve their purpose and become extinct. It, as we should expect, is a truly elegant system only able to be designed by intelligence to achieve planned ends.
  • It is quite evident that chance and natural selection, even if creative, could not foresee coming environments nor foresee needs of life forms designed to inhabit environments not yet existing. Chance and natural selection are totally blind, they can only relate to what exists at the time; they can neither foresee nor create. If chance damage should ever produce a gene this would be too rare or temporary to effect the planned creation.
  • The most dangerous virus in the world today is the ideas virus called "Theory of Evolution". This theory is a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" to deform/neutralize our developing human intellect. We can use our intellect to expose this but, for quick and decisive results, we need "Democracy".


What is Democracy?
This is already discussed: see Crimson Crime Ch.5, but clarification will help. Some have the impression that the words "Democracy" and "Republic" have significantly different meanings but both mean "government of the people by the people and for the people". The important question: How can we achieve it?

First: it is essential that we, the people, choose from among us, some to represent us in our Parliament. We do not elect people chosen for us by 'parties': groups: aliens: big business or other vested interests. We create a simple formula where we, the people of each electorate, pick out one or more people of good repute and intelligence to stand for us at election. These people do NOT choose themselves or offer themselves and they may decline the honor to represent their electorate but there will be enough in an electorate to represent us and be of higher standard than "party chosen", stooges.

Second: the democratic parliament does not rule just by consensus of a majority: it cannot make any law as it may decide! This was made clear many years ago when an English King was confronted and told that he could not make laws to suit himself; he had to rule in accord with the common law. So your democratic parliament must govern within agreed common law which, preferably over a long period, has been found to give a measure of justice to all, each individual has enshrined rights to justice.

Each citizen has rights which may only be taken away by the law of the land * and a jury of peers finding this person guilty of a serious crime. (*Meaning the permanent common law not 'parliament convenience' law). Nations that were once part of the British Empire, in most cases, still have legal systems based on, what was, British common law though their Courts of Law no longer recognize or need keep to, these common law requirements. Courts now serve parliament made "law" rather than common law "justice".

The reason we are not now governed according to our legal "common law" National Constitutions is because we have been 'conned' into accepting that elections mean democracy and that parliaments are elected to govern in their own right. Parties govern by majority gained by election. Once we accept this trick, parliaments can then, by various ruses, evade Constitutional common law restraints when they want to. They may simply ignore or suspend under some pretext; or meanings redefined with help of 'independent' judiciary (we, people, are trusting, what we are not told we don't know). One way or other, once parliament's members do not represent the people who elect them, then ways are found to evade Constitutional law so as to serve those who control the "Party System".

Representatives represent those who choose them! Parties, in disguise of public service, offer to form policies and choose members to represent these policies on behalf of the people. Representatives chosen by parties must obey the party line or be thrown out. For a time this was not so bad as party members were a significant percent of the population but, once the idea of "party democracy" became accepted, then those who created and 'own' the 'party' form of government gradually tighten their manipulative control. Party systems are a perfect cover for elitist corruption. With advances in public relations (See Globalism Brainwash chapter 3.) this control became almost total. Will we never wake up?

It may seem unthinkable that we allowed this to happen. Are we just too trusting? Too lazy? Or do we just want to avoid responsibility for our own governing? Do we deserve what we get - universal corruption from election to national government; from education to business executive; from public to pulpit; do we stick to the death or do we start thinking rationally and responsibly? When we get our creation belief correct the meek will inherit the earth.

Consequences: As our last editorial tried to make clear, Globalist 'world government' should be seen by "we: the people"' as the most terrifying obscenity in today's world - a return to barbarism. Any who have not recognized the horrific destruction already inflicted on human development need only watch continuing social disintegration. If "we: the people", under influence of false ideology, allow manipulation to increasing terrorism and confusion, then suffering will be magnified and those who choose to close their eyes must bear their share of the blame. The war for Humanity will not be won by military might; it can only be won by exercise of human intelligence and compassion!

We now know enough of our creation and of our culture to free ourselves from the slavery referred to by Jesus of Nazareth. No fence sitting! The time has come to see that we are being stripped naked of our human heritage and should be ashamed. We must now clothe ourselves in the human intellect if we are to be acceptable to our Creator and our universe.

The value of reader input
I trust that the above clarifies points of editorials and literature on this site and also reveals the value and need of reader input. It is difficult for me to know how readers see things unless I have response and this, to date, has been very limited. Perhaps I should point out that the response coupons are not restricted to their physical size. You can write and edit your comment, copy it with the "Edit" facility, then paste it in the coupon when on-line.

The Way of the World
No doubt many readers consider my "creation literature" 'strange'; Christians faint and evolutionists flee to the safety of their trenches. It is all beyond comprehension? The creation debate was settled, in the minds of its major protagonists, many years ago. Both sides dug their trenches, pulled certainty over their intelligence and neither has dared face light of truth since. Both sides repeated old arguments, neither listened to the other and both have became irrelevant.

Evolutionists, having declared that their religion was science, never opened their eyes even though the scientific realities of specialization and species extinction were known as they dug in; they stick to their guns if only popguns. Like those American Indians who did not build seagoing boats because they 'knew' there was nothing out there, evolutionists do not rethink new discoveries because they 'know' there is nothing out there. Christians likewise: blindly faithful to faith - not truth.

But Jesus said we should not bury our talents. When our leader returns we should have made a profit and not say "Here Master" here is the talent you left with me, I kept it safe." If the Master had only wanted back what He had given He may as well have buried it himself. The "Talent" represents intelligence to be used to advance understanding so we, learning to know better our Creator and ourselves - become worthy of the Master's return.

Jesus also said "I am truth" but again few Christians appear to have faith in their leader or take much notice of what he says. Do we not see that we also have put the wisdom of man before the wisdom of God? The Bible tells us: Romans 1: 19-20 For all that may be known of God by men lies plain before their eyes; … to the eye of reason, in the things He has made. Scientific research can tell us all that may be known of God by men. Surely that is clear and intellectually obvious. The Creation is created in the truth of the Creator! The Holy Bible, though it may contain the "Word of God", it is, in its many versions, interpreted by the faulty wisdom of man. The Creation itself is the only Word of the Creator not yet subject to human manipulation.

How many Christians today have faith that the truth will set them free? How many are afraid to seek truth because of stiff-necked pride in their certainties? Those who cannot believe that the truth of their creation must reflect the truth of their Creator should crawl out of their trenches and open their eyes to the glories of "the things He has made"?

Now a word to contemporary events
My attention was drawn to comment by a defense force Bishop to justify an attack on Iraq; I have to disagree. The Bishop quotes the "just war" doctrine and gives the following as support:

a) "War must be declared by a legitimate authority. He defines the U. N. as a legitimate authority."
The UN is not a legitimate authority because it is a private authority. Its member governments are not 'democracies' by any realistic definition of the word (see Crimson Crime P25); or even by public opinion of a Sydney survey. National Governments are now the agents of Globalism. Globalism is an immoral 'Mafia type' secular authority.

b) "The cause must itself be just. Self-defense is considered a just cause."
This, I think is a more interesting point. For a big strong man, professional boxer or martial arts exponent to claim self defense after beating up a small or unskilled person would, I think, be generally dismissed by a court of 'common law'. Certainly "self defense" would not be a morally acceptable excuse. Now Iraq could never (foreseeable) be in a position to challenge the strength of the USA. Yes Iraq could create a weapon of mass human destruction but how could it use this without reason and knowing the consequences? There are many nations able to gain this power and have leaders no better, but they would have to be forced, by threat against themselves, to use it. We cannot walk down the street and beat up anyone who has the power to step on our toes.

Other reasons given by the Bishop to justify this war need no answers because those first given negate later reasons. I agree with the great majority of the world's people that the case has not been made. I disagree with those who say that approval by the UN would make war justified; reason: see "a)" above. It seems to me that if the claims against Iraq were in good faith, then Iraq would have been offered guarantees of trade and acceptance in exchange for co-operation and it was found only weapons prudent for national defense were being deployed.

The attitude of the campaign against Iraq was, from the start, abusive, uncompromising and designed to insult and antagonize rather than to encourage co-operation. This was not an agenda for conciliation, especially in light of persisting rumors (apparently Iraq was not discouraged, but in fact encouraged, to the Kuwait war that began this whole thing) (re-stated in a recent USA TV commentary). I have no sympathy for the leadership of Iraq much less for Globalism. In fairness, if Iraq is required to 'come clean' then those accusing Iraq should also be required to 'come clean'.

We can escape this mess by exposing the lie of the chance creation myth and
installing true democratic governments.

Editor.

Remember: For past editorials see "Retired Editorials"
Service files: "Fast Downloads" download and print out our small books for quick reference and portability. These downloads have small revisions and are specially formatted for reduction and economic bookmaking see "Bookmaking Instructions". A photocopy service such as Xerox will download and create as few as five books of any title for a reasonable price.

Return to Home Page | Other Retired Editorials