Antichrists Down Under

We hear now of Australia’s move to remove the use of AD and BC to denote the passage of time in their school textbooks. Instead, they will use the communistic “Before Common Era” and “Common Era”.

We can well see what the reason for this is. It is not form impartiality’s sake, nor is it for simplification. It is a desire on the part of secularists to remove Christ from our history, and have him as a religious curiosity rather than an established figure in the history of our people.

These are the same people who won’t allow Bibles in libraries, who mock the use of daily prayers in schools, who call for Christian iconography to be scratched out from public buildings, like the Soviets who blew up churches, but on a smaller, creeping scale.

Their plan is to completely sever us from our Christian past, because a nation with no identity is far easier to replace with some ruinous, cosmopolitan socialism. It is common for Marxist critical schools to divide the world up into eras according to their own perverted view of history, a method which can be used to make some events of great spiritual importance, such as the birth of Christ, appear to be a mere footnote in history, while at the same time increasing the importance of their own squalid and generic human milestones.

By sheer coincidence, I am currently reading a pseudo-historical novel by HG Wells, and he divides the history of the world into “eras” of varying and arbitrary lengths, with the overall effect that it is hard to work out exactly which century is being referred to.

I suspect such a system would have a similarly confusing effect on Australia’s schoolchildren.

Of course, it’s not just the leftist revisionists who stand to gain from wiping clean the slate of Christianity. The long march of secularism through the bastion of Christianity is targeted solely at us, for there never appears to be any condemnation of other religions. The alien festivals of Eid and Divali are always celebrated by the multiculturalists as markers and milestones in history, even as the very name of Jesus Christ is forbidden to be spoken, lest it “offend” someone.

And it is expected of us that we change the name of 1400 years of our calendar system because it might offend or confuse people from different backgrounds. We ought to ask why such a culture that is alien to these Muslim and Hindu and Jewish foreigners should be expected to absorb them at such a difficult cost.

But it’s not our culture they want, but our resources, the fruits of our labour and our society. They are more than happy to support the banner of the secularists, as it makes our nations easier for them to invade and conquer, when there is no cultural resistance to outsiders.

And of course, once they are here, the same “cultural sensitivity” would not be expected of them. They would be expected to be “proud” of their heritage, purely because it has usurped our own Christian heritage.

Every Christian, whether in Australia or any other nation on Earth, should oppose these stabs against our faith, for they are stabs against us as well. They may not seem very important on their own, but in the long run, it will amount to the prohibition on all Christianity.

Rioting: Due to Physical or Spiritual Neglect?

The riots that have in recent days resulted in the burning and looting of many major cities in my country are attributed to several things by the mainstream media. 

The Conservative party claims that the riots are a result of neglect by the previous government, while the Labour party claims that the riots are a result of cuts to funding by the current government.

Both of these ridiculous buck-passing explanations are in fact true, but they are only the result of short-sightedness and bad management, mere symptoms of the real cause for the disorder.

It is certainly the case that many of those committing the worst of the violence were from ethnic minorities, feeling no allegiance to this nation. The lack of any inherited graces or social mores that keep the host society in working order must have contributed to the barbarity of the situation.

But it is also the case that many of those looting, smashing and burning were as ethnically British as I am, and they still engaged in this depravity with as much gusto as the foreign born ones.

I suspect that it is the collapse of Christian morality in this nation has allowed their kind to multiply. The sad fact is that many people will not seek out spiritual guidance unless it is mandated to them. If it has not been hoisted upon them, they will simply default into an animalistic state of being.

Christian society sustains itself when people who understand the divine basis of morality uphold these rules amongst those with whom they dwell. Christianity has concepts of duty, where people must work if they hope to live, and where criminality is punished harshly, lest leniency invite even worse offences, and where charity and compassion are the basis of a man’s interactions with his fellows. 

Christianity forms a bulwark that ensures that those who do not understand why this must be the way of things, are at least able to reap the benefits of living in a society that does understand. 

With their material needs justly cared for by a society that is neither too lenient nor too cold hearted, these people can focus more of their energies on improving their spiritual understanding and their relationship with God.

But the secularist agitators have told us that enforcing Christian morality is “hateful” that it “restricts choice” and other phrases that sound horrible at first, but on closer inspection sound like the foot stamping of a naive child.

Nonetheless, they had their way, and the duty to work became nothing but a right to sit around in a sunken state of poverty, gripped only by carnal thoughts. The removal of harsh criminal punishments were lauded as an enlightened society treating people with compassion, while the real compassion and love afforded to fellow Christians was derided as old fashioned and unnecessary restraint on personal freedom.

Without these things to restrain them, many people, without jobs to occupy them, and without a spiritual education to guide their actions, have lost all sense of moral values, to the point where their actions are guided solely by whether it grants them some cheap gratification in the short term.

As we can see, without love for their fellow countrymen, there is no reason in their minds not to burn down houses and livelihoods, loot the shops of the hard working and murder innocent bystanders. The suffering of others is not taken into consideration, because in a secularist society, you cannot receive any punishment if you cannot be traced.

Those who fear God live their lives feeling they are under close scrutiny, and conduct their affairs accordingly.

I believe that these riots, having shown these degenerated people that they can do exactly what they want, and get away with it, will spark a change in the way the lowest orders of our society think about disorder. They have a taste for it now, and once this is forgotten about, it will probably begin to happen again, until it becomes a common occurrence, and our streets will not be safe at night, populated by feral packs of animals, dwelling only in the materialist plane.

It can be stopped very quickly if people would only make the tough decisions that Christianity mandates, but alas, the secularists would rather enjoy cheap freedoms now, while their country collapses all around them later. In this respect, they are as bad as those doing the actual rioting. It comes down to whether one is willing to put the laws of God before one’s own desires.

The Failure of Religions to deal with Lawbreakers

The continued failure of religious institutions to respond effectively to criminal allegations is one of the most damaging problems that religion has, and it gives much ammunition to those who wish to remove worship of God from the face of human society.

When the Catholic Church covers up instances of child abuse, what they believe they are doing is being forgiving with the perpetrators, or believe that they can handle these issues in a more Christian manner than the secular authorities.

The problem I have with this attitude, however, is that very rarely is anything done about it, and the abuses can carry on for years. I have very little respect left for irreligious governments, but they are usually still willing to come down heavily on child abusers, perhaps because they have allowed every other degeneracy to affect our children that they are compelled to react strongly against the one remaining taboo. And it is definitely a taboo to them, a mere societal prejudice, and not the foul abomination and ignorance of God’s law that Christians know it is.

If the Catholic church were willing to punish it’s tenured criminals with the full force that the Bible instructs them to, then there would be little need for the weak measure of justice meted out by the state. But as they are unwilling to undertake this work themselves, they should inform those who will act in the children’s best interests. 

This would show that Christians value just and protective laws, and it would dispel this air of secrecy and mysticism that terrifies many irreligious people into militant atheism. By standing up for national justice when it is in accordance with the word of God, and actively resisting it when it is ungodly, Christians can better hope to influence the world around them, and convince others that our moral compass is attuned in the same general direction as theirs is, even if they do not yet understand the source of is power. 

When that happens, we’ll look a lot less like a secretive clique maintaining the status quo, and we’ll start to look like campaigners for what is right. Of course, this won’t change the opinions of the most hardline atheists, but it will doubtless make the ordinary people far less critical of the concept of religion as a whole.

It is probably only the intense tribal loyalty of many Catholics that allows their institution to continue in spite of such revelations of abuse. If such widespread criminality had been uncovered in the Anglican Church, it would be virtually deserted by its comparatively transient churchgoers. In fact, it has already been heavily abandoned, for lesser evils than occurred in the Catholic Church. If anything, it has been deserted for being too mealy mouthed and modern.

I would ask any Christian who sees the apathy and degeneracy within their church if they should seek out a more truly Christian congregation, or if they should continue to be preached to by hypocrites and sex offenders.

Alas, it seems that traditionalism has a strong hold on Christian hearts, even where, as Jesus Christ said, those traditions transgress the laws of God.

This probably accounts for the growing popularity of the Eastern Orthodox church in Britain. Christians who abandon the Catholic and Anglican churches are often unwilling to consider a more modern church, even where the newer church is a stricter follower of Christian doctrine as laid down in the Bible.

Therefore, a Church that maintains an ancient tradition, while being less open to corruption, tends to attract the more conservative Christians. It is probably a better outcome than going to the liberal churches, in any case.

But I believe there is an inevitable problem with having wide ranging Christian institutions. This problem is that they are, despite the best intentions of their congregations, open to being corrupted and waylaid by ambitious clergy, who use the unwavering loyalty of their congregations to achieve ungodly ends.

I would advocate that any individual Church that maintains a belief that the word of God in the Bible is the basis of all law, should avoid any attempt to place their congregation under the power of some overarching body.

The risks with appointing a leader of the religion is that you may put a man in the place of God, and if that man is not virtuous, the entire religion is corrupted by his diktats. An independent Church is better equipped to deal with individual crimes, if they do not have any history of abuse, and will not attract the ire of secular bodies when their power is minimal. Moreover, if one good church is corrupted, others will remain unaffected.

Of course, there is nothing to stop communication between different churches, but there are great risks when one attempts to place a central authority over many of them. In the end, those independent churches which stay true to the laws of the Bible should be united under the eternal dominion of Jesus Christ.

A Christian Perspective on the Murders in Norway

And lo, after I ask how long we will put up with a hostile government, it appear at first glance that at least one man has declared war against it. Anders Breivik, of Norway, has justified his murder of more than 70 people on the basis that he was fighting against his government, who sought to stop the mass import of Muslims and protect Europe from a Muslim takeover. 

These are certainly goals that I approve of, and Breivik characterises himself as a Christian martyr, the type of honourable person that there are too few of these days.However, despite applause from some circles, who view these attacks as a first stage in a new crusade for European civilisation, I cannot endorse what this vile man has done, and neither should any true Christian man or woman. 

The bombing in Oslo which ordinarily would be the macabre centre stage in these affairs does not seem to have slowed down Norway’s government, nor does it appear to have made them think twice about the Islamification of Europe. It has merely killed several people unconnected with any real threat to Norway.

I have heard supposed nationalists support Breivik’s cold blooded murder of dozens of Norweigian youths on Utoya Island on the basis that these youths were supporters of the Norwegian Labour Party, and as such were legitimate targets. 

Personally I find it hard to believe that these youths are the greatest threat to European Christian society. It is highly probable that they were enthusiastic supporters of multiculturalism, with little love for Christianity, but the same is true for millions of other people who have not been so murdered. 

These children were victims from birth, born into nations that did not care about them, that exploited them, and over the course of their lives, brainwashed them into supporting self destructive tendencies. Breivik may well have damaged Labour party recruitment momentarily, but he has done so in the least Christian manner possible. 

A true Christian would aim to show these misguided youths the truth of Christianity, that they might hear the call of God’s salvation. Creating a generation of Norwegians who are sceptical of mundane authority and ideologies would be the best way to injure the Labour Party, and Christianity, with its focus on the commandments of God over the commandments of men, would be a powerful safety valve against multiculturalism and unchecked Muslim invasion. 

But despite the exhortations of the media, Breivik does not seem to be either a Christian or a conservative. This reeks of an intended slur against those who value their own religion and civilisation, and almost gives one pause to consider if the whole attack may have been planned by left wingers to discredit us. Mimicry and trickery of this kind was par for the course in the days of the Pharisees, why not today?

But even if Breivik really does believe the things he says, the man is no Christian. Certainly, he suggests he wishes to protect Christian culture, but this merely means he opposes Islamification. Many of those who oppose Islam do not do it because theu prefer Christianity, they do it because they wish to remain wallowing in their lusts and hedonism which would be denied them under Islam, and indeed, under any proper Christian law. What Breivik wants is a watered down quasi Christian nation, where religion does not interfere with his own selfish desires. 

His use of steroids seems to support this assessment. I have never heard of any Christian martyr of the past drugging themselves into a frenzy, nor has any Christian martyr spoken so obsessively of himself as some “knight” nor has any martyr blasphemously referred to themselves as the “saviour of Christianity”. 

Brievik is a frustrated, murderous creature with delusions of grandeur. He is no Christian martyr, and he should not be treated as such by anyone who thinks himself a decent Christian. In any true Christian nation, a man like Breivik ought to be executed. As we are told in Luke 17:2, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”

Breivik has committed the gravest of sins, and it is difficult to see how his salvation could be achieved. Instead, we should pray for those who have been murdered, for they are the true martyrs, slaughtered on the altar of greed and megalomania.

The Diversity Fallacy

An interesting article I saw in the Daily Mail the other day, centred around the residents of St Paul's Court, in Preston, UK, a sheltered housing scheme (similar to a retirement home, except there is greater independence with larger individual living areas, in addition to communal facilities, like an apartment block).

According to the Mail, residents have been instructed to remove any religious icons or imagery from the communal areas. The justification for this is, as ever, the “promotion of diversity amongst its residents and visitors”. 

This is the insidious nature of the secularist creep, whereby the removal of Christianity from our day to day life is justified as being in the interests of fairness and equality. It is part and parcel of the culture that the Anti-Christian rulers of our nations have sought to establish. 

But there’s an interesting aside to this battle, which is the sop to “diversity”. They are aware that if they just attack Christianity on the basis of it being full of evil Christians who ought to be shot and buried in a trench in Dartmoor, that would rather give the game away to even the densest of egalitarians.

Instead, we get “diversity”. You can almost hear their shrill cries. “We’re all in favour of diversity, don’t you know? We want everybody to be able to do what they want, without being forced to comply with other people’s beliefs!”

And so we get this strange doublethink situation, where diversity means the removal of things that separate people, ostensibly so that those people feel less inclined to conform, but in fact forcing them all to be the same. 

This is particularly horrible, as this attack is visited on elderly people in the twilight of their lives, people who have lived in a society that was more decent and Christian in character than the one we live in today, and yet they are not permitted to exercise their own religion freely in the place that they live in.

Note that they are committed to promoting diversity amongst the visitors as well. Imagine, the way this is worded almost seems to imply that they force their secularist moral code on anyone who walks in the door, and according to the Mail, “asked elderly residents to volunteer to become 'equality and diversity' champions”.

If you’ve applied for a job or training in the last five years and read the small print, you’ll probably know what that means. Some poor old lady or traditional old man will be hounded by some condescending woman wearing a name badge until they agree to parrot these concepts which are completely alien to them, but may feel they would get in trouble if they did not. 

It is as if this whole system is compulsory by stealth, similar to the charitable donations in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. You can opt out, if you wish, but woe betide you if you do choose that route. This pressure, being used against some of the most vulnerable members of our society, must surely be bullying or abuse of some kind? 

I’m also unsure of how they intend to promote diversity amongst the visitors, considering they will only be there for a few hours, which is not nearly long enough to convert to Zoroastrianism. Perhaps they will also remove rosaries and headscarves from people as they go in, or refuse families of Christians as their quota system requires six more Jainists and a Rastafarian first. 

More likely this reference to visitors is merely a demonstration of how far they are willing to extend their arbitrary, ungodly authority.

Returning to the “diversity” theme again, it has been explained to me, by a man who sounded as if he barely believed it himself and ought to have known better, that Christianity is only being diminished in relation to other faiths because it was in such a strong position to start with.

Well, that’s certainly the case, but it does not explain why in a democracy the religion of the majority should be diminished to permit other religions to flourish buy default in the void created. Nor does it explain why libraries now place the Qur’an higher on the shelves than the Bible, nor why in an EU diary distributed to schools, Christianity was absent whilst the Muslim and Hindu festivals were listed. 

A truly free religious system would not legislate on religion at all, and would allow the dominant religion to fluctuate naturally based upon which happens to be most popular. Though I would argue that the dominant religion should be the one that has led to a society that maintains it’s people in the greatest prosperity and safety. 

At least, in this case, Muslim and Christian leaders have spoken out against this ridiculous intrusion into the lives of these people. From my own experiences of Preston, the residents of this home would be predominantly Christian and Muslim, with some Hindu presence as well.

Now, I have absolutely no desire to increase the presence of alien religions in this country, but it certainly says something when rival religions see a greater danger in secularism than they do in Christianity. Most of the residents are likely to be old or infirm. They are not in any shape to begin a holy war in the laundry room.

But the secularists never actually care about what people actually want, they only care about pre-empting tension and putting the words in people’s mouths. I daresay there are many Muslims who wouldn’t have minded the Christmas decorations that were not permitted to be put up in Preston, nor would these old people have immediately called the police at the sight of a crucifix on the wall.

They could simply discuss their grievances with one another, though they must be careful, lest an employee report them for offensive behaviour in suggesting their religion is more real than another. In the long run, it is likely that this sort of thing will increase; indeed it is ordained in the scriptures that we will suffer at the hands of the ungodly. It is not too much of a stretch to see people living in apartment buildings and social housing denied the right to practice their religion by politically motivated landlord organisations and local government. The question is, how long will we put up with this treatment from a hostile government?

Antichristianity in the National Government

Trevor Phillips, head of the British Equality and Human Rights Commission, suddenly tells us that his subversive and irresponsible commission is not in opposition to religion, and that he wishes to defend people’s right to believe in a God and follow a religion. Certainly, his organisation has spent a lot of time defending Muslims from elderly Christians who have the gall to attempt to discuss their own religion with them on equal terms. 

It has spent a lot of the taxes of Christians in leaping to the judicial defence of every self obsessed heathen with a grudge against Christianity, while Christians who are victimised by these attacks are forced to pay their own court costs, though some have had their defences nobly paid for by the Christian Institute.

Trevor Phillips is only interested in permitting a diluted, sanitised version of Christianity, but he has no intention of allowing our lives to be lived in the way God intended in the Bible. The march of secularism can often seem like a reasonable goal in the interests of equal rights, but it inevitably means a diminishment of Christianity, a removal from it’s presence in public life.

In addition, Christianity teaches many things, such as objective morals, preaching the truth to others, and various prohibitions and restrictions which secularism deems incompatible with granting everyone equal rights to do whatever stupid thing pops into their head at any given moment. Secularism in such circumstances would be a reduction in true, Biblically ordained Christianity, which those like Trevor Phillips refer to as “Christian Extremism”.

This is in itself a partisan, anti-equality judgement, because it implies that there is an acceptable form of Christianity which Trevor Phillips likes, whilst every other kind is wrong, extreme, and no doubt liable to be prosecuted for hate crimes. 

Of course, he gushes with praise for Islam, because they have supposedly made great steps to make their religion compatible with his godless society. I imagine many Christians would question whether that was true.

In any case, the Muslims have a concept which they call “Taqiyya” which basically translates to “deception”. It is the doctrine by which a Muslim may conceal their faith in the interests of safety or long term goals. Trevor Philips may be in for a shock if he thinks Muslims have any intention of conforming to his beliefs. It is entirely possible that he is aware of this, and merely wishes to use Muslims as a stick with which to beat the native Christians.  

This obsession with compatibility is almost reminiscent of how democracy works in the European Union, where votes are held again and again until a result is given that is compatible with the goals of those who control the union from behind the scenes. Probably the mainstream churches will carry out revisions and consultations until they have developed a bastardised form of Christianity that suits our antichrist leaders. But I do not think it will suit God. 

Christianity favours truth, not Muslim deception or compromised surrender. Our God is supreme, and our goals cannot be put on hold to satisfy the whims of the godless. Christianity created our nations, and it is our nations which must conform to Christianity, and not the other way around. 

Trevor Phillips is not an especially important creature himself, for he is merely a vocal lackey of the people in power who so desperately hate Christianity, but cannot say so themselves for fear of awakening the masses of ordinary believers in Christ to their own enslavement to secularism. 

But Trevor Phillips is a symbol of the nasty things which will keep crawling out of the woodwork and demanding ever greater restrictions on Christian worship, until the day when Christians finally say enough is enough, and start to live their lives as God intended, fearing no censure but His. 

In the meantime, we will suffer at the hands of the antichrists, but we will prevail as long as we keep our faith. As is said in 2^nd Timothy chapter 3, verse 15, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Beating Our Enemies At Their Own Games

When we attempt to preach to others of what our faith means, in an attempt to help them along the path to an understanding of Christianity, it is possible that we may face particularly difficult opposition. Particularly in the present day, it seems that Christians are increasingly likely to be persecuted for their beliefs, though this is no more than we could expect according to the prophesies if the end times. 

Prosecution and imprisonment for alleged “hate crimes” whereby those in power attempt to suppress any thought that conflicts with their own satanic worldview, is particularly prevalent in the Anglosphere, though the USA’s constitutional safeguard of the right to freedom of speech is unique in maintaining some protection to this day.

In this case, it may be prudent for us to avoid conflict where it might land us in greater trouble with the law. However, when we recall in Mark 14, Peter denied Christ three times, weeping bitterly when he realised what he had done,  the message is clear that we must not shrink from our faith when pressed for it. 

On the other hand, if we observe how Christ carried out his own ministry, it can be shown that he employed several methods to defeat the intrigues of the Pharisees who were intent on subverting and stopping him from carrying out his good works. 

For example, in Mark 12:14, the Pharisees asked of Jesus: “Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?”

Their purpose here was to trick Jesus into inciting the population to rebel against their Roman rulers, for which he could be executed. However, we can see Jesus did not take this bait, at Mark 14:17: 

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.”

He avoided the trap by teaching the people to give Caesar his trifling tax, but using this same opportunity to instruct the people to give God his due as well. If one thinks about it, for all that God has done, his due must be far greater, and likely impossible for any human to pay, thereby teaching a lesson of faith and humility before the laws of God. However, this implication would not have been immediately evident to the Pharisees, who could do no more than let Jesus continue with his teachings. 

Such a trap may be used against our own preachers today. In such circumstances, our enemies may try to trick us into preaching crime or terrorism against the prevailing government. In these circumstances, we only need inform them that we only wish to follow the laws of the Bible. To continue with their attacks, the enemy must denounce the religious text of hundreds of millions of people. This may not save our preacher from further harassment, but it would at least show all Christians present where our enemies stand in opposition to our God.

In Matthew 21, Jesus showed how we can turn our enemies’ prying questions upon them, putting them on the defensive. When the Pharisees asked Jesus where he gained his authority from, they meant to prove him guilty of blasphemy (as they understood it) by refuting the authority of the Pharisees. 

But Jesus asked, at verse 25:

“The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? 

And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”

If the Pharisees had derided John as a man with no connection with God, the Pharisees risked uniting the populace against them for insulting their prophet. However, if they claim he is ordained by God, then they would have been proven hypocrites and blasphemers themselves for refusing to follow God-given wisdom.

As such, they could only further obfuscate, and in doing so were forced to let Jesus go. Again we can see how the self assured righteousness of our enemies can be turned against them when they fail to consider the implications of their lies. Their evil hypocrisy is revealed to all those present, and some of those may go on to question the lies about our faith which they have been taught.

However, we must remember that Jesus could only avoid the Pharisees’ wrath for so long. There may come a time when despite all the methods we could employ to turn the tables, our enemy may hold all public opinion and power against us, and we have no room to manoeuvre . We may be called upon to account for our faith, and at that time we must preach the word of God even when it means we will suffer. The alternative is lapsing into cowardice as Peter did.

But as we see in 3^rd chapter of Daniel, when the three men refused to bow before Nebuchadnezzar’s Idol, and were cast into a furnace for staying true to their beliefs, they told him at verse 17 that, “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver [us] out of thine hand, O king.”

Our discomfort at the hands of our enemies will be short lived compared to our salvation through God.