Anglo-Saxons are a forgetful people. It was ever so, from their beginnings as a collection of tribes, morphing over time into the most influential of nations on Earth. So it is that in the great debate over whether or not Australia should become a republic, the true origins of the nation—the real foundation of its greatness—are seldom spoken of. It’s almost as if the years of brainwashing by an intelligentsia conditioned to the denigration of Australia’s British heritage by such pseudo academics as the anti-historian Geoffrey Blainey have wiped any memory of this great tradition from the collective mindset of generations of Australians.

No doubt a principal reason for this is that most Aussies remain ignorant of the fact that Terra Australis was always destined to become a nation due to a specific act of Providence.

The founding fathers of the Australian nation were aware, to an extent, of the hand of Almighty God guiding its affairs. Being aware of such, they acknowledged that guiding hand in the basic documents of federation. Still, even they were not fully aware of the extent to which the Eternal God willed the nation of Australia into existence.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “[H]e must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below.”

Terra Australis Incognita

Up until the early 18th century, the great south land, identified as the land of Sinim (Hebrew for “a distant Oriental region”) in the prophecy of Isaiah (49:12), was loosely deemed as Terra Australis Incognita, the unknown land of the south, generally defying the attempts of explorers up to that time at full discovery of its presence in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

In the mid-18th century, the confluence of what Australian historian Alan Frost describes as “new outlooks, new technologies and new reasons for venturing” (The Voyage of the Endeavour) at a time when a remarkable Yorkshireman, Captain James Cook, had reached the full maturity of his seamanship, was to finally lead to the discovery of the island continent of Australia.

The timely invention of the sextant in 1730 and the first accurate marine chronometer in 1761 allowed for a degree of precision in navigation unheard of to that time. So it was that in 1768 Cook had these new instruments at his disposal when he received orders from the British government to undertake an explorative voyage with the intention of completing the discovery of Terra Australis.

Following his charting the entire coastlines of New Zealand’s two main islands between October 1769 and March 1770, Cook, turning west, sighted the east coast of Australia on April 19, 1770. He subsequently landed at Botany Bay.

Terra Australis was incognita no more.

The timing of Australia’s discovery, and its subsequent claiming by Cook as a British possession, may have seemed propitious in the eyes of the British government at the time, coming as it did when the spread of Britain’s trading empire was expanding to the point of needing bases in and around the Pacific Ocean to complement its trade across the Indian and Atlantic oceans.

Yet it was more than just propitious. It aligned perfectly with the unfolding of a plan for the colonization of a good part of the world by a nation of island peoples—a plan that had been prophesied over 3,700 years beforehand!

Speaking to Abraham, the patriarch of the nations of Israel, Almighty God declared way back around 1730 b.c, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins” (Genesis 35:11). One great nation and a great company, or commonwealth, of nations were to descend from father Abraham. This is a prophecy of the coming of the United States of America to global power status and of the history of Britain as the mother of a great Commonwealth of Nations. Ample proof of this fact is given in Herbert Armstrong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

But what we want to point to here is the timing of the discovery of Australia, destined as it was to become one of the most blessed of nations within that great Commonwealth descended from the patriarch Abraham.

These great promises were reiterated to Abraham’s progeny—Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. They were ultimately delivered to Joseph’s line, through the descendants of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. But God imposed a substantial time delay between the time of the giving of those promises to the sons of Joseph and their actual receipt by their modern-day descendants. The delay was occasioned simply because of the innate forgetfulness of the peoples of ancient Israel, descendants of the patriarch Abraham. Over time, distracted by the pagan practices of surrounding nations, they simply forgot their God who had promised them matchless blessings for the obedience of their forefather Abraham to His Creator! The result was national enslavement and the concomitant loss of national identity.

Last Best Hope

As to the exact timing involved in this delay, and why it was that two nations, Great Britain and the United States of America, suddenly burst on the scene with unprecedented power and prosperity at the beginning of the 19th century, Herbert Armstrong explained this in some depth, with biblical and historical proofs, in The United States and Britain in Prophecy, available free upon request. It’s sufficient here to quote one overarching fact of history in Armstrong’s own words: “The most remarkable fulfillment of biblical prophecy in modern times was the sudden sprouting forth of the two mightiest world powers—one, a Commonwealth of Nations forming the greatest world empire of all time; the other, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth today. These birthright peoples came, with incredible suddenness, into possession of more than two thirds—nearly three fourths—of the cultivated wealth and resources of the whole world! This sensational spurt from virtual obscurity in so short a time gives incontrovertible proof of divine inspiration. Never, in all history, did anything like it occur.”

Thus, following a prophesied delay of 2,520 long years from the time of Israel’s captivity, all of a sudden, beginning in the period 1800 to 1803, the island nation of Britain—home to the descendants of Joseph through his son Ephraim—burst onto the world scene to rise as the leader of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

In process of the sudden bestowing of these blessings on the progeny of Abraham, Australia quickly evolved from an unknown land into the richest of all of the British dominions. Within barely a little over a century of the initial settlement on its southeastern shores, Australia was proclaimed a nation at its official federation in 1901. At the time, the Argus, a Melbourne daily newspaper, declared, “We have a self-contained continent, the brightest, fairest and richest field on which a nation was ever planted. We are a section of one of the greatest races of history (Jan. 4, 1901).”

“A section of one of the greatest races of history”—stout words but patently true. That race is British to its core. The peoples which founded and pioneered Australia were but an outgrowth of the “Brith-ish” folk—Brith ish meaning “covenant man” in Hebrew—of whom the Eternal God had prophesied that by right of birth they would possess the choicest parts of the Earth, including the major sea and land gates to give them a strategic advantage second to none (Genesis 22:17). The island continent of Australia is simply one such great blessing, bestowed upon the British peoples in fulfillment of the great promises God made to the patriarch Abraham due to his conscious choice to obey God under the most extreme of tests (verses 15–18).

As Andrew Roberts concisely explains in his eloquent, best-selling history of the English-speaking peoples and their impact on this globe, “English-speaking colonization, principally of … the United States but also crucially of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Caribbean … has succeeded triumphantly …. [T]hose states represent the last, best hope for mankind. … [T]he spread of the English-speaking peoples’ political culture has been the most significant historical development since the invention of gunpowder and the printing press” (A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, emphasis mine throughout).

Those who clamor for the establishment of an Australian republic—an Australia divorced from the stabilizing influence of the Crown—would seek to cut Australia off from the very institution that is fundamental to all that the Australian nation has represented through the 220 years since Captain Arthur Phillip settled the first colony of English-speaking peoples on Sydney’s shores. For as Andrew Roberts unabashedly declares, it is those very institutions established in the name of the Crown in the British dominions—Australia being among the most patently and richly blessed in the extent of the development of its natural resources—that combine “the best aspects of sovereign independence with the advantages that come from their deep historical, linguistic, cultural and often familial ties with what used to be termed without self-consciousness ‘the mother country’” (ibid.).

Republicanism is simply a denial of Australian history and heritage. More than that, it is a denial of the very birthright given by Almighty God in fulfillment of His promise to father Abraham and his patriarchal progeny, the very progenitors of the race that Roberts terms “the last, best hope for mankind.”

There is a greater depth in that statement than even Roberts comprehends, for it involves another even greater promise made by God to Abraham: “Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” (Genesis 18:18). This latter promise has to do with the salvation offered by God to all peoples. But note, it is offered through the progeny of Abraham! Yes, Jesus Christ Himself, as we know, descended in the flesh from the tribe of Judah, of the family of Abraham.

But there’s more! It was through the descendants of Abraham, the English-speaking peoples of the world, that the knowledge of the Word of God was largely disseminated, the Bible translated, published and distributed around the globe during the great period of English colonization. It is to the colonizing English-speaking peoples that so many of the global masses owe their very education to the point that they may read and comprehend the Word of God. This includes the indigenous people of Australia.

More importantly, during the greater portion of the 20th century, it was from the English-speaking nations that the true gospel message of Jesus Christ was published and broadcast to all nations in fulfillment of Christ’s own prophecy of Matthew 24:14, even broadcast from coast to coast in Australia, under the ministry of Herbert W. Armstrong.

Now, through the Philadelphia Trumpet magazine and the television program The Key of David, that message continues to be disseminated to all Australians willing to heed and respond. Part of that message has to do with the very identity of the Australian people and with their nation’s ultimate destiny. You owe it to yourself to study Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s a real eye-opener, its message underpinned by a plethora of proof as to Australia’s true identity, its divinely ordained history, and the incredible future Australia is yet destined to fulfill!

One of the most endearing traits of the Aussies is their reluctance to bear fools easily. They have a tendency to speak up and speak their mind when challenged and are likely to put down anyone who might disagree by spouting a colorful Aussie phrase such as, “Don’t come the raw prawn with me, old son,” or some other even more lurid exclamation.

A major topic of conversation in Australia, as in many parts of the globe in these disruptive times, is the economy. The argument is based on a mixture of views in which is expressed a great deal of ignorance about the true nature of Australia’s current economic situation. Sadly, the most foolish of arguments too often emanate from the so-called experts who should be cutting to the truth on this vital subject instead of selling their fellow Aussies the raw prawn on the status of their national economy.

Paradoxically, at a time when the United States was leading debt-ridden nations in the Western world in the size and frequency of its aggressive cuts in interest rates, Australia actually hiked its own. As a number of national economies—in particular America and Britain—increasingly bled from economic woes that daily made the headlines, blamed on the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown, on the surface Australia seemed to be continuing in a boom phase largely propelled by the significant rise in commodity prices.

The price of Australian exports of minerals, in particular, skyrocketed as demand escalated dramatically fuelled by the rapid expansion of China and the East Asian economies. This in turn led Australia’s reserve bank to enact measures to curb resultant inflation. A surface evaluation of the country indicated that Australia was having a dream run while the slaughter continued on Wall Street.

Yet, is the Australian economy really insulated against a global credit crunch to the degree that some say? Dig a bit below the surface hype and a different picture begins to emerge. Australia has some deeply entrenched systemic problems affecting its economy that are too easily masked by any temporary high demand for its mineral wealth.

Economic History

The year is 1985. One of Australia’s most successful businessmen, John Leard, former chief executive of Australian National Industries, has begun posting full-page advertisements in major Australian newspapers. He pays for the ads out of his personal funds. The advertisements decry the parlous state of the Australian economy. Leard placed one such advertisement in 10 national newspapers on August 22, 1985, under the headline “Why aren’t we told the truth? Australia is going broke!”

In that advertisement, Leard cast an eye over Australia’s past. He declared, “At the turn of the century, Australia had the highest standard of living in the Western world and the Australian dollar [pound] was worth us$2.40. During this century we have slipped to No. 21 on the list of national prosperity and our dollar is now worth approximately us$0.70. What has happened?”

John Leard went on to answer his own question thus, “Over this period the nation has suffered terribly from weak, misguided and ineffective leadership at the national government level (Australia, the Worst is Yet to Come.).”

One of the observations that this true-blue Australian business leader made in the same advertisement was that the country’s “problems have accelerated over the past 15 years.” That took his perspective on Australia’s accelerating economic decline clear back to 1970.

Track forward a little over a decade on from John Leard’s 1985 advertising campaign. In 1998 a former adviser to Dame Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Story, declares that Australia is technically broke! In other words, by the end of the 20th century, in Story’s view, John Leard’s prophecy of a decade earlier about Australia being on the road to going broke has been fulfilled. Story mused at the time, “Australians seem liable to suffer the worst of all possible combinations: a weak and vulnerable exchange rate … soft to declining commodity prices, eroding reserves of foreign exchange (already at precariously low levels), increasing or persisting trade and current account deficits, and ever rising external debt and, of course, net external liabilities” (Economic Intelligence Review, September 1998).

Just a decade ago, Australia was bracketed together with East Asia by analysts in their overall assessments of economic and financial developments. This led to the Australian dollar suffering along with the East Asian currencies, which had fallen drastically due to the East Asian economic meltdown. In just two years, between 1996 and 1998, the Aussie dollar declined 21 percent in relation to the U.S. dollar.

Story commented at that point that, “To match the country’s net external liabilities, Australia’s official foreign exchange reserves would need to grow by more than 15 times” (ibid.). This was an untenable position for any country to be in. In fact, so painful was the realization of the country’s financial and economic predicament that both the government and the bureaucracy tended to just bury their heads in the sand over it. The result was that “the authorities console[d] themselves with spurious calculations, when, in point of fact, Australia is technically bankrupt” (ibid.).

Boom-Bust Cycle

Fast forward a further seven years to the year 2005. The weak commodity prices of the 1980s have morphed into a commodity boom. Australia is riding a wave of high demand and increasing prices for its raw materials. But has this changed the fundamentals of its monetary policy so that it can take full advantage of this boom?

In essence, still nothing has changed in the mindset of those who control the nation’s purse strings. The same problems are extant at the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia as have been there, so entrenched, for over 35 years! The failure to grasp the fundamentals of economic reality is still then leading to spurious calculations and they in turn are conveying a picture to the Australian public about the Australian economy that is just not valid.

Gerard Jackson, economics editor for BrookesNews.com, commented in May 2005, “The current state of the money supply suggests that the Australian economy is heading for a recession. As expected, the role that monetary policy plays in causing the boom-bust cycle is completely lost on the Australian Treasury” (May 9, 2005).

Both Story and Jackson mouthed the very same warnings to Australia as John Leard did back in 1985, though their opinions were separated by more than a decade. Simply put, these economic realists believe that Canberra, together with Australia’s economics intelligentsia, generally lacks a basic understanding of the laws of finance and economics. Jackson pinpoints “the awful state of economic debate in this country regarding booms and busts and the nature of inflation. … Without a doubt, monetary policy is in an awful mess in this country because those who are paid to know better have no real understanding of the power and nature of money” (ibid.).

Move forward another year. In 2006, the results of the “experts” failing to grasp and apply economic and financial fundamentals has produced a blowout in Australia’s trade deficit. “… September [2006] saw Australia’s trade deficit nearly double …. In addition, exports dropped by 1 percent …. Despite these figures some economists are making still Pollyannish statements about resources helping out by expanding early next year. How can anyone with any genuine economic training [be] optimistic about these figures. Month after month and year after year we have been running a deficit” (ibid., Nov. 20, 2006).

Nearly a year before the subprime mortgage bust hit, Jackson explained the cycle that led to the housing market crisis in respect of Australia this way: “The Reserve Bank has kept interest rates artificially low which in turn caused the banking system to recklessly expand credit thus fueling the housing boom, domestic borrowing and the demand for imports” (ibid.).

So what was the verdict of this economic realist at that time? “Australia has been running a reckless monetary policy for about 10 years” (ibid., Nov. 13, 2006). Once again, John Leard’s earlier prognosis is given strength by latter-day evidence.

Today’s Economy

This all brings us up to the present. Again we ask the question, has anything changed to awaken Australia’s leaders to the realities of the true state of the national economy?

In the lead-up to the Australian federal elections of November 2007, the Australian public was sold the line that Aussie banks had no real exposure to the U.S. subprime fiasco. Nonetheless, anz bank ceo Michael Smith soon after described the credit problems that subsequently escalated within Australia as a “financial services bloodbath” (Daily Reckoning, Feb. 19, 2008). Australian banks have in fact been just as worried as their overseas counterparts about their level of exposure to falling asset values and the escalation in borrowing costs.

Writing from Melbourne, the Daily Reckoning’s Dan Denning observed, “The banks have become the front line in the war between investors and deflation. Deflation is winning as asset values are falling for stocks, bonds and other securitized assets” (ibid.).

As Denning mused, “[I]t’s pretty obvious there’s some major instability in Australia’s financial markets. In the age of leverage (or deleveraging), it looks like it’s going to be tough for banks and financial stocks to increase earnings” (ibid., March 31, 2008).

On March 31, 2008, the Australian Broadcasting Commission aired a program on Australia’s debt crisis called Debtland. The abc’s overview of it read: “Mortgages doled out to people on disability support pensions; loans to refugees with no English and no jobs that leave their families with next to nothing to live on; home loans so large they push borrowers below the poverty line …. This isn’t America’s subprime meltdown—it’s Australia’s debt debacle, the legacy of a credit binge that’s sent household debt through the roof and lending standards through the floor. Now the hangover is kicking in.

“As many as 300,000 Australian households may be at risk of losing their homes. It mightn’t take much—another rate rise or two, a family illness or maybe just the car breaking down—to send people under. And for thousands more who are better off but feeling the pressure, this credit crisis is getting too close to home.”

Of course, corporate spreadsheets presenting data on extremely complex monetary instruments, viewed through rose-tinted glasses and swallowed hook, line and sinker by a largely ignorant mass media, to be foisted off by them onto a largely gullible public, shade a lot of the murk underlying the current risks to the Australian economy.

“[T]his reduction of a complex economy to a massive pile of spreadsheets and economic data has its roots in an obscure group of German economists called the Historicists. … The Historicists didn’t believe in general, universal economic laws” (Daily Reckoning, Feb. 6, 2008).

The root cause of Australia’s and the rest of the world’s current economic woes is simply that their monetary policies are not underpinned by the basic laws of finance and economics.

Too Few Eggs—Too Few Baskets

The average Aussie may think the massive demand for Australia’s raw materials will bail the country out of any economic hole into which it risks sinking. On the surface that may appear to be so—as long as the demand is spread across a number of customers and as long as the strength in demand continues. Australia’s problem with this is that it has too few eggs in too few baskets.

The largest Australian commodity eggs are iron ore and coal, with bauxite, uranium, diamonds, heavy and precious metals figuring also as sizably in demand. Many of the largest baskets are, unfortunately, from nations that historically do not rate very high on the scale of respect for human rights. China is the main contender at this point, followed closely by Japan, with Russia and India looming large in the background.

As nations compete to secure the raw materials and energy necessary to feed their expanding economies at competitive prices, China leads the way via a huge expansion into Australia’s minerals extraction and processing industries, especially in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

This will be a test issue for Australia’s Mandarin-speaking prime minister, Kevin Rudd. Chinese enterprises are seeking to invest heavily in Australia’s natural resources—primarily iron ore, bauxite and uranium—by seeking an increasing slice of the companies that mine and process these raw materials. In the process they are coming up against government legislation designed to fend off prospects of Australia engaging in a fire sale of the greatest assets the country possesses, its mineral wealth. With its rural industry ravaged by years of drought, if Australia yields to foreign pressure to sell off major shareholdings of its mining companies, it will simply destroy any prospect of developing a sound economy.

Dennis Shanahan, political editor for the Australian newspaper, highlighted the challenge that faces the Australian government. “China has complained to the Rudd government that its application of foreign investment rules blocks Chinese-backed companies from bidding for natural resources in a growing commercial and economic dispute between the two nations.

“Kevin Rudd faces a diplomatic wrangle … against a background of rising trade and investment tension behind China’s expansion into Australia’s resources boom” (March 19, 2008).

Economically, Australia is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Being a credit-based economy, its banks and financial institutions are nakedly exposed to the global credit crunch. Its systemic trade and current account deficits, overvalued dollar and burden of external debt hardly place it in a sound bargaining position when it comes to arguing against selling off the farm to major customers such as China. Australia’s economic future simply rides on the back of world commodity prices and continuing demand from Asia, principally China. Australia’s gamble is that the demand from the growth economies of East Asia will continue to bail it out of its systemic economic woes.

A Country at Risk

It’s easy to list the high risks that the Australian economy is currently facing: the fact that rising commodity prices and rapid monetary expansion—the driving forces behind Australia’s 10-year boom—are simply unsustainable; the fact that, because Australia’s economic future is so highly dependent upon that of China, any sharp slowdown in China poses a threat to the Australian economy; an already collapsing monetary-induced housing-price bubble; a sharp decline in household savings from 5.1 percent in 1991 to 2.7 percent in 1999 to minus 1.7 percent in 2004.

Given the systemic economic problems that the Australian economy has endured for decades, the country is hardly in a decent position to weather the storm of any rolling, global economic crunch.

Dan Denning put the problem that Australia and its brother Anglo-Saxon nations face today into easy-to-understand terms: “[D]ebt-based wealth—whether in the UK, the U.S., or Australia—is the road to ruin. Some people are just now finding out how far along that road we are. We’re very far indeed” (Daily Reckoning, Feb. 6, 2008).

Over 20 years ago, John Leard warned of the results if the nation refused to return to workable economic policies. Australia is on the verge of finding out just how right he was.

The shift to the left in Australian politics in 2007 was counter that of much of the rest of Western society, in particular a rising Europe. Even Britain, caught for a decade in a socialist warp, is showing signs that it is tiring of the societal and economic confusion that a decade of center-left politics has produced.

With the consummation of the Reagan-Thatcher years that saw an end to Soviet dominance in left-wing ideology, socialists stood aghast at the massive collapse of the whole Soviet political economy constructed as it was on the sand of godless, anti-capitalist communism. The icon to the Marxist-Leninist ideology they had embraced and foisted off to wide-eyed students at their colleges and universities had been measured and found to be greatly wanting. The result was an ideological vacuum within leftist politics in Western society.

By the mid-1990s, the “third way” theory began to fill that void, in particular breathing fresh life into parties on the left of the political divide. Thus was born the center-left movement.

At the time, the Philadelphia Trumpet pointed to the fact that the third way was little more than rank fascism dressed in new clothes. Committed socialists found it an easy transition from their Marxist-Leninist foundations to embracing this third way alternative.

World leaders during this period—in particular U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German President Gerhard Schröder, and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer—were all proponents of the third way. During the most fashionable period of the third way influence on government policy in the United States, Britain and Germany, government policies concentrated, in the main, on soft issues.

The center-left parties even crossed over the capitalist line to appeal to middle-class voters as responsible managers of post-Cold War era economies and as social reformers. Labor market restructuring, huge expenditure on education, a soft line on immigration—all of these issues gained the center-left much support through the latter half of the final decade of the 20th century and on into the early years of the first decade of the 21st century.

Yet, much like its failed socialist mentors, communism and fascism, the third way is now being seen by many of its middle-class followers as having failed to deliver on its promises. Hence the drift from the left to the right as witnessed by election results and opinion polls in Europe. This drift to the right of center is also apparent in opinion polls within Britain.

Within Australia things appear to be different.

Australia voted for a change from a decade of conservatism, electing a center-left government in November 2007.

New Government Takes the Helm

Step aside from the brouhaha surrounding the economy, and at center of the political argument in Australia is the key issue of values. This was nowhere more apparent than during the confusing discourse that emanated during the Rudd government’s infamous Australia 2020 Summit of April 2007.

Since the 1960s unleashed the cultural storm that hacked away at the underpinnings of Anglo-Saxon culture, the commonsense virtues of the society that built the greatest empire in history—colonizing and civilizing many lands, including the island lands of Australia and New Zealand—have not only been brought into question, but largely replaced by a whole swag of politically correct “values.”

Almost 50 years of the feminization of Australian society has pushed a false idea on gender to the point that the male is emasculated, the female masculanized. Meanwhile, a whole subculture of androgynous weirdos have wormed their way into positions of influence to continue the work of perverting the very foundation of nationhood—monogamous marriage and the home-based family. In addition to the impact of social change instigated by the feminist, politically correct and homosexual lobbies, the multicultural movement is trying to impose on Australia a mixed-race overlay that risks the nation losing a hold on the bedrock culture that once made it one of the most appealing of countries to live in.

The key to just how a new government will handle the affairs of a nation is often set by the tone of its first few months in office. Australia’s new socialist, third way (center-left for the pedantic) government produced a document following its initial three months in office called “First 100 Days—Achievements of the Rudd Government.” One commentator, aware of the new prime minister’s love affair with China, called the document the “little beige book,” a play on Chairman Mao’s infamous “little red book,” often seen in the hip pocket of university students in the 1960s and ’70s who have since become embedded as part of the center-left establishment in Australia (Australian, Feb. 29, 2008).

What is interesting is that the main themes the new government set out to address are so typical of the old third way approach that has been tried and found wanting in the leading European nations of the Northern Hemisphere. The prime minister’s report “outlines our first steps—fighting inflation, taking decisive action on climate change, improving our health and hospital system, investing in education and putting fairness back into Australian workplaces.”

Apart from fighting inflation, these are all center-left, soft issues. Even so, while fighting inflation would be a fundamental platform of any government leading Australia today, it will be interesting to note if this masks any effort to restructure Australia’s economy to reflect what third wayers in Europe sought in implementing what one observer declared was a failed “combination of moderate neoliberal economic and fiscal policies along with an insistence on the continuing role of the state, including the welfare state, and a liberal-progressive standpoint on cultural issues …” (Prospect, March 28, 2008).

So there was really nothing new in this assemblage of issues proposed by Australia’s newly elected government in early 2008. What is most interesting is that they were emphasized as the “first steps” that government envisaged as it took over the reins of power. But to the electorate in Europe, these are old steps that clearly have not worked. Australia should have looked more closely at the results of center-left politics in Europe, where their failure has caused a clear drift to the right in the electorate.

For example, concerning the center-left approach to running economies, “the promise of the reformers … has lost credibility. … Youth unemployment in Europe stands at 18.7 percent.

[S]econdary school graduation rates in the EU have barely changed in 20 years. … Most of the center-left parties seem clueless in the face of the decline of their technocratic project. … The project must free itself of the economism of the third way …” (ibid.).

Yet apart from these demonstrated failures of center-left politics in Europe, there are two overwhelming negative impacts that have resulted from the efforts of these third wayers to reconstruct society to their version of the utopianist dream: the impact of immigration and of socialism on the fundamental virtues that are the very foundation of a stable society.

Political scientist Ernst Hillebrand describes the impact of center-left policies on society in cutting terms. Concerning the impact of increased immigration on the societies of European countries, Hillebrand commented, “Multiculturalism … has failed. It has led to fragmented societies and ghettos of marginalized minorities in which the mutual frustrations of indigenous populations and immigrants have increased” (ibid.).

On the question of the impact of the value relativism that liberal socialists and their fellow travelers—the feminist movement, the homosexual lobby and the politically correct police—have foisted off onto Western society, Hillebrand, viewing the evidence, declared that these “values” that have replaced the basic commonsense virtues of civil society “are increasingly being perceived as problematic or dysfunctional.”

This, perhaps more than any other failure of the center-left, is leading to the increasing swing back to conservatism in Europe. As Hillebrand observed, “There are signs that in Western societies, a creeping change of values is taking place which the center-left parties seem not to understand. … Opinion polls indicate a slow shift in the direction of traditional values” (ibid.).

The light has dawned in Europe. The center-leftists—the third wayers—are on the back foot on the Continent because of the failed policies borne of this ideology. Is Australia’s government, like its left-of-center cohorts in Europe, proving itself “clueless” in the face of the task the Australian electorate has given it? In fact, how “clueless” was the electorate for voting in a government based on what is now, so obviously, an outmoded and failed political ideology, that of the center-left?

At a time when Australia needs to show some backbone, rather than kowtowing to China in order to keep in its good books to retain its custom for its mineral wealth, it is showing the reverse. At a time when Australia needs to place its ethnic minorities in perspective as just that—minorities—subject to the laws, the cultural practices and traditions of its Caucasian majority population, it has elected a government with soft policies on multiculturalism. At a time when the strength of the Asian flood to Australia’s north is rapidly rising, Australia ought to be strengthening its alliances with its fellow Anglo-Saxon nations, rather than withdrawing troop support from the war on terror.

This is just sound, basic common sense.

Yet common sense was never high in the order of “values” propounded by liberal socialists, otherwise Western society would not be in such a mess today.

The greatest need, not only in Australia, not only in the Western world, but around the entire globe, is for a form of government that is rooted and grounded in a system of common laws, statutes and judgments that guarantee to produce the virtues of a true, peaceful, unified civilization. Believe it or not, such a government already exists! It just has not been implemented globally … yet! But it will be, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

Read Isaiah 9:6-7 for a view of the future of this globe that is both stunning and breathtaking in its scope and impact. The contrast between that government and the governments of today is as that between day and night. Even a hard-bitten Aussie, provided one has an open mind, should not fail to be moved by the promise of that vision! It’s summed up in this short passage within the book upon which the true foundational values of Australia were built.

The organization that publishes this booklet has no axe to grind on the subject of race. Our objective is to present the plain and simple, provable truth on current events and provide predictive analysis as to their future outcome. Inevitably that often involves taking situations back to their source to trace the origins—the cause—of any given event’s outcome at any point in time. Very often this involves tracing the roots of a given race and airing its history so that predictable national behavior patterns can then be clearly and demonstrably seen to be influencing the outcome of events of the day.

In our analyses of world events, we strive to stick to the very best of sources, reinforce our argument with clear logic underpinned by that which the foundational chief apostle of the original Church of God, Peter, declared is the “more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19).

To this end, we do not subscribe to any politically correct doctoring of the facts. We simply stand on our record, which can be thoroughly verified by a search of our archive (visit theTrumpet.com).

So it is with the case of the Australian Aboriginal people and their influence on present-day society in Australia. We are interested only in the pure unvarnished truth on the subject.

That situation has been so politicized over the years, so spoiled by do-gooders and demonizers on both sides—black and white—so removed from the reality of basic cause and effect by the politically correct movement, that it is hard for any person with the will to see some logic in it all so as to even begin to understand why a reversion to tribalism was enacted on the floor of the nation’s parliament at Parliament’s opening under the newly installed federal government on February 12, 2008.

Associated Press reported that “Aborigines in white body paint danced and sang traditional songs in Australia’s national Parliament … in a historic ceremony many hoped would mark a new era of race relations in the country” (Feb. 12, 2008). The report went on to describe the acceptance by Australia’s new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, of an Aboriginal welcome stick from local Aboriginal activist Matilda House: “‘A welcome to country acknowledges our people and pays respect to our ancestors, the spirits who created the lands,’ said House, who crossed the hall’s marble floor barefoot and draped in a kangaroo pelt cloak to give her speech.”

This is rank pagan nonsense.

What an insult to our founding fathers and to the God that parliamentarians ostensibly acknowledge at the opening of every parliamentary session with a repetition of the “Lord’s Prayer.” But this all mirrors what occurred in the U.S. Congress in 2007 when a Hindu was invited to open Congress in prayer to a foreign god—this within an institution founded upon a constitution underpinned by the law of God, the Ten Commandments. Equally mind-numbing, across the Atlantic the head of the Anglican Church invited the British to embrace the laws of a foreign religion in lieu of the ancient system underpinned by British common law, itself in principle an outgrowth of the Ten Commandments.

What is happening to civilized societies when a highly developed First World nation openly permits half-naked tribal romps, based on pagan tribal rites attached to snake worship, to be performed in the very heart of its national seat of government?

An Apology

This pagan pantomime was all followed the next day by a nationally televised apology from Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd “to thousands of Aborigines who were taken from their families as children under now discredited assimilation policies abolished in 1970—an act that many people view as a vital step toward reconciling black and white Australians” (ibid.).

The problem is that this whole “sorry” business is all akin to the great global warming hoax. It’s based on fiction, with no provable data to back up the false claims coming from the foremost voices from the Aboriginal and leftist white enclaves within Australian society.

One of the most sensible voices within Australia observing this phenomenon of the anti-white, racist, left-wing apologists is that of Australian conservative commentator Andrew Bolt. In 2006 he published a book, Still Not Sorry, refuting the fiction of Australia’s “Stolen Generation” of Aboriginal children. In a downright practical approach to research that seems anathema to the left, Bolt actually interviewed many of the most vocal of the proponents for the big “sorry” vote in Australia.

So, what did he find?

At best, the poorly constructed framework of a myth, with no real foundation in reality.

Bolt publicized that research in a column in the Herald Sun newspaper: “In Victoria, for instance, the state Stolen Generations Taskforce concluded there had been ‘no formal policy for removing children.’ Ever.

“In the Northern Territory, the Federal Court found no sign of ‘any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged.’

“In Tasmania, the Stolen Generations Alliance admitted ‘there were no removal policies as such.’

“In South Australia, the Supreme Court last year found no government policy to steal Aboriginal children there, either. Rather, stealing black children had been ‘without legal authority, beyond power and contrary to authoritative legal advice’” (Feb. 8, 2008).

Bolt reiterated the amazing fact that the left has hoodwinked much of the Australian population into swallowing the myth that previous Australian governments had literally stolen Aboriginal children from their parents in what the leftist academic Prof. Robert Manne, of La Trobe University, terms an effort to “keep white Australia pure.”

As Bolt rightly claims, Australia’s prime minister has now apologized to the minority Aboriginal community in Australia for this fiction despite the fact that “no one has yet named even 10 of these 100,000 children we are told were stolen” (ibid.).

One of the disparities that arises when two foreign cultures meet is the clash between law, custom and tradition. This phenomenon was given wide publicity with the publishing of Samuel Huntingdon’s well-known book The Clash of Civilizations in the mid-1990s. In this context, if we are to take the debate surrounding the so-called “Stolen Generation” back to the source, and then compare the historical evidence of the treatment of whites by blacks and blacks by whites within the context of the times, it yields a far different picture to that being portrayed by the leftist elements within Australian society today. These are those who would rewrite history in their own terms, based on their own peculiar ideology.

Poetic Justice

In essence, the effect on Australian society of the tribal antics allowed on the floor of Australia’s national House of Parliament, added to the public apology by Prime Minister Rudd to an Australian minority for what is at base a leftist myth, will have results no different to those feared by commentator Melanie Phillips following the archbishop of Canterbury’s declaration on deferring similarly to a minority culture within Britain.

In her daily blog for the Spectator, Phillips incisively declared that “without a strong religious core providing the moral, ethical and cultural ballast, the society it has been instrumental in forming becomes intensely vulnerable to collapse and colonization. The defense mounted by politicians becomes an empty shell …” (Feb. 8, 2008).

The argument fits perfectly the unbelievable scenes witnessed in Canberra in February 2008. The “moral, ethical and cultural ballast” upon which the Federation of Australia was established is, under Australia’s leftist government, made to play second fiddle to the tribal rites of a peoples that it has sought over the past 200 years to civilize away from the ignorance of rank paganism.

But all chickens come home to roost.

As Andrew Bolt reported, an incident that flew right in the face of the government’s apology to the Australian Aboriginal community occurred right under its nose, in the national capital, just two days prior to the sorry apology. “Kevin Rudd will this morning say his sorry just two days after the latest baby was ‘stolen’—from the Aboriginal tent embassy 300 meters away.

“Nothing better symbolises the absurdity of the prime minister’s apology to the ‘stolen generations.’

“The 6-week-old baby was taken on Monday by two Department of Community Services officers who judged it was in danger in that squalid camp, now filled with Aborigines in Canberra to celebrate Rudd’s sorry. …

“[T]his latest baby was in fact ‘stolen’ for the same kind of reasons that had us ‘steal’ Aboriginal children before.

“The child’s mother is reportedly in jail, and the Daily Telegraph said the father had lived in the tent embassy for six months. If you’ve seen that ‘embassy,’ you’ll know it is no fit place for such a terribly young child” (Herald Sun, Feb. 13, 2008).

Poetic justice.

Mr. Rudd was simply hoist by his own petard.

But did this dent the impervious exterior of the leftist, anti-white socialist element in Australia? No more than it would have a similar merry band of ignoramuses if such an incident occurred in Washington, London, Toronto or Wellington.

From the time of the Spanish Armada, through Trafalgar, Waterloo, World War I and World War II there was a freedom-loving people that fought and defeated tyranny to guarantee those very freedoms that we in the Anglo-Saxon nations enjoy today and have so generously extended to the minority groups that exist—indeed, still flee tyranny so as to enjoy life—within the main bastions of those freedoms today, the Anglo-Saxon nations.

But the sad fact is the fifth column of resistance to the ongoing enjoyment of those freedoms too often works actively among, and within, our own free societies. Too often they hail from our very own kith and kin. These are those who, ideologically, have so willingly and ignorantly been taken advantage of by those influences that are intent on actually destroying the very freedoms that enable them to practice treason and sedition within the very societies that guarantee the open, unfettered practice of their hedonistic lifestyles.

There’s clearly something very wrong here.

In the real universe, there is cause and there is effect. To quote Herbert W. Armstrong, “God is letting the law of cause and effect take full toll” (Mystery of the Ages). There is a cause for racial tension. There is a cause for the basic self-hate of the average liberal socialist in our midst, and for their hatred of those institutions and solid virtues upon which a sound society is based. A thorough study of the chapter titled “Mystery of Civilization” contained in Herbert W. Armstrong’s book Mystery of the Ages will enlighten the reader to both cause and effect of—and also to the solution for—the division among the races and within society so prevalent today.

“Five teenage boys from a Pacific Islander background face 101 charges after they allegedly attacked staff, students and property at Merrylands High School with baseball bats, samurai swords and machetes. Sydney newspapers suggest the attack was just the tip of the iceberg of a growing gang problem in western Sydney, driven by a romantic inspiration from Los Angeles’ organized gang culture and fueled by the Internet” (abc News, April 9, 2008).

This was not the first such instance of gang violence perpetrated in Sydney’s western district by a subculture of young hoodlums who choose to place themselves on the fringe of society, their young minds deeply seared by an uncivilized mentality of sheer savagery. “The rampage at Merrylands High School is the latest in a series of attacks in western Sydney by a gang of mostly Islander teenagers, who brazenly display guns, knives and cash on their social networking websites. Some of the five teenagers accused of the school attack gestured obscenely yesterday on their way to court to face more than 100 charges of assault and affray. … The rampage has opened a window on a world of violence, drugs and guns grown out of a veneration of American criminal culture” (Sydney Morning Herald, April 9, 2008). In some of these youths, the savagery is so deeply embedded that incarceration in the company of hardened criminals is preferred by them to the freedom of the streets.

Over the past 40 years, we have grown used to seeing the progressive defanging of the law under the creeping influence of social engineers intent on severing all connection between civilized society and the Anglo-Saxon traditions that have fostered the most stable of societies for centuries.

So it came as a bit of a shock to read of a government official actually recommending the creation of a new law to permit the specific penalizing of such criminal acts as these young savages were guilty of staging at Merrylands High. “The [New South Wales] premier, Morris Iemma, told Parliament yesterday that he had asked the attorney general, John Hatzistergos, to investigate whether a new offence needed to be created in the wake of the Merrylands rampage to cover incidents in schools” (ibid.).

How things change in a couple of generations.

Back in the 1940s and ’50s, such a scene as burst upon the morning assembly at Merrylands High School April 7, 2008, would have been unthinkable. Not until the American movies Blackboard Jungle and James Dean’s Rebel Without a Cause hit the silver screen in Australia in the mid-1950s did we dream of such a thing as school campus violence even being a possibility. Even then it took years for the type of teenage rebellion characterized by such media to begin infiltrating into the city schools of Australia. And that was only after we started to fiddle with the basic judicial underpinnings of our society.

Once the concept of emphasizing the importance of “self-esteem” became more important than that of exercising individual personal responsibility for one’s actions, the liberal socialists began to have a heyday with the law, watering it down in so many instances to the point that the criminal was often paid more deference in the courtroom than his victim. So it is a little heartening to see a government official touting for more teeth in Australia’s increasingly emasculated law.

There are simple causes for what happened at Merrylands in April 2008. It’s not as if we couldn’t see it coming.

The Importance of Family

I remember while working in Australia’s national capital, Canberra, back in the mid-1970s, researching Australia’s new Family Law Act, the more I studied that act, the more concerned I grew. Here was a whole swag of legislation designed to tear at the very vitals of Australian society, destined to rip the very heart out of the basic building block of its society, the nuclear family based on the monogamous marriage of a breadwinner and his helpmeet, both committed to raising their offspring within a nurturing home environment. This act tipped the balance toward family breakup with its subtle incentives for single-parent status and its disincentives for the retention of “hearth and home.”

None other than Sir Winston Churchill, champion of those freedoms that have underpinned Anglo-Saxon culture for centuries, declared, “There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened and maintained.”

Take the defense of those virtues out of the law, and societal catastrophe will soon follow.

Fiddling With the Fundamentals

Given this trend, we should hardly be surprised by the findings of Australia’s inquiry in 2008 into the reasons for the rise in dysfunctional families within the country. According to abc News: “A new report is calling for a $1 billion funding increase to tackle what it says is the worsening problem of youth homelessness. The inquiry by the National Youth Commission has found the number of young homeless people in Australia has doubled in the last two decades. It says about 36,000 Australians under the age of 25 do not have stable accommodation ….

“It says the money needs to go towards more accommodation and early intervention programs to stop the causes of homelessness, like family breakdown.

“Anglicare Australia executive director Kasy Chambers is endorsing the report’s findings, saying it shows the complexity of the problem of youth homelessness. ‘It’s not just about not having a roof over your head, there are mental health issues, there are substance abuse issues, there are issues from the young people’s family or origin, and time and time again we see this greater complexity,’ she said.

“She says governments now need to follow through on the evidence in the report. ‘We’re seeing … increasing complexity, and we’re seeing people who are becoming very marginalized from the rest of society,’ she said” (April 8, 2008).

Yes. Take away the simplicity of good basic common sense, start to fiddle with the fundamentals of good old British common law, and you end up with the complexity of rank confusion.

Just how far Australia has drifted from its cultural moorings is further revealed in another report. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote March 13, 2008: “In a wide-ranging new geo-demographic survey of the country, researchers have found that unmarried women now outnumber married women for the first time since World War I.

“The Mosaic 2008 analysis reveals 51.4 percent of women are opting for the singles lifestyle …. The survey also estimates that up to a quarter of women will never have children, while spuds [single person urban dwellings] account for more than 25 percent of all dwellings in Australia—a figure that’s expected to soar over the next 30 years.”

Australia is reaping the results of the onslaught of its mid-20th-century social reformers.

Compounding this devastating picture of a society cut adrift from its traditional moorings, the power of the multiculturalists to add further confusion to an already volatile societal powder keg is revealed in Mosaic 2008’s revelation that “50 percent of all Australians have one parent born overseas, of whom only 14 percent were born in the UK; Africa, India, Indonesia, Singapore and China are the fastest-growing sources of immigrants” (ibid.).

The strength of Australia as a nation was once rooted in the virtues referred to by Winston Churchill as “the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society.” Those virtues are not of African, Indian, Indonesian, Singaporean or Chinese origin. The virtues that Churchill referred to are those same virtues that learned historian Gertrude Himmelfarb sees as having given remarkable stability to the Anglo-Saxons during the time of the greatest reach of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Contrasting the strength of the moral society that underpinned the power of imperial Britain with the subculture that inhabits many a city street in America, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand today, Himmelfarb declares, “Where Victorians had the satisfaction of witnessing a significant improvement in their condition, we are confronting a considerable deterioration in ours” (The De-Moralization of Society). Now that’s a reality that too few in today’s government within Australia would acknowledge!

Himmelfarb points to the innate tendency of the human mind to blind itself to reality, noting, “For a long time social critics and policy-makers have found it hard to face up to the realities of our moral condition, in spite of the statistical evidence” (ibid.). So how many more surveys do we have to engage in to lift the blind off the fact that violent images in print or in video format beget violent behavior such as that glorified by the Merrylands teenage thugs? How much research do we yet have to undertake to prove the reality that perverse behavior begets increasingly more perverse behavior? How many more reviews of the traditional nuclear family do we have to conduct to reach the conclusion that single-parent families produce unbalanced children?

The findings of Australia’s National Youth Commission and of Mosaic 2008 were all entirely predictable 30 years ago.

There’s only one way that Australia’s increasing social catastrophe will be solved. And it starts and ends with good, solid family government!

Reading the war diary of an Australian soldier who fought at Gallipoli presents an amazing contrast to today’s rudderless society.

One of Australia’s great sons was the Australian bushman, geologist, miner, hunter, explorer, author and Anzac soldier Ion Idriess. A true bushman at heart like many of his compatriots, Idriess, as a budding young author, wrote down his observations, thoughts and reactions amid the heat of battle in some of the bravest stands that soldiery have ever had to make in modern warfare. Idriess’s accounts of the soldierly bravery of men who were average members of society of the day and their coolness in the face of battle, present a spectacular contrast to the orientation of Anglo-Saxon society today. The extent of sheer manliness, natural courage and the self-sacrificing initiative exhibited by those who fought on the impossible beachhead of Gallipoli and on the desert sands of the Sinai is quite foreign to much of today’s self-indulgent generation.

The Turks who fought these British, Australian and New Zealand forces called the Australians “mad bushmen” for the tremendous risks they took in the face of Turkish fire. These Australian soldiers—the sons of pioneering bush stock, bred to the land, possessing the natural inventiveness of the farmer, accustomed to the instinct for self-preservation as well as looking out for one’s mate in strange territory, and natural horsemen to boot—quickly gained the respect of the enemy.

What is most profound in reading these real-time World War i accounts of a footslogging infantryman is the thread of sound common sense that runs through them. The examples of bravery that Idriess sets out in his memoir all bespeak sound, basic, self-possessed, cool-headed common sense in the midst of the chaos of bloody, terrifying warfare that carried the Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) through to embedding their name in history.

This contrasts profoundly with the tremendous lack of common sense so prevalent today within society, in particular within the intelligentsia of the nation. Anglo-Saxon systems of education have whittled away at the young developing minds over the past half-century and more to produce a generation that increasingly lacks any semblance of a moral compass. The result is an approach to life that is but a largely electronically driven and cosseted version of that of their hardy forefathers.

Losing the Link to History

The image of today’s youth is too often one of slack-jawed youth whose sole exercise is that which their two thumbs get playing the latest electronic game or texting their fellows in the banal language of the genre. It presents a contrast of extremes with the generation that grandfathered them and fought to guarantee them the freedoms they either take for granted or tend to abuse so readily today.

A number of commentators have compared these days to the 1920s. At that time, gay abandon ruled in a libertine post-Great War society that had really thought the war to end all wars had been fought and that the League of Nations would enable sensible negotiation to peacefully resolve any future differences the nations might have.

As we know, that generation was severely tested by the shock of the greatest financial crash that modern Western society has ever known, to be followed by an even greater world war for which they were terribly ill prepared.

In January 2008 it was reported that in both France and Germany the last surviving World War i veterans of those nations died within a few days of each other. In November 2005, the last of the British World War i veterans died. As of this writing, only one veteran of the Great War survives in the United States, one in Canada and one in Australia. The direct link between the “war to end all wars” and the 21st century is almost severed.

The youngest of World War ii veterans are now octogenarians. They have lived to witness schoolchildren in Britain thinking that Winston Churchill was a fictional character and, in Australia, a review board recommending that the Anzac history be cut from school history curricula.

Our last direct link with true victory in the global hot wars against tyranny—the last of the wars truly won by the Anglo-Saxon nations and their allies—is this generation who fought the enemy and triumphed 63 years ago.

Bryan Forbes, British film actor, screenwriter and director, who served in the Intelligence Corp of the British Army, commented, “My generation was the one, largely state-educated and reasonably literate, that fought in a war against acknowledged tyrannies to preserve basic and long-cherished freedoms. Since then what world have we been gradually forced to accept? A new religion of political correctness daily reaches fresh heights of idiocy, ignoring the fact that a society that willingly retreats from common sense is ultimately doomed” (Spectator, Jan. 23, 2008).

An anonymous ditty making the rounds on the Worldwide Web ends in a requiem for common sense: “Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

“He is survived by his three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is to Blame, and I’m a Victim.

“Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.”

One wonders how the free world would have survived had the kaiser and the Ottomans been confronted by bands of troops who put their “human rights” first before God, king and country, who blamed their mates for giving their position away instead of going to their aid in battle, or who claimed that their country had victimized them for a mistaken landing rather than fighting to glory at Gallipoli and going on to liberate Jerusalem.

Veterans such as Forbes marvel at what subsequent generations have done with the freedoms so hard won by that earlier generation’s combination of common sense, bravery, courage and willing self-sacrifice under Churchillian leadership.

Visionary Churchillian leadership died out with the fading of Churchill’s generation from the scene by the close of the 20th century. With that generation, also, it seems, died plain, simple common sense, an understanding of the virtues that underpin a civil society, together with our will to courageously pursue the enemy in battle until vanquished.

The Age of Common Sense

In the age of common sense, one naturally knew one’s duty. In the age of common sense, due deference was paid to those in authority. Though one might grumble at its imposition, responsibly directed authority was readily accepted, for it was understood that disrespect of that authority led to appropriate discipline, otherwise confusion would reign. These rules of civility were taught from the cradle in the age of common sense.

In the age of common sense, masculine was clearly masculine, feminine was definitely feminine, and anyone who confused the clear, God-given roles of either was shunned as clearly that—confused, or worse, perverted in outlook and behavior. In the age of common sense, pedophilia was never a headline.

In the age of common sense, soldier and bravery were synonymous. One example Idriess gives of this common understanding, indeed, common spirit of courage that pervaded the Anzacs at Gallipoli during World War i, was the eagerness of the wounded to return to battle. His account of merrily returning to the front after the boredom of hospitalization recovering from war wounds reads, “We all know what to expect ahead of us. It was the old Australian spirit leaving Cairo and Alexandria yesterday. Yelling and cheering, laughing and joking at the least little thing. That is the spirit that will never die” (The Desert Column).

Yet, the danger is that the confusion engendered by the politically-correct enclaves within our Anglo-Saxon societies may well be in process of quenching that spirit.

Commenting on the efforts by the politically correct police to obliterate common sense, Melanie Phillips in a blog for the Spectator observed: “Last night’s Moral Maze, on which I am a panelist, discussed the Home Office guidelines which advise officials not to call Islamists Islamists or Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists but to use instead euphemisms based on the premise that the jihad against the West is not a war of religion but merely ‘violent extremism’ and that the jihadis are not jihadis but ‘criminals.’ So gripped is the Home Office by the belief that speaking the truth to Muslims will ‘alienate’ them that its Orwellian attempt to manipulate the language descends into pure farce when it suggests that even the word ‘Islamophobia’ should be avoided since this can be misunderstood as a slur on Islam and perceived as singling out Muslims” (Feb. 7, 2008).

This extreme version of political correctness is the consummation of government-endorsed efforts to brainwash whole populations into a totally confused mindset that cannot distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, acceptable behavior from perversion nor truth from open lying and deceit.

Phillips’s reaction to this effort at the mind control of the masses: “I found the program deeply troubling, indeed terrifying, since it revealed so much deep denial of the blindingly obvious among otherwise intelligent people who on this subject appear to be impervious to facts and to reason itself” (ibid.).

The danger here is that, should we subscribe to such banal claptrap, we may soon be unable to clearly distinguish just who is our enemy!

Twin Terrors

Just short of a century ago, the Anzacs fought a tenacious Islamic enemy. Though they had respect for the Turks’ fighting ability, they knew, without doubt, that they were the enemy, and they fought that enemy with every fiber of their being. No half measures—they fought for outright victory!

In 2000, three members of the Australian Parliament moved a motion that the Anzacs’ stand in the Middle East never be forgotten in Australian history.

In the course of that discussion, one member reiterated the history of a famous Anzac mounted infantry charge: “It should be borne in mind that there were 4,500 Turks in the trenches. Behind them was wave after wave of barbed wire. Behind that were wave after wave of machine guns, and cannons were behind them. They extended from Gaza to the wells at Beersheba. … The Aussies, as Aussies do, said, ‘Give us a crack at it.’ They charged. The Turks could not believe that anybody would be foolish enough to take them on head-on. Today it is history that not only did they get through Gaza and the wells of Beersheba, but they were the first into Jerusalem and liberated Jerusalem. They changed history forever” (May 3, 2000).

Now, the tiny nation of Israel finds that it is on the path to yielding up to the enemy half of that hard-won ancient city of Jerusalem, and a weak-kneed government in Australia withdraws troops from the battle against a fanatically religious enemy of Israel, weakening the allied effort in Iraq and thus opening the gate wider for Jerusalem to return to the captivity from which those Anzac forces released it less than a century ago.

As Melanie Phillips observed, “If people really are incapable of seeing that what we have to fight is religious fanaticism operating through a strategy of mind-bending intimidation and coercion, and instead succumb to that very intimidation and coercion, then we are indeed finished” (op. cit.).

Today we face twin terrors, the one clearly Islamic fanaticism, and the other the intellectual terror of the rabid, feminized, racist, politically correct thought police.

Oh for a return to the days of common sense!

Truly, the ancient prophet said it all: “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls. But they said we will not walk in it” (Jeremiah 6:16, New King James Version).

Surely our Anglo-Saxon peoples are being very deliberately led by their nose away from the sound common sense that once directed them to the basic, Bible-based, proven principles of living, and directly toward the way of confusion and destruction. Even as the Prophet Isaiah declared, “For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed” (Isaiah 9:16, nkjv).

Is there any hope at all for our peoples? Can Australia survive the onslaught of these twin terrors?

Winston Churchill famously stated, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”

Few these days are encouraged to study the ancient history and traditions of the British and their colonial sons and learn of the unbreakable link to biblical heritage possessed of those whom Churchill termed “the English-speaking peoples.” In fact, that heritage has a linkage with the fighting forces of these peoples today that extends 3,000 years back to, believe it or not, King David of ancient Israel! If only we would take the time to look that far back in our history, we would be ever so well prepared for the volatile future that today’s global disorder portends.

It was Churchill who also declared that “war is history.”

There is a lengthy heritage that links the ancient King David to the armies of Boadicea on to King Henry V’s merry few, to Drake and the Spanish Armada, on to Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, to Lord Kitchener, to the gallant Chauvel and the galloping horseman of Anzac tradition and beyond.

This is a heritage that had the kilted fighting men of the Highlands, for countless generations, stirred by the skirl of that ancient instrument of Davidic lineage, the psaltery, today called the bagpipes, to fight fearsomely in battle. It is a heritage which links the English-speaking peoples powerfully to ancient Israel by their tradition of singing the great psalms penned by the great warrior King David.

Benjamin Disraeli, twice prime minister of Britain during the British Empire’s time of greatness (the years 1868 and 1874-1880) observed in his famous novel, Tancred, “The most popular poet in England is the Sweet Singer of Israel. Since the days of the heritage, there never was a race who sang so often the odes of David as the people of Great Britain. It was the ‘sword of the Lord and of Gideon’ that won the boasted liberties of England; and the Scots upon their hillsides achieved their religious freedom chanting the same canticles that cheered the heart of Judah amid their glens.”

Heritage—that’s what once made Britain great! That’s what moved these peoples to carve great nations out of the continental extension of North America, of southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand! Disraeli rightly attached the true heritage of the English-speaking peoples to the great psalmist of ancient Israel. It was a heritage acknowledged by Victoria, Queen of the British Empire at its peak. That was a heritage known to the Anzacs of old, they who joined the fight to free the world from the tyrant in the Great War, World War i.

A Heroic Son of Australia

Ion Idriess was inspired by the biblical setting of the desert war of 1914-18. Written amid the heat and sand, the fire and the blood of desert warfare, some of Idriess’s phrases were, at times, attached to, even inspired by, the ancient biblical heritage upon which the British Empire was founded. As the famed Desert Column filed along the old Way of the Philistines heading toward Gaza, Idriess reflected, “The joy-spots of this old Bible desert are the oases. … It is in tiny wells which have been used since countless centuries before Moses” (The Desert Column).

Ion Idriess, an Australian of Davidic Welsh stock, enlisted as a trooper in the Australian Imperial Force at the opening of World War i. He was attached to the 5th Light Horse Regiment. Wounded twice, once at Gallipoli and again at Gaza, Idriess witnessed the famous Anzac mounted infantry charge at Beersheba that led to the taking of Jerusalem by British Imperial forces. His writings made between marches and skirmishes in the desert at times reflected the deep emotion of a soldier, a son of Australia, conscious of Palestine’s link between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. At Rafah, en route to Gaza, he pondered, “Britain has brought along the 20th century into a land that was ancient when Christ was a child.”

On leave in Greece, recovering from injury before the great march to Gaza and conscious of the seemingly overwhelming combined superiority in arms of the Turks, Austrians and Germans that awaited on return to active duty in the Sinai desert, Idriess mused, “The story of David and Goliath is not repeated in modern warfare when it is a handful against many men and many machines.” He was later to eat those words as he witnessed the Australian Light Horse charge the cannon, bullets and cold steel of the enemy, by whom they were vastly outnumbered, and capture the ancient city of water wells, Beersheba, opening the way for victory over the Turks at Jerusalem.

Of the great warrior psalmist, King David, we read in a few words in the biblical book of Samuel a summation of the man. 2 Samuel 23:1 describes him as “David the son of Jesse … the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel.”

“The man”! That term in this verse is translated from the Hebrew ha-gever, meaning mighty, he-man, HERO!

There was a time when the Australian teaching fraternity inspired their students to think on the power that the true heroes of the English-speaking nations demonstrated in securing the freedoms that those nations, together with much of the rest of the world, enjoyed due to their selfless sacrifice in many battles, on many fronts, over the past hundred years. But that was back in a time when teachers conducted themselves in a manner that earned the respect of the classroom.

But even today, because of an education that taught us of true heroes, rather than of the “celebrities” and the “idols” of pop fame of today, I can still be stimulated while listening to the Ten Tenors’ rousing rendition of lyricist Don Black’s “Here’s to the Heroes” and see those mental images of the clash of steel, the fire of cannon, the pounding of hooves and the shouts of men in the bloody heat of battle as portrayed by Idriess at Gallipoli and on the desert sands of Sinai.

As those 10 young Australians sing out lustily the words, “Here’s to the heroes who change our lives. // Thanks to the heroes, freedom survives,” the great mounted charges by those hardy bushmen who, nine decades ago, made up the thin, brown ranks of the Australian Light Horse as they fought heroically to break centuries of Ottoman rule in the Middle East, flash through the mind in movie-like imagery.

There, in vivid detail, one can imagine the frenzied gallop of horsemen, vastly outnumbered by the entrenched enemy, swooping down in the face of ravaging fire to take ancient Beersheba of Abrahamaic tradition and open the way for the seizure of Jerusalem from the Muslims, a victory denied to the Crusaders who over the centuries had sought to take the Holy City in the name of Rome. One can visualize General Allenby dismounting in respect to the ancient heritage of the Holy City and marching through the Jaffa Gate to secure the City of Peace under British martial law. Well, at least if one has been taught the history, such can be the mental images that a stirring song can produce. For once there were heroes, true heroes.

Australia was founded on the blood and sweat of its pioneers, and gained maturity as a nation in the face of fire and steel in the desert of the Middle East and in the mud of the Western Front in World War i. Its military record is foremost a history of gallantry, of self-sacrifice in the best traditions of the human spirit that, in the words of the Savior of mankind, bespeaks this reality: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

That’s the true Anzac spirit.

It is, to a degree, reflected in what Idriess declared was his dearest memory of his fellow soldiers in the desert: “[T]he memory that will linger until I die, is the comradeship of my mates, those thousands of men who laugh so harshly at their own hardships and sufferings, but whose smile is so tenderly sympathetic to others in pain (op. cit.).”

Loss of Heroes

Do today’s Australians still reflect that spirit?

Grave doubts are being raised on that question as we see representatives of Australia’s fighting forces taking part in a “celebration” of lifestyles specifically condemned within the book that was the foundation of the country’s moral strength through its pioneering history and its blooding as a nation in warfare. Great shame was brought upon the Anzac heritage at the 30th anniversary “celebration” of the homosexual and lesbian mardi gras in Sydney in 2008 as, for the first time, a contingent of Australia’s military marched in Sydney’s annual day of shame.

My father carried a standard military-issue pocket Bible with him into battle. The greatest of the English-speaking military leaders have been Bible-reading men, some of them even basing their tactics on ancient battles of Israel. These men would roll over in their graves, if it were possible, to see the debacle of representatives of their country’s fighting forces marching in a parade in celebration of lifestyles that are not only condemned in the Bible but were—as part of that same biblical heritage passed down from Israel through its progeny to recent times—condemned as criminal acts barely 30 years ago!

We would do well to ask, where are the true heroes today who are willing to fight for the preservation of the heritage of King David, the psalmist hero?

In 2002, Alec William Campbell, Australia’s last remaining veteran Anzac, died. Now, as each year goes by, only the icons of the era—the statues, the photographic depictions of battle, the medals and the museum paraphernalia of the period—remain to link the present with those five years that launched the fledgling nation of Australia into the swift maturity that only the crucible of war can yield.

Nine decades have elapsed since all fell quiet on the Western Front of World War i. Within that period of time Australian and New Zealand forces have risen to the occasion to aid their English-speaking allies in World War ii, in Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. But it has been over 60 years since Australia was called upon to mobilize for a battle of global proportions to protect the precious freedoms of which the English-speaking peoples have been guarantors for over 200 years.

The question now is, would today’s increasingly politically correct, multicultural, Aboriginalized, feminized, increasingly Asianized and Islamicized Australian society have what it takes to rise to the occasion should tyranny once again threaten these freedoms? Would there be sufficient of the old Anzac spirit remaining to fire up the manpower of the nation to willingly defend home and hearth from any prospect of invasion? Can a new multicultural “tradition” fire a nation with the same zealous patriotism that the once deeply embedded culture of “God, king and country” did for Australia in two great world wars? The psychology simply does not work the same!

Is there then an increasing risk in Australia’s future of the words of the ancient prophet coming to fruition, “They have blown the trumpet, even to make all ready; but none goeth to the battle”? (Ezekiel 7:14).

It was Sir Winston Churchill who pointed to the truism that any nation that forgets its past does not deserve to survive.

Of major concern to the United States today is whether Australia’s new and largely inexperienced government will seek to water down the strong support that Australia has shown to American foreign policy over the past decade and more. Of concern to many Australians is whether a new administration in America will give any guarantee of the continuance of Washington’s past involvement in support of Australia’s defense and security within the vast Asia Pacific rim. The White House and the Pentagon are keen to have clarified just how Australia plans to approach the recommendations made in a white paper on Australia’s defense and security produced in the early days of the Rudd government.

Professor Ross Babbage, adviser to Australia’s Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and a co-author of the white paper, has called for a massive upgrading of Australia’s defense capability. Writing for the Kokoda Foundation, Babbage highlighted the “markedly altered future we seem likely to face.” He warned that Australia’s most significant challenge will, in all probability, arise from Asian powers to its north. Pointing to the rapid growth being experienced by Indonesia, India and China, the professor declared, “Nevertheless, despite the myriad uncertainties, the seemingly irresistible strategic tide with which Australian defense planners will need to come to terms is that the country will be walking among giants, some of whom may not be friendly” (Age, March 24).

The gap in Australia’s defense capability is quite significant when one compares the sum of its total national power to the collective national power of all of the nations arrayed to its north. Within that context, Australia is a non-nuclear-armed minnow floating on the southern rim of a rapidly expanding nuclear-enabled East Asian bloc.

Australia is aligned neither culturally nor ideologically with its northern neighbors. Though the nation’s land mass is impressive, it lacks the population to mount any military force of real significance compared in numbers to the teeming masses of greater Asia. Australia’s trade imbalance with Asia is huge. Its dependence on Asian nations, particularly China and Japan, as customers for its prime source of wealth—mineral resources—is excessive.

A strategic challenge to both Australia and its Asian customers is that its port facilities have proven inadequate to handle the huge demands for its raw materials, especially from China. Already involved in ownership and operation of Brisbane Container Terminals on Australia’s east coast, China would like to exploit Australia to its own strategic advantage by developing seaports on the island continent’s western coast to speed up loading and delivery of Western Australia’s iron ore and bauxite. This strategy is of similar nature to China’s development of the Port of Gwadar, built on Pakistan’s coastline, to give China strategic access to the Persian Gulf and Middle East oil resources.

Strategic Relationship

Since the time that Australia was threatened by invasion from Japan in World War ii, the nation has relied largely upon the good graces of its big brother and fellow Anglo-Saxon nation, the United States, to shore up its security within the Pacific region. This strategic alliance has given America a friendly base for its Asian and South Pacific operations in exchange for Australian troop commitments in numerous combat zones and for support in its Asia-Pacific diplomacy.

Australia’s increasing importance to American strategy in the Pacific and East Asia was given even more emphasis in the run-up to President Bush’s visit to the country in 2007. As Stratfor wrote at the time, “The United States and Australia signed the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty on September 5, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (apec) summit in Sydney on September 8-9. The agreement is similar to one London and Washington signed June 27. The treaty, a small piece of a bigger picture, illustrates Australia’s increasing prominence in U.S. strategic thinking—a prominence that will continue to grow until Australia is on par with the United Kingdom as a U.S. ally” (Sept. 5, 2007).

The significance of the signing of that treaty by the U.S. and Australia is borne out by the fact that, as Stratfor highlighted, “Canberra fully intends to leverage this closer legal standing in order to secure its own regional military dominance” (ibid.). It will be interesting to see the extent to which Prime Minister Rudd uses this leverage effectively to help close Australia’s defense gap. What will be of even greater interest is the extent to which a new U.S. administration will feel bound to honor the spirit of a treaty signed by two leaders who, at the time, demonstrated strong commitment to each other’s defense commitments, yet who are no longer in office.

There are four key changes in the Far East that have Washington defense strategists deeply concerned: the increasing dominance of China, including its penetration of Australia’s key mineral resources market; Australia’s decreasing ability to protect the forces of democracy in the region; Russia’s refined focus on the region, including efforts to buy into strategic Australian mineral resources such as uranium; and the overt effort of Asian institutions such as asean Plus Three (asean, China, Japan and South Korea) and the East Asia Summit to block the U.S. from entering dialogue in the region and work to bend Washington to the East Asian powers’ will.

The immediate challenge that Australia faces right now in relation to national security is significantly one of ideology. The Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty was drawn up under, and signed by, two conservative leaders: President Bush entering his last year in office and John Howard within months of his being voted out of office in Australia.

Australia has since swung left, with Prime Minister Rudd immediately following through on his promise to withdraw Aussie troops from Iraq—not a good sign in terms of continued support to U.S. defense initiatives.

A swing to the left by the American electorate could have additional huge impact on U.S.-Australian defense cooperation. It may even lead to a more isolationist America, leading to a drawdown of U.S. military commitments in the Asia Pacific region, leaving the door wide open for Asian powers to fill any vacuum thus created.

Markedly Altered Future

Perhaps Professor Babbage has this in mind when he referred to the “markedly altered future we seem likely to face.” Either way, his call for a drastic escalation in defense spending to close the gap in Australia’s current defense capability certainly had the ring of urgency about it. That gap was revealed some 10 years ago during Australia’s involvement in quelling anti-government ructions in East Timor, an island nation barely 600 kilometers from Australia’s northernmost city of Darwin. The Australian Air Force and Navy proved incapable of the timely transfer of equipment and personnel needed for the operation. The gap in logistics, technology and, crucially, personnel in Australia’s defense forces, as compared to the Asian powers, has continued to widen ever since.

Australia’s navy, faced with securing a coastline almost 60,000 kilometers long, of which 40 percent encircles islands, simply does not have the sea power to cope with its task. By way of example, in terms of Australia’s submarine fleet alone, Babbage called for “30 submarines … at a time when the crew-strapped Royal Australian Navy can barely keep three Collins Class subs operating out of a fleet of six” (Australian, March 25, 2008).

Two powers presently eye each other as prospective replacements for U.S. dominance in Asia and the Pacific: Japan, possessing a blue-water navy second only to America’s, and China, a nuclear-armed nation, possessor of most of the Pacific’s major seaports. Ever watchful of the foreign policies of these two nations is India, which is rapidly building its own naval force, not to mention Russia, revitalizing its rusting hulks and adding new naval hardware to its nuclear fleet. Then there are the 200 million Indonesians just east of Timor. Indonesia possesses a navy with personnel strength three times that of Australia.

The lengths to which Australia would have to go to achieve any semblance of real strength in the face of any threat from Asia is reflected in Professor Babbage’s call for expenditure to cover a “Massively restructured Australian Defense Force equipped with a fleet of 400 advanced combat aircraft and 30 submarines … needed to provide for the nation’s security and counter the rise of Asian powers” (op. cit.).

Added to the question of Australia’s defense gap is the matter of just how prepared the nation is to ensure its own internal security. With such a mix of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East having settled in the southern continent—many totally uncommitted to becoming acculturated into Australian society—a possible elevation of fifth-column activities within the country poses an increasing risk. Though largely kept at bay by the previous conservative government for over a decade, the more politically correct policies of the Rudd government are likely to allow individuals and organizations that work against Australia’s interests to begin to raise their heads.

Homegrown Terrorists

Any dream of Australia being isolated from the Islamic terrorist crusade was shattered when police in Sydney and Melbourne uncovered a major terrorist plot in 2005. On November 8 that year, 17 people were arrested when 600 police raided 23 locations in the two Australian cities.

Though the terrorists’ scheme was foiled, the incident indicates the extent of the homegrown terrorist problem Australia faces. Australia’s immigration policies of recent years—and the freedoms awarded immigrants without any demand for corresponding responsibilities to the Australian community—have produced a climate ripe for the growth of Islamic extremism.

Australia became the enemy of Islamic terrorists when it joined with the United States and Britain in the war on terror. Although this island nation has yet to experience a terrorist strike within its coasts, Muslim terror has certainly struck Australians very close to home. The bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2002 took the lives of 88 Australian citizens. Since then, the Australian government has stepped up its counterterrorist efforts.

With its vast interior and far north filled with wide open, empty spaces, its massive coastline largely porous, and a scant population barely surpassing that of greater Los Angeles spread largely around the perimeter of a landmass as big as the U.S., Australia faces unique challenges in keeping terrorists at bay.

Islamic Migration

Australia’s population was built by the migration of peoples from foreign shores. Yet because of its original “White Australia” policy, the bulk of the nation’s immigrants up to the mid-20th century came from Britain and Europe. During the heady days of the 1960s and ’70s, the intelligentsia of the nation exaggerated and publicized myths about the mistreatment of ethnic groups within Australia, leading to a change in the government’s stance on immigration.

By comparison with other nations, Australia’s absorption of ethnic minorities has been relatively smooth. Following federation, generations of Australians came to the nation’s shores from cultures quite foreign to that of their new homeland. Their progeny readily accepted Australian citizenship and, thus, Australian national aspirations. That all began to change in the wake of war in Vietnam.

Following the Vietnam War, boatloads of Asians penetrated the northern shores of Australia and were absorbed into its society. Buddhist temples, something quite alien to the Australian Judeo-Christian culture, started to pop up around the country. This was later followed by waves of Islamic immigrants from the Middle East. Mosques appeared and the cries of the mullahs were heard ringing out across the cities of Australian suburbs mixing with the bleating of sacrificial goats being slaughtered in suburban backyards. The entire culture of the nation began to change from its Anglo-Saxon foundation to reflect the policies of multiculturalism.

Among those arrested on Nov. 8, 2005, were some Australian citizens. None were Australian ethnics. The culture and the religion they practiced were foreign to the majority within the nation of their citizenship. They had not assimilated. Like their compatriots in Britain and Europe, they elected to use the freedoms granted by their citizenship to perpetrate terror on the nation that granted them a haven from other societies still stuck in a medieval culture of cruelty toward, and deprivation of, their citizenry. Their extremist loyalty to the cause of pan-Islamism via jihad poses a real threat to the nation that feeds, clothes, shelters and educates them, and provides them with a means to make a living.

Strangers Within the Gates

The insurgents arrested in Melbourne and Sydney were charged with participating in paramilitary training in remote areas of Australia, planning to produce bombs and using firearms and funding for their nefarious operations. Although Australian authorities broke this cell before it struck, one is forced to wonder just how many other such cells may be yet embedded within this vast island nation.

Over 200 million Muslims populate the Indonesian archipelago, the southern extremity of which lies only 200 miles north of Australia. Any terrorist could find a warm, hospitable haven in this island complex while awaiting safe passage to the land Down Under.

Yet Australia’s greatest challenge is not so much keeping extremist imams and their terrorist protégés from migrating into the country. The most significant terrorist potential lies within the hearts of extremist Islamic Australian citizens already embedded within that continent—the sons of earlier migrants, who speak with an Aussie twang but who will never assimilate into Australian society. Of such is the stranger within Australia’s gates mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:43!

Match that prophecy with Deuteronomy 32:25, and it is clear to those with a perspective on the biblical identity of Australia, and on the prophecies for these times in which we now live, that the future does not bode well for Australia in respect of this terrorist threat. If you want to know why, turn to Leviticus 26 and read verses 14-16. That’s not a message for the faint-hearted. Nevertheless, it’s the binding reality of our day.

Another Contender

Australia stands at a crucial crossroad as U.S. power wanes. Will its Mandarin-speaking prime minister be able to hold the balance against an increasingly expanding China with its voracious appetite for Australia’s raw materials? What of Russia increasingly eyeing those resources, in particular the raw material for nuclear power, uranium? Then there is Japan, traditionally a hard bargainer when it comes to dealing with Australian business, now competing directly with China for Australia’s mineral wealth. You can order a free copy of our booklet Russia and China in Prophecy to get a biblical perspective on how Asia’s future may affect Australia.

In the face of all this, little notice is being taken of another contender for a slice of Australia, one that sees the southern island continent as an ideal platform to expand its own interests into Asia and the Pacific as U.S. power in the region increasingly weakens. That power is Germany. As German-Foreign-Policy.com reported some years ago, “With the takeover of Australia’s second-largest construction company, the Bilfinger Berger ag is continuing its expansion abroad. To the German economy and Berlin’s foreign policy, the country [Australia] represents a springboard to all of Southeast Asia, where Berlin wants to exercise its influence against the diminishing hegemony of the usa and the coming great power of China. The dominating position of the Anglo-American states in Australia is said to deprive Berlin of a formerly effective instrument for creating bonds of long duration between the Southeast Asian elites and Germany” (Nov. 3, 2003).

Surprisingly, while Canberra gazes fixatedly on Asia—being particularly concerned about Australia’s relations with China at this moment—quietly in the background the greatest single trading bloc on Earth, the German-dominated European Union, is steadily making inroads into Australian business, finance and industry, with a view to exploiting Australia for its own ends as it seeks to gain increasing influence in the greater Asia Pacific region. You will hear more of this in the news in the months and years ahead. To study more about Australia’s immediate future, request a copy, gratis, of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.

The time is fast approaching when the continent of Australia will be caught in the crossfire between two great, economically and militarily expanding power blocs, the European Union and a great pan-Asian bloc.

Should Australia become a republic, or remain constitutionally subject to the British Crown?

That’s a question that rebounded to the top of the agenda during the great 2020 debate on Australia’s future that the Rudd government convened in April 2008. The summit in Parliament House aimed at harnessing the “best” ideas of Australians in order to map out a strategy for the country’s long-term future—in everything from the economy to the arts to national security.

Both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his feminist-socialist deputy Julia Gillard are committed republicans.

Though Mr. Rudd indicated during his election campaign that he would bide his time on introducing a second referendum on the question of whether Australia should divorce from the Crown in the interests of becoming a republic, the 2020 forum gave new emphasis to this central policy plank of Australia’s new government. As New Zealand Herald’s Greg Ansley reported in the wake of the two-day talkfest, “[R]epublicanism, constitutional reform, an overhaul of federalism and a treaty with indigenous Australia are now firmly back on the political agenda …” (April 22, 2008).

None of this should be surprising, given that the bulk of the 1002 invitees to the 2020 summit were drawn from the liberal-socialist element of Australian society, overloaded as it was with the intelligentsia, spiced with enclaves of the commentariat, and with even a hooker present to represent something called the Scarlet Alliance standing out in the crowd with her green-and-gold dyed hair.

The Australian Institute of Public Affairs declared the summit a “‘blatantly political exercise’ that had selected participants to endorse a prefabricated mandate” (ibid.).

Most respondents to the press and media websites such as News Ltd. and Fairfax seemed to regard the 2020 summit as a talkfest of a “politicized elite with little in common with ordinary Australians” (ibid.).

As the Sydney Morning Herald noted April 21, 2008: “Those who hoped to be amazed by the summit—to find themselves yelling out loud, ‘What a great idea’—will feel cheated to find only the well-established social-democratic agenda”—in other words, the same old tired, tried and failed left‑wing arguments.

It was the new Home Affairs minister, Bob Debus, who at the 2020 Summit spearheaded the raising of the issue of Australia rejecting its attachment to the Crown to form a republic. Although delegates in the 2020 governance group had originally agreed to a 12-year target to achieve an Australian republic, that was not good enough for Mr. Debus, who promptly challenged them to commit to a shorter time frame. This resulted in applause in support for his proposal that the government commit to leading Australia to become a republic by 2010. The summiteers consequently voted three to one to endorse this ambitious, and probably unachievable, target.

Voices of Dissent

One left‑wing Australian, author and media personality, Clive James, though not present to voice his opinion, came out in favor of the monarchy in the lead-up to the 1999 vote on the issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic. During a tour of Australia in 2007, James reiterated his conservative stance on the institution of the British monarchy yet again.

Though James hails, politically, from the left, he describes himself as a cultural conservative. As such, he is not for an Australian republic.

In reply to a question regarding Australia’s choice between perpetuating its constitutional attachment to the Crown as compared to becoming a republic, James responded that he valued and believed in the current constitutional system. He continued, “You ask when are you going to be free of the British monarchy? You are free under the British monarchy. What you have to guarantee is that you are free under the next system. I think it’s a very advantageous political system to Australia, to have a connection with the old British monarchy. … I know I must be seen as impossibly conservative, but you can be quite on the left, which I am, and still be culturally conservative” (Age, Aug. 25, 2007).

Much to the chagrin of Australia’s rabid supporters of republicanism, one would have to assume that Clive James is not the only leftist who possesses such a view. All states in Australia are in the hands of leftist state governments. In 2007, the country endorsed a leftist political party to lead it at the federal level. This does not, at first appearance, seem to fit with a national electorate that eight years ago rejected, by a clear margin in all states of the Commonwealth, the argument to change the Australian system of governance from constitutional monarchy to a republic.

Though at the time of the 1999 referendum Australia had a conservative federal government, all states were then, as now, ruled by leftist governments. As one source pointed out, the dichotomy between a majority electorate that leans to the left and yet maintains a healthy respect for the monarchy is a conundrum that rattles those in the forefront of the republican movement: “The Queen’s popularity in the 21st century is puzzlingly irksome to these self-appointed progressives” (Australian, Nov. 19, 2002).

The Best Value Available

Andrew Roberts, in his masterful work A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, points to the English-speaking peoples as being “the dominant world political culture since 1900.” Such is the whim of human nature that this dominance has led to them being “constantly envied and often hated.” Of course, the worst hatred by far has often come from the self-hating far-left in our midst, the old “fifth column.” It was of such that hailed from within the mother country that Lord Salisbury was to complain, “England is, I believe, the only country in which, during a great war, eminent men write and speak as if they belonged to the enemy” (ibid).

Of course, inherent in Salisbury’s comment was the knowledge that these dissidents lived in one of the few nations on Earth that permitted the airing of seditious views in the interests of free speech! Be that as it may, given the state today of journalistic commentary on the Iraq and Afghan wars, it’s easy to see those “eminent men” have effectively handed down their seditious trade to the generations that have followed.

Roberts goes on to note that despite being twice brought to a state of hot, global war by the forces of tyranny, despite the Cold War against global Marxism-Leninism, and despite recently having to fend off terror from Islamic fundamentalism, “the English-speaking peoples would remain the last best hope for mankind.” The reason that Roberts gives for this resilience of the English-speaking peoples is: “The beliefs that they brought into the 20th century largely actuate them yet; their values are still the best available in a troubled world; the institutions that made them great continue to inspire them today.”

It is the point about the lasting institutions of the English-speaking peoples being a reason for their continuing inspiration today that is lost on so many today. The Australian newspaper termed the republican movement “self-appointed progressives”—people with misguided zeal to detach Australia from the very foundation upon which its free and open society has been built.

To those who are willing to view the arguments for and against an Australian republic, our question is, what has been the history of nations that have divorced themselves from the very institutions upon which their nations were founded? What happens when a people dismantles those institutions that gave them the prestige to stand tall in the eyes of friend and foe?

Andrew Roberts throws some light on the importance of this question when he observes, “Prestige is a tangible benefit in the calculus of international relations, its loss a concomitant danger” (op. cit.).

From where did Australia gain its prestige as a nation? From standing up to the forces of tyranny under a proud flag that superimposed the Union Jack upon the stars of the Southern Cross! From flying high over its buildings of state, the red, white and blue livery of the very temple colors of the ancient nation of Israel!

Too few there be who recognize that today!

A Royal Heritage

To those who would seek to rip the British flag off Australia’s national flag, Clive James rightly claimed that Australia ought to retain it as a “generous act of respect” to the country that mothered it into nationhood.

The trouble is, a half-century and more of regressive, liberal-socialist-feminist education, overlaid with a more recent morally vacuous political correctness, has produced a generation in Australia largely divorced from its true and ancient heritage. That great past has been sacrificed on the altars of godless socialism, feminism and multiculturalism! Add to this the influence over the masses of the famously baying Australian press, out to get blood at any expense—especially if that is royal blood—and the result is entirely predictable. You end up with the imposition of the warped will of the loudly chattering “progressives” over the real will of the people.

As Clive James warned in a 2006 interview, “There is a danger in Australia constantly of the consensus of the commentariat separating too far from the opinion of the people, to the point where the commentariat becomes contemptuous of the people.”

This is a considerable problem in all the English-speaking nations today. The opinions of the public are influenced by, and in too many instances overtaken by, a select commentariat that has the power of the mass media at its disposal and uses it to selectively deliver messages based upon the bias of its choice. Too often that bias is against all the founding principles that secured a nation to its original foundations. In Australia, this commentariat is far too often intent on severing the nation’s ties from all that made it, once, a great nation within what was, once, a great Commonwealth of Nations established in the traditions of the English-speaking peoples.

Should Australia become a republic or retain its freedoms under its royal heritage? That question will soon be revisited upon every Australian subject of the Crown.

The only way you can give an educated judgment on that question is to thoroughly research the true heritage of the Australian nation and find out just what it means to be attached to that Crown and what it would truly mean to be divorced from it.

Our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy thoroughly addresses this question. That book, more than any other, proves that the ancient history of the English-speaking peoples is much more ancient than most realize. It will give you an understanding of the foundation upon which our freedoms have been built. It reveals the true and ancient history—and the mind-boggling future—that the Crown will yet have in a governmental system that will eventually impact all nations. Whichever way Australia votes on the republic versus monarchy issue, the nation is destined to come under that Crown for the entire duration of its future as a nation, believe it or not!

That’s what is prophesied in your Bible!

During the great decade of social change, the 1960s, a powerful voice was broadcasting coast to coast in Australia every evening on radio. Herbert W. Armstrong pulled no punches when it came to speaking the plain, unadulterated truth. Multiple thousands of Australians appreciated his no-holds-barred approach to delivering the plain and simple truth on any matter.

Using the Bible as the foundation for his logic, he linked history, current world events and Bible prophecy in mind-searing messages that captured the attention of a sizeable national audience in Australia. By the end of his long and eventful life—which ended on Jan. 16, 1986—Jesus Christ’s great prophecy of Matthew 24:14 had been fulfilled. The original gospel message as received from Christ, personally, by the original apostles, had been preached to all nations!

It was Herbert W. Armstrong who wrote the book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Perhaps you were one who heard those powerful radio broadcasts. Even if not, you owe it to yourself to obtain your own copy of this book, gratis, read it and make up your own mind whether, in the light of the proven history and prophesied future of the Australian people, you really want to see your nation cede its rightful attachment to its God-given, royal Crown.

In the middle of 2007, the realists within Western society had reason to celebrate. Finally, among all of the simpering, mealy-mouthed, feminist, politically correct claptrap that passes for political dialogue in this disturbed 21st century, a loud bell rang. Melanie Phillips, that paragon of British political incorrectness, heard it, and she did a double take. “Just what was that ghostly and unfamiliar noise we heard over the weekend?” she asked in the May 13 edition of the Daily Mail. Answering her own question, she retorted, “[I]t was the sound of a country’s political leader actually exercising leadership.”

Phillips was referring to John Howard, Australia’s prime minister at the time, ordering his nation’s cricket team to pull out of a scheduled tour of Zimbabwe, and even threatening to suspend the players’ passports if the sport’s governing body did not abide by his decision.

At the time, Phillips had recently returned from a visit to Australia. Concerning her impressions of the political scene in the Antipodes, she made the observation, “Coming from Britain to Canberra to interview members of the Australian government is like leaving a fetid malarial swamp to be douched with fresh cold water from a mountain spring.” She praised these politicians for simply being “on-side in the great fight for civilization against barbarism” (Spectator, March 16, 2007).

One would have to wonder what Ms. Phillips’s impressions would now be should she revisit Australia under its new center-left government.

Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lost little time in revealing his true political colors, and pink they proved to be. He immediately announced the withdrawal of Aussie troops from Iraq and followed that up by creating history in the Australian Parliament, having Aboriginals do a tribal dance on the floor of the House. He then gave a speech declaring on behalf of all Australians an apology for the way they had treated the indigenous people that populated the land at the time that Great Britain took possession of it, and their progeny down to this day.

One of the few vocal dissenting voices over the prime minister’s apology to Australia’s Aboriginal minority was journalist Andrew Bolt. Having clearly exposed the lie that claims Australia was guilty of a policy of stealing Aboriginal children from their parents, and very regularly providing ample evidence to support the fact that it is a lie perpetrated by self-interest groups, the entertainment industry and mass media, Bolt condemned the new Australian prime minister and his fellow camp followers for entrenching the deceit. “To Rudd and other Say-Sorries it simply doesn’t matter that there’s no evidence any Australian government had a policy to steal children just because they were Aboriginal.”

“Rudd is a sentimentalist who wants to say sorry regardless of the facts about the ‘stolen generations,’” Bolt wrote. “But I am a rationalist who can only say a sorry that respects the truth …” (Herald Sun, Feb. 8, 2008).

What should be of even deeper concern to Australians is the method of government that is in process of imposing itself on the nation. It is a form of government starkly in contrast to that which Australia experienced during its decade of economic growth, of internal stability and external security, during the Howard prime ministership. Australia’s swing to the left in the national elections witnessed how few really appreciate that there is a strong link between traditional, conservative values and experiencing these blessings.

When one reviews Australia’s brief political history since its federation as a Commonwealth in 1901, a cyclical pattern of swinging from left to right in regular rhythm over the past century is revealed. But through it all is threaded a degree of down-to-earth common sense that eventually bails the country out of local, statewide or even national disaster from time to time. Being largely of British stock, Aussies are known for producing their best when they are in the last ditch with their backs to the wall. That is the Anzac tradition, earned with honors in battle both in the desert of the Middle East and the mud of the Western Front during World War i.

But the link to the Anzac tradition is now almost severed, as the generation that experienced that terrible war has all but died out. Australia is now governed by those who never knew the impact of world war nor suffered the privations of a global economic depression. Without such a test on national character, Australia is in danger of becoming soft—soft-headed in particular.

The swing from right to left in the Australian electorate during the 2007 federal election was powerful. Polls in early 2008 gave Prime Minister Rudd a 70 percent support rating. But, considering the early indications, although Australia’s left-wing mass media did an extremely effective job of brainwashing the public into accepting a change of government, what is emerging is a form of government that they may well live to regret.

Andrew Bolt is one of few who recognize the danger. “Rudd is building himself a model of soft-corporatism, in which political opposition will be muted and dissenters denied political (and, increasingly, even media) representation. This is a terrible mistake for the Liberals [Australia’s conservative party], and an erosion of democracy” (ibid., Feb. 14, 2008).

Australia seemed to briefly enjoy a feel-good mood in the wake of the 2007 election. At least that’s how the mass media portrayed it. However, realists perceive that the timing of Mr. Rudd’s electoral success could present the new Australian government with a real problem. In an effort to fend off worries about Australia’s economy early on in its administration, “The Rudd government has declared Australia should be able to avoid recession despite high inflation and a slowing world economy” (ibid., Feb. 11, 2008). However, some see dangerous shoals ahead for an Australian economy that is so heavily geared to the commodities markets for income, drastically dependent on imports for consumer goods, and sports a currency that gives every indication of being significantly overpriced.

To add to these concerns, Australians soon found out they were not immune to the spreading disease of financial failure courtesy of the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown. “The American subprime virus has arrived in Australia,” said Jonathan Pain, chief investment strategist with hfa Asset Management. “In an age of globalization, no nation can be viewed in isolation” (Age, Feb. 24, 2008).

“[A] wave of house repossessions,” reported the Age, “is now claiming about 800 homes every week around the country, because families can no longer afford their mortgage repayments. Now analysts are warning another 300,000 households are at risk …” (ibid.).

But the subprime backwash is not the only challenge facing Australia’s government. The full cost-effect of implementing the Rudd government’s platform on a number of items in which it proposes sweeping changes to the Australian economy and social order has yet to be measured.

As commentators for the Sydney Morning Herald put it following the 2007 election, “Rudd Labor has vanquished the second-most tenacious leader Australia has known, but a series of demons, dragons and other dangers await the victors as they arrive in their ministerial suites” (Dec. 1, 2007).

The burning questions that so heavily impinge on Australia’s future at this juncture are these: Just what is the Australian identity today? What are the real values that Australians respect and seek to protect from the impact of creeping multiculturalism? What are the standards that underpin Australian society today?

The realists worry about all this.

As Melanie Phillips observed, “Throughout the West … [t]he political class is incapable of disinterested statesmanship because it is no longer sure in what—if anything—it still believes” (Daily Mail, May 13, 2007).

Of Australia’s prime minister of the past decade, Phillips noted, “Mr. Howard, in sharp contrast, is entirely free of such absurd and crippling cultural cringe. He believes in Australia and its Western values. He thinks these values are superior to any alternatives. And it is this total absence of equivocation in upholding the national interest which explains his robust defense of both Australian identity and Western civilization against attack” (ibid.).

We simply pose this question: In this age of great global disruption, this age of immense challenges to Western civilization from contending cultures and great religious movements foreign to the West, does Australia—which under Mr. Howard stoically resisted incursions upon its foundational values, institutions and freedoms—now, under a different form of government, have what it takes to continue a robust defense of Australia’s true identity as a nation?

Back in the mid-1950s, at the time when the transistor radio was beginning to enable the portability of radio broadcasts in a manner before unknown, just before television began to come into its own in Australia, Herbert W. Armstrong flew to the island continent with his international advertising agent from New York to arrange for his radio broadcast, The World Tomorrow, to begin airing in the land Down Under. Plans were made to launch the program on a number of Australian radio stations, chief of which at the time was radio 2ky in the city of Sydney. Mr. Armstrong’s rich voice began to ring out across the airwaves throughout the eastern seaboard of Australia, and by relay inland to many country stations west of the Divide.

History was being created. For the first time in Australia’s short life as a nation, the plain unadulterated truth of the gospel message of Jesus Christ was being delivered right into Australian homes.

At first stoutly resisted by established mainstream churches, the message of The World Tomorrow was so arresting, and so refreshingly different to the sanctimoniousness of established Christianity that Mr. Armstrong’s Australian radio audience grew rapidly.

By 1959 it became apparent to Mr. Armstrong that the increasing volume of mail and requests for visits from the ministry of the Radio Church of God being received at the church’s Pasadena headquarters from Australia necessitated the establishment of a regional office in that country. In the same year an office was opened in what was, at the time, the most dominant new building on the North Sydney skyline, the amp building in Miller Street, North Sydney.

The church in Australia started to grow, attracting further opposition from mainstream religion. I quote here from a letter written to the church in Australia by Mr. Armstrong, dated September 13, 1980, which describes that opposition and the real reason for it: “We had opposition. The newspapers opposed. The churches opposed. It has always been in Australia, not a matter of Australia against us in the United States—but Satan who is in every country against Christ! Satan battles us in Pasadena—throughout America—in England—in Africa, Germany—everywhere!

“It is not a matter of nationality! It is not a matter of color, race or country. Satan fights us in black Africa—in all countries. But in God’s CHURCH we are neither Jew nor Greek, black, yellow or white, Australian or American—we are all one family—brethren in the same family as begotten children of God!”

So it was, despite all opposition, that throughout the following decades, right up to the time of Mr. Armstrong’s death on January 16, 1986, the Church of God continued to grow in all states and territories within Australia, across to New Zealand, New Guinea, Fiji and the Pacific Islands, with further expansion from the Australian regional office to Southeast Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore, India and Sri Lanka. The World Tomorrow program and the Plain Truth magazine became well known throughout the entire region of Australasia and the Pacific for their hard‑hitting analyses of current events in the light of Bible prophecy.

Yet opposition to the truth was not restricted to those who attacked the church from outside. For years, Mr. Armstrong battled a fifth column within the church, intent on destroying the global work that God had built through him. Again, he realized that this resistance to the truth was of Satan, not directly of man.

When Mr. Armstrong died, the fifth column quickly rose to power in the church, seized its assets, set about dismantling its God‑given doctrines piece by piece and booting out any minister or member who resisted the changes in doctrine. Within a decade, that which remained of the original corporate body of the church didn’t even resemble that which God had originally raised up from its mustard‑seed beginnings in the 1930s to become a globe-girdling, multi-million-dollar work of such significance by the mid-1980s that Herbert Armstrong was able to bring his personal ministry to most world leaders of his day.

Following Mr. Armstrong’s death, the church appeared to drift in a four-year hiatus, as the fifth columnists set about their work of destruction. Then God moved on December 7, 1989, to split the church and establish a small remnant of loyal members, dedicated to the love of the truth and the continuing distribution of the true gospel message. That remnant was registered as the Philadelphia Church of God, under the leadership of Gerald Flurry, who had trained at Ambassador College and ministered to the church under Mr. Armstrong’s administration. He was supported by his associate pastor, John Amos. They, together with 10 loyal brethren, began meeting for regular Sabbath services in the church’s reviving configuration in December 1989. Since then, this remnant church has expanded internationally to embrace loyal servants of God on all continents.

The history of this church split is told in Stephen Flurry’s book Raising the Ruins. Gerald Flurry’s book Malachi’s Message tells of the manner in which God had prophesied that such a great falling away from the truth would be one of the greatest signs of the imminence of His divine and urgent intervention in world affairs. It expounds on the prophecies that are even now being fulfilled in an effort to arrest the attention of the whole world, ultimately, to the imminence of Christ’s return to set up the government of God on Earth. Both these books are, in essence, sequels to Herbert Armstrong’s book Mystery of the Ages, which is a summation of all that has occurred on Earth since the creation of man, and a portrayal of the incredible God-given potential that all human beings possess.

These books are all available, free of charge, upon request from the office address that is closest to you as shown in the list of addresses at the end of this book. They expound the biblical prophecies that explain the meaning of both world and church events for the unprecedented times that we are living through today.

Since Jesus Christ first launched the true remnant Church of God way back in a.d. 31 there has always been a remnant of that original true Church continuing on doing the Work of God. Jesus Christ Himself prophesied that the gates of the grave would never close over His true Church (Matthew 16:18). Prophesied to never be huge by comparison with mainstream religion, ever embattled and persecuted, especially by the religionists of the day, the true Church of God has battled on to continue delivering the true gospel message down through the ages to this very day. Today, as prophesied, it remains small in number but powerful in the means at its disposal to do the work that Christ raised it up to complete in preparation for His return to govern this Earth.

Yet, since December 7, 1989, one thing has changed in relation to the commission with which Christ had originally charged His true Church. The original commission was declared by Christ to be “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy [Spirit]” (Matthew 28:19). Christ declared the fulfillment of that commission to be a great sign that would immediately precede His imminent return to this world: “And the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14).

With great confidence, following his dedicated, tenacious and faith-filled ministry over a 57‑year span, Herbert Armstrong was able to declare that original commission completed just before he died in 1986.

The fulfillment of that great commission was the immediate precursor to a latter commission reserved for the loyal remnant of the true Church. This commission has been taken up by the human leader, under the direction of Jesus Christ, of the Philadelphia Church of God. It has since been pursued with all vigor, in faith, and will continue to be so till the moment of Jesus Christ’s return, as promised, to the city of Jerusalem to launch the Kingdom of God on Earth.

That present-day commission of the Church is contained in Revelation 10:11 and Ezekiel 3:17. It retains the commission to continue to preach the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God to this world, but with the added responsibility to WARN! To warn of the imminence of the intervention of Almighty God in the affairs of this world and to install His Son as its supreme Governor (Isaiah 9:6-8). That warning is to be declared to the church that has fallen away from the truth, labeled Laodicean in God’s Word (Revelation 3:14-20), to the rebellious nations of Israel—substantially represented by the Anglo-Saxon nations, including Australia—and ultimately to all nations on Earth!

There is a man on the scene today, a prophet of God, selected by Him to receive the revelation of the end-time warning of God to the nations, and charged with the specific responsibility to deliver that warning message to its threefold audience. If you read and study the literature we have mentioned in this booklet, it will lead you to readily identify just who that watchman of God is.

Australia is in process of receiving that warning. Many will hear it. Few will respond to it positively until the Almighty starts to step up the removal of His God-given blessings from the nation. When He does, the people of Australia will know that a prophet of God has been in their midst (Ezekiel 33:33). Many will then respond, but not without having to endure the great heartache of heavy correction for rebellion against their God in the interim. You and your loved ones could be saved that heartache and suffering. It would simply take a clear resolution in your mind that you will begin to obey God and His law, the only way to true peace of mind and a real state of blessedness.

It’s a decision not worth delaying.

Your eternal future may depend on it!