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



News 500, The Australian March 28, 2017






The Racial Discrimination Act 1975  (RDA) is a statute passed by the Australian Parliament during the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam. Its care for Australians is such that it makes in racial and ethnic cases, justice a side-show and discriminatory attention to some complaints on unequal terms to others, a matter of how complainants are feeling. As to this suicide for justice and reason, this permission for  fraud and hatred, making rationally unbacked and undefended attack easy, this career-changing opportunity for psychologically based rort: there are those who insist that - whatever its denial of fundamental truth and liberties in Australia - it MUST continue. They are selling truth very cheaply, and enabling promiscuous fraudulence to flourish, by inadequate government, and a pollution of rational priorities and defences.

Naturally enough, it would seem that the opportunity to chain the mouths (or lacerate them legally) of those who actually  believe some religion, is not lost on some. For whatever reason, the Labour leadership seemed poised as if to pour petrol from the air on an inferno below, in effect, by report, inclined to increase this sort of loss of liberty, to extend this babying of Australians explicitly, even to religion. In such talk, they would be inventing a new country (with its own club at work for years before), where government or its bodies at will replace thought and reason and truth and justice, with cloudy convictions from within, as if by the divine right of kings, though we have no kings.

The matter now seems once more pulled back under review, with no current steps stated. This little flurry however shows much of the trend, the drift, as of a ship towards a reef, because of prevailing currents. Bad as is the current failure to remove the feeling fiasco in Section 18c), to leave the subjectivity of those prepared to  attack on their own feeling alone,  the portents are if possible, worse.

Thus at risk are Australians who already fight against this foul beginning in race and ethnicity subordination to subjectivity, as in Section 18c), who as in earlier cases of other wars, need character and courage. It is not a physical war, though it has deplorable physical results for the victims of this aggression. A labour of love of country, ultimately of the Lord, is needed in the face of outrageous manipulation now spreading to commercial companies in some kind of all-fits-all approach to trivialise religion and whatever else appeals from the new look,  as ephemeral as the  ladies' fashions of old, and the male protocols in social dress. Morals, teachings, pretentious pointless preaching with no defensible base but preference, all this is woefully waved in front of the increasingly controlled masses, as if to alert them to religious slavery and incompetence.

Is then Section 18c), this law, one abortive of liberty, a kind of last post for the death of Australia ? It has hung about long enough to be utterly condemned, on several  grounds, by numerous high-ranking lawyers and scholars, its preposterous and petty subjectivity the badge of submission, an alternative means to militant*1 Islamic efforts, as to the Communist and the Nazi absurdities, as if there were in such multiplying death on the one side, and psychological manipulation and political submission on the other, a new way to ruin liberty. It must be grasped and inflamed, though others must hold it!


How many just long to control others, or the social machinery, or to be overlords, or to win in tricky manner, as the Communists did in Russia in ludicrously false promises and premises*2! As The Australian pointed out on March 28, in the one of the latest movements in this oppressive direction, there has been a lead-in to the latest manipulative thrust by means of commercial institutions! It is reported that it has even been long in strategic preparation.

Firms make movements in the religious  area, in this case one of how to treat gender, make a policy, then those who are already committed to  some other approach to this topic of the meaning of life and of its basis and of its destiny and of its morals, in short to religious attitudes, exhibitions and their practice, are to be made to feel contrary to their employment bodies, their firms. Many then try to make it look as if it were some  enormity to have in these religious areas, with this example, a view contrary to that now announced of their firm ... even WRONG!

A lecture or fine or resignation from the firm or the religious body is in view!  They should not continue but resign from something, say the callow crew, vociferous and pushing with a purpose. Their firm should no more employ them. Such is the oracle of pompous pronunciamento, a new thing but an old story.  Past all  these devastating diversions from truth, in the end with such diversities, you either tolerate them in peaceable terms, or crush them, in warrior might of one kind or another - social, media, universities, firms and so on. In that case, the aim is to create hypocrites, for you cannot crush truth, or move the heart with a hammer. What a fine name that would be: the Hypocritical Society!

This insistence on  surrender sews strife. This invades freedom. This abuses liberty, this endows religiously oriented controls. As it proceeds, it is turning the abuse of Commonwealth powers as limited in Section 116 of the Constitution, and already in operation in 18c), into a national excursion, outside government though it should rule it an outrage. Whereas discrimination against irrelevant features in employment at the  start, is taken to great heights, now the termination of employment, with various kinds of overtones of pressure, is given such discriminatory dynamic as to make a raucous rumpus. Liberty is shamed; feelings are inflamed; moral butchery proceeds. Feelings can be inflammatory as well as inflamed, so beware, for they are in dangerously increasing pockets, to become lords, masters, grounds of warfare, that may even now cost the victims, those to be assailed, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. In justice, it is never good to close down aspects: that makes injustice.

Some involved even talk of Christianity, as a base for this hideous injustice. Yet in the gender issues, it is incomparably distant. That sort of thing, adultery, fornication, sexual deviation from male-female, is in one group condemned utterly.  in fact it means departure from, not conformity to this faith, and this  is a transgression in PRINCIPLE, pushed flamboyantly and zealously,  in the directions now in view. It is even coming to include increasing intolerance of others, who refuse neo-morals, who dare to disapprove in speech, perhaps in cross-examination, soon in thought...  Such is the Neo-Morality implied, applied and  promoted, in this maximally diverse line.  A Christian development ?

Heaven forbid. In biblical terms*3, the neo-part of this morality is even sufficient to exclude from the kingdom of heaven altogether, the apostle Paul in I Timothy 1:10, listing such things in the very centre of immorality, and outside the way of Christ entirely (I Corinthians 4:20 - 6:9). It is as biblical as the sun is dark, another contradiction in terms.

Confusion as Shakespeare put it in one place, has now its masterpiece*4. This illustrates the matter.



Feelings as criterion ? This is the height of vulnerability for justice and of inadequacy. These can be invented for money, venom, and readily be confused, trivial, profound, but without reason they are suspect, insufficient, ludicrous as a judge and of the uttermost discriminatory rort against justice. Loaded with ludicrous tutoring, counselling, pseudo-morals without Moses or Christ or ANY source with substance, they now mix active persecution and discriminatory pungency in employment diversely.

First, it is to avoid it even to a dysfunctional degree, for its inception, but yet then to apply the same in contrast, as a virtual condition to enable its continuance. You MUST be careful to look for talent and ignore individual differences in this and that way, when employing, but once employed, you may opt to favour various discriminatory preferences rushed out as Company ethos, and rumble directly or indirectly against employees who do not favour your brand of religion thus expressed, or even belong to what opposes it.  So the evil is good, the good is evil, in a mixed up confusion in profusion (as in Isaiah 5), as if the flood were here again.

Whatever may be the intentions of all concerned, it is the outcomes which are of paramount concern, and who could lightly disregard this for the nation, now moving fast at the top level as if it were a tourist outing in the high mountains, for the church and for the people being thrown into it all. Indeed, it horrendously resembles the plight of Israel of old, as compressed and expressed in Jeremiah 5:30-31. The Titanic was a good and fast ship; but there were ways of sinking it. It  seems amazing now that they were so diligent in such an exploit, seeking successful objectives, but not seeing what was in front of them.

Consider then. Priorities and values and moral preferences, laws, standards, including grounds for these in origins and destiny and nature of man, ARE precisely religious in area. The Commonwealth is forbidden in Constitution Section 116 in any sort of invasion, inversion or indeed intervention in the use and exhibition of religion (naturally short of murder, maiming and so forth); and not only is this contrary 18c) law clearly exalting feelings (and hence possible fancy), but equally clearly it is acting with impact in suppressing religion both in nature and application, unconstitutionally. It is so in the most intimidatory posturing and self-importance, an enemy of our people, a  misfit, an offering to the gods of indifference now becoming strangely assertive, using a cover of concern which can be wisely achieved without this kind of suicide. Wisdom is open for the skills of government, not brashness. It needs skill rather than kill. Such things have a preview in education.

That was explicit in 1988, where in the antiquities of pseudo-police-state invasion, books on creation in a government school were to be kept in the Principal's Office!*5 Does the Commonwealth lend financial support to such intolerance indoctrination by exclusion ? Is even scientific literature to be hobbled, for much in creation presentation is the work of bioscience Ph.Ds! In this blighting document, 'Circular to  Principals', religion was indeed tut-tutted as important in people's lives, but when it came to evolutionary myth-making, the elevation of life as a product of nothing much really, or nothing, or anything, as a basis for development by removal of the lesser, then ONLY one approach was permitted. That one.

This documented deletion of education in favour of rank indoctrination has continued in substance for more than 28 inglorious years, despite a combination of begging the question of misuse of terms, aborting reality as in The gods of naturalism have no go, and in sundry of our current Bulletin list (such as Bulletin 42, 48). It has been an example of child-mind abuse in this period.

It makes it less remarkable that child body abuse is now in line, some even contemplating (if not worse) physical changes being made in some youngsters' bodies, as if extreme immaturity and ignorance were a sufficient basis for mauling life for years to come, with their concurrence. The defence for bullying which is the latest misnomer,  has with what even with Double-Speak and New-Speak and social policing, has itself become an extreme of bullying. Pretending it has profound knowledge as its basis, when in fact in each normal body there are billions of prescriptions for gender in the repetitive ground plan for the body, one in each nucleated cell, it moves mountains that are contrary to its pretensions, as if they were particles of dust. Yet the mountains here do not really move; it is only stirring the dust.

Ignoring the empirical fact of our architectural bodily ground plan in areas such as DNA is NOT knowledgeable, and the long prior and continued abuse of children's liberty by selectively teaching nonsense in any objective terms, is NOT kind, but cruel. It comes in some instances a case of torment the mind and trifle with the body. Such is the direction of flow.

That relates in part to the earlier totalitarian substitution of indoctrination for education formalised in 1988, a type in which in practical terms, the Nazis participated, also with hype; while the current squalor of pressure for what the Bible*3 refers to as degraded (Romans 1:25-27) and against nature, is increasingly displaying what resembles the recourse of fire-lighters, starting conflagrations in Summer. In fact, productivity for the arrival of the next generation in existing human equipment does not confirm such usage any more than does DNA, and stampeding in this area and that, lends nothing to what is either fair, or reasonable, or indeed safe, as it rushes to condemn and command. Yet things need to be openly subject to criticism for safety's sake.


This Section 18 c) becomes what then ? It is a signature for the lassoing of independent Australia, a sentence to subject truth to new masters, a demand for submission to nannies, to tutors, who drone on about  their latest ideological baby, thrashing and trashing the nation with their new religious enterprise, forbidden in the Constitution, matters of morals, values, priorities, meaning of life, origin and destiny of life, point of life all involved; for you cannot escape implications, sources and used resources: they are all bound up, and used for binding Australians.

Australia has not notably ever been so bound, let alone with actual betrayal from within, before. This is religious adventurism, clad in crippling armour. It is of course also an attack on the God whom they are replacing; and the writer of DNA is not really a good target for the 'lucky country' who spoke very differently of Him in the Preface to the Constitution for the days about 1901. There will, it appears likely, be effort likewise for the removal of this aspect of the country's voiced reliance on Almighty God, still found within the total parameters of the Constitution, at the time of the Commonwealth's institution at the hand of the Protestant Britain of that day.

If you want change on any of this, there needs to be a referendum on the Constitution's prohibitions in the field of religion. Dismissing it with a loud voice is not even relevant.  It is still there. It is time to reason. Is Australia to be a mob ruled, an  increasingly lawless residue, waiting for  adoption ? There are plenty who would be interested in various adjustments and changes. But if you DO change the matter of WHO you are, HOW you wish to define your values and understanding as far as the NATION is concerned, remember this, that playing about with the name of God is far less wise and insightful than seeing who can make the best fire-bug bushfire.




See More Marvels ... Ch. 4 for example, with Divine Agenda Ch. 6,
Aviary of Idolatry, also indexes.




See for example the following.

Tender Times for Timely Truth Ch.   8;
The Grating Grandeur ... Ch.   2; SMR  pp. 925ff.
, 971-972;

Biblical Refreshings Ch.  9, incl. End-note 1

Beauty for Ashes Ch.    6 (and Hong Kong, and the movement of nations in the last century a concern),

with News 98, News 37.

See also:

Messiah, Jesus Christ  ...    8

Aviary of IdolatryDelusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch.    5,

News  44,  69, 97 (the exploiters, the fanciful,
the Communists, the de-godders and the realities)



See Bulletin 59, especially  notes. See also SMR, TMR. In particular, on biblical truth, see also *1 of Bulletin 59.

In fact, biblical Christianity does not require conformity (John 18:36), as the issue is a matter of the heart; of the head also, indeed as shown in the above volumes. Many have misused it, as many do now, claiming it while acting in contradiction of it.

But it does not act by the sword, as both Peter and Pilate were informed by Christ personally - not even for the defence of Jesus Christ, whose death was predicted, planned and made a sacrifice for sin for those repentant, believing in Him and adopting His rule freely in the heart. You do not forge faith by force. Nor do you forge new christs remade by man outside history, and foist them as if they were not mere unsupported assertions, distorting His name, whether those who qualify for this work be Romanists (SMR pp. 1032 -1088H), Islamics, Liberal theologians, all-inclusivists or  mockers. God has shown Himself in history, and given lavish attestation; and fraudulent is any effort to make a new God, a new Christ (John 16:15). It is futile to  call for what is  unverified, irrational, grabbing His name for an entirely different being, though Muhammad endorsed the Jewish prophets who are nevertheless utterly contradicted at the central level, in his Koran. What he accepts, rejects him.

See SMR   pp. 50ff., 62ff., 829ff. , 1080
Dancers, Prancers, Lancers and Answers
 *1A misconceptions about the Cross, variable and mutually conflicting, on the part of the Koran.

God however did not forget us, nor does He forget sin, nor has He failed at vast cost (John  3:16-19) to provide for pardon. You do not even have to take His offer, though you would then need to take the consequences, as to one, so to all; nor can men meaningfully make you appear to accept it by force. If they try, they merely abuse His name.

This, biblical Christianity, is infinitely better than any SUBMIT to this religion or else die, confrontation; it moves with the peaceable and sustainable solution, for none need follow it. It is indeed a matter

not of the sword

but of the Spirit,

not of violence

but of the summit of love, that which is divine,

of Christ's sacrifice and power at the stated date (cf. Christ the Citadel, Ch. 2),

not this world's prince (John 18:36, Matthew 4) and his violent programs and protestations.

All that is statedly contrary to Christ. It is not to be fought for as a faith with sword and violence. It suffers violence as now so vastly in the Middle East, but is not authorised to use it for the faith. Nor does it usurp the spiritual independence of the citizens, though it would set terms of reference. Moreover it is verified on all sides (cf.  SMR, TMR).

The nation may be freely committed to it, the Constitution as now in its Preface, can allow for it. A majority may want it as a standard of reference. That is enough, and since it is spiritual, a binding bond is too far. After all, the nation is not a church, but it does have characterisable qualities. Which ? They will be there, whatever is done. Currently, the Constitution provides a valuable arrest on arrant governments in this field of religion, even if already in much unheeded.

There is no necessity to change, or indeed to become a stray dog country just because so many others are straining to reach it, use it, and even take it over, all in due time, by feasible methods. Chief among what is help for these is a backsliding people, redefining themselves on crumbling, subjectivistic moral mouthings, courtesy of their so sufficient psyches. It is sad since so much good remains from the time of its Christian institutions and emphasis; and to remove the root will of course leave to rot, the fruit.

Without basis for truth, but mere assertion, this leads on to relativity (the idea, all these religions are relatively sound and must acknowledge each other etc. - but as what ?), which removes the application of truth, meaning that the State is sanctioning above all its version of religions as itself the truth (while the model for this assertion is without truth in itself)! All religions without violence may be acceptable in a nation's approach, within the chosen liberties of a nation, but mauling truth from some superior position is mere illusion. The moment you take off from truth you are lashed with the impact of reality.

The moment the Commonwealth legislates, directly or indirectly, for religion, religions, their application and exhibition outside necessary norms of violence, you violate the Constitution, and if you want to avoid that, you need a reference to the people, if you insist on acting. This would be to find their permission to bind the people with whatever is desired.

Ignoring implications does not remove them. Currently, the ethos is freedom to assess from all sides, with no superiorities for any in store, none exempted, none controlled with less items, except notably, in 18c). If that stays as is in its current exclusions, this implies just such a change, without appeal to any! Small wonder it is condemned by many.

While the God of salvation, the Almighty, is increasingly being treated as passť. there is a great opportunity to become a nation that not only, as now, in much violates truth, but increasingly wallows in the practice and soon itself is passť. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Then perhaps you would solve the immigration problem, for who would want it (except the new owners)! There is a cost, and this is not the greatest part of it.


Macduff speaking in the doughty play, Macbeth.


See Government Composite, and That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8, for example, for details both of the 1988 directive to Principals and its refutation.