View Full Version : Religion-Politics Nexus Theory

31-10-2007, 03:03 PM
Highly interesting book ,just brought to my attention, released in 1970 ! called The Union Jack. I'm especially curious for a theist's view on this work.

"It is difficult to enter into this debate without warning the reader that his own thoughts and words have been cleverly twisted in order to move him in the opposite direction to that which he intends and to do so without his knowing. For instance, if a man has known North from South since childhood and he comes upon a crossroads where the north-south signs have been switched, certainly he does not ponder but pursues the wrong direction to a destination opposite to that intended. A confused mind can quickly reach a state of total break down simply by reversing word meanings. A whole nation can be motivated along a certain course of action inimical to its vital interest by manipulating high sounding principles and ideals to implicit inconsistencies or self contradictions.

This concept, cleverly used, can openly operate sedition in any country and within the law of the land. It is possible, and is in fact being done, that the United States Constitution is being used to help overthrow the American government. Does not the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and are not "free" speakers today advocating World Government while at the same time shouting for the preservation of Constitutional rights? This is legal, but it is treason.

We intend to prove here that the concealed object of Conservatism, Americanism and Patriotism is the promotion of what is termed Fundamental Christianity. "Fundamental Christianity" is educating the American people for World Government which of course means the sacrifice of America as an independent nation. Now their religion is as legal as any other under the United States Constitution, but it is treason and subversion and no more pro-American than would be an invading army. Simply by changing the meaning of Christianity to the opposite of truth they are able to carry on a well organized and highly respectful sedition with immunity from prosecution and every advantage for protection. They have every advantage of the law without fear of prosecution. They are in a quasi or extra legal haven. They are engaging in what can accurately be termed legal treason.

For purpose of this discussion we many times use quotation marks around a word or phrase to designate it as the common usage today but that the same word in conventional usage meant just the reverse. We use regular quotations when making a direct quote from a source of information but in most cases quotes around words and phrases are intended to convey that such word or phrase has been manipulated to disguise betrayal.

In order to clear up the confusion that has been imposed upon us, we must understand the original meaning of our own language as well as how it is being misused against us. This is vital and we cannot hope to pursue correct action unless our thinking fits our language and our language communicates our thinking. So badly have Americans been bewitched by their own language, we have in this text invented terms and ideas to help unscramble the confusion by reversing the double-think language. For example we have used the term "Christian" Communism to show the essential unity of the beliefs of the "Fundamentalists" and those of their supposed enemies. A word or phrase can be placed in a different context and through a process of repetition will change its meaning in short order.

After the new usage becomes dominant and we use it based on its root or original meaning, it not only will deceive the listener, it will deceive the user unless he understands. Twenty years ago the term Fundamental Christianity meant basic or orthodox Christianity as derived from Apostolic teaching. Today, through improper application intended to hide deceit, 'Fundamental Christianity' means Premillennialism and a world social state supposedly headed by Christ. It is hard to imagine how very unfundamental to Christianity a worldly and material kingdom would be. Nevertheless, the Fundamentalists term their hope for a natural Messiah, Christianity. Therefore "Fundamental" when in quotations refers to the British Israel Kingdom religion and not original Christianity.

Definitions and concepts are all important. It is not the words and expressions we use, but their meaning and common usage and it is not always what we believe, but why do we believe it. So critical is this idea that our whole thought process turns either one direction or the other upon it. For example, Christians believe Christ has a kingdom and professing Christians believe also that Christ has a kingdom. While both have the name Christian both do not have the Christian faith. Christians believe that Christ's kingdom is grace and salvation - a spiritual kingdom. Professing or as stated above, "Fundamental Christians" believe that Christ's kingdom is yet to be in the form of a material earthly paradise which they call 'the kingdom of God on earth'. Although the Fundamentalists or Premillennialists talk about grace they only do so to achieve a closer identity to Christianity. They have a hybrid or mongrel faith which deceives them away from Christ to a Judaic Phariseeism which is antithetical and opposite to Christianity. So here we have two people called "Christians". The world believes they are both Christians and they themselves believe they are Christians, but when we get at an understanding of why, or a definition of what they believe, we come to a polarity or a positive and a negative.

Furthermore "Fundamentalists" believe one must obey God's law for fear of physical punishment. Christians believe one must obey God's law because they love their Saviour Both concepts are based on obedience, but it is why should we obey, that turns us either to legalism or to Christianity."

Spiny Norman
31-10-2007, 05:41 PM
Sorry mate, what was the question again? Us fundamentalists are a bit slow at catching on to these complicated arguments.

31-10-2007, 06:43 PM
Sorry mate, what was the question again? Us fundamentalists are a bit slow at catching on to these complicated arguments.

01-11-2007, 08:53 AM
Shouldn't this be in the 'Axiom - dribbler ?' thread.

Mate, if a north/south sign turned around is enough to confuse you then you need help.

I think it's pretty hard to put 'Christians' into one basket. Apart from some core beliefs such as Jesus was the son of God, Jesus died and was raised, those who believe in Jesus get the big lolly shop in the sky, Christians vary tremendously, and becoming more so since it's become impolite to execute people for heresy.

Ok - my turn to stop dribbling,

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2007, 12:23 PM
We intend to prove here that the concealed object of Conservatism, Americanism and Patriotism is the promotion of what is termed Fundamental Christianity.

That bit isn't entirely implausible. :rolleyes:

01-11-2007, 12:44 PM
That bit isn't entirely implausible. :rolleyes:
Can't see much connection. Why should Australian Christians be concerned about Americanism? I prefer British comedies for example.