In 1967, a man named Enoch Powell made a speech in the United Kingdom urging the Labour government led by Harold Wilson to repatriate West Indian, Arab, Asian and African migrants to their homelands. Powell, a Tory MP and former classics professor claimed that the immigration policy then prevailing was self destructive of the nation and its culture and would inevitably lead to “rivers of blood” in the streets unless it was changed. For his trouble, he was universally vilified by his colleagues in the House, denounced in the media and the Parliament as a bigoted racist and sacked from the Shadow Cabinet of Opposition Leader Edward Heath.
On July 7th this year, rivers of blood did indeed run in London streets, as the children of those West Indian, Asian, African and Arab migrants Powell was talking about, turned on the country in which they had been born, and which had provided their parents with a home and a job.
This was no attack by people brought in from their foreign homeland for the purpose. This was undertaken by homegrown English citizens and, although the operation may have been planned and controlled from offshore, the perpetrators were willingly, and one must say enthusiastically, murdering their fellow citizens, in the process dying themselves. Some doubt has been shed on whether or not the bombers believed this was a suicide mission, with Scotland Yard suggesting that the bombs had timing devices that despite being apparently set for delayed explosion, in fact, were wired for instantaneous detonation. If this is so, it demonstrates the ruthlessness of those planning the attack and the expendability with which they regarded their front-line troops.
The focus since the attacks has been on identifying the attackers and discovering their networks, but of more importance is endeavouring to understand the strategic objective of those ultimately responsible. That they were “Muslims” is unquestionable, but only in the same sense that the inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition could be said to be “Christians”. That they were encouraged, motivated and inspired with a sense of divine mission by “holy men” of their Muslim faith is also unquestionable, just as the Inquisition was encouraged, motivated and inspired by Christian religious prelates of the day.
Although Islam does not speak with one voice any more than Christianity does, it is apparent that the ultimate strategic objective of those forces who are advocating and directing a terrorist war in Britain is the subjugation of the country to Islam. Although they see Britain as a Christian country, they are wrong. Britain’s religion is humanism and God has long since disappeared from their social values, their laws, their public administration and their culture. While they don’t know it any more than their Australian counterparts do, it was their Christian heritage, the godliness of their laws and social values, that made the nation strong. But with man replacing Christ as God in the hearts and minds of the rulers of the country, it has been fatally and irreversibly weakened.
Probably those “Islamic” leaders who have a feeling of divine mission in overthrowing a “Christian” country can sense the weakness of a country that has turned its back on God. After all, can humanism bind a people together as did Christianity? That is unlikely. Christianity, by its very nature and by its association with the Word of God, even such a fragile association as it has had, involved a sense of sacrifice for the common good and respect for others. Humanism does nothing of the sort; it is the ultimate doctrine of self-centredness. Can there be any doubt that the British, grown weary of a prolonged and increasingly destructive war of terror aimed at its citizens, will soon be willing to consider compromises that will gradually lead to de jure recognition of some parts of the “Islamic” agenda?
What such an agenda might be is not yet known, but probably it would at least include “affirmative action” policies to give Muslims precedence in recruitment and promotion in the Civil Service, Schools and Universities, the Defence Forces and Police. Owing to the wacky anti-discrimination policies of western governments, the legislative and administrative machinery for the introduction of “affirmative action” is already in existence. Ultimately, of course, the agenda must inevitably be, and according to the rhetoric of senior Muslim clerics, is, that Islam replaces Christianity as the official religion of Britain. It is not too difficult to envisage, as an interim step, Prince Charles taking a coronation oath in the name of Allah, as well as God. Indeed, he is already on record as saying that he wants his coronation oath to refer to him not as the traditional “defender of the Faith”, but as “defender of faiths”.
While all of this might seem to be a far-fetched scenario, it is not and it can happen very quickly. Who can forget the transformation of Iran in a few short weeks after the Shah inadvisedly went on holidays to Europe, never to return?
But that is Britain; what about Australia?
Our position is much more vulnerable. There are many politically motivated people who claim that our involvement in the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks on our own soil. While there may be some truth in that, the underlying cause of our vulnerability is the same as Britain’s; Australia has turned its back upon God and embraced humanism as its official religion.
During the last thirty years, God has been almost legislated out of existence by all governments in Australia; State and Federal, Liberal and Labour. It began with changes in the treatment of families in taxation laws. Family support payments, hitherto made to the taxpayer, usually the father, were instead paid to the mother. Concurrently, tax deductions for a spouse were removed and proposals to allow income splitting for tax purposes between husband and wife were shelved. Legislative social activism, urged on successive governments by the strident demands of anti family “feminists” followed, with the legal constraints on abortion, homosexuality and divorce being removed.
Gradually, the whole social environment of Australia was changed. The brainwashing of students in schools and universities led to widespread sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, contempt for the elderly and the glorification of youth. The fruit of such policies was a marked increase in suicide, particularly amongst the young. Our humanist leaders, while publicly deploring this, nevertheless worked hard to introduce legislation to allow euthanasia; the putting down of sick or disabled people. Shades of the Third Reich!
Thus, Australia has no God to turn to for help in the forthcoming struggle for survival, for who can doubt that the English experience of terrorism will soon become an example to be acted upon by our own home-grown or imported fanatics. And who can say that this is a fate that Australia hasn’t earned, with its contemptuous disregard of God’s Word and God’s standard? And what does His Word say?
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to peoples” (Proverbs 14:34).
Such a bleak view of the future is reinforced by the moral and spiritual disintegration of the Church, the only body capable of bringing about a change in conditions that would re-equip the nation with spiritual authority. But the Church is disabled; either distracted by the exposure of its own internal corruption or else obsessed with the pursuit of worldly and materialistic ambitions.
Those who belong to Christ though, can draw strength from what lies ahead. There can be little doubt that the end times shaking is about to begin. It is time to draw near to Christ, to embrace that royal priesthood that is the privilege of each believer and to do what Christ, and only Christ, has done; those things that are pleasing to the Father.