Blog Archives


Blog Pic 120117

        In early to mid-December of 2017 I posted a three-part series called The Truth Dialogues. These posts are parabolic in nature revealing hidden truths for those with eyes to see.


        In these posts one will discover figurative indicators of hidden subterfuge currently being revealed in the real world in real time. There is an exposing process taking place on the national scene as preparatory to a national cleansing process. The corruption had reached massive levels with next to zero accountability. The bold hubris of the people involved reached astronomical proportions, both for what was never before attempted and also for the complete disregard for the law, individual rights, common decency, and basic morality.

         The Lord told anyone who was listening during His ministry that the massive corruption of His time was about to be exposed and dealt with, and He was the first one on the scene after John the Immerser to begin the process. His ministry not only featured the presentation of truth and the hope of salvation being made readily available for those who were willing, it was also greatly reformative. He would shine His pure Light on all the hidden vermin, rats, and roaches that had wrested control for monetary controlling purposes and selfish, immoral personal agendas, and expose them for all to see. He would also, in the end, bring everlasting judgment on the cabal in question.

         Here is your opportunity to revisit these posts and discover light for our present times as new information of relatively recent misdeeds keeps rolling in:




         © 2018 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved.


Blog Pic 120117

    “In discussing people beyond the reach of justice and majorities uninterested in truth, where does that leave the endeavors of honorable individuals intent on necessary reform?” 


         “Reformation is always an enterprise of individuals. It is always the individual who sees the need for reform. Though there are usually a great many individuals who see such a need, only very few actually act upon it. The larger part of that equation—the decision-making process which chooses eventually to not act—is most often based on mere self-preservation. Most people would rather not rock any boats because they know they will receive bad reactions and negative feedback and some of it may be severe. Most are intelligent enough, if that’s the right word, or at least aware enough, to figure this out ahead of time.”

         “Even though they know there is an injustice, they would rather keep quiet?”

        “Yes. Of course. It is almost never the case that grave injustices are performed in the dark and stay there, hidden from everyone. It is that the perpetrators thereof deal in a very high level of intimidation.”

          “They use fear to keep people quiet.”

         “Everyone knows this. It is why the bad guys are often so bold in their schemes. They know someone always notices what they do, even if done in secret and in the dark, and it is often many someones, but they also know most will never act to expose or stop them. It is like that famous case several decades ago, though in microcosm, of a murder that took place late at night in a teeming city in which many people heard the screams of the victim but no one acted to save her.”

         “There is the phrase, ‘I don’t want to get involved,’ and the operative word there is involved, in that becoming involved in another person’s problem could potentially cause too much personal discomfort.”

         “Yes, and it is not at all just discomfort, or even pain that they fear, but also concern for one’s reputation. This is why most people prefer to run in groups in which everyone thinks and acts roughly the same and in which there are no deviations from the norm.”

         “And thus no deviants.”

         “Yes. Most people would rather be part of a crowd and not deviate from the parameters or mores of the crowd because such a deviation would be a pox upon their reputations. They know the members of their own group would look askance upon such behavior and might even rebuke them. Such efforts are initial lead-ins to possible further censuring in order to do whatever may be necessary to keep such wayward members in line.”

         “Because wayward members may cause a chink in the group’s armor, so to speak.”

        “Yes. The group must protect itself, that is, its shared interests, against anyone who may attempt to subvert it and its cohesion, even if it comes from within. This is why it is always the case that the first enemy a reformer faces comes from his own group and never from without. And there are always very strong members in the controlling circle of the group with the most vested interests who bring the strongest attack. As a perfect case in point, the Lord Jesus was betrayed and killed by members of His own nation, though they used an outside political intermediary, the Romans, to get the job done.”

         “And that is quite the irony, is it not?”

         “It certainly is, in that the group was threatened by the reform efforts of one of their own, and in order to protect the group from outside influences in order to keep it pure, it enlisted the help of the most powerful outside influence to eliminate the threat.”

         “What does that say for that particular group and for such groups in general?”

        “I would say that if such groups have to resort to that level of devious subterfuge to stave off its own necessary reformation, it not only proves the dire need for its reformation in the first place but also reveals that real reformation for such groups is often not even possible.”

         “Then Jesus was not actually trying to reform it?”

         “No. He was actually revealing it for what it was and attempting to rescue people from it. Though He would have liked to bring reform and could have, He knew it was not possible simply because the group was not willing. It works the same way with individuals. The Lord gave everything He had to save and was willing to die for everyone, but he won’t waste His time with unrepentant and unwilling people. Even so, individuals who do not hold membership in groups are easier to save in part because they are not compromised and hindered by peer pressure, and the worst form of that is religious peer pressure.”

         “It is the ruling supremacy of the group.”

         “Correct. And the people of the group have already bought into it to such a degree that their liberty and individual consciences have been compromised without them realizing it. People become bound. Their loyalty is misplaced. Their minds have been undermined. No one can break out of such a condition except through one process. The individual must have somehow retained in his possession something very important that the cultish control of the groupthink mechanism failed at some point to eliminate.”

         “And what would that be?”

         “That would be an overriding and uncompromising love for the truth.”

         © 2017 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved.   




Blog Pic 120117




“But God is in charge, right?”




“Please explain.”






“From what?”

“From evil.”

“What evil?”



“Instead of blaming ourselves?”


“So you believe guilt was involved.”




“In that human beings are evil?”







“But Christianity does, correct?”




“Meaning evil can be checked by disciplined personal choice.”


“Because they are above the law?”


© 2017 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved.  




Blog Pic 120117


“Sir, you are on record of saying that one cannot be a good American and a good Christian, and that one must choose one or the other. Is that true?”


“Well, I never said that. I said something some may think is related to your incorrect characterization, but not according to those terms.”

“What did you say?”

“I said there are times when a Christian must choose their Christianity over the desires of their ruling authorities.”

“But what does that mean exactly?”

“It means the same thing that Peter and John meant when they said real believers must choose the Lord’s will and preach the real Gospel instead of obeying opposing authorities.”

But when they had ordered them to leave the Council, they began to confer with one another, saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.


When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened… [Acts 4:15-21] [1]

“Why would you use that passage? I don’t understand your reasoning or the application of that case in this discussion. We have complete freedom of religion in this country. How does Peter and John’s quote apply here?”

“Do we really have complete freedom of religion in this country?”

“According to the Constitution of the United States we do.”

“But is the Constitution actually being applied to uphold the beliefs and values of Christians? And for that matter, is the Bill of Rights actually allowed expression in churches? If Constitutional rights are not allowed in churches and if governments can bypass the Constitution as well, then where is legally-granted spiritual liberty actually allowed? Don’t we have reams of recent data in the political realm over the last few decades in which it is obvious that Christian beliefs are being attacked or at least not being supported as they should be, and that Constitutional support for freedom of religion is only being applied selectively, usually against Christianity but in favor of other religions and beliefs?”

“I am not sure what you are referring to unless you mean segments of far right Christianity or even forms of Christianity which the majority of Christians are against.”

“So, by characterizing those forms of Christianity under attack in America you agree that it is okay to violate the Constitutional rights of those particular Christians?”

“No, I do not mean that. I mean that some forms of Christianity are not supported by Scripture.”

“But who makes that decision? Where is the grand tribunal that decides such things? Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes the actual correct interpretation of Christianity? And who gets to decide which Christians have no rights and which Christians do? Should not all Christian individuals and groups have the same exact right to freely believe in and practice what the members thereof believe to be correct? Isn’t that what freedom of religion actually entails?”

“Although there is no great Christian Law Court which decides which form of Christianity is correct, I think that Christians themselves usually decide who is right by the sheer numbers believing in particular interpretations.”

“You mean the bigger the denomination or church the more likely it is right?”

“Not exactly, but it would appear that, if all Christians read the same Bible, that majority groups would appear to have the best grasp of what the Bible actually states.”

“So you are saying that one of the true tests of correct interpretation is that a majority must prevail and that Christian minority opinions and interpretations do not hold as much weight regarding their beliefs and should therefore not be granted the same degree of rights to protect their beliefs and practices?”

“Technically, the Constitution protects all Christian individuals and groups, even minorities. But when the large majority Christian bodies reject such minorities, it must mean something significant.”

“Is the something significant fair? Is it just? Is it legal? Is it supported by the Lord? Is the coming together of large bodies against the smaller bodies proof that the larger bodies are more correct in their beliefs? Or is it simply the case that the larger bodies are more powerful, influential, and therefore prejudicial?”

“How is it even possible that the larger bodies could be more prejudicial? Isn’t it obvious that the larger the Christian body the more likely such a body is scripturally correct? And doesn’t this then justify any partiality or bias it may possess against smaller Christian offshoots?”

“Do you hear what you are saying? You are stating that might makes right. I am not here defending non-Scriptural Christian beliefs though I will always side with the truth regardless of church or denomination size. Not only that, but freedom of religion is most directly applied to individuals, and must be. Your original query involved the question of whether or not a Christian must sometimes make a choice between his or her beliefs and authority figures who oppose his or her beliefs, and whether such authority figures, either religious or secular, including one’s prevailing government, can be allowed to censor and hinder the beliefs and practices of Christians. I never said a Christian must choose between his beliefs and his country, as you have implied.”

“But are not those two the same? Is not the government of a country essentially and effectively the same as one’s country?”

“Okay. I know you’re playing dumb here for the sake of argument or whatever, and you are trying to get me to say something in such a way that you can twist for your own purposes.”

“I’m not saying that at all. I understand perfectly well the difference between one’s country and one’s current government, but one’s current government in free countries who vote for their leaders is placed in power by the people who vote which means the government reflects the will of the people, which means one’s current government is essentially the same as one’s country at any given time, right?”

“No. Wrong. You could not be more wrong and I don’t believe you are shooting straight with me at all because that’s an asinine argument. One’s country is one’s country. It has in many cases existed a long time, often centuries, and is an entity completely separate from any government of that country which exists at any given time in its history. Also, people change. People become corrupt. Sometimes, if not most times, the corruption begins very small and escapes detection. The corrupt, through inside influence based on money and power, get away with things and continue in their corruption. When no one notices the corruption or no one successfully rises up to stop the corruption in its early stages it metastasizes and eventually grows to a place in which it cannot be stopped. But the corruption does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the hearts of people. If the corruption, the evil, is not dealt with by the good, then the corruption prevails. We have seen this happen in many countries, in that a small cabal of corrupt ones masquerading as good guys deceives the people into believing in them and supporting them. Entire countries have thus become corrupted merely by deceiving the majority. The same thing happens in churches and denominations. So no, majority opinion means absolutely nothing as an arbiter of truth.”

“Though I don’t necessarily agree with all you are saying, you have brought up some very interesting points about how Christians must live out their faith in this changing world. Would you care to continue this dialogue in another segment soon?”


“Okay. Thank you.”

© 2017 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved. 




The Deceived Majority (Part 1)



         The following are related articles:

         Fight the Good Fight of Faith

         When You Gonna Wake Up?

         WE’RE WINNING (Quit Listening to Liars)










