This is the latest plan for Australia to become
a Republic:

http://sbs.com.au/news/this-is-the-latest-plan-for-australia-to-become-a-republic/97275d56-9112-47db-99bb-e98acc33f73d

Your opinions please?

There ought to be no state, thus no head of state, but...
If there is to remain a "head of state", then s/he rather be the furthest possible, the most remote, the least interested or invested in Australia and its affairs, thus the least likely to disturb us in any way.

And we already have just that in the form of our gracious benevolent Queen: may God bless Her, may She live forever!

Hi Foxy,

I favour a Republic myself, with a President as head of state. Its not something Australia needs to beat itself up over, and its not the number one priority with me, maybe not in the top 10 of things to do in this country, there are far more pressing needs. Limited powers I agree, a joint sitting of parliament, a person nominated by the PM seconded by the Op Leader, 2/3 majority vote.

I approve of this model that has now been brought
out by the Australian Republic Movement. Hopefully
it will go to a Referendum to allow Australians to
decide. Hopefully this will happen soon as it is
long overdue. We are Australian not British and this
should be reflected in who our Head of State is.

So, the only change is replacing the Governor General as an appointed person for a President voted for by the people. So, the Persident becomes a political head of State, rather than informed constitutional lawyer. Whose political whims will change according to popular opinion. Thus, representing the majority rather than the Constitution.

Josephus,

Read the link I gave in my opening statement to this
discussion. It will clarify things for you.

'Head of state' means nothing: the position is about as significant as that of a Roman kitchen god. We elect politicians, and the boss is the Prime Minister.

The republicans talk about removing the 'British monarch'; only the British can do that. The best that the malcontented wreckers can hope for is to replace the Australian monarch. We shouldn't be listening to people who are that ignorant or, at best, semi-literate.

If the Queen is not needed, neither is another politician, which is all anyone chosen by other politicians, and voted for by the plebs, actually is.

And, we would have to pay for this useless person. The Brits pay for the monarch, who has no say in anything - just like her proposed replacement. What a stupid, costly and pointless waste of time and money.

And this nonsense comes from 'consultation' with only 10,000 people and a few surveys of unrevealed numbers. The 73%, 92%, 8% against the scheme is unbelievable. And Peter Fitzsimons's discarding of the bandana for a smart suit and tie won't fool anyone.

A head of state is not needed. If the occasion is important enough the prime minister can attend. If it is not important enough she or he can appoint someone to attend.

Foxy, I have read the link and it caused me to write my opinion. When comparing Peter Fitzsimons'with her Royal Highness I know whom I vote for if it is voting time. The Red bandana or the Crown?

Malcolm Turnbull put me right off the idea of a republic. I felt his only motivation in the campaign was President Malcolm.

Malcolm Turnbull was typical of politicians who favour a republic, not to be trusted as he swore a false oath to enter Parliament and although a.millionaitr he swore the false oath to get paid as do the rest of the MPs who support a republic.
Why can’t they do the honourable thing and refuse to swear alliegance to the Queen.and forego the salary?

Because they are prepaired to lie and perjure themselves for money and thus none of them can be trusted, ever.

Talking about doing the right thing and being trusted?

We had the dual-citizenship fiasco not so long ago.
How absurd was that. The facts speak for themselves.
There can be no doubt that our head of state is a
British woman, et here we were quibbling about people
we had elected to our federal Parliament whose dad or
mum were of British ancestry?

It's worth remembering that on 3 December 2007 one week
after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor
Government, a "very Republican moment" occurred when
Kevin Rudd and his minitry swore an oath to:

"The Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people."

rather than than a foreign monarch.

Dear Foxy,

«There can be no doubt that our head of state is a British woman»

Heaven forbid - a woman?*!@*?

Well, if you have anything against women, then I rather select a cute British rabbit (a female bunny if you have no objection) - they are beautiful and clean animals who never say a bad word or issue any tyranic orders (at worst, if they really get upset they stomp their back foot).

But, if you are to insist on an Australian head of state, then how about a wombat, say a male wombat - they are said to live up to 27 years and undeniably pose as figures of authority!

Let's focus on ridding ourselves of the disruptive & anti-social minority groups first.

here is the flaw;
"This will give all Australian voters a merit-based choice about who speaks for them as head of state,"
Not really, elect a President and you elect a politician.
Then automatically you have generated another power centre.
Then the old refrain, "I told the army I am taking over in the circumstances as a representative of the people."

Yuyutsu and Bazz,

Here's nine things you should know about a
potential republic:

http://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759

And here's some frequently asked questions:

http://republic.org.au/faq

Dear Foxy,

«Yuyutsu and Bazz, Here's nine things you should know about a potential republic:»

OK, but what made you think that I am interested in one?

Nevertheless, I had a look and especially liked the following question:

"8. How would we prevent a president from acting contrary to the conventions?"

- by appointing to the roll some nice fury animal who cannot speak and has no interest whatsoever in breaking conventions!
(that should also be much cheaper!)

Then you added: «And here's some frequently asked questions:», the first being:

"+ Why should Australia become a republic?

Australia’s ‘Head of State’ is responsible for representing Australia at home and abroad and for safeguarding Australia’s constitutional order."

OK, but since I am not interested in any of these functions, that idea has no appeal to me.

Yuyutsu,

You brought up the topic of wombats on a discussion
about an Australian Republic and you expect to be
taken seriously?

Okkkay.

I'll play.

What is the Australian animal that most resembles
the Australian male?

The wombat.

Because it eats, roots
and leaves.

There you go.

Trying to cater to your area of interest.

Yuyutsu,

More for you:

An elephant was drinking from a river when he noticed
a turtle asleep on a log. He ambled up over and
kicked it clear across the river.

"What did you do that for?" asked a passing wombat.

"Because I recognised it as the same turtle that took
a nip out of my trunk 53 years ago."

"What a memory!" said the wombat.

"Turtle recall!"

Yuyutsu,

By the waY:

I think bunnies are ear-resistable.

And -

For sure - there's no bunny like you.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you so much - I think it has been years since we last agreed on something...

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I am fully in favour of a democratic form of government in Australia.

Our current Constitutional Monarchy with the British Crown as our head of state is a hybrid form of government, a combination of hereditary monarchy and democracy.

However, I don’t think the Australian Republic Movement’s “latest plan” is what I should like to see implemented in Australia as it is described in the articles to which you posted links on this thread.

I tend to agree with the objection of the Australian Monarchist League, that the proposed Republican model “is just putting more power into the hands of politicians by giving them the right to select candidates. If you want to be voted on by the people, people are going to vote for candidates, then they should have a right to choose who they want to vote for.”

Also, I consider that a head of state freely elected into office by Australian citizens eligible to vote in a democratic election should be vested in the power to constitute a government representing the principal political forces emerging from a national legislative election, headed by a prime minister nominated by the democratically elected president.

In addition, I consider that it is indispensable for such a major transformation of our historical hybrid Constitutional Monarchy to a modern democratic Republic to also replace our old existing colonial constitution with a modern republican constitution including a badly needed and long-awaited Bill of Rights.

I see no mention of any of this in the ARM’s “latest plan”.

.

When does Prince Andrew take over as our King of the Republic? Bring on the young dancing girls, Randy Andy's back in town. Its only the timing of Old Phil's dipstick that makes Goofy Charlie and not Randy Andy the next king of Australia. Oh the joy of it all.

I can't see why the PM can't simply be the head of state. The idea of having a general election to elect some one with no power at all is an idiotic idea that could only have been dreamt up by an idiot like Peter FitzSimons.

At the same time they should ditch the Senate which is an anachronism from federation.

Foxy,
I recall you once saying you'd never accept an elected president. Have you changed your mind?

The 'new' model (not really new, just repackaged) removes all the Governor-General's theoretic power so that the elected-president wouldn't have any real power. That's fine as far as it goes but papers over the consequences of that. It will require changing the constitution in about 20 places by my count which means 20 new clauses would need to be written, debated and agreed to not just by those pushing the change but also by the majority of people in a majority of states.

Good luck with that!

Randy Andy was just trying to live a biblical life. From Kings 1 KJV:

1:1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. 1:2 Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. 1:3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.

Randy Andy got hot.

Dear Banjo,

I think the suggested model by the ARM is a step in the
right direction. We have to make a start somewhere. No
action should not be an option. A Bill of Rights will
eventuate.

Dear David,

And the following verse says:

1:4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

Then Rashi, the official mainstream Jewish biblical commentator added:

"Was not intimate with her. Because a virgin is more suitable for [the purpose] of warming than a non-virgin. But our Rabbis said [he was not intimate with her] because “He shall not have too many wives,” and he already had eighteen."
http://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_I_Kings.1.4.1?lang=bi

Presumably, it is only from these verses that Rashi could learn about the facts of life, that a virgin is warmer...

Well, large sections of the Bible were modified by David's scribes in order to falsely glorify his name and cover up his criminal record and wanton life. Rashi was then employed to further gloss over whatever was still visible between the lines.

So much for heads-of-state and the fools who want to have them.

I sometimes wonder, how do you feel about being named after such a cruel and deceitful tyrant?

Yuyutsu,

The name David is a beautiful masculine name.
It has deep biblical roots and means
"beloved." There is an equivalent in many known
languages.

David was the 2nd King of Israel.
As a young shepherd he defeated the giant philistine
Goliath with a slingshot.

The name has special meaning in Jewish culture with
the Star of David being the symbol of Judaism.

And David F., is highly respected and admired on this forum.

Why your negativity?

Dear Foxy,

I cannot blame your naivety - your intentions are good.

«David was the 2nd King of Israel.»

Yes, he ousted the first good King, besmirched his name and destroyed his family.

«As a young shepherd he defeated the giant philistine Goliath with a slingshot.»

Yes, that's what the editors of the Bible want you to think, but if you read carefully between the lines, it was not David, but another person called Elhanan who killed him. Why does this reminds me of Putin's heroic stories and photographs?

«The name has special meaning in Jewish culture with the Star of David being the symbol of Judaism.»

Certainly, because David was made the symbol of Jewish nationalism. In fact, the Messiah is supposed to be of his seed (well, but who edited the Bible to that effect?).
The star shape was originally called the SHIELD of David because it was inscribed on the shields of his soldiers. Now in English it is called after its shape rather than after its use. It is a symbol of David's authority, only later to become one symbol of Judaism.

«And David F., is highly respected and admired on this forum.»

Certainly so.

David F., I believe, is quite learned and knowledgeable of the true evil character of that fellow after which he is named (not through his fault), which made me sincerely curious as to how he copes with that.

David may or may not have taken a virgin or three since this was not at all unusual for powerful, rich men.

It is known that Augustus was convinced that deflowering young virgins enhanced his longevity and had agents scouring Italy seeking out candidates. Caligula took women on the day of their marriage although one such act may have led to his assassination.
The kings of Persia also had that notion. When they attacked Athens and Eritrea they specifically promised to take all the young virgins, male and female, back to Susa for the king.
Its hardly surprising that David availed himself of this privilege. Indeed it would be surprising and exceptional if he didn't.

As to the Star of David originally being a military symbol, this again is hardly unusual. Constantine the Great's armies marched under the banner of the Chi-Rho (derived from the first two letter of Christos) which ultimately became the cross.

The study of history is a cornerstone of a Bachelor's
Degree in the Humanities and is very popular even today.
It involves more than remembering people,
events, key dates and places. Historians are interested in
explaining how and why things happened in order to unfold
and understand why they occurred.

Historians can reach an agreement on the general "facts"
surrounding historical events but then they can interpret
things very differently.

George Santayana wryly stated:

"History is a pack of lies about event that never happened
told by people who weren't there."

We have Republicans of every discription wanting to write a new constitution that is inclusive of every culture, that accomodates all culture's values and laws.

Including multiple wives and child brides, which will be acceptable to aboriginals. The right to hit women, and destroy the life of a blasphemer, which Victoria has already tried. Freedom of critical expression will be banned as offensive and prision or heavy fines imposed.

By identifying human rights under laws means the rights of others are infringed. That is not the right of a free society to outlaw critics. Currently we are free to pubicly criticise the Bible, but not the Koran.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am aware of the flawed character of King David. His flawed character is described in the Bible. However, David also means beloved, and there are those who love me or at least I think they do which will have to be good enough.

There are things I have done that I regret. I haven't sent a man to be killed in battle so I could have his wife or have been as bad as King David in other ways.

The name and the object named are different as the address of a house and the actual house at that location are different.

However, David is a name I have chosen to be called by as it is my middle, not my first name.

My mother wanted to name me Michael. My grandmother objected, “What kind of a name is Mike. Mike Smith is the name of the town drunk.”

My first name which I won’t reveal is that of a family friend who died in WW1.

When I was a little boy I did not like my first name so I told the teacher my name was David. She sent me home with a note to my mother saying I was deaf. I wasn't deaf. I just wasn't used to being called David so I didn't respond. Now I am old, deaf and unresponsive. C'est la vie.

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

I don't care for Jewish or other nationalism and doubt my name reminds people of nationalism.

continued

We do have people of all kinds of views and values.
However, in this country, we also
have the rule of law that all of us have to abide
by. I doubt very much what you are suggesting will
happen. Voters will not allow it.

cont'd ...

My apologies my earlier post was directed at Josephus.

continued

James Carroll's Constantine's Sword is a 2007 historical documentary film on the relationship between the Catholic Church and Jews.The film is inspired by former priest James P. Carroll's 2001 book Constantine's Sword.

The title page of this film shows the shadow of a cross, with "No war is holy" written across the transept. Constantine’s Sword is the story of James P. Carroll's journey to uncover the roots of war. Carroll, a former Catholic priest implies that there has been a relationship between religiously inspired violence and war, beginning with the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 312 AD. Constantine was convinced that he had won a battle because he had followed the instructions of a vision, to inscribe a sign of the cross (the Labarum) (as mhaze noted) on the shields of his soldiers. In Carroll's view, this event marked the beginning of an unholy alliance between the military and the Church.

Carroll focuses on Catholic and evangelical anti-Judaism, and invokes the cross as a symbol of the long history of Christian xenophobic violence against Jews and non-Christians,from the Crusades, through the Roman Inquisition and the creation of the Jewish ghetto, to the Holocaust. Carroll also charges that there is an ongoing evangelical infiltration of the U.S. military, and that this has had negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The film's final chapter, "No war is holy", concludes with views of military cemeteries as Aaron Neville sings "With God On Our Side".

Thank you so much, David - much appreciated.

There's a book by Taylor R. Marshall -
"The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the origins of
Catholic Christianity."

Apparently it explains the Jewish roots of
Catholicism.

I'm going to try to get a hold of it.
The two religions may be more alike than realized.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« I think the suggested model by the ARM is a step in the right direction. We have to make a start somewhere. No action should not be an option. A Bill of Rights will eventuate »
.

Yes, that’s what I understood, Foxy, but unfortunately, I’m afraid it will be seen by many as all that is necessary – not just the first step, but also the last step.

Obviously, the easiest change to make is to replace the British Crown as the head of state with an elected Australian citizen. But if that’s all we do we’ll be stuck with our old outdated colonial constitution – that has proven impossible to modify – for many more long years to come.

As the ARM and many others will jump for joy at the success of the change of the head of state, declaring Australia a republic, I’m afraid it will be a very long time before the country understands why we should all go back to the polls again and do what we should have done in the first place : vote for a new constitution with an embedded bill of rights.

Queen Elizabeth II has outlasted every one of her predecessors. She is now 95 years old. She lost her husband, Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, last year. Though I don’t wish her any harm, it is not difficult to foresee that the end of her reign is near.

A major change is coming and, in my view, we should be fully prepared for it and take this historic opportunity to make a meaningful change from our current status as a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic, and replace our old colonial constitution with a completely new Republican constitution.

We should strike while the iron is hot and not waste such an exceptional historic opportunity by simply satisfying ourselves with what can only be described as a purely symbolic change of head of state.

I think the time is right for us to be a little more ambitious.

.

The Queen of Australia is merely a figure Head, it does not matter to whom we give allegiance providing they uphold the Constitution and Laws formed under the Constitution. They need to be schooled in the Constution and understand the laws. A person voted by popular opinion will polarise sections of the citizens as it has done in America. It is better that a head of State be appointed by a panel of Judges, appointing a person of good character who has held a high office.

Track the Irish Catholic roots of Republican advocates, it might be interesting.

Dear Banjo,

I totally agree.

The end of the Queen's reign is near. And we should
strike while the iron is hot and take this opportunity
to tackle a new constitution with an embedded bill of
rights. Pressure should be placed on our politicians
prior to the next election.

Since the queen is merely a figurehead it really doesn't matter if she is alive. We could retain the queen as a figurehead even after her death.

When the Queen dies, Prince Charles will become King
almost immediately by default and Duchess Camilla will
become Queen.

Duchess Camilla will
become Queen.
Foxy,
i read some time ago that the Palace came to an agreement that Camilla will not be Queen.

I think the time is right for us to be a little more ambitious.
Banjo Paterson,
How do you think that'd work with the drugged to the eyeballs tattooed & face-studded mutts ?
None of whom have any inclination to think of others ?
I know you want a republic but all you can expect to get is Anarchy !

Individual,

"The royal family might be imploding where Andrew
and the Sussexes are concerned, but there's been
one winner amid the chaos - Camilla, Duchess of
Cornwall."

"The Queen has awarded Britain's highest honour to
Prince Charles' wife. She is the first spouse to
the Prince of Wales to become a member of the
Order of the Garter."

"Royal author Hugo Vickers described it as a
"unifying gesture"amid the scandals surrounding the
House of Windsor. Other sources say it is a sign
the Queen has finally approved Charles' long-time
request to make Camilla his queen despite him
pledging she would only be a princess consort out of
respect to the late Diana, Princess of Wales."

"Whatever the reason, it's clear that despite her
earlier misgivings about Camilla. Her Majesty now
holds her in the highest regard."

" It is a huge victory for Camilla, who has been
quietly battling for the Queen's acceptance
ever since her and Charles first fell in love."

Taken from a woman's magazine. I hope this helps.

And will Charles spend eternity as a tampon?

Interesting David, will we keep her in a box? Bring her out only on ceremoni occasions, like to entertain the little children at Xmas. Will she be embalmed, or all left natural, I prefer the natural look myself.

Issy, me thinks we should make you the royal page, the court jesters job has already been taken.

I find it interesting that under section 44 of our
Constitution a person is not eligible to be elected
to the Parliament if they are under any acknowledgement
of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign
power.

Yet as soon as they are elected to Parliament we require
them to swear allegiance to the head of a foreign power.

________________________________________________________________

BTW: Charles and Camilla were married in 2005.

.

Dear Individual,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo Paterson,

How do you think that'd work with the drugged to the eyeballs tattooed & face-studded mutts ? None of whom have any inclination to think of others ?

I know you want a republic but all you can expect to get is Anarchy ! »
.

Well, if they respect the Queen, perhaps they might also respect an Australian lady as a head of state.

Perhaps we should elect Foxy for the job.

What do you think, Individual, would that allay your fears of those decorated rascals being incited by Australia becoming a republic instead of a Constitutional Monarchy ?

.

Dear Banjo,

To be serious. There are so many good
female choices out there who would make excellent
heads of state and I certainly hope that females as well
as males will be included in the mix when the time
comes.

One version of anarchy is people getting together voluntarily to do what needs to be done & then disbanding when it is done. With everyone having respect for each other no government or exterior agency need slot people in necessary tasks. There have been moments in history where this has happened. During the Spanish Civil War there was a strong anarchist movement on the side of the loyalists. The communists saw them as an enemy and destroyed them. George Orwell in 'Homage to Catalonia' writes about it.

The two main meanings of anarchy follow:

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

"the country has been plunged into a state of anarchy"
synonyms:
lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · [more]

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

I hope for the day when we will be able achieve the second version of anarchy in all places. We already have achieved it is some places at some times. We can have order and peace with anarchy.

The anarchist I most admire is Felix Kropotkin. He popularized the term, mutual aid.

Is it possible to have order and peace and orderly
societies without hierarchical government
and political institutions?

Political institutions are the organisations in a
government that create, enforce and apply laws.
They often mediate conflict, make government policy
on the economy and social systems and otherwise
provide representation of the population.

Political instituions set the rules in which an
orderly society obeys and ultimately decides and
administers the laws for those that do not obey
thus hopefully preventing chaos and disorder.

Foxy
In answer to your first paragraph, yes; the answer is a benevolent dictatorship; however the drawback is that, usually as shewn by history, the next dictator is not benevolent.

Is Mise,

I don't believe in cults of personality, repression of
political opponents, suspension of elections and civil
liberties, and not obiding by the rule of law procedures.
American President Biden said it well when he summed
up the former president's actions:

"You can't love your country only when you win.
You can't obey the law only when it's convenient,
you can't be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies."

Foxy, you have exactly encapulated the life of Biden in his own words. His popularity stands at 34% now.

Josephus,

Actually as I told you on another discussion:

The national poll, conducted Jan 12-13 found that
45% of US adults approved of Biden's performance in
office, 50% disapproved and the rest were not sure.
Biden's approval numbers have hovered below 50% since
August.

At the same point in Donald Trump's presidency, about
30-39% of Americans approved of his performance in
office while over 50% disapproved.

Foxy
Biden is in the same boat as our republican politicians, a perjurer, they swear allegiance to the Queen and try to destroy the Monarchy in Australia, Biden swore to uphold the Constitution of the USA but is trying to subvert it.

I could've care less about Biden. We have enough here to worry about. But Biden is now LESS POPULAR than Trump was at his lowest point. Trump was thrown out because of his unpopularity. The fools who did it - by fair means or foul - had the luxury of a fresh start. What have they got now? A VP they don't like either, who is just as useless as Biden in her own way. Serve them right.

Dear David,

«I hope for the day when we will be able achieve the second version of anarchy in all places.»

AMEN!

---

Dear Foxy,

«Political institutions are the organisations in a
government that create, enforce and apply laws.
They often mediate conflict...»

Oh, click here to see how they mediate conflicts: http://fablesofaesop.com/litigious-cats.html

«Political instituions set the rules in which an
orderly society obeys and ultimately decides and
administers the laws for those that do not obey
thus hopefully preventing chaos and disorder.»

Yes, obey AND live in fear.
Is that a life worth living?

Those who like to live in a given orderly society may be happy,
but those who either do not want to live in an orderly society at all OR would like to live in a different one that better shares their values, they suffer helplessly.

Causing other people to suffer helplessly is violence.
When you promote the state as it currently exists, you promote violence.

Issy, there is a whole bunch of unemployed royals in England. Plus Andy who is actually unemployable, don't mention young chicks, he's a bit dirty on em at the moment. Charlie has been living off the the royal dole for 60 years. I don't know what Eddie does, got sacked from Burger King about 30 years ago. Harry smokes pot, Willie's hair fell out. Phil well Phil's gone. I think Anne is running in the third at Newmarket on Saturday. Camilla is a scratching from the same race.

Yuyutsu,

"Watch your thoughts for they become words.
Watch your words for they become actions.
Watch your actions for they become habits.
Watch your habits for they become character."

Wise words from Margaret Thatcher.

She also said:

"There is little hope for democracy if the hearts
of men and women in democratic societies cannot be
touched by a call to something greater than themselves."

Something to think about.

Or put another way:

"The whole problem with the world is that
fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves and wise people so full of doubts."
( Bertrand Russell).

That's all folks.

Dear Foxy,

Margaret Thatcher was correct (on these two accounts).

Those of us whose heart is touched by a call to something greater, are blessed. Others will need to await their turn.

The question being, must this "something greater" be some society that forces itself and its values on everyone around regardless whether they like it or not, only because they happen to live in some stretch of land?

By God's Grace, I should find greater things than that to touch my heart.

Regarding Bertrand Russell, the poor guy assumes that there is a problem with the whole world. Does he blame the Creator for doing a bad job?

On benevolent anarchy, it works well until someone organizes a power group and takes over.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote :

« 2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

I hope for the day when we will be able to achieve [this] second version of anarchy in all places. We already have achieved it in some places at some times. We can have order and peace with anarchy. »
.

You raise an interesting point there, David.

Anarchy in this sense is not havoc, chaos, confusion, disorganisation, and lack of respect for rules and authority. It is direct democracy, people collectively ruling themselves.

As anthropologists like to point out, humans organised themselves in stateless societies with great success for much of ancient history, and some continue to do so in various ways, without using the label “anarchy” or “democracy”. In fact, “state-organised” societies have existed for only a fraction of the roughly 300,000 years of modern humanity (whose origins date back some 5 to 7 million years) — emerging an estimated 5,000 years ago — and should still be regarded as an experiment, with mixed results.

As political philosophers have long noted, it is much more complicated and difficult today for people to rule themselves than to be ruled (or represented). Reaching a consensus on anything is a tremendous uphill battle and very time-consuming.

Direct democracy (or anarchy in the noble sense) is a seductive concept, but it is highly impracticable. Realistically, all the daily run-of-the-mill matters should be dealt with by our democratically elected representatives and only the more significant and controversial issues dealt with by direct democracy.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Foxy wrote :

« "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts."
( Bertrand Russell) »

To which you replied :

« Regarding Bertrand Russell … does he blame the Creator for doing a bad job? »
.

No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell would never have blamed “the Creator for doing a bad job” because he did not believe in the god hypothesis :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So-yHV3KoUI&ab_channel=RighteousLiving40
.

Here is another thought worth meditating :

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.”
(Paul Tillich)

.

Dear Banjo,

Eloquently and beautifully put.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Anarchy in sense 2 is NOT direct democracy. Direct democracy means governmental decisions are all determined by democratic means. Anarchy in sense 2 eliminates ALL governmental decisions. People join together in groups to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. There are no governmental decisions as there is no government. Anarchy is not a form of government.

Anarchy can only exist in its negative form, human nature will see to that..

The ARM proposal lacks all creditability, it is simply a ‘job for the boys’ effort and as others have said would create a position without power or meaning and the job could be done by the PM as it mostly is done at the present time, especially when it involves an overseas trip.
The creation of an Australian Republic is fraught with legal issues and will divide the. Nation if it does nothing else.

Foxy
Bidens report from all polls.
42.5% approve
52.1% dissaprove
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Donald Trump
44.2% approve at the same period of his presidency
And Donald had no Media support.

Joe Biden given 4 pinocchios for lieing.
http://patriotpowerednews.com/biden-awarded-four-pinocchios-for-false-claim-he-was-arrested/

Josephus,

My figures come from the latest Reuters/Ipsos polls
conducted natio0nally now and at other times. They differ
to yours. They clearly state that at the same time in
Donald Trump's presidency - we're told that 39% of
Americans approved of his performance in office while 56%
disapproved.

Whereas according to the national poll conducted Jan 12-13
found that 45% of US adults approved of Biden's
performance in office. 50% disapproved and the rest were
not sure. Biden's approval rating numbers have hovered
below 50% since August.

Approval ratings have very little to do with the worth of anybody. They are a measure of how popular the person is in with the public at a particular time.

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/aug-19-1934-german-voters-approve-hitler-as-fuhrer/

On Aug. 19, 1934, the German public voted 90 percent in favor of Chancellor Adolf Hitler becoming Führer und Reichskanzler (“leader and chancellor”), a new title created after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg earlier in the month.

Polling is a tool. It has become important in our
democracy. There's a difference between the idea that
the people should rule and the use of polls to determine
public policy or manipulate the people's will.

Public opinion is a vital part of the political process.
Polling identifies issues for resolution. It brings
views into political debate and it helps choose political
candidates and gives policy makers some idea of what the
voters want.

Of course things can change overnight. People don't always
tell the truth in polls. Thingss need to be taken in the
context of the time and the influences at play. It also depends
on the questions asked and the way that they are asked.
You don't always get an accurate picture.

Dear Banjo,

«No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell would never have blamed “the Creator for doing a bad job” because he did not believe in the god hypothesis :»

Fine, then why did he think that the world has a problem?
Were the galaxies moving too fast or too slow?

It seems that Mr. Russell did not like certain human/societal behaviours, so when he became frustrated about it, he projected his self-made problem on the world at large.

---

Dear Is Mise,

«Anarchy can only exist in its negative form, human nature will see to that..»

Well, if that's what humans deserve then that is what they will get.
As it stands, humans seem to deserve even worse because they get governments to oppress them.

But possibly you disagree, you may possibly consider oppression to be relatively more convenient than the negative form of anarchy.

Even then, we ought to base our actions on moral principles rather than on convenience. Accepting and cooperating with states/governments as they currently exist, means personally participating in their violence, whereas in suffering the consequences of negative anarchy you can remain passive and not take part in the evil of others.

Human nature is derived from animal nature.
I believe that we can rise above it.
And if we don't, then it really doesn't matter if humans become extinct.

---

Dear David,

«Anarchy in sense 2 eliminates ALL governmental decisions. People join together in groups to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. There are no governmental decisions as there is no government. Anarchy is not a form of government.»

Still, nothing prevents people from forming legitimate governments (that of course wouldn't be anarchy), so long as it is consensual and such governments only govern their own group, not others who never agreed to join it. This likely requires the groups to be small enough so their members have more in common.

People come to rule other people because they have the desire and the ability to rule other people. However, it may be that a person who has the desire and the ability to rule other people isn't fit to rule other people.

Polling determines what a people want at a particular time. WW1 was a disaster. It set the stage for WW2 and caused great misery and sffering. However, from the history I read most people in most countries involved entered in it with great enthusisasm.

What is popular is the same as what is best if there is general wisdom and knowledge of the consequences. Unfortunately there is general ignorance, and we cannot know the consequences of our acts.

Yuyutsu,’
Remaining passive in the face of negative anarchy either means thar you grovel to stay alive or you get killed or enslaved, my preferred option would be to fight and kill if necessary.
Benign anarchy is a pipe dream.

Dear Is Mise,

«Remaining passive in the face of negative anarchy either means thar you grovel to stay alive or you get killed or enslaved»

This could be the case if indeed one deserves such outcome.
I do however have faith in divine justice, that it would not happen otherwise.

«my preferred option would be to fight and kill if necessary.»

And I very much respect and commend your choice, should that be your personal calling.

Go ahead and fight to deliver the righteous, to destroy the wicked and to establish good social order.

Just keep in mind that forcing your (or anybody else's) rule over others who have done no harm and pose no threat, which is what states currently do, cannot be part of a good social order.

«Benign anarchy is a pipe dream.»

It is indeed harder to achieve nowadays due to overpopulation.
But with warriors like yourself, nothing is impossible.

My preference, however, for the age we live in, is not anarchy but for people with relatively shared values voluntarily grouping themselves into smaller societies, each with its own agreed constitution that probably allows for some kind of law-and-order. No problem with that so long as participation is voluntary.

.

Dear david f.,

.

You wrote :

« Anarchy in sense 2 is NOT direct democracy … Anarchy in sense 2 eliminates ALL governmental decisions. … There are no governmental decisions as there is no government. Anarchy is not a form of government »
.

That’s not quite how I understand the two terms, David. I think the difference is a little more subtle than that. It’s not just a question of semantics. I’ll do my best to explain my thoughts on the matter in detail.

I see both as a system of self-government, government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The OED defines anarchy 2 as :

« The organisation of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government »

Whichever way you look at it, “the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation” would appear to be a system of government – a system of self-government “without political institutions or hierarchical government”.

In my view, anarchy 2 does not lack “a system of government”. If it did it would not be anarchy 2. It would be anarchy 1.

What I think it does lack, and what (partially) differentiates it from direct democracy, is that it has no “political institutions or hierarchical government”.

Another differentiating factor is that anarchy 2 is a system of “voluntary cooperation”, whereas direct democracy is a system in which “policies and laws are decided by a majority of all those eligible [to vote]” (OED).

A system of “voluntary cooperation” is intrinsically more limited in its scope and feasibility than a system in which “policies and laws are decided by a majority of all those eligible [to vote]”.

The practicability of the former inevitably limits its application to relatively small communities, whereas the “modus operandi” of the latter does not impose such limits, thus allowing it to have a more universal application.

This broader application is reinforced by the fact that direct democracy disposes of the powerful operational facilities of permanent political institutions and hierarchical governments that are lacking in anarchy 2.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu.,

.

Foxy quoted Bertrand Russell as saying :

« The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts »

To which you replied :

« Regarding Bertrand Russell … does he blame the Creator for doing a bad job? »

And I answered :

« No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell would never have blamed “the Creator for doing a bad job” because he did not believe in the god hypothesis :» – and I posted a link to an interview on Youtube of Bertrand Russell on God in 1959 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So-yHV3KoUI)

You then asked me :

« Fine, then why did he think that the world has a problem? Were the galaxies moving too fast or too slow? »
.

No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell was simply expressing the opinion that most of our problems in this world are caused by the fact that “fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts”.

I tend to feel there is a lot of truth in that.

What about you, Yuyutsu ? What do you think ?

.

Conservative REPUBLICAN and Director of Communications at the Institute of Public Affairs, Evan Mullholland hopes (foolishly) to see Australia become a republic in his lifetime.

But, he doesn't want a bar of the current rave, which he describes as elitist, suggesting an 'eminent person' be parachuted into the 'presidency'.

"This model is completely unworkable for many reasons. A candidate for head of state could be elected with just 9 per cent of the national vote, where a preference whisperer could game the preferences between candidates to deny a leading candidate the role".

Peter FitzSimons has decreed that Australians " want an eminent person" as president. He probably has himself in mind, hence the dumping of the bright red bandana. Wouldn't that be a thrill and an answer to all Australia's problems!

Whatever, this 'eminence' would be one of their own - the sort already trying to wreck the country.

Dear Banjo,

«Bertrand Russell was simply expressing the opinion that most of our problems in this world are caused...»

Perhaps, but this was not what Foxy presented to me. She quoted him as saying: "The whole problem with the world is..."

«What about you, Yuyutsu ? What do you think ?

As could already be understood from my previous replies, I don't believe that the world has any problem.

I consider the world to be a school, where we receive whatever lessons are necessary for our growth, rather than as a goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved.

The only "problem" is our ignorance with which we arrive in this school - that some of the lessons that we need in order to remove it feel difficult, is a necessity, not a problem.

Peter Fitzsimmons trying to wreck the country?

How so?

He's merely presented a model for a republic that he
and his team gleaned from questioning Australians in
what they wanted and were prepared to vote for. It's
not set in concrete and will probably be amended as
time passes. It's just a start.

As for him wanting to be the head of state?
I very much doubt that. And what's his bandana got to
do with anything? Lots of people wear head coverings
especially if they are self-conscious about their
hair loss - even women.

In any case it will be up to the Australian public to
decide on the type of society they want to live in and
who their head of state will be. We certainly can't do
worse than what we currently have.

‘We certainly can’t do worse than what we currently have.”

We can’t get someone worse than the Queen?
Surely you jest?

One would hope so.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« She [Foxy] quoted him [Bertrand Russell] as saying : “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts »

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. In fact, there are various versions of that saying by various authors, the better-known being : the Nobel Prize-winning Irish poet W. B. Yeats, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, and the American writer Charles Bukowski.

The popular version is the one that Foxy indicated. Here is Bertrand Russell’s version :

« The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt »

This can be found in his essay : “The Triumph of Stupidity”, which was one of a collection of essays he wrote, entitled : “Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays, 1931-1935.

Russell writes :

« What has been happening in Germany is a matter of the gravest portent for the whole civilised world. Throughout the last hundred and fifty years, individual Germans have done more to further civilisation than the individuals of any other country; during the latter half of this period, Germans, collectively, have been equally effective in degrading civilisation. At the present day the most distinguished names in the world of learning are still German; the most degraded and brutal government is also German. Of the individual Germans whose work has caused Germany to be respected, some are in exile, some in hiding, and some have disappeared, their fate unknown. Given a few years of Nazi rule, Germany will sink to the level of a horde of Goths.

What has happened is quite simple. Those elements of the population which are both brutal and stupid (and these two qualities usually go together) have combined against the rest. By murder, by torture, by imprisonment, by the terrorism of armed forces, they have subjected the intelligent and humane parts of the nation and seized power with the view of furthering the glory of the Fatherland.

.

‘Continued …)

.

.

‘Continued …)

.

What has happened in Germany may well happen elsewhere. The British Fascists are not as yet a large party, but they are growing rapidly, and if at any future time there should be danger of a Labour Government that meant business, they would win the support of most of the governing classes. Meanwhile, the British government of India is a form of Fascism, all the worse for being alien. The British in India, like the Hitlerites in Germany, can only govern by putting the best people in prison.

Brute force plays a much larger part in the government of the world than it did before 1914, and what is especially alarming, force tends increasingly to fall into the hands of those who are enemies of civilisation. The danger is profound and terrible; it cannot be waved aside with easy optimism.

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt … »
.

« I consider the world to be a school, where we receive whatever lessons are necessary for our growth, rather than as a goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved »
.

Well said, Yuyutsu. I agree : life apparently has no purpose – nor does nature, other than its own preservation, adaptation, evolution, and continuance.
.

« The only "problem" is our ignorance with which we arrive in this school - that some of the lessons that we need in order to remove it feel difficult, is a necessity, not a problem »
.

It’s not just a question of learning the lessons of life, Yuyutsu. Dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and others all knew their lessons and the consequences of their acts. The crimes they committed against humanity were not due to ignorance.

Bertrand Russell’s explanation seems closer to the truth. Voltaire’s does too :

« Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities »

.

Dear Banjo,

«Well said, Yuyutsu. I agree : life apparently has no purpose – nor does nature, other than its own preservation, adaptation, evolution, and continuance.»

You claim to agree, but that is not what I said.
What I said is that life HAS a purpose - to be a school.
The purpose of a school is not to preserve the school-building, nor to keep the students in forever. Individuals come and go, entering as children and coming out as adults.

«It’s not just a question of learning the lessons of life, Yuyutsu.»

Then you disagree, and that's fine, but please don't claim then that you agree with me.

«Dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and others all knew their lessons and the consequences of their acts. The crimes they committed against humanity were not due to ignorance.»

They knew nothing. The crimes they committed were due to the deformities of their brains and certain external influences over these deformed brains.

From an objective point of view, Hitler and the others on your list were just blobs of flesh, blood, bones, fat, sinews and similar organic matter.
Same for Mother Teresa.
Same for Banjo Paterson (or whatever its real name is).

The ignorance I mentioned has nothing to do with the total unconsciousness of these bodies, but rather with the one(s) who in their ignorance, despite being conscious, consider themselves to be these bodies.

One commentator this morning said that the Fitzsimons mob should be rewarded for services to the Crown. If they go ahead with the new model, they will ensure the continuation of the monarchy for another 100 years.

Of course people will have opinions on this subject.
However only time will tell what the majority of
Australians will decide. Hopefully that will eventuate
sooner rather than later. But with so many other priorities
that the government is faced with at the moment I suspect
we may have to wait a while. The health crisis is hitting
its peak around the country. Elections are just around the
corner. Politicians making unnecessary comments all add
to the chaos.

Still the model that has been presented by the
Australian Republic Movement is worth debating
and re-examining.

Dear Foxy,

«Still the model that has been presented by the
Australian Republic Movement is worth debating
and re-examining.»

Isn't the bottom-line of that model, that the state, its "leaders" and its "heads" will continue to force themselves into our lives, ordering us, under threats of violence, how we must live our lives, what to do and what not to do?

The Queen in Her graciousness has never given me orders, the Queen has never threatened me with punishment for living by my own values as I see fit - May She live and "rule" forever: a native "head of state" is unlikely to be as kind!

yuyutsu,

The following link may help clarify things for you
about the proposed model:

http://republic.org.au/faq

Yuyutsu,

Here's a few things that you should know about
a potential Australian republic:

http://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759

They may re-assure your concerns.

Dear Foxy,

«They may re-assure your concerns.»

No: according to this proposal, there would still be a state called "Australia" and it would still have a government to oppress the people of this land.

Its "head of state" could be anyone, and because they would live here, they could have all kinds of evil interests against us. The Queen on the other hand lives far away and has no interests here, She has done me no harm, so I want Her to stay!

Yuyutsu, I agree with you on this, anyone wanting to be President has an agenda, which might be opressive to the people. That is why Governors General only have administrative power over a government and not the people.

Yuyutsu,

I'm afraid that I don't understand what your
objections are. Did you read the links I gave?
They should have re-assured and allayed your
fears.

Dear Foxy,

Let's have some reality-check:

What do you perceive as my fears which the links you gave me are supposed to allay?

Foxy
Are you going to apologise for your appalling go at the Queen?

Yuyutsu,

You expressed concern about the republic model that:

"the state and its "leaders" and its "heads" will
continue to force themselves into our lives, ordering us
under threats of violence how we must live our lives. What
to do and what not to do."

That is why I referred you to the two links to help
clarify things for you and allay those fears of yours.

No such thing was going to happen. Your fears are unwarranted.

Is Mise,

I've had to go against all kinds of people through
the years just to be myself.

Her Majesty the Queen however was not one of them.

Foxy,
Then we can take it thar you don’t admit that you denigrated the Queen by saying that we could do better than what we have?

Dear Foxy,

I must be so thick-headed - can you please help me find in the text how things could improve for me?

As it stands, only the government harasses me, I live in fear of them but not of the good Queen who never harassed or threatened me in word or deed, and I believe not even in thought.

Should the proposal go ahead, government would still be harassing me, while the head-of-state could not possibly harass me any less than the blessed Queen (because Her level of harassment is zero, can't go less). Moreover, according to this proposal they will have no power to kick out even the most evil prime-minister, which the Queen currently can.

So may you show a dull-headed like me what my own eyes cannot find?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« I consider the world to be a school, where we receive whatever lessons are necessary for our growth, rather than as a goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved »

I replied :

« Well said, Yuyutsu. I agree : life apparently has no purpose – nor does nature, other than its own preservation, adaptation, evolution, and continuance »

And you answered :

« You claim to agree, but that is not what I said. What I said is that life HAS a purpose - to be a school. The purpose of a school is not to preserve the school-building, nor to keep the students in forever. Individuals come and go, entering as children and coming out as adults »
.

The world is “the earth, together with all of its countries, peoples, and natural features” (OED), and a school is an institution, “an institution for educating children” (OED). I found your idea that “the world [is] a school” – i.e., that “all nature embodied in the Earth and everything with it (including all forms of life) is a school” – poetic, original, and interesting.

You went on to specify that “the school” (is) “where we receive whatever lessons are necessary for our growth, rather than a goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved”.

If “the school” does not have “a goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved”, that signifies that it has no purpose.

And as we agreed that “the world [is] a school” – i.e., that “all nature embodied in the Earth and everything with it (including all forms of life) is a school”, I replied :

« Well said, Yuyutsu. I agree life apparently has no purpose – nor does nature, other than its own preservation, adaptation, evolution, and continuance ».

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You now affirm that “life HAS a purpose - to be a school”, whereas you previously indicated that you considered “the world to be a school” – the” world” meaning “all nature embodied in the Earth and everything with it (including all forms of life).

In summary, if I correctly understand your reasoning, Yuyutsu, life is a school and that is its purpose, but the school of life has no purpose (no “goal unto itself where anything needs to be achieved”).

Please forgive me for saying so, Yuyutsu, but that is about as clear as mud.

Would you please be so kind as to enlighten me ?

.

.

If a majority of Australians confirms that it wishes to keep our old colonial Constitutional Monarchy intact with the British Crown as our head of state, the least we could do would be to negotiate a pact of reciprocity with the UK to permanently install a true-blue Australian dynasty as the head of state in the UK.

That thought brings to mind the long-standing relationship between the House of Windsor in the UK and the Namatjiras in Australia.

The relationship began in the 1940s when Albert Namatjira sent Queen Elizabeth one of his landscape paintings to celebrate her 21st birthday. Then in 1954, he met the Queen and Prince Philip in Canberra. The Duke was clearly impressed and privately purchased more of his paintings and several done by one of his sons.

In 2013 it was the turn of the grandchildren, Lenie and Kevin Namatjira, to visit Buckingham palace and present the Queen with their paintings - the third generation of Namatjiras in the Royal collection.

What could be more fitting than for a venerable dynasty of the Western Aranda people in the heart of Australia to assume the prestigious role as head of state of the UK ?

.

Dear Banjo,

While the world (not limited to planet Earth) has a purpose, it is not a goal/end unto itself: it is the means by which we shed our ignorance.

This is why I stated earlier that the world has no problem. It is perfect as it is.

A silly official in the education-department might complain "why is this school teaching such silly kiddy stuff, why has it not advanced? why has it failed to grow into a university?", but of course, had it turned into a university it would completely fail the little ones who enter its gates!

Banjo they might know how to create great Art, but do they know how good Government in all its departments works?

You said "What could be more fitting than for a venerable dynasty of the Western Aranda people in the heart of Australia to assume the prestigious role as head of state of the UK?

The messiness of the federation, which has been on full display over the last two (Covid) years, should attract the reform energy of republicans rather than the cosmetic and excessive desire to select an Australian president.

In this proposed Republic who would be the Commander inn Chief of the Defence Forces?
Has the ARM made a proposition; have they even thought about it?

We have to know what the questions would be if there was another referendum, which won't occur just because Pirate Pete thinks it should. Referenda are expensive, and there is too much of our money being thrown around already.

There is no point in putting up proposals for a type of republic before people are asked if they want a republic of any sort. At the moment, there is no indication that people want a republic any more than they did last time they voted on it. There would need to be an initial referendum with the simple question: do you want a republic? If the answer is yes, that’s the time to present options, not before. Remember! This ARM mob is the sort that manipulates language to deceive.

Hi Issy, if the Chief spends too much time in the INN he might not be fit to command.

Did you see that little car being rolled by the elephant in Africa. Reports are, your mates the Two Bob's were on board. Fat Bob was driving, and Elephant Bob was in the back seat with his boozucka hanging out the window, most painful.

Can you provide an update. Me thinks the elephant had a message for those in little cars with their boozucka's hanging out the windows.

Talking about manipulating language to deceive?

Here's another perspective on the same issue:

http://abc.net.au/news/2010-07-28/35542

We've certainly come a long way in this discussion.
From the comments thus far it seems that we still
have a long way to go. I am certain that Australia
will eventually become a republic. To become a
republic that maintains responsible government will take
time, considered thought and debate.

In the very long term an Australian Head of State will be
inevitable. It is important to get it right.

A YouGov poll in July 2020 found that 62% of respondents
supported replacing the monarch with an Australian Head
of State.

What will be, will be.

Thank You to everyone who contributed to this discussion.
Undoubtedly it will continue for some time yet.

Paul,
Whatever it is you’re smoking/imbibing it’s time to lay off a bit.

I still don't see the necessity for a head of state. To mix a metaphor the head is merely another mouth at the public trough.

.

Dear David f,

.

You wrote :

« I still don't see the necessity for a head of state. To mix a metaphor the head is merely another mouth at the public trough »
.

The head of state of our old colonial Constitutional Monarchy seems to play a largely fairy tale role that apparently pleases many people in Australia.

That’s probably worth paying for.

We would obviously lose that if we created a republic. Instead of the British Crown as the head of state, we would have a president – probably a democratically elected president. With what powers ? That is debatable.

But, again, you could ask : do we need a president ? What for ?

I guess for the same reason that major corporations need a Chairman and CEO, that armies need a general, that ships need a captain, and that airplanes need a pilot, …

We’ll certainly all be heartbroken when our fairy tale queen finally leaves us forever, and we’ll all shed a tear, but the country is strong and robust and will continue to thrive without her.

She inherited us and we inherited her – neither of us had any choice in the matter – and we got along fine together. But that will be the end of the fairy tale. That’s where it will end.

The next phase of our development is not going to be a fairy tale. It will require competent leadership – and biological inheritance in stately palaces on the other side of the world is not the best method of acquiring it.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am a dual citizen of the United States and Australia. The United States does not have a head of state. Australia does. The United States at the moment is in a mess.However, they would be in more of a mess if they had a head of state. They would have to find a use for that person.

The United States government is divided into three separate parts - an executive branch headed by the president, a judicial branch comprising the courts and a legislative branch comprising the Congress.

The Australian government is divided into two separate parts - a combined executive and legislative branch called parliament where part of the parliament acts as the executive and all the parliament serves as a legislature and a judicial branch comprising the courts.

Except for the incident in which the governor general turfed out the prime minister I know of no necessary function the ceremonial head of state served in Australia, and it is questionable whether that was a necessary function.

The United States is the result of a revolution which rid itself of the English crown and felt no need to replace it by a ceremonial head of state. If Australia became a republic I see no reason for a ceremonial head of state. It just seems to me a vestige of Ausrlia's status as colony. The head of state does not seem to me to serve a useful purpose.

In the US the president serves as the executive. In Australia a member of parliament serves as executive. If Australia became a republic it would retain the Westminster system, and a member of parliament would contine to serve as the executive. There would be no need for a president.

I would like to see Australia become a democracy. To me a democracy means separation of religion and state. Taxpayers should not fund religious assemlages or their schools. Religious entities may have their schools, but government should not fund them. There should be no chaplains in public schools.

A ceremonial head of state is a vestige of colonialism as is the lack of separation of religion and state. The Australian Constitution should apply to all Australians. Since all Australians do not believe in a God and all Australian religions do not postulate a god the word god should be deleted from the Australian Constitution if Australia becomes a republic. The word, God, does not appear in the US Constitution. The US motto and pledge was changed under Eisenhower to include God as a Cold War way of differentiating the US from the godless USSR.

I'm not sure about the separation of church and
state in America. The reality is - in any court of law
people still swear an oath to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth "So help me God." Politicians
consistently make references to "God Bless America," the
References to God seem to abound. "In God we trust."
(everyone else pays cash). Seriously, - God figures very
greatly in the lives of most Americans. Look at the many
different places of worship that exist (and making
a fortune). Religion plays a big part in the lives of
most Americans.

When we try to compare the political spectrums of the
United States and Australia there are quite a few differences
ranging from healthcare, social welfare, to gun control.
The US has an entirely different political spectrum on
these issues.

Australia needs to reflect on how Australia can take a
different path forward to ensure that we do not make the
same mistakes that led America to the profound divisions
that it has today and as stated earlier that will take
time, considered thought and debate - so it is important
to get it right.

cont'd ...

The following link explains further:

http://en.wikipedia/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

My apologies I left out a word. Here's the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

Dear Foxy,

I was advocating separation of state and religion. How big a part religion plays in a person’s life has nothing to do with that. That should not be the business of government. Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, was probably the first person to use the expression, separation of church and state. Rhode Island, over which he presided, was the first unit of government to have that as part of its law. Williams was probably mindful of the persecution of Baptists by the Church of England.

Separation of religion and state may foster religion. The US has been a place of refuge for people fleeing religious persecution because, unlike England and many other countries, the US does not have a state religion.

Jews, fleeing persecution in czarist Russia, were denied admittance to England by Balfour under the Alien Exclusion Act. Balfour, the dirty dog, declared Palestine as a homeland for the Jews – a country at the time not under English control. Better the US where one is free to practice what religion one wishes than Israel where there is an intrusive clergy, no civil marriage and no integrated public school system.

In any American court of law a person does not have to swear an oath to testify. A person may simply affirm they will tell the truth. The fact is that division is a natural part of democracy. A totalitarian state tries to eliminate division. A democratic state lives with it and allows people to express it. If you want a country without divisions try North Korea.

Until the 1950s the US motto was e pluribus unum, one out of many. It was cold war exigencies that changed it to ‘In God We Trust.’ Hopefully the motto will change again. I am for freedom of religion and that is best served by government keeping its hands off it.

Yawn.

If and when there is a referendum, voters will make their decisions - all without reference to anything posted here by us. Having an opinion is fine; going on and on thinking that your opinion is better than someone else's opinion, and that anyone in authority is going to care what you think is delusional, bordering on mentally disturbed.

David, there is already separation of State from the Church.

The Roman Church as a State and the Muslim Immams as a State govern the people in secular affairs.

The Australian secular State does not govern Church affairs and that is what seperation means. They are autonomous bodies functioning independently. Though the Atheists want the Government to take control of Church practise and beliefs as it did under Roman State control and how the CCP works. When the Government gets involved in Church affairs it destroys the conscience of the people by controling draconian laws.

I see you want to reintroduce Government control of religion.

Dear Josephus,

If Australian was a secular state there would be no chaplains in the state schools nor government funds for religious schools.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for explaining further.

It is appreciated.

Dear David,

«I would like to see Australia become a democracy. To me a democracy means separation of religion and state.»

Statements starting with "I would like to see..." can never be disputed, nor can statements of the form "To me X means Y".

For the rest of us (including myself who also would welcome the separation between religion and state), democracy only means that the majority of citizens rule over the rest - nothing there stops democratic majorities from being stupid and/or cruel like any other tyrant.

I would like to see the state of Australia exist no more as such.
Short of that, I would like to see separation between science and state.
Yet I make no claims that my wishes have any relation with democracy.

ttbn made the statement that no one in authority cares
about what we think.

Politicians do pay attention to polls and they certainly
care what voters think. Of course entering into a
political debate online can be a minefield because of
the vitriolic tones of some of the debates. Many people can
be put off engaging in public online conversations.

Politics is a sensitive issue. However most people who enter
into these discussions do care and want to enable a more
diverse set of people to participate.

We were taught at school - "Don't discuss politics in polite
company." Fortunately I grew up in a family where that notion\
was put in the bin where it belongs.

"Don't Rock the boat," or "Keeping the peace," and keeping
politics off the table was considered dishonest in our home.
My parents encouraged us to speak out on issues.

It's not a huge stretch to say that some of the violence and
agression we see today in our societies is an example of
underlying unaddressed tensions spilling over into people's
day to day lives.

We should be ablt to withstand tough conversations. Hearing
people out is as important as "winning" arguments. That's
how we learn. Expressing our views helps our leaders in
their policy making decisions. Anyone in authority worth
their salt is going to care what voters think and to ignore
them they do so at their peril.

David seperating Church and State would be fine if State only dealt with secular events, but unfortunately Public Education has moved from secular to be involved in how we behave socially and think about the World. With the current values promoted by Public Schools it violates the conscience of many parents. That is why tax paying parents fund the secular education segment of religious schools and parents of children in religious schools pay child fees - when I had children in religious school 30 years ago it cost me over $10,000 each year in fees.

What you are ignorant of is the parents of children in religious schools are also taxpayers and deserve a say in how their tax is used in education. What is really your bug about religious schools?

I had a grandson attend a state public school where gender dysphoria was taught, and it confuses children and creates anxiety.

Dear Josephus,

I am not ignorant of the fact that parents of children in religious schools are also taxpayers. That entitles them to use public facilities. I don’t think it entitles them to state support for their schools. Parents are taxpayers. So are bachelors and spinsters. The schools are a public good whether one has children or not.

Gender dysphoria is a scientific fact. If religious mumbojumbo wants to deny scientific fact taxpayers should not pay for it. Literal believers in the Bible will deny many scientific facts. Religion often serves the function of raising children in ignorance and superstition. Children are confused and suffer anxiety if superstitious parents deny science.

I was a guide at Roma Street Parkland. When I started to talk about the development of species a man covered the ears of a little boy and said, “What about Adam and Eve?” Our local Christian Reformed Church supports the Genesis Project which contends that the earth was created in six literal days. They also support chaplains in the schools. I am glad that I have no children of school age going to Australian public schools.

Part of the function of the public schools is to teach science. Children should not be prevented from learning about science because superstitious parents want to keep them ignorant

Dear Josephus,

Sexuality is complex. There are many forms of sexual dysphoria. One of the forms of this condition is testicular feminization syndrome.

You can look it up at “Testicular feminization: complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Discussions based on a case report - PubMed (nih.gov)”

“Introduction and objectives: Testicular feminization is the syndrome when a male, genetically XY, because of various abnormalities of the X chromosome, is resistant to the actions of the androgen hormones, which in turn stops the forming of the male genitalia and gives a female phenotype. The androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs in one out of 20,000 births and can be incomplete (various sexual ambiguities) or complete (the person appears to be a woman). The aim of this paper is to present the diagnosis and treatment of a case of testicular feminization.”

The individual with that condition will be born looking like a normal girl baby. She will grow up feeling like a girl but will not have a deep enough vagina, ovaries or a uterus but will appear externally like a female human. She will have testicles within her body but no penis or other male organs to go with it. She will not have periods and may conceal that fact from her family and friends. It is of no help to her to deny the condition. She will suffer great anxiety which will not be relieved by telling her that her condition does not exist.
There are many other forms of gender dysphoria. None of them should be treated with denial of their existence.

David, one child in 20,000, is not what is taught to a class of children at a public school. All children in the class are exposed to the possibility they are not the gender of birth. Thus, the removal of the identity male / female at birth of all babies born. The condition should be identified medically in the child by a doctor not a schoolteacher. It is not a condition the whole class of primary school children need to be exposed to. Children as young as six are being taught how to have sexual pleasure from anal sex and exposure of genitals in class.

FROM VICTORIA SCHOOL REPORT defending sex ed in school.

Sex education classes at school need to better represent the relationships and sex lives of average young people, according to Melbourne teenager Tamsin Griffiths.

"We need more information than just how to put condoms on bananas," she said.

"It's not all about babies and marriage anymore. [The curriculum] excludes topics like pleasure.

"One-night stands and casual sex are very common these days, but the [curriculum] reduced sex to its practical, reproductive function."

Tamsin — from Mount Martha on the Mornington Peninsula — carried out a survey of 500 students at different schools for a Grade 12 project last year and found many reported sex ed classes that were antiquated and out of date.

"[The survey indicated the curriculum] didn't represent the LGBTQI+ community appropriately," she said.

"When I look around my friendship group and within society, so many young people's experiences are just not represented in the curriculum.

"Sex is a natural part of life, so why is it not taught adequately in schools?"

Dear Josephus,

There are quite possibly flaws in the way sex education is taught in the schools. I doubt it is as crazy as the Christian belief that a human virgin gave birth to a god-man. I certainly don't think it's a good thing to expose a child to that nonsense.

I found:

Main article: Teenage pregnancy in Australia. In 2015, the birth rate among teenage women in Australia was 11.9 births per 1,000 women.[12] The rate has fallen from 55.5 births per 1,000 women in 1971, probably due to ease of access to effective birth control, rather than any decrease in sexual activity.

The above indicates that the exercise of putting condoms on bananas makes better sense than teaching children about the absolute rubbish about a virgin giving birth to a god-man.

Jose'

At my Catholic school many boys received practical sex education from Brother Pedophile . Did he teach at your school?
BTW When asked, you have never disclosed how many rock spiders have been uncovered in your church, probably thousands.

Any pro-republicans care to say who they think should be the Commander-in-Chief of the ADF in an Australian republic?

.

Dear David f,

.

You wrote :

« … The United States does not have a head of state. Australia does. The United States at the moment is in a mess. However, they would be in more of a mess if they had a head of state. They would have to find a use for that person »
.

Even though the US constitution does not specifically mention the term “head of state”, the president does, nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, assume the role and power of head of state as well as that of head of the executive – a little like the chairman and CEO of many major corporations.

Specialists point to Article II Clause 2 of the constitution as vesting the role and power of head of state of the US in the president :

« He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law … »

In any event, whether the president of the US is the head of state “de jure” or “de facto”, he is clearly indicated and recognized as such on the official websites of both the White House and the United Nations.

White House website :

« The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces » :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/#:~:text=The%20President%20is%20both%20the,the%20laws%20created%20by%20Congress.

United Nations website :

US – Head of state : His Excellency Mr. Barack Obama - No Prime Minister :

http://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Whether “de jure” or “de facto”, the role and power of the president of the US as head of state is not as symbolic as that which is largely (but not exclusively) the case of Queen Elisabeth II who is currently head of state of 16 Commonwealth countries (including the UK).

Neither the Queen, nor her viceregal representatives, the Governors-general, participate in any government business, international organisations, or meetings of heads of state (such as the UN, the G-7, the G-8, the G-20, or Davos, for example). She assumes her role as head of state exclusively for the constitutional monarchies created by 15 of the former British colonies, plus the UK.

In a constitutional monarchy, the role of head of government and head of state are separate, with a prime minister (head of government) acting as chief executive and the monarch (head of state) relegated to a largely (but not exclusively) symbolic representative role, with only marginal and occasional discretionary powers of impartial constitutional arbitration.

For example, in 1975, the governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr (acting on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II), dismissed the prime minister, Gough Whitlam, when the Senate refused to pass the budget. Both the Senate, in refusing to pass the budget, and the governor-general, in dismissing the prime minister and appointing the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser, to office, were clearly within the scope of their constitutional powers on paper.

However, the extent to which their actions were permitted under constitutional conventions was and continues to be contested by some political pundits.

.

Dear Banjo,

You are absolutely right. Since the heaad of government, the president, in the US also has the role of head of state the US needs no separate head of state. If Australia became a republic neither would Australia.

And the people endorsed the actions of the Governor General at the next election.

The Queen [Crown] or the Governor General represents all the people yet has no power to introduce laws over the people but has the power to dismiss a tyranical law proposed by the government. An elected President becomes part of the Government that may act laws against the people. This is what Biden is doing in America by removing retirement funds placing them into Consolidated revenue. He is takeing away what people have saved for retirement to pay into the hands of illegal entrants flooding his presidentcy.

David, do not be ignorant as many of the pharoahs were born of virgins and were viewed as god on Earth. They were god's man on Earth. The Roman Church saw the Pope as god's man on Earth and they worshipped the virgin.

I am not a Roman believer but know all virgins were artificially inseminated to give birth to a particular line. They were to remain virgin till after the birth of the child.

Dear Josephus,

There are a lot of explanations to justify Christian superstitions. The legend of the virgin birth arose from a mistranslation of the Hebrew almah, meaning young woman, in the Masoretic text to the Greek, parthenos, meaning virgin, in the first translation of the Masoretic text. This mistranslation is preserved in the King James Version. It is not preserved in other Christian versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 gives an account of the different versions.

Mary was not a member of Egyptian royalty, and the Holy Ghost is a Christian fantasy.

The Holy Spirit represents the nature of his spirit, it was holy and pure - divine. As your spirit is unholy, hyper critical and insensitive.

Sometimes the nicest people you meet are
covered in tattoos.
And sometimes the most judgemental people
you meet go to church on Sundays.

Foxy,
But only sometimes.

Dear Josephus,

Make nice.

David

Is Mise,

Maybe they need to go more often?

It may help.

Jose'

Was the old bloke Joseph the first Christian pedophile? After all he was having sex with a 12 year old girl.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote, “The Holy Spirit represents the nature of his spirit, it was holy and pure - divine. As your spirit is unholy, hyper critical and insensitive.”

I will try to be more sensitive to your feelings. I don’t believe there is such a thing as holiness or a spirit. I think there is just my body which contains my brain and mind and others who also feel and suffer. I am hyper critical which I don’t think is bad and do not believe in any sort of supernatural. I think it’s a good idea to try to limit my beliefs. I believe in the scientific method, the virtue of doubt, love and not much else. However, I feel I have caused you pain, and I don’t wish to cause you pain. We will continue to disagree, but I hope we can disagree without rancor.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

1. « The Queen [Crown] or the Governor-General … has the power to dismiss a tyrannical law proposed by the government »

That’s the theory, Josephus, but it has never been done anywhere in the Commonwealth. It’s always been just a rubber-stamp operation.
And let’s not forget that the prime minister has the power to dismiss the Governor-General if the latter failed to rubber-stamp the former’s “tyrannical law”.
.

2. « … what Biden is doing in America [is] removing retirement funds placing them into Consolidated revenue. He is taking away what people have saved for retirement to pay into the hands of illegal entrants flooding his presidency »

There’s been a lot of fake news and right-wing propaganda circulating lately about the Biden administration’s intentions regarding the future of IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) in the US.

Here is what one of America’s IRA experts has to say on the subject :

http://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/government-not-planning-confiscate-your-ira

Would you be so kind as to back up your statement with precise details including dates, procedures, amounts transferred, relative legislation, and links to your source of information, Josephus ?

.

Paul, stop jumping to false conclusions. Joseph was chosen for Mary after she had already fallen pregnant with the child to be a ruler after the lineage of King David in Israel.Joseph was chosen by the Priest Zachariah because Joseph already has sons by another wife and Jesus as a child could be hidden among the boys.

Foxy,
Just re-read your OP link.
So the H of S would have no power, hence could not command the ADF.
As I see it then the. PM would be C in C and we would be in the position of having a party politician commanding the military forces.

Is Mise,

To find out about the proposed model by the ARM
as to what the changes will be and what the
Head of State will do all you have to do is
click onto their policy page. You can download
their policy and the improvements they suggest.

http://republic.org.au/faq

Thanks Paul1405 for bringing up pedophilia again...

http://order-order.com/2019/12/09/corbyns-1980s-socialist-newspaper-published-pro-paedo-articles/

This is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

From 1989 until 2003, Epstein donated more than $139,000 to U.S. Democratic Party federal candidates and committees and over $18,000 to U.S. Republican Party candidates and groups.[272]

Epstein contributed $50,000 to Democrat Bill Richardson's successful campaign for Governor of New Mexico in 2002 and again for his successful run for reelection in 2006. Also that year, he contributed $15,000 to Democrat Gary King's successful campaign for Attorney General of New Mexico. He later contributed $35,000 to King's 2014 unsuccessful campaign for Governor. Other contributions in New Mexico included Epstein $10,000 toward Jim Baca's campaign to become head of the land commission and $2,000 toward Santa Fe County Sheriff Jim Solano's bid for reelection. In 2010, Epstein received a notice from New Mexico Department of Public Safety which said, "You are not required to register [as a sex offender] with the state of New Mexico." This was in contravention of federal law, which would seem to say that the conviction in Florida required him to register in New Mexico.[273]

Also interesting is the long standing enmity between the Catholic Chursh and the Judean Hebrew community.

It's interesting that so called traditionalist right leaning politicians tend to be followers of traditional church movements such as the Catholic Church- perhaps the solution for traditionalists is to quietly reform the Catholic Church whilst making it stronger.

Recently the Socialist movement have been talking up sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church but don't seem to have the same commitment in talking about Hebrew sexual misconduct for example in the cases of Epstein, Weinstein, and Maxwell.

Parents should be careful about pushing their children into Film and Television I suppose- and we should be careful about how we consume the products of this industry- if we wish to avoid supporting the behavior of people like Epstein, Weinstein as well as others in the web (Paul1405 mentioned spiders) like Ghislaine Maxwell.

It's also interesting that Hebrews tend to vote Democrat- correlation doesn't imply causation.

Marx (Founder of Marxist Communism), Lenin (Founder of Russian Communism), Freud (Founder of Psycho-Analysis), Adler, Maxwell, Bernays (Considered the founder of mass consumerism), much of the Manhatten Project- were all from the Hebrew Jewish diaspora. Stalin is unknown some suspect Hebrew based on his birth name- and Mao was obviously Chinese (but apparently was involved with a few sexual questionables- interesting that apparently Mao was 'Hunan' central whereas his first disgraced wife was 'Han' mongolian ruling class stock).

The Epstein situation seems spookily similar to QAnon claims that "there are Devil Worshipping people within Hollywood that are creating honeypots to amass power". Epstein did apparently attempt to obtain video footage of powerful people in compromised situations.

Maybe 'QAnon' is a leak from the Catholic Church- referring to sexual misconduct within Judaism.

It appears that the Catholic Church and the Judean diaspora are prejudiced against each other- surprise surprise- it's been going on since 69 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem. You could argue that a Jewish sect called Christianity brought down the Roman Empire- but that's not enough they need to grind the Catholic Church and all it's spawn into the dust.

This is all to say that all cultures have issues with sexual misconduct- in the swirling mist of communities changing expectations. Hopefully in all this shock and horror the children can move on with their lives without being victimized.

It seems that one often sees sexual abuse when the 'parties' come from different cultures- perhaps there is cultural dominance playing out in microcosm.

Some have said that Communism is a creation of and perhaps influenced by Judaism at some level in a similar way to which Christianity was created based on Hebrew faith (even though the phenotypes of the people were different) and share the old testament but much longer ago (100 years vs 2000 years).

It seems that some of the conflicts between Christianity and Judaism run very deep- paraphrasing Einstein 'you can't address a problem at the level of the problem. You must go deeper'.

To me this seems like a 'classic clash of cultures' scenario.

A "classic clash of cultures" scenario? And pedophilia?

Interesting.

Former British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted
of recruiting and grooming teenage girls (some as young as
fourteen) for sexual encounters not only with the late
disgraced American financier Jeffrey Epstein but with
(no longer His Royal Highness), Prince Andrew.

We may well ask - how did the privileged daughter of a
billionaire newspaper tycoon, intimate with high society
and royal palaces, become a convicted pedophile's accomplice?

Could ti be that when you grow up in a tiny bubble of rich,
protected, privileged, narcissist - and sociopath heavy
elitists, conscience and morality are not fully nurtured as
they might be?

Take Prince Andrew who is said to keep 50 to 60 soft toys
on his bed and a laminated photo of them at his bedside.
If the maids don't put them back in exactly the order shown,
he shouts, screams and becomes verbally abusive.

We could argue that this is not relevant to the claims mounting
against him as a result of his close friendship with
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. On the other hand what
could be more relevant than such glaring proof of how deep
the childishness and a sense of entitlement runs in the man.

I'm not sure why Prince Andrew keeps soft toys on his bed- and it's not my business- but if he's paying the staff to do a job he is entitled to get what he pays for- after a couple of times I would remember that he likes things a certain way and get on with it- isn't this basically the Taylorism upon which industrialized economies including Communism are based on- rightly or wrongly- pay for the work according to a controlled standard. And he is reasonable enough to provide a picture for the staff. Better than the treatment that many chef's give their staff- not to mention Stalin. Maybe there's more to this story...

I believe both Leon Trotsky (the hero of modern Socialists), Herbert Marcuse (Founder of the New Left and probably gay normalization politics- through his books Logos vs Eros, One Dimensional Man), Jack Abramoff (Foundational Lobbyist- Native American lobbying scandal), Jonathon Greenblatt (B'nai Brith Anti Defamation League Lobby Group) were also from the Hebrew diaspora.

Leon Trotsky probably would have caused even more deaths from Communism than Uncle Joe Stalin- being a pure logician that believed in the necessary sacrifices for Socialism. Some pure people get their hands really dirty.

Many powerful people and groups engage in proxy false flag warfare.

This group provides an interesting balance against China- Falun Gong runs the Epoch Times and their TV channel NTD. It seems that Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook doesn't like Falun Gong- not sure if it's because his wife is of Chinese ethnicity or because he is from the Hebrew diaspora or because Falun Gong is anti-Communist. Concerning that Facebook has annexed other social media platforms such as WhatsApp.

Foxy's Statement-
"We could argue that this is not relevant to the claims mounting
against him as a result of his close friendship with
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein."

Answer-
It seems as though any connection to Epstein is a poisoned one- perhaps that is one of the reason's Epstein cultured a close image with Prince Andrew- the Hebrew diaspora and the Communists have had a difficult relationship with the British for a long time. Marx and Lenin both said that Britain had to be destroyed. Maybe there is more information. Whatever information there is the people have a right to make their own judgement without intellectual bullying. Universities are to inform not dictate.

Retired American broadcast journalist, author
and television personality Barbara Walters once
said:

" A great many people think that polysyllables are
a sign of intelligence and refinement so they think they
will impress others with their command of obscure words
(philosophies and ideologies)."

Interesting comment.

cont'd ...

As for what universities should do?

"Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself."
(Chinese proverb).

You can have access to professors from the best universities
in the world but you still need to be willing to do the work,
even when it's hard. If you can't do it alone, remember that
asking for help is part of doing the work.

The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into
windows.

It's interesting that Foxy quotes Barbara Walters- a mirror perhaps.

What's with those dangly ear rings that Foxy I mean Barbara is wearing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Walters

She went to Sarah Lawrence College of cesspool New York- interesting place- a bit too Liberal perhaps- but otherwise seemingly satisfactory- founded by a descendant of Lawrence Of Ashton Hall. I guess port cities have always had a reputation- but New York is on another level.

http://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Robert-Lawrence/6000000003826226307

But I can't stand "The View".

Continuing Foxy's theme of quotes- I liked the mirrors and windows- 'Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.' Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Not far away from NY in Boston. Sadly a Unitarian and of the Transcendental Movement both of which appears to have led the West down a long slide to self destruction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson

Generally I prefer Martin Luther.

Seeing as we're sharing quotes:

Ralph Waldo Emerson said many things. I think this
one is appropriate to the discussion of the "Australian
Choice" proposed model by the ARM:

" The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never
returns to its original dimensions."

As for Barbara Walters and being a mirror image of me?
Apart from the age thing (Walters is over 90).
No. I simply liked her quote and thought it appropriate.

Martin Luther?
Again not so much.

"A happy fart never comes from a miserable ass."

One of my favourites comes from Rebecca West:

"Every other inch a gentleman."

That will have to do for now.

Apart from singing this ditty on this special day:

"Come On Aussie, Come On, Come On..."

I lke this quote:

“When evening comes, I return home and go into my study. On the threshold I strip off my muddy, sweaty workday clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and in this graver dress I enter the antique courts of the ancients, and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity reply to me, And for the space of four hours I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death...” Niccolo Machiavell

Dear David F.,

Thank you for the quote.

The name - Machiavellian has such dreadful connotations,
we assume that anything he had to say must be well, cunning,
scheming, and unscrupulous. It was a surprise to read
something different.

Back to the topic.

I like and admire our former Governor-General
Quentin Bryce. She had this to say:

"I suggest a nation -
where people are free to love and marry whom they choose.
And when perhaps, my friends, one day, one young boy or
girl may grow up to be out nation's first head of state."

Dear Foxy,

Machiavelli favored a republic. His book, The Prince, described what rulers did to keep power. The actions of a successful ruler are often cunning, schemimg and unscrupulous. Machiavelli wrote other things, but "The Prince" is the most prominent of his works. He did not advocate the behaviour described in the book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

"The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy. While much less well known than The Prince, the Discourses on Livy (composed c. 1517) has been said to have paved the way of modern republicanism. It has also significantly influenced authors who have attempted to revive classical republicanism, including Hannah Arendt."

Foxy,
Are you sure that your Bryce quote is accurate?
Because the second paragraph is meaningless.

Is Mise,

The quote is available on the web.

The Queen's representative in Australia Dame Quentin
Bryce, the former Governor General has used the final
words in her last Boyer lecture of the year to offer
support for an Australian Republic. It is an extract
of her speech. You can Google it for yourself.
It's an excellent speech.

Dear David F.,

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had this to say
about Machiavelli:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli

Foxy,
Excellent it may be but what I asked was did you quote it correctly because the last paragraph is meaningless.

David Hume who also has a section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy dealt with the Is–ought problem.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

“The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine[1] is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.”

In my opinion Machiavelli described ‘what is’ and did it well. Those who are uncomfortable with him wish he had made moralistic statements about ‘ought’

Dear Foxy,

To put it in terms of US politics, and I am a citizen of that country. In my opinion the most benevolent and moral president the US has had in recent years is Jimmmy Carter. However, those dirty dogs, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, understood how to use power much better than Jimmy Carter.

Dear David F.,

I don't know that much about former US President
Jimmy Carter. I haven't heard anything bad said
about him by my American friends. And I agree he was
nothing like Bill Clinton and certainly nothing like Donald
Trump.

Is Mise,

I quoted it exactly as given on the web.

As for it being meaningless to you?
That is something over which I have no control.
I think most people will get the meaning.

Dear Foxy,

"The Outlier" is a biography of Jimmy Carter published last year. I think he was a wonderful man, and he did the right thing in terms of decency and morality. I think there was nothing bad said about him because an honest person could say nothing bad about him. I wish he had been more successful in getting the US to follow his essential goodness.

Foxy
‘…. one young girl or boy may growup to be our Nation’s first head of state”

And here’s me thinking that the Earl of Hopetoun was the first, representing Queen Victoria.

Machiavelli was a bit wordy- but I found his comparison of Western and Eastern political structures instructive. As David F said Machiavelli appears to have sent a letter to The Prince knowing him as a good man (what ever that meant to Machiavelli) in desperation of his vision of the future. But at the date of his death 1527 things were very different- so one should be careful in making modern comparisons. Perhaps David F's comment on Machiavelli's possible republicanism of the 1500's was the 'missing link' in the fallacious development of liberalism (negative freedom as opposed to virtue based structure) by John Locke in the 1660's, and culminating in The Terror of the 1790's, followed by Dostoevskian 1860's, and the 1917 revolution.

Patrick Deneen talks about the 500 year journey of Liberalism.

I suppose that even the Magna Carta of 1215 and Shang Yang could be considered to be elements of corrupting liberal thought- though admittedly Roman Law seems to have had a principle of equality before the dark ages. Hellenistic culture seemed to focus on virtue- positive freedom rather than liberalism- negative freedom.

Nietzsche touched on the idea that everyone isn't equal and that can be a good thing for everyone- those that can strive will- and if you hobble every horse you won't bring in the crop- and everyone will starve.

I said that Machiavelli was wordy...

In my view-
In a sense you could say that Nietzsche is to civilization what Socrates is to truth.

Utopia's

"Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress." Napoleon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/22/how-jimmy-carter-lost-iran/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(Iran)

Rebecca West sounds like the mirror of a nasty venomous outcast. But at least she had some refinement of thought.

Dear David F.,

I've been reading more about former US President
Jimmy Carter and learning more about him as a result
so thank you for pointing me in that direction.
I've learned that" he was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize for his work to find peaceful solutions to
international conflicts, to advance democracy, and
human rights and to promote economic and social
development." That he aspired to make government
"competent and compassionate."

Unfortunately, although his achievements were notable
it was impossible for his administration to meet these
high expectations due to an era of rising energy costs,
mounting inflation and continuing tensions. But he certainly
did try and I can understand your admiration for the man.

___________________________________________________________

Is Mise,

Are u OK? It sounds like you need some clarity.
________________________________________________________________

Rebecca West?

She was a major figure in 20th century literature. Her
prose is instantly recognisable, with its long, coolly
balanced sentences and its precise startling imagery.
H.G. Wells her lover, who fathered her child, said:

" I had never met anything like her before, and I
doubt if there was anything like her before."

Of course as with any authors, or works of art - its subjective.
And - she's not everyone's cup of tea. I simply liked the quote.

Dear Canem Malum,

In my opinion the US should not have interfered when Iran nationalized the oil industry. The oil companies in the US had too much influence, and Eisenhower succumbed to that influence. If left alone Iran under Mossadegh might have transitioned to a secular democracy.

Carter had a bad hand in Iran and he played it poorly. Offering a sick old man, the Shah, refuge in the US, seems a decent thing to do. I don't think it had to mean the break with Iran that it did.

The three initiatives by Carter could have been three steps toward peace. The Camp David agreements between Begin and Sadat could have ushered in an era of peace in the Middle East if followed up. The Salt 2 agreement on weapons with the USSR could have led to the end of the Cold War between the US and USSR. The turning of the Panama Canal to Panama could have led to a new relationship between the US and Latin America.

Unfortunately Reagan got in, and Carter's initiatives in the Middle East and Latin America were not followed up. Reagan had a lot to do with the ending of the Cold War. If that had been accompanied by a Marshall Plan for the USSR there might not be the present confrontation with Putin.

Foxy
If Bryce was a republican before she took office then she perjured herself when she took the oath of allegiance , if she became republican after she took the oath then she should have resigned.
Either way she is now a liar and a perjurer.

Is Mise,

There, now you must feel better having said
what you wanted to all along. And as CM would
say - "Kudos, for standing up for your principles!"

However, many would disagree with your take on this
and many other things. But that's to be expected
for all of us I suppose.

In this case even our former PM Tony Abbott disagreed
with your take on this issue. He said that the Dame
Quentin Bryce was entitled to express her personal
opinion.

Whether she had that opinion earlier - none of us
know but as Mr Abbott said:

"It's more tan appropriate for the Governor-General
approaching the end of her term, to express a
personal view on a number of subjects and that's
what she's doing."

She did it with grace and style at the final Boyer
lecture 24th November 2013 just before she retired -
having done her job beautifully for five years.

Here is the text of the former Governor General
Dame Quentin Bryce's final Boyer Lecture delivered
just 4 months before she retired from her Vice-Regal
role,

The few remarks that she made that caused some controversy
came at the END of a speech entitled "Advance Australia
Fair." They were NOT the emphasis of her speech and should be
taken in context:

http://australianpolitics.com/2013/11/24/quentin-bryce-boyer-lecture.html

Foxy,
Noted, I always see perjury in context.
Who cares what Abbott’s opinion is?

Is Mise,

Who cares what Abbott's opinion is?

Well seeing as you said you see things in
context. And you want to be believed. Abbott
was Prime Minister at the time - so his words
were "in context."

You're welcome.

Foxy
Did Bryce appear as a private person, preface her remarks that she was speaking as a private person or was she speaking as ths G-G of Australia.
If she was so speaking then to offer her private opinion was downright bad manners.

Is Mise,

In accepting the offer Quentin Bryce five months
from the end of her time in office took the
opportunity for a full flowering of her own voice.

She spoke on major public issues with her emphasis
drawing on her own lifetime experiences. Therefore
I believe that she was entitled to do that. She was
not there fulfilling the job of Governor-General.
She was there speaking on her own behalf. From her own
experiences.

The Boyer lecture series is an important part of our
cultural history and a platform for the dissemination of
big ideas and challenges for Australian national
conversations.

They have always included significant public personalities
with something to say. People like Rupert Murdoch,
Peter Cosgrove, Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, have all
taken part.

Anyway, you probably see things differently and that's
fair enough. I am simply expressing my view as I see it.

Dear David F-

I disagreed with most of your post.
But at least you acknowledged Carter's management of Iran- they used the Shah to rally popular support against the US- they probably would have found an excuse anyway- but they could have redirected the Shah to somewhere more suitable- removed embassy staff- the CIA should have recommended it.

Maybe more later.

I think that Australia will eventually become a
Republic. It may not happen in my lifetime but
it will happen. The people of Australia will decide
what they want. And that is as it should be. It is
up to the people of this country to decide what kind
of country they want to live in. Hopefully there will
be a full acknowledgement and inclusion of our Indigenous
People.

Personally I hope that I won't get to see as part of
our country - Kind Charles, Queen Camilla, and Prince
William as Governor-General. That would be ridiculous.

A classic case of indecisive leadership it appears.

David F comment 1- US should not have interfered

Answer 1-
The US had to interfere because power is based on oil- for now- but some are more sane than others. Without dominance instability ensues.

David F comment 2- Panama Canal to give up to Panama.

Answer 2- The US or similar needs to control the Panama Canal because
The Panama Canal (Suez) is global consumer critical infrastructure without which tyranny and cost of goods will increase by an order of magnitude. China now controls Kenya's ports. Maybe we'll see a 'new spice road' age. In a sense "what is necessary is right" "quod est necessarium est licitum". I suspect that sans the US 'the bankers' (and those groups that hold dominance in the banks) think they will be in control.

It appears that Foxy doesn't see a connection between the UK and Australia- but many if not most do. Hopefully - "Personally I hope that I won't get to see as part of our country"- Foxy. Yes I hope that Foxy doesn't continue to be part of this country. No offense Foxy.

Canem Malum,

No offense taken. Your position as a staunch monarchist
is perfectly understandable.

I do acknowledge our connection to the UK. However I want us
to stand on our own two feet as a nation. However it will
be up to the Australian people to make that decision.
As for me not being part of this country? Too late.
I was born here and I will die here. This is my home.
Whether you like it or not. My allegiance is to Australia and her
people - not to a foreign monarch. I should stress - I am
not anti-British. I am pro-Australian. There's a difference.

Foxy said- I do acknowledge our connection to the UK. However I want us to stand on our own two feet as a nation.

Answer-
So Foxy acknowledges Australia's connection- but wants to sever it.

Maybe you are working for a foreign power or ideology seeking to weaken Australian alliances?

Dostoevsky talked about Russian's that hated Russia and what it stood for- Nihilists.

And Foxy says that The Monarchy is ridiculous.

No offense.

Canem Malum,

No I did not say the monarchy is ridiculous
or that I want to sever it or our ties with
it. The UK, and the US are our strongest
allies and will continue to be. I am not
working for a foreign power. I have enough
on my plate as a wife, mother, and grand-mother.
No offence taken.

Canem Malum,

Your suggestion of my working for a foreign power?
With which you said you did not mean to offend
I should also explain to you that I have pledged
my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose
democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties
I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Are you an Australian citizen and to whom have
you pledged your allegiance?

No offense meant.

Foxy By the laws to which you ascribe Elizabeth II is part of the government of Australia, to which you give allegiance.
Good on yer!!

Is Mise,

Citizens of Australia in the Citizenship ceremonies
around the country do not pledge allegiance to
Queen Elizabeth. They pledge allegiance Australia and
its people - not the Queen. Unlike Members of parliament
who are required to do so - at least for now.

Is Mise,

Perhaps you're thinking of the Oath of Allegiance on
becoming a British Citizen where in their citizenship
ceremonies they are required to swear an allegiance
to the Queen. Or you're mixing it up with our MPs
when they take their Oath of Office.

In any case Australian citizens pledge their allegiance
to Australia and its people.

Dear Foxy,

«I think that Australia will eventually become a
Republic. It may not happen in my lifetime but
it will happen.»

Indeed, if the trend continues, it looks like some parts of Australia will become a republic.

«Personally I hope that I won't get to see as part of
our country - Kind Charles, Queen Camilla, and Prince
William as Governor-General. That would be ridiculous.»

No, this should not happen in your country.
Most likely even in your own lifetime, you will instead see Dan Andrews become president-for-life of the Republic of Victoria and unlike the Royals who have far better things to do and think about, he will be watching your diet like a hawk, with strict mandatory reporting of each and every calorie you put in your mouth.

You may then try to steal the border through the mine-fields, over to Queensland where you will not have to plead: "Oh Charles, may I please have another biscuit?"

Foxy,
Citizens pledge their allegianceto Australia and its laws, one of the laws is the Constitution which states that the Parliament of Australia consists of the Queen, the Senate and the Representatives, thus allegiance is pledged to the Queen.

You can’t get around that.

Is Mise,

I am not going to argue with you.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

The Australian people will make their own decisions
regarding the monarchy - and hopefully it will be done
within my lifetime.

Stay safe and take care.

Foxy,
Don’t want to discuss ths Constitutional complications?
You can’t get away from the fact that ElizabethII is part of our Parliament, dodge and duck as much as you like.
What about those who swear allegiance whilst pushing for a republic, are they not perjurers and liars?

Ideological nihilist denialism.

Is Mise,

OK - I can see that you're not going to let this go.
Things have changed over time. Today we have -

an Oath of Office that Members of Parliament take.
There's an Oath of Allegiance by members of the armed forces.
Then there is a Pledge of Commitment that Australian citizens
take.

In 1994 the Keating government replaced the Oath of
Allegiance with a Pledge of Commitment to Australia for its
citizens and removed the reference to the crown.

Looking at things logically we need to do better than in
perpetuating tired platitudes.

When any Australian is required to pledge allegiance to the
Queen they are implicitly accepting that there is a higher
authority than the Australian people and that this authority
is held by the British royal family. This just does not ring
true for a country that commonly addresses its Prime Ministers
by their first names.

If you agree that the primary allegiance of any Australian
should be to Australia and its people then surely it is not
a big leap to suggest that we should also be represented by
an Australian as our head of state.

David F comment 3- Unfortunately Reagan got in

Answer 3-

The US changes it's leaders more often due to the maximum 8 year term which impacts stability. Democracy is often more unstable than monarchy- in a sense- but when change occurs under monarchy it's potentially more disruptive. Perhaps for both democratic and monarchies the sizes and dimensions and stability of the 'nested sandboxes of freedom' are important- but should be adaptable to circumstances. You need to have the capability to fight off those that don't play by the same rules- but sadly this is the only way many can operate successfully. In our problematic 'modern society' there are those on the edge that perhaps have too much freedom to be compatible with the desire of most for stability and safety. As Is Mise said "benign anarchy" is unrealistic- perhaps an appeal to this principle most often is used to entice an opponent to show mercy- so they can crush their skull- there is something to be said for 'muscular peace'.

Control over resources and trade routes has always been critical to power. Sometimes all one has is bad decisions- a tight rope. There are always those who want to push you off to fall in their joy- some actors are more sane than others.

Jordan Peterson says it's easier to make things worse than better.

If Foxy said 'good morning' personally I'd be wondering her angles. Even if it is in fact a nice morning- misdirection. There are those outside the nested multiplicities of circles of trust, stability, safety.

Kudos Is Mise

Occassionally I read 'The Jerusalem Post'- and am amazed at the level of sophistication of thought- I'm certain that the sophistication of its politicians and think tanks is even higher. They appear holistic about their interest and the angles for power. Impressive. I wish my people were as aware

Foxy,
You’re running.

Good comment Foxy, as usual. Issy is a dog with a bone, he supports people in parliament whose objective is to destroy our democratic institutions at the point of a gun. Along with their extreme far right allies, they would impose a totalitarian regime on us all with the Loverly Pauline as queen.

Let it be noted we do not give allegiance to a peice of dirt or a group of multicultural people.

Allegiance is given to the principle of ideas and laws that govern a group. You are swaering allegiance to follow an idea / social philosophy - maybe represented by a flag that symplolically expresses those principles.

[The Australian flag with British ensign in one corner - language and cultural values -and stars of the Southern cross - states in the union - with the colours representing white = purity, blue = lofty ideals, red = sacrifice of life] It is to these ideas we give allegiance. We have people in Australia who want to espouse another set of ideas and fly a different flag.

LET THESE PEOPLE COME OUT OF THEIR BUNKERS AND PRESENT THEIR FLAGS SO WE KNOW WHERE THEIR ALLEGIANCE LIES!

Plato's Republic- perhaps one of the first books on the nature of civilization- Marx would have said it was utopian- but Marx himself was more utopian- dystopian.

'The Dogs' of Plato's Republic were the soldiers- the ones that loyally lay peacefully at the feet of the leaders- but stood against threats to their home- they were one's from which leadership was chosen- and from whose virtue the civilization was renewed- if as Paul1405 says Is Mise is a dog- I say 'woof woof'.

What would Plato call Paul1405 ?- perhaps a fox- thieving, murdering, liar- while all perhaps kill for some it's in their nature.

CM,

Other than trying to up your intelligence with references to the classics, the saying is "like a dog with a bone" it doesn't say he's a dog, but like that dog, never gives up.

Paul,
And I won’t give up, it’s a juicy bone and so far no one has had a go at proving me wrong when I say that those who espouse republicanism and belong to a party that works towards its accomplishment and then swear allegiance to the Queen are liars and perjurers.

Be the first.

Is Mise,

Your bone doesn't have meat on it:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Australia)

Dear Paul,

Don't let someone dim your light, simply because
it's shining in their eyes.

Canem Malum,

Just to clarify. Plato was a lover not a fighter.
And he would not have found Paul any kind of threat.
Here's a few quotes from Plato's, "The Symposium" :

"If only there were a way to start a city or an
army made up of lovers and the boys they love.
Theirs would be the best possible system of society ..."

"And so, when a person meets the half that is his very
own, whatever his orientation, whether it's to young men
or not, then something wonderful happens,
the two are struck from their senses by love,
by a sense of belonging to one another, and
by desire, and they don't want to be separated
from one another, not even for a moment."

"Love is born into every human being: it calls back the halves of
our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two and
heal the wound of human nature."

My husband has been reading some of Canem Malum's comments here
and he found them "a bit naff." He also think that CM ahould
change his moniker from Canem Malum to "a funny galah."

cont'd ...

My husband has just corrected me saying that
if CM doesn't like the moniker a "funny galah,"
and finds it too "Aussie." Perhaps he'd prefer
to use "Twat" or "tosser" instead.
No offense.

Foxy,
Tell me where I’m wrong and expose my invalid reasoning for all to see, or…

Is Mise,

I have already done that by providing the
link from Wikipedia that gives the history
of Australia's Oath of Allegiance and how
it has changed over time. Your persistent
claims are wrong. You can always Google this
information for yourself.

I have no further wish to inter-act with you.
Talk to Canem Malum - you have much in common.

The Fox disappears into its den,defeated.

Issy, CM thinks you are a dog, and we all know that's not true, you're actually a galah, pink and gray, pink for being a bit of a lefty, and gray for toppen a 100. I call you a galah in the nice way. Now I realize you have a bone to pick, not that galah's pick bones, but you're an exception to the rest of the flock.

Be Kind and Prosper. (-!-)

Paul,
Still working on a serious reply I see.
You might look up the tell us all which referendum changed the Oath (Affirmation) of Allegiance.
If it was not changed then those MPs who have not taken it were not entitled to sit in Parliament and having received various monies from the public purse are obliged to return them.

We have the release of the Republican flag.
http://startsat60.com/media/news/peter-fitzsimons-promotes-controversial-redesign-of-the-australian-flag?fbclid=IwAR06yB3QoCplnBf7A392324tDYy4NTz_vHUb4Ack5SM9llEKed-AkH_oFXE

Paul,

According to the link I gave from Wikipedia
which anyone can access on the web. Anyone
except Is Mise it seems. Perhaps he can't Google?
Poor thing.

All MPs take an Oath of Allegiance to the crown.
As does the Governor-General in his/her Oath of Office.
The Armed Forces do the same.

Australian Citizenship is the only thing that has changed over
time. Australian nationality was created by the Nationality
and Citizenship Act 1948.

In 1994 the Keating Government removed the reference to the
crown.

There have been no changes since.

The proposed flag what does the Black represent? A night sky? the colour of skin? a dark place? Depression? The Yellow I assume represents the moon, a dim reflection which we have reached in our lifetime. The Brown, red I assume means the red earth of the Centre of Australia on which we live. It is not inspirational or aspirational of higher things. At least green and yellow could have represented prosperity and growth and international achievement.

Josephus,

Thanks for the link.

I've seen better and more appropriate designs.
When the time comes - I'm sure there will be
better choices presented. This one isn't it.

Josephus,

The Southern Horizon flag is my favourite.
No preference for any cultural, social, or
ethnic group. It's a flag to unite a
multicultural society.

It was designed by Brett Moxey - 2014.

For those that are to thick to reason,
Allegiance to Australia requires one to observe the laws, the Constitution is law.The Australian Parliament consists of theQueen and the two houses.
Anyone who ows allegiance to Australia automatically recognises and owes allegiance to the Queen.

Dispute that.

Multiculture is a female idea, everyone is recoginsed as equal - but is not a single ideal to adopt for onself's personal aspiration. A robust society has a single aspiration e.g. Japan, Korea etc.Everyone works for the same National goal.

Bye the way,anyone worked out yet who is going to command the armed forces in this republic where the President will have no power?

Josephus- Yes I think Jordan Peterson said this too "the politics of equality is based on feminine archetypes"- based on the idea of agreeableness- but Jung sort of implied that a balance of archetypes was important in society. Men and Women are different and that implies that they fill different roles in society- in some contexts it can appear that males or females have more power- but overall it's fairly evenly balanced when averaged over time and in different contexts- otherwise perhaps the society would cease to exist. But perhaps that is the aim of those that claim that females are slaves.

Interestingly Freud the father of psycho-analytics was Hebrew- many psychologists that went to the US from Europe were- It's been said that the Hebrew culture also has feminine archetypes- but perhaps in a slightly different way.

He seems to project the alienation of the Hebrews in the West (Europe and US) when he talks of "the dangerous crowd". Jung seems to counter impatiently- paraphrasing "you can't understand the healthy by studying the sick". It's fascinating think of psychologists being just as vulnerable to projection as everyone else.

You still have to respect Freud for his concern about his nephew Edward Bernays that attacked the US with weaponized mass consumerism- "manipulate the people with their emotions".

Hi Issy,

I was thinking, General Issymo and his faithful side-kick Private Pansy. How's that sound? GI can bark out the orders to PP, load the chocies, throw that grenade, catch it kid! Victory is assured!

Paul
Got you beat too, has it?

In a war you give allegiance to your trained commander as he should have the wisdom of movement and strategy to achieve the greatest advance with the least casualties. You do not give allegiance to the untrained divers opinions of the company.

In life we give tassid allegiance to one idea, one principle - if you see it is not the best change to one you see as best

Issy, as anti-war as I am, I don't much care. Should we come under attack by the Penguin Army of Antarctica and have to wait for orders from the Queen of England, me thinks we're gonners!

Hi Paul,

Here's a link from Home Affairs which outlines
things quite clearly about the responsibilities of
Australian citizenship.

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship-subsite/Pages/Learn-about-being-an-Australian

1) Australian citizens have an obligation to obey the law.
2) Defend Australia should the need arise.
3) Vote in federal and state or territory elections and in
referenda.
4) Serve in jury duty if called to do so.

As far as an Oath of Allegiance for Australian Citizens is
concerned that has changed over time. In 1994 the Keating
Government removed reference to the Crown. There has been
no changes since.

Read the link I gave.

I don't think Paul1405 is anti-war- he's fighting all the time.

Paraphrasing Clausewitz- "the elements of war can even be seen in newborns"

Dear Paul,

My apologies. The link I gave earlier from Home Affairs
I typed in error. Here it is again:

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship-subsite/Pages/Learn-about-being-an-Australian.aspx

In the Australian Citizenship Pledge - you are making a public
commitment to Australia and accepting the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship. You are pledging:

1) Your loyalty to Australia and its people.
2) That you will share Australia's democratic beliefs and
respect its rights and liberties.
3) To uphold and obey the laws of Australia that the MPs that
you elect make.

You don't become an Australian citizen until you have made your
pledge of Commitment to Australia.

There's more explanations at the link I gave.

Foxy
The Queen is part of our Federal Parliament and thus part of the Australia that you mention, did you miss that bit?

Is Mise,

The final Constitutional ties between the UK and Australia
ended in 1988 with the passing of the Australia Act 1986.
This formally separated all legal ties between Australia
and the UK.

Paul Keating is a Rebublican and acts offensively to our culture and values. He has more in common with China's CCP policy than loyalty to the freedoms of the Crown.

Foxy,
But it didn’t alter the Constitution andElizabeth II is still a part of the Federal Parliament.
Read the Constitution.

Is Mise,

I have not missed anything.
You've missed a great deal.

Foxy,
Just read the Constitution.

Is Mise,

You go first and read the relevant parts of the Constitution.
Especially Section 44.

And then read - the Oath of Allegiance in Australia and to whom
it applies. Then read The Australian Citizenship Pledge and
Commitment.

cont'd ...

I'm now going to watch the Grand Finale of -
"I'm a Celebrity: Get Me Out of Here." I want
to see who's crowned King or Queen of the jungle.

Great fun.

Hi Issy,

Since Phil has gone, how sad, went in the prime of life, and Liz is a free agent, the merry widow perhaps, you two arn't an item by chance? Queen Elizabeth and Prince Issy, KCMG, VC, DFO, ABC, MG, 2SM JJJ, Channel 7, certainly has a regal ring to it, would you not say.

Foxy,
Read all that, what’s its relevance?

Paul,
Your bad taste knows no bounds.

Issy, all's fair in love and war. I've covered both. Bad taste is in the eye of the beholder.

Dear Paul,

A little bad taste is like a nice dash
of paprika.

Is Mise,

Irrelevance only creeps up on you if you
let it.

Act your way into relevancy.
Don't ask your way into relevancy.

Foxy
I’m off pig hunting for the next two weeks, do read the Constitution and learn.

To make it a fair fight the pigs should have guns as well. I don't approve, but take care anyway.

I can just recall the old grandfather and uncle going pig shooting. They were known to bring home little ones they called, "squalliers", fatten them up in a pen for the table. Don't know how they caught them, but they did. Does anyone do that today?

Is Mise,

You obviously have not read Section 44 of our Constitution
which is an anachronism that states our Members of
Parliament cannot sit in Parliament if they give allegiance
to a foreign entity.

We've recently had that fiasco where
many of our MPs had to resign their positions because it was
found that they had dual citizenship either by birth or
ancestry.

Yet they
are required to give an Oath of Allegiance to a British
ruler. Not an Australian - no matter what title you give
her. She is still a British Queen. That is very relevant and
that part of our Constitution ( as well as
many other parts) needs to be amended.

Anyway, I'm done in arguing with you

Is Mise,

You really should read these three links:

http://theconversation.com/enough-is-enough-on-section-44-its-time-for-reform-102708

http://theconversation.com/the-section-44-soap-opera-why-more-mps-could-be-in-danger-of-being-forced-out-116955

http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-section-44-remains-a-constitutional-trip-wire-that-should-be-addressed-115435

I'm going to repeat what I wrote earlier.
If we become a republic we could create
a modern set of legislation that makes the power
of the Head of State explicit and clear and
provides checks and balances in case their power
was abused. We could make sure a Head of State
was answerable to the people in every way.

There is literally no advantage in having a monarch
other than as I said before "tradition." The only
positive a monarch brings to Australian society is
the concept of tradition.

Denying women a vote was traditional as well, imprisoning
homosexuals was tradition. Executing people was traditional.
Not recognizing the Indigenous community as citizens was
traditional. Tradition has never prevented us from kaing
positive changes.

It shouldn't now.

I think Foxy is working for a foreign power. Paraphrasing Marx- if you want to destroy a people destroy their traditions. Do you feel yourself becoming more powerless?

We are a country that is republican in spirit. We believe
in egalitarianism, in democracu. We believe in merit
before background, status, or class. But we have been
unable to make our constitutional reflect the tenor
and values of our society.

We need to stop keeping things on the back burner. Many
think it is inevitable eventually, and inevitability leads
to inaction. This lack of passion may also have something to
do with the fact that the question of a republic has historically
been framed as something external to us. A question of what we
don't want to be. And that's not a particularly inspiring
message.

The republic has to mean more than just severance. It needs to
be s bigger question about our relationship with the country,
the land, and one another, and the position of our indigenous
people.

In any case it is up to the Australian people to decide what
kind of country they want to live in. No one else should do
it for them.

Thanks folks. I'll see you all on another discussion.
This one for me has run its course.

My apologies for all the typos. I have eye problems.
And my vision is deteriorating. So please bear with
me.

Have a nice day.

Stay safe and have a nice day.

Canem Malum,

It is extremely unfair for you to suggest that I am
"working for a foreign power" simply because my views
don't agree with yours. And that I am quoting Marx?
My parents and grand-parents fled the Stalinist terror
that occupied their native land. They lost everything.
Their country, family members, social position.
I find you comments extremely offensive. They are
totally wrong. You tell me that that" no offence" is
intended? All that means is that you're going to offend
me but for me not to get mad.

Poor show.

Dear Foxy,

Did you bring this topic in order to push it down our throats?

Many of us replied, each in our own ways and with our own different reasons, that we don't want a republic.

You can still have a republic if you want, just please do not include in it others who are not interested. You can probably do so by keeping it small enough rather than trying to force it on all the rest of us here. Have you even tried to convince your state, Victoria, or perhaps your local council, to become a republic?

There's an old Russian proverb -

"Don't! Don't dig up the past!
If you dig up the past you'll lose an eye."

But the proverb goes on to say -

"If you don't learn from the past - you'll
lose both eyes!"

I prefer quoting Alexander Solzhenitsyn not
Marx.

Yuyutsu,

I was not aware that I am pushing anything down
anybody's throat. I think I've made it quite clear
that the Australian people will be the deciders on
whether we become a republic or not, and when and if.
I am merely expressing an opinion and providing
information and data - which is an occupational habit for
a qualified librarian and researcher.

Anyhow, if you find what I post offensive - you are under
no obligation to read or participate in the discussion.

I have been taught to be polite and respond to
people's comments. Of course that leaves me open
to personal attacks - which are stressful and
offensive. But I guess that's the norm on public
forums discussing politics and social issues. Especially
when people have the advantage of hiding behind anonymity.
They can become keyboard warriors which they probably
aren't in real life.

Yuyutsu you take care and stay safe.
And I do respect your opinion.
For me this discussion has now run its course
so I shan't be bothering anyone again.

Have a nice day.

Foxy believes the Monarch who represents the Crown - the citizens of the State, is just a tradition. How immature is her vision. The monarch protects the citizens against bad government and laws imposed by governments. This is far from just a tradition it is the basis of our constitution.

foxy is a plant of the Republican Party.
She posts the issue each year.
________________________________________
12 January 22
______________

This is the latest plan for Australia to become
a Republic:

http://sbs.com.au/news/this-is-the-latest-plan-for-australia-to-become-a-republic/97275d56-9112-47db-99bb-e98acc33f73d

Your opinions please?
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 12 January 2022 3:29:57 PM
______________________________________________
18th April 21
_______________

We've seen the recent strife that the royals
caused with the Oprah interview. We've seen
the dignified and moving funeral service of
Prince Philip. Questions arise about the
Queen's continued reign. Is it time for our
country to consider having its own head-of state?
Or should things be left as they are?
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 18 April 2021
______________________________________________

Kudos Josephus.