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

AT WORK - 1995 (with update)

II Thessalonians 2:7

The Ultimate 'Development' - the 'final solution' for another nation: our own
(cf. News Items 10 and 15)

This is a presentation from World Wide Web Witness Inc.


The multinationals can look big, being international. More people, minds and methods are suggested; and size may suggest power. So too in the international sector of politics, awe and folly can readily bow to the crowd of nations, none of whom can afford to boast.

Thus, free of the horrors of Cambodia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Somaliland, Yugoslavia (which country was that ?), Chinese suppressions and spreading African famines, not yet caught in such a spree of crime as Russia or the U.S., what has been the movement in Australia? As to this, our land, it is being pushed to become a 'man of the world', a nice republican operator, fearless of all things, open­minded to be educated by the global powers. Mighty wonderful thing for a nation pitiably defended, maximally protected and specially instituted with major emphasis on Christianity, is it not ! Certainly it is losing a lot of its excellence ­ clever governments in the last 5 years in particular have vastly increased the amount the nation owes to other nations, its debt, have wonderfully lived beyond their means, have at State level ingeniously squandered or fostered the squandering of billions, or at least shown more than dubious control in the erratic process.

True, we have been falling freely, or near to it. Perhaps it began to appear to that modern junta so recently departed from power, that the time has come to give us a label for failure, and to be called a secular republic. Perhaps others will agree*1 ? Why not ? Match these glorious deeds with avant­garde names, and be ONE OF THEM.

The reasoning is consistent ­ with serious failure in the management of the nation, with thanklessness and the pure glamour of adolescent youth, strong on assertion, weak on fact. The wonder of our sense of morals - however it fades, our heritage, our relatively influential awareness at least of godliness from much in our past, our (relative, traditional) commitment to Christianity, however diffuse, our (relative) peace and our relative advancement are to be forgotten with all the relish and exuberance of youth when it learns to smoke and drink and be 'one of the boys'. There may be some, however, who think.

It is certainly time to think. Take the marvellous bypassing of the democratic trials involved in simply USING international arrangements made by the marvellous and altogether admirable nations of the world, and having them INCORPORATED into our national fabric AT ANY COST. There is something to tell one's mates about, how brave, and really, clever! That DOES it, and it is so easy...

Free falling IS easy. The issue is the landing.

1. A Glance at Developments

In 1959 came the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, a general statement seemingly generated by need, and desired by the enlightened. The 'CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD' had some 10 years of meetings, and THEN in 1989 came the UN adoption of this as a document. It went much further, was highly specific, and by skilful use of gobbledegook, made it almost look GOOD to let the kids choose friends and information and life style and methods, and freedom from such horrors as intrusive parental discipline or direction. Like gods, they could choose anything that did not OBVIOUSLY harm society. The STATE had taken over parenthood Why not ? Were they not clever men ? ASK them! You do not even always need to do that...

Meanwhile in 1986, Australia passed the 'HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT', seemingly a nice protective and gracious provision, while

i) it was apparently updated in 1991 (printed 1992) with the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (the 'nice' general one) appended; and

ii) it was provided in 1992 with 2 Amendment Acts, the second, No.2 causing the Human Rights Commission ­ a body with marvellous powers, approaching autonomy ­ "in the performance of its functions" to have this interesting requirement. It had to act "such" that in its actions, it would have regard to "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" AND to the "Convention on the Rights or the Child".

But by virtue of what authority can such great steps be taken ? What is necessary ? a simple act of Gazetting appears needed ­ here, it is one about using the Child Rights Convention as an instrument for jurisdiction on the part of the Human Rights Commissioner. Then let it be proclaimed. Presto! It is accomplished.

2. The Non-technicalities of the Teo Case

The TEO case, with judgment handed down from the High Court in 1995 makes

it clear that an alien of this name, seeking permanent residence in Australia, evidently one who was involved in drug offences and thus denied liberty here, was in a position which was not properly evaluated, from the legal viewpoint. This was because of his children, so that the High Court opined that the Child Rights Convention SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, in the negative response to his request.

This is an issue of domestic law which resulted from an issue of international law.

A book meanwhile on the extent to which Australia is conforming, has been written: 'AN AUSTRALIAN FAMILY LAW PERSPECTIVE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD', apparently from the Children's Interests Bureau.

Further, although in 1993 Australia was meant to have told the UN how it was proceeding in the 'Child Rights' elements, it was not till 1995 that the Report came. Thus the 'progress' into bondage is not altogether able and stable; but it progresses.

3. The Burdekin Contribution

Meanwhile, a former federal Human Rights Commissioner, Brian Burdekin, made certain observations on the topic of Child Welfare Legislation, that dealing in particular with child abuse. In view of the mish­mash of States laws/regulations on this topic, he expressed the view that there should be a federally induced conformity for these laws or rules. The instrument in view was the Child Rights Convention. This, it is reported (from Tine Dolgobol, Flinders University), was "not taken up".

From one associated with the Children's Interests Bureau, it appears that there are in fact numbers of bodies interested in, moving towards and seeking to induce the implementation of the Child Rights Convention into domestic law.

4. The Developing Rose-Suppose Garden of Paper Orchids

In view of these elements, it would appear that the course being taken is:

a) to induce interest in this UN view of our proper politics, due rules and correct government.

b) to relate it to what in that perspective, would represent abuses in this country.

c) to give some kind of ethical obligation to this country, in terms of an international body, so that MEANS are to be found, then internationally assessed, to implement this body of law, that started as a Convention, in this country. This is rather in the sense of a dependency, reporting like someone on parole, to duly constituted authority.

d) to allow the implications or imputations of such things to percolate, filter, impact, interact in Australia till various institutions, faute de mieux, start to refer to, use, rely on or exhibit the force of the international commitments in habitual manners.

In short, pressure appears internationally in a kind of ethical hand or wand or wafting, to make us conform, using parts of the Australian body politic, to drive the thing along.

e) In such ways, all these things conspire, or are to conspire, to allow such international versions and/or reviews of Mt Sinai, to make an ethical, international intrusion into this country, not however by a Moses, but wrought by simple fact of a majority of one Party , without referendum, and perhaps without any, or with minimal debate, until there is a fait accompli: there! It is all over (like tooth out - except here, it is self-government that is out). Why, we took the thing out ourselves!

f) THEN it might seem easy to induce shame or blame, or irruption, or eruption or difficulty or opprobrium, for any resisting domestic legislation.

5. Making Radicals out of a Non-Radical Nation

All this might seem roundabout, and doubtless it is; but such is often the way of decay. Since it is well known how much Australia loves to amend its constitution, and acts of the scope of the Convention could well be rejected or resisted; for it is possible that numbers will find its extreme radicalism, as so often in such cases - intimately allied with obvious provisions to prevent abuses of certain kinds - wholly unacceptable. By these circuitous means, however, it might be hoped to bluff or baulk any opposition.

It might be hoped by the sheer complexity of procedures, to ISOLATE such negative discernments, and to render them a voice of CHANGE rather than of resistance to change, when the time comes. Then the tendency to conservative instincts might be put to effective use: the very desire to resist might be transferred to resisting the now not-so-old international policings, and so work for radical change through subtle means!

For these reasons, and the possibility of losing an election if too much is done too soon, it seems, the Child Rights Convention has not as yet ENTIRELY taken the children from the jurisdiction of parents, though the TECH case renders it rather an open question to what extent liberty is still left. In essence, since many are guilty of wrong action in bringing up their children, the new Convention would allow a State to take over from those who are guiltless in such things, and to use an international body of nations, whose records are not of the most charming, to govern Australia, without their living here.

This is communalism, an Australian variant of Communism of a radical kind; with this proviso that it was not born in Australia; and that those who were, are open in this way to government from overseas, as if Britain being no longer in this case, some other group is to be set up to give us Child Care: with Australian citizens as children.


Article 13: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. (Emphasis added.)

Sounds wonderful, and if children were gods, could be excellent. Unfortunately, they are not. Thus Dr Spock of enormous U.S. fame relative to the upbringing of children, in 1991 has this to say:

"We didn't realise until it was too late how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self-assurance of parents". Again, he now surprising alters his views to state: "Inability to be firm is the commonest problem of parents in America today." The report to this effect has been highlighted, for example in the Biblical Fundamentalist 1990-1991.

"Brattiness", the report continues, results from the twisted, warped teaching of the past quarter century. He blames the "experts" - citing "the child psychiatrists, psychologist, teachers, social workers and pediatricians like myself." See SMR, e.g. pp.230-234, 109-111, 150-154, 308-309, 333-395, 717-718, for underlying causes.

Naturally opinions amongst such experts vary considerably, what the report is referring to is a considerable swath of applied Freud (SMR Index), inventive Dewey, spontaneous Spock and such things, all undergirded by the philosophies of the moment and the spirit of the Age, which have spawned things unlovely. Freedom without base can be base, although in its potential it is spectacular and delightful. Where synonymous with autonomy it becomes destructively illusionist. It is always dangerous to dispense with reality.

Thus a child could request material on perversion, drugs currently not illegal, or perhaps for study purposes of course, on those that are, as well. He/she could have such friends and such data providers as deemed necessary, delightful or desirable, and form such associations as might facilitate or actualise the information requirements.

Indeed, conceivably the child could request such... demonstrations and eventuations as would consummate such knowledge. It could in fact do precisely what Spock deplored as the consequence of his own teachings, and what so many children do, moving unwise to their ruin when it is too late: children often the habitués of child psychiatrists, be the latter skilled or otherwise in such matters.

Questions of parental discretion on timing of this or that material can go; questions on modes of introduction are passé. Ask the child, and he/she'll tell you what is the need. Parents become extrusive, State rights intrusive; and perhaps ALL parents should then be paid as Carers, State Carers, while the State does its ... work, its strange work, on the child.

Article 14: Here freedom to manifest one's religious belief appears. What are we regarding in this category, for the child, however ? While 'public' morals must not be upset, according to the Convention, what sort of morals are those which legalise brothels ? Are these not to be upset ? How debased can this voluntary (or not so voluntary) slavery become, that it is permissible! How constant and how reliable are they who pay for single mothers to bring up in some cases, the product of passion without thought, and then of passion again; so inducing others to consider the option with greater disregard, in some cases. Indeed, is it always passion, or can it become a mere way of life ?

Gone is the parental religion. It may not be violent or vicious in the least degree; on the contrary, it may be deemed socially in order, by universal acceptance. BUT if the child is not in favour, then there is no question of parents bringing up the child that way. Such is the tenor of this international morality. And the State ? what it finds acceptable at present is in some regards subject to condemnations so profound, prolonged and multiple over history, that it becomes virtually flippant to think of it as a 'protector' or morals in loco parentis!

Now it is true that at a certain age it IS important, quite important, that the growing youth have freedom to avoid the parental religion, and any other. However in the meantime, what is happening here is this: the child MUST not have the impact of the parental religion if this is not desired by the child. It MUST be free to manifest the exact opposite (oh! surely, so long as it does not endanger the State or its... morals).

The kind of family beauty of such a provision is immediately apparent; it begins to resemble the equal beauty of many of those nations which compose the United Nations, which so speaks. It is the 'beauty' of morass and miasma, of muddle and contest. (Appendix 3 will be found to relate closely here, in The Other News volume.)

Now let us be clear here. As a Christian, I for one would like to see children free to receive Christ at the earliest age. However, if the parents refuse to allow the child this access, then there is a question of whose child it is. IF the child, as in one case known to me, STRONGLY wants another religion, but is forbidden it: this is wrong if that religion bear testimony of being the truth.

Of course I believe that: but I also believe that it is not for me to violate the parental wishes; it is for the parents to consider the matter, and to answer to God Almighty if they violate any earnest desires in the child. This, in passing, is just one reason why the State's exclusivistic substitute of propaganda in evolutionism, for education is doubly noxious: it decides for the child by exclusion, even if parents were also wrong, dictating like an inebriated emperor. (See That Magnificent Rock, Ch.8.)

It is however not for me, or for the State, to grab the child from the parents and give it whatever it desires in known contravention of parental wishes. What however if a child asks, off parental territory, for information ? surely it should be given; but there is no provision which is proper, for a child managing his/her part of the parental abode, really administering State law at the expense of the parents, authorised child-carers to implement State philosophical policy! It IS a sensitive question, how to let the child's mind rove and how to protect parents from interferers who dominate what they are providing for ­ their children. This is a matter for all the individuals involved; but not for law: lest interferers of any Sodom or Gomorrah country (and ours is growing nearer, whether you take this spiritually or physically), should spirit a child away before years of discretion.

Article 15. This in turn gives voice to "rights of the child to freedom of association", with the proviso concerning restrictions, like this: "NO RESTRICTIONS". Again, other than what might breach PUBLIC order or NATIONAL SECURITY, such is the case. The child now fully governing in religion and information, has the same in association, under the parental roof, which is or becomes a sort of localised Grand Central Station of unpredictable trafficking .

However the parents have some "rights". They must be respected in the exercise of THIS right: which ? Surely this is a notable generosity of the international directors. What is it ? that "to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the (yes, it has to come) evolving capacities of the child ".

Well now, that's nice for the parents, to be free to act as State agent in aligning child and State. The parent does also have the right to exist, though not necessarily AS parent. Even if the child wants mum and dad, this may not be best.

The aweful knowledge of the State operates here.

Article 9 - this tells us that... "States Parties shall respect the right of the child not to be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities ... determine... that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child."

Now as to those "best interests", we have from this grand and cheerfully instructive international body, more advice. The child, and of course, it is obvious... shall " be brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity."

Solidarity ? With what ? Why, but of course... with the United Nations, with that one earth which the forces which do not care to introduce God, prefer to have instead. Thus we shall see later, in the Declaration on the Elimination of ... Discrimination Based on Religion..., there is a necessity that the child be reared in "universal brotherhood", within the confines of concepts of world peace, and contrary views are simply "inadmissible".

Running God's earth however in His absence, and His children without Him, on principles where He somehow does not appear, is Biblically by definition, antichristian.

ALL things, Paul tells Christians, must be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. NOW however whole families are to be invaded and conducted and counselled and governed IN THE PRECISE ABSENCE OF THIS, at the whim of the international body aforementioned, whose career and attainments, aforementioned, do NOT really inspire awe.


a. The Practical Fact and Act

We now pass to the underlying thesis of it all, that God is to be dispensed with, in the interests of religion.

Do not misunderstand: a goddishness is UN-wise acceptable, and religious feeling is quite understandable; but as to any god who presumes to be God, out! By order: The International Improvement Body on Morals (UN for short - either 'unity necessary', or United Nations, or both).

The alert listener, seeing religion defaced and obliterated, international desires purporting to govern the non­electing distant peoples (such as in Australia), must wonder if the antichrist is near...

Quite near. (For objective assessment, see SMR Chs.1,8-10.)

An additional UN Declaration, in full: "THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF," arrives on the already infested scene. Passed by the UN, or proclaimed indeed on 25 November 1981, this has been, in 1993, filed down into Australian law.

Yes, a simple Gazetting, or announcement by the Commonwealth Attorney­General, Michael Duffy on that date in the Commonwealth Gazette declared that this Declaration "being a declaration that has been adopted by Australia, is an international instrument relating to human rights and freedoms for the purposes of that Act " ­ that is, the 1986 Act. Its name: The HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION ACT 1986. Thus the Human Rights Commission and its Commissioner can investigate alleged cases of religious discrimination, and over all this is spread yet another international instrument now installed as proper and due counsel. It is law.

b. The Impractical Act and Fact


At this, we might question the governmental powers that be. Certainly, might come the reply. However, this is international, different.

Perhaps it is one of those things reputedly so obvious that it must just be accepted? A fool's paradise, however, is assuredly not paradisiac.

Now has not the Commonwealth by such means incorporated with profound counselling significance, this UN Declaration ? Without any doubt whatsoever. Does not the UN concept of a humanly acceptable code of morals and requirements and peace and so forth, constitute a religious element ? Without doubt: its religious temper has been quoted already. Nevertheless, Christianity for example, in terms of its Scriptures, has quite different views on child care, religious dues of parents, child information and possibly, depending on the UN Declaration's interpretation, child discipline. This one example suffices.

Hence the Constitution is broken; it is done without referendum; the people are chained without a vote, and the government has violated the Constitution.

This does however have one good feature: it clearly shows the force of irreligious desire which so moves a government, that the Constitution is clearly violated, and once again, this entire nation projected and presented as a sort of suppliant for ... CHILD CARE. The adults become the State's children. It is absurd religion, when elected people accept the dictates of unelected people, and the electors are not amongst - for this religion - the elect. They merely are subordinated.

If everything were really relative, so that it is all a matter of seeing that fact, and then living intelligently in accord with it: then it would at once become a self-violating principle. It would be ABSOLUTELY true that nothing was absolutely true; and that is absolute nonsense. The approach is therefore NECESSARILY FALSE. It is, fellow­Australians, however, our very own UN Declaration, ensconced discreetly in our midst.

It is of course clear that a government is needed to show tender­heartedness, compassion and concern, without playing God. It CAN be done. It is just that it is not currently very politically ... popular.


This then is becoming a vital part of our contemporary Australian setting. No more is it a land of strong independent people, requiring freedom of worship. Now it is to be told how even to define freedom, in the inherent rights which the UN has been so swift to discern, so slow to secure. This new Moses, conveniently ex­God, has not a little bluster*2, and surely needs challenge before he makes this a nation of suppliants before the aweful presence of the political power, which in turn, is required to appear before the even more aweful presence of the international political power ... or beast, as the Bible has for some 2500 years labelled it (see Daniel 7).

Of course, like the child rights convention, it has some good points. It is nice not to assault people, for the pure zest of the religious or adult desire. This we can certainly approve. It is even nicer, however, to be unassaulted by a State which takes over from all bullies, all impenitents and with all assurance, rules religion, parents, children and morals to boot.


In fact, Christ's views in this field, in any objective assessment, are the precise opposite of those of the U.N. dignitaries. This is the case not only here, but with reference, as noted in the Child Right Convention, of solidarity. There is for the Christian, only one total solidarity: with God and His ways, His witness and His word. "He who does not love Me," said Jesus Christ, "does not keep My words" - John 14:24. And indeed, "If a man love Me, he will keep My words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him" - John 14:23.


Who determines what is injurious ? Perhaps someone who sees (realises, just knows) that Christ was wrong when He told some of His critics that they were of their father the devil, and that if God were their Father they would love Him (John 8:42), for He had proceeded and come forth from God ? as John recounts it. Perhaps therefore someone who does not accept the Bible; or a hypocrite; or someone inconceivably confused ?

As for this "universal brotherhood" presented by the U.N., not only did Jesus Christ prescribe a different lineage to some of His highly placed critics - that little variant, the devil - (John 8:44), but He stated they vainly had the key of knowledge. Not only did not enter in themselves, but hindered others in their doing so (Luke 11:52).

Diametrical opposition of purpose, spirit and origin is all ascribed unremittingly by Jesus Christ to different members of this race; and those who are His own people, are born again into this hereditary (I John 3:9), thus being granted the right to be called the 'children of God' (John 1:11-13, 3:1-19). "What," said Jesus, "is born of the flesh is flesh; and what is born of the Spirit, is spirit" - John 3:6. Forgiveness is one thing, consolidation is another.

Not only is there divergence, but some having for father the devil, are incorporated in his field of lies, deceit, fraud at the spiritual level (John 8:44). This is the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ. I, said this same Christ, "speak what I have seen with my Father; and you do what you have seen with your father." Brothers have, however, the same father!

Nothing could be further from the spirit of the U.N.'s supine prostitution of religion to political ends, that might be fine if God had not bothered to exist or to create us ... Christ preferred crucifixion to a 'convenient' rendering of the truth so as to 'make' it provide solidarity, assume brotherhood, asserting an outward peace the ground - as in the U.N. - of the inward life of man.

Freedom of religion must "contribute to the goals of world peace", says the U.N.. The world did that last time when the Roman Governor found it just as expedient for himself, as did the priests with whom he co-operated -albeit reluctantly - in sending Christ to agony, the agony of convenience. The 'nation', it was felt, would be well-served by such action. Subordinating God to politics, however, and forming truth out of desire is diametrically opposed to the work of Jesus Christ, and indeed to any honest appraisal.


What, then, is inconsistent with the U.N. views, is inadmissible. Here then is this paper god, directing to God, the God of the Bible, as did Baal of old, what He could, should and would be, ruling out His rule, and ruling in a rule of its own. With "full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men", says the Declaration, is the child to be brought up. God does not receive so much as a mention. The second commandment is elevated above the first, and any variation is inadmissible. Gods may exist only as they serve the U.N., and its ideals, principles, pronouncements and pronunciamentos.

This "freedom of religion" is really freedom of the U.N., and God has none at all. However, God Almighty is not thus; and this is the ultimate war, war on God. There is no peace*3 there.

If then the UN is right, Christ is wrong, so that this is anti­Christian. That is not a very good start for freedom of religion, really.

This then is discrimination; so that the Declaration to prevent discrimination is fundamentally discriminatory. It is, moreover, in this splendid innocence that the child is pitched, free of parents, when judged best; and these are basic to that exalted frame to which our nation is moving so proudly. It is in fact, as noted, a modern Moses ex­God, but beware! There is the 'god of this world'*2 as Paul terms it; and as Christ said: "THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD IS COMING AND HE HAS NOTHING IN ME" - II Corinthians 4:4*4, John 14:30.

As to this world's 'prince', he has come. He will become better known shortly. Meanwhile, though it is indeed true that we should LOVE EVEN OUR ENEMIES - a fact needing enormous emphasis - and that we SHOULD DO GOOD TO ALL MEN, and that we should be concerned for the welfare of all: it is NOT true that we should as Christians (I take one case, it is illustrative) have "universal brotherhood" and so respect for all religions; for God does not. We cannot have 'solidarity' with the contradictory masses of religious projections, injections and attentions.

Indeed, God, in the Bible, notes that the gods of the nations are idols (Psalm 96). Paul observes in II Cor. 11, and this with delicious irony, that they might WELL receive someone who comes, using forceful measures, to give them ANOTHER JESUS, ANOTHER GOSPEL AND ANOTHER SPIRIT. Such madness would indeed be a fitting consummation of error.

Being free in religion is not requiring the death of one of the main components, Christianity, on the simple ground that illusory relativity is in; for as shown earlier, THAT is self-contradictory at the commencement. Is what is demonstrably wrong to be right ? It would not, certainly, seem a good advance, a blessed progress for the Australia of yesterday, to become this weak and puny putty of today.

By the way, the god of this world would assuredly have his own ideas on what is ... in the best interests of the basic HEALTH of the child, especially while he regarded ALL PEOPLE as his (or her perhaps ? ) brethren (or sisters in some cases ?). Mentally and physically, he has his own ideas; always did. Indeed, the child is a good image of what becomes of adults in this supervening supervisory role to which the once full pockets of this nation are being emptied, as independence and some substantial godly input yield to this synthetic morality of convenience.

It is therefore time to seek a government who will remove the superfluous and presumptuous elements of these declarations, and keep only what protects all from invasion ... invasive forces which substitute for spirituality, efficiency and convenience; for freedom, direction; for dangers of discrimination, more of the same, aided by a virtual certainty of it; for episodes of error, the very mother and substance of it.


(cf. SMR pp. 299-315A, 1008ff., That Magnificent Rock, pp. 189-228)

Thus this second Declaration on Religion is even more sinister than the first one. When it comes directly in its own name, it fortifies the error of the Child Rights commandments.

People of heart may have been betrayed by the foxiness of the devil into giving away tyranny from some sources, to another; instead of seeking legal redress for evils only. Big Brother now EXPLICITLY can deal not only with 'kids' but with his own age peers (or 'seniors' for that matter); and he can do this simply by gazetting and proceeding with due proclamation by the incumbent Governor General, to add to the 1986 Law until the world of Gulliver's Travels would seem sane by comparison. No pain; only sale of the national soul. It saddens one when thinking of those who fought for freedom!

So has internationalisation grown, with the morals and immorality, the ideals and devices, the festering contradictions that afflict the world with the finesse of phrases now given free access to our nation. So has our Constitution had to withstand this seeming breach so enormous that an elephant might walk through it, with ... dignity.

By binding Australia to the UN approach, to its Charter concepts in this field, the law would be breaching the Constitutional refusal to bind, already noted. The State in the interests of the State has not only

i) given international concepts free reign and legal power in our nation; but ii) done this in violation of the Constitution's refusal to allow even our own people such tyranny, the one over the other.

Thus parents are prevented from having (Biblically) due authority in the upbringing of their children. How can you exercise religion freely if the State declares what the child must do, and the Bible has other declarations!

It tells, for example, how parents MUST bring up their children. This sort of thing in the U.S. has led to enormous religious deprivations in schools which secularist absolutism rules in absentia, 'religion' excluded. It might be as here in South Australia, that Biblical concepts are illegal in Science, though as shown in my trilogy, THE SHADOW OF A MIGHTY ROCK, they are the most pure to scientific method that there are! No matter! the Premier ignores the representations of reason, of courtesy and declines to see or rationally to answer the evidence presented. A LAW has gone forth; and in it, all religion is subjective (hence the bodily resurrection of Christ is by implication denied, a point made to the Premier and equally ignored, as is the custom there in this).

Facts about religion are dismissed; facts have been defined as what they are said to be; and that is a fact. It is perhaps a pity Lewis Carroll did not have a chance to see this, to add to his classical tea-party. Yet, for his sake, it is perhaps for the best as it is!

So the ludicrous furore of Hitler­style indoctrination of State wards continues. No, they are not slain; neither were many of the Germans; but they ARE STATE WARDS (oh! unless you want to pay all over again for a Christian education, rather than an anti­Christian assault! while from your taxes, you MUST support the latter).

Why ? It is the time of internationalisation; of State; of total certitude about total ignorance. A business run that way would shortly be bankrupt; and independence in this country cannot long be expected to provide even an illusion of its presence.

It is indeed quite IMPOSSIBLE for Caesar*2 (the traditional term for the State acting as if absolute, or directive) to play GOD, and set out what is right and wrong absolutely as here, in the confused disordered and disorderly thought - that it is only being 'fair' and 'modern' or whatever else may be the dithering shibboleth: and yet NOT CONFRONT the GOD of the CHRISTIAN, of the Bible. It is indeed a confrontation with the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who do not love Him, or find in Him the only logic that stands, may not mind. They then offer themselves as servile retainers to the State.

Is then THIS government, State or Federal, with its unenviable record (the State dictation on religion in fact STARTED in this point, with the previous government, this present one supinely clinging to the productions of its predecessors in this matter): is this government then, to challenge Jesus Christ for integrity, for power, purity and understanding ?

If the very thought is not derisively comic, then read Ch. 6 of the trilogy noted above, to jar your thinking. The depravity of this assault on the religion given by Jesus Christ must be faced. It is NOT a question of live and let live; but of rule and suppress IN THE NAME OF THE AUSTRALIAN OR STATE GOVERNMENT. You cannot however serve two Masters: THAT is clear, for the one may contradict the other, and if they be not identical, such divisions will arise.

THIS is what Jesus Christ stated, and this government is setting up by high­sounding international means, at the federal level, a mastery which stops at nothing.

It will of course be stopped, for Jesus Christ WILL rule; but without early action by individuals and Opposition, the interim cost may be high!

Updateand Outlook 1


Let us update things here. As to the present, 1997, it is gratifying to consider the document, A Confident Australia, Coalition Foreign Affairs Policy, Feb. 10, 1996, which suggests for the time, a marked improvement. The process may be delayed, indeed, it may have a wider audience; but it is still far from dead.

The provisions of the new policy of the new Government, elected in 1996, include the following in these areas.

a) Reform of Treaty-Making Processes.

b) Broader public and parliamentary involvement in such procedures.

d) Considerable debate.

e) Domestic law in place before international treaties.

f) Substantial consultation between Commonwealth and States before implementation of such international treaties.

All of this is much needed reform. It is a matter for congratulation indeed. It needs however to be borne in mind that:

i) the current Government is only one of many possible ones.

ii) irrespective of Party, the NATURE of such international treaties is not pre-empted, merely better exposed, less notorious, more capable of consideration and concern in advance. The yen to internationalise morals to perilous new spirit of the Age models is not thereby affected at all; it is merely made more sure that the stage will be prepared, before the Act occurs.

The vigour - or otherwise - with which these developing wrongs of many years are redressed; the extent to which the matter is made retrospective: these are fascinating and vital questions of the present moment. So much was done so fast, and with such dreadful impact, that unless there is an uprooting, then death by earlier wounds is still perfectly feasible, intriguingly simple. Only a little malaise in enterprise here is all that is needed.

Or will this land, singularly blessed, now purge itself of these erroneous developments, and return to the freedoms for which, among the nations, it is justly famous! Better yet, will many as individuals, as families return to the Lord in whose name many of the early foundations were laid ?

As to the Australian Constitution and considerations of the past, relative to the present flow, and indeed to past declaration and proclamation in the light of law and logic: see Chapter 8, That Magnificent Rock, in the final end-note.


For other material in this category of the Bible, religion, freedom and political control, see e.g. SMR pp. 727-732C, and 422C-D,Q-T, 683ff., 721-725, 743-744, 750A-E, 842ff, 866-879, 886ff., 899ff., and 65-71, 975-1011.


Peace is no slave.


Truth has its own beauty and cannot be manipulated in any field, without payment for the presumption. The love of God presupposes crucial sin in man, essential deliverance from it, infinite price for the coverage of it, voluntary approach to God for those drawn, and a love within the terms of reality to others, in which purity and truth are preconditions. Good to all men is assuredly the work of a Christian; solidarity is not at all, however, the spirit of it: any more than a doctor has solidarity with influenza, or cancer.

If he did, his love would be in vain. The "patients" in this case for the Great Physician are by no means all keen for His ministrations. When He was crucified, the same spirit was shown. Joining God and the devil, Christ and the world may produce some sort of a god; but it is purely in the mind, a God plus Baal composite such as Elijah rather went out of his way to dissociate from the life of Israel, with the celestial power of the Almighty confirming with deeds, the laws of centuries, given by God ( I Kings 17ff., Deuteronomy Chs. 13 & 18).

Of the making of gods there is no end; of the making of man by God there is one beginning; and of the pretences of man to remake his Maker, there will be an end. The current procedure, here exposed, is moving rapidly towards it.

As II Thessalonians 2:7 declares: "For the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness) is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way: and then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will consume with the spirit of His mouth and shall destroy (bring to an end) by the brightness of His coming."

For the moment, He who restrains is still operative in His church, and the whirl-pools of obnoxious spiritual gases are contained, albeit with many a fume. The climax awaits.


As to "the god of this world" - II Corinthians 4:3-6, this is what Paul says: "But if our Gospel be hidden, it is hidden to those who are lost: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Do not, for 'Jesus Christ', read 'United Nations'. Their history and performance are both radically different. (Shirley Hazzard's books, Defeat of an Ideal, and People in Glass Houses are rather eloquent here, apart from the more obvious features.)

Freedom of religion is not the freedom to be bound by the U.N., or any other Government, national or international. God has no substitutes; and His worship is infinitely above the petty political prerogatives of those concerned with human government.

To act otherwise, is to remove freedom of religion by removing its source, base and nature. Since this cannot be done, such actions promote world war, not world peace. In the end, it becomes war on God (cf. SMR pp. 696-707, 750A-B, 877-879, 953-956, S32.)

While Christians habitually suffer for Christ, God is not mocked, and as noted in Revelation, He is not indifferent. The love and patience of God are remarkable (II Peter 3:9). They should not however be mistaken for disregard. As the train of prophecy (SMR Chs.8-9), with eminent precision, draws near to the end of the line, it is time to seek the Lord, not some mocking substitute.