Search Results

In my past travels & I have met many Muslims & had the privilege to share the Gospel with them. My first experience encountering followers of Islam was to my surprise in Kiev 1989. Many young man from the Middle East were studying at various Universities in the former Soviet Union. Today we are dealing with a far more radical Islam all over the World. The followers of this religion has grown to about 2 Billion. (Mostly through childbirth & radical enforcement) But there is hope, our God is in control & many Muslims are finding & turning to Jesus. If you like me hate "Islam", but love Muslims as people lost in the grip of a tyrannical religion, and want to know more about this matter & how to share the Gospel with Muslims, then this teaching from Jay Smith will amaze & enlighten you. It is quite long & quite technical, but very good & informative, especially exposing all the lies that founders of Islam have fabricated. "Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn't Exist | Dr. Jay Smith" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_iD6Lf6MY

Australia’s Envoy of Islamophobia has released a report with 54 recommendations on how to combat Islamophobia.[1] Islamophobia is defined as the fear, prejudice, or hatred of Muslims and Islam, often leading to discrimination and hostility. This prejudice can result in verbal and physical attacks, social marginalisation, and bias, affecting Muslims. The report highlights examples of Islamophobia and asserts that it is now widespread in Australian society. In this article I want to present a Christian perspective on responding to Islamophobia. The Islamophobia Report The report by the special envoy is, in my opinion, disturbing. James McPherson has given an excellent review of it and I report that here: Special envoy Aftab Malik wants the Australian Government to formally recognise International Day to Combat Islamophobia. Government departments are asked to hold workshops addressing unconscious bias against Islam. The Home Affairs Department is instructed to review how anti-terror laws might have unintended consequences for Muslim communities. If the envoy gets his way, schoolteachers will undergo training on Islamophobia as well as on Islamic theology. Universities would be required to incorporate modules on Islamophobia as essential components of their courses. And all Parliamentarians, and their advisers, would be made to undergo compulsory training on Islamophobia, every year. But there was one recommendation I found particularly curious. And to me, it demonstrated perfectly just how unserious this entire report was. The Albanese government’s Islamophobia envoy wants an inquiry into “anti-Palestinian racism”. Because, of course, when Australians get cranky about their CBD being shut down every weekend by marchers chanting “From the river to the sea,” it could not possibly be about the Hamas flags, the intifada slogans, or the calls to wipe out the world’s only Jewish state. No, no — Australians just woke up one morning and thought: You know what we need today? A new minority to irrationally hate. Aftab Malik says Palestinians feel unsafe expressing their identity. Possibly because their public “identity” — has, for the past two years, almost been expressed by blocking traffic, shouting for the death of Jewish soldiers, and waving banners that make ASIO twitch. But instead of telling activists to tone it down, Aftab Malik wants taxpayers to fund a Commission of Inquiry into why Australians are not applauding. It is the progressive playbook in a nutshell: do not change the behaviour — criminalise the criticism. So sure, let us have a national investigation into why Australians are not thrilled about weekly traffic jams and chants for the destruction of Israel. A sober response to this report would be that it is an attempt to subjugate all criticism of Islam. Possible Concerns about Islam Why is there a concern about Islam in the wider community? Are there valid reasons to view Islam with suspicion? I think there are: Muslims tend not to assimilate in the same manner that other migrant groups have. Muslims are often in the news for protesting issues that do not concern mainstream Australia. There are Muslim majority countries where Islam is dominant and the perception is that there is intolerance of other religions. An horrific example of Muslim aggression against Christians is seen in Nigeria where thousands of Christians have been killed by Muslim jihadists. One voice that raises these concerns is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She gained international attention following the murder of Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who threatened that she would be next. Her book Infidel tells her story.[2] Raised in a strict Muslim family, Hirsi Ali survived civil war, female mutilation, brutal beatings, adolescence as a devout believer during the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and life in four troubled, unstable countries ruled largely by despots. She escaped from a forced marriage and sought asylum in the Netherlands, where she earned a college degree in political science, tried to help her tragically depressed sister adjust to the West, and fought for the rights of Muslim women and the reform of Islam as a member of Parliament. Under constant threat, demonised by reactionary Islamists and politicians, disowned by her father, and expelled from family and clan, she refuses to be silenced. She has become a Christian and warns of the dangers of fundamentalist Islam to those who hold to Western values. Another area of concern is the teachings expounded in the Quran. The Quran is held by Muslims to be the infallible word of God. Therefore, its teachings are important for the sincere Muslim. Here is a simple outline of what the Quran has to say about the treatment of infidels or the unbeliever in three different surahs (chapters): Surah 2:191 – “slay the unbelievers.” Surah 3:28 — “Muslims must not take infidels as their friends.” Surah 47:4 — “Do not seek peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them.” There are many references in the Quran that echo the same sentiments. Disagreement is Not Hate It is important that we understand that disagreeing with a religious view or an ideology does not mean that we are embarking on hate speech. To put it simply, disagreement is not hate. If we are restricted in the ability to criticise a differing point of view, a religion, or an ideology then we are removing a fundamental human right of free speech. I do not trust our current government to act wisely in this situation. Recently $27 million has been given to an Islamic group where the Mufti associated with it has called for jihad. This is an irresponsible act on the part of our government. It seems to me that the current federal Labor government is keen to appease Muslims but not so keen to address other vital issues of discrimination. Christians are discriminated against. I hear nothing from them expressing a concern about this. They have aired some concerns about antisemitism but actions speak louder than words. They have done nothing to combat antisemitism. Rather, in my opinion they are subtly promoting it. That may be contentious but that is how I perceive their actions. I do not condone attacks on Muslim women because they wear a particular garment that identifies them as Muslim. But there are laws to prevent this and there is no need for any other laws to be implemented. If we are going to have a socially cohesive society, then we must not allow an intolerant, totalitarian ideology to determine what we are allowed to say and what we are allowed to do. Christianity and Islam are not Compatible Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sins, and on the third day rose again from the dead. He lives now and is fulfilling the kingdom purposes of God bringing history to an end when he returns. This is witnessed to in the Holy Scriptures and in our ancient creeds. This is in stark contrast to Islamic beliefs about Jesus. The Quran has several references to Jesus, and here I note two important ones. First, the crucifixion of Jesus is denied.[3] Second, the Quran strongly asserts that “God” does not have a son and that he is one and so denies the Trinity.[4] To question what Muslims believe and express our viewpoint is not Islamophobia. In a free society we have the right to defend our beliefs and challenge those who disagree with us. The Way Ahead The way ahead is not to allow a totalitarian, intolerant, ideology to have the final say in all areas of our society. This is what the 54 recommendations in the report would permit. The recommendations should be rejected. Therefore, there should be an encouragement to respect people, to respect our differences and allow sensible dialogue where appropriate. The acceptance of the report on Islamophobia as a basis for a policy in responding to Muslims’ beliefs and practices in our country would be a serious restriction on free speech in Australia. I point out that one of the recommendations is that the issue of religion should be removed from anything to do with terrorism. However, most terrorist incidents are perpetrated by radical Muslims.[5] We cannot stand against evil if we do not recognise what evil is. Conclusion The narrative associated with Islamophobia is being used to restrict sensible debate. Islamophobia is being used to identify problems that can be dealt with by laws already legislated. To cry Islamophobia when an injustice occurs and hence prescribe special treatment for Muslims is to disrupt social cohesion and it discriminates against non-Muslims.

An interview with historian Raymond Ibrahim challenges ten enduring myths about Islam, arguing historical clarity is essential amid terrorism, immigration pressures, and Western cultural self-doubt. One of the most important podcast interviews of 2025 has snuck in right at the end of the year. Academic historian, public speaker and Islamic scholar, Raymond Ibrahim spoke for over two hours on the podcast platform Triggernometry about “The Real History of Islam“. In light of the recent Islamic terrorist attack at Bondi, the whole thing makes for required listening. What follows is a summary of some of the most salient points. In particular, debunking ten of the biggest myths relating to the religion of Islam. The list is in no way comprehensive, but my hope is that more people will take the time to benefit from the entire interview as well as Ibrahim’s internet resources and numerous books on the subject. The Ten Biggest Myths about Islam Muhammad was always convinced the revelations he received through the “angel Gabriel” were legitimate. In reality, Muhammad was initially harassed, beaten and physically assaulted. This caused him to seriously question that he was interacting with God, and he feared that it might even be the devil. Instead, he had to be convinced by his wife that the supernatural experiences and forceful messages he was receiving were indeed from ‘Allah’ and that he needed to ‘submit’. Muhammad was a man of peace and never compelled people to convert. While early on in Islamic history this was true, especially when his followers were weak and outnumbered, as his power and influence grew, so did the content of his message. In the words of Ibrahim, the founder of Islam was essentially a “war lord”, and later revelations abrogated earlier ones which called for calm. Jihad only means to “strive and struggle” against one’s own failings and has nothing to do with acts of violence. As the example of Muhammad himself clearly illustrates, military conquest was integral to Islam’s growth. That said, jihad can also take many different forms as the Jihad of the Tongue, Jihad of the Pen, Jihad of the Wealth and even Jihad of the Babies. Whatever promotes Islam contributes to the success of Islam’s “holy war” against unbelievers. The consumption of alcohol is always wrong. While that is a requirement put upon Muslims in this life, Ibrahim shows how it is strangely reversed in the next. Experiencing paradise in Islam is about indulging in “rivers of wine delicious to those who drink” (Qur’an 47:15). This comes with the added promise of never becoming drunk or having a hangover – “Their wine will not cause intoxication or headache” (Qur’an 37:47; 56:19). The Crusades were an unprovoked attack upon Muslims. The popular scholarly narrative among some historians is that before the first crusade in 1095, Muslims had lived in peaceful co-existence with Christians for five hundred years. Once again, this is patently untrue. Muslims had attacked and conquered many Christian regions such as Egypt, Syria and even where the great Augustine of Hippo once lived in north Africa (modern day Tunisia). For more on why the Crusades were seen as a moral necessity, see Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (HarperCollins, 2009). The Crusaders were motivated by gold, fame and land. Once again, this is simply not true. Instead, the main motivation of the Crusaders was to provide protection for Christians travelling through the Holy Land on pilgrimage. There was also a concern for the overall security of the region and the increasing threat of Muslim military expansion. If anything, the Muslims were the greater fighting force, and what is remarkable is how successful the Christian crusaders ultimately were in achieving what they did, especially via the first crusade. The Spanish Inquisition was intolerant and evil. The historical context in which this practice arose is much more complicated and nuanced that many people realise. After the re-conquest of Granada in Spain, approximately 500,000 Muslims claimed to have suddenly converted to Christianity. However, they did this to deliberately deceive and undermine their new Christian rulers. As a result, church authorities had to actively discern who was genuine in their faith and who was not, lest a new form of religious jihad arise from within. Islam produced a “Golden Age” of technology and cultural development. Many of the countries that were colonised by Europeans understood what occurred, in Ibrahim’s words, as “the greatest time” in their history. This is because European colonisation brought medicine, learning, science and technology. In comparison, most of the places where Islam conquered were completely devastated. In short, Islam didn’t create civilisation, but instead cannibalised the ones which already existed after Islam conquered them by force. Islam is currently invading the West. While some might obviously think and feel this way, the mass migration of Muslims has occurred due to Western political leaders actively enabling it. Hence, what we are witnessing is not so much an invasion as an intentional invitation, which we are increasingly reaping the fruit of. What’s more, “white guilt” is a manufactured cultural cancer which is destroying the West from within. Radical Muslims are not being true to their religion. Most people consider 10% of Muslims as being “radical” in their religious beliefs. However, it is nominal Muslims who are not being faithful to the tenets of their religious beliefs. Why is that people who are serious about following Jesus forgive their enemies, whereas Muslims who follow Muhammad follow his example by slaying them? Ibrahim has written extensively on this issue from a historical perspective, especially in his latest book, The Two Swords of Christ: The Five Centuries of War between Islam and the Warrior Monks of Christendom (Simon & Schuster, 2025). Bondi Terror, Immigration, Assimilation and Western Self-Loathing The recent terrorist attack in Bondi has revealed just how serious the threat of Islamic terrorism is. It is vital that everyone understands the religious beliefs which are motivating the people who are coming in — largely unchecked — into the West. When these immigrants are unwilling to assimilate, but instead remain in smaller ghettos, extremism thrives. Ibrahim’s most provocative point, though, is that it is not Muslim people who are ultimately the problem, but the policies of politicians in the West. The self-loathing and hatred of our own country is the thing that is destroying Western civilisation the most. The religion of Islam is simply filling an ideological vacuum which Western liberalism has inflicted upon itself. Like the proverbial Trojan Horse in Greek history, what we need to understand and realise is that under the ‘gift’ of multiculturalism lies a latent danger which needs to be recognised and dealt with before it’s too late. For places such as the United Kingdom and possibly even Australia, the fighting has already begun.

If you are called to evangelize Muslims, then you are already called to speak with moral clarity. You can’t separate those two. The gospel doesn’t come to people in a vacuum—it confronts what they already believe. And if you’re not willing to name what stands in the way, you won’t be able to make clear what Christ actually offers. At that point, what you’re calling evangelism starts to drift into something else. It sounds compassionate, but it ends up being confusing. Hebrews 4 has to sit at the centre of this. We have a great high priest—Jesus, the Son of God—and because of Him we draw near with confidence. That’s not just a comforting idea; it’s a claim about reality. It means access to God is not something we work our way toward. It’s been opened. Sin isn’t managed or balanced out—it’s dealt with. And because of that, the believer doesn’t approach God guessing, or hoping it might be enough. He comes with confidence, because Christ has already done what needed to be done. Once you see that, the contrast with Islam isn’t hard to find. Islam has devotion, discipline, seriousness about God. But it doesn’t have mediation in this sense. There is no high priest who bears sin, no atonement that secures reconciliation, and no confidence that comes from a finished work. A person submits, obeys, hopes—but doesn’t draw near with assurance. The distance between God and man is still there. That’s not a small difference. That changes everything. And this is where evangelism becomes real. You’re not asking someone to add something to what they already believe. You’re calling them out of one way of relating to God and into another. From distance to nearness. From uncertainty to confidence. From striving to grace. That’s not a tweak—it’s a turning. And if you don’t make that clear, you’re not actually calling for conversion. You’re just creating overlap. I remember growing up & living in Europe and realizing something wasn’t right. It wasn’t just that Islamism had a presence—that wasn’t surprising. It was that it couldn’t really be named. People circled around it. Language got softer. Judgments were avoided. And the more I watched, the clearer it became: this wasn’t just caution. It was the loss of categories. If you don’t have a category for what is false, you won’t be able to say what is true for very long. So when we talk about moral clarity, we need to be honest about what we mean. Do we mean clarity about what is good? Or clarity about what must be opposed? Because in a lot of Western churches, those have been pulled apart. Love gets emphasized. Compassion gets affirmed. Inclusion becomes the language everyone is comfortable with. But when it comes to naming evil—clearly, specifically—there’s hesitation. And when that happens, “good” starts to float. It sounds right, but it doesn’t land anywhere. The problem is deeper than tone. It’s theological. If evil isn’t real—if it’s not something that shows up in beliefs, systems, and structures—then you don’t really need clarity. You just need empathy. But if evil is real, then refusing to name it isn’t kindness. It’s blindness. And blindness doesn’t stay neutral for long. At its core, evil is not just doing wrong. It’s calling what is false true, and then expecting others to live by it. It’s a rejection of God’s order, not just a mistake within it. And when that takes shape in systems or ideologies, it starts to form people. It shapes what they believe, what they’re allowed to say, even what their conscience can do. If you don’t have a category for that, you’ll miss it when it’s right in front of you. That’s why the relationship between Islam and Islamism matters, and it needs to be handled carefully but clearly. Islam is a theological system built around the sovereignty of God expressed through law and submission. Islamism takes those commitments and pushes them into the political sphere. It’s not something dropped in from the outside. It’s what can happen when those ideas are applied more fully to public life. Not every Muslim goes there. But it’s not an accident when some do. And where that happens, the effects are real. Conscience gets constrained. Speech narrows. Certain questions become dangerous to ask. This isn’t just about politics—it reflects a different understanding of God and what it means to live before Him. Christianity forms people who draw near to God through a mediator, with confidence. Islam, without that mediation, forms something else—something more uncertain, more externally shaped. And over time, that doesn’t stay personal. It starts to shape communities and cultures. This matters at the personal level more than we usually admit. If there’s no mediator, then at the end of the day you’re still just a servant under command. You do what you’re told, you submit, you try to be faithful—but you’re never really sure where you stand. There’s always that uncertainty. But in Christ, something fundamentally shifts. You’re not just given instructions—you’re brought near. You’re reconciled, even adopted. You don’t come to God hoping you might be accepted. You come because you already are. That’s not a small adjustment. That’s an entirely different identity. And once identity changes, everything else starts to follow. If a system is built on law without mediation, it leans on external control, because there’s nothing settled underneath it. Authority has to be reinforced. Lines have to be guarded. But where reconciliation is real, obedience comes from a different place. The conscience isn’t shut down—it’s changed. And that doesn’t stay inside a person. Over time, it shows up in how people live, how they relate, and how a community actually functions. Some will say that speaking this way makes evangelism harder. That it creates barriers. That it sounds harsh. But that assumes clarity and love are in conflict. They’re not. If someone is going to come to Christ, they need to see both who He is and what they don’t have apart from Him. They need to see the difference between submission without atonement and reconciliation through the Son. If we avoid that, we’re not being kind. We’re withholding something essential. So we have to say this plainly. Loving Muslims is not the same as affirming Islam, and it’s not the same as ignoring Islamism. If you blur those lines, your message falls apart. Compassion without clarity turns into sentimentality. Clarity without compassion turns into harshness. But the answer isn’t choosing one over the other. It’s holding both together. Part of the challenge is that we’ve been shaped by a culture that treats clarity as a problem. In many Western contexts, emotional comfort has become the highest value. So anything that feels sharp gets softened. But that doesn’t translate well everywhere. In many Muslim contexts, clarity reads as honesty, not hostility. Conviction signals that you actually believe what you’re saying. So the very instincts we’ve learned can end up undermining our credibility. Which means something has to change at the pastoral level. You have to preach Christ not just as Saviour, but as the one who brings people near to God. You have to make clear that what Islam cannot provide—atonement, mediation, assurance—Christ has already accomplished. You have to train your people to understand these differences, not in a combative way, but in a truthful one. And you have to be willing to say what is false, even when it costs you something. Let me put it simply. Christianity offers access to the Father through the Son. Islam offers submission without mediation. If you don’t see that clearly, you won’t preach clearly. And if you don’t preach clearly, you won’t evangelize faithfully. A church that won’t name what is false will eventually lose its grip on what is true. And when that happens, it won’t draw near to God with confidence, it won’t speak about Christ with clarity, and it won’t be able to carry the gospel into a world that actually needs it.

A lot of people argue that the Israel of today is not the Israel from the beginning. But when you trace Jewish history carefully from Abraham until now, you will discover an unbroken historical line of a people that have survived slavery, exile, dispersion, persecution, and restoration. God first spoke to Abraham and told him that his descendants would become strangers in a foreign land, where they would serve and be afflicted for hundreds of years. The history of Israel has indeed been marked by slavery, suffering, captivity, and dispersion for a very long time. From Abraham came Isaac, and from Isaac came Jacob. Jacob lived in the land of Canaan where Abraham had earlier sojourned. Through the providence of God, Jacob later entered Egypt because of his son Joseph, who had become prime minister in Egypt. Jacob entered Egypt with about seventy persons. The children of Israel settled in the land of Goshen, a place given to them through Joseph’s influence with Pharaoh. For many years they lived there and multiplied greatly. Then arose another king in Egypt who did not know Joseph. This new Pharaoh oppressed the Israelites, afflicted them, and turned them into slaves. Their cries went up unto God. God then raised Moses as a deliverer to bring Israel out of Egyptian bondage. Through signs, wonders, and mighty judgments, the children of Israel were delivered from Egypt. They journeyed through the wilderness for forty years before entering the land of Canaan... the land God had promised to Abraham and his descendants. After settling in the land, judges ruled Israel for a season. Priests ministered before God on behalf of the people. Later, kings arose over the nation: Saul, David, Solomon, Josiah, and others. Israel originally existed as one united kingdom. But after the reign of Solomon, division came during the reign of his son Rehoboam. The kingdom split into two: The northern kingdom called Israel The southern kingdom called Judah Because of rebellion and idolatry, captivity came upon them. First came the Assyrian captivity, where the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and scattered. Later came the Babylonian captivity under Nebuchadnezzar II, where Judah was taken into exile and Jerusalem was destroyed. Yet after seventy years, many Jews returned to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Centuries later, foreign empires continued to dominate the land....the Persians, the Greeks, and eventually the Romans. Under Roman rule, Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem among the Jewish people. In AD 70, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple, causing another great scattering of the Jews across the nations of the earth. This dispersion became known as the Diaspora. For nearly two thousand years, Jewish communities lived scattered across Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of the world. Yet despite dispersion, persecution, and attempts to destroy them, they maintained their identity, traditions, language, and ancestry. Then came one of the darkest moments in Jewish history: the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler during World War II. Millions of Jews were murdered in one of history’s greatest tragedies. But after the war, something remarkable happened. In 1948, after centuries of dispersion, the modern state of Israel was officially established once again in the ancient homeland connected to the Jewish people. Jews from different parts of the world began returning to the land. Since then, Israel has existed again as a nation among the nations of the earth.... surviving wars, conflicts, and repeated threats of destruction. So whether one agrees politically or theologically with modern Israel or not, history clearly shows that the Jewish people did not suddenly appear from nowhere. Their story can be historically traced from Abraham, to Egypt, to Canaan, through the kingdoms, captivities, dispersions, persecutions, and finally to the re-establishment of the modern state in 1948. Few nations in history have maintained their identity through so many centuries of exile and suffering like the Jewish people.

Revelation 13:16-17 Also he compels all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead [signifying allegiance to the beast], and that no one will be able to buy or sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. This portion of scripture in the Book of Revelation is not only prophetic, meaning it is going to happen, but also a warning. The door to salvation is still open, but at the same time we see signs that this door will be closing soon. The church dispensation, the time of the gentiles will come to an end soon with the rapture & the Lord will pick up again His plan & purpose with Israel for Salvation & judgement / wrath for those remaining on the earth, unless they don't take the Mark of the Beast. It is happening right in front of us now & most world leaders, especially in the "West" all doing & saying the same things: *Build back better (if want to build back better you first need to destroy the old order) *New World Order *One World Government *War on farming *Ever increasing power prices *Blackouts *Social Credit Systems *Banks spying on your purchases *Following the narrative of the so called "climate change" which leads to declaring a "climate emergency" *Climate lockdowns *Wealth transfers *Pushing of EV's *15 Minute cities *Pushing of "renewable" energy which is unreliable & very costly *Pushing of sexual perversion in every aspect of society, especially on the young *Pushing of digital ID & digital money *Government censorship through the so-called: "Mis-information & Dis-information Bill" *Rewriting & changing of history *Open borders, which leads to vast of amounts of people from other cultures & religions with never any intention of adapting to the host country, or even worse, bring in more drugs, crime & even terrorism. *Increased hate against Jews & Christians, while tolerating Islam, a religion of intolerance, hate & violence *Schools & Universities are indoctrinating the students with all kinds of unproveable woke theories, instead of educating them with facts & teaching then to be critical thinkers *Signing away of our own autonomy as nations to the WHO, WEF & UN *Government becoming more & more involved in your life including your health, which is really a "Trojan Horse" for Marxism / Communism *Destroying the country from the inside out, by desecration of all normal healthy values & national identity, and teaching the young people in schools & universities to hate their own country, history & race I am sure this list is not complete, but the end goal of all this is leading to total control, an Orwellian society, lead by a One World Government in turn taken over by the Antichrist. The spirit of the Antichrist is already at work as we can see in the above list. The reason I am writing this article is that so many don't see this! And yes I am not talking about the world, but the church! So many pastors & churches carry on as normal, I even heard Christians say: "It's all now gone back to normal after COVID" No a thousand times no: it is not, "the best is still to come" as so many pastors preach, on the contrary the hardest time is still to come, very possibly even 2024! This blog is not to scare you, but to prepare you, and most of all we have the blessed hope! Titus 2:13 awaiting and confidently expecting the [fulfilment of our] blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus,

In Hebrew, Hanta (חַנְטָה) is a slang term often used to mean "scam," "fake," "fraud," or "nonsense," frequently describing someone or something as "full of crap". It can also refer to the "Hantavirus". Key Aspects of "Hanta" in Hebrew: Definition: It represents a slang expression for a hoax, nonsense, or untruthful information. Usage: Often used in a dismissive manner, similar to saying "that's a lie" or "what a scam." Of course all the mainstream media & Web searches are quick to state that this is a coincidence. A long time ago I stopped believing in Santa Claus, so also in coincidence. Anti-Semitism is just a nice word for Jew-Hatred & it started in Sinai, where the Lord set them apart. But that does not mean that we should not do anything. If we don't speak out we are guilty by default: tolerating evil. And that is what our useless, incompetant & wicked government does on the moment. The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion formally opened last week. Over recent days, I’ve sat watching the lived experience testimonies and they are harrowing and resonate deeply. For more than two years, Jewish Australians have carried the grief of October 7 while watching tens of thousands of Australians march in the streets celebrating it. Public figures championed it, defended it, all while branding Jews with the slur of genocide. The 21st Century blood libel, deployed against Israel and the Jewish Diaspora at the very moment of grief… After two and a half years, I am done with the debate. I want outcomes. The Commission was told that one of the key drivers of Antisemitism in Australia is the growing conflation of hostility towards Israel with Jewish Australians. For what it’s worth, I have no problem being conflated with Israel. Israel is fighting a war of self-defence against barbarian tactics. What I do have a problem with is lies and what passes for criticism of Israel is predominantly Antizionist lies. On day one, it was stated that a central task of the inquiry is to identify when Antizionism crosses the line into Antisemitism. I’ll save the Commission the trouble. It doesn’t cross a line. If Antizionism and Antisemitism were a Venn diagram of anti-Jewish bigotry, it is my opinion that in every documented instance, you would see a single circle. Antizionism is not a proxy for anti-Jewish bigotry. It is anti-Jewish bigotry. What makes Antizionism uniquely insidious is it takes a people’s liberation movement and reframes it as the bigotry itself. Zionism – Jewish self-determination – has been recast as racism. And the movement that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state dresses its language up as liberation. The slogans confirm this. ‘Intifada’ is not a human rights slogan. ‘From the river to the sea’ in its original Arabic means ‘From water to water, Palestine will be Arab’. This is an ethno-nationalist eliminationist demand, not a civil rights one. And the dissolution of Israel is the ethnic cleansing of seven million Jews. The problem we keep skirting around is that Antizionism palms itself off as political criticism when it is in fact ideology and slogans borne of a communist-Islamist fusion. Its basis is the dissolution of Israel and it falsely claims Israel is an illegitimate state. Just as Antisemitism dressed hatred in the language of science – racial biology, eugenics, pseudo-academic frameworks – Antizionism dresses hatred in the language of politics. And just as the law once accepted Antisemitism as legitimate political discourse, it is largely accepting Antizionism on the same terms today. The courts reveal the limits of prosecuting Antizionism’s harmful and hateful expressions. In November 2023, Islamic speeches were given at a mosque and published online. Three breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 18C. The court identified 25 racist imputations: that Jews are conspiratorial, treacherous, wicked, vile, that they control the media and the banks, that they are descended from apes and pigs. But two speeches were dismissed. These contained claims that ‘certain media outlets owned by the Zionist entities are trying to sway public perception’, that ‘right wing politicians have stepped into backing Israel because Israel holds their leash’, and that Israel is ‘the terrorist state of Israel and its mass murdering machine, the IDF’. Sound familiar? Jews control the media. Jews control the government. And the Jewish state is a uniquely evil force in the world holding foreign governments and politicians by a leash. These are not criticisms of a state. The charge that Jews – sorry, Zionists – control the media and the banks and control foreign governments comes straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The charge that the Jewish state commits uniquely monstrous violence against children is the blood libel – the medieval fabrication that Jews murder children for ritual purposes. When we say Antisemitism is a virus, it’s because this is how it works. It mutates with the language of the time. And this language is promulgated across the board by mosques, churches, political figures, influencers and the media. As stated, it has become almost fashionable. How are anti-Jewish tropes avoiding condemnation? It comes down to the idea that the ‘ordinary reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists’ and that ‘disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group’. That is the gap. That is exactly the gap. And it is the gap this Commission must close. Here’s a sample of why: On one occasion, protesters blockaded a private Jewish function screaming, ‘All Zionists are terrorists!’ and ‘Intifada, Intifada!’ It is alleged protestors coordinated on social media, told others to block the entrances and exits, and to make ‘Zios’ as uncomfortable as possible inside the venue. On another, a club listed Zionism alongside racism, sexism, transphobia, and homophobia in its house rules. We have seen people associated with political groups displaying signs equating ‘Zionist Israel’ with ‘Nazi Germany’ with captions such as ‘Equally as evil or worse?’ and ‘Zionism has hijacked Judaism’. In my opinion, that’s Holocaust inversion and according to the Commission – is Antisemitism. In 2025, we witnessed across the Palestinian protest movement signage illustrating the Prime Minister of Israel as the ‘Fuhrer’, ‘Zionism is a death cult’, and the appropriation of ‘Never Again’ – the phrase primarily associated with the Holocaust. In 2026, weeks after 15 Jewish Australians were murdered at a Chanukah celebration at Bondi Beach allegedly by ISIS-inspired attackers, protesters gathered across Australia. Their signs did not mourn the Bondi dead. The signs they carried read: ‘Zionism is Terrorism!’, ‘Zionism is a Death Cult!’, ‘Death to America, Australia, and the Zionist Entity!’, and ‘Globalise the Intifada…’ Socialist magazines distributed at one protest had a sidebar describing the Bondi massacre as ‘How Israel’s war crimes brand terrorism’. This is the Antizionist movement. And how did we get here? Because on October 9 2023, protesters freely gathered outside the iconic Sydney Opera House chanting, ‘Where’s the Jews?’ and ‘F**k the Jews!’ while burning an Israeli flag. Police advised Jewish Australians to avoid the CBD as if that made it okay. At the same protest, one of the organisers endorsed Hamas’ ‘right to resist’ – meaning shooting up kids at a music festival is, apparently, a-okay for this organiser – and instructed the crowd to use the word ‘Zionist’ rather than ‘Jew.’ No one across two and a half years has faced significant consequences for any of it – especially not the current government. The zeitgeist in Australia is Antizionist, and the result is that the floodgates for neo-Nazi white supremacism, for classical Antisemites, for anti-Judaists, and every form of anti-Jewish bigotry we thought we had pushed to the fringes are opened. So the single most important question is how do we make Antizionism’s harmful expressions prosecutable? How do we get back to some kind of normal? Commissioner Bell reaffirmed her commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of Antisemitism and the Commission is right to apply it, but the IHRA definition remains anchored in post-Holocaust language. It is not designed to capture Antizionism as a distinct ideology, and its adoption has not amended a single law. Subsequent legislation has followed: a ban on the Nazi salute, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025, but none of it reaches Antizionism directly. There has been one isolated advancement. In Vorchheimer v Tayeh [2026] VCAT case 134, the Judge found that Tayeh, by initiating the chant ‘all Zionists are terrorists’ at a rally in March 2025, contravened sections of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The tribunal found a very strong association between the word ‘Zionist’ and Jewish identity, and that the word ‘all’ carried the spectre of de-individuation – a hallmark of racism. But this is one tribunal, one chant, one respondent. Victoria Police are separately prosecuting Tayeh in the criminal court, where the question is not whether the chant is Antisemitic but whether the words were grossly offensive. This is, in my view, entirely the wrong question. It doesn’t matter whether calling Jews terrorists is offensive. I am more than happy to be offended. What matters is the environment it creates and who is the target. If Jews are publicly branded as terrorists – or Nazis – the public is morally licensed to exclude, harass, and harm them. The violence that follows is not random. It is logical. It flows directly from the premise. That is why the harm of Antizionism is not a feelings question. It is a safety question. And until the law catches up to that, we are prosecuting the symptom and ignoring the disease. Queensland has gone a step further and banned specific chants such as ‘From the river to the sea’ and ‘Globalise the Intifada’ when used to menace, harass, or offend. But as I’ve written before, banning specific phrases is a game of whack-a-mole. The ridiculous Johnny Farnham pro-Palestinian cosplay from a month ago is a case in point. Here was the Brisbane pro-Palestinian movement dressed in 1980s outfits, mullets and all, waving Palestinian flags and singing ‘Like a River to the Sea’. If you missed it, imagine the reverse. Jews donning mullets and dancing in 1943 to convince the Nazis to stop the genocide of Jews. This is how we know this is not a serious movement (and there is no genocide). Bottom line, the phrases will continue to change but the ideology doesn’t. There are three legislative options as I see them if we are to truly bring safety back to Jewish Australians. First, amend 18C to explicitly include political ideologies that function as vehicles for ethnic vilification – the test being whether the ideology, in practice, targets a specific ethnic group. Antizionism clearly does. It targets Jews. Second, name Antizionism explicitly, but this is the weakest option. Legislators will resist naming a political position as illegal, despite Antizionism masquerading as political critique. Third, strengthen the incitement threshold. Antizionism doesn’t need to be illegal, but when it functions to mark Jews for violence, harassment, or discrimination, that conduct becomes prosecutable. We didn’t outlaw racism. We made its specific expressions prosecutable. That is the point. We pushed Antisemitism to the fringes once before. We disproved its pseudoscience. We criminalised its expressions. So too will we do the same for Antizionism. We will disprove its pseudo-critique. We will criminalise its expressions. I simply pray it will not be after more mass murder. 𝐀𝐑𝐈 𝐅𝐋𝐄𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇 𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐈-𝐉𝐄𝐖𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐏𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐌𝐒 — 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐁𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋 𝐄𝐗𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐃 — 𝐀𝐅𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐑𝐈𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐘𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐒𝐘𝐍𝐀𝐆𝐎𝐆𝐔𝐄. Fleischer, on camera, with the actual history: ‘𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 1200𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 1300𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 1400𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴, 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵.” ‘𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘚𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺.” The pattern documented across eight centuries of Western history: England 1290, France 1394, Spain 1492, Portugal 1497, Russian pogroms 1881-1921, the Holocaust 1933-1945. Every expulsion 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟖 𝐛𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬. Targeting Jews has never required the existence of Israel. 𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐊𝐋𝐘𝐍 𝐒𝐘𝐍𝐀𝐆𝐎𝐆𝐔𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐀𝐅𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟖 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐔𝐋𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐌 𝐁𝐘 𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒, 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐆 𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 — 𝐈𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐗𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐄. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1700997914586151 Another day. Another protest. Are you sick of them yet? I can see that hate speech laws are really working.......towards those who oppose Islam & this kind of hate & do not want the conflicts of this world on Australian soil: The are called bigots & racists. https://www.harvestministriesnz.com/post/the-end-of-freedom-is-closer-than-you-think Submissions to the Royal Commission make clear that Australia’s antisemitism crisis cannot be understood without reckoning with the role of the ABC and SBS. Read the full story: https://bit.ly/4f3brEi

This is something that most Australians already knew, besides the people still watching this biased, woke & wicked taxpayer funded broadcaster. An independent research group that investigated ABC's coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict compiled the findings into a 58-page report and submitted it to the Royal Commission. Below are just a few examples from the report that demonstrates: - How ABC used sick children with genetic disorders, portraying them as victims of starvation. - How ABC reported on a child allegedly killed by the Israeli army, while having evidence that this did not happen. - How, for emotional effect, ABC manipulated casualty figures, presenting absurd numbers as “shocking”, concealing killed militants, and portraying dead Palestinians as “mostly women and children”. - The report compares one of ABC’s Q&A programs dedicated to Gaza with “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov”, the main propaganda show on Russian TV, and demonstrate the similarities between them. - The report also demonstrate that ABC staff lack military knowledge regarding urban warfare, leading to the uncritical repetition of Hamas disinformation. It shows how ABC’s own broadcast footage proves the Israeli claims they cast doubt upon. These examples, and many more, can be found in the report that can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/ABC-of-hate Australian Broadcasting Corporation coverage of Gaza war fueled antisemitism, ABC Watch claims ByJERUSALEM POST STAFF: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has shown continued journalistic bias in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict, independent research group ABC Watch claimed in its new report, which has been submitted to the Royal Commission into antisemitism. ABC is a publicly funded national broadcaster and, as such, has a legal and ethical obligation to report impartially and objectively. ABC Watch, however, found that the ABC has repeatedly failed to meet that obligation, and has either wittingly or unwittingly promoted “extremist narratives that vilify Israel and, by extension, Jews.” This, it said, contributes to antisemitism within the Australian community, which in some instances has resulted in intimidation, doxxing, harassment, arson attacks, and the Bondi shooting. One of the examples given in the report is that ABC maintained a “famine” narrative by the repeated use of distressing imagery of children with severe pre-existing genetic or medical conditions, falsely presented as victims of starvation caused by Israel, despite available medical explanations and the presence of healthy family members. One of the most noteworthy cases is that of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, who was born with cerebral palsy. Despite this, on July 27, 2025, his image was shown during an interview with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and framed as proof of starvation, with Albanese condemning Israel for “breaching international law.” ABC Watch said that, by failing to show the cause of emaciation was genetic, the ABC broadcast a false claim. ABC pushed UN baby starvation claim Another example of misleading reporting was the publication of UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher’s, May 2025 claim that “14,000 babies [in Gaza] will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them.” This claim was quickly proven to be false. ABC, however, reported it as “shocking” and “a devastating warning.” While ABC did later change Fletcher’s original quote to “14,000 are at risk of dying in the next 48 hours” instead of “14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours,” the report said this was issued too late and was inadequate to repair the damage already done. Then there was the case of a story fabricated by ABC about a Palestinian boy whom the channel claimed had been shot dead by Israel, despite the ABC possessing information that he was alive. A leaked email chain between an ABC reporter and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation showed that, on the day of the broadcast, ABC reporters were told by the boy’s stepmother that she believed he was alive, but they either omitted or suppressed this information. The ABC also ignored publicly available evidence that categorically refuted the claims. “By broadcasting a false accusation of Jewish soldiers killing Arab children – already debunked and corrected, while knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence, the ABC effectively fueled rampant antisemitic sentiment in Australia, during a national crisis,” the report says. The report also writes that ABC relied on Gaza-based “journalists” operating under Hamas control, many of whom are affiliated with Hamas itself. For example, ABC contributor Abubaker Abed openly glorified Yahya Sinwar while celebrating the October 7 massacre. He has shown solidarity with Hamas. The ABC, however, presented him as a writer and reporter, without referring to his ideological positions. “The ABC relies heavily on local Gazans presented as ‘journalists,’ despite Gaza being a territory controlled by jihadist groups where free journalism is impossible. No serious media organization would claim to have independent journalists operating under ISIS, al-Qaeda, in North Korea, or in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Yet, when it comes to Hamas-controlled Gaza, all standards are completely abandoned.” The biased reporting during the Israel-Hamas War did not cease after the Bondi attack, the report alleges. Instead, the ABC’s pattern of hostility, selective framing, and misinformation did not slow down, but “continued across multiple areas of reporting, reinforcing false narratives.” It concludes that the ABC has repeatedly framed legitimate political positions as moral crimes and fueled hostility towards all those who support Israel. The effect, it argues, was to legitimize hate against Jewish Australians. “The sheer scale of the journalistic failures and demonstrated bias – as the journalistic failures on the Gaza war always went one way, namely against Israel – contributed directly to radicalization in society and intensified militant antisemitism across Australia,” the report concludes.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1202076008478087 A lot of people talk about Revelation like it is some impossible book, like God gave it to confuse believers, divide churches, and keep everybody guessing. That is already a bad way to come to it. The word Revelation comes from the Greek word apokalypsis, which means unveiling. This is not God covering truth up. This is God pulling the curtain back. He is showing His servants who Jesus Christ is in glory, what kind of world we are living in, how evil will be judged, how history will end, and who will stand when it is over. Revelation is not meant to hide Christ. It is meant to reveal Him. And one reason so many people cannot read Revelation fluently is because they try to read the last book of the Bible while being weak in the first part of it. The Bible is roughly 70 percent Old Testament, and Revelation makes hundreds of allusions back into it. That is why the book feels foreign to so many people. They are trying to understand the end while neglecting the foundation God used to build it. Revelation keeps reaching back into Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Exodus, Joel, the Psalms, and the prophets. John is not inventing a brand new symbolic world. He is drawing together what God had already been saying for generations. So when a man says Revelation is too confusing, a lot of the time what he is really revealing is that he has not done enough study in the Scriptures Revelation is pulling from. That is also why Revelation does not mainly send you to the newspaper. It sends you back to your Bible. Then right at the front of the book, God places a blessing on it. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” Revelation 1:3 That should settle a lot. God did not place a blessing on the reading, hearing, and keeping of a book He never intended believers to understand at all. He wants this book read. He wants it heard. He wants it obeyed. Then Jesus gives the outline of the book Himself in Revelation 1:19: “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.” That is the divine outline. The things which thou hast seen — the vision of the glorified Christ in chapter 1. The things which are — the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3. The things which shall be hereafter — literally, after these things, beginning in chapter 4. That structure matters because Christ Himself gave it. In Revelation 4:1, after the letters to the churches are finished, John says, “After this I looked,” and then he hears a voice like a trumpet saying, “Come up hither.” The phrase meta tauta, “after these things,” marks the transition. Chapters 1 through 3 deal with the church on earth. Then the scene shifts. A lot of believers, and I believe rightly, hear in that trumpet-like voice a preview of what Paul describes in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17. Whether a man sees Revelation 4:1 as a direct picture of the rapture or not, the structure of the book is still plain enough. The church is central in chapters 1 through 3. Then from chapter 4 through chapter 19, the focus moves to heaven’s throne room, judgment, wrath, and the final dealings of God with the earth. Then in chapter 19, Christ returns in glory, and His saints are with Him. That lines up with Revelation 3:10: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” That is not a light promise. The language points to being kept from the hour itself, not merely preserved inside it. Paul says the same thing from another angle when he says believers are not appointed to wrath in 1 Thessalonians 5:9. That is why the church’s absence in Revelation 6 through 19 becomes so noticeable once you read carefully. Those chapters are not describing ordinary hardship. They are describing divine wrath being poured out on a rebellious world. The church is not appointed to that wrath. But none of that means Revelation had no first-century meaning. It did. John was writing to real churches under real pressure in a real historical setting. Rome was not an irrelevant backdrop. Rome was functioning as a kind of Babylon. The seven hills imagery was known in the ancient world. The woman clothed in luxury and drunk with the blood of saints fits an empire intoxicated with power and persecution. And yes, many have pointed out the connection between 666 and Neron Kaisar through Hebrew gematria. So there is a real historical anchor there. But Rome is not the final limit of the book. Rome was one more expression of the same old rebellion. Babylon is larger than one city, one empire, or one century. Babylon is the recurring pattern of organized human pride against God. It is man building power, wealth, religion, and culture in defiance of heaven. It is the world system saying, “We will rule without God.” That spirit showed up at Babel. It showed up in ancient Babylon. It showed up in Rome. It shows up in every age. And it will show up in its final form before Christ destroys it completely. But the centre of Revelation is not Babylon. It is not the beast. It is not the dragon. It is the Lamb. One of the greatest moments in the whole book comes when John hears about the Lion of the tribe of Judah. He turns, and what he sees is a Lamb standing as though it had been slain. That is the glory of Jesus Christ. He is the Lion, and He conquered as the Lamb. He wins through sacrifice. He triumphs through the cross. He overcomes through obedience, holiness, truth, and His own blood. The world thinks power only looks like visible force, intimidation, and domination. God reveals true power in the crucified and risen Christ. That also tells believers how conquest works. The saints do not overcome by becoming beasts themselves. They do not conquer by using Babylon’s methods. They overcome by faithful witness, endurance, holiness, and loyalty to Christ even unto death. Revelation was written to steady suffering churches. Some were compromising. Some were fearful. Some were lukewarm. Some were under persecution. John’s message was that Caesar was not lord, Rome was not ultimate, Babylon would fall, and the throne in heaven was not empty. When you move through the seals, trumpets, and bowls, John is not simply giving a flat little timeline with no depth. He is showing the final drama of judgment as rebellion hardens and God answers with justice. The seals open the scroll of history under the authority of the Lamb. The trumpets sound warnings like covenant judgments, echoing Exodus while men still refuse to repent. The bowls pour out final, unmixed wrath on a world that has hardened itself fully against God. The rebellion grows darker. The judgments intensify. The justice of God is displayed without apology. Then you come to Armageddon. People use that word like it only means one modern battlefield or one news headline. But in Revelation it points to the final gathering of the kings of the earth in rebellion against God. It is the concentrated climax of human defiance. The nations gather against the Lamb, and the outcome is never in doubt. Christ does not barely survive the conflict. Heaven does not scrape together a narrow victory. The King appears, speaks, and crushes His enemies. The sword from His mouth shows His authority. His word is enough. Then Revelation 20 gives the thousand-year reign, Satan’s binding, the vindication of the saints, the final revolt, and the last judgment. Even after a thousand years, when rebellion is given one final opening, fallen man still proves what he is apart from grace. Then judgment falls, and death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Death itself is judged. And then comes the end every believer longs for. A new heaven and a new earth. No more curse. No more tears. No more mourning. No more pain. No more night. No more death. The holy city descends as a bride adorned for her husband. God dwells with His people. The river of life flows. The tree of life appears again. The Lamb is the light. What was lost in Eden is not merely patched up. It is brought to full and eternal fulfillment in Christ. That is where the whole Bible has been going. Revelation is not some strange appendix for people obsessed with prophecy charts. It is the capstone of the whole story. It shows the final defeat of the serpent, the overthrow of Babylon, the vindication of the saints, the reign of Christ, the removal of the curse, and the eternal dwelling of God with His people. And the invitation at the end is still open: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come… And let him that is athirst come.” Revelation 22:17 That call is still going out right now. So when you read Revelation, do not read it like it is meant to keep you in fear. Read it as the unveiling of Jesus Christ. Read it as the exposure of Babylon. Read it as the comfort of suffering saints. Read it as the certainty that every beastly kingdom has an expiration date. Every Babylon will fall. Every proud empire will collapse. Every enemy of Christ will be put down. And Jesus Christ will return, visibly, bodily, gloriously, to rule and reign. So hold fast. Keep the words of this prophecy. Do not bow to the spirit of the age. Do not get drunk on Babylon. Do not panic when evil looks strong. The throne is occupied. The Lamb has already won. And the King is coming. “Surely I come quickly.” Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The issue of “Climate Change” is one that many Christians do not know how to grapple with. Is planet Earth genuinely on a collision course with catastrophic man-made climate change, or is this another issue that requires critical and Biblical examination? 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗬 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗠𝗔𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧 — 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗔𝗣𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗬𝗣𝗦𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 (26-12-25) https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1430524258632555&set=a.501955888156068 In an interview with David Fiorazo on “Worldview Matters,” Answers In Genesis Founder and CEO Ken Ham revealed that climate change science is rooted in more bias and corruption than many realize. “Back in the 70s, I started dealing with the creation-evolution issue in a big way. It’s really a battle to understand the difference between observational science, what you actually observe, and historical science, your beliefs and interpretations about the past when you weren’t there,” Ham stated. “Observational science is one thing. That’s the science that builds our technology. But when it comes to historical science—beliefs about the past—I want people to understand, dealing with climate change is exactly the same.” Ham highlighted that record-keeping for carbon dioxide levels goes back only 70 years and “accurate” temperature measurements a mere 40 years. “These computer models are all based on evolutionary assumptions,” he underscored, “and if those evolutionary assumptions are not true, their computer models are certainly not true.” The information the scientists are putting out, Ham noted, are actually contradictory to observational science. For example, “When it comes to carbon dioxide, they say [burning] oil and gas is increasing the temperature in the atmosphere. Actually, true observational science shows that when the temperature in the atmosphere increases, carbon dioxide levels decrease, and when the temperature decreases, carbon dioxide levels increase. So it’s totally different to what they’re saying.” Furthermore, while carbon dioxide is painted in a villainous light, Ham stressed that it is “not a pollutant.” “[Carbon dioxide] is a very important gas, and it only consists of 0.4% of our atmospheric gasses. Think about that. It’s only 0.4%. It’s a very, very small gas,” he stated, adding that there is “no proof at all human emissions are the driving force for environmental changes or climate changes.” Similar to creation scientists, numerous experts in the field have been shunned by the scientific community and censored for contradicting claims of man-made climate change. “They get all the media publicity. But you know, it’s been the same with the whole creation-evolution issue. Creationists don’t get good coverage in the media, but evolution is pushed and assumed, and people are brainwashed to believe it’s true,” Ham emphasized. Greg Wrightstone, a geologist and climate expert, who was banned from LinkedIn for questioning the climate narrative: “I posted very interesting and very scientific charts and facts on temperature data through time, [carbon dioxide’s] relationship with temperature to show that throughout geologic time, CO2 really hasn’t been the control knob of the Earth’s climate,” Wrightstone explained. “We’re dangerous. They cannot allow our factually-based presentations to get out to the public, because what we say makes sense and it’s backed up by science.” “We’re rational, thoughtful people that are scientists—that are distinguished scientists—and we’re presenting this information,” he continued, adding that people “are being lied to on a daily basis about climate change and its ramifications.” The Religion Of Climate Alarmism If solid scientific research is not the driving force behind the claims of “climate change,” what is? According to Ken Ham, examining the evidence shows that “there’s something else going on here.” “What’s going on here is the fact that the climate change movement is a religion. It’s an anti-God religion based on evolutionary assumptions. It’s a religion where man believes he will save himself and save the planet. And it’s a religion that creates fear,” he warned “Worldview Matters” listeners. “The modern climate change movement is a religion that worships man and worships the creation, and basically sees man as a blight upon the earth,” Ham described. “They let the creation have dominion over man. Their whole worldview is wrong, their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, and it’s going to have bad consequences for us.” Power-Driven False Prophets The fear-based climate religion also has a whole host of “false prophets.” “Al Gore was featured in a documentary in 2006 called Inconvenient Truth. He’s a false prophet. None of his prophecies came true. He’s prophesying again today,” Ham asserted. “Why should people even believe him?” “Man is not going to destroy the Earth. The Doomsday Clock is just not true. And again, it’s meant to create fear,” he stressed. “It all comes back to people who want control—people who want power.” “John Kerry is another false prophet,” Ham continued. “When John Kerry came back from the World Economic Forum, and this was a year or so ago, he said [that] there is an elite group of people that are going to save mankind and going to save the planet. In other words, he is saying that man is his own savior. Man is his own god, and there’s an elite group of people who are going to control everything so that they can control you. That’s really what it’s all about.” A Symptom Of Man’s Rebellion Through the Bible, we can plainly see that the claims of climate change run in direct contradiction to God. Primarily, we know that God has given man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26) and are assured that the future God has foretold regarding planet Earth does not include destruction by man-made climate catastrophe (2 Peter 3:7, Revelation 21:1). “The climate change movement is just another symptom of man in his rebellion against God, Ham said. “That’s really what’s happening here.” “When you read Romans 1, what happens when man worships the creation instead of the Creator?” he asked. “He turns them over to foolish things, and he turns them over to perverse ways. A lot of what’s being said in regard to the climate change agenda is foolishness.” “People need to get the truth on this. Once [individuals] realize they don’t have the data, it’s all interpreted based on evolutionary assumptions, they realize how much they’ve been brainwashed and manipulated,” he urged. “When you believe God’s word, that’s when you understand the truth.” “It’s a worldview battle at a foundational level,” Ham underscored. “It’s really a [spiritual] battle between God’s Word and man’s word.” They speak with such 'authority' yet their words are full of lies, misdirection, half-truths, and logical fallacies. The Net-0 is one big deception. Why do I write & post about things like this? Because if you dig deeper & open your eyes; it all leads to a fully controlled Orwellian society. Which in turn leads to Revelation 13. An over -the-top "conspiracy theory", well think again & listen to this podcast from Topher Field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkQwwcqjLro Challenging Net-0 with science: https://co2coalition.org/publications/challenging-net-zero-with-science/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQyiJlleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFURURvbHZnSDNzWmF2SGhFc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHo1pA3lz_LLOfXVR_EBbx1ncvEpBkHOiGFyaFfJDEEMdESKSWztyPd2ecojc_aem_l0p8Sel1TH14xpo6djb8Hg https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301168045257001

The issue of “Climate Change” is one that many Christians do not know how to grapple with. Is planet Earth genuinely on a collision course with catastrophic man-made climate change, or is this another issue that requires critical and Biblical examination? It’s really a battle to understand the difference between observational science, what you actually observe, and historical science, your beliefs and interpretations about the past when you weren’t there. Observational science is one thing. That’s the science that builds our technology. But when it comes to historical science—beliefs about the past—they can be very subjective & biased, based on a un-Biblical worldview. Record-keeping for carbon dioxide levels goes back only 70 years and “accurate” temperature measurements a mere 40 years. These computer models are all based on evolutionary assumptions and if those evolutionary assumptions are not true, their computer models are certainly not true. The information the scientists are putting out, are actually contradictory to observational science. For example, when it comes to carbon dioxide, they say [burning] oil and gas is increasing the temperature in the atmosphere. Actually, true observational science shows that when the temperature in the atmosphere increases, carbon dioxide levels decrease, and when the temperature decreases, carbon dioxide levels increase. So it’s totally different to what they’re saying. Furthermore carbon dioxide is painted in a villainous light, but it is not a pollutant. [Carbon dioxide] is a very important gas, and it only consists of 0.4% of our atmospheric gasses. Think about that. It’s only 0.4%. It’s a very, very small gas. There is no proof at all human emissions are the driving force for environmental changes or climate changes. Similar to creation scientists, numerous experts in the field have been shunned by the scientific community and censored for contradicting claims of man-made climate change. They get all the media publicity, which is the same with the whole creation-evolution issue. Creationists don’t get good coverage in the media, but evolution is pushed and assumed, and people are brainwashed to believe it’s true. Greg Wrightstone, a geologist and climate expert, who was banned from LinkedIn for questioning the climate narrative. He posted very interesting and very scientific charts and facts on temperature data through time, [carbon dioxide’s] relationship with temperature to show that throughout geologic time, CO2 really hasn’t been the control knob of the Earth’s climate,” Wrightstone explained. “We’re dangerous. They cannot allow our factually-based presentations to get out to the public, because what we say makes sense and it’s backed up by science.” “We’re rational, thoughtful people that are scientists—that are distinguished scientists—and we’re presenting this information,” he continued, adding that people “are being lied to on a daily basis about climate change and its ramifications.” The Religion Of Climate Alarmism If solid scientific research is not the driving force behind the claims of “climate change,” what is? There’s something else going on here. What’s going on here is the fact that the climate change movement is a religion. It’s an anti-God religion based on evolutionary assumptions. It’s a religion where man believes he will save himself and save the planet. And it’s a religion that creates fear. “The modern climate change movement is a religion that worships man and worships the creation, and basically sees man as a blight upon the earth. “They let the creation have dominion over man. Their whole worldview is wrong, their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, and it’s going to have bad consequences. Power-Driven False Prophets The fear-based climate religion also has a whole host of “false prophets.” “Al Gore was featured in a documentary in 2006 called "Inconvenient Truth". He’s a false prophet. none of his prophecies came true. He’s prophesying again today but why should people even believe or even listen to him? Man is not going to destroy the Earth. The Doomsday Clock is just not true. And again, it’s meant to create fear,” he stressed. “It all comes back to people who want control—people who want power. John Kerry is another false prophet, when John Kerry came back from the World Economic Forum, and this was a year or so ago, he said [that] there is an elite group of people that are going to save mankind and going to save the planet. In other words, he is saying that man is his own saviour. Man is his own god, and there’s an elite group of people who are going to control everything so that they can control you. That’s really what it’s all about. A Symptom Of Man’s Rebellion Through the Bible, we can plainly see that the claims of climate change run in direct contradiction to God. Primarily, we know that God has given man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26) and are assured that the future God has foretold regarding planet Earth does not include destruction by man-made climate catastrophe (2 Peter 3:7, Revelation 21:1). The climate change movement is just another symptom of man in his rebellion against God, that’s really what’s happening here. When you read Romans 1, what happens when man worships the creation instead of the Creator? He turns them over to foolish things, and he turns them over to perverse ways. A lot of what’s being said in regard to the climate change agenda is foolishness. People need to get the truth on this. Once [individuals] realize they don’t have the data, it’s all interpreted based on evolutionary assumptions, then they will realize how much they’ve been brainwashed and manipulated. When you believe God’s word, that’s when you understand the truth. It’s a worldview battle at a foundational level, it’s really a spiritual battle between God’s Word and man’s word.” They speak with such 'authority' yet their words are full of lies, misdirection, half-truths, and logical fallacies. The Net-0 is one big deception. Why do I write & post about things like this? Because if you dig deeper & open your eyes; it all leads to a fully controlled Orwellian society. Which in turn leads to Revelation 13. An over -the-top "conspiracy theory", well think again & listen to this podcast from Topher Field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkQwwcqjLro Challenging Net-0 with science: https://co2coalition.org/publications/challenging-net-zero-with-science/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQyiJlleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFURURvbHZnSDNzWmF2SGhFc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHo1pA3lz_LLOfXVR_EBbx1ncvEpBkHOiGFyaFfJDEEMdESKSWztyPd2ecojc_aem_l0p8Sel1TH14xpo6djb8Hg https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301168045257001

Besides the prophetic part of the Scriptures, which is about 30% of the whole Bible, there has also been warnings from secular writers, regarding the times we are living in. They were maybe given insight by God, even though they were not Christians, to warn people who would never think of picking up an Bible. Of course James Orwell is one of the most famous one, but there many others. Besides did you know or realise that a large majority of the prophetic Scriptures / verses are about the time we are now living in ! Please listen to following clip from 1965 ! https://www.facebook.com/PopulistWire/videos/459196210287095