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






Racist Ramblings, Productive of What ?

Is it a time for what has made organised Australia internationally distinctive among the modern nations -

 the birth of Christianity with the Bible and the organisation to disseminate it and its Christ, in the land,
presented distinctly, doctrinally, dynamically despite all other evils or woes which came with this wonder,
for no nation has approached perfection, but some have, at some time, made it a business to present the Gospel,
and this, in many institutions was one -

to be finally abandoned ?

With this Christian impact intact, but not formally required, this, the Australian people in the more than 220 years since British rule,  had an independence of spirit well noted, and a relative freedom from harassment, much to be desired, a scope for individuality to be prized and for enterprise to be valued, without being crushed, at least in the more nascent times, by bureaucratic tangles and wrangles, or pervasive authoritative direction, such as often mars this world. Indeed, at its best, it has hardly been even invasive in far-reaching realms of thought and action. It has been far from perfect; has had many currents; but this has been a foundation for the river which flows with many currents. Compared with many nations in the world, we have therefore had a certain lure, and this the more obvious, as more brazen dictatorships, and quasi-dictatorships as in Russia now, or China, have come to go and to change in their rampancy. There has been relative peace and liberty in this, our land. But the case is changing...

Is this land of Australia, following  many degenerative stages of reversion from God to the merely natural, often even with revulsion from His righteousness,  leading to compulsion to the contrary: is it to collapse into neo-democratic tyrannies, introduced under the guise of protection, but no more liberty than the feudal system of former years elsewhere ? Is it to become self-harassed and newly founded in its national basis, once again ? Will the Constitution now elevate the natural, the things of man, or some of them,  and strike out the reference to  Almighty God, just as it is on the brink of the grossest violation of His commandments, and the mode of His construction ?

There is no evidence that there was ever an integrated nation before the British rule, and there may soon be increasing evidence of a disintegrating residue, in the naturalism now so precious to the hearts of so many*1 . Past contributions are important, before the present era derived from Britain, with many new immigrants, but the topic here is what is happening to the work which made of this, one nation, with a recognisable Constitution!

In recent  decades, increasingly, there has been misuse of resources to dictate adversely in education, in orientation and morality, as indirectly in society, with the finality of reinforced concrete (which however an ocean wave may readily smash in a moment).  Is same-sex dismissal of carefully co-ordinated designated structures*2 , to be formally enabled to name itself as marriage, and to become not only legal, but presented as a blameless or even desirable option, while a change to the Constitution is actively considered and children are taught what is wrought! Thus we look at the prospect of such rule by cultural desire, in place of a land which acknowledges reliance on Almighty God (in conditions making the meaning not difficult to find). Yet how do people explain the surging attraction for Australia ? Is it to find the higher living standards only, by queue jumping ? Is it not also because of the relative peace, order, fruits in much of government by principles far removed from those brewing in the present! Why not remove what is foundational and see if people still want to live here ? Why not dictate till souls are mere fingers for government, and educational, racial and moral preference becomes loot for the lordly! 

Is there to continue to be an acknowledgement as certain official  meetings start, of a race which came to this land before the British - though who can prove who was here first ? What is so discriminatory as that ? Is it not enough to acknowledge and support reasonable manifestation of their culture, as with others ? Do they need help ? Were some mistreated,  as were many British convicts ? Then let Christian kindness flower in their help, as for all where intelligent action can increase the beauty of life and the scope for performance. But what offence to people of other culture, religion and perspective, to be forced to conform to this cultural focus on one  race, their own looted of recognition ? Why not recognise what all have done, acknowledge if you wish in historical viewpoints the good and evil of many works of the past, on the part of all, and give grounds for your criteria of judgment...

As for this  initiation of certain meetings by focus on one race, which neither made the land nor had an integral government over it, on occasions where the Maker is NOT acknowledged, this is nothing other than an imposition of one cultural perspective, with a moral basis of its own, and hence a religious element, on all. In this way, individual liberty is lost, religion of many is invaded, and  should the reference to God Almighty also be removed and further racial  reference be made in the Constitution, it will constitute a vast descent  from the divine to the  selectively human in emphasis.

Racism, the selective emphasis on some particular RACE AS SUCH, is already a distortion of the fabric of the nation, famous for its increasing disregard of such matters. Is it to be free in order to bind itself in new chains, and blatantly change morals, acknowledgement and principles in the process ? If so, let the people at least know what they are doing, and how vast is the religious offence then being given by some to many, in this radical alteration of course, quality and consideration.

It is not that it is wrong to acknowledge this fact, in a seemly and non-discriminatory way, as an important feature in the history of the land. It is not that the earlier race did not have an important contribution to make, or were always or in all things well treated. It is not that it is in error to consider the plight of what appears that particular segment of our many immigrants, and to make special provisions for their welfare*2A, or for that matter, to take intelligent actions to aid the sense of personal responsibility*3 of any of the many races which have come to these shores. Such things are a kindness in concept.

When however it becomes obligatory for many

to make reference to this race,
perhaps the first of the immigrants - and almost certainly immigrants,
who used parts of this land,
as in some sense custodians or owners of the land,
which they no more created than did any other of the series of immigrants,
and then NOT to make reference, if you are going to be in the business
of making initial reference in meetings of various kinds,
to God Almighty, the ONLY ONE who is beyond all races
and on whom each in fact,
like it or not, depends,
and rub out reference to Him in the Constitution Pre-amble,
where Australia has rightly acknowledged Him for so long:

what then ?

Then you are engaging in a tyranny of neglect, disproportion and distortion under the guise of elevating one race. And why elevate it ? Cannot each and any people be elevated where elevation belongs, without making a racist selection and subjection in form and speech!

Such discrimination is a lordly enterprise, and as one of the leaders of this earlier race in the land, has very recently pointed out*4 , certain impositions of government-made 'traditions' which do not reflect aboriginal culture, have no part in their own culture. There are things manufactured by governmental strategists and invaders, not dependent on aboriginal culture.

Are these to be fostered or to fester ? Further, effectually abandoning them to the particular oppressions to which they are often subject, as others of that race have pointed out, is also not wise. Much talk and little effectual action, as with any other breach in the format of persecution, are almost worse than ignoring the issue. Whatever any race does has to measure up to the due quality of morality of the land, and it is only when this is subordinated to new concepts of abandon, in theory or specialised practice, that ANY action in any part of the population can be disregarded, and allowed to abound. Is this to be wrought,  in the interests of some supposed sensitivity ? whose then, that of adults or minors, in this case ?



Thus, to take this case, misuse of children, by any, is not commendable or acceptable. Wherever it comes, whether in a religious or a racial conclave, it will not do. Exceptions are not to the point. Young lives of any colour or culture are not to be sacrificed as victims for synthetic cultural criteria, on virtually religious grounds avoiding any reasonable or rational, balanced or workable political philosophy. Excuses are not relevant here; and remedy is not optional, hindered by romances with neo-morals, or their relevance or their application.

Responsibility is not to be terminable because of race, religion or philosophy*5 . Nor is an official religion, recognised as such or not, to be the means of action. Actions may be required to stop, but lax racial principles may not be presented as religious ethical imperatives. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion (Constitution article 116). Neither in moral exemptions nor in declarations before meetings, nor in pre-orientation approaches to science, all of which reek with religious absolutes, conjectures or conditions, or other exhibitions of desired moral acclaim, or condemnation, is there power so to act for any government in this land.

What is apt for one, is so for all, if it be rationally sustainable and undiscriminatingly applied. If, for any particular and singular reason, any are deemed to need recognition as race, for this or that, so be it, so long as it does not impinge on fundamental principles of equity and so become abhorrent to other sectors. There are religious matters beyond any race and all races, and when these are demeaned, derided, deleted, dismissed, overborne, then the line is passed, the barrier is broken and government becomes the (constitutional) law breaker, its very self! This becomes oppressive, divisive and insensitive. If you want to institute a compulsive religion and make innovative change, you need to say so, and be elected on it, and change the Constitution as required. Dabbling in doctrines and becoming a tyrannical censor*6   or author of religiously significant ventures in terms of officialdom, may be popular; for government, it is not constitutional.

This is not the first nation which is being, or has been seduced; and this or that delightful cultural obsession has ruined more than one, losing millions of people in inane ventures, which gaining freedom for themselves, swallow up opposition, with authority. Thus does mere popularity and blindness, the hypnotic buzz of some contemporary popularity, exact in slavery or nanny-ism, whether in the iron fist or in the subverted independence of spirit, as payment for the negligence of its people. At times of course, this is forced from the outset; but often enough, it is freely permitted in popularity, only to become a ground for submission in ineffectual resistance.



Liberty needs watching, and governmental opportunism on the part of some party which seeks revolution of one kind or another, needs discriminating overview, lest 'progress' amount in reality to subjection,  free from logic, void of reason, the bauble of the tongue and the psychic chicness of chicanery. It might also be mere confusion; but the result is much the same! It is not necessary to imagine the motives, since they vary from misplaced intrusion to subversive sedition; but it is necessary to examine the results, the potentials and to watch. It is one thing to lose a house to a bush-fire because you did not make suitable precautions, being self-assured, but not insured; it is another so to lose a nation. It is worse yet when the carelessly made changes are  distinctively religious, and worse again when this very thing is contrary to the Constitution of a most attractive nation, relative to the aspirations of others.

Is Australia then, through its democratic government,  going to become even more irrational in these innovative areas, than it already is! It is very possible.

In a profoundly discriminatory dictatorial role, it is already acting over the successive years,  as it mars immorally its other races, indeed any and all races amid the various immigrants, with its anti-god pretensions, shoved into schools, with students not permitted to controvert, far less receive undiscriminatory education on various realities!*7  , whole realms of learning ideologically ignored though they be as obvious as the Rock of Gibraltar, or the existence of the ocean (The gods of naturalism have no go!). As a past Principal and Headmaster, I am not unaware of the significance of these erosions of liberty, aspirations for control of curriculum in such areas, and blatancy of expectation of conformity, so that neither liberty nor equity is envisaged, but just conformity. This I have fought when able, with some vigour. There are some things that cannot be accepted, whatever it costs.

How much independence is left ? What acts as if God were not essential to reality, rationality and morality of any objective kind, worthy of the name, and enforces such dispositions on students, to say no more, is already operationally atheist, despite whatever the Constitution says in its prohibition of such a state of affairs. It is already -  in the ludicrous pretence, indeed pretension, of acting as if its arbitrarily chosen religious philosophy concerning creation, morality and history, might not only be taught to the children*7A, but required and assumed in examination - given selectively, exclusive rights to presentation. In  much of the land, in the creation  side at least, this harassment and deprivation is enforced  with NO RIGHT OF RATIONAL, STUDENT REPLY*8  .

This is only aggravated when one considers that while this is being done, the myth of NO DISCRIMINATION is maintained by the adoption of a UN document*9  to this effect continues. By this, no student is to be distinctively denied due attention in any matter,  because of religious conviction. In fact, it deems that to be discrimination, where there is made any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. If ever this could occur, it is notoriously so in the school system in South Australia, and has been so since 1988.

In fact, in its fuller setting,  item 2.2, the UN document on elimination of religious discrimination, declares this*9 :

"For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis."

Provision of educated educators who know what they are talking about in the realm of creation and organic evolution, without discriminatory presuppositions*10  and the latter in its various, often divergent modes, is needed. If it is deemed too hard to do such a thing well, then it needs to be omitted till more skill is found to do it right. Provision of literature, concerning the presentations of world figures of scientific fame, and their depositions in the field,  is likewise needed. Removal of the Class atmosphere of depreciation of creation is necessary, as a mere anti-discriminatory prelude. This should be science, and the bare fact (cf. SMR pp. 140ff., TMR Ch. 1 for example), that current popular theory does not meet current data (cf. Mini-Messages ... Ch. 6, Not only is God Great ... Ch. 5, The Lie has a Limited Shelf-Life ... Ch. 1), in the evolutionary field, presents an impasse that has led to crucial admissions (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6, The Lord of Longsuffering... Ch. 2, esp. *2), and admitted subjectivity, is merely one aspect. Ramming what cannot face reason down student throats by the method of ostensible reason is a contradiction too profound to be tolerated in any enlightened body. You earn your keep in science, by scientific method*10A, not rudimentary prejudice, leading to discrimination. 

This is by no means to congratulate the UN on its Declaration concerning religious discrimination (cf. Iniquity of Mystery), but it is to point out the contradiction in this case,  at an  appalling level.

Thus it may be seen that our concern is not primarily in  relation to the racism which is being notoriously applied in this land, through the model of seeming to deny it. Indeed, It is not to honour any race less than is right, that concerns one. Rather the concern is  at a displacement of the place of God in hostile or implicit prioritisation, and a discrimination implicit in dealing with other phases of immigration, as if not even mentionable in such a setting, which is moving Australia to the very brink of a kind of autism adequate in the end, to slay it. It is when GOD is so treated, while compulsory acknowledgement of a particular race is required before certain meetings, that the antithesis of reverence is achieved.

Will you acknowledge the first known user of a house, and ignore the owner and the maker ? Why ? Will you act as if your Constitution in its Pre-amble were a meaningless fragment and substitute another placement of priority with some one component of the population, in doing your respects! You may. But it is a statement of significance and orientation which puts one part above the basis of all! Moreover, is the Irish, the Scottish, the English in its founding of the Christian orientation as background, is the Japanese, the Chinese, the French or the Spanish immigration to be ignored as if a former set held all the light, and all the honour ? Why ?

In fact, the toleration which neither discriminates against, nor for any particular race is the basis of anti-racism. Race is NOT the point, in human relations, though like height and colour of eye and shape of face and so on, it is an interesting datum. Racism is subject to variation upwards or downwards in ways neither useful nor rational. It should be avoided. Forced religious observance, as distinct from an underlying orientation which any nation may declare, is a similar misuse of authority. In both of these features our political machinery is now entangled.

One of the best features of our land, in the eyes of many, is its tolerance, not forcing this or that, or seeking to force youth to this or that, or races to this or that, or making active and practical hatred a criterion of conduct: hence lessening friction and faction. This is one thing, and a lack of physical ferocity towards others, of violence, is a great feature, when and IF this occurs. But ordinances and controls in the field of religion in education, in certain meetings, in respect to any particular races, in changing founding vision of one kind or another, for a nation, this has to be considered as to its meaning and method.

IF a referendum should come and the result is a removal of the acknowledgement of Almighty God (and it is irrelevant to equivocate that this is ONLY in the pre-amble, for it is an orientative matter and there it is made clear), then so be it. The nation in that case would freely have removed any distinctive in that direction, and would in an orderly fashion have staked its claim as a people, its wagon to whatever star it might select, actively or inferentially, and proceed to whatever Almighty God has in store for it; for a being is not removed by lack of acknowledgement merely. It is His blessing which may be, when and as the case so warrants.

Such a removal on the part of the nation, would be unwise but not devious.

While such an acknowledgement is still constitutionally made however, it is crucial to realise that it is quite distinctive, and deeply meaningful; and any change is the same. Were the  deletion of this acknowledgement made, the character of the land would change, as it did when the British arrived; except in that case, there was no national institution based on agreed law and concerted in its recognition, already in place. It has already changed by the devious dictatorial intrusion of force and governmental power in the ways noted already, including religious, racial and moral. Logically ungrounded things are being elevated above others, points of view are being made in various legal manners obligatory, so that if one's religion or morals should differ from this as imposed, there are various penalties.

This would be another step in the same direction, of what is biblically defined as degenerate (Romans 1). This innovation then, this alteration in the Constitution may be chosen; but chosen it should be before being implemented. Where preferences of various sorts based on flaming signals void of rational establishment, are made obligatory, morally binding, because of a particular political penchant current, then cultural collision is assured and collusion is at work. Which government, not religiously imposing its will or ways, can innovatively make some sets of morals liable to prosecution if seen in practice, and others the sign of excellence! Yet this is what is being done increasingly. If there are choices, let them be so; and if not, let admission be made of the unauthorised imposition of religious compulsions, in defiance of our own Constitution, which looks askance at such invasions.

This having been said in the interests of avoiding discrimination on the one hand, and recognising what you are doing honourably and honestly on the other, there is a further aspect. After all, ancient Israel is not the only land where religion, Almighty God, its biblical beginnings (in its case originating in type) plays a part. If all these deviations from the state of liberty are in vogue, then let us remember to consider that away from which we are dividing, with more and more panache, as a people, a governmentally identifiable entity.



Biblical Christianity ? it is not its mode biblically to impose itself, by man's authority.  Christ is central to it, and it is emphatically not His mode to use force for it to make its way. If it had been so, there would and could have been no crucifixion. Force as a means of even staying in this world, was refused by Christ (Matthew 26:52-56, and John 18:36), both in principle and in practice, even for His own human protection as the very Head of it. Indeed, He came to be a sacrifice for sin, and using force to prevent man's hatred having its outcome was not in view! Christ's religion as in the Bible,  is properly a basis for NON-establishment of what is the ultimate for man, by mere human authority! It is NOT a matter of what he MUST conform to, by governmental decree, or any other imperialism. Hence there has been a certain measure of consideration in the country, with so significant a degree of non-dominating religious basis, in this Christian field.

Thus, the setting of values for a land is one thing; the force to make it happen for the individual, that is another. There may be restrictions, but not enforcements extending to the conscience within, and due freedom of expression and application.

While a land may defend itself and define itself, the use of force by law or threat or educational inhibitions and prohibitions and exclusions, and impositions, to define personal identity, this becomes part of the effective definition, no less than what is said! By intrusive manipulation, governments can thus act as if making man a creation of its own, were its task! While man has this world in his own time, wisdom lies in freedom of expression, argumentation and presentation, vigorous though it may be, lest man's limits be further eroded by mere bluster and perverse subversion, such as history hardly ever ceases to illustrate.

That is just one reason why the use of legal and financial force to subdue discussion, abort presentation and convert news and electronic media to servants of governmental culture and religion, is so deadly. It is not the less so because in this land, it is in some things, already present, and in some threatening to come in replacement of human reason and liberty. The humility of allowing liberty is often a help against the take-over of the superficial, the forceful and the frenetic. That can readily happen, as in China after World War II, and in almost countless nations where some mantra becomes a prelude to manacles.

Liberty in this land, independence of thought and speech and spirit, has long been a major feature, though now much eroded and threatened with nearby forces. These currently are more from within than without  One of the mainstays of this approach of grace and forbearance is the place of biblical Christianity. Despite imperfections of application,  its British phase, this became increasingly the general orientation, and its honouring in a fair measure, has become a great privilege. In particular, the constitutional prohibition of governmental excesses in religious determination for the nation is handsome and noble, and has tended to give the nation a certain character. Aussie independence in spirit is not so readily derived from nothing or tyranny. In this, we have been well-treated for long, though it be not so now.

As to the credentials of biblical Christianity, which have in no mean measure led to this liberty, they need to be heeded.  You need to beware and be wary.  Before you move to your new house, it is good to consider what you vacate!



Christianity has certain features, and this Web site has presented them over some 214 volumes, mounting over some 16 years. They and what is presented by many, of like kind, from far and near in time, neither are nor should be the subject of compulsory reading, or forced recognition, though the Bible's vast and long-term eminence and effect historically requires significant knowledge of it in any effective education.  Over vast periods, indeed some three and one half millenia, it has increasingly provided so much to so many and secured such recognition from such eminent minds and scholars, and so many governments, in this way or that, and influenced so many leaders and people in so many domains, that NOT to be made significantly aware of its contents is education by omission, instruction by default, a provision discriminatory and directive The formal position currently is that no race is recklessly degradable, nor religion enforceable.

The former is in danger of wild exaggeration concerning factual reporting, and the latter in terms of protection from force, is apparent more in its absence or compromise, than in its performance. In fact, protection in terms of  this freedom and non-discrimination code, in the field of teaching, in some areas approaches the nominal, while the actual departure from it is increasingly phenomenal. However, truth is not excluded from attention by propaganda, even if governmentally given virtually exclusivistic status*7.

Thus Biblical Christianity, that which is founded exclusively for doctrine on the Bible, and in doctrine, centrally on Jesus the Christ, has certain demonstrable features, as has been repeatedly shown here.

Thus it has the only system of thought and understanding which is


rationally coherent,


conceptually harmonious within itself,


continually verified,


distinctively validated,


rigorously testable,


free of reductionism and irrefragable before the rigours of scientific method
(the long-serving rational kind, not the religiously discriminatory kind,
which now seeks to lessen its own authority by mere preference
as a criterion*10  3),


invariant in concept, diagnosis and prognosis for the human race,


source of systematic pre-coverage in prediction of the scope, 
main spiritual impacts,  relevant developments and meaning of history,
often in  detail,


while giving immovable grounds for the remedy for man, even during history's foretold ghastly episodes,
and power for performance amid these.



As such it in fact resolves every fundamental philosophical problem, as none of man's ideas has done, whether the topic, for example, should be:


the nature of freedom and meaning for man,


their basis,


the meaning of beauty or truth,


the place of law, morality and its basis and distinctive place,


the pathology of man in his spreading wantonry and delusive passions later repented,


the place of predestination,


the impact of judgment and destiny,


the power and spirit available for peace,


the place of wisdom and the basis for logic (cf. SMR Ch. 5, Light Dwells...  Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 outlines).



Ontology and psychology in their turbulent findings alike are explained (cf. SMR Chs. 1-2, with 3-4),


as is the joint presence of beauty and magnificence, duty and munificence,
horror and loveliness, finesse and folly in creation, as
in design*2 and in duplicity
(cf. SMR Ch. 5, Beauty for Ashes, Beauty of Holiness).

Indeed, there is nothing in essence not explained, grounded, given foundation, explanation in principle, on this biblical basis; which is not the least reason for its prevailing popularity, impact, undying appeal and rigorous authority.

As to the startling combination visible on this earth, of wonder and woe, wisdom and fecklessness, grandeur of nobility and horror of puny morals and reckless self-seeking, of precision of manufacture and initial creation*11  4, with linguistically formatted orders*11  and yet ruin in degradation: the reason even for these things is amply provided. When God makes man with power to discern many things, and to determine some things, with love the provision and hatred the option, then delight and desolation, ruinous passion and remarkable saintliness, the angelic and the diabolical, all come as from two fountains, volition and devotion, purity and pretence, as paired products: for out of the heart of man indeed come a procession of evils (Matthews 15:17-18).

The polluted product of licentiously misused liberty, in spirit or in mind or in body, and the wonder of life, product of creation, discovered through pardon, experienced in peace of heart, available for one as for all: these two are like parallel lines, which in the end, dip or soar. Farce and fiasco thus can mix with duty and discipline, mercy with odiousness, flightiness with reliability, the high and the low, the wantonry and the wisdom.

The love of the Creator is as free as the rejection of it, the adoption of anyone a a child of God is as justified (Romans 5), as is the rejection of the refugees from truth (John 3:19); mere force determines nothing but the type of folly, and faith operates with nothing but reality, its object, even God Himself,  faith in Himself as He is, the entry of this way securely located where reason demands, and discovery uncovers, where God has placed it, obvious like a hole in a rock. Truth thus is not as subjectivity narrates, but as objectivity declares (cf. TMR Ch. 5); and the only source, free of jostling inputs with its uncalibrated and defiled basis, its limits and its unknowns, its mutability and its errors, is  God Himself. It is He,  Maker of all and product of none, eternal as the only logical possibility requires. Nothing has no future, such as we are from that beginning; and what is inadequate does not produce what is here. Faith however is not force of arms. The biblical way is founded on creation and the love of the Creator, together with His provision for man, his place, found by faith in the summit declarations provided in the Bible.

 As such, it does not forbid its dismissal, as is done with naturalistic philosophies in education to a large decree in this country, far less refuse rational and free class discussion of these matters as what is fitting for students, as has often been done here (and even worse!).

Yet knowledge of it should not be discriminatingly removed, any more than conformity (or disconformity) to it, merely governmentally enforced, so that there is no obvious discrimination. In this way, when it is restored,  liberty is allowed its due place, and government appears not an agency for the practical enforcement of religion, or irreligion, but as a minister to educating people about what is there. While any nation may choose its own religion if it wants to, its own values, this is not the same as making others follow it, or using force where reason fits, or discrimination where mere desire rules.

The removal in practice of such liberty, now in long record of inept performance in this land, has certain consequences, including the inescapable human folly of inventing something ELSE*3, however ephemeral, however much seen as ludicrous. In history such species of falling liberty, of spiritual subservience, is to be found in morbid example after example, and not least relatively recently! How readily does this, with irrationally pursuing some eccentric folly, at the national level, lead smashingly onward, to the realm of disaster or death.

The points back of this fact have been made on this site in such volumes or sets of volumes as



the seven volume set







Further elements are listed in SEARCH.

 Education that subverts itself should not retain the name, or the tax money in a land of freedom; nor should subversive slants without ability to exhibit themselves as logically well-founded, be given pride of priority; but rather emphasis should be from reason, endowed with liberty of action without violence. Emphasis and strength of expression, moreover, should not be confused with irrationality, in any direction. Snippets of liberty can become, semi-detached from reason, like dangerous cancers, out of place. Indeed, removing the rational basis of liberty makes for an instability which routinely tends towards the removal of liberty; and man marked down by his own pride, is frequently seen marking down others in the way he treats them, himself deluded, while downgrading his victims - as a regime, a government, a segment of society or a movement.

Jesus the Christ is the only ruler to last, and none will prove ultimately satisfactory till He returns (Ezekiel 21:26-27); and when He does return, following the many announcements from the Bible, the book of the Lord (Isaiah 34:16), concerning knowledge of its near  approach (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5, SMR Ch. 8), truth will once more be seen consummate in His Person, power, peace, truth, righteousness, pity, concern, compassion, judgment and pardon, all freely at work. The majesty of truth will replace its successive subversions formerly seen in rancorous and rankling folly.

 Ignoring Him now is worse than ignoring blood pressure heights or tumorous depths; it is to dismiss the basis of all things, the remedy and the righteousness by which and for which we are designed, as the Bible teaches (Proverbs 14:34). These are testing times; and tests need concentration, information and responsibility.


At the personal level, you have people banned from exercising freedom of speech, as in Russia, where a recent law reportedly requires representatives of foreign nations to know that they may be imprisoned for 20 years for breaching what the State accepts. In China that might seem minimal, in terms of the tortures so often reported, as for example in Years of Blood &  Tears, by specialist physician, Yu-Ming Chang (2001) or The Heavenly Man, by Brother Yun (with Paul Hattaway, 2002).

These works are founded on information found in lives lived in a varied, impressive, monumental and highly informed manner during periods of revolutionary history, up to the relatively recent. Those writers describe in high detail, their move from humble beginnings, when they were young, to turgid tortures and false accusations, vast trials and horrors. Various classes of relevant and informative data are given careful notation.

In such a field as this,  these authors are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last.

Freedom in any country is a precious jewel, and its only basis is found in the God of truth, who having made man ABLE to understand the rational BASIS of the universe, attested by its penetrability by reason, holds him liable for abuse of truth (I John 2:15-23), and failure to repent of what makes the world NOT go round in the love of the Creator and in harmony with His laws (Luke 13:1-3, Acts 17:31, II Corinthians 5:9-24, John 15:21-24).

He makes this responsibility all the more so in that He has provided in Jesus Christ the remedy for guilt, sin, for indebtedness to God and for penalties including death; and this divine provision is free! The Saviour made it so by forsaking the freedom to avoid butchery, slander and torture, which He divinely endured, that justice being satisfied, love might bring a created atonement between man and God, through faith only, by grace only! (Ephesians 2).This restoration available to man brings to his inner being something of the delightful spiritual stature and liberty which, in foolish pathology, he has forsaken.

Freedom is precious not only to speak, but to be no longer foundering in psyches which have become a type of contraband, set for exclusion. This restoration may accrue, if one so desires, in the light of the Gospel (Ephesians 1:5, 9-14).  It is sure if one receives the biblical Christ in His revelation, work and witness, as Redeemer and Lord, according to His word. For those so freely returning to God, this brings with it a status of friendship and understanding (John 15:14, Ephesians 1:17-19), in that divine love where through illumination and rescue, freedom flourishes, meaning prospers and work is unleashed with a garland of opportunity, while challenge is like that to an athlete (II Timothy 2:3-4).

To be sure, sin can cloud vision and make life seem deadly, and sin itself seem  profound, though even that with severe qualifications in this present world. Here one learns from a research organisation, Ipsos, of an estimate that about 1 in 7 believe the world will come to an  end in their lifetime. There is a reason for that! The nations of this world are largely pursuing an arrogant, irrational, any-god-but-God horror, voiding the Creator where often He was acknowledged, the morality of the Bible, where once it set a standard, and making fire, one on another, to the point that sudden bushfires seem  almost a relief by comparison.

How wonderful is freedom, which is the necessary prelude to love, instead of mere attraction and retraction!
a folly to which mankind increasingly falls, forgetful of what he is and may be!

To be FREE to ponder, to be free (in some places)


to speak,


to think,


to love,


to have liberty within, as a gift of divine love through the Gospel,

so that you not only may do as you will (with payment if wrong - as in John 3:19,36),

but because of His reconciling work (II Cor.5:17ff.),

may will as you will - with understanding discerning what is beyond yourself and your own scope,

through the eternal provisions of the mercy of God.

it is a thing most suitable to man, beautiful to his spirit and glorious in grace because of the depth of his fall.

It comes to its rest and restoration through God who made both man and this,
his limited but crucial liberty,
having provided for this from the first (Ephesians 1:4, John 3:15-19),
even for the last ( Revelation 22:17, John 10:27-28),
with all dues covered through faith in Him
and what He did.

Thus you may stutter in ( but not really, just testing, just tasting, vivified but still staying OUT
as in Hebrews 6), or come in, as through any door (John 10:9, Romans 4:25 - 5:12).

If however you do in fact come, then as it is in love
that the entry is made freely available there (Romans 3:21-31),
so it is in love to the One who redeems, that you are received (Luke 7:40-50),
for no truculence may be a trade-in for truth,
and no pretence, a basis for acceptance.

Then life works, the curse is lifted and the desires of God to fit your elevated construction,
become available, life a path to destiny with God as friend, Lord and
permanent Saviour (John 10:27-28, II Timothy 1:8-12).
Then you are no longer contraband,
too  exclusive to receive pardon,
so excluded because of sin.

All this is available through the provision from God who provides truth,
but not dictation regarding your use of it,
and gives you the facility to deny what He gives to you, 
who has no needs, and has Himself the facility to redeem, bless and reward,
the way free because has earned it in all justice.
This He has done  in His own willing sacrifice,
being blatantly irresistible in securing the victory in salvation (Hebrews 2),
irrefragable in resurrection (cf. Ch. 9 above,   *1),
His body mauled but breaching death with immortality,
providing a work of redemption for the body,
to be conferred (Romans 8:23, I Cor. 15, II  Cor. 5),
on those for whom He is Head, Lord,
the love of life, deity of desire, foundation of truth,
and the essence and maker of life for man.





See on this  topic,  for example, The gods of naturalism have no go!



See for example, Deity and Design,  Designation and Design, and  *1 above.



Large-scale miner, Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest seems to have done much at a practical level in seeking

1) to provide incentive, work for available labour, this with due care and

2) to generate enhance initiative and involvement.

Even former Labour PM, Bob Hawke, has spoken of Forrest's organised work endeavours for this people, with high praise. Several major companies are noted in The Australian, November 22, 2012 as taking steps to secure such employment for indigenous people, and this is a work for adaptation and mutual respect in action, not just in fuzzy or strange, invented or irrelevant words. In fact, the report in this November paper concerns the "top 100 firms" and is buoyant on new employment figures, new spread of types of work, co-operative ventures, and work in enhancing the "capacity of indigenous organisations."



Thus, as reported in The Australian, November 14,  2012, p. 7 of The Nation, it is pointed out, "Welcome to country ceremonies are not a traditional part of Aboriginal culture. The first was performed in 1976. " On November 13, 2012, in the same section of that paper, p. 3, it is noted that MP Bess Price stated that "welcome to country ceremonies were not particularly meaningful to traditional people anyway." In her own reported words, she declared: "WE don't do that in communities. It is just a recent thing."

"It's just people who are tyring to grapple at something that they believe should be traditional."

The whole question of integrating non-aboriginal rites into general society, and indeed of inventing modes of speech representative of just one race in this singular and selective manner, in some official meetings as another case,  is in danger of a racistic imposition, as dangerous as dismissal. Results of such modes can bring all kinds of troubles when  real or imagined elevated sensitivities are selectively used to the detriment of normal free and rational speech. If this were the mode in Parliament, it would look less hypocritical when extensions of this loss of liberty are in view. In the Nov. 13 paper noted. we are told this, that: Mr Bolt yesterday posted blog comments decrying "ludicrous and oppressive laws against the expression of mere opinions, as a sin against reason and a crime against our dignity and freedoms."

Taken in its broadest form, the issues involve setting up a particular form of moral judgment, practice or preference, based on nothing but culture, what is happening, felt and so on, and making all conform to it or be prohibited, inhibited, fined or imprisoned, punished in ways obvious or more clandestine. This being religion, the imposition of ultimate values on others, here without ground but desire, is mere casual-looking violation of the Constitution re NON setting up of the same sort of authority,  nationally.

Section 116 of the Constitution has this to say:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,
or for imposing any religious observance,
or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,
and no religious test shall be required as a qualification
for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.



Thus we have efforts even from within notable aborigines, that differentiation should not be carried to what are deemed absurd levels. This kind of 'sensitivity' can readily act towards the degradation of those afflicted by it.

Thus there is an interesting declaration by Northern Territory Minister, Alison Anderson.

This is found in The Australian, National Affairs, November 2, 2012.

"ONE of the nation's most senior indigenous politicians yesterday rebuked those of her people who rely on welfare, saying they need to grow up and stop resorting to the "dangerous conversation of endless complaint".

Northern Territory Indigenous Advancement Minister Alison Anderson told the Territory's Legislative Assembly that she "despaired at the reluctance" of some of her brethren to take available jobs.

"I look at the men of Yirrkala and ask why they will not drive the 20km to Nhulunbuy to earn excellent money in the mine and the processing plant there," she said in her first ministerial statement on the status of Aboriginal communities in the Territory since taking the cabinet role.

"It is the kind of question the rest of Australia has been asking for years, as it tries to connect the dots, tries to understand why a long-running mining boom can exist literally next door to a culture of entitlement and welfare dependency."

Noel Pearson has similarly spoken of the outrageous dangers of welfarism, a sort of mentality which tends to destroy independence and development. In Cape York Partnerships, we find this from him.

"Our struggle for rights is not over and must continue - but we must also struggle to restore our traditional values of responsibility. We have to be as forthright and unequivocal about our responsibilities as we are about our rights otherwise our society will fall apart...

We do not have a right to passive welfare indeed we can no longer accept it. We have a right to a real economy, we have a right to build a real economy."

Noel Pearson, Executive Chairman, Cape York Partnerships

Making up new traditional values, new sanctions on speech to "protect" people in a way out of the ordinary, with new ethical and moral criteria and using force to sustain them, as a new religion, is being given State support. It is being done in a way imperilling freedom and independence in Australia, equality within the citizenry and inducing racism. If it is to become subject to the same sort of thing at a broader level,  then not nearly all, but all are then levelled into a dictatorial religious oppression by the Government. Those who show any preference for such things merely help to induce moral slavery and religious tyranny.



See Classification, esp.  *2.




See for example, A Time to Praise God, Ch. 7, esp. *1.




On this,  see That Magnificent Rock, Chapter     8,  where detailed analysis of recent S.A. practice has been made. This also contains reference to presentations made in protest to the State governing authorities, or approach to the Opposition. There is no excuse for this treatment of children by all or any; so that in their own way, misuse of the young is indeed a multiple racial thing, with many ramifications. Ultimately, it is a matter of morals, and different peoples failing in different ways, do not make of themselves a standard, in this or in that field, for oppression.

On the subject of freedom more broadly, see also the presentation to members of the S.A. Parliament.


This business of pre-prejudicing children by State or regal control, as with Hitler youth, has a long history going back into antiquity. Motives could vary from subversion of a nation, satisfaction of a pseudo-religious mystique, to effort to appease or atone. It differs from rational introduction to  reality in its misuse of force, professional hopes (you do not qualify unless you seem to conform, if not in written rule, then in smitten psyche or selection), and inability to face facts.

One King killed his eldest son, on  defeat, an  act of strange and sacrificial character,  possibly to appease Israel but more directly the God who had moved it (II Kings 3:26), and delivered it as so often when it sought Him.

An acme of degeneration occurred in the most marked case of King Manasseh, on account of whose declivities and disastrously immoral policies, Judah would suffer much ruin (II Chronicles 31:1-11, II Kings 23:26, Jeremiah 15:4).

II Chronicles 33:6   "And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom:
also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft,
and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards:
he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD,
to provoke Him to anger."
 Woeful as were the consistently aggravating evils of King Manasseh, he personally repenting, sought the Lord and was spared; but the evil he had done lived after him. Thus can a national weakness, wrongly led, become a country's ruin. Repentance however may move in and ruin move out. You see the urgency of this in such occasions as tht of Jeremiah, who made magnificently merciful offers, right up to the very margin of disaster (Jeremiah 17:19ff.), in the name of the Lord. These were turned away with that callowness that so often blights waywardness, so that the horrors duly noted in the book of Lamentations, duly occurred. Indeed, even the King in whose defeat Judah was to be captured, Zedekiah,  was offered total mercy and deliverance if he would but surrender, but fearful of mockery by those who had already left the assailed city, he did not do so! Jeremiah 38:14ff.). So does a peer pressure mix with religious folly to create needless ruin. Turning is the point, and back to the Lord is the direction.

As to the nature of the passing through the fire, on the part of children (cf. the case of equivocating King Ahaz, II Chronicles 28:3), as if they were sacrificial victims, tender saplings thrown on the blaze: the use of such as offerings to naturalistic gods is well known, and constituted a wantonry almost past belief.

Such sacrificial manipulation of children is the more abhorrent when it is even part of an approach to what is deemed good, to gain more, and it is in type similar, though our own case in Australia is in the realm of the mental and spiritual and moral in its own special way, in its assault and repugnance.

At point here, is the UN
Declaration on the Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief
Some parts of it appear below, relevant to the point made.
Article 1

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2

1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.

2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

On liberty and the Australian Constitution, see Ch. 10 of Tedious Torturers ...; and on using talk of liberty to remove it, see News 42.  On violation of the UN Document on Elimination of Discrimination in religion or belief ... see * 1 above.



See in these terms, notably Tedious Torturers ...  Ch. 6,    *2. See also the writhings with such sub-standard generalisations in Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6, and their rejection by prominent scientists as in SMR pp. 109ff., and 199-200, 128 -135.



See, for  example, SMR Chs. 1-2, TMR Ch. 1, Deity and Design ...






See for example: