Australia is one of empire's vassal states - we're being ruled from afar - Canberra serves as a willing and obedient administrative center, they don't even pledge allegiance to the people.
Government doesn't represent the interest of the people, electorate, whatever you want to call it - government functions as a enforcer for the corporate agenda which of course represents the top of the financial elite think of who and what controls the central banks.
Then there are trade agreements - In the unforeseen event that true people friendly government is elected this is another way to prevent them from falling out of line and when they do they're held accountable in a closed and private tribunal where corporate officials preside over proceedings award settlements in taxpayers funds decisions are final and there's no appeal process.
Take for example the fraudulent plandemic which revealed we already have a one world government able to dictate it's tyrannical and illogical policies to the Russians and the Chinese - look how they're introducing the digital agenda.
I'll keep this short - the point should be easily understood.
On the surface a transition to a constitutional Republic appears to be a good idea because it provides the opportunity to annul every single one of these sovereignty shredding ''agreements'' that have caused so much trouble - however take the US f.e. which is a constitutional Republic but look at what a mess they've made of it and the world for that matter - while the wealth gap between the ultra rich and poor continues to widen regardless of which corporate controlled muppet happens to have ''won'' elections.
A constitutional republic is no guarantee for success.
I'm afraid that I don't have all the answers - I appreciate anarchistic ideology but that is no guarantee against foreign interventions private or otherwise.
If we must have government than I'm a strong advocate for self government without the present form of rule from afar - but what do Australia's tribal people have to say about this matter, when white man arrived and imposed its laws onto them uninvited even though there were existing laws customs and nations already in place.
In any case we need to be very careful who will be involved in the transition, there should be no corporate involvement whatsoever.
Do we want a government to make decisions over our lives or is self government a better alternative?
Will there be a new financial system because the present one is privately owned.
Since Australia is registered as a corporation then Who TF are it's shareholders as it's obvious not the ''electorate'' I suspect it traces back to Geneva
ALL THREE components MUST be in place as discussed in the article. Not just #2 & #3.
That was the whole point I was trying to make.
The "confederate" part fixes the issue currently experienced in the US, especially if coupled with "recall elections" which is another non-negotiable requirement.
As I understand it, our federal gov’t is registered as a corporation, which is owned by Washington DC, which in turn is owned by the City of London-that 1 mile square block in London which is not part of U.K., like Vatican City (or whatever it’s called), is not part of Italy.
City of London always leads back to the Rothschilds but there are more they appear to be the outer layer of something larger.
All governments are registered as corporations that's the easy part, the hard part is finding out who the shareholders are as they're not publicly listed like for example Blackrock -Vanguard owns a lot of shares but they are private so we cannot see who really owns them - all we have are suggestions that it's the Rothschild cabal and again when we start looking at who are behind the BIS in Geneva - perhaps I missed it - but this is why I asked M which financial system he's proposing as nothing will change by continuing to rely on the same system.
I noticed the video but it doesn't flow, I'll have to try when I have better reception, or after i get back to the mainland, can you describe it in a nutshell?
Yeah, I get what you’re saying Finn. But no, I don’t have a link, I read this somewhere, and I’ve got the worst memory-I’ve no chance of remembering where I read it, sorry.
I've found some references relating to this topic - it is indeed registered as a corporation by the SEC for the purpose of selling bonds and then they go into outright denial that the corporation being owned by some entity in the US - {I'd sooner look towards Geneva and the BIS}
What were looking for appears to be carefully hidden.
You talk about the wealth gap as if it were something derived from whatever ruling system is in place.
"...the wealth gap between the ultra rich and poor continues to widen regardless of which corporate controlled muppet happens to have ''won'' elections.”
“Wealth,” like luck, is something everyone needs to play a big part in, making it for themselves, regardless of who rules or the governing system in place. As the saying goes, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”
The mega rich exist whether a Communist republic rules or a self-professing, free market economy like many in the West. Same applies to poor!
You are right when you say, "A constitutional republic is no guarantee for success.” Neither is any other system of government, because it all boils down to the “Will” of the people and what motivates their will.
Fascinating article. The ending was most critical:
>what are you going to do when these things come to your “parallel community.' I don’t think they will care the slightest about your claim of being “sovereign” (etc.)
I learned a lot and there is much to consider - thanks.
As happens so often to me these days, you missed the meaning of my comments about "confederacy". I was pointing out to you the difference between the emotional loading of the word in two different languages, American and Australian. I was not talking about the technical meaning of the word but how we "feel" about it.
I like 'confederacy.' It's bad ass. As Michael alluded to in the important end section of his article, if something like this was ever to be implemented it could be on the ruins of the smoking crater of our nation after prolonged conflict and/or the collapse of superpowers/major geopolitical reorientation.
To put it mildly, it will not be pretty.
People who care about word-feelings - if they survived the violence and collapse - would be desperate for a confederacy as outlined, if we were lucky enough to implement it on some of the continent post-conflict, even in part.
My hope is that the transition to a Confederacy can be at least somewhat peaceful and the dissolution of the existing Commonwealth happens voluntarily rather than as a result of some terrible calamity which leaves us with no other options.
I don’t “feel” much about the word confederacy, except what I said to Excess. Christine you can’t expect “we” to feel “whatever” about a word or concept. You can’t speak for “we”.
But the point is, what can we do?
Michael has bravely outlined what is, and what could be.
Meehh, my input. Writers play with the emotive content of words. Always worth taking into account. He is quite at liberty to ignore me. At least I didn't ignore him. I engaged with his idea and actually gave input, thank you Christine for your time and attention.
We can’t play with emotive word content on this. No time. I don’t get where you mean Michael ignored you. Where you said on this page “Oh I have no idea etc”? If it’s that comment you mean, no offence but I don’t think much of that comment myself!
He didn't ignore me, and I never said he did. I gave an opinion that you disagree with. So what? Why are you making a fight of it? We are entitled to express different opinions.
I’m not meaning to make a fight, but I like to point out that we don’t have much time.
I misunderstood your comment where you said “He’s quite at liberty to ignore me”, I thought you meant on this page. Of course we can have diff. opinions! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I have had a conversation with Michael before about the importance of emotion. People don’t vote on logic, they cote on emotion, and if we don’t engage their emotion, we lose them. In Australia we have a unique voting system that, if the population understood it, could mean that we could SAFELY vote out all the current uni-party and replace them with independents and small parties. But it does no seem to matter what anyone does, we cannot educate the population in how to use our globally unique preferential voting system to our own advantage. Topher Field did a brilliant video on this, but although it was visual, it still did not engage the population enough to SAFELY change their voting patterns away from the big two.
I'm not sure how this system could have improved the response to COVID, with SARS-CoV-2 being an infectious agent that only recognises real boundaries, not ideological ones. In a pandemic situation, the effectiveness of the response is dependent upon its cohesiveness.
I would argue that the system I propose would have made ALL coercive covid measures (mandates, lockdowns etc) impossible because the central government in Canberra would have had no authority to do anything (because it is not in the constitution) and the various state governments (which were the worst culprits) would have seen large chunks of their territory secede and declare independence.
Can you not see that happening? If so, why not?
Regarding "In a pandemic situation, the effectiveness of the response is dependent upon its cohesiveness", I am not sure that is factually accurate and backed by historical facts, especially if the measures are excessive and largely unwarranted, as is proven to be the case now in relation to C19.
In regard to your question, “What is a country/nation state?”
Is it something built around a common race, common religion (or both), or is it rather something built around a common value system and the willingness to defend that value system to the death if the need arises?
My argument that it is the latter. What do you think?
May I answer, based on the factual historical record.
So far as Australia is concerned, it is the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world according to a number of websites such as this one.
The reason for that successful record I believe, is in no small way attributable to the fact that our Nation began with a common race of predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion.
From the first fleet’s arrival to the forming of Colonies, States and ultimately a Federal Commonwealth Government, a period of well over a hundred years, the consensus for the Preamble of our newly Constituted Nation identified Australians in the following manner.
“Whereas we the people of Australia (All States and territories identified), humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown and under the the Constitution hereby established."
Having made this point, let me add that, anyone unable to see the paradigm shift that has occurred since our Constitution originally came into effect, is blindly deluding themselves.
I therefore agree that either we revert to was successful for such a record period or, we invent something new, as you propose, which can enjoy the same success rate as the current platform has achieved up to now!
I wish you luck in finding an alternative common value system, to which there is "the willingness to defend that value system to the death if the need arises."
Similarities, not differences among people, including similarities in their faith, makes an enormous difference on how tightly a society may be impacted in terms of being tightly glued together, up to and including the point of laying down one’s life.
Thanks for your detailed and well reasoned comment Benjamin. I appreciate you taking the time.
"So far as Australia is concerned, it is the sixth oldest continuous democracy"
I personally do NOT want to live in a Democracy...EVER. It is an inherently flawed system of governance as I hopefully articulated in this article.
What I DO want is to live in a "Limited Democracy" in which the central government has minimal powers which can also be taken at ANY time if they are abused or no longer fit for purpose. It's called a Confederate Constitutional Republic.
"The reason for that successful record I believe, is in no small way attributable to the fact that our Nation began with a common race of predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion."
If Australia was still a nation of "predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion" in 2020 and onwards, do you think our current predicament and the lockdowns and mandates would have played out any differently? Genuinely keen to hear your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this.
Michael, I realise I’m responding to an older, but very important post.
Just re: predominantly British people who principally held the Christian religion, and would our current predicament and lockdowns and mandates from 2020 onwards have played out any differently?
First, I think predominantly British people is irrelevant in 2020, but religion would be a larger factor. This brings me to the fact that our “multiculturalism” has exploded by 2020, and keeps doing so, thus watering down Christianity on purpose, and it has been banned to be taught in primary schools, at least during school hours. This happened in 2016 I think.
Let’s say the accountable highest level gov’t were devout Christians (NOT like Scotty from marketing, what scum that person is), I reckon the level of fraud and money that must have changed hands, even if we are talking about the very early stages of “covid”, if the money wasn’t enough to get the Christians to go along with the scam, I think there would have been threat of violence against the Christians in charge, so I don’t think the outcome would have changed, they would have caved to protect their families.
In fact, I have a real life anecdote-I have a pharmacist friend who is a devout Christian. I’m not on fb, but I saw on my partner’s page that my pharmacist friend had been giving injections at his pharmacy, and he and his wife and kids had each had three jabs. His wife I had known since primary school, she has always been “a God fearing Christian.”
Anyway, I was shocked about the jabs, and sent the Christian pharmacist a longish email, stating much of what is wrong with these jabs, side effects, injuries, deaths, and I pleaded with him to not inject anymore!
The reply I got was stunning-NOTHING!
Did my Christian friend not care? Did he tell his wife, my friend from primary school years (I introduced them)? I didn’t know!
After some time, it hit me-pharmacists were not allowed to criticise the jabs, just like doctors!
I thought for sure my Christian friend would stop injections, or at least get back to me on this!
I don’t know what he said to his wife, but I am absolutely shocked at this friend ignoring my warnings because he could get in trouble, and also maybe lose a big income.
God is meant to come first, and God says do not kill. He ignored God.
So having a gov’t, who are mainly Christian would probably have had no effect on what happened to Australia in 2020.
Sorry if there are spelling errors there- I don’t know if it’s just cos I’m using ipad, but when I make a long comment, I can’t scroll up or down to see what’s what. I guess I could correct anything now, but it’s bedtime for me!
First, allow me the small pedantic indulgence to point out that it was the “Internet,” which refers to us as a “Democracy. We are of course, a “Constitutional Monarchy.” I presume that makes no difference to your position.
I readily accept that the composition of today’s Australia bears little resemblance to the Australia from the 18th to mid 20th century. For that reason I was drawn to your proposal to fundamentally change the way our Nation is administered. I believe in always being open to better ideas.
With regard to your proposal, I wondered what sort of alternative common value system possessed the ability to inculcate in its people the sort of willingness necessary to defend that system to the death, if needs be?
Perhaps that is something you might care to elaborate on, given the self-centred nature of most in the 21st Century.
In relation to the final proposal at the end of your reply, I do not believe “Nationality” necessarily drives the major impact people’s behaviour has on a society, Michael. Holding and practicing “True Christian convictions," however, is a different story. It is capable of making an enormous difference!
Ethnicity certainly can bring about a cooperative likemindedness among people that greatly promotes societal cohesiveness, a desirable characteristic in any society.
However, had Australia’s management of the covid pandemic, as an example, been characterised by a far greater affinity with a realistically practical Christian ethic, I cannot see the sort of hard-hearted cruelty we witnessed taking place in Victoria for instance, having been able to command the slightest degree of legitimacy or tolerance by our 21st Century society today.
Network States are something we know a decent amount about. Josh, our main writer went to a Network State Camp.
You are missing something here.
Just like real countries, Network states can be built a myriad of ways. They can be centralized and totalitarian. Or they can be leaderless and decentralized and radically transparent.
Network states are a tool. Humans need to organize against the corrupt states and making our own decentralized, transparent, high trust place to go solve collective problems is what the corrupt state fears most.
Your fear of this technology isn’t wrong. It can be horrible if we let the technocrats build and control it.
But there is another option. We can and should build our own. One that locks out bots and AI. One that is open sourced. One that has a purpose: to fix corrupt governments everywhere.
A unifying network state against corruption.
This all is reminiscent of the American Indians when the settlers came with guns. The Indians were warriors, but lacked the technology. We cannot stop technology from coming. We can only use it for good.
Try to picture a different kind of network state. One made that protects individualism, fights corruption, and builds trust and communities in the real world. Both scenarios are possible.
Here is a charity network state concept idea with no leaders, as example:
I've heard about this before. It has various issues with it but ultimately it does not matter the slightest as it will not help in any way to win the war in my opinion.
In order to win the war in the Australian theatre of operations, the Commonwealth of Australia (whether an incorporated association or not) will have to be DISSOLVED and its current constitution will have to be NULLIFIED.
Neither are fit for the purpose and cannot be salvaged imho.
I’ve been following someone who is looking for change in their country, and they suggest that 10% of a population is what’s needed to rally together for change in governance or non governance.
Do people think we need 10% for change? And if so, yeah, how do we get there?
My thoughts... No. We cannot have a controlmind that will not be deteriorated over time by moneyed interests. And no One has the "authority" to assign "authority" over Me to some Others (or to Themselves).
When We eliminate money (anything used to exchange to survive, proving We input Our "fair share" of energy) by adding free energy tech, any controlminds could be 100% voluntary, but have no power over Ones who do not consent.
Australia is one of empire's vassal states - we're being ruled from afar - Canberra serves as a willing and obedient administrative center, they don't even pledge allegiance to the people.
Government doesn't represent the interest of the people, electorate, whatever you want to call it - government functions as a enforcer for the corporate agenda which of course represents the top of the financial elite think of who and what controls the central banks.
Then there are trade agreements - In the unforeseen event that true people friendly government is elected this is another way to prevent them from falling out of line and when they do they're held accountable in a closed and private tribunal where corporate officials preside over proceedings award settlements in taxpayers funds decisions are final and there's no appeal process.
Take for example the fraudulent plandemic which revealed we already have a one world government able to dictate it's tyrannical and illogical policies to the Russians and the Chinese - look how they're introducing the digital agenda.
I'll keep this short - the point should be easily understood.
Not disputing any of that but what is the SOLUTION?
How do we transition from the current setup to the CCRA (Confederate Constitutional Republic of Australia)?
On the surface a transition to a constitutional Republic appears to be a good idea because it provides the opportunity to annul every single one of these sovereignty shredding ''agreements'' that have caused so much trouble - however take the US f.e. which is a constitutional Republic but look at what a mess they've made of it and the world for that matter - while the wealth gap between the ultra rich and poor continues to widen regardless of which corporate controlled muppet happens to have ''won'' elections.
A constitutional republic is no guarantee for success.
I'm afraid that I don't have all the answers - I appreciate anarchistic ideology but that is no guarantee against foreign interventions private or otherwise.
If we must have government than I'm a strong advocate for self government without the present form of rule from afar - but what do Australia's tribal people have to say about this matter, when white man arrived and imposed its laws onto them uninvited even though there were existing laws customs and nations already in place.
In any case we need to be very careful who will be involved in the transition, there should be no corporate involvement whatsoever.
Do we want a government to make decisions over our lives or is self government a better alternative?
Will there be a new financial system because the present one is privately owned.
Since Australia is registered as a corporation then Who TF are it's shareholders as it's obvious not the ''electorate'' I suspect it traces back to Geneva
It MUST be a:
1. CONFEDERATE
2. CONSTITUTIONAL
3. REPUBLIC.
ALL THREE components MUST be in place as discussed in the article. Not just #2 & #3.
That was the whole point I was trying to make.
The "confederate" part fixes the issue currently experienced in the US, especially if coupled with "recall elections" which is another non-negotiable requirement.
My bad thank you.
As I understand it, our federal gov’t is registered as a corporation, which is owned by Washington DC, which in turn is owned by the City of London-that 1 mile square block in London which is not part of U.K., like Vatican City (or whatever it’s called), is not part of Italy.
Do you have a link to see where it is listed?
City of London always leads back to the Rothschilds but there are more they appear to be the outer layer of something larger.
All governments are registered as corporations that's the easy part, the hard part is finding out who the shareholders are as they're not publicly listed like for example Blackrock -Vanguard owns a lot of shares but they are private so we cannot see who really owns them - all we have are suggestions that it's the Rothschild cabal and again when we start looking at who are behind the BIS in Geneva - perhaps I missed it - but this is why I asked M which financial system he's proposing as nothing will change by continuing to rely on the same system.
Hi Finn, have you seen Michael Ginsberg’s latest substack, about digital (biometric) ID? https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/defeating-digital-id?publication_id=1257043&post_id=157179424&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=false&r=22lupr&triedRedirect=true
I noticed the video but it doesn't flow, I'll have to try when I have better reception, or after i get back to the mainland, can you describe it in a nutshell?
Yeah, I get what you’re saying Finn. But no, I don’t have a link, I read this somewhere, and I’ve got the worst memory-I’ve no chance of remembering where I read it, sorry.
I've found some references relating to this topic - it is indeed registered as a corporation by the SEC for the purpose of selling bonds and then they go into outright denial that the corporation being owned by some entity in the US - {I'd sooner look towards Geneva and the BIS}
What were looking for appears to be carefully hidden.
You talk about the wealth gap as if it were something derived from whatever ruling system is in place.
"...the wealth gap between the ultra rich and poor continues to widen regardless of which corporate controlled muppet happens to have ''won'' elections.”
“Wealth,” like luck, is something everyone needs to play a big part in, making it for themselves, regardless of who rules or the governing system in place. As the saying goes, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”
The mega rich exist whether a Communist republic rules or a self-professing, free market economy like many in the West. Same applies to poor!
You are right when you say, "A constitutional republic is no guarantee for success.” Neither is any other system of government, because it all boils down to the “Will” of the people and what motivates their will.
The solution is you build a network state with the rules you want to see and systems you want to run it.
Fascinating article. The ending was most critical:
>what are you going to do when these things come to your “parallel community.' I don’t think they will care the slightest about your claim of being “sovereign” (etc.)
I learned a lot and there is much to consider - thanks.
As happens so often to me these days, you missed the meaning of my comments about "confederacy". I was pointing out to you the difference between the emotional loading of the word in two different languages, American and Australian. I was not talking about the technical meaning of the word but how we "feel" about it.
What would be a better word to use for Australians? I am not married to particular name. I care only about the end result and nothing else.
I like 'confederacy.' It's bad ass. As Michael alluded to in the important end section of his article, if something like this was ever to be implemented it could be on the ruins of the smoking crater of our nation after prolonged conflict and/or the collapse of superpowers/major geopolitical reorientation.
To put it mildly, it will not be pretty.
People who care about word-feelings - if they survived the violence and collapse - would be desperate for a confederacy as outlined, if we were lucky enough to implement it on some of the continent post-conflict, even in part.
Edit: tl;dr I like 'confederacy.'
My hope is that the transition to a Confederacy can be at least somewhat peaceful and the dissolution of the existing Commonwealth happens voluntarily rather than as a result of some terrible calamity which leaves us with no other options.
Hi Excess-I don’t mind the terminology, as long as we can implement it.
But do we really want bad ass? We’ve got to make this appealing to a lot of people. I don’t know how many.
I guess confederacy does sound a bit bad ass though.
Oh, I have no idea. Look at the conversations around the time we formed the Commonwealth of Australia, perhaps. Ask Topher Field?? ;-)
I don’t “feel” much about the word confederacy, except what I said to Excess. Christine you can’t expect “we” to feel “whatever” about a word or concept. You can’t speak for “we”.
But the point is, what can we do?
Michael has bravely outlined what is, and what could be.
Meehh, my input. Writers play with the emotive content of words. Always worth taking into account. He is quite at liberty to ignore me. At least I didn't ignore him. I engaged with his idea and actually gave input, thank you Christine for your time and attention.
We can’t play with emotive word content on this. No time. I don’t get where you mean Michael ignored you. Where you said on this page “Oh I have no idea etc”? If it’s that comment you mean, no offence but I don’t think much of that comment myself!
He didn't ignore me, and I never said he did. I gave an opinion that you disagree with. So what? Why are you making a fight of it? We are entitled to express different opinions.
I’m not meaning to make a fight, but I like to point out that we don’t have much time.
I misunderstood your comment where you said “He’s quite at liberty to ignore me”, I thought you meant on this page. Of course we can have diff. opinions! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I have had a conversation with Michael before about the importance of emotion. People don’t vote on logic, they cote on emotion, and if we don’t engage their emotion, we lose them. In Australia we have a unique voting system that, if the population understood it, could mean that we could SAFELY vote out all the current uni-party and replace them with independents and small parties. But it does no seem to matter what anyone does, we cannot educate the population in how to use our globally unique preferential voting system to our own advantage. Topher Field did a brilliant video on this, but although it was visual, it still did not engage the population enough to SAFELY change their voting patterns away from the big two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiLAx7kp4Rc
I'm not sure how this system could have improved the response to COVID, with SARS-CoV-2 being an infectious agent that only recognises real boundaries, not ideological ones. In a pandemic situation, the effectiveness of the response is dependent upon its cohesiveness.
Thanks for your comment Karen.
I would argue that the system I propose would have made ALL coercive covid measures (mandates, lockdowns etc) impossible because the central government in Canberra would have had no authority to do anything (because it is not in the constitution) and the various state governments (which were the worst culprits) would have seen large chunks of their territory secede and declare independence.
Can you not see that happening? If so, why not?
Regarding "In a pandemic situation, the effectiveness of the response is dependent upon its cohesiveness", I am not sure that is factually accurate and backed by historical facts, especially if the measures are excessive and largely unwarranted, as is proven to be the case now in relation to C19.
In regard to your question, “What is a country/nation state?”
Is it something built around a common race, common religion (or both), or is it rather something built around a common value system and the willingness to defend that value system to the death if the need arises?
My argument that it is the latter. What do you think?
May I answer, based on the factual historical record.
So far as Australia is concerned, it is the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world according to a number of websites such as this one.
https://www.themandarin.com.au/249395-did-you-know-australia-is-the-sixth-oldest-democracy-in-the-world/
The reason for that successful record I believe, is in no small way attributable to the fact that our Nation began with a common race of predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion.
From the first fleet’s arrival to the forming of Colonies, States and ultimately a Federal Commonwealth Government, a period of well over a hundred years, the consensus for the Preamble of our newly Constituted Nation identified Australians in the following manner.
“Whereas we the people of Australia (All States and territories identified), humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown and under the the Constitution hereby established."
Having made this point, let me add that, anyone unable to see the paradigm shift that has occurred since our Constitution originally came into effect, is blindly deluding themselves.
I therefore agree that either we revert to was successful for such a record period or, we invent something new, as you propose, which can enjoy the same success rate as the current platform has achieved up to now!
I wish you luck in finding an alternative common value system, to which there is "the willingness to defend that value system to the death if the need arises."
Similarities, not differences among people, including similarities in their faith, makes an enormous difference on how tightly a society may be impacted in terms of being tightly glued together, up to and including the point of laying down one’s life.
Thanks for your detailed and well reasoned comment Benjamin. I appreciate you taking the time.
"So far as Australia is concerned, it is the sixth oldest continuous democracy"
I personally do NOT want to live in a Democracy...EVER. It is an inherently flawed system of governance as I hopefully articulated in this article.
What I DO want is to live in a "Limited Democracy" in which the central government has minimal powers which can also be taken at ANY time if they are abused or no longer fit for purpose. It's called a Confederate Constitutional Republic.
"The reason for that successful record I believe, is in no small way attributable to the fact that our Nation began with a common race of predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion."
If Australia was still a nation of "predominately British people, who principally held the Christian religion" in 2020 and onwards, do you think our current predicament and the lockdowns and mandates would have played out any differently? Genuinely keen to hear your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this.
Michael, I realise I’m responding to an older, but very important post.
Just re: predominantly British people who principally held the Christian religion, and would our current predicament and lockdowns and mandates from 2020 onwards have played out any differently?
First, I think predominantly British people is irrelevant in 2020, but religion would be a larger factor. This brings me to the fact that our “multiculturalism” has exploded by 2020, and keeps doing so, thus watering down Christianity on purpose, and it has been banned to be taught in primary schools, at least during school hours. This happened in 2016 I think.
Let’s say the accountable highest level gov’t were devout Christians (NOT like Scotty from marketing, what scum that person is), I reckon the level of fraud and money that must have changed hands, even if we are talking about the very early stages of “covid”, if the money wasn’t enough to get the Christians to go along with the scam, I think there would have been threat of violence against the Christians in charge, so I don’t think the outcome would have changed, they would have caved to protect their families.
In fact, I have a real life anecdote-I have a pharmacist friend who is a devout Christian. I’m not on fb, but I saw on my partner’s page that my pharmacist friend had been giving injections at his pharmacy, and he and his wife and kids had each had three jabs. His wife I had known since primary school, she has always been “a God fearing Christian.”
Anyway, I was shocked about the jabs, and sent the Christian pharmacist a longish email, stating much of what is wrong with these jabs, side effects, injuries, deaths, and I pleaded with him to not inject anymore!
The reply I got was stunning-NOTHING!
Did my Christian friend not care? Did he tell his wife, my friend from primary school years (I introduced them)? I didn’t know!
After some time, it hit me-pharmacists were not allowed to criticise the jabs, just like doctors!
I thought for sure my Christian friend would stop injections, or at least get back to me on this!
I don’t know what he said to his wife, but I am absolutely shocked at this friend ignoring my warnings because he could get in trouble, and also maybe lose a big income.
God is meant to come first, and God says do not kill. He ignored God.
So having a gov’t, who are mainly Christian would probably have had no effect on what happened to Australia in 2020.
"God is meant to come first, and God says do not kill. He ignored God."
Many many (many!) “god fearing” (allegedly) people did.
Sorry if there are spelling errors there- I don’t know if it’s just cos I’m using ipad, but when I make a long comment, I can’t scroll up or down to see what’s what. I guess I could correct anything now, but it’s bedtime for me!
First, allow me the small pedantic indulgence to point out that it was the “Internet,” which refers to us as a “Democracy. We are of course, a “Constitutional Monarchy.” I presume that makes no difference to your position.
I readily accept that the composition of today’s Australia bears little resemblance to the Australia from the 18th to mid 20th century. For that reason I was drawn to your proposal to fundamentally change the way our Nation is administered. I believe in always being open to better ideas.
With regard to your proposal, I wondered what sort of alternative common value system possessed the ability to inculcate in its people the sort of willingness necessary to defend that system to the death, if needs be?
Perhaps that is something you might care to elaborate on, given the self-centred nature of most in the 21st Century.
In relation to the final proposal at the end of your reply, I do not believe “Nationality” necessarily drives the major impact people’s behaviour has on a society, Michael. Holding and practicing “True Christian convictions," however, is a different story. It is capable of making an enormous difference!
Ethnicity certainly can bring about a cooperative likemindedness among people that greatly promotes societal cohesiveness, a desirable characteristic in any society.
However, had Australia’s management of the covid pandemic, as an example, been characterised by a far greater affinity with a realistically practical Christian ethic, I cannot see the sort of hard-hearted cruelty we witnessed taking place in Victoria for instance, having been able to command the slightest degree of legitimacy or tolerance by our 21st Century society today.
Network States are something we know a decent amount about. Josh, our main writer went to a Network State Camp.
You are missing something here.
Just like real countries, Network states can be built a myriad of ways. They can be centralized and totalitarian. Or they can be leaderless and decentralized and radically transparent.
Network states are a tool. Humans need to organize against the corrupt states and making our own decentralized, transparent, high trust place to go solve collective problems is what the corrupt state fears most.
Your fear of this technology isn’t wrong. It can be horrible if we let the technocrats build and control it.
But there is another option. We can and should build our own. One that locks out bots and AI. One that is open sourced. One that has a purpose: to fix corrupt governments everywhere.
A unifying network state against corruption.
This all is reminiscent of the American Indians when the settlers came with guns. The Indians were warriors, but lacked the technology. We cannot stop technology from coming. We can only use it for good.
Try to picture a different kind of network state. One made that protects individualism, fights corruption, and builds trust and communities in the real world. Both scenarios are possible.
Here is a charity network state concept idea with no leaders, as example:
https://youtu.be/AIF1Rh_JNeE?si=v5g8dkBMWlJ6teGD
Here’s a video about a grand Jury held in Canberra Feb, this year, 2025: https://www.bitchute.com/video/cCeep9FkzpVc
Hope it can help with something!
There’s also this site about America: https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/
Michael, have you seen this site? I was looking for evidence of our gov’t being a corporation belonging to America, this site has tons of stuff: https://www.thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au/public-notices/view-all-public-notices/
I've heard about this before. It has various issues with it but ultimately it does not matter the slightest as it will not help in any way to win the war in my opinion.
In order to win the war in the Australian theatre of operations, the Commonwealth of Australia (whether an incorporated association or not) will have to be DISSOLVED and its current constitution will have to be NULLIFIED.
Neither are fit for the purpose and cannot be salvaged imho.
Fair enough!
I’ve been following someone who is looking for change in their country, and they suggest that 10% of a population is what’s needed to rally together for change in governance or non governance.
Do people think we need 10% for change? And if so, yeah, how do we get there?
My thoughts... No. We cannot have a controlmind that will not be deteriorated over time by moneyed interests. And no One has the "authority" to assign "authority" over Me to some Others (or to Themselves).
When We eliminate money (anything used to exchange to survive, proving We input Our "fair share" of energy) by adding free energy tech, any controlminds could be 100% voluntary, but have no power over Ones who do not consent.
And in a solutocracy, no controlmind is required.
I Have Authority Over You (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/i-have-authority-over-you
Blueprint for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/blueprint-for-a-society-of-ethical
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/electrogravitics-my-knowledge-of