The Beginnings of Christian Reform (54)

 

                         The Need for an Australian Militia (VII)

  1. The Short-Term Plan:
  2. a) All of Australia’s State capitals and Darwin are coastal and harbour-based. They are vulnerable to surprise, full-scale seaborne invasions. They should be the initial focus of the short-term plan.
  3. b) The six Australian State capitals and Darwin, have over 14,000,000 inhabitants. Initially, 400,000 men from these cities should be trained for local defence.
  4. c) Distant, isolated capitals (such as Darwin, Perth and Hobart) which are more difficult to reinforce should initially have a higher proportion of militia.

City                      Present Population*                Militia Numbers (short-term)

Darwin                              131,000                                                  10,000

Perth                                1.7 million                                               90,000

Hobart                               217,000                                                  20,000

Brisbane                           2.1 million                                               50,000

Adelaide                           1.2 million                                               40,000

Sydney                              4.7 million                                             100,000

Melbourne                         4.2 million                                              90,000

Total                                  14.2 million                                           400,000

*According to Google

  1. Longer-Term:
  2. a) Army officers should be sent in pairs to live right across the nation, to train the local militia in guerrilla warfare. They become the leaven of the local organisation. The Federal government could on a modest budget, fund the expansion of rifle-ranges and training facilities.
  3. b) The Federal government should encourage the development of the Militia so that it ultimately numbers around 5-10% of the overall population, nation-wide. The standard Australian Army weaponry should be purchased at cost by individuals, with ammunition also available at cost.
  4. c) The 10% proportion could be easily increased to 12-15% in the event of an invasion, by absorbing back into the force a percentage of recent militia members.
  5. d) Complete development of a defensive militia (over 25 years) should lead to the reduction, minimisation and ultimate elimination of the Australian Army as a separate, professional entity.

Conclusion:                                                                                                             * Australia cannot expect that other Asian nations will always be our friends: we should have learnt that in 1941-42.

* “The darkest pages in history are often the most instructive.”[1]

* The Golden Rule of Insurance: Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

*Every nation historically, has expected its able-bodied men to assist in the event of invasion. So should we.

*“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” George Washington.

 

 

[1] Gordon Craig, “Germany 1866-1945,” 1980, p,viii.

Dominion Vs. Chaos

This year is the 50th anniversary of the Manson murders. While the 1950s ended with the assassination of JFK, the 1960s began with the arrival of The Beatles to the USA in 1964. The 1960s reached their peak with Woodstock and ended with the Manson murders and the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970.

The world was ripe for change. The 1960s did not rise Phoenix-like from some neutral dawn. Decades of a loosely bound civil religion had been steadily unravelling. It was inevitable.

The tipoff was when prayer and Bible reading were removed from public schools in 1962 and 1963.

On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment by constituting an establishment of religion. The following year, in Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court disallowed Bible readings in public schools for similar reasons.

These two rulings did not cause the anchor of moral certainty to lose its hold. Rather, it was a manifestation of decades of plodding and persistent materialism. The court rulings were indicators of the festering disease of moral autonomy because God had been relegated to the corner of irrelevance centuries before. Time magazine had signaled what was coming with this 1966 cover and revealed its consequences more than 50 years later. If God is dead, then everything is dead:

The official pronouncement of God’s death was made with the publication of Charles Darwin’s 1859 On the Origin of Species more than 100 years before.

There had been so much Christian moral capital built up over the centuries that few people saw Darwinism’s dark manifestations. We’re only now seeing the full ramifications of them in the once Christian West.

This brings me to two books I’ve been reading: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties and Tom Holland’s Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, both published in 2019.

The following is from the dust jacket of Dominion:

‘We are all 21st century people,’ Richard Dawkins has said, ‘and we subscribe to a pretty widespread consensus of what is right and wrong.’ Yet what are the origins of this consensus? It has not remotely been a given, across the reaches of space and time, that humans should believe it nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering, or that people are all of equal value. These are convictions which instead bear witness to the most enduring and influential legacy of the ancient world, a revolution in values that has proven transformative like nothing else in history: Christianity.

Available at American Vision’s Store

Dawkins and his fellow atheists can’t live consistently with their atheism. They are moral capital thieves. Atheists can’t account for “what is right and wrong.” Atheists can reason and moralize because of a worldview they reject and claim does not exist. They can’t account for the mind or morality. A matter-only worldview is devoid of such non-material concepts.

Holland asks, “Yet what are the origins of this consensus?” Exactly. “By what standard?” and “who says?” are the operative questions. For Dawkins, there is only silence to the questions.

It’s the full-on rejection of God that gave justification for the Manson murders. The author of Chaos does not come out and say it, but he does nibble around the edges. Tim O’Neill writes about those who embraced Manson as their leader and imbibed his moral relativism as a new religion:

[T]heir philosophy was gnostic, verging on theological. Time did not exist, they proclaimed there was no good, no bad, and no death. All human beings were God and the devil at the same time, and part of one another. In fact, everything in the universe was unified, one with itself. The families moral code, insofar as it existed at all, was riven with contradictions. While was wrong to kill animals – even the snakes in spiders in their bunkhouses had to be carefully spared – it was fine to kill people, because of human life was inherently valueless. To kill someone was tantamount to “breaking off a minute piece of some cosmic cookie,” as Tex Watson later put it. If anything, death was something to be embraced because it exposed your soul to the oneness of the universe.

Where have these beliefs come from? The murderers had been raised and educated in solid, conventional American communities, but no one wanted to claim them. The family, with its starry-eyed communalism, sexual frankness, and the veneration of LSD, offered a screen onto which anyone could project his insecurities about the era’s politics and pressures. The promise of the hippie movement had been in its willingness to forgo cherished institutions in favor of the new and untested.

Do you see the problem? “The murderers had been raised and educated in solid, conventional American communities….” “Conventional” is the word, and conventional is the problem. There was no solid worldview based on a fixed moral standard in the first half of the 20th century. The remnant was there, but the fixed source had been given up decades ago. So, what did these Gnostics who claimed special knowledge and insight use to justify their actions? They didn’t need any justification because the worldview they were rebelling against offered no sustainable justification for its conventional worldview. Chaos was the new morality of “why not?”

The festering sore of this chaos has given us the deification of choice: choice to kill the unborn and born and the choice to change from female to male and male to female and any of 70 or more gender swaps. Cole Porter (a homosexual) prefigured our day in his 1934 song “Anything Goes”:

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.
If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like,
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose.
When ev’ry night the set that’s smart is in-
Truding in nudist parties in
Studios.

Anything goes

****
The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today,

Anything goes.

The choice before us is clear: Christ or Chaos?

For What Should we be Thankful?

By

What if the government’s true goal is to perpetuate itself? What if the real levers of governmental power are pulled by agents and diplomats and by bureaucrats and central bankers behind the scenes? What if they stay in power no matter who is elected president or which political party controls either house of Congress?

What if the frequent public displays of adversity between Republicans and Democrats are just a facade and a charade? What if both major political parties agree on the transcendental issues of our day?

What if the leadership of both major political parties believes that our rights are not natural to our humanity but instead are gifts from the government? What if those leaders believe that the government that gives gifts to the people can take those gifts away?

What if the leadership of both parties gives only lip service to Thomas Jefferson’s assertions in the Declaration of Independence that all humans “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that the purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth but to protect these rights?

What if the leadership of both parties dismisses those ideas as just Jefferson’s outdated musings? What if Jefferson’s words have been enacted into federal law that all in government have sworn to uphold?Theodore and Woodrow: … Andrew P. Napolitano

What if the leadership of both parties believes that the constitutional requirement of due process somehow permits mothers to hire doctors to kill the babies in their wombs, out of fear or convenience? What if the leaders of both political parties believe that the president should be able to kill any foreigner he wants out of fear, because due process is an inconvenience?

What if President Donald Trump has used high-tech drones to kill innocent foreign people in foreign lands and claimed that he has done so legally, relying not on a declaration of war from Congress but on the convenient arguments of former President Barack Obama’s attorney general, who falsely told Obama his killings were consistent with due process?

What if the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war or due process whenever the government wants someone’s life, liberty or property, whether convenient or not and whether the person is American or not? What if due process means a fair jury trial, not an extrajudicial secret killing?

What if the congressional leadership and most of the membership in Congress from both major political parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt? What if the political class believes that war is the health of the state? What if the leadership of that class wants war so as to induce the loyalty of its base, open the pocketbooks of the taxpayers and gain the compliance of the voters? What if the political class uses war to enrich its benefactors? What if the government has been paying for war by increasing its debt?

What if the political class has been paying for prosperity by increasing the government’s debt as well? What if that class has controlled the money-creating computers at the Federal Reserve, and the free money the Fed creates is to bankers and traders what heroin is to addicts?

What if the $22 trillion current federal government debt has largely been caused by borrowing to pay for wars and false prosperity? What if 22 cents of every tax dollar collected by the IRS is spent on interest payments for the government’s debt? What if, at this rate, in six years the federal government will pay more annually to debt service than it will to fund the Pentagon?

What if American taxpayers are still paying interest on debts incurred by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes and every modern president?

What if the banks have borrowed the money that they lend? What if they can’t pay it back? What if the stock market is soaring on borrowed money? What if mansions and office buildings are popping up but they will soon secure more debt than they are worth? What happens when the plug is pulled on this temporary artifice and those debts come due?

It Is Dangerous to Be … Andrew P. Napolitano

What if the government demands transparency from us but declines to be transparent to us? What if the government fosters the make-believe notion that it exists to serve us? What if government leaders assert that they work for us but recognize silently that we work for the government? What if the federal government has access to all of our communications, bank accounts, health and legal records, and utility and credit card bills? What if the government knows more about us than we know about it?

What if the federal government stays in power by bribing the states with cash grants, the rich with corporate bailouts, the middle class with periodic tax cuts and the poor with reliable welfare? What if the courts have approved this bribery?

What if we live today in an inversion? What if the government the Founding Fathers gave us needed our permission to do nearly everything? What if today we need the government’s permission to do nearly anything?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is not to the government that mocks our freedoms and steals our wealth but to God, who gave us our freedoms and our ability to exercise reason? What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and free will? What if these are integral to our humanity despite the government assault on them?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we are most grateful that we are free creatures made in God’s image and likeness? What if we can use our freedoms to reject the government?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Beginnings of Christian Reform (53)

The Case for an Australian Militia (VI)

  1. The Background:

* The U.S. is both morally corrupt and economically bankrupt, but tries to paper over its problems.

* There is potential for an international military crisis to develop, with significant implications for Australia. eg. U.S. /Iran, North Korea/South Korea, China/India, India/Pakistan, China/Taiwan and US/China. A serious military rebuff for the U.S. in Asia could dramatically heighten tensions in our area.

* We must begin now, to take full responsibility for our defence, in a cost-effective manner.

* A well-developed Australian militia offers an excellent deterrent, and provides a major headache to an invader, almost impossible to overcome.

Step 1:

* The Federal government must frankly acknowledge to the Parliament:

  1. a) The potential for serious instability in our region, threatening Australia.
  2. b) The absolute futility of relying on ANZUS and the U.S. for Australia’s defence.
  3. c) The resultant vulnerability of Australia to a concerted, full-scale invasion.
  4. d) The poor cost effectiveness in the modern era of aircraft-carriers, submarines and large numbers of fighter aircraft.
  5. e) That every nation historically, expects its able-bodied men to be willing to assist in the event of an invasion.
  6. f) The need to steadily develop over time a national defence system, based around an Australian militia.

Step 2:

* The development of an Australian Militia will require an urgent social debate regarding the availability of firearms to civilians in a free society. What is clear is that:

  1. a) “It will be found an unwise and unjust jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition he may abuse it” (Oliver Cromwell, 1649).[1]
  2. b) Gun laws disarm the innocent and the vulnerable, not killers. The strategy of twentieth century dictators (such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao) was always to remove forearms from the community, or restrict firearm ownership, so that dictatorship couldn’t be resisted. An unarmed nation is a defenceless nation.
  3. c) A national defence policy based around a professional army of 30,000 for a nation of 21 million is manifestly inadequate.
  4. d) “The rifle and pistol are equally indispensable… The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honour with all that’s good.” George Washington.

* This debate should lead to a re-appraisal of our firearm legislation, at State and Federal level.

* The Federal government should plan for the militia’s development, using the Swiss militia’s model. This will require short and long-term planning, along with the support of the grass-roots of the Australian community.

 

[1] Quoted in Alymer, G., “Rebellion or Revolution?” 1986, p.134.

Pete Buttigieg Argues That Unborn Babies Are Not Human Beings Until They Take Their First Breath

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, a self-admitted homosexual who claims to be married to a man contrary to what the Bible says, argued that unborn babies can be aborted up until they draw their first breath. He bases this on the creation of Adam. Buttigieg might want to look at the Genesis account to get a better understanding about sexuality before he makes similar ridiculous comments.

God did not make another man and a woman as a companion for Adam. He only made a woman. Jesus, who many homosexuals say never addressed homosexuality, validated God’s creation ordinance:

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,  and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).

Buttigieg begins his line of argument by referencing Genesis 2:7 where he assumes that this verse shows that life becomes human when we first breathe, not at conception. If God had formed all of us from “the dust from the ground,” then Buttigieg would have a point. To say the least, the creation of Adam and Eve was unique.

A baby growing in his mother’s womb is not made up of inanimate matter but living tissue, no different from that of a ten-year-old who is still growing. And while unborn babies are not receiving oxygen through their lungs, they are nevertheless receiving a steady supply through the umbilical cord.

If someone stops breathing after an electrical shock, do we assume the person is dead or alive? Should we take extraordinary means to resuscitate or assume that the body is now inanimate matter devoid of life?

The Bible also attributes self-consciousness to unborn babies, something that modern medicine has studied and acknowledged. Jacob and Esau are said to have “struggled together within” their mother’s womb (Gen. 25:22). The New Testament offers a similar glimpse into prenatal consciousness: “And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). The fact that babies that are born prematurely have the same signs of life as babies that went through nine full months of development in the womb is a sure indication that self-consciousness is a medical reality.

Some pro-abortion advocates appeal to Exodus 21:22 where they claim that killing an unborn fetus is a property crime rather than murder. This is absurd. This assumes an unborn baby is not a person. The Bible teaches otherwise. The original Hebrew reads: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that her children [yeled] come out….” Notice that the text uses the word “children,” not “products of conception.” The Hebrew word for “children” in this verse is used in other contexts to designate a child already born. For example, in Exodus 2:6 we read: “When Pharaoh’s daughter opened the basket], she saw the child [yeled], and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children [yeled].’”

Since these are “children that come out,” in the case-law of Exodus 21:22, they are considered to be persons, not property. If there is no injury to these individuals—the mother and her prematurely delivered child or children—then there is no penalty. If there is an injury, then the judges must decide on an appropriate penalty based on the extent of injury either to the mother and/or her children because both are persons in terms of biblical law.

For an extended discussion of the logic of Exodus 21:22, see Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus1

Some translations have “so that she has a miscarriage” when the text literally should read “so that here children come out.” There are two Hebrew words that fit the circumstances of miscarriage or premature birth: “There shall be no one miscarrying [shakal] or barren in your land” (Ex. 23:26; also Hosea 9:14), and “Or like a miscarriage [nefel] which is discarded, I would not be” (Job 3:16).

Using Exodus 21:22 to establish non-personhood in an unborn baby is a weak reed indeed. The actions on the part of the woman and the two men are not premeditated. The woman had no intention of aborting her child. The two men were not in the abortion business. One could make the case that the untimely birth and subsequent “injury” or “harm” was accidental, even though the men should not have been fighting. Meredith G. Kline offers a helpful summary of the passage:

This law found in Exodus 21:22–25 turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person…. No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life…. The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it…. Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22–25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life.2

In biblical terms, unborn babies are always considered to be fully human and deserving of civil protection. On the other hand, men having sex with other men is always sinful, and that’s in the Bible.

  1. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, (1967), 275. Quoted in Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 144. []
  2. Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, 5 (1985–1986), 75, 83, 88–89. This article originally appeared in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1977). []

The Beginnings of Christian Reform (52)

 The Case for an Australian Militia (V)                

                                 The U.S Alliance- Past and Future:

a) The ANZUS alliance was originally defensively oriented, stating that the parties will “consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.”[1]

b) But Australia’s interpretation of the alliance has drifted. Now it seems to be based on Harold Holt’s subservient commitment in 1966: “all the way with LBJ.”

c) Where the US has gone, Australia has followed, into Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan. These are nations that have never attacked either of us, and where countless innocent civilians have perished in senseless wars.

Americans over-estimate the importance of technical gadgets of war, look upon other governments as inferior, look upon other peoples as inferior, do not understand foreign systems, separate the world into good guys (Americans) and bad guys (whoever doesn’t agree with Americans), refuse to face realities, think that wars can be run like production lines, focus on body counts, kills and statistics, view systems that are different as threats, and on and on. [2]

 

d) The US Defence Secretary says that “the US will continue to be pre-eminent in Asia” (12/6/2011).

e) But what if the US goes “a bridge too far,” provoking the Chinese through an incident in the South China Sea? The Chinese have 2.2 million soldiers, 1,700 jet fighters, 7,000 tanks and 8 nuclear submarines.

f) “China and the US face ‘a showdown or some kind of confrontation’ unless they change their thinking and outlook,” according to the Dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing University, Wang Jisi.[2]

g) Bill Hayden: “The old world order, with which we have comfortably lived for so long, is unravelling.” [3]

We have two options now, in relation to the U.S. alliance:

1) We plead our innocence concerning the U.S. behaviour saying, “I’ve heard nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing, it’s all too hard.”

2) We end our defence ties with the US, systematically establishing our own national defence.

Conclusion:

  1. It was Mussolini who coined the phrase, Might is Right.
  2. We know how the U.S. has behaved in the past, and how it continues to behave today: arrogant, belligerent, aggressive and murderous of innocent life around the world.
  3. Politics without morality always ends in tyranny: Think of the Gestapo or the KGB: is the CIA really any better?
  4. Can Australia in all good conscience, continue to be an ally of the U.S., when our knowledge of her immoral and unconscionable behaviour means as an ally we are complicit in her deeds, and associated with her in the eyes of the world?
  5. For the sake of a cut-price defence, Australia has overlooked certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy. For national defence we have tacitly accepted the foolish assumption that “the end justifies the means.”
  6. The ANZUS alliance must be ended. This is a moral, economic and defence necessity we must face up to. Like every other nation, Australia must finally grasp the nettle and take responsibility for its own defence. This will require the establishment of an Australian militia.

 

 

[1] Source: Wikipedia.

[2] Mike Rozeff, (US economist), “US Military Defeated in Viet Nam,” Rockwell website, 24/5/2012.

[3] ‘Showdown Certain unless China, U.S. Change Tack,’ Paul Kelly, “The Australian,” 16/8/2011.

[4] Bill Hayden, ‘Caught in the US-China Wash,’ “The Australian,” 11/6/2011.

Two Big Errors That Are Neutralizing The Church

There are two big errors that have infected the Church. There are others but these two are especially destructive.

The first error is that there is a sacred-secular divide. Too many Christians are under the false impression that Christians can only exist in the secular world, that there’s no transformative impact on the world with the Gospel and the application of the Bible to the world. While God created the world good (Gen. 1:31), since the advent of sin, the world is unredeemable. In fact, it’s so bad that God has turned it over to Satan.

Sin has infected the world. Sin has infected us. According to the Bible, we are a “new creature in Christ; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17). We may not always live up to this newness, but it’s still a reality.

Available at the American Vision Store

Paul writes this about the created order:

For everything created by God is goodand nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:4-5).

The earth does not belong to Satan. It belongs to God; it always has: “FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S AND ALL IT CONTAINS” (1 Cor. 10:26), “the world, and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24:1b). One of the last things Jesus told His disciples was that He has “all authority in heaven and earth” (Matt. 28:18-20) that has worldwide implications affecting the nations.

This first error leads to the second error. As Christians turn the world over to the forces of evil, they must create an escape from the rubble they’ve left behind.

The second error is that we are living on the edge of some impending eschatological event. This has been going on for centuries. See The Day and the Hour: Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World by Francis X. Gumerlock. Here’s the latest from Way of the Tabernacle that appears on Dean Haskin’s Facebook page:

President Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and his second term will start in January 2021. The Feast of Trumpets in 2021 will fall on September 6 that year. It will be somewhere around the year 2021 that the bride will be removed (on the Feast of Trumpets), and the antichrist revealed, which will begin the ten year period that will end at Armageddon.

The bride being removed is said to be a pre-tribulation “rapture.” There is no such thing in Scripture. The New Testament does not say anything about the Church being taken off the earth before, during, or after a period of tribulation. The tribulation period that Jesus mentioned in the Olivet Discourse took place before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:34). John said that he was a “fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom” (Rev. 1:9). The tribulation period was short. The kingdom is forever.

Is Jesus Coming Soon?
Available at the American Vision Store

The early church endured the tribulation and outlived the Roman Empire.

When Israel became a nation again in 1948, prophetic speculation was all the rage. Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, published in 1970, lulled millions of Christians into a prophetic sleep with his claim that something called the rapture would take place within 40 years, that is, sometime before 1988: 1948 + 40 = 1988. LGPE is getting long in the tooth. In 2020 it will celebrate its 50th anniversary.

How long will prophetic speculation continue?