W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New





Multiple Wars

There is so much goodness residual in Australia. Over 200 years have passed, with the Commonwealth foundationally built on the Protestant Christianity that Britain had long professed, this there becoming basic to institutions and teaching alike, to a substantial extent.

However, in Australia, the degradation and confusion about multi-culturalism*1, which despite its errors, has its good points, and the philosophy of survival as a duty and morals as a ditty are becoming merely a prelude to misnaming  biblical morals as evil, and self-indulgence, man worship and its inveterate allies as good. At the level of reproduction and the sexuality inbuilt,  it is as if these were construction facts were errors, even when our DNA multiply endorses them in our cells, so that war here is war even against what is within, as part of the constriction of our construction.

It is however quite in vain, war on God and nature, which He made, alike, so that you find the cauldron of confusion and the steam of attack both on the race and its source. Making baseless pseudo-morals, the thrust of desire, lunge against the rule of God, the Bible and nature alike is not original; but it proceeds now fast on its way to the ultimate extreme (Revelation 19:19).

It is in practice now reaching quickly into the place where expressing a point of view to the contrary of all this innovation can cost you in practice a $5000 escape price, and people slam either Israel or others expressing liberty, even to the place of having a tennis player socially indicted, in effect, for having a particular biblical moral and saying so in a relevant situation.  The viewpoint was in general that what has been made for procreation and birth should be used for it. This now at the worst, may even be called "dangerous" in a flurry of feverish attacks on fact.

Such an erratic form of condemnation of course is topsy turvy, and precisely as specifically condemned by God in Isaiah 5:20-25: namely, this calling good evil and evil good. Now there is a new thrust. While some are trying to accommodate the multi-bomb Islamic militancy (of course not all of that belief system do such things, and yet  multiplied Koran passages incite to physical violence, some not without practical domestic application*2), there is a movement, understandable but dangerous.

It is this. IF mere words incite people to a high degree of vigour about some issue, in the Islamic field, then this is dangerous since it MAY and for some, may well lead on to militant action.

They have a point. Harangues either explicitly or implicitly pointing to the physical for militancy, moves which would defile democracy, and bodies, are out, like playing golf on a cricket pitch; and they and their advocates should be exported. This area must be watched.

Nothing of such militant desire, however, should be merely assumed of any; many Muslims may likewise detest it, but the Koran does not lack such direction! Thus wise steps should be considered, as in an influenza prospect in a particular Winter. Thoughts should be free, but the hand and mode of propagation should be reviewed: NOT to see if they are ringing, resounding or emphatic, good oral work, but to see if there is a physical violence component in their direction, evil social work. This must not be simply imagined. Indeed, trying to numb or nullify speech as such is mere mummification of the human race, and utterly detestable, resulting from voiding God who has granted liberty, and avoiding Him or His word or both. That is the UNDERLYING reason for the current Australian instability. Leaving God Almighty in favour of more recent talk, they lack direction and many are plucked out of the ship of state to militant fate, often out of sheer boredom in endless seeming uncertain seas.

In fact, theocracy is not the current  mode of divine expression (Acts 15), though a call  to spiritual arms is (Ephesians 6). Freedom to accept or reject is granted, and it is in one salient sense, virtual man-eaters who wish or work to destroy the blessed option with their various ferocities,  which maul the people, while the free offer of God in Christ is on*3. They would gobble up the race in the virulent war on grace.

In the case where such an approach of fear of violence imagined to be simply because of frank and logical words, is applied to biblical Christianity, is such a test necessary ? After all, as shown repeatedly on our Web site, in particular, and in exposition FROM the Bible, violence in the matter of Christian faith is FORBIDDEN (cf. John 18:36 for example), as the apostle Peter would well know after the events described in Matthew 26:51-56. You are NOT to use force in any endeavour to have people come to Jesus Christ. The word and Spirit of God works at our own personal level, and needs no help from violence or virulence.

This is most clear. Thus if you cannot even use the sword to protect from physical action against a religious leader, indeed even when it is THE MESSIAH (Matthew 26:52-53), then obviously this religion is in this diametrically opposed to those parts of Islam or other religions, which act or direct to the contrary. Go and on, if you must, and live and die by the sword, but it is not the Saviour's way with this present world, to save that for which He has paid so much, and for which He has made available freely for the freed, such divine mercy.

What is Forbidden to Faith

Since this use of force in Christianity is forbidden - force and faith like oil and water do not mix, or blend, then words spoken are not in that domain in intention in this field. It is not an aim. To stir to ruffian or murder work is excluded, unnecessary and abhorrent, as well as forbidden by Christ (cf. John 18:36). It is not relevant, however many spiritual miscreants have used it in rebellion against Christ, while even daring to use His name (as in the Inquisition of the Romanists over some centuries, for example). Rebellion does not redefine an issue. Rebels are not representatives.

Many, then,  have used the term Christian to do violence here, to be sure; but the Bible has not changed, nor does it change. To this we will return.

Hence here in Biblical Christianity at least is one religion where this type of thing is not only not required, but forbidden. The prescription moreover for those who love the living God who sent Jesus the Christ is not that it be merely said, but diligently done (John 12:48-50, 14:21-23, Matthew 7:15ff.), what He declares, such here as non-physical violence. As followed, It has helped free speech, free thought, advances in understanding, the limitation of follies and the exposure of confusion for what it is. It has led to openings for reality. Moreover the move in this free speech direction has aided enormously Britain in particular to become great; just as her movement in very different directions of late, is not aiding her role here, or respect for it but alas, she declines.

Multiple Decline and its Poisons

Now the decline, which is occurring in various nations. Confusion and tumult rise as conviction and  truth are increasingly dismissed. The USA is of course moving in the same direction, and the gender caprices in both countries are becoming merely one index of the dismissal of the divine in the Bible. It is also clear in the genes, as the billions of commands in these, microscopic in size but giant in significance,  continue in their norms for human bodies,  and to embrace with other directives, what is the prescribed way for continuation of the race. Their building instructions for each generation show what is the type of conformity to command which is provided for the human frame.

Thus if someone gives you a pen, it is apparent he is not seeking to increase your ploughing ability, just as a magnificently matched means of reproduction is not given so that its glaringly obvious methods should be disruptively ignored. I Corinthians 4 and 5 and I Timothy 1 alike provide the most classic condemnation of what is now the current distortion or perversion of what the genes in parallel with the Bible,  have not changed, but continue in their billions,  to declare.

Thus Australia is now opened acutely to any new passion, and such movements as the above simply show to what an extreme extent this is so. One of the features becoming strong is the use of force, not just a degenerative feature but a mayhem of multiple murder. Thus rebellion makes for what drags life even to death.

What then of the immigration dangers of such ideological imports ?

Personally, to pursue the statistically indicated dangers,  I do not see why all immigrants and all of that religious persuasion in this land, via mosques for instance to make it easier, should not in this nation foreswear political and military violence, as a means of national action contrary to the established authority through democracy*4. whether the violence be by individual means or in the aggregate. There are some limits to cricket pitch use and to democratic abuse in disruptive liberty, alike.

However, far is this from saying that all Islamic citizens secretly desire physical violence; but the specialised ingredients to lure are there as are the multiplied gangs of murder and house theft in Syria and Iraq, flush with devious money from religious assailants and their nations. Their exports are many, and their mullahs sometimes act as if murder where reason is apparently too much to ask, is advocated, and its multiple practice commended. People may feel this way and thrust for it to be followed; but there place in a democratic nation where reason and not force is prominent is like dust in a drawing room. It should be swept out.

To be sure, nothing evil should simply be merely assumed of any; but wise steps should be considered, as in an influenza prospect in a particular Winter. Thoughts should be free, but the hand and mode of propagation should be reviewed: NOT to see if they are ringing, resounding or emphatic, but to see if there is a physical violence component in their direction is a prudent move.

Trying to numb or nullify speech as such is mere mummification of the human race, and utterly detestable, resulting from voiding God, avoiding Him or His word. Theocracy is not the current  mode of divine expression. This is a democracy. Freedom to accept or reject is granted, notionally at least, and it is in one salient sense, virtual man-eaters who wish to destroy it while the free offer of God in Christ is on*4. The State, to the extent it is still avoiding the use of feelings for facts, provides the opportunity and Christ supplies the free cover.

Avoiding the Artificial

When  such an approach of fear of violence because of frank and logical words, laced with the arsenic of incitation to violence, is applied to biblical Christianity, there is an utter difference. Instead of sundry incitements to such violence, there is the contrasty. THIS leader DIED on the cross to cover confessed sin repented of and to enable free redemption. That is very different from crucifying or beheading other people. After all, a severed head would find it hard to agree.

As shown repeatedly on our Web site, in particular, and in exposition FROM the Bible, violence in the matter of Christian faith is FORBIDDEN (cf. John 18:36 for example), and this is something which the apostle Peter would well know after the events described in Matthew 26. Let us repeat: If you cannot even use the sword to protect from physical action against a religious leader, indeed THE MESSIAH, then obviously this religion is in this diametrically opposed to those parts of Islam or other religions, to the contrary

Since this is forbidden - force and faith like oil and water do not mix, or blend, then words spoken are not in that domain in intention in this field in the case of biblical Christianity. Many have used the term Christian to do violence here, to be sure; but the Bible has not changed, does not change and is centred on Christ whose word to the Christian Church is unequivocal, so that those who do use His name or have done so, for dashing physical assault, attack or physical modes into the area of invitation or desire for faith, are outside biblical Christianity altogether.

Force with faith is a lie, it acts as if the heart can change because the body hurts. This is nonsense; the mouth may change, not the heart by this method.

Such misuse of force is ghoulish, horrific, simplistic, this-worldly, wholly unspiritual and lacks all understanding. We are not built that way.

Hence here at least is one religion where this type of thing is not only not required, but forbidden. It has helped free speech, free thought and advance in understanding, the limitation of follies and the exposure of confusion. It has led to openings for reality and the move in this free speech direction, and as noted it has helped enormously Britain to become great; just as her movement in very different directions of late is not aiding her role here, or respect for it.

It likewise helped the USA, despite shameless shambles during the presidency of Obama*5, in the formal era of decline. Rising or falling, it has its results. But this, notable as it is, is not the chief result; for many seek to kill and crush what is Christian, despite its wonderful contributions to a nation. It is personal and individual, below all national achievements, and its grace is not at all reachable by aggressive suppression as now is raising its head in Australia, to dash its ways. A life made fit for eternity is a very different thing from one residing in its own resources, and on fire against those who seek good, not making religion a weapon of war, but an endorsement of the wisdom of God, and a place of change for all such intemperance (cf. John 3, Colossians 3:10ff.).

There is no greatness that mistreats truth with force, love with duress, sacrifice with contempt or dismissal and what has consistently covered the millenia, alone, and foretold what is to be, with a patronising face lift. Worshipping a force model is merely  a work of idolatry, the more when misusing the very name of Jesus Christ as is the Islamic degradation of Him who came and in detail fulfilled the word of God, and added to it what has now come to light and much, to pass. Nor is such useless disparagement to be found in one religion alone, but in a veritable throng of false christs, as also predicted (Matthew 24:24).

It is greatness which provokes imitation by fallen substitutes which misuse the very name of Christ; and it is grace which invokes what ALL men need, pardon freely granted that they may be transformed within and made fit for the only site that ultimately matters, that of friends of God.





Matters of Multi-Culturalism.

Quite simply, it is good to be slow to anger, prone to consider, willing to meditate, even often, to mediate, to seek a good understanding, and in  these respects to be tolerant. But if someone attempts to rape your daughter, whether by sudden onset, devious plans or cultivating a faux relationship, then in general terms, tolerance on the part of the father is negligence, even hard-heartedness, and a failure to apply strength and wisdom to avoid impending evil.

He could in that case even become a symbol instead of a participant. Fathers, unlike States, are not adventitious objects, but moral and physical participants by nature in the lives of their children, as are mothers. If anyone actually REVEALED such plans to seduce, say in a confessing or boasting fit, then it is simply a higher level of risk, and of deficit when the choice is made not to act preventively.

Therefore, there are cases where responsibility is not defined by irresponsibility, though this ought to have been somewhat obvious from the first. Some things require some protection.

In the same more general terms, if someone tells of a plan to subvert the country in which he lives, and especially that to which he has come as an immigrant, and if at that time that one was exhorted to seek comely cultural acclimitisation, then if instead that  person is found moving towards doing the OPPOSITE by force, bypassing democratic  procedures, then this should be  a clear situation. He  or she should be exported, preferably to the country of origin, the more so if this country acts on the force, not vote pattern; for it is here the person belongs, not as one who subverts what is far better for the sake of some inward or psychic compulsion, or some alleged religious thrust.

Missionaries to seek lovingly are one thing; missives, panzers, that are propelled by force as their thrust and seeking to seize power to enforce change without choice, there are another.

It is not necessary to be deaf in order to be wise. The confusion seems to centre on  two major developments in this land.

Firstly,  there is an almost passionate retrograde movement away from Jesus Christ and His salvation which goes to the point of a virtual obsession to teach SOMETHING (almost in practice, ANYTHING) else. The writer has found this both in numbers of ecclesiastical and secular settings and as repetitive ground for professional  persecution, and so is talking also from experience.

What then is often found to happen when the force-to-be-different program arises in the susceptible person, subverted by whatever means ? Then there is the wanderers' lust, often unconscious, to find this 'anything' (rather like the 'simply must love someone, and it might as well be you' in the song), and the most naive and irrational choices seem to come.  It is like someone who finds life has become boring psychically,  and MUST have something (anything) else available. The excitement and significance setting is one of the chief back of militant Islamic conscription of young machos who want to cut off heads, kill or maim children and the like.

If they want this, and the situation is one of war, as it now is, different juntas using the name of Allah as their ground for assault and mass murder in raids (like Moral Vikings, with upside down morals), then they need to be treated as warriors. They need to be made to realise by governmental education that you are quite free to deny our  democratic ways and substitute force, if and only if you do it where this sort of thing is appreciated: that is, in some other land with other systems and ways. It does not fit here. To allow the free or broad use of our resources to force us to conform to some violent religious movement, would be idiotic and a profound negligence on the part of any governmental body which did this.

In ideas then, and thought, and in speech, the cases are free. It is vital that mouths be not suppressed by what could soon become idiot-ocracies. Just consult the last 100 years of history, and reflect ... how many others there have been!

When then the ideas get guns for individual or congratulate groups who foster movements into murder to foster their 'faith', then it is for immigrants at once, since they have been accommodated into acceptance into a country where the privilege, ultimately is one conditional in kind, to go:  in such a case to be relieved of their scope to  stay. Their continuance of living in a land so diverse from their desire should end.

In fact, it is well  that ALL immigrants be  required to make it abundantly clear that the use of democracy and not force in implementation of their views at large in  society is understood to be a condition both of their entry and continuance in the land. Further, if the matter does not then settle down, and mass murdering monsters do not cease to shout about their mentors, religious or otherwise, as the basis of mass assault, it could then become wise to ask all the groups of that particular body found most notorious in the matter, to make a declaration. That ? it would be to the effect: that neither plan nor persons are known to them in their body, who are speaking or acting in such a manner. As to preaching such, that would an aggravated assault.

In this currently most common case worldwide, and if this continues as Andrew Bolt for one has exposed it now, this would amount to an opportunity and need for all Mosques. There would be no misunderstanding. They would SAY what they meant. Indeed, more broadly, No mosque, church or political body should be left alone if it insists on preaching, teaching, inciting towards changing this land by FORCE, not democracy, or praising parallels to this effect.

People who excuse vile violence as being justified, in terms of some imagined reaction to what were centuries of Moslem oppression, for example (as in parts of Europe and the Middle East), do not understand. ANYONE may, rightly or wrongly, simplistically or soundly, be offended at whatever he or she chooses. ANYONE may then respond in various ways; but IF these responses include the inhuman, the vastly vile, the capriciously cruel, the morally gross and outrageously rampant, then it is time to judge THIS action, and condemning it absolutely as to METHOD, to remove such treachery and its propaganda from the land. If this means the perpetrators either of it or its methods, so be it. Let them enjoy the fellowship of fellow believers in their own land, not become propagandists for horror in ours.

Australia is not that type of land, and toleration of what plans to subvert it illegally should be treated like any other crime. Bushfires, in forests or in the smoke of political incitation to violence in our land,  should be put out by prudent observation and rapid action. They are not hard to find, and prevention is better than cure.

Leaving them to their threatening rage or admiration of those practising such imposition by violence, is an act of negligence so  profound as to threaten the freedom of religion and indeed, many of freedom's facets and functions altogether in this land. Force, whether direct or by fear,  to dictate in the ideology of the nation is neither play nor fair play. It is one more (here voluntary) submission to the ghastly flames in broad terms, of Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Toyo. It joins that mob in METHOD.

You may in liberty prefer many things; but when liberty is an item disdained or left derelict under proposed or praised physical assault, then it is merely an unvoted invasion that is permitted, an abandonment of defence, albeit  in terms of religion. A sword, or scimitar, or prescriptive pen signing on for violence as a mode of liberty here represents treachery when it is  not confronted, and caused to cease or to be exported, perhaps to  a place where this kind of thing is appreciated, approved or practised. In what way is praise of menace to liberty by violence, to be construed as its due appreciation ?

To speak in ideational terms is one thing; but to promote violence as the mode of operation is to assault  freedom to its face, inciting assault of what permits it, and menacing its continuance. A desire to import this, incite admiration of its violent ways, is hard to distinguish from a declaration of war on peace, impeachment of tolerance and for immigrants, abuse of the very rules of the desired country, as if immigration were another name for invasion, including the co-ordination of means for it and incitation to it.

When a country receiving immigrants forsakes what it IS as if this were some kind of tolerance, it is like a hostess who allows the demolition of her house as a kindness to her guests. This is not tolerance, but a selfish blindness to the needs of the normal occupants, those who would like to be guests in the future and its power to aid  others.




See material supplied in *1 of Bulletin Seventy Two, including Divine Agenda   6. As noted in The Australian Magazine, June 17-18, 2017, where a Moslem lady exposes the errors she finds in Islam. This includes the undefined power to beat women on the part of husbands, as also the derogation of femininity where it takes two women to equal one man in a witness situation.

This means in worth and treatment there is a certain lapse. In the New Covenant, however, that is non-theocratic Christianity, it is entirely clear and certainly commanded that women must be loved by the husband AS HIMSELF, and he should sacrifice accordingly. While he has a certain presidency, this is WITHIN those bounds (Ephesians 5:22-33).

Biblical Christianity has been one of the great liberators of women, just as Islam has seen their status degraded absolutely, even to the point that one man may have in general indeed, many wives! and this not necessarily of mature years.



Biblical Christianity may use words of great impact without there being any ricochet to force, since from its own Jesus Christ there is total prohibition of this, of the use of force for the sake of the religion. Just as even Jesus Christ personally forbad it, even when it would have been used to save Him FROM force (as in Matthew 26 and John 18:36), so physical war is no solace to seeking souls, nor are any of the vicious preludes such as now being spread about by angry dissidents.

This is the only rational  approach, the only one  true to revelation as reasonably put by God to man, so that he may be sure it is genuine, subject to due testing and outstanding against all false  claimants (cf. for example, SMR, and RELIGION, RELIGIOSITY AND REALITY IN CHRIST).


The case is similar to that in *1 above.

If you wish to  enter a democratic country, and to change it by democratic means, that do not involve deception and fraud, then that way is open. Using force, irrelevant to the issue and mere alien intrusion as though people were to arrive from outer space (if there were any!) is not only a disruption and a take-over of the land, but an irrational one, preferring the irrelevant to the rational for it. It is one thing to smile at error; it is another to subsidise prescription for overthrow, patronise it or aid seduction by it. If a national broadcasting station were to become implicated in such things, the nation would already be at war with itself, and need discipline. Houses divided against themselves are not famed for long life!

Leaving however any particular cases, and applications, the point remains: what  this praise of force in the religious arena of freedom means is not uncertain. This is an enemy in ideal and ideology. It is outside the extremely favourable attitude to freedom of thought and speech that our nation has (or has had - it needs purging in this very arena now, as so many have noted, the Government currently seeking just that in one crucial instance, though this is currently blocked). As with other enemies in war, however, it needs repulse.

For one who lived when young in this country as Hitler's double talk, preposterous rationalisations and growing intemperance and self-assurance were coming on successive display while adjustment, accommodation to his ever more blatant use of force and ludicrous ideology were all promoted, this provides a strong parallel. The time to be ready is always.

In the case of immigrants,  who should have been responsibly screened and should also now be, this is the simplest case. They are assisted if need be to go where their ideology contents them in that land. Infesting and infecting ours with alien and virulent mental microbes is a mere an act of clandestine and increasingly obvious warfare. It needs repulse.




This was most obviously seen not only in the Cairo speech, after which some deemed him a Moslem, but in his explicit statement that the USA was not a Christian nation - to which British PM Cameron, to his great credit, was no echo. We, he declared, of Britain ARE a Christian nation.

Obviously neither of these nations is particularly near to their exceedingly Christian past in their institution and institutions, churches and many principles, and equally clear is the fact that such elements were of enormous formative quality, persist in much, and even in this day of thankless betrayal of them in many things, are not so lightly dismissed as by Obama.

He tended to formalise and popularise the growing weakness and contradiction, and in speaking of Islam as a good religion, he of course was calling it 'good' to deny that Christ is the Son of God, is the Saviour, that His sacrifice is open for the remission of sin and that He rose from the dead. For a Christian, with even the slightest relationship to the Bible, to call this 'good' which is a crucial feature of the Koran,  is precisely what Isaiah 5 roundly condemns. In terms of Jesus Christ, it is caricature, plagiarism in making another Christ, a work of a false Christ founded some 600 years too late, a twisting attack and assault, an evidentially void assertion (cf. More Marvels ... Ch. 4).