Thursday, October 1, 2015

Reading PCG's Booklet, Australia—Where to Now?

Let us now read Ron Fraser's booklet, Australia: Where to Now? This booklet was first published in 2008. Here Ron Fraser discusses the land of his nativity, Australia.

It was written in response to the 2007 election of a left wing government in Australia. Here Fraser denounces the then newly elected left wing government, socialists, feminists, multiculturalists, gays, the "politically correct thought police", Aboriginals, Asian immigrants, Muslim immigrants and attempts to remove the Queen from being head of state for changing Australia in a way he does not like. In one particularly bizarre passage Fraser even insinuates that Australia "does not deserve to survive" because of those he condemns (Chapter 7, p. 43).

You can read this booklet on their website.

This booklet replaced a previous 1999 booklet entitled Australia in Prophecy. That booklet was also written by Ron Fraser. Intriguingly that booklet never fear mongered about Muslims. But in 2008 Fraser chose to vilify them as well.

Many PCG booklets are first published as articles in either the Philadelphia Trumpet magazine or the Royal Vision magazine. Part of Chapter 7 was published as a little article in the May 2008 issue of PCG's recruitment magazine, The Philadelphia Trumpet. But aside from that it seems as though this booklet was written and published as a booklet without first being released as an article. This is unusual for PCG.

Chapter 1

Fraser begins by reciting HWA's teaching of British Israelism in order to proclaim that Australia was divinely ordained to be ruled by whites from Britain. The link of the Aborigines to Australia, who lived there for thousands of years before Britain claimed sovereignty, is marginalized.
Anglo-Saxons are a forgetful people. It was ever so, from their beginnings as a collection of tribes, morphing over time into the most influential of nations on Earth. So it is that in the great debate over whether or not Australia should become a republic, the true origins of the nation—the real foundation of its greatness—are seldom spoken of. It’s almost as if the years of brainwashing by an intelligentsia conditioned to the denigration of Australia’s British heritage by such pseudo academics as the anti-historian Geoffrey Blainey have wiped any memory of this great tradition from the collective mindset of generations of Australians. (p. 1.)
Fraser writes as though white Australians once believed in British Israelism en masse. This is simply not true. British Israelism never spread among the Australians for the simple reason is that it happens to be untrue.

Fraser writes as though white Australians have forgotten that they are the descendants of Ephraim, son of Joseph. This is also untrue. It is well known that British Israelism is false. Rather British Israelism is a false idea that emerged in Britain during the height of the British Empire to justify this empire.

British Israelism is nonsense. has shown how British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand. In fact DNA evidence refutes British Israelism.
No doubt a principal reason for this is that most Aussies remain ignorant of the fact that Terra Australis was always destined to become a nation due to a specific act of Providence. (p. 1.)
Fraser ignores what happened to the Aborigines by using the false idea of British Israelism to ignore the Aborigines and say it was divine destiny that the British should settle in Australia. Any moral problem caused by what happened to the Aborigines is cancelled out by claiming British Israelism to justify ruling over them.
[Quoting a 1901 Australian newspaper:] “A section of one of the greatest races of history”—stout words but patently true. That race is British to its core. The peoples which founded and pioneered Australia were but an outgrowth of the “Brith-ish” folk— Brith ish meaning “covenant man” in Hebrew—of whom the Eternal God had prophesied that by right of birth they would possess the choicest parts of the Earth, including the major sea and land gates to give them a strategic advantage second to none.... (p. 4.)
To say that one is able to claim a right to land simply because of one's ancestry is racist. To say that a (false) claim of descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gives British persons the right to rule over land that had been long inhabited by Australian Aborigines is racist.
Republicanism is simply a denial of Australian history and heritage. More than that, it is a denial of the very birthright given by Almighty God in fulfillment of His promise to father Abraham and his patriarchal progeny, the very progenitors of the race that Roberts terms “the last, best hope for mankind.” (p. 5.)
So Fraser claims that Republicanism, the attempt to make Australia a republic and no longer have the British monarch be the head of state of Australia, is condemned as blasphemy. Fraser uses his religion to condemn this political movement.
But there’s more! It was through the descendants of Abraham, the English-speaking peoples of the world, that the knowledge of the Word of God was largely disseminated, the Bible translated, published and distributed around the globe during the great period of English colonization. It is to the colonizing English-speaking peoples that so many of the global masses owe their very education to the point that they may read and comprehend the Word of God. This includes the indigenous people of Australia. (pp. 5-6.)
The Aborigines lived in Australia for centuries. In all that time they did not need white Australians to rule over them. And even if one wished for the Aborigines to become Christians that cannot possibly justify ruling over them or seizing their land or oppressing them in any way.

Chapter 2

Here Fraser talks of some doomsayers saying that the Australian economy is about to collapse. Including one dating to 1985. At one point Fraser quotes one man to the effect that Australia has been technically bankrupt since 1998 (p. 9).

Seventeen years after becoming bankrupt (allegedly) Australia is still there in peace. This is yet another false prophecy made by PCG.

Chapter 3

In this chapter Fraser mocks the election of the left wing government in 2007 as being behind the times. Fraser states that other parts of the Western world such as the United States and Europe, have drifted to the right in recent years and Fraser negatively compare that to Australia's election of a left wing government.

Fraser then says that after the collapse of the Iron Curtain the left altered their ideology to create a "third way" which was condemned as fascism by PCG at the time. Actually PCG went even further and denounced this "third way" as a modern version of Nazism.
At the time, the Philadelphia Trumpet pointed to the fact that the third way was little more than rank fascism dressed in new clothes. Committed socialists found it an easy transition from their Marxist-Leninist foundations to embracing this third way alternative. (p. 15.)
PCG is very far to the right. Consequently its leadership constantly denounce the left. Fraser is simply continuing that tendency of PCG's.
World leaders during this period—in particular U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German President Gerhard Schröder, and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer—were all proponents of the third way. (pp. 15-16.)
Schröder was Chancellor, not President.

Fraser denounces all kinds of people and political movements that he clearly despises.
Since the 1960s unleashed the cultural storm that hacked away at the underpinnings of Anglo-Saxon culture, the commonsense virtues of the society that built the greatest empire in history—colonizing and civilizing many lands, including the island lands of Australia and New Zealand—have not only been brought into question, but largely replaced by a whole swag of politically correct “values.” (p. 16.)
And who is Fraser complaining about? Namely feminists, gays, the politically correct and those he views as promoting multiculturalism.
Almost 50 years of the feminization of Australian society has pushed a false idea on gender to the point that the male is emasculated, the female masculanized. Meanwhile, a whole subculture of androgynous weirdos have wormed their way into positions of influence to continue the work of perverting the very foundation of nationhood—monogamous marriage and the home-based family. In addition to the impact of social change instigated by the feminist, politically correct and homosexual lobbies, the multicultural movement is trying to impose on Australia a mixed-race overlay that risks the nation losing a hold on the bedrock culture that once made it one of the most appealing of countries to live in. (pp. 16-17.)
What venomous attacks against those he despises. And why does Fraser wish to demonize this "mixed-race overlay" when Australia was always racially mixed considering that the Europeans in Australia have always lived with the Aborigines even though at times terrible things were committed against the Aborigines.
One commentator, aware of the new prime minister’s love affair with China, called the document the “little beige book,” a play on Chairman Mao’s infamous “little red book,” often seen in the hip pocket of university students in the 1960s and ’70s who have since become embedded as part of the center-left establishment in Australia .... (p. 17.)
How bitter and venomous Fraser is towards those he disagree with. What a paranoid imagination Fraser has towards University students.
Yet apart from these demonstrated failures of center-left politics in Europe, there are two overwhelming negative impacts that have resulted from the efforts of these third wayers to reconstruct society to their version of the utopianist dream: the impact of immigration and of socialism on the fundamental virtues that are the very foundation of a stable society. (p. 18.)
Fraser wants to keep Australia white. He imagines Australia as being some kind of white haven.
On the question of the impact of the value relativism that liberal socialists and their fellow travelers—the feminist movement, the homosexual lobby and the politically correct police—have foisted off onto Western society ... (p. 18.)
Note how Fraser vilifies those he disagrees with.
The light has dawned in Europe. The center-leftists—the third wayers—are on the back foot on the Continent because of the failed policies borne of this ideology. (p. 19.) 
Considering how often PCG loves to hysterically proclaim the rise of any right wing party in Europe as a sign that the Great Tribulation is just about to occur it is very ironic that Fraser should here call that a good thing ("The light has dawned in Europe.") in order to denigrate and condemn the election of a left wing government in Australia.

So intense is his contempt for the left that Fraser would even praise the drift to the right in Europe regardless of how many times he has fear mongered about that trend elsewhere.

Fraser's contempt for the left is so intense he even condemns the majority of Australian voters as "clueless" for voting in a government he disapproves of.
In fact, how “clueless” was the electorate for voting in a government based on what is now, so obviously, an outmoded and failed political ideology, that of the center-left? (p. 19.)
How "Christian" of him to mock and curse and bad mouth so many of his own people. What a bitter, twisted man he was.
At a time when Australia needs to place its ethnic minorities in perspective as just that—minorities—subject to the laws, the cultural practices and traditions of its Caucasian majority population, it has elected a government with soft policies on multiculturalism. At a time when the strength of the Asian flood to Australia’s north is rapidly rising, Australia ought to be strengthening its alliances with its fellow Anglo-Saxon nations, rather than withdrawing troop support from the war on terror. (p. 19.)
So it would appear that Fraser views ethnic minorities as people to be pushed around by the white majority. Fraser seems to have no concern that they might be oppressed or wronged. There is no concern that this arrangement might just be unfair. Instead Fraser puts on the onus on them to make things work. Fraser insinuates that minorities are somehow breaking the law en masse. If anything goes wrong it is clear Fraser is inclined to just blame the minority.

It would appear that Fraser views the neighboring nations of Australia not as neighbors but as an obstacles who must be kept away from his precious (white) Australia. He dehumanizes the neighbors of his country as a "flood" gaining in strength.

Fear monger about immigrants and accuses them of being pandered to and not following the law.

Chapter 4

Here Fraser condemns Prime Minister Rudd's famous apology to Aborigines for the stolen generation, the practice enforced from 1900 till 1970 of taking away babies from Aborigines in order to "save" them from their Aboriginal identity. Not only does Fraser condemn this apology he insists that this wrong did not happen.
The organization that publishes this booklet has no axe to grind on the subject of race. Our objective is to present the plain and simple, provable truth on current events and provide predictive analysis as to their future outcome. Inevitably that often involves taking situations back to their source to trace the origins—the cause—of any given event’s outcome at any point in time. Very often this involves tracing the roots of a given race and airing its history so that predictable national behavior patterns can then be clearly and demonstrably seen to be influencing the outcome of events of the day. (p. 21.)
Guess what? That is racist. To say that certain people will be inclined to act in a certain way because of who they happen to be descended from is racist. That is not a way to understand people but simply to impose crude racist stereotypes upon people.
So it is with the case of the Australian Aboriginal people and their influence on present-day society in Australia. We are interested only in the pure unvarnished truth on the subject. (p. 21.)
Meaning whatever Fraser wants to believe is the truth and he will insist that his opinion must be believed.

Fraser then condemns the performance of an Aboriginal dance upon the floor of Parliament. Instead of seeing an attempt by the government to foster friendly relations with the Aborigines Fraser venomously denounces this act of friendship as "a reversion to tribalism" and "rank pagan nonsense." Note how Fraser denigrates these Aboriginal Australians.
...a reversion to tribalism was enacted on the floor of the nation’s parliament at Parliament’s opening under the newly installed federal government on February 12, 2008. ... This is rank pagan nonsense. What an insult to our founding fathers and to the God that parliamentarians ostensibly acknowledge at the opening of every parliamentary session with a repetition of the “Lord’s Prayer.” ...
What is happening to civilized societies when a highly developed First World nation openly permits half-naked tribal romps, based on pagan tribal rites attached to snake worship, to be performed in the very heart of its national seat of government? (p. 22.)
Clearly Fraser does not view Aborigines as fellow Australians like himself. He does not see equals. He views them as a menacing "outsiders" who need to be told by white Australians (like himself) what to do.

Fraser calls Australia as one of the "civilized societies" and "a highly developed First World nation". But clearly Fraser views the Aborigines as not belonging to the Australia he loves. They are menacing "outsiders" that he views as a threat and he yearns for them to be placed under control.

After that Fraser proceeds to denounce Prime Minister Rudd's apology to the Aborigines for the previous practice of forcibly removing children of mixed blood from Aboriginal families. These children are known as the "stolen generations."

And Fraser does not merely denounce Rudd's apology, Fraser insists that there were no stolen generations at all. His evidence to claim that Prime Minister Rudd was talking about nothing but nonsense is a cite a single book.
The problem is that this whole “sorry” business is all akin to the great global warming hoax. It’s based on fiction, with no provable data to back up the false claims coming from the foremost voices from the Aboriginal and leftist white enclaves within Australian society.

One of the most sensible voices within Australia observing this phenomenon of the anti-white, racist, left-wing apologists is that of Australian conservative commentator Andrew Bolt. In 2006 he published a book, Still Not Sorry, refuting the fiction of Australia’s “Stolen Generation” of Aboriginal children. (p. 23.)
Fraser is wrong. Bolt's book was actually published in 2005.
Bolt reiterated the amazing fact that the left has hoodwinked much of the Australian population into swallowing the myth that previous Australian governments had literally stolen Aboriginal children from their parents in what the leftist academic Prof. Robert Manne, of La Trobe University, terms an effort to “keep white Australia pure.”

As Bolt rightly claims, Australia’s prime minister has now apologized to the minority Aboriginal community in Australia for this fiction despite the fact that “no one has yet named even 10 of these 100,000 children we are told were stolen” (ibid.). (pp. 23-24.)
Fraser then mocks Prime Minister Rudd by citing an incident of an Aboriginal mother having her child taken away by the authorities because she was living in some sort of protest camp while waiting to hear this much anticipated apology. Fraser also uses this to vilify the left wing Rudd government as a "leftist, anti-white socialist element in Australia".
But all chickens come home to roost. As Andrew Bolt reported, an incident that flew right in the face of the government’s apology to the Australian Aboriginal community occurred right under its nose, in the national capital, just two days prior to the sorry apology. [Fraser then quotes Bolt to describe the incident.] ... Poetic justice. Mr. Rudd was simply hoist by his own petard. But did this dent the impervious exterior of the leftist, anti-white socialist element in Australia? No more than it would have a similar merry band of ignoramuses if such an incident occurred in Washington, London, Ottawa or Wellington. (p. 25.)
What venomous paranoia Fraser bared towards those he disagreed with. It is astonishing that Fraser, seeing people dealing the painful legacies of the past, demonize them as "anti-white" simply for willing to confront this shameful issue.

Fraser then insists that the "Anglo-Saxons" of Australia have been very good to the Aborigines by extending to them freedoms that Anglo-Saxons enjoy.
From the time of the Spanish Armada, through Trafalgar, Waterloo, World War I and World War II there was a freedom-loving people that fought and defeated tyranny to guarantee those very freedoms that we in the Anglo-Saxon nations enjoy today and have so generously extended to the minority groups that exist—indeed, still flee tyranny so as to enjoy life—within the main bastions of those freedoms today, the Anglo-Saxon nations. (p. 25.)
Fraser wants to believe that the white majority have been so generous to the Aborigines. But Fraser sees a problem, namely anyone who discusses these issues in a way Fraser disapproves of. Fraser is infuriated that some of these people are of the same race as himself. He accuses such people of being influenced by people who are "destroying the very freedom" that Fraser insists has so generously be given to the minorities such as the Aborigines.
But the sad fact is the fifth column of resistance to the ongoing enjoyment of those freedoms too often works actively among, and within, our own free societies. Too often they hail from our very own kith and kin. These are those who, ideologically, have so willingly and ignorantly been taken advantage of by those influences that are intent on actually destroying the very freedoms that enable them to practice treason and sedition within the very societies that guarantee the open, unfettered practice of their hedonistic lifestyles. (pp. 25-26.)
Fraser seems to be angry that some white Australians happen to speak out on behalf of those Fraser opposes. It never seems to occur to Fraser that perhaps there are good reasons for them to act this way.

The Stolen Generations (1900-1970)

Often it is a good idea to look at the other side of the story. According to Fraser on page 24 not even ten individuals of these stolen generations were even named. Fraser even vilifies people who talk about the stolen generations as "anti-white". Maybe we should look at the other side of the story.

Here is a part of a 2006 column written by professor Robert Manne who was mentioned in a derogatory manner by Fraser on page 23.
One branch of this denialism concerns the question of what Australians have come to call the "stolen generations", the policy and practice of removing mixed descent Aborigines from their mothers, families and cultures between 1900 and 1950 when the thinking was unambiguously racist, and between 1950 and 1970 when racist thinking and welfare considerations became intertwined.

The most extreme exponent of this branch of denialism is the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt. Despite the fact that an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey reveals that between 1900 and 1970, 20,000 to 25,000 indigenous children were separated from their natural families; despite the fact that a mountain of documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony exists that reveal the cruelty and the racist motivations of the policy; despite the fact that even the Howard Government has funded a monument to the stolen generations - in column after column, Bolt has described the question of the stolen generations as a "preposterous and obscene" myth, a "pride murdering fantasy", a "libel on our past". ...

Bolt has often written in a way that suggests that there is not one example of a child seized from a loving mother by force. Again, this is plainly wrong. In October 1919 the tough police inspector at Broome complained to the Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia, A. O. Neville: "This seizing and removing of children is obnoxious to the police. No neglect has been shown by the mothers. The children have the natural love for the mother." Neville responded thus: "If the duty of bringing in half-caste children is obnoxious to the Police, it is strange that the Department has not previously been advised of this, in view of the hundreds of cases that have had attention." What does Bolt think this exchange means? (Robert Manne, The Cruelty of Denial, The Age, September 9, 2006.)
And what about the assertion that there are not even ten names to substantiate that Aboriginal children were taken away from their families by order of the government?
Trying to get Andrew Bolt to agree to a debate was surreal. Before being willing to debate me Bolt demanded first either "ten" or "one hundred" or even "a few hundred" names of stolen children. I asked him for his definition of a stolen child. He refused to reply. I asked him who was to determine whether or not I had satisfied his pre-condition. Again he refused to reply. Eventually, I sent him some 250 names. After a silence, Bolt agreed to the debate.

Bolt has a Herald Sun blog-site. He appealed on it for help in discrediting my first 12 names. There was no mention of the other 230-plus. Bolt presented the results of his research assistants at last Sunday's debate. The omissions and distortions took my breath away. ... He has never mentioned the other 230 names. (Robert Manne, The Cruelty of Denial, The Age, September 9, 2006.)
To his shame Fraser insists these terrible things never happened citing just one writer to advance his extremist position of denial. How many readers of this booklet are aware that they are reading denialism?

What a coward this Ron Fraser is. He claims his people have been so generous to the Aborigines and yet he denies them even acknowledgement of the terrible wrong of up to twenty-five thousand Aboriginal children being ripped away from their families.

How dare Fraser pretends such things never happened. How dare Fraser chose to live in a fantasy world where these things never happened.

Massacres Against Aborigines

Tellingly there is no mention in Fraser's booklet of all the other terrible things that the various state institutions of Australia inflicted upon the Aborigines. Fraser acts as though these things did not happen.

For centuries the Aborigines lived in Australia without being a burden to anyone outside of Australia. Today they are a minority in their own land. This did not just happen. The Aborigines did not ask for this. They were forced into this position due to the deliberate actions of various government leaders.

The Aborigines were legally stripped of any legal right to their lands when the land was declared to be terra incognita belonging to no one thus willfully ignoring those who had lived there for so long. And so the land was colonized and the Aborigines were rendered landless by governmental decree.

The Aborigines had no guns. They never needed such a thing. But some of those descended from Europeans chose to abuse their power and inflicted massacres upon the Aborigines. There were numerous massacres committed against the Aborigines.

One of the last of these massacres occurred around Coniston in 1928 in the Northern Territory. One white Australian was murdered by an Aborigine in a dispute that was widely rumored to have concerned some sort of personal dispute over a woman. But instead of trying to prosecute the guilty one this murder was used as a pretext to engage in a campaign of what would now be called ethnic cleansing.

Several whites with the aid of a police officer proceeded to go on a murderous rampage for over a month. Anywhere between 31 to 170 Aborigines were murdered in the month long rampage. Many of the Aborigines who lived in the area for so long were compelled to flee for their lives and were unable to return home. And thus was ethnic cleansing made against these innocent people.
The Coniston massacre, which took place from 14 August to 18 October 1928 near the Coniston cattle station in Northern Territory, Australia, was the last known officially sanctioned massacre of Indigenous Australians and one of the last events of the Australian Frontier Wars. People of the Warlpiri, Anmatyerre and Kaytetye groups were killed. The massacre occurred in revenge for the death of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks, killed by Aboriginal people in August 1928 at a place now known as Yukurru, (also known as Brooks Soak).

Official records at the time stated that 31 people were killed. The owner of Coniston station, Randall Stafford, was a member of the punitive party for the first few days and estimated that at least twice that number were killed between 14 August and 1 September. Historians estimate that at least 60 and as many as 110 Aboriginal men, women and children were killed. The Warlpiri, Anmatyerre and Kaytetye believe that up to 170 died between 14 August and 18 October. (Coniston massacre, Wikipedia.)
It is astonishing that Fraser should pretend that things like this had never happened. These shameful events are never mentioned or even alluded to in this booklet.

The terrible plight that befell the Aboriginal Australians was so well known that the famous writer H. G. Wells alluded to what happened to the Aborigines of the Australian island of Tasmania in his novel, The War of the Worlds, with these words.
The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. (H. G. Wells, The War of the Worlds, 1898, Chapter 1.)
(Of course the Tasmanian Aborigines were human. They did not have a "human likeness". They were human. But alas even when Wells was writing of them sympathetically he used terminology that makes it appear possible to view them as lesser beings when they were not. A testament to just how widespread racist ideas were back in those days.)

Considering the severity of these terrible things it is no wonder that many Australians of all ethnicities yearn to put things right and address these terrible events. No wonder Prime Minister Rudd said sorry.

How dare Fraser pretends that these things did not happen and acts as though Aborigines have no right to bring up these disturbing facts in order to try and improve their situation and address these historical injustices.

Chapter 5

Here Fraser bemoans supposed deterioration of juvenile behavior. He cites an incident of vandalism.
Over the past 40 years, we have grown used to seeing the progressive defanging of the law under the creeping influence of social engineers intent on severing all connection between civilized society and the Anglo-Saxon traditions that have fostered the most stable of societies for centuries. (p. 28.)
But if European Australia is a "civilized society" then what is an uncivilized society? Is he referring to the Aborigines?
Compounding this devastating picture of a society cut adrift from its traditional moorings, the power of the multiculturalists to add further confusion to an already volatile societal powder keg is revealed in Mosaic 2008’s revelation that “50 percent of all Australians have one parent born overseas, of whom only 14 percent were born in the UK; Africa, India, Indonesia, Singapore and China are the fastest-growing sources of immigrants” (ibid.).

The strength of Australia as a nation was once rooted in the virtues referred to by Winston Churchill as “the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society.” Those virtues are not of African, Indian, Indonesian, Singaporean or Chinese origin. (p. 30.)
It is clear that Fraser views Australia as a place for whites. In Fraser's mind Australian identity is based on race. When he sees those not descended from Europeans living in Australia he views them as "outsiders" who are of a lower status than whites like himself. Fraser even views the Aborigines in this way even though they have lived in Australian far longer than any one descended from Europeans.
In the age of common sense, masculine was clearly masculine, feminine was definitely feminine, and anyone who confused the clear, God-given roles of either was shunned as clearly that—confused, or worse, perverted in outlook and behavior. In the age of common sense, pedophilia was never a headline. (p. 35.)
What bizarre nostalgic views Fraser has. Pedophilia was not mentioned because there was widespread ignorance about such illegal things and consequently often it was left to occur in secret. It is astonishing that Fraser should pretend that such illegal things did not happen when they did. Just because Fraser didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Chapter 6

Fraser starts this chapter talking about Australian soldiers who served in World War I. He cites the 1932 book, The Desert Column by Ion Idries. He especially talks about those who served in the Middle East fighting the forces of the Ottoman Turks.

Fraser mournfully mentions that the last veterans of World War I have just about all died out. He conveniently ignores the fact that such an event is inevitable. Fraser then moans that no one like them are around in Australia today.
Just short of a century ago, the Anzacs fought a tenacious Islamic enemy. Though they had respect for the Turks’ fighting ability, they knew, without doubt, that they were the enemy, and they fought that enemy with every fiber of their being. No half measures—they fought for outright victory! (p. 36.)
Fraser says they "fought a tenacious Islamic enemy" as though the West was then at war with all Muslims. But we must be clear about these matters, these brave soldiers fought the Ottoman Turks. In fact Britain reached out to Arabs who lived under Ottoman Turkish rule and persuaded some of them to ally themselves with the British and liberate themselves from Turkish domination. They were most emphatically not at war with all Muslims as Fraser inaccurately insinuates here.

Some of those brave soldiers are buried in the Gaza War Cemetery within Hamas ruled Gaza. Some of those buried there are Australian soldiers. The Palestinians of Gaza (who are so often vilified by PCG) maintain and look after this precious cemetery. Despite all the terrible things that has happened there in recent years it is still maintained and open for visitors. During the war in 2008-9 about 287 of these graves were damaged by Israeli bombardment according to The Daily Telegraph. How tragic and sad this situation is.

And to think that PCG just casually say that this tragic conflict will never end until Christ's return. They seem convinced that miserable things like this are fated to occur until then. It is terrible to tell those who suffer that they have no hope that these things cannot be resolved and peaceful relations created for all. It is wrong to say there is no hope until Christ returns. Even if this is true this terrible problem needs to be solved now and people should not irresponsibly wait for someone else to do something it. How dare the PCG leadership be so irresponsible on this important issue.

May the blockade surrounding Gaza soon end. May the Palestinians of Gaza be free to lead normal lives of peace. May violence soon flee the Holy Land and touch no one of any nationality, Palestinian or Israeli. May there be peace in the Holy Land so that all may visit and honor those who lie in those graves without fear of war.
Now, the tiny nation of Israel finds that it is on the path to yielding up to the enemy half of that hard-won ancient city of Jerusalem, and a weak-kneed government in Australia withdraws troops from the battle against a fanatically religious enemy of Israel, weakening the allied effort in Iraq and thus opening the gate wider for Jerusalem to return to the captivity from which those Anzac forces released it less than a century ago. (p. 37.)
Shortly after Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister one of the first acts he did was to withdraw Australian soldiers from Iraq. Here Fraser condemns that act, accusing the elected government of being "a weak-kneed government".

Hypocritically Fraser's PCG teaches that it is forbidden for PCG members to serve in the armed forces and yet Fraser should condemn the Rudd government for doing what PCG members are taught to do by their leaders.

Fraser also nonsensically insinuates that Australian withdrawal from Iraq will cause the State of Israel to lose its hold on Jerusalem. But historically Al Qaeda in Iraq (modern day ISIL) has never fought against the State of Israel instead choosing to violently seize power from other Arabs. Those blood thirsty terrorists have never done anything for the Palestinians beyond saying some cheap words. Recently they even murdered a Palestinian whom they had tricked into joining them.

Fraser also ignores the fact that the State of Israel have an army of their own. Fraser talks as though Israel's armed forces are useless and that Israel is defenseless. That is simply not true and also insulting towards the Israelis.

Also Fraser insinuates that Jerusalem was under "captivity" until 1917 giving no regard to the fact that the majority of the population in Jerusalem and the Holy Land had long been Muslim. The Ottoman Turks had ruled Palestine for about 300 years, longer than Australia has existed as a nation since its establishment in 1901.
Today we face twin terrors, the one clearly Islamic fanaticism, and the other the intellectual terror of the rabid, feminized, racist, politically correct thought police.
Oh for a return to the days of common sense! (p. 37.)
Fraser despises the left. He despises them so much he conveniently forgets that they were always there in society.

Chapter 7

Here Fraser falsely insinuates that former British Prime Minister Disraeli, Queen Victoria and the Anzac soldiers of World War I believed in British Israelism. This is complete nonsense. British Israelism always remained an odd idea that never gained widespread acceptance. British Israelism is nonsense. has shown how British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand. In fact DNA evidence refutes British Israelism.

While reverently discussing these Australian soldiers of World War I Fraser approvingly alludes to apartheid South Africa.
Heritage —that’s what once made Britain great! That’s what moved these peoples to carve great nations out of the continental extension of North America, of southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand! (p. 39.) 
Note the favorable allusion to apartheid South Africa. ("That’s what moved these peoples to carve great nations out of ... southern Africa") Why does Fraser allude to South Africa in the approving manner here? Because of white supremacy. Once again Fraser shows his sympathy for white supremacy. The problem of racial discrimination against those not born into the white race is of little concern to Fraser.

Fraser incorrectly asserts that an Australian soldier he discusses was of "Davidic Welsh stock".
Ion Idriess, an Australian of Davidic Welsh stock... (p. 39.)
This is complete nonsense because the Welsh are not Israelites. British Israelism is nonsense. has shown how British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand. In fact DNA evidence refutes British Israelism.
There, in vivid detail, one can imagine the frenzied gallop of horsemen, vastly outnumbered by the entrenched enemy, swooping down in the face of ravaging fire to take ancient Beersheba of Abrahamaic tradition and open the way for the seizure of Jerusalem from the Muslims, a victory denied to the Crusaders who over the centuries had sought to take the Holy City in the name of Rome. (p. 41.)
Actually the Crusaders were able to take control of Jerusalem. But they lost control of it to the local population later on.

Normally PCG denounce the Crusades as an invention of the Roman Catholic Church and as an opportunity to demonize the Papacy. But bizarrely enough Fraser seems to present the Crusaders in a positive light here and even praise these soldiers as doing something the Crusaders were unable to do (which he happen to be wrong about).

All this talk of praise towards the Australian soldiers of World War I then leads to a condemnation of homosexuals, specifically of some Australian soldiers participating in a parade.
Do today’s Australians still reflect that spirit? Grave doubts are being raised on that question as we see representatives of Australia’s fighting forces taking part in a “celebration” of lifestyles specifically condemned within the book that was the foundation of the country’s moral strength through its pioneering history and its blooding as a nation in warfare. Great shame was brought upon the Anzac heritage at the 30th anniversary “celebration” of the homosexual and lesbian mardi gras in Sydney in 2008 as, for the first time, a contingent of Australia’s military marched in Sydney’s annual day of shame. (pp. 41-42.)
Fraser then complains that now that Australian is not so predominantly populated by whites anymore that Australia is doomed to fall should a new World War occur again.
The question now is, would today’s increasingly politically correct, multicultural, Aboriginalized, feminized, increasingly Asianized and Islamicized Australian society have what it takes to rise to the occasion should tyranny once again threaten these freedoms? Would there be sufficient of the old Anzac spirit remaining to fire up the manpower of the nation to willingly defend home and hearth from any prospect of invasion? Can a new multicultural “tradition” fire a nation with the same zealous patriotism that the once deeply embedded culture of “God, king and country” did for Australia in two great world wars? The psychology simply does not work the same! (pp. 42-43.)
What strange, narrow minded attitudes Fraser bore towards people he viewed as not part of his race. Not to mention racist.

It is clear that Fraser views ethnic minorities, including the Aborigines, as menacing "outsiders" and that Fraser views them as an ever present threat to his race.

It must be stated that the vast majority of white Australians would no doubt disagree with Fraser's contempt for those who are only guilty of not being born white.

Fraser then bizarrely insinuates that an Australia that accommodates all its' citizens, not just the white majority, "does not deserve to survive."
It was Sir Winston Churchill who pointed to the truism that any nation that forgets its past does not deserve to survive. (p. 43.)
What a shocking and terrible thing to say about Australia. What bitterness lay in his heart, even towards his follow Australians. It is shameful that Fraser should write such bitter words like this. I cannot even imagine saying something so bitter, twisted, vindictive and nasty about Australia.

It is strange how Fraser vilifies the left as "anti-white" and then insinuates that his own nation "does not deserve to survive" for being too accommodating to minorities in his opinion. What a villainous thing to say.

Fraser seems to wish Australia would be destroyed for not being as fixated on maintaining white supremacy as he is.

These words show that Fraser was an extremist prone to saying hateful things.

How is it that this man was able to rise up to the position of prominence and power within the leadership of PCG? How is it that no one within the upper echelon of PCG noticed that this man was an extremist? How dare PCG's leaders allowed a man capable of saying such terrible things to have so much power and influence over those within PCG. PCG's members have been ill served with this man being allowed to have so much power over them.

Chapter 8

Here Fraser complains about a supposed lack of military strength for Australia.
Australia is aligned neither culturally nor ideologically with its northern neighbors. Though the nation’s land mass is impressive, it lacks the population to mount any military force of real significance compared in numbers to the teeming masses of greater Asia. (p. 45.)
Since Fraser is so fixated on race he views the Asian nations not as neighbors but as outsiders who cannot be trusted because they are not white.

Fraser then talks about Australia's relations with the United States and fear mongers that with the election of a left wing government these relations with the United States might fall apart. It must be borne in mind that this booklet was written before the election of President Obama.

Fraser then fear mongers about Muslim immigrants.
Added to the question of Australia’s defense gap is the matter of just how prepared the nation is to ensure its own internal security. With such a mix of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East having settled in the southern continent—many totally uncommitted to becoming acculturated into Australian society—a possible elevation of fifth-column activities within the country poses an increasing risk. Though largely kept at bay by the previous conservative government for over a decade, the more politically correct policies of the Rudd government are likely to allow individuals and organizations that work against Australia’s interests to begin to raise their heads. (p. 48.)
The truth is that Fraser is so fixated on race that Fraser could never accept those born of another race as equals. But he projects this bigotry upon those immigrants.

Fraser then discusses a mass arrest of alleged terrorists in 2005.
Australia’s population was built by the migration of peoples from foreign shores. Yet because of its original “White Australia” policy, the bulk of the nation’s immigrants up to the mid-20th century came from Britain and Europe. During the heady days of the 1960s and ’70s, the intelligentsia of the nation exaggerated and publicized myths about the mistreatment of ethnic groups within Australia, leading to a change in the government’s stance on immigration. (p. 49.)
Fraser presents this fact as though it were a minor detail but this fact just might be the one thing that explains Fraser's fixation on race and his racist views.

Is it possible that Ron Fraser by living in a society that was kept predominantly white in this way was rendered ignorant of people from other ethnicities and religions thus making it easier for him to adopt paranoid stereotypes about people he was ignorant of because of this “White Australia” policy?

While Fraser grew up in a society that was predominantly European this was an artificial state of affairs created by the Australian government's enforcement of this “White Australia” policy. Did Fraser ever think about how unusual it was to live in a society so predominantly European? Did Fraser imagine this White Australia was somehow natural when in fact this state of affairs was created by the government?

It is not possible for me to provide definitive answers about Ron Fraser's early life. Only those who knew him well could even begin to do so.

Fraser then complains that after this “White Australia” policy was removed these other people born into different races began migrating into Australia. Fraser did not like this.
That all began to change in the wake of war in Vietnam. Following the Vietnam War, boatloads of Asians penetrated the northern shores of Australia and were absorbed into its society. Buddhist temples, something quite alien to the Australian Judeo-Christian culture, started to pop up around the country. This was later followed by waves of Islamic immigrants from the Middle East. Mosques appeared and the cries of the mullahs were heard ringing out across the cities of Australian suburbs mixing with the bleating of sacrificial goats being slaughtered in suburban backyards. The entire culture of the nation began to change from its Anglo-Saxon foundation to reflect the policies of multiculturalism. (p. 49.)
Intriguingly Fraser offers no sympathy for the boat people who left Vietnam. It is well known that many of those people were in a most desperate situation yet he never makes any attempt to view matters from their perspective. They are merely outsiders. He choose to complain that they have moved into what he imagines as "a white man's land."

He is offended that they happen to practice their own religions as though freedom of religion is meaningless for him.

Fraser then vilifies Muslim immigrants as "a real threat" to his Australia (meaning the white majority) and possessing an "extremist loyalty to the cause of pan-Islamism via jihad". Intriguingly in his earlier 1999 booklet he said nothing about any supposed threat against Australia from Muslim immigrants.
Among those arrested on Nov. 8, 2005, were some Australian citizens. None were Australian ethnics. The culture and the religion they practiced were foreign to the majority within the nation of their citizenship. They had not assimilated. Like their compatriots in Britain and Europe, they elected to use the freedoms granted by their citizenship to perpetrate terror on the nation that granted them a haven from other societies still stuck in a medieval culture of cruelty toward, and deprivation of, their citizenry. Their extremist loyalty to the cause of pan-Islamism via jihad poses a real threat to the nation that feeds, clothes, shelters and educates them, and provides them with a means to make a living. (p. 50.)
Fraser sees that no European descended individuals were arrested so he assumes that white Australians are innocent and are not to be feared because he only views whites as his equals. But in fact violence and crimes and problems that are to be found among all peoples.

Fraser then fear mongers that Muslim terrorists could infiltrate Australia from Indonesia, a fear which seven years after this booklet's publication has proven utterly baseless.
Over 200 million Muslims populate the Indonesian archipelago, the southern extremity of which lies only 200 miles north of Australia. Any terrorist could find a warm, hospitable haven in this island complex while awaiting safe passage to the land Down Under. (p. 50.)
Note how Fraser ignores the Indonesians' distinctive national identity and views them with hostility as Muslims as though they were just any kind of Muslims. They are not just any kind of Muslims, they are Indonesian Muslims. Also many Indonesians are not Muslim at all. Many Indonesians happen to be Christians.

Fraser then reveals that even if a Muslim immigrant should integrate with society so well that they should happen to talk like an Australian Fraser is still suspicious of them. Even the Muslim immigrants who talk like Australians are vilified as somehow failing to assimilate. Fraser seems to have no awareness that perhaps he is the one refusing to accept them as equal because they are born into another race.

Even assimilated Muslim immigrants are loathed and despised.
Yet Australia’s greatest challenge is not so much keeping extremist imams and their terrorist protégés from migrating into the country. The most significant terrorist potential lies within the hearts of extremist Islamic Australian citizens already embedded within that continent—the sons of earlier migrants, who speak with an Aussie twang but who will never assimilate into Australian society. (p. 50.)
What stereotyped trash. Even when their children grow up and talk like Ron Fraser he accuses them of not assimilating like white Australians. Ron Fraser is projecting his own loathing and apathy for these ethnic minorities onto them.
Australia stands at a crucial crossroad as U.S. power wanes. Will its Mandarin-speaking prime minister be able to hold the balance against an increasingly expanding China with its voracious appetite for Australia’s raw materials? (p. 51.)
Is Fraser somehow condemning the fact that Rudd can speak Mandarin? Fraser mentioned that same detail about him in chapter 2 on page 13.

And after spouting off this racist rant against immigrants Fraser fear mongers about Germany and its relations with Australia. PCG teaches that Germany is fated to launch a nuclear war against America and Britain in the near future just before Christ's return.
Surprisingly, while Canberra gazes fixatedly on Asia—being particularly concerned about Australia’s relations with China at this moment—quietly in the background the greatest single trading bloc on Earth, the German-dominated European Union, is steadily making inroads into Australian business, finance and industry, with a view to exploiting Australia for its own ends as it seeks to gain increasing influence in the greater Asia Pacific region. You will hear more of this in the news in the months and years ahead. (pp. 51-52.)
It is now seven years since Fraser wrote this booklet. This is yet another failed prophecy of PCG.

Fraser insinuates that somehow Australia will somehow be caught between some kind of future struggle between the future European Empire of Armstrongism's dire false prophecies and a future Russian-Chinese-Japanese alliance.
The time is fast approaching when the continent of Australia will be caught in the crossfire between two great, economically and militarily expanding power blocs, the European Union and a great pan-Asian bloc. (p. 52.)
Seven years later we are still waiting for this "time ... fast approaching" to occur. We are still waiting for Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Muslims, etc to somehow destroy the Australia that Fraser seems to think deserves to be destroyed anyway.

Chapter 9

In this chapter Fraser denounces Republicanism, the political movement among Australians to remove Queen Elizabeth II from her role as Head of State for Australia and turn Australia into a republic.
Should Australia become a republic, or remain constitutionally subject to the British Crown? ... Both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his feminist-socialist deputy Julia Gillard are committed republicans. (p. 53.)
And seven years later Australia's status has not changed. In fact later Gillard ousted Rudd, then Rudd ousted her in turn just in time to lose an election to the right wing party that Fraser clearly wished had won earlier.

Fraser then discusses some sort of summit held shortly after Kevin Rudd's election to power. Because this is a left wing government Fraser mocks it because it is not right wing like himself.
None of this should be surprising, given that the bulk of the 1002 invitees to the 2020 summit were drawn from the liberal-socialist element of Australian society, overloaded as it was with the intelligentsia, spiced with enclaves of the commentariat, and with even a hooker present to represent something called the Scarlet Alliance standing out in the crowd with her green-and-gold dyed hair. (pp. 53-54.)
Fraser mocks this summit as being of little interest to most journalists who had to cover it.
Most respondents to the press and media websites such as News Ltd. and Fairfax seemed to regard the 2020 summit as a talkfest of a “politicized elite with little in common with ordinary Australians” ..... (p. 54.)
It should be no surprise that Fraser would be sympathetic towards News Ltd. considering it tends to lean to the right politically speaking since it happens to be owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the same man who owns Fox News Channel, The Times of London and many other media related companies.

Fraser then cites one left wing commentator who happens to support retaining Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state (pp. 54-55).

Fraser then proceeds to denounce journalists who questions what Fraser favors as far left self hating fools, fifth columnists and (he insinuates) guilty of sedition.
Of course, the worst hatred by far has often come from the self-hating far-left in our midst, the old “fifth column.” ... these dissidents [in Britain during the height of the British Empire] lived in one of the few nations on Earth that permitted the airing of seditious views in the interests of free speech! Be that as it may, given the state today of journalistic commentary on the Iraq and Afghan wars, it’s easy to see those “eminent men” have effectively handed down their seditious trade to the generations that have followed. (pp. 55-56.)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Fraser is right and all these other people are wrong. Even then Fraser needs to make a persuasive argument instead of just spreading this venomous invective.

Fraser accuses Australian republicanism of detaching Australia from its historical heritage. It is insinuated that should Australia become a republic it will lose divine favor that had previously been granted to Australia.
From where did Australia gain its prestige as a nation? From standing up to the forces of tyranny under a proud flag that super-imposed the Union Jack upon the stars of the Southern Cross! From flying high over its buildings of state, the red, white and blue livery of the very temple colors of the ancient nation of Israel! Too few there be who recognize that today! (pp. 56-57.)
British Israelism was, is and shall always be false. As well as any idea based on this false idea. has shown how British Israelism is built on a foundation of sand. In fact DNA evidence refutes British Israelism. Actually British Israelism is an act of thievery against the Jews by stealing their distinctive cultural heritage that is precious to them.

Fraser then denounces republicanism as an elitist thing obscuring the fact that he opposes it because he leans to the right in regards to politics.
The trouble is, a half-century and more of regressive, liberal-socialist-feminist education, overlaid with a more recent morally vacuous political correctness, has produced a generation in Australia largely divorced from its true and ancient heritage. That great past has been sacrificed on the altars of godless socialism, feminism and multiculturalism! Add to this the influence over the masses of the famously baying Australian press, out to get blood at any expense—especially if that is royal blood—and the result is entirely predictable. You end up with the imposition of the warped will of the loudly chattering “progressives” over the real will of the people. (p. 57.)
Fraser so hates the left. He constantly talks of this in this insulting invective. This is not a sign of strength but of vindictiveness and fear of responding to arguments in a civil manner.

Fraser then describes how HWA went looking for converts in Australia back in the 1960s.
During the great decade of social change, the 1960s, a powerful voice was broadcasting coast to coast in Australia every evening on radio. Herbert W. Armstrong pulled no punches when it came to speaking the plain, unadulterated truth. Multiple thousands of Australians appreciated his no-holds-barred approach to delivering the plain and simple truth on any matter. (p. 58.)
As mentioned in a previous post Fraser has mentioned that he has been involved in Armstrongism since 1968 at least, if not earlier.

Including saying that Christ would return in 1975? That is what HWA taught from 1953 onward.

Chapter 10

Fraser once again moans about Australia being led by an elected left wing Prime Minister.
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lost little time in revealing his true political colors, and pink they proved to be. He immediately announced the withdrawal of Aussie troops from Iraq and followed that up by creating history in the Australian Parliament, having Aboriginals do a tribal dance on the floor of the House. He then gave a speech declaring on behalf of all Australians an apology for the way they had treated the indigenous people that populated the land at the time that Great Britain took possession of it, and their progeny down to this day. (p. 60.)
Fraser repeats his nonsensical assertion that there were no stolen generations citing just one author.
[Fraser asserts this one author who he says] clearly exposed the lie that claims Australia was guilty of a policy of stealing Aboriginal children from their parents, and very regularly providing ample evidence to support the fact that it is a lie perpetrated by self-interest groups, the entertainment industry and mass media.... (p. 60.)
As noted above it is nonsense to claim that there was no stolen generations of Aboriginal families ripped apart by order of the government. It happened. It is cowardly of Fraser to delude himself into pretending that such things did not occur.
Australia’s swing to the left in the national elections witnessed how few really appreciate that there is a strong link between traditional, conservative values and experiencing these blessings. (p. 60.)
Fraser threatens Australia with some unnamed catastrophe for being too left wing for his tastes.

Accuses media of brainwashing people to elect Rudd's party. This contradicts Fraser's citation of media against 2020 summit including News Ltd..
Just what is the Australian identity today? What are the real values that Australians respect and seek to protect from the impact of creeping multiculturalism? What are the standards that underpin Australian society today? (p. 62.)
Fraser fear mongers that Australia will somehow collapse since its people had not had to endure a World War.
Australia is now governed by those who never knew the impact of world war nor suffered the privations of a global economic depression. Without such a test on national character, Australia is in danger of becoming soft—soft headed in particular. (p. 61.)
Fraser complains about "creeping multiculturalism".
The burning questions that so heavily impinge on Australia’s future at this juncture are these: Just what is the Australian identity today? What are the real values that Australians respect and seek to protect from the impact of creeping multiculturalism? What are the standards that underpin Australian society today? The realists worry about all this. (p. 62.)
Fraser refers to himself and people he agrees with as "realists" just after insinuating that Australia deserves to be destroyed and denying that about 20,000 children were forcibly removed from Aboriginal families.
We simply pose this question: In this age of great global disruption, this age of immense challenges to Western civilization from contending cultures and great religious movements foreign to the West, does Australia—which under Mr. Howard stoically resisted incursions upon its foundational values, institutions and freedoms—now, under a different form of government, have what it takes to continue a robust defense of Australia’s true identity as a nation? (p. 63.)
Reading between the lines and noting his loathing of the left it is clearly that Fraser is very much inclined to answer "No." But because this booklet is designed to recruit new tithe paying members for his PCG he is not interested in giving a simple answer. Rather he is trying to make the reader make this final conclusion him or herself.

Chapter 11

Here Fraser discusses HWA's expansion into Australia and the rise of his following within Australia, the Tkach changes and the rise of PCG which Fraser insists to be the only legitimate continuation of WCG. Fraser never mentions that there are hundreds of other COG organizations that also sprang from WCG and continue to teach many of HWA's teachings. They are contemptuously left unmentioned. Also it is well known that PCG enforces a no contact policy forbidding PCG members from contacting members of the other COG groups, even close family members.

In this chapter Fraser mentions Malachi's Message, the booklet used to proclaim that Gerald Flurry is used by God. It is widely known that many of the ideas within his booklet Malachi's Message, which is so often cited by PCG to justify following Gerald Flurry instead of the many other COG splinter groups, were plagiarized from The Letter to Laodicea by Jules Dervaes, written December 1986-January 1988. It was sent to 237 WCG ministers including Gerald Flurry and John Amos. On September 26, 1990 Jules Dervaes even sent a letter to Gerald Flurry in which he denounces Malachi's Message as "a direct and clear plagiarism" of his work.  

While briefly discussing the history of Armstrongism Fraser cites a September 13, 1980 co-worker letter HWA made to his followers in Australia in which HWA said that Satan was trying to prevent him from expanding the number of his followers in Australia.

Incidentally in that 1980 co-worker letter HWA made the following statement.
GOD DID NOT GIVE ANCIENT ISRAEL HIS HOLY SPIRIT! He did specially call out of them His PROPHETS, and He gave to them His Holy Spirit. These Prophets were prepared to be a CO-FOUNDATION of the CHURCH when God later, through Christ, would raise up His CHURCH. No prophets in the New Testament Church had administrative or preaching functions in the Church—none contributed the doctrines or customs to the Church. But Old Testament Prophets' writings did become part of the FOUNDATION of the Church. (HWA, Co-worker letter to Australia, September 13, 1980.)
HWA consistently taught from 1953 till his death that New Testament Prophets had no power over church members. And yet Gerald Flurry chose to ignore HWA's consistent teaching on this matter and proclaimed himself to be "That Prophet" contrary to HWA's teaching. PCG even changed Mystery of the Ages to obscure this contradiction with HWA's teaching. And near the end of this booklet Fraser obliquely insists that there is a "prophet" leading his organization. He means Gerald Flurry.
There is a man on the scene today, a prophet of God, selected by Him to receive the revelation of the end-time warning of God to the nations, and charged with the specific responsibility to deliver that warning message to its threefold audience. If you read and study the literature we have mentioned in this booklet, it will lead you to readily identify just who that watchman of God is. (p. 68.)
Fraser is referring to his boss and paymaster, Gerald Flurry, who proclaimed himself to be "That Prophet" in 1999 to further aggrandize himself among his followers. But Fraser wants to lead his readers on a long journey before the readers realize he refers to Gerald Flurry. If they keep getting stringed along they will be more suggestible and more likely to believe that grandiose claim.

Fraser ends this booklet by threatening the reader that unless he or she joins PCG they are doomed to experience the Great Tribulation.
You and your loved ones could be saved that heartache and suffering. It would simply take a clear resolution in your mind that you will begin to obey God and His law, the only way to true peace of mind and a real state of blessedness. It’s a decision not worth delaying. Your eternal future may depend on it! (p. 68.)
This booklet is nonsense. Fraser's booklet cannot save anyone from the Great Tribulation or anything else (except reality). How can a book that denies a well established historical fact such as the stolen generations lead anyone to safety? It's racist too.

Australian Aboriginal Flag

It is frightening to imagine that a man capable of saying the extremist things in this booklet was allowed to have so much power within PCG.


  1. It is hard to believe someone could be so nuts. Here it is, the season to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. In Australia, it's spring time. Fraser is keeping a fall festival in the spring. What craziness, but when you fall for a false prophet and his heresies, that's the sort of thing you get.

    Moreover, all the Feasts of the Old Testament were tied to both animal sacrifices and the Temple (at Jerusalem). These were both done away. If anyone wants to say that they are commanded for Christians to keep, think again and look at Acts 15. Nothing about the Gentiles keeping the Feast is mentioned and circumcism is done away.

    Now to be fair, for the most part, we've found Australians to be a sensible people. It's just a few in the minority like Fraser that are nut cases.

    I'm not so frightened. All of Armstrongism put together can't rival even the Church of God Seventh Day -- the CoG7D is approximately ten times larger than all of the Armstrongist churches of God combined.

    As big as the booklet may be and as loud as the bellowing might be, it's all minor league stuff... well, not even minor league: It's just pure amateur stuff by a hobbyist who has no idea what facts look like.

  2. "It is hard to believe someone could be so nuts."

    I will say I was taken aback at Fraser's statement that Australia ""does not deserve to survive." (Chapter 7, p. 43.)

    Fraser makes it sound as though he is referring to Winston Churchill. But Churchill did not write this booklet, Fraser did. And Fraser is talking about Australia, not any other nation.

    I don't know why Fraser was like this. It is baffling to me.

    Fraser did not mention that the immigration of non-Europeans was restricted as part of a "White Australia" policy (Chapter 8, p. 49.) I cannot help but think that policy may have contributed to Fraser being the way he was. Living in a society in which he had less chances to meet and socialize with peoples of other ethnicities may have made it easier for him to accept stereotyped misinformation about people he viewed as not part of "the white race."

    But this does not remove Fraser's personal responsibility for adopting the racialist views that he adopted as his own. It is safe to assume that most Australians who lived under this "White Australia" policy did not adopt views like Fraser or have moved away from such views if they held them.

    "a hobbyist who has no idea what facts look like."


    As far as I can tell by reading what he wrote part of Fraser's problem is that if he happens to believe something he dismisses any contrary information as "biased," insists it is misinformation promoted with a hostile agenda or insists that they come from sources he distrusts.

    Also he has this habit of viewing anyone who says things he disagrees with as hostile. He rarely (if ever) express any sense of goodwill towards those he disagrees with in his writings. He just dismisses them as wrong and hostile. As far as I can tell he never portrays those he disagrees with as being sincere.

  3. Well, OK, best two out of three: I'm sincere, I'm not wrong, but I am hostile (to what he says).

    So he's got me there.

    If only he were reasonable and listen to facts, it would mitigate some of my hostility.