I've written about the oppressor-oppressed narrative, the socialist competition for victimhood that characterises progressive worldviews which undermine societies. And therefore the need to take responsibility, rather than blame someone else.  - Every time we blame someone else for our responses, we deplete our own power to handle our reactions.
Well, this applies not only at a political level ("the government should"), but also in education ("the school should"), and in personal social skills ("they should").

Here's a brilliant piece from Brooks Gibbs that treats the problem of victimhood by increasing personal skills and responsibility. Not by addressing the oppressor only, but by addressing the "oppressee" - to become a victim-no-more. This is not victim-blaming - this ends the cycle of blame.* 

Watch this: https://www.brooksgibbs.com/crash-play

Take the hour, and take notes. 
Activation - Belief - Consequence.
- I become more flexible with my beliefs about the event. 
- I articulate the event better (are they joking, criticising, bothering, hurting or controlling me.)
- I control my emotional response more thoughtfully, (Will I be mad, sad, bad, or glad.) 
- I choose my words intentionally, towards friendships if possible. 
- I overcome drivers of perfectionism and approvalism, with a stable and secure identity. 

In a world becoming crazier and trapped in conflict, become wiser and freer in one hour.

* Nuance alert: This is about how we think about ourselves. Criminals should still be charged. But will I allow "victim" to become my default identity? 

I feel compelled to point out that it is now 2026.
You say, “So what?” 
It’s now just 7 years until 2033.

Again, “So what?”
Well, something about the End Times is increasingly being thought about, but rarely said.
Someone will blurt it out soon, so I might as well prepare you for it.
Besides, if it happens to be true, then it would be fair to ask, “Why didn’t somebody warn us?” 
Well, here is my warning, just in case. With some nuance to notice, please. 

In Matthew 24, about His Second Coming, Jesus said:

• We should look for signs of the Second Coming (v32-33)
• When it does start, it will happen within that generation (v34)
• His Second Coming will certainly happen (v35) 
• We can’t know the precise day or hour (v36) 
• It will take most of us by surprise (37-44) 
• And the main point of His teaching is not accuracy of timing, but rather for us to be faithful, here and now. (45-51)

Therefore it is good to look around and ponder what is happening in our days, and to err on the side of readiness rather than scepticism. 

I offer this heads-up with the same wonder and reserve in which Christians since Jesus’ day have wondered if their times are the End Times.
For instance, they must have wondered during the persecution under the Romans, Nero, the Fall of Jerusalem & the desecration & destruction of the Temple.
Or when Byzantium fell.
Or later, around World War 1.
During or after World War 2 with Hitler, the crushing of Jews, and the reconstitution of the state of Israel. 

Likewise, in our point in time, here is something to ponder: 

Could it be that, like His seven-day creation and His seven-day week, God is working on a seven-millennium timeline?
2000 years from Adam to Abraham,
2000 years to Christ, 
2000 years to His Second Coming, 
1000-years of shalom/rest, before the final Judgment. (Isaiah 65, Revelation 20).
And if 33AD was the year of Jesus’ atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and sending His Spirit, then 2033 would mark the Second Coming and the start of the seventh millennium. 

Now the “Second Coming” can include a series of events over perhaps seven years, including the rapture, a deal with Israel, a betrayal followed by the Great Tribulation, culminating in His Triumphal Return. So would 2033 mark the end of the seven years or the start? If the end, then when do the seven years start?
As I said, it is now 2026.

Or 2033 could mark the start of the seven years, so be watchful over the next 14 years. 

There are other calculation problems to consider. Some say that Jesus was born 2-6 years before 0 BC/AD. In that case, the 2000 year mark could be as early as 2027. Which means mathematically the time could already be unfolding. 

“What are we meant to be looking for?” 
Now that’s a better question. I will answer below in my graphic on the many relevant verses... 

But first this huge caveat: there are other views of interpreting the relevant passages. This graphic illustrates: 

Below is a grid of the relevant passages, as interpreted from a Premillennial view. Note that the timeline below the grid is not to scale but sectional. And the timeline is only "Plausible." But the Second Coming more generally - that's "Confirmed." 

Signs Premillennials watch for:
. Israel will have a period of significant peace;
. A northern invasion will end with the destruction of the invaders; 
. A treaty between Israel and an Antichrist; 
. A third Temple… 
There are more, but by this point, the seven years would be happening, and it would be obvious to watchful Premillennials. 
. The rapture might have happened at the start, middle or end of the 7 years. But since the rapture will take us by surprise, it's a difficult sign to look for until it happens. 
As for these other signs, however, if we see developments moving in those directions, we should take note! 

Could I be wrong? Yeah - on many aspects! Even the model. 
But possibly being wrong about the details doesn't mean we should say nothing about the End Times. The main point is still confirmed: Jesus is coming again - soon - so be watchful and ready. Being watchful and ready includes discussing what the scriptures say, and what the signs might be. 

What's the difference this all makes?
1) Be watchful. Do your own study on which view of the End Times you think is plausible. Notice when something happens that advances one of the signs of the end. 

2) Be ready. Whichever view you favour, the main point of Jesus telling us all this is not correctness, but to be ready all the time - whenever he returns.

Because every day we draw closer to His Second Coming.
And it could be anytime. It could be soon, very soon.
Even 2026. Or during the next 14 years. 

Christians can handle social cohesion better than any other worldview - but like Frodo. 
In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, whoever carried that Ring was corrupted by its power. Even a pure heart like Frodo's. Likewise, whichever worldview carries the responsibility of being the reference point for government can be corrupted by its power.

Yet, despite the hazards, Christianity remains the worldview best equipped to handle state power in the presence of other worldviews. That includes best equipped to handle proper separation of church and state. 
Why so?

1. Christians seek to protect their freedom to maintain their worldview, along with others.
This is reasonable, as any other worldview would do. They have learned from history what it is like to have that freedom taken away, and sought to make societies that do protect it.  

2. Christians seek to protect the freedom of others to maintain their worldviews.
Even though Christians may persuade in hopes that others might join their worldview, they know that they must allow others the freedom to believe differently. This was always present (Jos24:15. Mat 19:22. 23:37.), but painfully forged into a firm conviction during the Reformation. It became a feature of the Judaeo-Christian-founded state projects of America and Australia.
Being a religion/worldview, Christians recognise how important worldviews are to people, in all areas of life, including shared political life. Christian leadership is service, so we make room for others, for freedom in moral values matters. Politics can adversely impact that freedom, even more so if it ignores moral worldviews/religions.
By contrast, Socialism (in my previous post) seeks the removal of religious worldviews from shared public discourse. Sharia can tax, limit, and threaten non-believers, with both political and military features in its worldview. And should indigenous groups regain sovereignty, what impact will come from tribal disputes?

3. Christians have forgiveness built in.
Forgiveness is the only way forward for some otherwise intractable social justice conflicts. This is integral to Christianity more than any other worldview. 

4. Christians don’t ultimately want political power.
Rather, they look forward to a day when their King returns, and the poison ring of political power will be thrown into the fire. When he comes, that King will then sort out believers and non. Until then, wheat and weeds grow together. (Mt13:30).
Contrastingly, Islam seeks global Sharia, with political and military features, and infidels would pay tax or death. Socialism wants State power for itself; it is their worldview. Indigenous worldviews claim to want their sovereignty back - we don’t know at what cost. 

5. Christians believe that God raises governments for his purposes.
(Rom 13:1,2) The more people reject God, the more the government they get will become what they deserve. This is both a judgement and a corrective to return to the Creator and His life-giving ways. The more people follow God, the more productive the government will generally be. 

6. Christianity seeks both diversity and unity.
Diversity is good, as seen in creation, and the many tribes and nations God aims to draw together (Rev 7:9. Gal3:28). Christianity is not bound to one culture - it is the most multicultural religion in the world. So Christian governments are more likely to celebrate cultural diversity. 
But in a unifying way. Not diversity that becomes splintered idols of self-centredness from which pecking order and conflict ensue. Rather, Christians celebrate diversity within the limits of God’s created order, rather than our fallenness. 
This diversity does also allow nonbelievers to diverge outside the created order, as seen in #4. Why? Because even despite our diversity for good or ill, Christians see humanity as united by a primary identity - that we are all God’s children, even unbelievers (Acts 17:28). When Christians look at anyone, that’s what they see. This unity in diversity is good for governance - it respects us all, even when restraint is needed. 

7. Christianity as a government reference point has a good track record.
Looking at its history in Rome, Europe, America, Australia and the Pacific Islands, Christianity has had a generally good impact on governments and societies, particularly in the area of religious freedom and social cohesion. Why? For the reasons listed above. 
Its record is not unblemished by any means. But any failings were not features of Christianity, but bugs caused by people’s fallen departure from Biblical belief and practice. Thus by both their use and misuse, Biblical values are proven to work in practice. They'd only work so consistently if they were true. Thus, we have a large body of consequential evidence for the veracity of Biblical truth claims. 
Consider the alternatives. What if other worldviews had come to govern those geographies? Islam historically takes over by ballot or bullet, and enforces itself to the exclusion of others. Socialism's record is similar. Indigenous worldviews have tribalism and conflict built in. These are features of these worldviews, not bugs. 

A Christian reference point for government works like Community Organising, which developed from the Christian roots of unions. In this model, people of goodwill from any worldview come together to cooperate on matters of common concern - even though their worldviews’ motivations may differ. 

Why do we need the Bible as a reference point for government? Because without a commonly agreed reference point, the union will split and tribal-ise into power plays. Our federal founders knew, based on reasons such as those listed above, that Christianity is the worldview with the most potential to unite the Federation. That's why the first sentence of our Constitution's Preamble contains the words, "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." 
 
Only Christianity can bear that Ring of political power safely to its end.

Q: Why is it that the Royal Commission, and Labor in general, can't bring itself to say anything discerning about any religion? 
A: Well this RC is framed and run by the self-named "socialist democratic party," and socialism has features that make it "not equipped to handle" antisemitism, religion or worldviews in general. 

Here are 6 examples:
1. Some socialists dream simplistically of harmonious Society. 
- So to criticise someone, even someone doing bad things, would upset the harmony. So rather than say no, say nothing. 
Observe Commissioner Bell claim, “it is not the Commission's purpose to shame or to so further division in our society much less to try and resolve the rights and wrongs of particular disputes.” 
Either that’s her socialism speaking, or that of those who framed the RC’s terms of reference, or both. 
But it prevents socialists from speaking against antisemites and allowed them to escalate under Labor. 

2. Socialists propose that religions are irrelevant to politics.
- So to admit that there are religious causes to social conflict would admit that religion actually matters in politics. That would open the door to public discourse about worldviews and politics. 

3. Some socialists believe their worldview is a special case, entitled to state power in a way that religious worldviews are not. They do not see theirs as one worldview among many at the public table. They do not believe it should be subject to limits of state influence. Their worldview is the state. Their church is the state. To them separation of church and state means separating only religions out of the state.
- So they propose limits to religious worldviews that they have no intention of applying to their own worldview.

4. Thinking they are "not religious" blinds them to their own impact on religions and morals. 
Socialists regularly introduce legislation not merely to allow their own moral codes but to restrict others from expressing dissenting views. In Australia from 2000-2025, 74 Laws have been passed on morals that restrict Christian freedoms to dissent. Almost all those laws came from socialists. Laws limiting religious discourse, same-sex relationships, marriage, surrogacy, religious organisations staff, abortion, gender self-identification, confession, VAD, family views, health care, prayer, conversion, religious education. 
- Socialists’ denial that their worldview has religious impact renders them unable to recognise religious causes of antisemitism or social conflict.

5. Socialists conflate all religions so they can consign them to silence.  
Socialists mistakenly want the public square to themselves so they can choreograph society in peace. Every dance troupe needs a choreographer - them. For the greater good.
And honest socialists admit they want to remove all religions from public life for various reasons - too disruptive, primitive, unscientific, regressive - but also because removing all religions removes almost all worldviews that might challenge their secular socialist state. They want to influence the whole public sector - all government services - to indoctrinate the public with their own worldview.
So socialists do not differentiate between religions, because to do so might allow a competing worldview to remain in public life. They think, "better to remove them all." 
Attempts to conflate-and-silence all religions are increasing, such as in January, as part of Labor’s post-Bondi legal reforms. Labour tried to introduce a criminal vilification offence. It was eventually removed during late night party negotiations with the Liberal Party, because it was revealed that the definitions of vilification were so broad as to potentially criminalise all religious criticism. 
Then months later, this RC heard Labor MPs advocating again for the introduction of a similar criminal vilification offence. (The Australian 29/8/26 p7).
So a criminal vilification offence will likely show up again as a recommendation from this Labor RC.
(Oh, and it happened again just today, with the Digital Duty of Care Bill.)
- Socialists try to conflate all religions to remove them all, and this prevents them from discussing religions with nuance or appreciation. 

6. Socialists don't want us to think well about religions.
Because thinking well about religions means thinking well about worldviews  - including socialism. Socialists don't want to be considered along with other worldviews, because this might expose that socialism's secularity does not make it a neutral, but a negative worldview. Why? Because: 
. Excluding all supernatural worldviews from public discourse actually ignores a primary aspect of society's shared national cooperative, that in reality needs proper expression and negotiation.
. Repressing religions represses freedom of conscience, freedom of religious discourse and free belief. This inevitably requires more surveillance and control to the point of totalitarianism. For the greater good of course. 
. Another worldview is better at handling social cohesion. One that can openly address religions because it is one. One that believes in the equality and dignity of all. One that has reasonable constraints, but advocates freedom for all. One proven by history. One that is not culturally bound. One that can unite Australia yet allow competing worldviews. 
- So to prevent us from such thoughts, socialists tend to think or say little about religions. 

That's half a dozen reasons why socialism is "not equipped to handle" antisemitism or social cohesion. 

What do you call a can-opener that doesn't open cans? 
What do you call an investigation that doesn't investigate causes?
Whatever it is, that’s what you can call this Royal Commission into antisemitism and social cohesion. A non-Commission. A Royal Omission. It is avoiding its primary commission - to investigate the causes, to hopefully identify solutions. 

Last week the RC's public hearings closed, without having interrogated any sources of antisemitism. Think of that! 

The RC had ASIO submit about declines in national security measures under National Security Committee ministerial oversight, despite increasing National Security warnings about probable threats, particularly to Jews in Australia. (The Weekend Australian 5-6/9/26). And yet no government ministers responsible for these downgrades were interrogated. Ministers who allowed antisemitic threats to continue. Including the Prime Minister's role as chair of the National Security Committee of cabinet. Yesterday Howard called on Albanese to volunteer to face the music if the RC won't call him. 
We had the laws necessary to intercept and prosecute public antisemitic incitement to violence, but ministers responsible failed to approve their use. This RC failed to interrogate them. 

We all witnessed various public scenes of leaders inciting crowds to antisemitic violence, and yet:
No hate preachers were interrogated.
No anti-Israel or anti-Zionist lobbyists, protesters or organisers,
No Palestine Action Group leaders, no pro-Palestine protesters,
No university protest organisers were interrogated.
No socialist paper editors or authors,
No muslim,
No Nazi,
No promoters of anti-semitic views by Greens or The Muslim Vote. (The Australian 29/8/26 p15).
No one who has been publicly on record inciting antisemitic violence has been interrogated by this Royal Commission.

Commissioner Bell justified, “it is not the Commission's purpose to shame or to so further division in our society much less to try and resolve the rights and wrongs of particular disputes.”  

Imagine this justification being used by other RCs! 
Past Royal Commissions interrogated and even prosecuted the guilty. This is how they found solutions. Think of priests at the RC into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Heads rolled at NAB during the Banking RC. The RC heard plenty of victim statements, but so far has investigated none of the perpetrators identified. 

If the terms of reference are so narrow they won't allow interrogation of perpetrators and enablers, then they must be broadened!  Otherwise this can-opener won't open cans. 

In the future, some will claim we “already had a RC into antisemitism.” But did we really? Clearly we should call this the Royal Omission.