Government employees don’t really pay income tax. When government employees are taxed by the same government that pays them, it’s essentially a bookkeeping illusion, since their tax payments are just returned to their employer—the state.

In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe explored the hypothetical scenario of abolishing all taxes and questioned whether this would lead to an increase in everyone’s income. Undoubtedly, that would be the case for non-government employees, but it would not be so for those employed by the government. Hoppe argued that for government employees, their salaries would decrease by the amount they currently pay in taxes, effectively leaving their net income unchanged.

This is because the taxes they pay are essentially a portion of the government’s own funds being cycled back to itself. Therefore, eliminating taxes would not result in a real income increase for these employees; instead, it would transparently reveal their actual earnings without the misleading appearance of taxation.​

Hoppe argued, “Their salaries could not possibly rise, if taxes were abolished. Rather, their salaries would fall to zero, which demonstrates that they are not paying any taxes at all.”

He then cites Murray Rothbard, in his work, Power and Market: Government and the Economy, which highlights this reality further: “If a bureaucrat receives a salary of $5,000 a year and pays $1,000 in ‘taxes’ to the government, it is quite obvious that he is simply receiving a salary of $4,000 and pays no taxes at all.

“The heads of the government have simply chosen a complex and misleading accounting device to make it appear that he pays taxes in the same way as any other man making the same income.”

Rothbard observes that it would be more transparent for governments to follow the United Nations’ model, where employees are exempt from income taxation under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946). This agreement grants UN staff tax immunity on income earned through official duties, aiming to ensure uniform treatment across member states and avoid disparities arising from differing national tax laws.

​Hoppe argued that once it is understood that government employees don’t pay income tax, it “becomes obvious why certain groups such as school teachers and university professors are almost always and uniformly in favour of higher taxes.”

“They are not, thereby, generously accepting a greater burden imposed on themselves,” he said. “Instead, higher taxes are the means by which they increase their own tax-financed salaries.”

For decades, ordinary Westerners have been gaslit, demonised, and, in some cases, socially or even professionally punished for voicing concern about demographic change in their own communities. Many now say they feel like strangers in their own hometowns, yet are often smeared as racists for expressing anything short of enthusiastic approval.

The subject became virtually untouchable. And yet for many ordinary people, it seemed to describe something they felt they were already experiencing firsthand. So many people stayed silent—at least in public.

Well, this week, the United States Department of State openly accused the UN of facilitating “replacement migration” against the will of the American people and other Western nations, while undermining national sovereignty.

Under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Department declared on X that the United States would not participate in facilitating “replacement migration,” adding that the administration is instead committed to a policy of “remigration.”

In the statement, the Department said that the United States refused to participate in the UN’s review of the Global Compact on Migration, stating:

“The United States objects to the Global Compact on Migration and UN efforts to facilitate replacement migration to the United States and our Western allies.”

The statement repeatedly portrays mass migration as an instrument engineered and facilitated by international institutions, and in direct opposition to the democratic will of the nations upon which it was imposed:

According to the Department:

“UN agencies systematically facilitated mass migration into America and Europe, even as citizens of these nations called for restrictions on migration.”

The statement goes further still, alleging that UN-linked organisations helped build the infrastructure of mass migration itself:

“UN agencies — working with the NGOs they fund — established a migration corridor through Central America and to the U.S. border.”

It also claimed the UN was physically present along key migrant routes:

“UN officials greeted migrants along the route through the deadly Darien Gap. UN-funded NGOs handed out maps to migrants en route to the U.S.”

The Department argued that while ordinary Americans were dealing with the consequences of unprecedented migration levels, international bodies were effectively assisting and accelerating the process:

“As the American people suffered under an unprecedented wave of mass migration, the UN was on the ground pipelining migrants to our southern border.”

The statement also accused the UN of undermining national sovereignty and attacking nations that attempted to enforce immigration laws or secure their borders.

Regarding Europe, the Department stated:

“As Europe endured sustained migratory pressures, UN officials staffed all ends of the Mediterranean migration route.”

It added:

“Then UN agencies condemned frontline states who refused to open their borders.”

The United Kingdom was singled out as well:

“While the United Kingdom faced unprecedented illegal boat crossings, UN agencies condemned plans for deportations.”

The Department also slammed the UN, accusing it of violating the UK’s national sovereignty:

“UN officials pressured aviation regulators to prevent the deportation of migrants — an appalling violation of UK’s national sovereignty.”

The Department further rejected the claim that mass migration is “safe” and beneficial for Western nations, stating:

“For the citizens of Western nations, mass migration was never safe.

“It introduced new security threats, imposed financial strains, and undermined the cohesion of our societies.”

The Department stated that the United States would not legitimise global compacts that enable mass migration into America or Western nations.

“Under President Trump, the State Department will facilitate remigration—not replacement migration.”

Several European nations broke with the UN Global Compact for Migration when it was adopted in 2018, citing concerns over national sovereignty, the erosion of distinctions between legal and illegal migration, and the Compact’s underlying assumption that migration should be treated as an inherent human right.

Hungary was the most vocal opponent of the Compact, withdrawing from negotiations entirely and voting against the agreement. The Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, Italy, Slovakia, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Romania also expressed opposition or declined to endorse it.

Opposition to the Compact was concentrated largely among Eastern and Central European nations, whereas most Western European governments ultimately endorsed the agreement—and are today suffering the devastating consequences.

Full statement below:

Last week, the United States refused to participate in the UN’s review of the Global Compact on Migration.

The United States objects to the Global Compact on Migration and UN efforts to facilitate replacement migration to the United States and our Western allies.

UN agencies systematically facilitated mass migration into America and Europe, even as citizens of these nations called for restrictions on migration.

Now the Global Compact’s largest report urges nations to expand migration pathways and pursue ‘regulation’ of migrants.

UN agencies - working with the NGOs they fund - established a migration corridor through Central America and to the U.S. border.

As the American people suffered under an unprecedented wave of mass migration, the UN was on the ground, pipelining migrants to our southern border.

UN officials greeted migrants along the route through the deadly Darien Gap. UN-funded NGOs handed out maps to migrants in route to the U.S.

After facilitating mass migration to the United States, UN agencies condemned the deportation of illegal immigrants.

As Europe endured sustained migratory pressures, UN officials staffed all ends of the Mediterranean migration route - from the coast of Libya to the shores of the Aegean to the islands of Greece.

Then UN agencies condemned frontline states who refused to open their borders.

While the United Kingdom faced unprecedented illegal boat crossings, UN agencies condemned plans for deportations.

UN officials lobbied aviation regulators to prevent the deportation of migrants - an appalling violation of UK’s national sovereignty.

The Global Compact on Migration claims to support ‘safe’ migration.

For the citizens of Western nations, mass migration was never safe. It introduced new security threats, imposed financial strains, and undermined the cohesion of our societies.

The United States will not legitimise global compacts that enable mass migration into America or Western nations.

Under President Trump, the State Department will facilitate remigration - not replacement migration.

Women’s Minister Katy Gallagher is under fire—and rightly so—after suggesting that the earlier children enter child care, the better. That’s right, the Australian Minister for Women seems to believe that children, raised by their own mothers, are worse off than those raised by the employees at the local daycare.

According to The Australian, the senior Labor figure pointed to “published research” to justify ruling out income splitting for families—a policy proposed by the Nationals aimed at making it easier for parents to spend more time at home with their newborn children. A pro-family, income-splitting tax policy would allow married couples to combine and average their incomes, reducing the disproportionate tax burden that’s often placed on single-income households. In particular, it would benefit families where a mother remains home, or works reduced hours, to raise young children.

So, rather than penalising families who rightly prioritise parental care during the early years, income splitting recognises the value of unpaid household labour while acknowledging the utmost importance of child-rearing. You would think the Minister for Women would recognise that this essential and often unpaid labour is overwhelmingly carried out by women—women who, in many cases, also bear the financial burden imposed by a tax system that disadvantages families choosing to prioritise raising their own children at home.

But Gallagher’s comments reflect a religious assumption that has become increasingly entrenched in modern culture, namely, that a woman’s highest and most unquestionable calling is full-time participation in the workforce. Motherhood is treated as secondary, lesser, or even a wasteful use of a woman’s potential. Conveniently enough, this shift also happens to double the government’s taxable income base, but I’m sure that fiscal incentive had nothing to do with pushing women away from unpaid work at home and into full-time employment, right?

Now, of course, there are circumstances where childcare might be necessary or even beneficial. Not every home environment is stable or healthy. But policy shouldn’t be pushed based on the exceptions. Gallagher is effectively treating the family, and the unpaid labour involved in raising children and maintaining the home, as secondary to taxable income generation. In effect, she’s doing what all good statists do by prioritising GDP, taxable incomes, or institutional childcare over the irreplaceable and formative love of parents, particularly mothers, in a child’s early years.

Many mothers and fathers are not embracing the two-income model because it is their ideal preference, but because they feel they have little alternative. High housing costs, rising living expenses, and taxation burdens have made single-income family life virtually impossible for many to sustain. They don’t have the choice to stay home and raise their children anymore. The government has made that choice for them. Now they want to gaslight us into thinking we’re all better off this way.

By opposing income splitting, Gallagher is effectively treating the family—and the unpaid labour involved in raising children and maintaining the home—as secondary to taxable income generation. Economic participation is prioritised over parental presence, and institutional childcare over family-based care.

What’s more, Australia’s fertility rate remains well below replacement level, yet governments increasingly appear more comfortable relying on mass migration to offset demographic decline than addressing the economic and cultural pressures discouraging Australians from forming and raising families in the first place. Why prioritise policies that support Australian families when “new Australians” can simply be imported instead?

For our politicians, it would appear that supporting the growth of Australian families simply isn’t a priority. Why would it be? We all know how heavily they rely on mass immigration to sustain demographic and economic growth. Rather than creating conditions that make marriage, family, and child-rearing possible for Australians, our government’s only solution to maximising the tax base and supplementing population growth is through mass migration.

As such, our politicians have little incentive to pursue policies that strengthen and grow the natural family, reduce the financial burden on parents, or make it easier for mothers to invest time in raising the next generation. Why introduce policies that allow mothers to stay home and raise their children, when governments can keep them in the workforce, and instead rely on immigration to meet future labour and population needs?

It’s no surprise that a government whose primary strategy for demographic growth is mass immigration, rather than supporting its own families, will inevitably treat child-rearing as a private lifestyle choice rather than a social good for the future of the nation.

The British Australian Community has called on the Australian Government to clarify its position on national identity and the place of Anglo-Celtic Australians following controversies surrounding ANZAC Day commemorations last month.

In a press release issued on 10 May, the organisation addressed disruptions that occurred during ANZAC Day services in Sydney and Melbourne, particularly, the booing of the Acknowledgement of Country delivered by Ray Minniecon at the Sydney Cenotaph.

BAC argued the incident reflected a growing sense of alienation felt by Australians of British and European descent, and raised concerns surrounding the increasing prominence of Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies at national events.

The group highlighted the often-used phrase, “always was, always will be Aboriginal land,” and said many Anglo-Celtic Australians interpret the slogan as implying they are “merely tolerated transient guests” in a nation their ancestors built, defended, and helped shape through generations of settlement and sacrifice.

The statement also referenced comments later made by Ray Minniecon in media interviews, in which he reaffirmed that Australia “always was and always will be Aboriginal land” and described Indigenous Australians as the “traditional owners” and “sovereign owners” of the country.

The British Australian Community argued that such remarks raise questions about the legitimacy of the Australian nation-state and claimed the views expressed were incompatible with the spirit of ANZAC remembrance.

“From the perspective of British descended Australians, to have someone with such extreme views, which are antithetical to the spirit of the ANZAC sacrifices, playing a leading role in the ceremony is an outrage,” the statement said.

The organisation also formally called on the Australian Government to declare its position on the historical and civic role of Anglo-Celtic and European Australians. The statement argued that those communities should be recognised as the people who “settled, built, and shaped the Commonwealth of Australia.”

They outlined questions it wanted clarified by government, including whether Anglo-Celtic Australians should be recognised as the founding people who established one of the world’s “most advanced, egalitarian, and just societies,” whether their cultural and historical concerns deserve recognition comparable to Indigenous Australians, and whether ANZAC servicemen largely fought for a nation that was historically British and European in character.

BAC wrote:

“Specifically, we ask the Government to clarify the following matters:

1. Are Anglo-Celtic and European Australians to be recognised as the people who created, on this continent, one of the most advanced, egalitarian, and just societies on the planet or are we to regard ourselves as second-class inhabitants whose perspectives will always be subordinate to those of Aboriginal heritage?

2. Does the Government accept that the concerns of the Anglo-Celtic founding people—concerns shaped by our British heritage of parliamentary democracy, individual liberty, and a tradition of earned national belonging—are legitimate and deserving of special recognition, just as Indigenous peoples are recognised for their special status as the first residents?

3. Can we agree that the great majority of our service men and women courageously fought, with many falling in combat, for a nation that was almost entirely demographically, culturally, technologically, and historically British and, to a lesser degree, European? It is neither fair nor rational to believe that they would have made such a tremendous sacrifice for a country that considered them invaders and second-class citizens.”

The statement concluded by saying the request was made “not in confrontation, but in good faith,” arguing that clearer recognition of the country’s British-derived foundations would help foster “honesty and mutual respect” rather than deepen division on days intended for national remembrance.

The press release was authorised by Harry Richardson, president of the British Australian Community, and can be read here:

“History made,” says Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe, after his new party, Restore Britain, scored major victories in the recent 2026 local elections.

The Britain-first party won ten out of ten seats contested, with overwhelming majorities in every single one across Norfolk County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council.

This marks Restore Britain’s first major electoral test since the party formally launched earlier this year and has emerged as one of the fastest-growing political forces in modern British history. It’s not hard to see why.

In just months, the party surged in national polls, reaching up to 9% in some surveys shortly after registration. Membership has reportedly skyrocketed past 100,000, surpassing the Conservative Party and more than doubling that of the Liberal Democrats.

Founded by Lowe after his departure from Reform UK, Restore Britain has built a dedicated base of supporters enthusiastic about policies targeting immigration controls, capping net zero burdens, abolishing inheritance tax, and prioritising British citizens.

These recent wins prove that Restore Britain’s message of patriotism is connecting with voters disillusioned by the establishment parties, which seem to govern for everyone but the British people.

Congratulations to Rupert Lowe and the entire Restore Britain team on this well-deserved victory. May there be many more to come!

Dan Bongino says he knows what’s coming for him once diehard Marxists get back into power.

This isn’t so much a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, he revealed in a recent, jaw-dropping two-hour sit-down with Sean Hannity.

“I’m not going to put on some fake tough guy act,” the former police officer, Secret Service Agent, and FBI deputy director later wrote on Instagram.

“I’m scared, folks.

“There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t think that they may one day come for me.”

Bongino isn’t paranoid, nor is it a “sob story,” he told Hannity. This is pragmatism.

While deputy director of the FBI, he saw what no one was ever meant to see.

Pages and pages of information found inside “burn bags” revealing how the Obama/Biden bureaucracy took over America’s institutions in an attempt to take out Trump.

These contained the inner workings of the apparent Clinton-driven coup, Crossfire Hurricane (now correctly labelled: the Russiagate hoax).

Bongino told Hannity the burn bags were discovered on the 9^th floor.

He then explained that it looked like someone with a conscience had left them there on purpose.

“This is why I say to people that be careful painting the entire bureau with an overly broad brush.

“There were a ton of bad actors and more than I expected, but there were a lot of people in there under extreme pressure who were probably like, ‘This isn’t right.’

“It was the mother lode,” Bongino exclaimed.

“And there was a document in there that we were never meant to find that was basically the keys to the kingdom on Crossfire.

“The document was so sensitive we were not even allowed to carry it outside of the office,” he said, not even outside in an official bag.

“I wasn’t bringing it home - it was a weekend - so I just stayed at the office to read it, which was about 100 pages.

“The footnotes were probably as interesting as the actual document. It took me a good four hours [to read]”, he recalled.

Entering the job with some idea that the apparent Crossfire coup was going to be bad, Bongino said, “he didn’t think it was going to be worse than bad.

“I’m reading this document, and I’m like, I can’t believe this happened in the United States,” he recalled.

“It wasn’t just that this happened in the United States. It was that so many people knew about it,” and nobody had the courage to call it out.

Stating that the agency knew the Russian collusion claims against Trump were a hoax, he asserted, “There is no way they thought this was real.

“I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned,” Bongino added.

“I’m not the same. I’m scared. You know why I’m scared?

“I don’t lose sleep. I sleep through anything. It doesn’t matter. That one night I really did lose sleep.”

That night, he had to take two theanine vitamin supplements to calm down, saying “he couldn’t go to sleep.”

Bongino said this was how shook up he was.

It was also why he took to X the next day, writing,

“The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponisation of both law enforcement and intelligence operations.

“What I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to my core.

“We cannot run a Republic like this.”

Current FBI director Kash Patel confirmed the burn bag discoveries, adding that the room with the burn bags wasn’t on any blueprint of the building.

“Nobody had access to it,” he announced in a separate interview with Hannity on Tuesday.

Patel said with the smoking gun evidence that he and others had uncovered during Trump 1.0 about illegal surveillance and “institutional weaponisation,” there had to be more.

He was also certain that because “these individuals, these purported leaders of law enforcement and government are so arrogant that they write the stuff down themselves to memorialise how great they are.”

“That’s how we caught them in Russiagate. It wasn’t my documents. It was their emails. It was their FISA application. It was their bogus steel dossier.”

Saying they knew more information had to have been hidden, Kash said, “We set out to find it, and we did.”

Four months before the burn bags were found, President Trump directed materials related to the ongoing investigation into Crossfire be declassified.

According to the Epoch Times, the previously unknown material found in the burn bags will be released at a later date.

The release of those files depends on the current investigation, the discretion of Congress, and whether or not they take the evidence to a public trial.

Patel adamantly reassured Epoch that one way or another, we’re “going to see everything they found in that room.”

In his own sit-down with Hannity, Bongino made a point of saying he accepts that tackling such a high level of bureaucratic corruption and espionage makes him a target.

As the father of two noted,

“I know what we did. I know what’s coming. I know what I started.

“I knew what I was getting into.”

They did this to Donald Trump, “the president of the United States,” he gasped.

“He went through just the worst destruction of his civil liberties I’ve ever seen.”

Bongino implied that for exposing their works of darkness, the next Marxian Woke White House will now have him squarely in its sights, too.

WATCH:

Suppose they suddenly dropped compelling evidence suggesting the existence of alien life. Would it rattle your faith? How should Christians respond? Panic and blind acceptance are both wrong answers. So, before rushing to either conclusion, we should recognise there are only a few basic possibilities before us.

First, the evidence itself is fabricated, and therefore, the interpretation of the evidence is false also. Second, the evidence is genuine, but the explanation is false. Third, both the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence are accurate. These are the broad lenses through which any alleged “alien disclosure” ought to be examined.

Christians shouldn’t approach these sorts of claims with naive gullibility or irrational fear. Remember how that worked out for everyone during the “pandemic.” The Bible not only repeatedly warns us about deception, but it also tells us that reality consists of more than the material world, and there are things within our own universe that science simply cannot explain.

1. The Evidence Could Be Fake

The first possibility is that the so-called evidence itself is entirely fabricated. In this scenario, the explanation would also be fabricated. In other words, it’s one big lie.

Oddly enough, it is this kind of general scepticism that is today portrayed in the public mind as akin to the wide-eyed “conspiracy theorists,” warning that an alien invasion is imminent and the President is in on it. But it’s a possibility that simply cannot be dismissed as a paranoid delusion.

Governments and institutions have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to manipulate the public, conceal information, and shape narratives for their own political purposes and power. Recent history alone should show us how easy it is for the masses to be managed through fear and uncertainty.

It’s for this reason that Christians, above all, should exercise discernment before embracing any official narrative concerning so-called “alien life.” It is entirely possible that any large-scale disclosure event could function as:

• a political distraction,

• a psychological operation,

• an attempt to unify populations against a global threat or around a particular narrative,

• or even an attempt to undermine confidence in the Bible.

None of these would be unprecedented. Scripture and history books constantly show us that earthly powers desire control, not only over our money and behaviours, but over our beliefs and convictions. Christians are commanded to test all things, and not to be carried away with every new teaching (1 Jn. 4:1; Eph. 4:14).

In our current climate, already conditioned towards distrust, scepticism towards state-managed fear-mongering isn’t irrational—it’s basic wisdom. Then again, given how the “Epstein files” have been handled, it’s likely all the hype will be spent on the anticipation, not the revelation.

2. The Evidence Could Be Real, But the Interpretation False

The second possibility is a little more complicated. The phenomena themselves may be real, but the explanation offered by those in power could be false. In other words, we might be encountering something genuinely outside ordinary experience and materialistic explanation while misidentifying what it actually is—either in ignorance or for nefarious purposes.

For the Christian, this scenario is entirely possible because Christianity is not a materialist worldview. Christians already affirm the existence of realities beyond the physical and visible world. Although the Bible doesn’t claim to catalogue every metaphysical reality, it does teach of the existence of angels, demons, principalities, powers, and spiritual beings that operate beyond our ordinary perception.

Scripture’s primary focus is the revelation of God Himself, and all things necessary concerning Jesus, man, sin, and salvation. As such, Christians already have conceptual categories for realities that the modern materialist mindset cannot account for.

What this means is that any unusual phenomena don’t require “extraterrestrial” explanations. What people call “aliens” could theoretically be demons and spiritual entities. It’s also possible that what we’re seeing is just classified human technology, or realities not yet discovered.

Of course, Christians shouldn’t just attribute every unexplained event to demonic forces, but neither should we adopt that materialist assumption that attributes every unexplained event to life originating on another planet.

The Bible teaches us that spiritual deception is part of human history. Paul warns that Satan disguises himself “as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). If the devil can present himself as the exact opposite of what he is, then disguising himself as an extraterrestrial would be no greater feat to pull off. Likewise, John, in Revelation, describes deceptive signs and wonders that are capable of misleading the nations (Rev. 13:13-14, etc.).

In short, Christianity already provides a framework for realities that a purely materialist worldview has no real category for.

The Problem With Time Travel

Some have proposed the possibility that so-called “aliens” may actually be humans from a different point in time. But this option also has its problems. To begin with, Christianity teaches that God governs history providentially. It is not part of the created order that God subjected to human mastery. Humans are bound by the limits of time. God alone stands sovereign over time.

The Bible repeatedly emphasises our limitations in this regard. We cannot add a single hour to our span of life (Matt. 6:27); We cannot control tomorrow (Prov. 27:1); God determines our span of life (Job 14:5); Even heaven is subject to time (Rev. 6:10). God alone is above and beyond time (2 Pet. 3:8).

The idea that humans eventually master time itself. so as to make time travel possible. elevates man to the position of God, making him the master manipulator of history. That and the fact that the Bible says nothing about the tour groups taking snaps at the Garden Tomb.

3. The Aliens Are Real

The third possibility is the most controversial, for obvious reasons. What if extraterrestrial intelligent life genuinely exists?

Many Christians will reject this outright, arguing that Genesis presents humanity as the central focus of creation. Therefore, it’s concluded that the Biblical story leaves no room for other intelligent races elsewhere in the universe.

Others will argue that Genesis doesn’t necessarily describe every act of creation exhaustively. For example, the Bible never details when or how the angelic beings were created. Their existence is just assumed. But we know they were all created at some point in time.

Because of this, some have speculated that God could theoretically have created other worlds or intelligent beings beyond humanity without contradicting the account in Genesis itself.

Yet even if we grant such a possibility, serious theological problems arise. Christianity isn’t just a theory of origins. It’s an account of redemptive history, a story of sin, death, and salvation through Jesus Christ so exhaustive that all creation will be recovered (Rom. 8:20ff).

We’re told that sin entered into the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12), that death entered through sin (1 Cor. 15:21-22), and Christ became incarnate as a man to redeem the world itself (Jn. 1:14). All of which raises unavoidable and obvious questions. If aliens exist, are they fallen or unfallen? Do they experience death? Are they descendants of Adam? Are they under Adam’s domain? Did Christ die for them also? Do they require salvation? Have they received divine revelation?

If such beings die, they must be subject to the curse. If they are subject to the curse, they must be subject to Adam, or mankind. But if they’re superior beings, over and above mankind, then how are they redeemed? Christ became a man to redeem mankind, not whatever they might be.

If they are unfallen, then they would be untouched by sin, death, and the curse. Yet Paul tells us that creation itself was subjected to futility through the fall (Rom. 8:20). How could unfallen creatures fit within the biblical framework?

The problems accumulate, and as soon as someone seemingly resolves one, they end up creating five more.

Other Possibilities

But there are also entirely natural explanations that deserve some consideration, also. Alleged “UFO” phenomena could simply involve classified military technologies, experimental aircrafts, advanced drones, and even a human civilisation unknown to the public.

Speculation about isolated advanced societies has existed for centuries. While these theories are usually dismissed as the stuff of science fiction, the point remains: Unexplained phenomena do not automatically justify extraterrestrial conclusions.

The chasm between “We can’t make sense of this” and “therefore, aliens” is quite large.

The Christian Response

Regardless of what sensational news headlines might say, Christians should neither panic about nor blindly trust whatever slop those in power feed them. And we know they like to feed us slop.

If an alleged alien disclosure ever occurs in a meaningful sense—and not just fuzzy images of unidentified aircrafts—Christians need to respond sensibly, and biblically. We are in a unique position. Unlike materialism, the Christian worldview is equipped to handle not only the deception peddled by those always grasping for more control, but metaphysical questions too. Christianity already recognises metaphysical realities beyond the material world.

At the same time, Christians should be careful not to fill the gaps in knowledge with worthless speculation. Whether it’s the government peddling lies or unexplained phenomena, the Bible remains true. God remains sovereign. Christ remains King. And no “disclosure” will change that reality.

Whatever may or may not exist beyond our present understanding, Christians are called to remain grounded in Scripture, and the firmer our footing in the Truth, the less likely it is that we’ll be swept away by lies, whether they’re being peddled by the devil or the government.

I’ve seen a bit of confusion surrounding the pro-life vs abolitionist debate, so I thought I’d offer a few comments to help clarify the point of difference. These thoughts are largely based on conversations I’ve had with folks elsewhere.

When it comes to this topic, particularly in Australia, the disagreement is not ultimately about the end goal, but about the means by which that goal is reached. Both abolitionists and incrementalists say they want to see abortion abolished. Good! That’s true justice. The real question is how that goal ought to be pursued, and whether certain strategies compromise justice by making concessions for evil in the process.

For the abolitionist, opposing abortion is fundamentally a question of faithfulness. The Bible consistently places responsibility and emphasis on obedience, not outcomes. We are called to act righteously and justly, regardless of what we imagine the outcome will be. This is because the results ultimately belong to God. In other words, the end intended doesn’t justify the means employed.

This point is illustrated in several places within the Bible, but I’ll offer one obvious example: In 2 Samuel 6, when oxen, carrying the Ark of the Covenant, stumbled, the Ark fell. In that moment, Uzzah reached out his hand to catch the Ark. The action seemed good. The outcome seemed beneficial. Uzzah saved the ark from ruin. Yet he was struck down and killed in that moment because he acted in disobedience. God did not command Israel to protect the ark by any means. He commanded them not to touch the ark, whatever their intention might be (Num. 4:15). Hence, good intentions don’t justify the use of unlawful means.

Similarly, abolitionists argue that any legislative approach must be judged not merely by what it hopes to achieve pragmatically, but by whether it upholds justice without compromise. That means, without making any concessions for evil. This is where their central critique of incrementalism emerges.

Incremental laws, such as those banning abortion after a certain number of weeks, are often defended as reducing harm. However, abolitionists argue that such laws do more than merely restrain evil; they formally redefine it, and legally condone it.

A law that says “abortion is illegal after X weeks” necessarily implies that abortion before that point is both morally and legally permissible. In doing so, the law arbitrarily draws a line between children who may be killed and children who may not. From the abolitionist perspective, this is still the state explicitly sanctioning the killing of a class of human beings. And that’s an evil, the abolitionist would contend, that we should have no participation in—whatever our intentions may be.

It’s for this reason that abolitionists charge incrementalism with partiality in judgment. They argue that what we end up with is still an unjust law. And the Bible condemns unjust laws. Isaiah 10:1–2 pronounces woe upon “those who make unjust laws” and “issue oppressive decrees.” So, the issue is not whether a law reduces the total number of victims, but whether it upholds justice in principle. Even if only one innocent life is left unprotected, the law remains unjust. As such, limiting evil doesn’t make it righteous or just, especially if evil is still legally permitted to some degree.

To give another example: Imagine a society in which it is legal for men to marry multiple children. If legislation were introduced to regulate this practice, allowing a man to marry only one child instead of many, it might reduce the scale of the evil. Yet it would still enshrine the legitimacy of the act itself. Such a law would not merely restrain evil; it would redefine and make concessions for it. For abolitionists, this is precisely the problem with incremental abortion laws. They do not simply oppose injustice. They codify it, even if it is a lesser form of it.

All Christians should agree that God’s moral law is universally binding, not limited to the church. In the Old Testament, Mosaic civil laws are applications of that moral law to specific cases. That is, case-law. This is not to say that we should replicate every Old Testament judicial statute in a modern legal code, but it does mean that human law must reflect God’s moral standards of good and evil. Civil authorities are not free to redefine these moral categories. As Romans 13 assumes, civil authorities are accountable to God’s definitions of justice. We are not only to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but also to render to God what is God’s. The authority to define what is moral belongs to Him alone.

For that reason, abolitionists reject the idea that non-Christian lawmakers operate under a different or lower moral standard where evil is to be tolerated, even if under duress. The Bible presents God’s law as the standard by which all people, and especially rulers, are judged. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:9, the law is laid down for the lawless and disobedient. It is precisely those who enact or permit injustice who are accountable to it.

Finally, abolitionists reject the assumption that we must settle for imperfect justice simply because perfect justice cannot be fully realised in a fallen world. While comprehensive justice may await the end of all things, it does not follow that just laws are unattainable now.

A law that fully protects innocent life without exception is not an unrealistic ideal. It’s the very standard all Christians ought to be pursuing. It’s possible to write a just law today, and that wouldn’t be historically unprecedented either. Many Western countries once punished murder and rape with the death penalty. That is perfectly just. There’s no reason to imagine that standard is beyond recovery.

In short, the abolitionist position insists that evil must be opposed without qualification in both principle and law and without any concession for evil. Any legislation that permits the intentional killing of the innocent, even in a limited or regulated form, is, by definition, an unjust law.

Therefore, the abolitionist does not call for gradual accommodation, but for immediate and uncompromising justice, pursued in faithfulness to God, not in confidence in whatever pragmatic outcomes we presume to be more achievable.

You might still disagree with the abolitionist approach, but it’s best to do so with an accurate understanding of the abolitionist position first.

One thing the abolitionist must be aware of, however, is not unintentionally functioning like an incrementalist for the pro-abortion cause. The abortion regime was not established all at once, but rather, through decades of gradual legal, cultural, and political advances. It's the ultimate incremental approach. If every measure that resists abortion short of total abolition is rejected outright, the practical effects may be that the pro-abortion movement continues advancing incrementally while its opponents resist only in principle rather than in law.

In such a case, the question must be asked whether, by refusing to support partial restrictions, we are leaving each pro-abortion gain intact and uncontested, allowing the incremental erosion of protections for the unborn to continue advancing unchecked. While abolitionists rightly demand complete justice, does the refusal to oppose lesser evils through achievable legislative means unintentionally aid the steady consolidation of the greater evil they seek to abolish? In other words, is it possible they’re abolitionists in theory, but incrementalists for the pro-choice cause in practice?

In the end, however, we should ultimately stand with all those who are working to end the killing. Of course, some approaches will be wiser, more effective, and more faithful to Scripture than others.

We can’t expect everyone to arrive at the same conclusion all at the same time. Sanctification is a process, learning is a process, growing in wisdom is a process. None of it is instantaneous. Differences are inevitable, and that means grace is absolutely essential—regardless of what side you’re on.

What matters is that those differences are not used to serve the interests of the enemy we oppose. Though our methods and tactics may vary and our convictions develop at differing paces, if death is our common enemy, then a united front against that enemy should be our goal.

Few things serve the cause of evil more effectively than when those who oppose it turn their sights away from it and towards one another.

I have no idea what Trump understands or does not understand. Unlike many people online, I do not consider him to be as dumb as is often claimed by some, nor as brilliant as is often claimed by others. For a long time, he had good instincts about how to get support from a broad base in society.

He has shown good instincts on domestic policy, and even some of his international excursions have worked out better than some predicted they would. But I think the old adage, “the seeds of defeat are sown in victory,” applies to this situation with Iran. Things he had done well have caused him to overextend and land the US in a much more difficult situation.

With Venezuela, he got away with a bold and, in the modern mind, unique style of strike. It was not as unique as some think; if you read the Old Testament, there are very similar actions taken by other nations. For instance, at one point, both Syria and Samaria plot to take out the leader of Judah, so that they can get Judah on board with their foreign policy (Isa. 7:1-9). However, in the context of recent US foreign policy, it was quite unique, and the quickness with which Venezuelan ships started taking their oil where the US and its allies would prefer, really even got many critics to support the actions after the fact. But it has caused his most avid supporters to overestimate his abilities.

Iran has proven a much harder nut to crack. There are various reasons for this. The ancient nature of their society. The fact that for decades now, they have forged a relatively successful economy under sanctions. The ideological nature of their leadership makes it far more impervious to pressure. The distance from the US to the Middle East. Iran’s placement in the world trade system and its ability to turn around and impose sanctions on much of the world in response to attacks.

The US’s intricate relationship with Israel, which makes it harder for the US to act completely in its own interests (though I suspect this relationship is being strained by this conflict). And various other factors make this situation much harder to handle. But there is also one other, very significant reason why this nut is much harder to crack.

Trump’s policies towards Iran are accelerating the very fracturing of the world trade system that many of his supporters argue that he was seeking to protect with this war. Some argue he was really seeking to address the city of London’s hold on global trade through ancient legal structures and remove the United States from under the sway of these influences. There may even be some solid reasons to agree with this analysis.

The problem is that the city of London’s hold on trade was already declining, because as many analysts have observed, the world is bifurcating into an economic zone centred in Asia which includes China, its allies and its satellites, and another zone which includes much of the historical west led by the USA, along with its allies and satellites, this is where the city of London still has power as well. In other words, if the city of London and the Trump administration were competing, they were competing over and already shrinking influence.

This is the part of the analysis that many people are not factoring in. They think it is Trump versus the globalists. Others think Trump has been co-opted by the globalists. But there is no reason to be so binary about how world power works; there are clearly many factions and centres of power, and they are competing with each other. The Western centres of power are increasingly losing their dominance.

This can be seen in different ways, but one of the core ways is how nations on the Asian continent are increasingly seeking to build more land trade routes. I touched on this as being one of the real reasons behind Israel and the US’s attack on Iran back in June 2025,

“Iran is succeeding to grow its economy, and it is succeeding in a way that it should not be under some of the harshest sanctions in the world. It is succeeding in a way that presents a challenge to the US dominance of the world economy, and the US/Israeli dominance of the Middle East.

You have probably heard of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? This is China’s attempt to create a trade network all across the world, with interlocking infrastructure to increase China’s trade power in many regions of the world. But did you know how closely China is working with Iran to achieve this trade dominance in the Eurasia? China and Iran have jointly created a successful China-Iran railway corridor, and guess what, it just went operational,

“On May 25, 2025, the first freight train from Xi’an, China, arrived at the Aprin dry port, Iran, marking the official launch of a direct rail link between the two countries. This new logistical artery significantly reduces transit times (from 30–40 days by sea to roughly 15 days by land) yielding a direct impact on transportation costs.”1

This railway is part of a much larger and broader East-West Corridor that is designed to link China, physically, with a trade route directly to Africa, and to Europe, without having to use the more traditional sea trade routes. Think of it as a new railway-based silk road, the very concept that China implemented in the past to make itself an economic powerhouse is previous eras.”[1]

The United States, along with Britain before it, and France and Holland before that, built their wealth and their power around being sea powers. This is one of the reasons that, after World War 2 the dominance of the world system moved so readily towards the United States. During the war, America had focused so much on sea power to crush Japan that its navy remained unquestionably the dominant navy.

The Soviet Union had the chance to do what China is now doing and turn its place on the Eurasian continent into a power that could bypass US-controlled sea lanes, but the corrosive nature of communism made it quickly collapse from within. However, China is a much more resilient nation, has learned from the mistakes of the Soviets, and is seeking to build its influence in a much slower and methodical way, while the US galivants around the world using a combination of force, threat of force and economic warfare to harangue everybody to stay in line. However, this influence is waning, as wealth concentrates in Asia.

This war is quickening the rise of the Eurasian continent, with an emphasis on Asia, and now Pakistan is following the approach of China. As Simplicius notes,

“From the above—Pakistan has created “an overland sanctions-resilient corridor [to Iran] capable of reshaping regional trade geometry”:

Pakistan’s decision to formally open its territory for third-country goods bound for Iran marks far more than a customs adjustment, because it inserts Islamabad directly into one of the most strategically sensitive logistics contests now unfolding across the Middle East and the northern Arabian Sea.

At a moment when the Strait of Hormuz faces severe disruption, Iranian ports remain under intense maritime pressure, and more than 3,000 Iran-bound containers are stranded at Karachi, Pakistan has effectively created an overland sanctions-resilient corridor capable of reshaping regional trade geometry.

By activating Gwadar, Karachi, Port Qasim, Taftan, Gabd, Quetta, Khuzdar and Ormara as integrated transit nodes, Islamabad is not merely facilitating commerce but redefining force posture, strategic access, and geopolitical leverage between Washington, Tehran, Beijing, and the wider Indo-Pacific maritime system.”2

Pakistan is taking the opportunity this war presents to restructure how it trades with Iran through land routes. This is the kind of situation that sea powers fear, one where land-based powers can simply ignore them or largely work around their influence and power. Britain worked hard for centuries to support rising powers in Europe to challenge the dominant land powers, in an effort to stop any one continental power from becoming too dominant.

This policy eventually culminated in two of the worst wars in history, WW1 and WW2, where the size and power of the British Empire drew most of the world into their final two attempts to maintain their dominance. World War 1 was indecisive, and World War 2 ended with Britain in steep debt and then decline and the US, a sea power, and the Soviet Union, a land power, squaring off for dominance of the world system.

While the US was dominant over the West for much of that time, it really only became the true singular world power when the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Soviet empire. But rather than maintain order and stability, the US has engaged in foreign war after foreign war in the Middle East, severely weakening its prestige in the world, and incentivising the switch to land-based trade in the Eurasian continent. In other words, Trump’s efforts to stop what is happening are accelerating the bifurcation of the world system. He may have intended to fight a different type of war, but the Middle East is not known as an ancient quagmire for empires for no reason.

Even Ukraine can be seen as part of this trend. Prior to the Ukraine war, Europe’s dependence on Russian resources was increasing, and this would have concerned the powers that reside in Washington. Most of the world, and most of the wealth of the world, is concentrated in Europe and Asia. If that continental block were able to draw together, it would be able to exchange wealth and grow prosperous without any real need for US naval power or influence. Empires do not like seeing themselves become obsolete.

It is for reasons like this that I analyse the Iran war through the lens of collapsing US dominance and growing Asian dominance. Or, in other words, through the historical lens of the rise and fall of empires. The sad thing is that the rise of Asia came about as a direct result of Anglo-American free trade policies that moved technology and industry to that region. And now, whether he knows it or not, Trump’s policies are accelerating the very thing that Anglo-American powers have sought to avoid for centuries: a European/Asian trade network which they cannot dominate. I do not see them letting this happen without fighting hard to stop it; therefore, we can conclude that there are worse wars to come.

Martin Luther was right about many things, but not everything. All Protestants will now agree that his assessment of the Epistle of James was mistaken. In the 1522 preface to his German translation of the New Testament, Luther wrote:

“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvific for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.”

Luther’s assessment was shaped in large part by the theological battles of his day. Although he criticised James, he did not remove it from his German New Testament; it remained in his translation, albeit without the same central status he accorded to the Gospels and Pauline epistles. In fact, he elsewhere acknowledged, “I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

It is said that Luther’s primary concern was his reading of James’ statement that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” which he thought stood in tension with Paul’s teaching that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” On this basis, Luther struggled to reconcile James’ teaching with that of Paul’s. He wouldn’t be the last.

At first glance, James does appear to sit uneasily alongside Paul’s doctrine of justification, and Luther is far from alone in raising this question. James states that Abraham “was justified when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar” (James 2:21–24), whereas Paul insists that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works (Romans 4:3).

So how are we to make sense of this? Is there a genuine contradiction within Scripture?

Some argue that James is speaking plainly and that Paul has been misunderstood. Others maintain that Paul is clearer and that James must therefore be interpreted differently. So which is it? If the two cannot be reconciled in our minds, we are left with two possibilities: either Scripture contradicts itself, or we have misunderstood it.

Which is the case?

Paul: Justification by Faith

In several of Paul’s epistles, the apostle is concerned with the basis on which sinners are declared righteous, or justified, before God. In Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, he is explicit:

“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

“A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16).

Paul’s argument is not merely that Mosaic boundary markers are excluded, but that all works are excluded as a basis for justification. He draws a clear contrast between wages earned through works and righteousness received through faith, presenting justification as grounded in God’s grace rather than human merit.

“What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes… his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:3-5).

Justification, for Paul, is a matter of grace and not a mixed outcome of faith plus human cooperation. This is reinforced further in Ephesians, where the Apostle states: “By grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Grace, by definition, ceases to be grace if it is conditioned upon works.

However, the apparent contradiction arises when we turn to James’ teaching on justification, particularly in his use of Abraham as an example of justification by works.

James: Justified by Works

In James 2:21–24, James writes: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James clearly states that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Yet Paul has already argued that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works. Is this a contradiction? Is James correcting Paul, or have we misunderstood one or both of them?

Before answering that question, we need to be precise about what each writer is referring to. What, exactly, does James mean when he speaks of Abraham being “justified”? Is he referring to Abraham’s initial declaration of righteousness before God? If so, the difficulty becomes even greater. Not only would James appear to be at odds with Paul, but also with Moses, who records Abraham’s justification in Genesis 15:6 as occurring long before the offering of Isaac.

In fact, in Genesis, Abraham is declared righteous before God seven chapters prior to the event James refers to—and six chapters before Isaac is even born.

In Genesis 15:6, Moses explicitly states that Abraham “believed the LORD, and [God] counted it to him as righteousness.” On that basis, Genesis clearly presents Abraham as being justified not at the time of his offering up Isaac in Genesis 22, but years before.

James is clearly aware of Abraham’s declaration of righteousness in Genesis 15:6, since he explicitly quotes it in James 2:23. This means he is not contradicting that earlier declaration. Rather, James appears to be addressing a different aspect of “justification” than what is in view in Genesis 15 (and in Paul’s appeal to it), suggesting that the two authors are speaking about different moments or dimensions of Abraham’s life rather than offering competing accounts of the same event.

Therefore, James is not redefining justification but using the term in a different sense. When he says Abraham was “justified” in offering Isaac, he is not describing Abraham’s initial being brought into right standing with God, but rather the outward demonstration or vindication of a faith that had already been counted as righteousness years earlier. It was Abraham’s works that outwardly proved his faith was genuine.

If Abraham had not believed God’s promise, that Isaac would live, marry, have descendants, and ultimately give rise to the promised seed, then he would not have been willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. His obedience in Genesis 22 reflects a belief that God was able to fulfil His promise that Isaac would live. In Abraham’s words, “God will provide for himself a lamb” (Genesis 22:7-8).

The chronological sequence in Abraham’s life is essential for understanding both Paul and James. Abraham is first declared “righteous” by faith in Genesis 15:6, and later that faith is tested by obedience in Genesis 22.

James is not redefining justification, but rather exposing counterfeit faith. A profession of faith that produces no obedience is not saving faith at all. Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac shows that his faith was living, active, and real. Abraham believed that even if Isaac were to die, “God was able to raise him from the dead” in order to fulfil his promise (Hebrews 11:19).

Thus, James treats Genesis 22 as the outworking and fulfilment of Genesis 15:6. The earlier declaration of righteousness is shown to be genuine and publicly vindicated in the later act of obedience. In a similar way, Jesus teaches that true and false professions of faith are recognised “by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16), since genuine belief is ultimately expressed in behaviour.

James uses “justified” in a demonstrative or vindicatory sense, showing that Abraham’s faith was genuine and living—thereby publicly confirming or vindicating the faith that had already been counted as righteousness. This is why he immediately explains, “faith was completed by his works” (James 2:22). The point is not that Abraham’s works produced righteousness, but that they demonstrate the reality of the living faith that justifies.

Two Men, One Gospel

The apparent contradiction between James and Paul dissolves when we recognise that they are addressing different errors: Paul is refuting legalism, the idea that works can earn or contribute to justification. James is refuting antinomianism, the idea that faith can be real without obedience.

Paul speaks of the root of justification, how sinners are made right with God. James speaks of the fruit of justification, what living faith inevitably produces.

James is addressing a particular problem: a claim to faith that produces no obedience. Hence his warning that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17). Even demons, he notes, possess a form of intellectual belief—but it is barren and unfruitful (James 2:19).

In this sense, Abraham is not an exception to justification by faith; he is the paradigm of living faith. His obedience in Genesis 22 reveals the authenticity of what was already true in Genesis 15.

Abraham remains central to both authors. Paul cites Genesis 15:6 to show that righteousness is credited apart from works. James draws on Genesis 22 to show that the faith that justifies is never barren. He even ties the two together explicitly: “And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (James 2:23).

The offering of Isaac does not contradict Genesis 15; it fulfils it in the sense of confirming its reality.

Conclusion

James does not correct Paul, nor does Paul contradict James. Both stand within the same inspired testimony: salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, but true faith is never alone (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Abraham is not divided between two contradictory accounts of justification. Rather, he is presented as a single, coherent witness, declared righteous by faith, and shown to be righteous by obedient faith.

Hence, the historic summary holds true: We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.

“We are a nation of migrants,” they say. But by their own impossibly broad definition, every nation is a nation of migrants. People don’t emerge from the soil. At some point, all peoples moved, settled, and built, which means the phrase explains exactly nothing. It is a mind-numbing slogan, not an argument.

But even if we were to accept the premise, the point is not simply that yesterday’s migrants founded today’s nations. It’s that particular migrants did. That is, people from specific places, bound by a common ancestry, faith, culture, and civilisational inheritance.

Despite what today’s proponents of open borders might suggest, their defining characteristic was not some generic status as “migrants,” but their belonging to a distinct people, settling in a distinct place, and for a distinct purpose. They set out to build a nation precisely for their progeny to inherit. They were not building a waystation for an ever-expanding, interchangeable, and amorphous category of humanity with no shared history, no common loyalty, no unifying commitment or similarity—other than the shared designation of “migrant.”

What’s more, the slogan belittles the sheer magnitude of what those founders actually accomplished. They established themselves in untamed wilderness and bushland, in territories where there was nothing at all. There was no infrastructure, no institutions, no organised society to take them in. It was in this harsh and unforgiving environment that they built churches, schools, courts, and first-world cities from bare earth. They forged legal traditions, civic cultures, and high-functioning societies in a remarkably short span of time.

That’s not the same thing as migrating into already established nations, moving into their homes, taking over their institutions, inheriting the fruit of an existing social order, drawing on public goods others sacrificed to create, imposing a foreign culture, all while claiming to identify with the nation’s builders because “we’re all migrants, after all.” There should be no conflation or confusion between the two.

In particular, mass migration into an existing nation has civilisational impacts. It inevitably reshapes the cultural fabric, strains civic institutions, alters the linguistic, moral, and social character of communities, and, when it is large enough, fast enough, and culturally distant enough, can effectively displace the very people whose forebears built those institutions. The people who arrive inherit the fruit of a civilisation their families played no part in creating and bear no obligation to preserve. Any unwillingness to assimilate is a fairly good indication of that.

If the fact that a nation’s founders were once migrants themselves means all subsequent migration must be welcomed without limit or restriction, then by the same logic, since the nation was built by human beings, it must remain open to every human being without condition or end. The argument is absurd. And a nation can only adopt that rationale to its own demise.

To reduce a nation’s founders to mere “migrants” is to strip the word of any meaning whatsoever. It makes no distinction between the pioneer and the passenger, between the builder and the beneficiary, between the man who lays the foundation and the man who moves into the finished house.

Nations are not abstract propositions. They are the living inheritance of particular peoples, shaped by particular histories, held together by particular bonds of culture, memory, and mutual obligation. The question of who joins them, on what terms, and in what numbers is therefore not a trivial administrative matter. It is a civilisational one. And it deserves an answer more serious than empty and insulting slogans.

By Elijah Harris, Director at Abolish Abortion Australia.

I am not Pro-life, I am an Abolitionist.

Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of debating Dr Joanna Howe, who leads the Australian pro-life movement. In the lead-up to the debate, many people were asking the question, “Why are you debating? Are you not on the same side?”

My answer: Yes and No.

The Pro-life movement has been actively opposing the cultural and political tide as it moved towards the decriminalisation of abortion over the last fifty years. In Australia, it has almost completely failed as abortion is now legal up to birth in every state and territory with few restrictions. In America, arguably, some ground has been made with some states imposing heavy regulations and restrictions upon abortion.

The establishment Pro-life movement in America, represented by organisations such as Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony, March for Life, Students for Life, as well as several denominational bodies, was largely Catholic-led, but secular in messaging, seeks the end of abortion (make it “unthinkable”) through incremental legislative gains such as term limits, abortion facility regulations, and defunding of abortion providers.

The modern abortion abolition movement began in the US around fifteen years ago when a group of Christians beheld the strategies and principles of the pro-life movement and believed that they had deviated from the word of God. They looked back upon how Christians in the past have sought to combat societal evils, in particular the 18^th and 19^th century abolitionists’ battle against the slave trade, and discovered several discrepancies between how Christians engaged back then and how they were engaging now. They also turned to Scripture’s commands regarding how we ought to pursue justice and resolved to obey God rather than the prevailing worldly wisdom of the day.

The Abolitionists outlined their movement according to five tenets set in opposition to the establishment pro-life movement (acronym: GATES):

• Gospel Centred: abortion is a sin issue, the only solution for which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

• Aligned Providentially: We trust solely in the power of God to turn hearts to bring about the end of abortion.

• Through the Church: it is the duty of the people of God to disciple their nation and demand that justice be established.

• Engaged Biblically: the Word of God is the foundation for our doctrine and practice and bears authority over all people.

• Sought Immediately/Without Compromise: We reject all incremental and compromised legislation that shows partiality, acquits the guilty, and fails to establish justice according to God’s command.

Today, the abolitionist movement is represented by organisations such as Abolitionists Rising, Foundation to Abolish Abortion, and End Abortion Now.

In recent years, the movement has made its way to Down Under, with the founding of Abolish Abortion Australia by Todd Boaden in 2024, of which I am a director. We hold to the same tenets as the movement and to a contextualised edition of Abolitionists Rising’s Norman Statement, which expands upon the five tenets.

The Australian battle is different to the American battle in a few ways:

1. Our Pro-Life Movement is Weaker

Unlike in America, where the Pro-life movement holds great influence in a major political party, only minor parties in Australia have a pro-life platform. This has significantly hampered the movement’s attempts to slow the onset of decriminalisation and hampered their ability to pass any bills.

In fact, it was under Liberal Party governments that several states decriminalised abortion. There isn’t the same money, power, or prestige granted to those in the Pro-life movement. It is almost a fringe position within mainstream Australian politics.

The Australian people are also far less engaged on the issue of abortion. Few know what the laws permit, or what the procedure truly involves. The pro-abortion rhetoric and slogans are well ingrained in much of the population. Our LifeChoice university groups have nowhere near the following that Students of Life of America has. There is much to be done in the realm of antiabortion engagement and education in general.

2. Our Pro-Life Movement is Less Compromised

In America, there is a widespread myth in the establishment Pro-life movement that teaches that the woman seeking an abortion is always a victim of her circumstances and therefore ought never to face criminal penalties for procuring an abortion. Pro-life bills, therefore, always include an immunity clause for mothers, which effectively permits abortions so long as the mother is the one performing it (i.e. chemical abortions).

Abolitionists see this as an acquittal of the guilty and teach that justice demands criminalising homicide for all involved, with no special allowances in cases where the victim is preborn, but allowing the judiciary to judge the circumstances of each case to determine the liability of each party. Consequently, in conservative states, the Pro-life movement has become the primary opponent of “equal justice” abolition bills (see here).

In Australia, however, many Pro-life leaders presently claim that equal justice is their end goal, including Joanna and James Howe, Matt Cliff (Cherish Life, formerly Right to Life, QLD), Dave Pellowe (Church and State Ministries), Paul Hanrahan (Family Life International, 40 Days for Life), and FamilyVoice.

3. The Church is Less Engaged

Although the conservative Australian church would outwardly profess to be against abortion, rarely do they ever mention or preach against it from the pulpit. It’s an evil that Christians are generally aware of but have begun to tolerate. Some might be against it personally, but they shrink from holding others to the same God-given standard, as if Christ is king only in their own hearts.

Among the more engaged Christians, you might find them attending their annual Walk for Life or attending any major political rally, but compared to the United States, these events are very small.

However, Some Things Remain the Same

Much of the rhetoric and strategy from the American movement has also infected the Australian Pro-life movement. In recent years, there has been a strong political focus to pass compromise bills to push back the abortion laws and establish some protections for preborn children through late-term abortion bans, gender selection abortion bans, and abortion survivor / born-alive protection bills.

The abolition movement rejects these strategies for several reasons. In the first place, they deviate from the just principle. Laws have an inherent teaching quality to educate the conscience of the people regarding good and evil. When campaigning for a compromise bill, you must leave the biblical foundation for the innate value of human life – all humans from fertilisation are made in the image of God, because the bill does not reflect this principle. You must instead argue that birth, or viability, or pain, or a heartbeat is what grants human life value. You must forsake the truth for a lie.

Secondly, these laws are ineffective at protecting preborn children. Since they don’t treat abortion as murder by criminalising it completely, they merely regulate the industry on how or when they may perform child-sacrifice. For example, the bill that Dr Joanna Howe coauthored and that Sarah Game introduced into the SA legislature only sought to remove some sections of the current abortion laws, allowing for late-term abortion.

However, it left in provisions for late-term abortion when the child has a defect. Therefore, should this bill have passed, all someone would have needed to do was find a doctor who would diagnose the child with one, inflict one upon it yourself (which, if you already want to murder the child, is not unconscionable), or take abortion pills yourself, all of which bear no penalties under the proposed revisions.

Likewise, born-alive protection bills will merely force child-assassins to be more brutal or effective in their murder. These have been proven ineffective for over twenty years in America; not a single abortionist, even where proven to kill children born alive regularly, has ever been prosecuted. Gender-selection bans are no different. If you make a mistake, come back the next day and say you want an abortion because you hate the child, rather than because it’s a girl.

People will adapt and learn to jump through the hoops. In America, since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022, despite an initial decrease in abortions likely due to Prochoice misinformation, abortion numbers have now increased regardless of tighter restrictions in several states. As Ecclesiastes 8:11 teaches, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.”

Finally, such bills are iniquitous. The prophet Isaiah spoke:

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
(Isaiah 10:1-2)

These gradual bills, by compromising on the just principle, turn aside the needy of justice and intentionally neglect to recognise the rights of some children. They divide up preborn children into categories, draw a circle around one group, and forsake the rest (for the time being). This is partiality. Deuteronomy 16:19-20 instructs:

You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Pro-life lawmakers show partiality in their bills to bribe pro-abortion magistrates for their votes. They bend their professed principles to build a big tent to pass worthless laws. They will also omit imposing criminal penalties for the same purpose. Yet God says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 17:15).

I fear that, as the Pro-life movement in Australia continues down this path that the Americans have charted, they will arrive at the same destination. They will make “progress” legislatively, they will grow rich and powerful through the political relationships they have fostered, but they will become just as compromised through habit, and abortion numbers will continue to climb.

The church has a duty to be a prophetic voice within this apostate nation, as the pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), proclaiming the word of God and demanding justice without compromise. We must rely upon the mercy, blessing, and providence of God to turn the hearts of our magistrates, his servants (Prov. 21:1, Rom. 13:4). We must pray earnestly and proclaim the law and gospel of the Lord Jesus in both pulpit and public square, discipling our nation to obey all that Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:18-20).

Every age has its evils. Every age has its abolitionists. We will not run with the multitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2). We will not partake in the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them (Eph. 5:11).

If you are a Protestant Christian interested in joining our movement in Australia, we welcome you to join us at abolishabortionaustralia.com/join-us. You can also follow our movement on social media.

If you would like more information on what abolitionists believe, there are plenty of resources available at abolitionistsrising.com and abolishhumanabortion.com.

A resurfaced clip of Vivek Ramaswamy claiming that Jesus is merely a way to God is once again making the rounds on social media. In the viral video, Ramaswamy is heard speaking to a voter, where he describes Jesus as “a son of God,” but not “the Son of God.”

“I’ll be very honest,” Ramaswamy said, responding to a question about who Jesus is. “It’s not a hard question at all. So in our faith tradition, Jesus Christ is a son of God. I know that is different than saying he’s the son of God, but that is my view of Jesus Christ… It is one true God in many forms.”

Ramaswamy goes on to articulate a broader, pluralistic view of God, one commonly found in certain strands of Hinduism, affirming belief in “one true God in many forms.” From that point of view, he concludes that Jesus is merely a way to heaven, not the way.

While that might sound like an inclusive position for a politician to hold, it’s one that ultimately collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. For starters, Jesus leaves no room for pluralism.

Jesus does not present Himself as one option among many. In the Gospel of John 14:6, He declares: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus did not say he is a way, but the way. Not one path among several, but the exclusive means by which anyone comes to God.

As such, to claim that Jesus is a way to God is to deny what He explicitly taught about Himself. You cannot hold both positions without stripping His words of their meaning. If Jesus was wrong about being the only way, then He is not a reliable guide at all. And if He is not reliable, why follow Him in any meaningful sense?

R.C. Sproul once argued that if you believe Jesus Christ is one way to God, then you must also believe He is the only way to God. Why is that? Because if you believe that Jesus is one of many pathways to God, then you must also believe that this particular pathway was dead wrong when He claimed to be the only pathway to God. Who in their right mind would put their faith in that?

Either Jesus tells the truth about Himself, or He does not. And if He does not, then calling Him “a way to God” becomes an incoherent exercise in selective admiration detached from reality.

C.S. Lewis famously dismantled the attempt to reduce Jesus to something less than who He claimed to be. In Mere Christianity, he argued that a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not even be a great moral teacher—he would be a madman, a liar, or something far worse.

Lewis’ point is that Jesus does not leave open the option of polite admiration. If His claims are false, they are not the claims of a wise or moral man. If they are true, then He is not merely one voice among many. He is the Way, and therefore, the only Way, to God.

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher,” Lewis argues. “He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.”

Lewis continued: “Either [Jesus] was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He as not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

You must make your choice, Lewis said. So, who is Jesus? He’s not merely one of many pathways to God. He’s not merely a man, a good man, or a great moral teacher. He is either a lunatic, a liar, or exactly who he claimed to be.

The conclusion, then, is not difficult to reach. For many, however, it is difficult to accept. Because once Jesus is acknowledged as Lord and King, feigned neutrality disappears. Allegiance follows. Authority follows. Obedience follows.

And that’s the real stumbling block here. It’s not that the claims of Christ are unclear, but that they are confronting. To confess Him as Lord is to surrender the throne. Yet more often than not, we resist that surrender. We cling to autonomy, and would rather say “My will be done” and die than “Thy will be done” and live.

Self-isolation wasn’t just a “pandemic” buzzword.

The concept lives on as a prescription for parenting in a culture already failing because hyper-individualism is fuelling the familial fragmentation of society.

Estrangement is trending, and it’s triggering the type of heartless apocalypse that makes COVID’s manipulative propaganda-induced mass psychosis look sane.

Narcissists who have been paying attention to the West’s embrace of therapeutic totalitarianism have taken it upon themselves to “liberate” kids from their parents for selfish gain.

Alienating kids from their support network, where the situation is not life-threatening, often comes without any sound clinical reason.

Unless stopped, this opportunism will fast become yet another nail in the coffin of the nuclear family.

YouGov stats from August last year say that 38% of Americans are currently estranged from family in varying degrees.

16% report having chosen to have nothing to do with their parents.

“People who are estranged from a parent are about twice as likely to say they were the one to cut off the relationship than to say their parent did (38% vs. 20%).

“Many grandparents estranged from a grandchild say someone else was responsible for the relationship ending.”

Of those estranged from parents, only 35% registered a willingness to reconcile.

Of the reasons listed for cutting family off, personality conflicts, betrayal, abuse and conflicting values rated the highest.

A study from Ohio gave further insight.

When questioned about what they thought the reasons for estrangement were, 80% of mothers surveyed said that an influential 3^rd party was responsible.

While the study acknowledged key variables like the majority of women being divorced, it also noted other research that backed the 3^rd party problem.

Reasons for cutting family off, the study said, could be as petty as a child deciding that his or her parents’ guidance was “harming their well-being” – i.e., “holding them back.”

Divorce, the study found, increases the likelihood of estrangement.

However, this wasn’t the sole cause.

Another study on the so-called “culture of estrangement” stated that a child’s access to social media, pseudo-therapists, and romantic interests were also factors.

Memes trending the idea of “toxic relationships” was considered a driving force behind kids deciding to end their relationship with their parents, the way they would a bad romantic relationship.

Enablers here include “feelings are facts” post-modern subjective relativism, and a child’s narcissistic “helpers”, who see personal gain, then rewrite the child’s family history to profit where they can.

Doubling down on the pattern showing that there is a problem, Psychologist Joshua Coleman told health and science magazine Knowable that estrangement was now an epidemic.

It’s “a social contagion,” he said, encouraged “particularly on sites like Instagram and TikTok, that characterises this act of cutting ties as a way of asserting one’s identity and protecting mental health.”

“It fractures an already fractured society. We become more tribal and more isolated.

“This high level of estrangement,” Coleman exclaimed, “leaves older people without care and younger people without resources.

“We’re leaving the state to take over the space where family members used to help each other out.”

A parent’s divorce is a key player, he said, but so are therapists, an adult child’s marriage, and even politics.

Yet another study showed that 78% of mothers cut off from their children, “said the estrangement happened after the child was married or became involved with a partner.”

“This is something I see a lot in my practice, where a daughter-in-law or a son-in-law appears to cause a rift,” Coleman explained.

“I call it “the cult of one,” where the new partner becomes the sole interpreter of his or her spouse’s past and present.

“Suddenly, the adult child comes to believe he or she has had a long history of problems with the parent.” (See more of his thoughts about this in The Atlantic here)

Among a host of others, Coleman’s testimony supports the findings and similar cases encountered by Tracy Malone, author of Estranged by Lies: How Narcissistic Partners Use Power & Control to Destroy Your Family.

The reason very few know this is an epidemic (until it happens to hit them and their family in the face) is this: the trend is either being ignored, not reported or properly investigated.

As Psychology Today stated, when talking about estrangement, “Despite the high incidence, few studies have examined the complicated roots and consequences.”

Another reason could be that legacy news organisations like The New York Times are giddy about the recruitment possibilities.

Rather than call the estrangement epidemic out, the NYT threw petrol on it.

An article published in 2021, which just resurfaced online, recklessly advocates for “cutting the cord” regardless of age.

“Don’t play with your kids. Seriously” was the headline.

“I have three kids under 10 who don’t expect — or even want — to play with me,” it’s predictably left-wing author and supporter Edan Lepucki wrote.

“It took some practice, but over time, we’ve all learned we’re better off doing our own thing.”

Coleman’s comments and emerging studies about the trend that’s encouraging narcissism to break families apart compel us to ditch this advice as nonsense.

Lepucki’s parenting “help” here is about as helpful as abortion is to an unborn child.

It’s therefore best not to take any advice about what it means to be a family from the far left.

They want you to treat your kids like they’re strangers, because it prepares your kids for militant service in the Marxist collective.

Abdicating parental responsibilities - regardless of age - is a serious violation of vocation.

Parents who do this are demanding their kids take the role of parent in that relationship.

This isn’t love, it’s abandonment.

This isn’t “teaching them independence”, it’s selfishness.

Whether a child is 2, 10 or over 21, unless the situation is life-threatening, parental alienation is child abuse.

The same can be said when kids abuse their parents by cutting them off without any real justification for doing so.

Children alienating or being alienated by 3^rd parties from their parents is both psychological and emotional abuse.

Most trained counsellors agree: where the situation is not life-threatening, keeping the family together is key.

Parents, engage. Educate. Inoculate your kids against unnecessary strife, lies and intellectual dishonesty.

Refuse to abandon them to the world.

Proverbs 22:6: “Raise up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

Ephesians 6:4 and Colossians 3:21: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

Psalm 127:3: “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him.”

This is The Way.

Pluralism, or moral relativism, is a rope tightly fastened around the neck of Western civilization. In biblical terms, pluralism is polytheism—the national sin of forgetting the Lord (Deut. 6:12-15).

In practical terms, it is the denial of objective truth, the abandonment of morality, and the compromising of justice. Of course, it doesn’t present itself as such. Instead, it masquerades under the guise of false virtues like “universal tolerance,” which we’re told is a Christian virtue.

However, the inability to recognise that the value of “tolerance” is determined by the value of the thing tolerated has plunged the Western world into the spiritually dark and confused state it is now in. It mistook “universal tolerance” for a Christian virtue—not merely tolerance for a brother with a differing opinion, but the indulgence of objective evil, that which erodes a nation, undermines its moral foundations, and dilutes its Christian heritage.

Tolerance, when it involves accepting ideas and actions contrary to God’s Law of love, is not a Christian virtue. It is a sin. Christians are commanded to love sincerely, a love that hates evil, not tolerates it (Rom. 12:9). In fact, they are to have nothing to do with the works of evil, but to expose them for what they are, not to tolerate, but to actively avoid them (Eph. 5:11). “Intolerance” can be said to be just as much a Christian virtue as tolerance, because both are measured by the object tolerated or opposed.

As Christians, we are commanded to love our neighbour. This Christian love must involve actively opposing that which threatens the well-being of others. A parent who allows a small child to swim unsupervised, play on a dangerous road, or eat only sweets for every meal cannot be called a loving parent. There is obviously no regard for the child’s well-being. True love has an aversion to the things that harm its object, so there must always be an intolerance for that which threatens those we love.

Those who love God ought to love Him—and their neighbours—not by being indifferent to evil, but by hating it (Ps. 97:10). The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom but also the hatred of evil (Pr. 8:13). Therefore, we are not to tolerate evil but to actively resist it (Jam. 4:7). In the Book of Revelation, the church that is intolerant of evil is the one Jesus praises (Rev. 2:2-3). Not only could they not bear those who were evil, but they also actively “hated” their works (v. 6).

Hate, like intolerance, is not an inherently immoral emotion or action. God loves and God hates (Pro. 6:16-19). As with tolerance, the morality of both love and hate is determined by the object loved or hated. Both can be either morally good or bad. It all depends on where it is directed.

For instance, to love evil is evil (Ps. 52:3). To hate evil is good. Therefore, Christians must embrace rightly directed hatred just as much as rightly directed love. To love what is good is to hate what is evil. That morally good hatred will not tolerate harmful and evil things, but will actively oppose them, just as we wouldn’t “tolerate” a venomous snake in a loved one’s bed.

To claim we love our neighbour while remaining indifferent to what threatens them with harm is not genuine love, but an empty profession. This is true of individuals and collectives. Embracing such a harmful and indifferent approach on a national level is nothing short of national suicide. When it’s done so under the guise of “love,” or “Christian tolerance,” it only compounds the sin with hypocrisy. Thus, the Christian West, if it is to survive, must be intolerant of every system that poses a threat to that which is objectively good, true, and just. The system must be protected, so that it may protect others.

As R.J. Rushdoony aptly said in Institutes of Biblical Law, “There can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance… Every law system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide.”

It was no mere accident that the West’s abandonment of Christianity, and tolerance for everything else, was immediately followed by its degradation and downfall. We cannot remove the foundations without compromising the entire structure. The foundation upon which the Western world was built was a firm commitment to Christ as supreme King, and thus, the definer of what is true, good, and just. As such, there ought to be zero tolerance for anything less than that, because anything less than that will inevitably be false, bad, and unjust.

For Western civilization to survive, it must relearn the lost Christian virtue of intolerance. It must embrace what is objectively good and refuse to indulge anything that undermines or threatens that good. If we truly believe that God is love and that God’s self-revelation is love, then anything contrary to Christianity is, by definition, not love, and therefore not good—not even for those who insist on embracing it to their own hurt.

As such, we must seek the well-being of our neighbour by upholding and preserving that which best protects them—namely, Christian morals, Christian law, and Christian values, while being averse to everything contrary. To do otherwise by tolerating what harms our neighbour is to fail to love them as we ought. Ultimately, we tolerate evil to our own demise and the demise of our neighbour.

At present, the rope of universal tolerance is firmly around the neck of Western civilization, and it is only one small step away from national suicide. Christians must once again learn to hate evil. Though they will face derision and name-calling—as Jesus Himself foretold—the true sacrifice of love is willingly enduring hatred for upholding what is good, true, and just.

Hence, the Lord said, “The world hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil” (Jn. 7:7). We are called to love God and our neighbour, as Christ so loved the world, regardless of the cost. Anything short of this is neither loving nor Christian.

In his book Our Threatened Freedom: A Christian View on the Menace of American Statism, R.J. Rushdoony referenced an essay by the 19th-century philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer titled “The Coming Slavery.”

Spencer warned of the rise of a new, more insidious form of enslavement, distinct from the traditional slavery where individuals were owned by others. This emerging slavery, he argued, would be far worse—the state’s ownership of the people.

Rushdoony writes: The roots of this new slavery, Spencer said, would lie in a supposedly humane belief. He observed that even churches were succumbing to and promoting this dangerous idea.

As Spencer put it, “The current assumption is that there should be no suffering and that society is to blame for that which exists.” This malignant and deadly belief, Rushdoony explains, has two critical aspects.

First, the notion that there should be no suffering rejects the necessity of growth or the consequences of sins and mistakes. Parents often fall into this trap, shielding their children from the hardships they endured, only to hinder their children’s character development. When applied to society, this principle fosters social anarchy.

Second, the belief that society is responsible for all suffering shifts accountability away from the individual. Responsibility and character, however, are fundamentally personal. Denying this undermines both law and civilisation.

When we adopt these flawed assumptions—that suffering should not exist and that society is at fault—we prioritise regulating society over cultivating individual character, knowledge, and abilities.

Spencer predicted that such regulations would lead to more regulations and, ultimately, mass enslavement. People become, in effect, prisoners of the state. In this slave society, the solution to every problem becomes more regulations—or more slavery.

Those resisting this loss of freedom eventually surrender, joining the ranks of the enslaved, resulting in a revolution into slavery. As Spencer noted:

“To one who doubts whether such a revolution may be so reached, facts may be cited showing its likelihood. In Gaul, during the decline of the Roman Empire, ‘so numerous were the receivers in comparison with the payers, and so enormous the weight of taxation, that the labourers broke down, the plains became deserts, and wood grew where the plough had been.’

In like manner, when the French Revolution was approaching, the public burdens had become such, that many farms remained uncultivated and many were deserted: one quarter of the soil was absolutely lying waste; and in some provinces one-half was in health.”

Spencer’s prediction, Rushdoony asserts, has proven accurate. We are indeed sliding into this new slavery. Yet, he emphasises that responsibility remains personal, and we are not powerless pawns. The time has come, he urges, to reclaim our freedom.

Brandon Gill just eviscerated the abortion industrial complex’s lie about “reproductive healthcare” with a single line of questioning.

When confronted with the question, “What is your preferred type of abortion?” Pro-termination Professor Jessica Waters refused to defend the procedures.

Pushing Waters on the process, the Republican congressman from Texas uncovered what many of us already know: Pro-choice activists are fully aware that their slogans are complete lies.

The oppressed/oppressor crowd know abortion takes a human life, and that it does so in one of the most violent ways imaginable, and to the most vulnerable.

They also know that the Clinton-era FACE Act, which creates abortion protection zones, are a platform for potential lawfare.

For evidence of this, look at how the Woke White House under Joe Biden weaponised it for the duration of his questionable tenure as president.

That was the broader context for the 3-minute exchange.

Gill was grilling Waters as part of the inquiry into the weaponisation of the FACE Act conducted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

Throughout the clip, Gill lists four types of procedures that violently end a child’s life in his or her mother’s womb.

First is suction abortion. Second is dilation and curettage. Third is dilation and evacuation. Gill’s final example is saline injection.

All four procedures brutally end a baby’s life in what is supposed to be the very place that nurtures it.

With each example, Waters deflects back to previous testimony. This was after telling Gill that she didn’t have a favourite way for terminating life in the womb.

Asked by Gill if she had a preference, she simply answered, “I do not.”

The abortion advocate’s default was that she is “for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive health care.”

Note here that when she uses the term “patients”, Waters is not referring to the life of an unborn child, only the mother who wants abortionists to violently stop her child from being born.

Waters is clearly uncomfortable with the line of questioning, and in the end, her squeamish refusal to give Gill a direct answer is what will send this video viral.

Sass quickly gave way to silence.

Waters’ shaky reliance on the “reproductive health” euphemism for the murder of an unborn child indicates that she is fully aware of the procedures Gill mentions.

Simply put, talking about abortion procedures made the abortion activist extremely uncomfortable.

Waters didn’t want to talk about abortion, despite the inquiry being about a law that protects the process from violence and any form of non-violent protest.

Be it silent prayer, sidewalk counselling or otherwise.

Waters then demands that Gill stay to the central purpose of the inquiry, which was to investigate the abuse of abortion protection laws.

Her presence there appeared to be solely for the purpose of defending it. (You can read Waters’ full line of defence here)

Responding to Gill’s takedown of the tyrannical practice, Heritage Foundation VP Roger Servino said,

“I testified at this hearing and was literally sitting next to her during this exchange. The video doesn’t fully capture how chilling her answers were.”

X influencer, End Wokeness wrote, “Without sugar-coated euphemisms, the left has no arguments.”

Pro-life Live Action’s founder and President, Lila Rose, said, “Watch this.”

Gill “leaves an abortion advocate stunned after confronting her with the reality of abortion, reading the descriptions of each method.”

TPUSA’s Andrew Kolvet added, “If you think congressional testimony is useless, just watch this masterclass.”

Educator, Jeremy Wayne Tate, summed it up best.

“This is,” he posted on X, “the kind of intellectual muscle we need more of in the conservative movement.”

“Do you know what Socrates did? He asked a bunch of hard questions. People didn’t like it.”

Gill’s ultimate genius here?

Not only does his simple questioning unmask the FACE Act, they rip the façade off the “abortion is healthcare” propaganda.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, conceiving a child should never have been confused with contracting an STD.

Abortion isn’t healthcare!

Viral comedian and podcaster Theo Von broke down during an emotional segment on his show last week, becoming visibly distressed as he spoke about Jesus and his own sense of brokenness.

In the segment, Von reflected candidly on his life and expressed a real desire for change, describing himself as “broken” and asking God for something new. According to viewers, it’s one of the most vulnerable public statements of faith-adjacent searching the comedian has made to date.

Commenting on the segment, popular YouTuber Jon McCray noted that Von appears to be closer than ever to embracing Christianity. In his analysis, McCray highlighted the significance of Von’s language and questions, suggesting they mirror important biblical patterns—even if Von himself doesn’t fully recognise it yet.

At the same time, McCray points to an underlying hesitation on Von’s part that may explain why a decisive step of faith still seems out of reach for him.

It’s a remarkable moment, and well worth watching below. When you’re done, say a prayer for Theo. He may not be far from the kingdom.

WATCH:

They’re gaslighting the public—again.

Online misinformation is being blamed for declining vaccination rates in Australia, particularly among children and the elderly. In response, the Australian Government is launching new national immunisation campaigns, with Health Minister Mark Butler pointing to online disinformation as a key driver of public hesitation.

While “vaccine fatigue” has been acknowledged as a contributing factor, the government still appears intent on shifting responsibility away from the very institutions now asking the public to trust them again.

The public is told the problem lies not with the decisions of government or the conduct of health authorities, but with ordinary people who have supposedly been misled. In doing so, they’re reframing their own crisis of credibility as a crisis of information. It’s those who felt duped that have been duped.

But declining trust in political and medical authorities didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It was forged and reinforced during the COVID-19 years.

Australia was once a country where public trust in institutions, such as the government, health authorities, and mainstream media, was remarkably high by historical standards. That trust was built over decades, even generations. And it was spent in a moment of madness.

During the pandemic, governments and authorities adopted sweeping, and unprecedented measures: prolonged lockdowns, blanket mandates, and restrictions applied broadly across populations regardless of individual risk or consent.

At the same time, the threat was often exaggerated. Health officials would hold press conferences, urging the public to call an ambulance at the first sign of symptoms, only for government representatives to warn soon after that ambulance services were under critical strain. The result was a constant sense of alarm. It was fear-mongering upon fear-mongering, crisis upon crisis.

Remember this?

Then came the vaccines, which were initially presented as a near-complete solution to the crisis. Over time, reports of adverse effects began to surface, yet discussion around them was often suppressed, particularly on major platforms like Meta Platforms and Google, under policies aimed at limiting “misinformation” during the global rollout.

Only years later has coverage of serious adverse outcomes begun to appear in mainstream outlets, including stories of individuals experiencing serious complications, and struggling through slow or opaque compensation processes.

Even ABC News Australia has reported on the overwhelming paperwork—hundreds of pages of medical reports, legal letters, and correspondence with the federal government—that victims are forced to wade through in years-long battles with the vaccine compensation scheme.

For many Australians, it’s not just that adverse effects occurred, but that open discussion of the risks was effectively prohibited. If you weren’t being censored by social media companies, there was a psychological campaign that turned the public into the militant arm of the government, so that neighbour turned against neighbour.

Caldron Pool, for example, was one of the few Australian platforms that consistently challenged the mandates. And it came at a cost. We were demonised, maligned, and in some circles effectively rendered “untouchable,” including within parts of the Christian community. Many in positions of leadership not only complied with every government directive but went further, framing each mandate as a practical outworking of Christian love.

The public became narrative gate-keepers—shunning family members, demanding compliance, reporting neighbours to the police—and many relationships were ruined as a result. Trust was eroding on every social level.

This is the context in which so-called “misinformation” now flourishes.

When people feel they’ve been misled, manipulated, or blatantly lied to they become less willing to accept official narratives. Suspicion inevitably fills the void left by lost credibility. In that sense, so-called misinformation is often downstream of a deeper problem: namely, a breakdown in trust between citizen and authority.

But blaming the public for that breakdown isn’t a meaningful solution. Any efforts to “combat misinformation”—one of the government’s favourite endeavours—only risk reinforcing the very environment that caused the distrust in the first place. When governments position themselves as the ultimate arbiters of truth, science, and morality, while dismissing dissent as dangerous, they don’t end up rebuilding confidence. They solidify scepticism.

As we noted in our submission opposing the Government’s 2024 misinformation and disinformation bill:

While the government may lament the prevalence of misinformation and “conspiracy theories” online, what they fail to grasp is that these things are largely the product of perceived dishonest power – which was only heightened during the Covid-era.

When the government, or the mainstream media, lies to the public, by feeding them what many believe to be blatant propaganda, it creates a suspicious people hesitant to heed the warnings or advice from those who have previously abused their trust, even when they are speaking the truth.

As such, we do not need the government to curb our freedoms to protect us from potential dangers. Freedom has never been a danger to the people. It has always been a danger to the powerful.

Censorship doesn’t protect the people from the spread of “misinformation.” It protects state-approved information from being challenged. It silences critics, undermines “democracy,” and stifles dissent, ensuring that only one approved narrative prevails.

If trust is to be restored, the starting point cannot be more messaging, more campaigns, or more attempts to police information. It must be accountability.

That means acknowledging that credibility was not stolen by fringe voices online. It was forfeited. It means admitting that communication was overly certain, dissent was wrongly punished, and the balance between public health and public trust was squandered.

It means treating citizens not as passive recipients of state-approved information, but as adults capable of weighing evidence when it is presented honestly. It means holding accountable every government employee, official, bureaucrat, and social leader who misled the public and wielded their positions of power and influence to abuse the rights of others.

Until that happens, no amount of government campaigns or advertising will reverse the trend because the issue was never simply misinformation. It was trust, and how those in positions of power squandered it.

In his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell envisioned a future in which citizens lived under constant surveillance, with in-home telescreens ensuring “Big Brother” was always watching—for their own good, of course.

Today, it would seem our lawmakers and politicians are once again mistaking the warning for the blueprint, adopting elements of Orwell’s nightmarish vision in their efforts to combine emerging technologies with public policy.

Legislation in the United States is said to require new passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced driver-monitoring technology designed to detect driver impairment.

In line with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, regulators are developing systems that can passively assess whether a driver is sober enough to operate a vehicle, and intervene if impairment is detected by limiting the vehicle’s operation or even preventing it from starting.

Under Section 24220 of the Act, the vehicle safety standards will require all new vehicles to be equipped with “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

Although the legislation defined qualifying technology broadly, it must be able to passively detect whether a driver is fit to operate the vehicle, either by monitoring behaviours such as eye movement, alertness, or drowsiness, or by detecting blood alcohol levels at or above the legal limit.

The monitoring systems could include infrared cameras, AI-based monitoring software, or sensors that analyse breath or touch. If impairment is detected, the system can operate as an automatic off switch, preventing the driver from starting the vehicle.

A key feature of the requirement is that the tech must operate “passively,” meaning it doesn’t require active participation from the driver, such as a voluntary breath test.

Supporters argue the measure could significantly reduce road fatalities caused by impaired driving, with advocacy groups pointing to the persistent toll of alcohol-related crashes as justification for the technological intervention.

Critics, on the other hand, have called it a gross violation of privacy and a blatant display of government overreach. If the past decade has taught us anything, it’s that our politicians have no shame in using “health and safety” as a pretext for eroding basic human rights. You don’t want drunk drivers on the roads, do you?

Opponents have also raised concerns about the in-cabin monitoring systems, the data that could be collected, where it would be stored, and how it could be used. Some have labelled it a potential “kill switch,” that—in time—could allow authorities to operate.

Among those raising concerns is Rep. Thomas Massie, who criticised the legislation as intrusive and constitutionally questionable, saying it reads more like a “bad science fiction movie.”

Massie claimed the legislation would require that “every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in it,” explaining that “the car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that you’re not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself.” In his words, “the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner.”

He also warned of real-world consequences, describing a scenario in which a driver navigating poor weather or road hazards could be misjudged by the system and stranded: “Once it’s disabled you and your children at the side of the road, how do you appeal that?”

While acknowledging that “drunk driving is a serious problem,” Massie argued that existing measures already address the issue, pointing out that many states use ignition interlock devices. He concluded by urging lawmakers to reject what he called “an unconstitutional and unworkable mandate.”