THE PUSH FOR A REPUBLIC
The real reasons behind it.
by John Burge ©
P.O.B. 324, Mitcham Vic. 3132. tel. 0398744470
First published in 1998
Permission has been granted to place this material on this website,
please seek permission to use this material from the address above.
There is no email contact at this stage.
Let us look at some of the real reasons for the determined push to change Australia into a republic.
The people of Australia are not clamouring for a referendum on a republic, it is being pushed by multi-millionaires, politicians and much of the media. Some very wealthy people are even putting their own money up.
At a time when we have massive levels of unemployment, a foreign debt out of control, appalling poverty and social problems, we must divert our time, attention, energy and vast amounts of money - into a debate and referendum on whether we should become a republic.
The Constitutional Convention held in Canberra in February 1998 cost the Australian taxpayers $46 million. And that's only for 'starters'.
The people are refused a vote in referenda on issues impacting upon their lives: such as the removal of tariffs, immigration, multiculturalism, the Asianisation of Australia, Aboriginal land claims and benefits, and our military defence. But they will be forced to vote on a republic.
There is obviously more to this then 'meets the eye'.
This publication will examine the link between The Australian Labor Party (ALP) - Fabianism - Socialism - Communism - the republic push - The Coalition (Liberal/National) Government - and World Government.
Firstly, The Fabian Society. The objective of The Fabian Society is to achieve socialism by gradual means, rather then by sudden revolution. The Fabian Society is an international organisation.
Rose L. Martin, writing in the book, the Fabian Freeway, published by Western Islands, USA, 1966, said, in reference to Fabianism and its objectives:
"The Fabian Society consists of Socialists...the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon...
"...nothing less than social revolution, to be achieved by devious means over a period of time rather than by direct action. Violence as an ultimate measure was not renounced - it simply was not mentioned".
Fabianism is creeping socialism (None Dare Call It Conspiracy [NDCC], by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1971, Concord Press, USA).
In his speech to the Fabian Society Centenary Dinner on 18/5/84 (Principals In Practice - The First Two Years; R..J. .Hawke; ISBN 0 909953228, available at State Libraries), Labor politician and then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, stated:
"It is of course the classic concept of Fabianism - the inevitability of gradualness - and nothing is more widely misunderstood or more frequently misrepresented...Let me insist on what our opponents habitually ignore, and, indeed, what they seem intellectually incapable of understanding, namely the inevitable gradualness of our scheme of change.
"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless".
These excerpts are from the book, NDCC:
"If you study Marx' Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all right to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the "opiate" of the people, religion.
"...Marx went on to say...the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state socialism would give way to communism...But first, all communists must work to establish socialism.
"The drive to establish socialism, not communism, is at the core of everything the communists...do. Marx and all of his successors in the communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building socialism. If you go to hear an official communist speaker, he never mentions communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the socialisation...If you go to a communist bookshop you will find that all of their literature pushes this theme. It does not call for the establishment of communism, but socialism.
"Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analysed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are "people" controls. If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do - destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion".
Note that the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was not called the Communist Republics but the Socialist Republics. Solzhenitsyn, in his address to the BBC on 26/3/76, said that socialism cost the Soviet Union 110,000,000 lives. Note that he said socialism, not communism.
But there is no question that he was talking about communism. The USSR was a communist union.
There is a wealth of evidence in the history books to prove that the
objective of communism, and of the USSR, was total world domination (world
government). When the former USSR collapsed, the world's communists
did not simply disappear, they still exist. They further infiltrated
many organisations and, if anything, are even more insidious and subtle.
There is a thread running through Fabianism, socialism, communism. In essence, there is no difference between them.
So, let us now return to Bob Hawke's address to the Fabian Society on 18/4/84. Hawke said:
"Almost from the beginning, its (The Fabian Society's) founders envisaged that the vehicle would be a Labor Party...The (Fabian) Society drew its strength from its vision of the future of Labor and the Labor Party...
"Australian Fabianism and Australian Fabians have made a specific and significant contribution to the Australian Labor movement and the Australian Labor Party.
"I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism".
Also in his speech, Hawke named several prominent Labor politicians as Fabians, and former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, as their own Fabius Maximus.
We have seen above that the objectives of communism include the removal of the right to own private property and the destruction of the family unit and of religion.
So too, does the Fabian Society call for the extinction of private property in land and the traditional liberties of Englishmen exchanged for a system of State socialism. (See the Fabian Freeway, p. 19).
Again, Mr Hawke's speech to the Fabians gives us further insights:
"1947 was also a year when the challenge against bank nationalisation forced on us a realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution, and in particular by Section 92. Consequently, this led to a rethinking of our approach. Because, unless the platform was just to stagnate into irrelevance, the search had to be made for alternative means of achieving our objectives.
"In that search - and it was a search and a development of policy that
went on for more then 20 years - Fabians were in the forefront...".
The realisation of the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution and the search for alternative means of achieving their objectives!
We have seen some of the objectives above, of Fabians, socialist and communists.
In the book, Australia 2000, What Will We Tell Our Children - Dispossessing the World's Richest Nation, 1997, Pickford Productions, MS 897, Ravensbourne, Qld. 4352, the Author, Jeremy Lee, states that the ALP's Platform and Rules, 1982, include commitments to: an Australian republic, international socialism, a New International Economic Order (NIEO), a UN Bill of Rights, changing the Australian flag, emasculating the Senate and reducing the power of the Governor General.
All commitments designed to centralise power in Australia to facilitate take over by a World Government.
But wait, there's more. Again, in Mr Hawke's Fabian speech:
"We all have to face the fact that if our Government is to make really great and worthwhile reforms - reforms that will endure, reforms that will permanently change this nation - then it is not enough simply to obtain a temporary majority at an election, or even successive elections. For our reforms to endure, the whole mood and mind and attitudes of the nation must be permanently changed.
"...That specific task must go hand in hand with the more general and deeper, longer range task - the task of establishing, in the mood and mind of this nation, permanent acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of change and reform, as the authentic way of life".
Here we have a former Labour Prime Minister calling for the control and manipulation of the minds of the Australian people. In the same speech he drew attention to the restrictions imposed by the Australian Constitution on Fabian objectives. Labour's agenda is to get rid of the Constitution and make Australia a republic.
The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society, P.O. Box Q381, Queen Victoria PO, Sydney NSW 2001 Newsletter 1997, and The Australian newspaper 28/8/97 contain this quote from Kim Beazley, present leader of the ALP. Whilst this related to another matter, the comment is of the utmost interest:
"I believe these things are done incrementally. You prepare a public mind, a public attitude; you create an acceptance of the unacceptable..."
The Fabian Society exists to this day.
Perhaps, upon considering the above evidence, the Australian people will view through different eyes the push to make Australia a republic, and the ALP's motives?
What of the present Government, the Liberal-National Coalition? On many issues there is no difference between the ALP and the Coalition Government. Former MHR, Graeme Campbell, calls them tweedeldumb and tweedeldumber.
On the television program, "Insight", on Channel SBS, former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser admitted that there was no difference between Labour and the Coalition. He actually called for a Labor-Liberal-National Coalition!
For many years Labor and the Coalition had a bi-partisan agreement to maintain high immigration (despite public hostility to it) and to keep it off the election agenda. (What contempt for democracy).
Labor opposed the GST in the last election, but had it won office, it would only have been a matter of time before they introduced a GST, no matter what they might say now.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, prevaricates as to his position on the republic, but many, if not most, Coalition politicians are pro-republicans.
The Coalition is controlled by international forces (see The Weekend Australian, 13-14/6/98, where the Prime Minister John Howard admitted that Australia had lost its sovereignty and was virtually governed by international forces; see also, The News Weekly, 31/5/97, where the late B.A.Santamaria reported that overseas forces tell the Government (the Coalition) what to do).
The Coalition favours the NIEO, it has been party to the destruction of Australian industries through The Lima Declaration and economic rationalism, to numerous UN treaties, and to emasculating our military forces and disarming the people.
The Age, 20/7/98, reported: "For almost two decades, during the age of globalisation, the two major parties in Australia have conducted a democratic experiment in elite bi-partisanship, largely excluding from the policies and considerations signs of deep popular resistance to sweeping economic reform and cultural change". (Comment: A 'democratic' experiment?).
To have centralised world control (World Government), uniformity and conformity have to be firstly established throughout the world. We can see this happening in many areas:
* In finance, trade and economics, we have the NIEO, economic rationalism (free-trade), giant multi and trans-national corporations, the WTO (World Trade Organisation), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Bank.
On the 3/10/98 we had a Federal election basically fought on the issue of a GST (goods and services tax). (The Financial review, 11/11/91, carried a report about the IMF virtually telling our politicians to bring in a GST). Having one system of taxation, a GST, is obviously much more easy to administer than multifarious systems of taxation around the world.
* In the law making body, we have the United Nations (UN) and UN treaties.
* UN military forces, thus the emasculation of the Australian military forces and the disarming of the Australian people following the recent Port Arthur tragedy. Australian Governments have signed numerous UN treaties disarming Australia.
* Multiculturalism (fuelled by high immigration) erodes the dominant culture of a country. The paradox of multiculturalism is that it will eventually erode the differences between the cultures of the world, resulting in more uniformity of culture.
* In religion, we see the religions of the world coming closer to each other and the attack on Christianity in particular and the promotion of the pagan concept of "humanism". Different religions makes it harder for a World Government to control the people of the world.
* In education, we have UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organisation) and the 'brainwashing' of our school students to become malleable One World People. (See The Disaster Road, 1986 and Chaos in the Classroom, by Jean M.Wallis, Veritas Publishing; Assault on Childhood, by Alan Gourley, 1985, First and Last Christian Publishing; Brave New Schools, by Berit Kjos, 1995, Harvest House Publishers, USA).
* One political system, and the UN and the international business and finance behind it. The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see Economic Rationalism - A Disaster for Australia, by Graham Strachan, 1997, Kalgoorlie Press).
Both major parties have gone along with these developments for years. They collaborate to bring in World Government.
In a word, World Government.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/98, and the Australian Community Organisation's Newsletter, National Watchman, reported this article by columnist, Padriac P. McGuinness. The article was headed:
A world government may be the only answer.
McGuinnes stated that in light of the global financial crisis, policies like economic nationalism, protectionism, regulation, exchange controls are "simplistic remedies likely to make things worse...In the longer term, currency guru George Soros is probably right - a global economy needs a global central bank and a global framework of fiscal discipline. In a word, world government.
The national governments still have too much power to deviate from central monetary and fiscal guidelines".
They are out in the open now. Here is a major daily Australian
newspaper openly advocating a World Government.
Socialists/Communists and capitalists all want the same thing: world power and control. If we eventually have world power and control (often referred to as The New World Order) the socialist and capitalists will squabble for control, like family members fighting over the estate of a deceased business tycoon.
The following comments of A.K.Fuss, in the booklet, The Role of Finance in Government and Decentralised or Centralised Government, 1970, (The Institute of Economic Democracy, PO Kingstown, via Armidale, NSW, 2350) highlight the threat to the rights we take for granted if we needlessly tamper with our Constitution:
"Constitutions are both the licence to govern, and the limit on excessive government. It is often argued that constitutions become outdated. This is a superficial and shallow view. Constitutions are principles on paper and principles don't change like the design of a motor car. They are a barrier to the power-seeker, and the spirit in which constitutions are born makes possible satisfactory associations between men.
"The Triads of Molmutius, who ruled Britain about 450 BC probably provide the first simple constitution in British history. They were simplicity itself, and started from the base that each man was entitled to certain freedoms, which no vote or law could remove from him. This unique concept - that freedom, a spiritual quality, started from the individual - has always distinguished the British form of government from any other.
"Habeas Corpus, the essence of English common law, states quite clearly that no man may be held guilty until his crime has been proved. The great law authorities have always held that the Molmutius laws can be regarded as the foundation and bulwark of British liberties, distinguished for their clearness, brevity, justice and humanity.
"...It was the same principles which were to be found in the Magna Carta (in the year 1215), described so vividly by Sir Winston Churchill in his 'History of the English speaking Peoples', in these words, '...when in subsequent ages, the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success'.
"The famous English constitutional authority, Sir William Blackstone, pronounced upon Magna Carta as follows: 'It protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared forfeited by the judgement of his peers or by the law of the land'.
"It is important to note that all totalitarian contenders for power have directed their attacks upon the Constitution and the Upper House. Hitler, on his assumption of power in Germany in the thirties, abolished the Upper House in Germany. It stood in the way of his bid for power.
"In considering the value of our written Federal Constitution in Australia, it is essential to grasp that it was a grant of special powers from the States to the Federal Government. Those who framed the Constitution attempted to embody in it what their forefathers had learned about governments over centuries. They realised the menace of centralised government particularly in a vast country like Australia. The people of the States were only persuaded to vote for Federation on the understanding that State sovereignties would be protected.
"Undoubtedly the most urgent task of all is to rally the entire community to defend the existing Federal Constitution, which stands as a barrier to the policies of those who would subvert our heritage".
Becoming a republic and changing our flag will divorce us from our Christian heritage and English system of law which we inhered from England. This includes the rights we take for granted. Our rights to:
* ownership of private property
* freedom of speech
* freedom of assembly and association
* freedom of movement
* freedom from unjust arrest and search
* trial by our peers
* face our accuser in open court
* legal representation.
Not everybody in Australia today is a Christian, but they enjoy the freedoms inherited from the Constitutional Monarchy, which is solidly based on Christian principles. Many migrants came to Australia to enjoy these rights and escape dictators, tyrants, oppression and terror.
These are the rights we fought and died for in Two World Wars and Other Wars.
Section 1. of The Australian Constitution links us with The Queen which links us with the rights and freedoms referred to above. Severing that link will sever our rights and freedoms.
We take for granted the right to freedom of movement, e.g. to travel around Australia without being questioned by government authorities as to our reasons for doing so.
Freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement have recently been denied to people wishing to attend speeches of Pauline Hanson. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ms Hanson is beside the point, people have been denied their rights. Some people only wanted to hear what she had to say, and were assaulted, sometimes seriously, abused as racists and intimidated by violent thugs. Insufficient Police numbers were in attendance to prevent this happening. In Ipswich, Queensland, on 4/8/98, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party was refused permission by the local Council to use the Council hall. One Nation was forced to hold the meeting outside the Council in close proximity to protesters.
The Whitehorse Gazette, Victoria, reported on 5/8/98 that Whitehorse
Council was considering whether to refuse to allow One Nation to use their
hall to hold a meeting in the future.
At the risk of belabouring the point, it must be emphasised that divorcing us from Christianity, our system of law and the rights we take for granted, are some of the real reasons for the determined push by certain people to make us a republic.
Another reason is the fact that Australian Governments have for years signed many hundreds of treaties with the United Nations, unbeknown to the Australian people. These treaties relinquish power of the Australian Government to a centralised UN. We are surrendering our sovereignty as a nation. But the actions of surrendering ourselves to UN treaties is of uncertain legality.
By becoming a republic, the Australian people will unknowingly put their stamp of approval on the relinquishment of their rights and remove any doubt about the legality of these UN treaties. See the report by constitutional lawyer, Dr David Mitchell, BA, LLB, Ph.D, LLM in the National Focus, PO Box 182, Nanango, Qld. 4615, February 1998.
Some pro-republicans use the specious argument that becoming a republic will make Australia a sovereign country. But becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one fraction. And if we are so keen on increasing our sovereignty, why have we surrendered our financial system to international financiers? Why have we surrendered ourselves to UN law by signing hundreds of treaties? Why have we down-graded our military forces and disarmed the civilian population?
Becoming a republic will, in one fell swoop, repeal all the rights we take for granted. Our rights will be what the politicians tell us they are. Numerous recent media reports in Australia clearly indicate the complete contempt in which politicians are held by the Australian people. Are we seriously considering giving more power to politicians? What they give they can take away at their whim.
Worse, our rights will be what the UN and big business tell us they are.
The UN is a body known to be dominated by global business and finance (see Economic Rationalism... by G.Strachan).
Becoming a republic will not increase our sovereignty one bit, it will be the catalyst for the complete loss of our sovereignty, rights and freedoms.
Under our present Constitutional Monarchy, The Crown is above party politics; it is above the nonsense and deceit we have to tolerate every election time. The Governor General represents all Australians. Politicians are elected to Parliament by those who vote for them.
By virtue of our Constitutional Monarchy, power in Australia is separated between the House of Representatives, the Senate, local government, the Federal Constitution, the States, the States' Constitutions, the Governor General, the States' Governors.
Under a republic, power will be centralised. Centralised power corrupts.
There is well documented legal opinion by eminent lawyers that the Queen cannot interfere in the exercise by the Governor-General in the exercise of his discretion. This was demonstrated during the 1975 Constitutional crisis when the Queen was asked to intervene. The Queen responded that she was unable to intervene.
We are a republic for all practical purposes, but with our rights and freedoms protected by the Constitutional Monarchy. We have the best of both worlds.
Becoming a republic will clear the path for Australia to be swallowed by a World Government, the ultimate in centralised power and corruption.
Lord Acton said: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Lord Bryce: "All governments, irrespective of their label, tend to increase their own powers".
Thomas Hobbs (English philosopher): "Freedom is government divided into small fragments".
Woodrow Wilson: "The history of liberty is the limitation of government power, not the increase of it".
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian dissident and intellectual: "The more centralised a nation becomes, the greater the corruption at the top". The same applies to a World Government.
Pro-republicans have yet to produce a hard copy of their Republican Constitution. Are we expected to agree to a republic without seeing the 'fine print', the terms and conditions. In our normal commercial lives, would anyone in their right mind sign a contract if they had not the faintest idea what the contract said? Not likely!
In conclusion, there is one more point to consider. As Jeremy Lee has pointed out, who will control the supply of our money? We ourselves? Or some group of anonymous bankers and multinational CEOs who don't care much about Australia anyway? Whose head will be on our bank notes?
To put it bluntly, by becoming a republic, we face the prospect of the faceless international banking and business deciding what cash will be allowed into the Australian economy.
Some pro-republicans genuinely believe that becoming a republic will
be in the best interests of Australia and the Australian people.
However, it is submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
the reasons behind the push to change Australia to a republic are to remove
our basic rights and freedoms and pave the way for Australia to be swallowed
by a World Government.
Bible College Course