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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
* 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.
 Gordon Craig, “Germany 1866-1945,” 1980, p,viii.
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.
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,
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
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
The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today,
* 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.
* The Federal government must frankly acknowledge to the Parliament:
a) The potential for serious instability in our region, threatening Australia.
b) The absolute futility of relying on ANZUS and the U.S. for Australia’s defence.
c) The resultant vulnerability of Australia to a concerted, full-scale invasion.
d) The poor cost effectiveness in the modern era of aircraft-carriers, submarines and large numbers of fighter aircraft.
e) That every nation historically, expects its able-bodied men to be willing to assist in the event of an invasion.
f) The need to steadily develop over time a national defence system, based around an Australian militia.
* 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:
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).
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.
c) A national defence policy based around a professional army of 30,000 for a nation of 21 million is manifestly inadequate.
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.
 Quoted in Alymer, G., “Rebellion or Revolution?” 1986, p.134.
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.”
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.
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.
g) Bill Hayden: “The old world order, with which we have comfortably lived for so long, is unravelling.” 
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.
It was Mussolini who coined the phrase, Might is Right.
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.
Politics without morality always ends in tyranny: Think of the Gestapo or the KGB: is the CIA really any better?
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?
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.”
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.
 Source: Wikipedia.
 Mike Rozeff, (US economist), “US Military Defeated in Viet Nam,” Rockwell website, 24/5/2012.
 ‘Showdown Certain unless China, U.S. Change Tack,’ Paul Kelly, “The Australian,” 16/8/2011.
 Bill Hayden, ‘Caught in the US-China Wash,’ “The Australian,” 11/6/2011.
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.
Paul writes this about the created order:
For everything created by God is good, and 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.
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.
A look at US Government debt since the beginning of the 20th century tells the story.
a) The U.S. has been fighting unproductive, expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.
b) The U.S. defence budget is approaching a $1 trillion, but interest payments to China are now $450 billion. Professor L. Kotlikoff estimated (on Congressional figures, in August 2012) that the true US debt is not 16 trillion, but counting “unfunded liabilities” is $222 trillion.
c) Empires historically over-commit and collapse through debt and war. Think of the British Empire: after two World Wars and all the debt, it’s gone.
d) The U.S. still maintains 64,000 troops in Germany, 33,000 troops in Japan, and 10,000 troops in Italy, with a total of 700 bases on foreign soil. What for?
e) How many wars has the U.S. fought since 1945? The Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice). When was it attacked in this time? Never.
f) The last U.S. budget surplus was when? 1957. The government takes in only 57 cents out of every dollar it spends today.
g) U.S. government debt rises by $120 million every hour; they don’t know how to stop.
h) “Anyone who looks objectively at actions being taken by the U.S. government to bolster its credit or cause its credit to deteriorate has to reach a very negative conclusion. Why? Simply because the country’s leadership has been taking it downhill for decades on end.”
i)“Nearly one-fourth of American homeowners live in houses that are underwater, worth less than the mortgages on them.” Thus there is a massive “shadow inventory” of over 50 million houses.
j) “America today is nothing more than a spoiled brat blowing through the last of their inheritance.”
II. China has 1.3 billion people:
a) China is rapidly developing a modern economy to rival the U.S.
b) “Each empire is replaced by its major creditor… The US was Great Britain’s major creditor. Now, China holds more US paper dollars and debt than anyone” (Bill Bonner, 11/8/2011).
c) The Chinese have 2.25 million soldiers, 1,700 fighter planes, 7,000 tanks and eight nuclear subs. Australia has 30,000 soldiers, with 16,900 reservists. Comparing these statistics (using 47,000 Australian soldiers as a basis), that’s a ratio of 1 Australian soldier to 47 Chinese.
d) China’s booming economy means its defence budget will double by 2015 to $238.2 billion, about four times the size of its nearest rival, Japan, according to a report released yesterday by global defence information provider IHS Janes… Australia, the region’s fifth-biggest military purchaser, spent $23.6 billion on defence last year, a figure expected to rise to $27.5 billion by 2015.
III. There are food and oil shortages in parts of the world:
a)’Global Food Crisis “One Shock Away,” Says World Bank Chief.’
b) Everyone has to eat, and Australia grows a lot of food. Could a nation decide to take ours by force?
IV. Australians must Consider our future Defence Independently, 10 Years from Now:
a) The Golden Rule of Insurance: Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Why? Famous last words are: “That could never happen!” Eight 20th Century incidents:
i) WW I in 1914.
ii) 1.5m. Armenians murdered by Turkey (the twentieth century’s first genocide), in 1915.
iii) The French renege on their commitment to Poland, to help her in the event of an attack by a third party in 1939.
iv) WW II, 1939-1945.
v) German companies contract to build mass human incinerators in 1942.
vi) The Nazis kill 6 million Jews in World War II.
vii) The U.S. drops atomic bombs on Japan killing some 200,000 people, in 1945.
viii) Some 800,000 Tutsis murdered by the Hutus in Rwanda, in 1994.
Those who say, “That could never happen here!” demonstrate a tragic ignorance of human nature and history. It was Hilaire Belloc who said that
time after time mankind is driven against the rocks of the horrid reality of a fallen creation. And time after time mankind must learn the hard lessons of history; the lessons that for some dangerous and awful reason we can’t seem to keep in our collative memory.
 Jeff Berwick, “The Great Collapse of the US Empire,” Lew Rockwell website, 11/4/2012.
Question: Why aren’t there enough votes to elect God-honoring candidates?
Answer: Because there aren’t enough Christians who understand the basic biblical principles of government.
Since the 1976 election, there has been a Christian voting block. Jimmy Carter was the first “Born Again” President. He turned out to be a disappointment. He was pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and pro-big government. Reagan followed with two terms. He started off well but then succumbed to Establishment pressure.
Gary North writes, “as President, he left a conflicting legacy.”
1. He got Congress to lower marginal tax rates (1981).
2. He accepted hikes in Social Security taxation (1983)
3. He put Bush on the ticket, launching that dynasty.
4. He staffed his administration with Bush’s people.
5. He ignored them on the USSR.
6. He bankrupted the Soviet Union: arms race.
7. He ran annual $200 billion deficits (1983-88)
8. He vetoed few spending bills.
9. He articulated the free market line.
10. He articulated optimism about America.
11. He left Carter’s legacy as “malaise” (Carter never said it.)
12. He galvanized the New Christian Right.
13. He established a new standard for Presidential rhetoric.
A. He gave us this: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
B. He was funny.
Christians entered politics as a defined voting block based on some easily identified single-issue policies. Most did not have a developed biblical philosophy of government. To help remedy this situation, I wrote a three-volume work titled God and Government (1982-1986) that is now available in a one-volume hardback edition.
Many of these single-issue Christian voters did not have a comprehensive biblical worldview. They continue to send their children to government schools, embrace a social welfare economic system, and often support unbiblical wars. North described this as “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right” in The Failure of the American Baptist Culture. It remains with us today. It explains why we are not making much headway culturally and politically and we are stuck with voting for less than desirable candidates to keep from being inundated with what the Democrat Party would unleash upon our nation if they gain control of the presidency and Congress.
When a politician starts talking about “income inequality” and promises to use the authority and force of government to “correct” it, that person is a Marxist, and the people who voted for him because he made such a promise are also Marxists. The thing of it is, there are millions of Christians who vote like Marxists rather than Moses. The law of Moses (actually, the law of God) states, “You shall not steal,” and I would add, even if by the vote of a majority or if it feels like the right thing to do.
There are a lot of elected officials who claim to be Christians but who vote like Marxists. When it comes to voting in an election, the majority of candidates running for office are devoid of any knowledge of how a civil government should function. It’s a real dilemma since not to vote until the near-perfect candidate makes his or her appearance — thousands of them from city, county, state and federal elections — means that even less qualified candidates gain power and lord it over us.
The current batch of Democrat candidates running for President is a perfect example. They are some of the most radical politicians that the United States has ever produced.
A Facebook friend did not believe it was a moral problem for people to vote for somebody who was going to use his or her political office to take money from some people to give it to other people. It’s the American way! All you need is a majority. Here’s my response:
Would it be OK to get a majority to rob a neighbor because he has more stuff than you do? But somehow it’s OK to elect people to political office to take some of your neighbor’s stuff and pass it around to you and your friends.
He claimed that “Bill de Blasio does not embrace Marxism, but rather, adheres to ‘democratic socialism.’” I feel so much better knowing that, and apparently you should too. He even helps us out with a definition:
According to the YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”
I was hoping that he was only being sarcastic. He wasn’t.
He went on to write, “De Blasio’s hope, as far as I can tell, is to bring greater economic health/balance to NYC via ‘democratic’ means that will help those who are economically less fortunate than the uber-wealthy who are inhabiting The Big Apple.”
There you have it. Theft and coercion by majority vote. He’s OK with this. He actually appealed to the Bible, quoting Matthew 22:21: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
I pointed out that we don’t live under Caesar, and if we did, we should do everything in our power to relieve ourselves from his tyranny and rule.
The naiveté of so many Christians is frightening, especially when such acculturated Marxist sitting in church each Sunday appeals to the Bible to use it as a way to empower Caesar, the same Caesar that crucified Jesus and put Christians to death. Notice how he wraps his confiscatory policies in redemptive terms:
[W]e have the scarlet thread of redemption [in the Bible] that is seen against the backdrop of many principles that are God-centered; principles by which we are to live: i.e., compassion, love, gentleness, understanding, tender-heartedness, mercy, etc. Today, we live in a democratic-republic society where, at least on the local level, people CAN and DO make decisions based on votes. Sorry, that’s the way it is. That’s the system we have. If you don’t like it, well … go vote for what you do like. As for Cuba, North Korea, and Communist Russia/China, making reference to those kinds of regimes in a friendly discussion about De Blasio is a bit … over the top.
This discussion is first about ethics and only secondarily about politics. Yes, we know people vote for immoral policies. That may be the “way it is,” but it’s not the way it should be. Posting pictures of adorable babies is not a remedy for what they might face 20 years from now. The decisions we make today will impact them tomorrow.
It’s always “over the top” until the people who were put into power come after your property. When the Sixteenth Amendment was proposed, the people who naively supported it were told that it was a way to extract money for the super-rich. It was for “the other guy.” The people were warned and duped.
I’m sure those who warned the people about the regimes of Hitler, Castro, Stalin, and Mao were accused of being a “bit over the top.”
It’s not “compassion, love, gentleness, understanding, tender-heartedness, mercy” when politicians take money from some people so they can give it to other people. A person can’t be compassionate with other people’s money. And it’s not “compassion, love, gentleness, understanding, tender-heartedness, mercy” when people vote to take money from some people so it can be given to other people.
It’s called theft. If you want to be loving and merciful, then use your own money as millions of people in America do every day. The politicians want the people to believe that they are the ones who are being compassionate when they vote for higher taxes and more wealth confiscation and redistribution.
What my Marxist-sympathetic friend does not understand is that policies like those of de Blasio and every Democrat running for President of the United Staes have created more misery, poverty, and despair than the “uber-wealthy” have ever done.
So the next time you go to church, you may be sitting next to a Marxist who will vote to have some politician pick your pocket in the name of Jesus and call it biblical truth.