despatch@mail.cth.com.au  ... http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/

X-To: <despatch@mail.cth.com.au>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998
From: [Name witheld]
To: despatch@mail.cth.com.au
Subject: email list
 

Also, I am attaching an edited version of J Burge's article on "The Push For A Republic"
I printed it out and snail mailed it to him Monday 30th Nov.
Providing he isn't away somewhere, he should know of it by now.
It is an article which I had planned to write up myself in January holidays...
so I just, edited it and added bits as a suggestion toward his second edition... Ross

despatch@mail.cth.com.au
http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/
 


THE PUSH FOR A REPUBLIC




The real reasons behind it.

by John Burge
© Copyright
PO Box 324, Mitcham 3132
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.

The aim of this article is to draw attention to links between
* The Australian Labor Party (ALP)
* Fabianism
* Socialism
* Communism
* the republican movement
* The Coalition (Liberal/National) and -
* Centralised World Government.
 
 

At a time when urban and regional Australia has massive levels of unemployment, a foreign debt out of control, appalling poverty and social problems, we must divert our time, energy and vast amounts of money - into a debate and referendum on whether we should become a republic. The Constitutional Convention ('the Con-Con') held in Canberra in February 1998 cost the Australian taxpayers $46 million.  If all the Australian Federal or State sponsored unemployment - health - education - industry talkfests ever held were costed - the total would be a small fraction of $46 million spent on the 'Con-Con'!

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. In stark contrast, the people will be forced to vote on a republic; to sign away constitutional powers to the politicans themselves. The politicans hunger for more power...
----------

There are no people in the streets are not clamouring for a referendum on a republic. Where is the noise coming from? Who are the republican activists? Answer - multi-millionaires, rhode scholars, politicians and much of the media. These well-heeled trendies and wanna-be 'significants' are bankrolling the agenda with their own money. Their arrogant attitude is "we know whats best for the rest of you."

What is at the heart of the matter? There is obviously more to this then 'meets the eye'.

If this was a fraud matter like the 'Skase Chase', the inquiry would 'follow the money'. In this matter of Constitutional power redistribution, lets 'follow the power'; who desires more power? Lets find the reasons for the determined push to change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy (part of the Commonwealth family of nations) into a (run-o-the-mill) republic.

The Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

The Fabian Society, of course.  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. Their logo is a tortoise. It was originally a wolf wearing a sheep's hide, head and all (John Grover the Hellmakers published by Veritas, Australia, 1991). Rose L. Martin (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, 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". (Principals In Practice - The First Two Years; R..J. .Hawke; ISBN 0 909953228, available at State Libraries)

And there are other statements:
"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". (None Dare Call It Conspiracy [NDCC], by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1971, Concord Press, USA).

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 common purpose 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. Others, such as Gareth Evans and Lionel Murphy, have shown us over and over again (in their legislative measures - both realised and unrealised) their Fabian objective to undermine the Judeo-Christian basis of our society.

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 individualism, private property and liberty of Australians (fought for by our soldiers many times). They want to exchange it for a system of State socialism or 'collectivism'.  (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 barbarians are at the gates. They realise the restrictions and restraints imposed by the Constitution and give prominence to the search for an alternative means of achieving their objectives!

Loss of Sovereignty.

We have seen some of the objectives above, of Fabians, socialist and communists. The author Jeremy Lee (Australia 2000, What Will We Tell Our Children - Dispossessing the World's Richest Nation, 1997, Pickford Productions, MS 897, Ravensbourne, Qld. 4352), 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.

The list of commitments above are designed to centralise power in Australia to facilitate longer term loss of sovereignty. If we lose sovereignty piece by piece, who or what collects more sovereignty? A single world government. In the preamble to a world constitution, the sovereignty of individual nations is sold out!

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 alter the power balance of the Constitution and make Australia a republic.

A newsletter published in 1997 by The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society (P.O. Box Q381, Queen Victoria Post Office, Sydney 2001), 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. Their 'shopfront' is the ALP. 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. Both the ALP and the Coalition tax policy documents (available from local campaign offices during the election frenzy) had a policy in common, almost word for word; "The Australian Business Number System" which is a separate Australian Tax Office (ATO) data tracker, similar to the Tax File Number (TFN) enabling implementation and manipulation of the GST, nixing Provisional tax (and uplift factors) and putting all self-employed tax-payers on a quarterly tax regime, as companies already are. The Coalition's GST bulldozer 'started the engine and put it in gear' while the ALP's GST bulldozer 'started the engine and let it idle'.

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. In the Weekend Australian (13/6/98), the Coalition Prime Minister John Howard admitted that Australia had lost its sovereignty and was virtually governed by international forces. Another article in The News Weekly (31/5/97), the late B.A. Santamaria reported that overseas forces tell the Government (currently 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 Melbourne 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".

Do the majority of Australians realise they are the lab rats of a 'democratic experiment'? If you have internet access, you can read the Humanist Manifesto of 1973 (at American Humanist Association website). If you have noticed, as I have, the multitude and the pace of moves toward world oligarchy accelerating over the past three decades, you will find the reason why in that document. It is signed (as are all their declarations) by flocks of inteligensia. The first article (of sixteen on the list) of the manifesto is religion. Enough said. If there is ever a 'Declaration prohibiting Fundamental Religion' it will typed up by these bureaucrats and process served by the Fabians and their 'shopfronts'. Their declarations would do the Nazi Party and their 'science' of eugenics proud.

World Oligarchy.

To have centralised world government, uniformity and conformity have to be firstly established throughout the world.  Note the euphemism (and the expectation) is always world government, not world democracy. We can see this happening in many areas with the proliferation of treaties signed without our mandate:
* as a provisional legislature, we have the UN (United Nations).

* as a provisional Ministry of Finance/Treasury, 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. Also some efforts to close multi-national tax havens has begun, albeit at a snails pace.

* as a provisional Ministry of Justice, we have the World Court.

* as a provisional Ministry of Health, we have WHO (World Health Organisation).

* as a provisional Ministry of Education, we have UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organisation). In education syllabus we see change upon change (kick up a dustcloud to obscure aims and expedite outcomes), 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). Policies of 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 moves toward religious regulation, we see the religions of the world coming closer to each other and the attack, in particular, on Christianity (which, properly followed, has a 'zero tolerance' of flawed human wisdoms) and the promotion of the pagan concept of "humanism".  Currently, religious difference is the main cultural barrier to world government. The most obvious clash of wills concerns birth control or 'contraception'. The UN and the Vatican have battles going on all over the world. Paradoxically, UNESCO is silent about the atrocious 'one-child' policy in China and the millions of 'terminations' (early and late term) that happen matter-of-factly and make Pol Pot look good. Was it a co-incidence that the recent International Womens Conference (starring our own Dr Carmen Lawrence) was held in Beijing?

* as a provisional Ministry of Police, we have Interpol. Recent successes in apprehending Balkan war-criminals have highlighted international law enforcement, criminal hideaways (like South America and the Carribean) and Passport loopholes.

* as a provisional Ministry of Defence, we have the UN 'Peacekeeping Forces'. Observe the prominence of UN military forces, and simultaneous emasculation of the Australian military forces and the disarming of the Australian people following the recent Port Arthur insanity.  (Australian Governments have signed numerous UN treaties disarming Australia).

* do we have IMF as a provisional Ministry of Taxation? The central issue of Federal election of October 1998 was the 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.

Yes, its the coming thing, the ultimate trend for trendsetters to gravitate to: one political system, with the international business and finance behind it, seeking the 'Holy Grail' of economic stability and larger 'economies of scale'.  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 sell off our sovereignty and bring in World Government.

The Sydney Morning Herald (19/9/98), and the Australian Community Organisation's Newsletter, National Watchman, published an 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.

Our Australian Constitutional Monarchy.

The following comments of A.K.Fuss, in the booklet, The Role of Finance in Government and Decentralised or Centralised Government (published in 1970 by 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 inherited 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. Our monarch takes an oath to uphold the Word of God as our basis of law and life: the foundation of our present constitution. God's word is enshrined as the final authority on morals, since all legislation seeks to codify aspects of behaviour. It is held up in place by the concept that all the worldly wisdom of men (however hungry for 'social justice') is flawed because man is flawed. And so, if we are to resort to relative morality, we will always see opinions fighting for dominance and followers; this can lead to civil war. Our nation's sense of unity and our rights come from recognising the superior idea of overriding all human opinions and establishing the rule of God and His morality as the basis for our law. It is a fine balance indeed, as we seek to address "the competing claims of liberty and order." In many nations the balance has swung too far in one direction or the other. This rule of law, this balance, is our inheritance as Australians. And it is why we are blessed: ask the many migrants who have made Australia their home. They seek to enjoy this unity and these rights and escape dictators, tyrants, oppression and terror. These are the rights we fought and died for in Two World Wars and numerous other bloody conflicts. Lest we forget.

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.

As a recent example of things going wrong in this regard, '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 (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 politicians 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 politicians surrendered our financial system to international financiers?

* Why have politicians surrendered their constituants to UN law by signing hundreds of treaties?

* Why have politicians 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 and could lead to longer term civil unrest (just like all the other banana republics). Minorities and fanatics may feel disenfranchised or sidelined, but that is the nature of minorities. During the information overload that was a feature of the 1998 'Con-Con', one recorded 'grab' on a current affairs show by a Roman-Catholic leader was quite memorable. It was an observation that almost worth the $46 million dollars on its own and something overlooked by all the overpriced consultants behind the delegates on both sides of the debate. He said something to the effect that The Papal constituancy had been the largest single minority group in Australia for over 200 years and had never been in power, nor did it expect ever to be. It was a minor irritation. It had co-existed with the protestant Constitutional Monarchy of Australia, and had not been persecuted, although Roman-Catholic 'monarchy' was itself the main rival (historically) of the protestant English Royalty. This was a wonderful endorsement of our Constitution, in the way our society is inclusive of large and even powerful minorities that may or may not enjoy political influence. 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.

In conclusion - lets be cautious.

Australia is 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.

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!

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.
----------

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:
"The more centralised a nation becomes, the greater the corruption at the top."

James Madison:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Emile Durkheim:
"When social morés are sufficient, laws are unneccessary. When social morés are insufficient, laws are unenforcable."
 
 
 

Main Page.
.Despatch Magazine.
.New Additions '98
.Booklets & Videos
.Life & Death
.Mini_Despatches.

 Bible College Course