7. Rebublicanism - What happened? 

Republicanism is an enigma, thus people still speak of democracy as the pinnacle of government. To better grasp the connection between democracy and Republicanism, I recommend you first read the Papers on Parliament No. 24 before reading this page further LINK https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop24/c07 ]

Two paragraphs stand out.

The Australian founders were impressed with the success of republican federalism and adopted its key features. Their constitution was grounded on popular sovereignty: it was to be approved and amended by referendum. The division of power between the central government and the states followed the American precedent. The constitution was to be an overriding law interpreted and applied by the judiciary. The Parliament, unlike its United Kingdom equivalent, was not to be supreme in law-making, but subject to the constitution. The ingenious invention of a lower house representing states by population and a second chamber representing states equally was also followed. Indigenous Australian ingredients were added particularly the double dissolution provisions.

It is not surprising that the Australian founders kept the British monarchy at the apex of this essentially republican design. That was a condition of membership of the British Empire and protection by the Royal Navy. It was also regarded as conducive to responsible government, that is, the British system whereby the executive government is carried on by ministers who are members of parliament and who have the confidence of the lower house. The Australian founders adopted responsible government not because it was British, but because they believed it was best. They had operated it in the colonies. They thought that, although only 50 years old, responsible government had demonstrated a superiority to the republican separation of executive and legislature.

But here is the bombshell–

The problem with Australian republicanism now is that it sees a republic as simply the absence of the monarchy, while the people have no understanding of what republicanism means, or of Australian constitutional history. Combined with hostility to the monarchy and the British connection there is a strong hostility to the republican elements of the constitution. Federalism is regarded as a brake on efficiency rather than a restraint on central government power. The Senate is regarded as a tedious interference with the mandates of governments to make law by decree. The process of changing the constitution by referendum with a special majority is regarded as a tiresome barrier to “reform”. All should be swept away as relics of colonialism.

Enter today’s unresolved anomaly. While the rights of all individuals are purportedly held sacred and protected through constitutional guarantees, which even the government itself is bound not to violate, nonetheless, the rights of all individuals are state-collectivised under the banner of ‘liberty.’ The government is thereby enabled to indoctrinate, regulate, and manipulate the ‘consent of the governed,’ from which it derives its just powers, thus permitting degenerate political action.

While America liberated itself true to principles it declared 250 years ago, its failure to protect ‘individual rights’ has also permitted degenerate political action. That resulted in direct authority issuing from the unbridled weight of an influential (purportedly elected) few. Such corruption, dare I say crimes against humanity, is the opposite of what ‘certain unalienable rights’ offer all men created equal.

America’s 1776 Declaration of Independence, having no inbuilt protection, permitted the twisting of its precise meaning. Specifically, the Federalist camp worked to treat it as a mandate for forming a new central government. Thus, eleven years later, a new Constitution enabled just that. 

What transpired was a struggle between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. They helped form the factions that ultimately led to the dual-party system under which the United States has since operated. While others, notably James Madison and John Adams, contributed to forming political parties, Hamilton and Jefferson shaped the early national political landscape.

While Jefferson, as a true revolutionary, passionately believed in individual liberty and an egalitarian society, he pursued the idea of a weak central government that facilitated increased powers for the states. On the other hand, Hamilton, a mastery organiser and tactician, feared public chaos and social disorder. Consequently, he strived for a powerful national government, believing it would ensure the nation’s security and propel it to economic greatness or supremacy. Hamilton and the Federalists’ ideal was the British model, save that a strong President would act or oversee as a lawful if not benevolent, monocrat in the absence of a monarch. Instead, over time, and with little or no challenge, federalists have believed in the ever-expanding power of the federal government, myriad governmental regulations, controls, and special privileges in economic life, the crushing of the states, and limiting individual rights. Australia has done likewise.

I’ve given more of that history in my books. In both countries and others, the sellout of government to incorporated banking and dominant control interests has demolished both governments that now masquerade in name only.

‘Republican’ and ‘Federalist.’ differences (in the US) remain to this day despite the corporatised plundering of both. The American example shows that despite many witnessed advantages, competing legacies are flawed. Nonetheless, they continue to shape America and much of the world, including Australia.

The information in these sheets, my books, and work from others such as Frank van Dun is of utmost importance. This epic intellectual struggle can now be finally concluded, never to re-surface ever again. So it is time to get very serious — more truthfully factual than ever in Earth’s history. 

Just as neither of our two minds can prescribe the other’s process, neither can any outside source do the same. All that we need, therefore, is a body of people charged with administering our protections and not one thing more.

Is there any precedent for such a thing? Yes, there is. Our bodily immune system, endocrine system, conscience, and emotions all testify to that cause unmistakably. The principle of protecting life, its means, and its continuance is indisputable.

Now, the phrase ‘consent of the governed’ is shown for the imposter it is. Our consent, manipulated through propaganda, indoctrination, and even the perpetuation of conscious ignorance, means that humankind has long consented to uphold an evil wholly dedicated to moulding our consent.

To that correction, it is vital that the phrase ‘consent of the governed’ be replaced with ‘nature’s consent’ for all men to self-govern within the equal rights of all others.’ 

No obstruction, denial, or cancellation of our lives by self-declared outlaws remains valid because tyrants’ wilful choice to abandon their lives renders their prescriptions, statutes, orders, and laws void from inception.

Are you beginning to grasp what a free society truly is? Do you see how Australia now has a gifted opportunity to stamp the phrase ‘free nation’ on the world map?

Jefferson correctly identified that divine rights belong to individuals. All subsequent authoritarian rule arose from not protecting those rights and freedoms. Self-evidence will never suffice; hence protection of the people’s rights must be equally emphatic as their constitutional grounding.

Fortunately, we now have proof of what enables that dual mission. Protection is immutably encrypted in man’s nature, making it impossible to erase, even by DNA pirates.

The ‘natural rights’ spoken of by Jefferson were the right to life, which requires each individual to be free to work, acquire property, and pursue happiness. In political terms, we also possess the natural right to defend our life, liberty, and property from invasive attacks. It was the government’s (initial) purpose to use its defensive power of force to repel all assaults on our rights and freedoms. Should it overstep that boundary, it becomes the greatest tyrant and plunderer. Moreover, when the government maintains a virtual monopoly of force, its potential for evil is far greater than that of any other individual or institution.

So, we read in the American Declaration of Independence—

 “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Two fundamental considerations are present.

1. First, no man has a mandate from God to rule over other men, nor any right to do so. No emperor, king, monarch or government is a superior moral agent with rights over any man or woman without the people’s express consent on full disclosure; meaning every man and woman individually! Such ‘consent’ cannot ever be universally or collectively obtained,’ of course. To do so is to dictate that majority consent must overrule minority dissent, which (lauded)’ democracy’ almost inevitably results in gang warfare that is nigh impossible to prevent.
2. Second, societal mayhem is inevitable when consent is given only to ‘government inauguration’ and never to its separate legislated laws. Coercion and force that holds us captive, all rights and freedoms banished, is not consent.

Two lessons are crystal clear. Rights are singular, not plural. Our rights and freedoms cannot be abolished, but governments can.

To that end, the American Declaration of Independence offers clear direction, but its text is changed here in favour of a Protectorate. 

Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Throwing off the government is not just an option today. The phrase, “New guards” rejects the concept of government. The word “guard’ implies a protective body, not a governing body.  The phrase “new guards” means “protection” of, by, and for the people.

Our moral duty is to charter a new nation using the political principle that Jefferson launched. Any government that fails to protect the people’s rights and freedoms must be banished. All governments, any time, any place. A vital question remains. If it is only necessary to preserve people’s right to life, their freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, is government needed at all?

My answer is a resounding no, but most assuredly, individual self-governance by the people is needed, with their rights protected. There is no better quest than to abolish what punishes us, accept our God-given rights and freedom, and protect both in perpetuity. For that, the Creator has our back.

Indisputably, we’ve all the means necessary to institute free societies, fully protected, because all trespassers and outlaws wilfully confess crimes against humanity by their very actions.

Accordingly, ‘Nature’s consent to self-govern’ removes all need for government reliance on the ‘consent of the governed.’ No need for government remains, provided we respectfully and responsibly engage our free will and rights and ensure they’re upheld and protected from all usurpation, abuse, harm, cancellation and conquest.