Part 3.

WHAT WE CAN DO

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Burke.

Introduction.

When first we learn something of why things are going wrong with our culture we consider our troubles just the result of honest mistakes presenting no great problem. Whether what we discover is the truth about the money myth, the evolution myth, or some other 'error', we feel that now the fault is discovered all we have to do is reveal the facts and that will be the end of it.

About 20 years ago that is what I thought. I had a lot to learn. The first thing I learned was that putting a notice newspaper or writing to 'The Editor' did not help.

No one seemed interested. It took many years before I found out why Editors did not want certain culturally important, dramatic, or controversial matters in their newspapers and why people did not immediately see the significance of socially deforming miseducation such as the evolution myth.

Over a few years I sent something in the vicinity of 1,000 letters to politicians, educators, media personalities. I had many letters to the Editor published but only so long as I kept clear of what was too revealing.

What the Media Won't Tell.

To give an indication of the kind of letter that would rarely, if ever, be published in a leading daily, here is a letter sent to the editor of "The Australian", the best 'letters' newspaper in Australia. I offered it especially so that I could have a recent (at the time) reject to include in this book.

"Dear Sir,

If I may I would like to respond to Chris Holmes (24/9/'84).

Why do evolutionists always hide behind the nonsense part of fundamentalist religion and present themselves as superior and scientific rather than let their case stand on its own merits?

Is it because they have no case? The claims Holmes makes; example: "This new religious feudalism would attempt once again to debase serious study for a claptrappery of emotional humbug" is equally applicable to the revival of paganism based on its religious fundamentalism of 'creative evolution'.

Although still taught in schools as fact, the theory of creation by gradual evolution is known to be scientifically false. In October 1980 some 160 of the world's top anatomists, paleontologists, evolutionary geneticists, etc., met in Chicago at what became known as The Chicago Conference. At that conference it was accepted that the fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution.

In fact there is no scientific theory of creation by evolution and for years I have offered a public challenge of $1,000 for the first person able to show that evolution theory was a scientific theory based on the available evidence.

I would be quite willing to put my money where my mouth is to challenge Holmes or any of his mates to show that there is any "scientific realism" ... "in the defence of a lifestyle dedicated to the worship of words; words wrenched out of context and out of rhythm, words stretched to serve new ends" such as when the word 'evolution' is used as an explanation for creation.

Unfortunately I very much doubt that the pagan fundamentalists, who attack our education and try to force on us a primitive nature worship based on evolution theory, will ever be inclined to 'put up or shut up'.

Yours sincerely"

As you see the above is a forceful letter and lot of that force comes from being able to 'throw back' the words used in the opponent's letter. In the normal course of events it would seem ideal for a lively letters page.

Another example, this time a tiny part from a longer letter was published. Because of the nature of the few words published as against the text of the full letter I imagine the intent was a slap in the face. What they printed:

"I would not be reading your paper I did not think it the best—and it is a clear best.

The actual letter submitted went on to say:

"... but don't get carried away. I also vote in elections for what I see as the best but that best is atrocious. Over the last 20 years our freedoms have greatly degenerated.

Much comment about our social problems (family law, immigration policy, racial policy) surface in the mass media. May I suggest the whole subject needs a wider perspective.

Should we, for instance, not first ask why no major political party is prepared to make a clear statement of cultural policy? At present we have in operation three distinct and opposed, party approved, racial policies:

1. Separate development for aborigines.

2. Multiculturalism as promoted by most sections of the media and political parties.

3. Race integration to form a new race as promoted by Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Hayden.

Not surprisingly none of these policies has been approved by the majority of Australians. Political parties now admit that they have common policy on such matters and, as the people were not asked, that amounts to conspiracy against the electorate.

Also, as the mass media obviously does not challenge these policies (confused and unpopular as they are with the public) then it seems that freedom of speech is, to all meaningful purpose, suppressed..."

Another example:

"Dear Sir,

With a new round of blatantly political 'early elections' about to begin, can we advocate some outlet for the people's voice?

Politicians are very fond of saying that they have a 'mandate' for their policies just because they win an election. This, obviously, is seldom true, people have a very limited choice and very few would ever approve the entire policy of any party. We therefore suggest that every ballot paper carry an additional panel that the voter can tick off YES or NO. This panel to contain words to the following effect:

I have cast a legitimate vote for the party representative of my choice as being the lesser of evils. To fulfill my moral obligation I make clear that the party political system does not give me the kind of government I want for myself or my people and I do not want any party gaining power to be able to claim a mandate for all its policies unless that is specifically granted by rejection of this disclaimer.

We confidently assert that no major political party will support inclusion of the disclaimer option because no major political party today desires democratic politics. Not only have political parties shown themselves quite happy to conspire between themselves to manipulate or frustrate public will but they even promote legislation to make ever more difficult the election of small parties or individuals.

People approached about this matter have been enthusiastic so we would like to invite people to unite to enforce a democratic voice."

Yours sincerely,

It has become clear that if one touches on sore points of party political fundamentals or serious weaknesses in the chance evolution theory, there is very little chance of a hearing, especially if they become aware that you are prepared, and able, to back up what you say.

The establishment hates to have the 'party' system exposed but may print your letter if it is sufficiently isolated, not too damning, and you are not a known threat to concepts important to the establishment.

The above will surprise many people. We tend to think that any reasonably well expressed letter will be printed and that the editors would never edit out the drama. We also tend to have a romantic idea that the news media have teams of 'on their toes and panting reporters' eagle-eyed for an exciting story.

Yes these 'eagle eyed' reporters, with full camera crews, will go miles in a midnight dash to report some socialite argument that is of no importance to anyone while some subjects, vital the lives of millions, are ignored.

So if you think you can take any socially important, revealing, non-pornographic, non-libelous story to your capital city newsroom and be given a hero's welcome, think again. If you want fame, take along something slightly sick, almost libelous, rather porno, and completely trivial.

If this book achieves wide distribution, media people, politicians and various 'experts' will be forced to come up with ridicule and denials, but they will not disprove the well established evidence nor are they likely to present a more credible explanation.

Another Kind of Letter.

Some readers of the original papers took up the challenge to write to their Federal Member informing him of their 'will'. In view of the fact that the duty of an elected member is to serve the desire of the electorate, all readers should be interested in the following reply:

"Dear xx

I have received your letter telling me of your "will" in relation to legislation that originated with the United Nations Organization.

Unfortunately, my "will" on these matters is just the opposite of yours and even more unfortunately, I have taken a vote to establish which of our two "wills" will win out in this contest of "wills". It is my melancholy duty to advise you that you lose the vote."

Interesting? The insulting and adolescent nature of this reply should be sufficient to demonstrate that this person is unsuitable for the position of M.P. The insult to democracy is even more damning, the Member clearly demonstrates that he either has no idea of what the duties of a parliamentary representative are or, alternatively, that he, in open arrogance, rejects these duties.

Who was this writer of petty comment? Why none other than the Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Hayden. So much for the voice of the electorate.

Letters to Editors do not represent freedom of speech, nor would they, even if all letters were printed. All letters are not printed and those printed are not selected on quality or public importance. Some quite telling letters are published, but only enough to fool people into belief that free speech exists. There are limits to the responsible free speech allowed and these limits stop well short of the public 'Threshold of Awareness'.

Let's to Ed's will never win a war and the reason for taking up space with the subject is to show that their purpose is to confine rather than expand public awareness. We are allowed this outlet only to keep alive the safe feeling that we live in a free society. Real censorship is very subtle.

While published letters are not very damaging to the manipulators, letters can sow seeds that may later be helpful in support of a larger campaign.

I have learned a great deal since accepting my social responsibility but only recently have I been forced to accept the fearful implications of what is set down in these pages. avoid23.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/