Sunday, July 27, 2014

Reading PCG's Booklet, Australia in Prophecy

This is the 900th post for the Living Armstrongism blog. My thanks to all readers. Thank you for encouraging me. 

Let us now read the late Ron Fraser's booklet, Australia in Prophecy. This booklet was printed in 1999. This booklet is based on Ron Fraser's article, "Australia: The "Luck" Runs Out", which was published in the December 1998 issue of The Philadelphia Trumpet (pp. 9-13, 27). This booklet has since been superseded by another booklet by Ron Fraser on this subject, Australia: Where to Now? which was published in 2008. Let us see what PCG's leaders have to say about Australia. You can read the article this booklet is based on at their website.

Let us begin.
Surprisingly, they are linked to the very crown which so many Australians have come to reject, in the country’s drive to sever all ties with its royal heritage. (Introduction.)
This booklet was printed in 1999. It is now fifteen years later and Australia still has Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.

Here is Ron Fraser waxing poetic about the natural beauty of Australia. I am not sure what to make of this so I simply quote these words without further comment.
Earlier, the sun shone brightly as the wind stretched ribbons of white cloud across the boundless southern sky. Further down the range, at Springwood, bush fires rage, and now, at Jenolan, strong winds drive in a rain squall. A heavy mist soon settles over the range. A mother kangaroo with a joey in her pouch hops out of the bush for her evening meal. As she bends to nibble the sweet grasses, joey’s head pops out inquisitively, licking the newly deposited moisture from the green blades. The bush is silent, save for the occasional call of a magpie sheltering from the rain. Suddenly there is no breeze. Strings of bark hang limply from the tall strands of bluegum. Below, the green grasslands, grazed by generations of cattle and sheep, undulate over the plateau amidst this great backbone of eastern Australia. (p. 2.)
Fraser then asserts that this beautiful land is under threat from the North. He mentions some sort of militia that has been established in order defend Australia against a supposed threat from Indonesia. Fraser seems to think this threat is quite creditable (pp. 2-3).

Fraser also quotes Rupert Murdoch speculating in a great influx of migrants should come from Indonesia (p. 3). This has not happened yet. Incidentally this fear is not unique to PCG. I can well recall Meredith in LCG speculating that Indonesia might turn on Australia because, he would say, there are so many people there and look there is all that land waiting to be claimed just down south in Australia. All this talk is xenophobic nonsense, whether in PCG or LCG.

Fraser claims that Australia has been overeager to establish links with Asian countries and, now that the Liberal Party led by John Howard has recently come to power (this was written in 1999) Australia has found itself ill suited to regain the past close relationship with the USA before those pesky "liberal-socialists" (?) from the Australian Labour Party ruined everything (pp. 3-5).

Of course Fraser completely failed to foresee that when the Global Financial Crisis struck in 2008 Australia was kept isolated from its ill effects largely because Australia was busy mining resources for export to China.

After this Fraser wax poetic regarding what Australia used to be like.
Senior citizens in Australia remember the country’s golden years. This was a time when Australia’s population was predominantly British-Irish in descent. They remember the time of full employment and the exploitation of seemingly inexhaustible natural resources. It was a time when everyone knew everybody else in the street in one’s neighborhood. A time of the morning or evening chat between neighbors over the back fence. A time of pride in the national flag and a strong sense of heritage which, despite being 10,000 miles away on the other side of the globe, gave evidence of their roots, attached to the crown, to a royal throne that dated back to the mists of antiquity. (p. 5.)
"British-Irish"? That seems an odd way to describe those people. Fraser means "white".

Of course (as anyone familiar with the COGs' writings will be able to sense) he then starts to complains about Asians moving to Australia and influencing the local and ... well what do you think he's going to say about that? 
Yet, one has to wonder, when in 1998 a chief petty officer of the Royal Australian Navy was photographed kneeling on the deck of the missile frigate Newcastle before the statue of a buddha, where does the loyalty of Australia’s present generation lie? (p. 5.)
What does the soldier's religious beliefs have to do with serving Australia in the Royal Australian Navy? Absolutely nothing. The photo appears in the original magazine article.
Although, per capita, the number of Asian migrants is not huge, the impact of their culture and religion on Australia has been rapid and significant. ... to that generation [who lived through the Great Depression, World War II and post-war reconstruction], the “older version of Australia” is much more attractive than today’s Australia, which sees its national heritage warped and increasingly diluted by the progressive Asianization of its society. (pp. 5-6.)
Oh grow up. Maybe Fraser should spare a thought for how the Aborigines would have reacted to his ancestors arriving in Australia. Would Fraser be happy to receive such a dismissive attitude from them?

And why Fraser care anyway? I thought he was an ex-patriot. That is what he called himself earlier.

After this Fraser talks about Anzac Day commemorations, the Australian equivalent of Memorial Day, and complains that "liberal-socialists" have tried to make Australians forget this commemoration as part of a wicked attempt to make Australia Asian that betrays Australia's national heritage.
Anzac Day, as the national day of remembrance is known, was once an event revered by the nation as an icon—that is, until the liberal-socialists unravelled the entire fabric of Australian society. Thanks largely to their efforts, this day ... is now, in the nation’s eyes, becoming somewhat of an anachronism. Australia is forgetting. Forgetting its heritage. ...
This loss of connection with its heritage has largely stemmed from the liberal-socialist thought which penetrated Australia’s institutions of learning from the 1960s on. Such influences prepared the collective mind of the nation for separation from its British heritage, an embracing of all things Asian and a mood swing in favor of the replacement of its present monarchist form of government, giving allegiance to the queen, with a republican model. (pp. 6-7.)
More xenophobic madness. And what on earth is this "liberal-socialist thought" Fraser's talking about?

Then Fraser moves into condemning attempts to abolish the monarchy and turn Australia into a Republic.
Prime Minister Paul Keating, of Irish-Catholic-socialist descent, brought the republican issue to the fore in 1993, during his term as national leader. Keating also deregulated the Australian economy in the 1980s, while he was federal treasurer, and led the refocusing of Australian business toward Asia, away from many of its traditional first-world customers. In recent decades, years of socialist government in Australia devastated its traditional economy. The impact of this change of long-standing economic policies in this nation has had its most detrimental effect on rural Australia. ...

Some claim that the issue of republicanism was brought to the fore by Australian Prime Minister Keating in 1993 as a strategy to refocus the worrying minds of Australians off the issue of their rapidly failing economy. If this is so, then the strategy has, sadly, worked. (pp. 7, 9.)
How can someone be of "socialist descent"? Is it possible to be descended from "Socialism"? Apparently it is in Fraser's head.

These words were written fifteen years ago. Today Australia still has Queen Elizabeth II as its Queen. Fraser's fear mongering has so far failed to come to pass. Even in this 1999 booklet Fraser alludes to the fact that it might be quite hard for Australia to become a Republic.
On November 6, 1999, the nation voted on two issues— whether to trash its national heritage by divorcing from the crown to set up a republican form of government and, as a consequence, whether to change the preamble to their 100- year-old Constitution. The country voted NO on both counts. Although the prevailing mood seemed to be in favor of both, it did not support the method by which the bureaucrats and their spin doctors proposed to achieve these two great changes to Australia’s principal conventions. (p. 9.)
Fifteen years later Australia still has Elizabeth II as its Queen. If PCG's leaders really knew the future why did they not foresee this and instead fear monger that Australia might become a republic?

In this part of the booklet Fraser condemns how the Labour Party government under Paul Keating managed Australia's economy. I am not going to comment on that except to wonder why would Fraser assume he knew how Australia's economy should operate?
The backbone of its commonwealth was its efficient farm economy combined with some of the most efficient mining enterprises in the world. The socialists tried to change this by swinging government support away from the commodity sector to “sunrise” or high-tech industries. This strategy was always destined for ultimate failure. ...

The cold hard facts which the Australian liberal-socialist economists fail to grasp is that you simply can’t eat computer technology and it won’t clothe your body. On the other hand, there is always a market for wool, wheat and meat. People will always need to eat and be clothed—but mankind lived for almost 6,000 years without the benefit of high technology. (p. 8.)
Fraser also talks about how Australia's economy has developed since World War II 
In the 1960s, Australian writer and child of left-wing liberal-socialism Donald Horne authored a bestseller titled The Lucky Country. (p. 9.)
What on earth does Fraser mean when he writes of "left-wing liberal-socialism"?

Also Fraser hysterically claim that Australia (in 1999) is bankrupt and turning Asian. (Fraser here thinks that is bad.)
Australia took off on a collective materialistic binge which consummated in the profligacy of the great wage pushes of the 1970s and the age of commercial greed in the 1980s. Then, suddenly, as the 1990s dawned, having priced itself out of its markets, the country woke up from its obsessive consumption binge to the hangover of extraordinary levels of foreign debt. ...

Technically, Australia is broke—BANKRUPT! The Australia of today lives on cash flow and does its best to bury its head in the sand to ignore its liability to those who have underwritten its gluttonous consumptive habits. ...
During the last 15 years [1984-1999], certain influential voices within the Labor (socialist) government, business and the press cajoled Australians into thinking of themselves as having their future tied to Asia, economically, rather than to the first-world economies. The result of the proselytizing ways of Australia’s “Asiaphiles” has been disastrous for the country. (p. 10.)
What nonsense! Australia did not look bankrupt when the Global Financial Crisis struck in 2008. Australia was sheltered from the worst of its effects because it was experiencing a mining boom, largely caused by exporting mined minerals to China. Fraser had no idea what he was talking about. Australia prevailed over any obstacles to meet the challenge of the Global Financial Crisis.

Fraser was talking fear inducing nonsense claiming Australia was broke and bankrupt.
During the last 15 years, certain influential voices within the Labor (socialist) government, business and the press cajoled Australians into thinking of themselves as having their future tied to Asia, economically, rather than to the first-world economies. (p. 10.)
I find it worrying that Fraser likes to call things what he wants instead of what they are. That is confusing.

After this Fraser talks about problems between the various ethnic communities within Australia. Fraser talks about the Australian Aborigines in the following manner.
However, the plain facts are that the Australian Aborigine, at the stage of their cultural development in which the early settlers found them over 200 years ago, were not an industrious people. Their articles of manufacture were limited to the most basic of tools and weapons, traditionally thought of as “stone age.” They largely went naked, save for the use of animal skins in the colder climate of the south. The concepts of cloth and yarn manufacture and weaving largely eluded them. (pp. 11-12.)
Clearly Fraser was not impressed with the Australian Aborigines.
At the foundation of the Aboriginal “culture” lies the cult of serpent worship. Legends and myths of the “dreamtime,” when the great serpent (Gen. 3:1) ruled not only the earth, but the universe, abound in Aboriginal lore. For students of the Bible, the origin of such myths and legends is clear, as is the intent of their author (Rev. 12:9). (p. 12.)
Fraser is here alluding to the doctrine (taken from Alexander Hyslop's 1850s book, The Two Babylons) that non-Christian religions are descended from the religion of ancient Babylonia which Hyslop asserted was actually based upon the worship of Nimrod as a deified God. Hyslop's book is now known to be nonsensical. But despite that fact this book is often used among the COGs (not just PCG) to demonize mainstream traditions and customs in order to isolate followers from the surrounding society.
What is not so apparent to most is the emerging industry which white anthropologists, historians, multitudes of liberal-socialist do-gooders, a few sharp operators, young left-leaning lawyers and self-seeking politicians have made out of this cultural apparition. What has emerged has indeed become the “white man’s burden” in Australia. (p. 12.)
 Once again we see Fraser's talent for amusing invective.

Also we see Fraser ignorantly redefining "white man's burden". That phrase referred to the idea that it is the duty of "white men" to bring the rest of the world up into civilized life. This idea has rightfully fallen out of fashion due its racist connotation that non-white people are like little children who "need" to be ruled by "white men" for their own good. In practice this idea was used to oppress and exploit and rule over many peoples who were labeled non-white. It is out of recognition of this painful history that this idea has now been rightfully renounced by polite society.

But here Fraser completely twists that phrase upside down. Fraser mocks those sympathetic to the historic and present injustices endured by Australian Aborigines and claims they are creating a (new) "white man's burden", namely addressing the severe injustices Aborigines have been forced to endure.
Once again, the liberal-socialists have succeeded in warping the country’s conscience. Over the past 40 years, the collective Australian mind has been brainwashed into paying penance for the perceived sins of their forefathers against the Australian native peoples. A national “Sorry Day” was declared in May of 1998, for Australians to issue an apology to their Aboriginal population in atonement for these perceived sins. (p. 13.)
It is disgusting and irresponsible of Fraser to pretend as though the grievances of the Aborigines are not real. It is disgusting that Fraser belittles the great pain of the Aborigines, historical and present, endure as "perceived sins." Fraser writes as though the Aborigines only have hurt feelings.

The Aborigines were legally defined out of existence. A long time ago Australia's government legally defined land unowned by whites as being "terra incognita", no man's land, and therefore any of the Aborigines who happened to live on that land had no recourse to address any problems in Australian courts.

If some white people chose to lay claim over some land and the Aborigines who had lived there for so man years wish to complain to the authorities in order to protect their interests like anyone else, the courts just ignored any such protestation because, legally speaking, they had no legal claim to the lands they had lived on for so many years.

From around 1909 till 1969 it was the law in at least some part of Australia that if there are children of mixed ancestry being raised by Aborigines they, by law, had to be seized away from their Aboriginal providers in order to "save them" from being reared up by "inferior" Aborigines. Many, many children were ripped away from their parents in these days. These children are often called the "Stolen Generation". How dare Fraser pretends these are only "perceived sins"!
On the other side of the coin, a motley collection of mixed-race, self-interested anthropologists, historians, lawyers and politicians have bent the minds of the Aboriginal population to the extent that they now expect to be apologized to, by the very people that have built the systems of finance, health, welfare, education, business and housing of which they freely avail themselves. (p. 13.)
Who on earth talks about "mixed-race" people today? You know who is "mixed-race"? Everyone. Including Ron Fraser.

Also many Australian Aborigines are today quite disadvantage and deprived, partly the tragic consequence of traditionally being denied any legal recognition to the land they had lived on for so many generations by successive governments that did not have their interest foremost in mind. Only in recent years have there been attempts to correct this injustice.What does Fraser think about such moves?
The potential existed, under the “Wik” judgment [December 1996], for 76 percent of Australia being “claimed” by the Aboriginal community who number less than 2 percent of the country’s population! Encouraged by greedy white lawyers, Aborigines soon tested the legislation via a rash of claims on mining and oil leases and such tourist attractions as the Great Barrier Reef. (p. 12.)
It is sad to Fraser being so dismissive and condemning towards those trying to correct the severe injustices the Australian Aborigines have long endured.

After this Fraser moans that society is becoming feminized and, much to his horror, being friendly to gays.
The traditional family unit has been so undermined by the success of the liberal-socialist engineers, the press, educators, religionists, policy-making bureaucrats and left-wing politicians in Australia that its oldest city, Sydney, now boasts one of the world’s largest annual homosexual debauches. (p. 14.)
Ron Fraser sure has a talent for colorful, if clumsy, invective. And he hates homosexuals, as is very common among the COGs.

After this Fraser talks about the British Israelism saying that Australia is prosperous because white Australians are descendents of Ephraim.
The wealth of Australia did not come about by pure chance. It was gifted to it by a beneficent, supreme Creator God, in fulfillment of His promises to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Australia, the great south land called Sinim in your Bible (Isa. 49:12), was colonized by descendants of Ephraim, younger brother of Manasseh, both being sons of Joseph (p. 15.)
But of course British Israelism is complete nonsense. The British peoples are not descended from Jews. As recently showed British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand.

Then Fraser says Australia is failing to live up to the ideals of (PCG's) God and therefore disasters will soon strike Australia. He then again talks about his xenophobic fear that (somehow) Australia is becoming Asian.
One of those curses had to do with Ephraim and Manasseh suffering from the influence of “strangers,” those not of the household of Israel, who would dwell among them. (p. 15.)
The COGs have often appealed to the base passions of xenophobia in claiming that "Israel" (the white British descended peoples) is declining and will soon be punished by God in a most frightening way. Here Fraser continues that shameful practice.
This is happening today in Australia. The 2 percent of its native population seeks to hold the 98 percent to ransom. Increasingly, alien, particularly Asian, cultures are imposing their ungodly practices on Australia, changing and corrupting its heritage. This will be the downfall of Australia. (p. 16.)
Ron Fraser really does not like Asians it would appear.

Fraser also seems to view attempts to correct the shameful injustices Australian Aborigines have endured as being morally equivalent to being taken hostage by them. He seems to have little to no shame about what happened to them in times past. He seems to think those problems are not his concern. What a shame.

What is to do done about these "problems"? Such as like addressing the injustices Aborigines have been forced to endure, or "alien" Asians migrating to Australia. And somehow these "problems" will lead to Australia being conquered and enslaved. What is to be done about these "problems"? Fraser ends his booklet with these words.
Your only hope of protection from this devastating period of Australia’s coming enslavement is to heed this warning and respond! Respond by writing immediately to request your free copy of Mystery of the Ages, and learn the reason for your being and of the wonderful, unsurpassable future that awaits those who heed Christ’s knock, repent of sin and turn to submit to their gracious and merciful God in complete obedience to His laws. Heed the knock and start now to fulfill your incredible God-given human potential! (p. 17.)
In other words pay three tithes and extra offerings to PCG or be cast into the Great Tribulation. There are many problems in the world but being financially exploited by PCG will not solve any of them and not give any protection to such a person.

(For important information regarding Mystery of the Ages see the link.)

So we see that Ron Fraser 
  • really does not like Asians moving to Australia.
  • really does not like Australia establishing economic links with Asian nations.
  • thinks Australia was already bankrupt in 1999. (Little did he know that Australia would weather through the Global Financial Crisis quite well largely because they were exporting mined resources to China.)
  • thinks Australian Aborigines are holding the rest of the population hostage. "The 2 percent of its native population seeks to hold the 98 percent to ransom." (p. 16.)
  • and in Paul Keating's case at least, he seems to think people can be descended from "Socialism". "Prime Minister Paul Keating, of Irish-Catholic-socialist descent," (p. 7.)
What madness. And to think a lot of people within PCG probably actually took this useless booklet quite seriously.

Oh well, at least he didn't rant about Muslims here.


  1. Congratulations and good work well done to make 900 posts -- most of them reflect the best research and scholarship crafted with care.

    Not mentioned here is the fact that Australia was a penal colony and if the ancestors of the whites hadn't committed crimes, they would be in Australia at all.

    So is Frasier (now dead, isn't he) saying that the descendants of criminals are now getting shafted because people do have business being there are moving in? I mean Asians are relatively close by (it's a lot further than it looks on a globe), so shouldn't they have first dibs before criminals from half a world away.

    Did he ever think of that? That maybe the "Australians" (meaning old white dudes) have little or no claim to the land they are occupying?

    It's too bad he's dead and we can't ask him.

    And has Flurry even been to Australia? If not, he should just give up and scrap the booklet since the originator seems to be dead and no one else knows anything real about Australia in the upper echelons of the PCG, nor should they care really.

    There's nothing like being wrong at the top of your voice and then get offended because somebody comes along and proves you wrong.

    PCG: You need to heed Scripture and prove all things. As it is, you've been careless, proved nothing and hold fast to delusions.

    You should just shut up and go away.

    (And do buy land in Britain for a new college! You haven't paid for what you have, you're in hock up to your member's eyeballs, laiding them with unbearable burdens just so you have bragging rights. Bankruptcy would serve you right.)

  2. Thank you for your kind comment.

    You are right. They should cut out the current Australia booklet. Their current Australia booklet is really different. I don't plan on reading it anytime soon, but it talks about Muslims. I very much doubt it will be any better then this one.

    I am aware that Brad MacDonald is from Australia. I read an intriguing article about him reminiscing about the fall of the Berlin Wall and it mentioned he lived in Australia at the time.

    It is a shame that Ron Fraser is now deceased and therefore unable to respond to what anyone has to say about his writings (or anything else for that matter).

    So no one will ever be able to ask him, "How is Paul Keating descended from Socialism?"