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? 

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion wants to hear from us citizens about what is causing social division, above and beyond antisemitism. Submissions open until the end of May. Make a submission. My submission starts like this: 
In my professional work, I teach widely about worldviews and their influence on how we behave, individually and as groups and societies. Subcultural groups and government departments are no exception. Our worldviews prompt our behaviours. I offer six causes of antisemitism and social division in Australia, and specific solutions to them. 

1. Antisemitism Observed, and Security allowing it
2. Socialism 
   
3. Radical Islam [edit: note this info.]
   
4. Neo-Nazi Nationalist Racism 
5. Indigenous divisions 
6. Obscuring Judeo-Christian values 

Citizen Go asked me what I see as the big issues beneath the political seismic rumblings of our day. 
Many feel the ground shifting beneath our feet.

1. It is the seismic rumbling of worldviews.
The Hanson train appreciates the value of the historic Judaeo-Christian faith that gave rise to the Western Values upon which Australia was Federated. Grinding against this is the Secular Socialism that now characterises the Labor Party and secular progressives more broadly. Liberals and Nationals are torn between the two. 
Many people don't think deeper than the competing value sets of party platforms. Many don't even think about the value sets; they just vote with their gut, which is also tainted by human fallenness. But beneath the team colours, beneath the Party Platforms and value sets, are competing foundational worldviews.
If these worldview foundations continue to be overlooked, the current rumbling will worsen into earthquakes.
Australian society will continue down a well-worn track of socialism producing decline economically, socially, spiritually, and personally. Socialism historically leads to communism, or these days is more more likely to be replaced by political/militant Islam imitating Mohammed who was a religious, political, then military leader. 
Why would I say Islam? Because since the Ottoman Empire fell, history keeps repeating that trajectory in country after country around North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, across the 10-40 window into Asia down to Indonesia. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali on this. 
Can Australians fail to notice the manoeuvrings of Socialists in inner city politics, and of Islam into the suburbs? 
Christianity has had a stabilising and creative influence on Western culture. It is responsible for the unique goods of Western civilisations, especially in the federation projects of USA, Australia, and in the Pacific. The more nations adhere to Bible-based value sets, the more fair and free they became, conversely the further they stray from the Bible the less fair or free they become. 
Secular socialism has had a destabilising effect. Without a Biblical reference point, factions devolve into tribal power struggles over whatever each tribe deems is right in their own eyes. 
Islam has historically sought to ultimately dominate. Since the rise of Hitler, Islam has entered nations on the coat-tails of Christian compassion and socialist destabilisation, migrating as a religion, then becoming political then militant - just like Mohammed. "The ballot or the bullet." Ratcheting in Sharia Law. 
These worldviews change the fortunes of nations. Which do we want? That's my clarion call to voters. 

2. Reducing Freedoms of Conscience
But, some assert, doesn't a Christian-based government dominate others too? No. 
The Bible-based federation projects (USA, Australia, Pacific) were explicit about freedoms of conscience. Even as Australian federation assumed "humbly relying on Almighty God," and even as Christians educated people to submit to God and upheld Judeo-Christian jurisprudence, Christianity also instituted freedom for people to dis-believe it. 
Over time such freedoms became more detailed, such as removing anti-gay laws, so that you could believe and practice your persuasion. But it was not expected that the Judeo-Christian political worldview that gave rise to such freedoms should be overthrown. 
But socialism has sought to upend Christianity as the freedom-protecting worldview of our federation. "Conservatives" - which now appears to be code for those who articulate a biblical worldview - are wrongly labelled as extremists and oppressive.
Now in 2026 we see socialist governments impose legislations that increasingly restrict Christian freedoms. For example, removing the freedom to disagree about gay lifestyles, on threat of job loss, defunding, heavy fines, prison time. We are now seeing increasing totalitarian overreach, enforcing socialist worldview, excluding biblical worldview. History repeating. 
The need for religious education, worldview education, across all sectors of society cannot be understated. 

3. God
Meanwhile, beneath these worldview tectonic plates is the Ground of all being - God.
The Christian worldview offers God in a unique way that Indigenous animism does not, Socialism doesn't, and Islam doesn't.
Australia's founders knew that, said so, and assumed Christianity generally underlay the Constitution. "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." 
As much as worldview education would really help the world, it is only God who ultimately brings growth/blessing. Deuteronomy 11 is specific that God will bless or curse, depending on whether "we" will try to follow Him or not. 
Widespread personal repentance is key. This too underscores the importance of religious ed, because "we" need to recognise that we need God. There's no good reason to avoid saying so. 

Notice: Australia was not intended to be a theocracy, such as Islam, or as Anglo and Roman governments of the dark ages have tried - in fact having learned from the Reformation, the founders of federation sought to avoid that. But they did assume that the Bible would be its reference point. Not a Christian organisation such as the Anglican church or Catholic church. Sure, we can argue a lot about how to interpret the Bible, but at least we'd be on the same page. 
And so to participate in the democracy as envisaged, our public needs to recapture its Biblical literacy. 
(Also note that Bible-literacy can be manipulated, and has been  by the left in its coopting of the language of human rights and Christian civics, while replacing the meanings of those words with their own definitions. Labor's Platforms should be read through Socialist lenses, not projecting Christian values - the two readings reveal very different visions.) 
Christianity sees the need for government to make room for unbelievers to disbelieve. The rain of good governance should fall on both believers & unbelievers alike. Government is not to force belief, which is the true definition of the separation of church and state. But government should protect the Christian belief that makes it protect freedom of conscience. 

4. The race card furphy
Another danger is referring to race rather than values & foundations. We don't want "white Australia," we want Judeo-Christian values Australia. I know it's harder to say, but melanin levels are not the point!
Besides, because Christianity is the only truly cross-cultural worldview, we have Christians from every country sharing Christian core values. But also, Christianity discerns the good from the bad in every culture, including Australia's. That value set is what we need to appeal to.
It's a value set that can evidently be appreciated by those who don't believe the worldview itself, because of its uniquely freedom-producing consequences. 
"White" does not describe any of that. It is so simplistic as to be wrong. Neo-Nazis need education about this.

[Update: 4b. Multicultural equivocation and as foundation
"Multiculturalism" needs definition. Do we mean to celebrate all cultural differences indiscriminately? including values that would undermine and dominate the country? everyone pulling in disparate directions causing endless conflicts? Or do we define it to mean those various cultural forms below an agreed set of unifying values.
"Monoculturalism"? The word begs the question, what do you mean by that. If you mean all levels of cultural expression must be the same, it is gross overreach.  But if you mean one set of core values that keeps the country unified in a healthy way, to which all citizens should subscribe regardless of their other cultural forms, then yes. Obviously without that a country tears apart. 
If we define words reasonably, we might come to an agreement: multicultural about our various cultural forms, yet monocultural about a set of unifying values. Then we just need to be clear about that core values set, assumed at federation...  
- HOWEVER, that's the cause of this seismic problem - our Government does NOT agree on that unifying core values set. Let us speak plainly about this.
Socialists are consciously seeking to remove & replace Christian core values, with their own. Socialism sees the State as the Saviour, not God. So they seek to remove Christian freedoms of faith, family and foundations, from the public square. 
- See the 74 Acts of Parliament since 2000, that restrict Christian freedoms.
- See recent moves to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament's standing orders.
- See Albanese Labor Government’s Home Affairs Multicultural Framework Review, “Towards Fairness: A multicultural Australia for all.” Read alarm bells here. Listen to Labor sawing off Christian heritage: 
This Home Affairs Dept review says the "nation itself is inherently multicultural." Multicultural. This simplistically ignores the massive national influence of Christian-based British parliamentary democracy, Federation, common law, English language, Christian moral assumptions, civic duty, self-government, military sacrifice, the fair go, loyalty to one flag. All the things that made modern Australia recognisably Australian are treated as background material, while pushing multiculturalism as THE great organising principle. 
The review refers to “violent attempts to eradicate anything deemed counter to Western Anglo society.” It says legal and political structures enabled “Anglo dominance” while reducing the significance of other cultures. It complains that past government responses promoted “shared Australian values” that all groups were expected to follow. It says the move toward “social cohesion” included “assimilationist attitudes.” It even says social cohesion has become problematic “to the point where the term itself has become problematic.” 
It refers to a “once-in-a-generation reform agenda.” This is conscious root-removal, a “whole-of-government and community approach,” to “drive social change.” 
It calls for “continuously applying an intersectional, gender-equality lens to multicultural policy and services.” This is Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory - victimhood theory. Affirm every culture as oppressed, except for the one blamed as the oppressor - ie. the Judeo-Christian values set that can actually unify us under Almighty God.
This government review proposes re-education by its proposed "Multicultural Affairs" offices, with compliance regimes and KPIs... Labor's "social justice" agenda is to remove the values of "Anglo, colonist Christianity," and replace them with their socialist values of oppression-survivors complying with their final authorities - their Government. 
That is the sound of political ground shifting.] 

5. Name the worldviews & values
The Australian Christian Party get it - its in the name.
One Nation is trying to name these values & issues. And name ensuing practical issues.
- They've rightly named "Australian values" as Judeo-Christian.
- And the need for social cohesion.
- They've rightly named the discord caused by Welcome to country ceremonies, the need to become One nation, not co-sovereigns. Christian Values such as "humbly relying on Almighty God," clash with indigenous animism, tribalism, and with the socialism that drives much of government and corporate efforts in Aboriginal lands. 
- They've rightly named political Islam and its over-representation in immigration. 
- They've rightly named simple mathematics when it comes to immigration numbers. 
They've been criticised for being racist when they name these things, but that's the detractors being guilty of simplistic racism in their own categories. 
Jacinta Price and Tony Abbott get it. Does the Liberal Party get it yet, after their long dalliance with 'progressives' within? Depends if the conservative swing is a return of conviction or just a ploy for the popular vote. They need not compete with One Nation, but cooperate.

6. All the green facts
The "Green Economy" has taken so long to release all the relevant facts that we can now surmise it must be ignoring or refusing the relevant facts, otherwise they would produce them, right? Fair to ask if  the facts are not forthcoming because they don't fit the policies & interests?
Page Research Centre has made the best effort I've seen of trying to collate them - the total costs involved, from producing infrastructure to maintenance to disposal, and, equally relevant, all the scientific facts about CO2 and the biosphere's complex capacities to process it over time and long cycles. CO2 levels may indeed be a red herring, such that other adaptive changes are being ignored. 
Scientific "consensus" has become a power play by a mix of political and financial interests. Science always progresses from the margins, not the consensus.
Normal value-driven Aussies have waited for the relevant facts, but we're still waiting and are getting suspicious. Many smell a rat around the push for the electric grid, we are concerned that we could be literally disempowered by the flick of a switch. But we don't have the words or facts to describe the truth accurately. Who can provide the facts & words we're groping for? We appreciate it when some tries to ask these questions. Even more when they try to give the answers. 

7. Fact-based reporting
We need a reliable media outlet that gives actual facts, not just opinions. There are some, but they are dispersed and underfunded. Support the causes of groups like: The Australian newspaper. Jerusalem Post. Discovery Institute (Center for Science and Culture). Creation.com. The Page Research Centre. Australian Christian Lobby. Australian Christian Party. Freedom for Faith. Australia Christian Freedom Index. The Canberra Declaration. 

ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizens) is full of good papers and thinking on such issues as these.

Well, that's my brain dump for you. For what it's worth.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for Makarrata. So what is it, and what hope does it give for the future of Australia?
Makarrata can be used in a bait and switch way to punish invaders. The bait is to define the word as "peace after a dispute," but the switch is to discover it's fuller meaning is that of violent payback.
Makarrata literally means, "spear penetrating."
According to the ABC's explainer, "Makarrata literally means a spear penetrating, usually the thigh, of a person that has done wrong… so that they cannot hunt anymore, that they cannot walk properly, that they cannot run properly; to maim them, to settle them down, to calm them — that's Makarrata."
A crippling blow to subdue the criminal conduct. If this is what is being asked by the Uluru Statement, then that's quite an alarming switch we need to be wary of. A profound danger for the future of reconciliation in Australia.
But wait.
There is more to Makarrata, which actually has profound promise for the future.
As my dearly departed Aboriginal Elder mate Ron Williams told me, within Aboriginal law, in such "spear penetrating" situations, a substitution can be made. If an uncle steps forward to offer his own thigh be speared on behalf of the offender, the offender can be reconciled to the tribe by the spearing of the substitute. The shedding of the uncle's blood reconciles the offender.
If you haven't already noticed - that is exactly what we need! There is no way that people today can atone for the wrongs done by people of the past to other people of the past. Yet a debt must be paid. It can only be paid by a substitute for the people of the past. And that substitute must be good, preferably having no guilt of his own to atone for, yet be willing to pay the price in full for the offender. 
And we have such a substitute.
Only one. Yet the perfect substitute.
It turns out he already has paid Makarrata, for us, and paid it in full. Literally a "spear penetrating" into his side, and blood and water flowed that proved he had made the ultimate sacrifice of death. As a substitute. On behalf of... us. You, me, "them," everybody. Not just for crimes against indigenous peoples, but for crimes against non-indigenous too. Not just for our crimes against other people, but for our crimes against the Great Creator of all things! Who could be such a worthy sacrifice for that, but God himself in the flesh?
This once-for-all Makarrata substitute introduces into our current debates the one thing necessary, yet mostly excluded: the one way to forgiveness. Mutual, true, heartfelt forgiveness. Because the Makarrata has been paid in full. By no less than the Great Creator Spirit in Person. Let that penetrate your mind. And then your heart. And then awaken your soul.
It takes humility to realise that we are guilty of crimes requiring Makarrata. It takes humility to repent from them. And yet more humility to accept that we can't make amends ourselves and never can, the offence is too great - that we are totally dependent on a substitute.
It takes humility to realise that when the substitute has already paid in full, I can no longer exact revenge from the offenders.
In this case, humility is needed all round. Humility also to learn whether this Makarrata actually happened in fact - if you're ready, look here. Because substitutionary Makarrata is the only way to the "peace after a dispute" that Australia really needs.

60,000 years? Over the last few years I have heard this so often, I decided to check it out. Every time Australian Aboriginal heritage is mentioned, it comes with the supposed fact that “The world’s oldest living culture has been here for 60,000 years!” It is said as fact. But is it a fact? Or just an interpretation? How do we know it's true?

The 60,000 years is meant to imply nobility, resilience, and knowledge. Of course it doesn’t logically follow that just because a group has been here a long time, it demands they were good, bad, or indifferent, resilient or noble. Indeed there are some 300 Aboriginal nations across Australia, some better than others, so however long aboriginal peoples were here, it wasn't all unified...

But today I am not questioning the implications of the 60k claim, but the claim itself. Partly because it cuts against the 6,000 year chronology of a plain reading of Genesis 1-11 (which, by the way, can successfully interpret every scientific observation ever made.) But moreover simply as a matter of questioning and probing the 60k claim itself.

For such a claim to reach the status of “fact”, it must be verifiable, falsifiable, not based on circular assumptions. What I found is that the 60,000 year claim is not a fact but merely an interpretation, because: the claim is based on tests with interpretive assumptions; the claim ignores the only test with a measurable rate; the claim ignores the written historical records we have of human history.

1) Interpretive Assumptions
The list of evidence given to support the 60k claim appears strong at first, offering so many tests:
Archaeology, ancient tools, rock art, burial sites, campfires in certain soil strata, geological changes, climate changes, mega-fauna extinction. But these are all based on cross-referencing each other, or circular reasoning. The way out of the circle is supposed to be Carbon-14 dating. But C14 dating itself is based on interpretive assumptions, such as the ratio of C14:12 at the start of the timeline, or that the C14:12 ratio is entirely based on radioactive decay, not other contamination or leaching, or carbon-capture event, such as a global Flood. Similar interpretive assumptions apply to Thermoluminescence, Electron-spin resonance. And Thorium-uranium and Protactinium-uranium tests likewise rely on interpretive assumptions about ratios not being affected by environmental factors as if it is a ‘closed system.’  https://creation.com/the-dating-game. creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works. creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-whom.
Mitachondrial DNA tests have had to be revised down too from 100,000 years to 50,000 years since that’s the upper limit of how long we can imagine DNA can survive. The truth must be much lower than that since DNA in sub-optimal conditions could not last that long. https://creation.com/was-adam-from-australia-the-mystery-of-mungo-man. But testing MtDNA is on the right track...

2) The One Test with a measurable rate - Ignored
In 1998 Mitochondrial mutation rates were finally measured, and they mutate much faster than expected. Calculating at this measured rate, back in time to a point of perfection, yields an age of some 6,000 years. Why do you think this test is ignored, the only one with a measured rate?
 https://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve ; https://trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php

3) The Oldest Written Histories we have - Ignored
The Biblical accounts are among the oldest written histories we have. Back to the times of the Pharaohs, and before to Ur, takes us to a historical date of around 2000 BC. And chrono-genealogies take us further to the time of Adam around 4000 BC. These historical documents have proven reliable archaeologically time and again. Why ignore them? https://creation.com/how-old-archaeology-conflicts-bible.

Why would one prefer the results of dating methods based on assumptions and interpretations? I imagine for credence with one’s peers, I understand, but truth is not determined by social pressure.
Why ignore dating methods with measurable rates, using verifiable observations? Is it just because they yield results that don’t fit the peer-narrative? https://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

My interpretation of these observations is that 60,000 years is not a fact, it’s just an interpretation, ultimately based on self-serving assumptions. What’s your interpretation of the actual facts? And what foundation is it based upon? 

Update: 3 Feb 2024
Someone asked about Dendrochronology (tree rings) as a way of verifying C14, but this is caught in the same circular loop. https://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology. So my doubt about the basis of the 60k claim still stands. 

Is the Biblical 6000 years a recent invention? No, and I say that in light of the perspicuity of the text itself (creation.com/6000-years) [always wanted to use 'perspicuity' in public, now I have!], but also in light of more thorough reading of the past authors themselves, including Augustine. creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief

To approach scientific observations with the Creator’s Account as your hypothesis is not anti-scientific, it’s a quick way to find good hypotheses to test, because we can expect the Creator’s Account to interpret all observations consistently. Such an interpretation should be the true goal of science.

To approach scientific observations with long earth hypotheses is just as pre-deterministic as critics claim creationists are, but worse because it is based not on God’s Word but Man’s words. And it is a reductionist approach because it excludes data that hints at God because it hints at God (more circularity.) In other words, such a mindset is an atheistic stronghold. It is naive to think that this naturalistic ‘scientific method’ is altruistically self-correcting and open-minded, specifically when it comes to interpreting the past. creation.com/scientists-wrong . creation.com/its-not-science .

As you can see, I’m now just the go-between for you and the search bar at creation.com. Cut out the middle man and take your further questions there. I find they reference more facts, with footnotes, and do so with more clarity about the difference between observations and interpretations, and more self-awareness of their own bias. Seek answers that interpret ALL the observations consistently, Biblical & scientific.

There are two questions in this referendum:
1) about constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, which is due;
and 2) about a new national Voice mechanism.

Part 1) already has bipartisan support. “As a party, we seek to unite the country by constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians.” says Peter Dutton, (Weekend Australian 15 Apr 2023, p21 right.)
[On the next page Peter Craven (ibid p22) gives a false premise by claiming, “the state of Australian politics now means you are for constitutional recognition or you’re against it.” That's clearly false. It's the divisive narrative, falsely casting opponents of the Voice mechanism as anti-recognition, even racist.]

It's only part 2), the Voice, that does not have broad support. Warren Mundine makes that case (ibid p15 below). There are 150 plus aboriginal nations in Australia - who's voice will be represented in The Voice?

And how can The Voice mechanism truly supersede existing processes when it promises to maintain the existing processes it claims don't work! Or do they actually work after all, in which case we don't need the Voice. If the Voice mechanism is a good idea, let it gain support on its own merits, not by forcing it into the constitution. Separate the issue of constitutional recognition from the Voice mechanism.

So what words will be changed in the constitution?
Here is the wording change as initially proposed in March '23:

- One concern is about how submitted Australia would become to this "body," the Voice. Part 3 indicates the mechanism can be changed by parliament to suit the needs of the times. But still, how much political pressure would Voice representations have? Who could ignore them without being labelled racist? "Co-existing sovereignty" is an oxymoron, clearly divisive, yet precisely what is called for by the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which tells us the aims of the Voice.

- A second concern is that The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly submits to a polytheistic worldview with which I do disagree. Albanese's position is to submit us to it: "While the Voice could be done without a referendum, Indigenous people asked in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for it to be enshrined into the nation's founding document as recognition for First Nations people." But I'm happy with the constitution's current first words, "Under Almighty God..." which belongs there, both absolutely and also because all religions, even Aboriginal, have a concept of a supreme Creator behind it all, even though some then diverge into polytheism and pantheism. And even atheists can agree that societies do better in reference to God, even if He's only a unifying concept (in their thinking.) But the Voice is to be created in reference to ancestral polytheism instead, and is Australia then to submit to this polytheism?
[Update: Note that frivolous legal claims (Lawfare) are being made against Christians for raising this matter. David Pellowe exposes the issues here.]

Wiradjuri man Neville Naden explains reconciliation from a Biblical perspective - it's far better. 
Here are some more on the theological considerations of aboriginal recognition - there are limits. 
Plus a fair read of the Uluru Statement also indicates a naive Cultural Marxist agenda (This link also takes you to the full Uluru Statement from the Heart not just the one pager. 

- A third problem to consider is that establishing the Voice as an extra mechanism separates out first peoples from the rest of Australians. Are we sure we want this? We can never be one people if this specific separation is constitutionally perpetuated. As a Christian I know that all nations ultimately can be united in Christ, as Christianity is the only truly multicultural worldview, (and it even has the foundation for allowing people to not choose Christianity.) Australia could be that kind of unified country, but would this constitutional change be a wedge against such ultimate unity? It is one thing to recognise that Aboriginal people were here first and we need to correct the lies and fallout from tera nullus, but it's another to enshrine a mechanism that will require & maintain two voices, never to become truly one.

Constitutional recognition? yes, something in the constitution is due. The Voice mechanism? no, it will constitutionally commit us to ongoing racial separation, and conflicts over co-existing sovereignty. It is certainly not racist to refuse a divisive mechanism.
That's why I think it very sad that Albanese is blowing this opportunity for constitutional recognition by imposing the Voice.

The official referendum booklet of Yes/No cases includes other arguments not listed in this blog, but doesn't include the problems of polytheism or co-existing sovereignty. Nor does it address the very involved processes of the Voice that are being planned for all levels of governments, by the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government July 2021.