The role of the Monarchy in modern times is a complex issue. However, in a constitutional monarchy, such as Australia, the monarchy fulfills a vital role: to act as a safeguard against those in government who act against the vital interests of the People.
Troubles facing Australia
Australia faces times ahead that will test the ability of our nation to survive. Those of the liberal-internationalist mind-set now comprise the majority of our country's "halls of power" - in parliament, the media, big business, and the education system.
"Political Correctness" is rife throughout our society - people are afraid to speak their minds because of the possible social intimidation that may be meted out to them.
The problems are enormous: Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Asianisation, a massive foreign debt, inadequate national defence, and a vast economic mess.
And as for the republic proposed by the Multiculturalists in Australia - what a mess that would be! All it means is that we would be living in some sort of a Third World Banana-Republic. Those Quisling politicians that form Australia's "Traitor Class" intend that "our" new Constitution should include some soppy kowtowing references to some sort of Aboriginal “prior ownership” of our land, as well as to institutionalise Multiculturalism as part of the wording of the Constitution.
Under the Multiculturalists, we would just end up with a republican "elected dictatorship" - although this is pretty much what we have now anyway; and will continue to have under the rule of the current political parties, no matter whether we live under a republic or a monarchy.
Such an "elected dictatorship" brings forth the prospect of an expanded Multiculturalist tyranny:
1) Making it an illegal act, subject to fines and/or jail, to speak your mind on immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Asianisation of Australia.
2) Making it illegal for most people to own firearms for the purposes of recreation or personal self-defence.
3) Taking away a whole range of our freedoms - using bit-by-bit "Fabian-style" tactics, always using some superficial excuse.
4) Institutionalising Multiculturalism (i.e. continuously ram down our throats), multiracialism, and the Asianisation of Australia - our children will be brainwashed ("educated") into believing all of this rubbish; whilst the adults will be fined, thrown in jail, or both, if they try to oppose these anti-Australian tactics.
Queen Elizabeth II
In a development that is scary, or should be scary, to anyone who believes in a national future for Australia, Queen Elizabeth II has been consistently revealed to be a committed internationalist and multiracialist, and is thus firmly opposed to the vital interests of European Australia.
Queen Elizabeth II encouraged the British Government in their sell-out of White-ruled Rhodesia. She used her influence to facilitate and enable the Rhodesian question to be "resolved".[1]
Lord Blake noted the Queen's influence at the Lusaka conference, and said
"One can only surmise - and one understands, and one gets to be told by various people who do seem to know - that the Queen herself is very "multiracial" minded, and is by no means a believer in "white ascendancy". Very far from it." [2]
This view was confirmed by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who once wrote
"The Queen was sympathetic to the Black cause in Rhodesia and Southern Africa"
[3]
She clashed with the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, over Thatcher's refusal to place an economic boycott against White-ruled South Africa; the Queen was once again trying to influence British politicians, this time as part of the Western sell-out of White-ruled South Africa.[4]
She has made her ideological position crystal-clear in various speeches she has given over the years. Whilst the Queen personally reviews all of her own speeches (excepting those at the State Opening of Parliament), her most important speeches are her Christmas and Commonwealth Day broadcasts, as - unlike her other speeches - these are the only formal speeches given without Ministerial approval.[5]
Christmas 1983: "the greatest problem in the world today remains the gap between rich and poor countries and we shall not begin to close this gap until we hear less about nationalism and more about inter-dependence. One of the main aims of the Commonwealth is to make an effective contribution towards redressing the economic balance between nations."[6]
Christmas 1982: "Colour is no longer an indication of national origin. Until this century most racial and religious groups remained concentrated in their homelands but today almost every country of the Commonwealth has become multi-racial and multi-religious. This change has not been without its difficulties, but I believe that for those with a sense of tolerance the arrival and proximity of different races and religions have provided a much better chance for each to appreciate the value of the others."[7]
Christmas 1981: "This Christmas we should remember especially... those from other parts of the Commonwealth who have come to Britain to make new lives but have not yet found themselves fully accepted."[8]
Christmas 1976: "I met in my home a group of people who are working for better understanding between people of different colour, different faiths and different philosophies - and who are trying to solve the very real problems of community relations. It is not something that is easy to achieve. But things that are worthwhile seldom are, so it is encouraging to know that there are many people trying to achieve it."[9]
Christmas 1972: [regarding the Commonwealth] "we have created a web of relationships between peoples of many races and creeds... We are trying to create a wider family of Nations".[10]
Christmas 1968: "The words "the brotherhood of man" have a splendid ring about them, but the idea may seem too remote to have any practical meaning in this hard and bustling age. Indeed it means nothing at all unless the brotherhood, starting with individuals can reconcile rival communities, conflicting religions, differing races and the divided and prejudiced nations of the world."[11]
Christmas 1953: "To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life... In pursuit of that supreme ideal the Commonwealth is moving steadily towards greater harmony between its many creeds, colours and races".[12]
Much controversy was caused by the Queen's anti-nationalism speech in 1983. When Enoch Powell accused the Government of being behind the controversial speech, Buckingham Palace issued a reply which made the origin of the Queen's speech quite clear:
"The Christmas broadcast is a personal message from the Queen to her Commonwealth. The Queen has all her people at heart, irrespective of race, creed or colour."[13]
More controversy was caused by the Queen's 1996 Christmas speech, in which she hailed the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, a convicted terrorist, as "a continuing inspiration". Earlier that same year, Mandela, visiting the United Kingdom, had received an enthusiastic welcome from the Queen, and she spoke of her prior visit to Mandela's South Africa in 1995:
"Our memories of the visit are still vivid. Most of all, we were struck by the sight of South Africans of all races working together and playing together. We saw for ourselves the miraculous transformation of a society based on inequality into one in which every man and woman is equal before the law."[14]
This attack against the memory of Apartheid-era South Africa was not appreciated by the many friends of the old South Africa, especially considering the depths to which that poor betrayed country later fell to under Black rule.
Considering the Queen's known attachment to the multi-racial British Commonwealth of Nations, one would have to wonder whether she owes allegiance to her own people in Britain, or to the non-White countries of the Commonwealth and their people who are flooding into the United Kingdom.
The Queen meets with her Commonwealth Heads of Government.
Does she favour her foreign friends over her own people?
Prince Charles
Prince Charles is also a renowned multiracialist, Multiculturalist, and liberal-internationalist. He has actively helped to produce a series of television shows that were aimed at propagandising an acceptance in Britain of "the influx of over a million people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and East Africa".[15]
Regarding this television project, Prince Charles said
"My belief rested on the feeling that, if only more people could have the advantages of information and knowledge about other people's social behaviour, customs, religion and so forth, then perhaps some of the prejudice against immigrant groups in this country might be slowly reduced.
The more people understood about the background of our immigrants, the less apprehensive they would be about them. To get on neighbourly terms with people of other races and countries, you've got to get more familiar with them...
I'm particularly fortunate in having seen different people in their own environments - many of which I have admired and found fascinating. It's easier, therefore, for me not to be prejudiced.
But it's difficult not to be prejudiced if they come and live in your street, and possibly the value of your property falls because of the new people arriving, and if you believe all the bad things you're told about them, because you don't know any better.
...We hope to stimulate interest and knowledge and tolerance through new TV programmes- this is a field in which TV can be of immense assistance. Given that, as I say, you can't change attitudes or facts overnight, or in a year, you can speed up the rate at which people's minds change."[16]
Prince Charles - so far removed from the real world, not experiencing the high levels of crime, the dissolution of culture, the feeling of being a stranger in your own land, and the other "joys of diversity" - has no idea of what he is talking about, and to say "because you don't know any better" of the British people who are living on the frontline of multiculturalism and multiracialism shows his contempt for the common folk.
Prince Charles pontificates, from his ivory tower, upon the need for national suicide via immigration, ignoring the survival of the British People - which should surely be his number one priority.
Of such stuff are traitors made.
Future Royal generations
And what of those in the Line of Succession to the Crown?
It seems highly likely that they, too, are cast in the same internationalist mould as the traitors Elizabeth and Charles.
The monarchy has never saved us
from anti-Australian legislation
During Queen Elizabeth's reign many anti-Australian and undemocratic laws have been passed or changed in her name:
racial vilification laws (so-called)
anti-discrimination laws
anti-firearm laws
and others
Despite having taken an oath to uphold the rights and liberties of her subjects (including those of us in Australia) she has done absolutely NOTHING to oppose any of these anti-freedom laws - despite the well-known clause in our Constitution which gives her the power to disallow any law for up to a year after it has been has passed (section 59, of which the monarchy is most certainly aware).
In fact, when the Australian government passed legislation in 1996 enabling the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens, petitions were sent to the Queen asking her to disallow that law. Instead of taking action to ensure the rights of her subjects, the Queen merely avoided the issue. As an example, one reply to fervent pleas from her Australian subjects was dismissive, directing her petitioners back to the very same government Ministers who were responsible for passing the anti-freedom laws:
"Her Majesty has made careful note of the views you express in your letter and petitions, but I should explain that this is not a matter in which The Queen would intervene. As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts through her Governor-General on the advice of her Australian Ministers and it is to them that your appeal should be directed."[17]
To protect the freedoms and future of the Australian People, the Queen could have, for instance, disallowed the Racial Vilification Act, an odious law designed to curb the right of Australians to free speech, to supress public opposition to Asian immigration and multiracialism. But she did not make any move against this anti-democratic law.
Of course, such an action on her part would have bought condemnation from our traitor politicians and media, but if the monarch is not going to save our freedoms, then there is little point in having a monarchy as a safeguard of our freedoms.
To fulfill her role, the Queen should make the defence of her people her most important priority. Instead, she has knowingly denied and shunned her responsibilities to us.
She could have publicly spoken out against the mass immigration of people from Asia, Africa, and the rest of the Third World into Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. She could have provided moral leadership to her people against the Multiculturalists and internationalists that dominate the governments of the Commonwealth.
But, of course, the Queen actually agrees with, and encourages, Third World immigration into the White nations of the British Commonwealth, because she is a traitor to her people, and we should expect nothing less from her.
There are many British Nationalists who also view the Queen with disdain.
For example, on the internet site of the British National Party, in an article entitled "Broken royal promises", BNP columnist Colin McAndrew writes that Queen Elizabeth has broken her Coronation promises to the British people:
"Her Majesty has not kept these promises and solemn oaths! She has broken all three, either by her own specific action, or by proxy. She has reneged on her promises and is therefore, in my humble opinion, unworthy to remain on the Throne of Britain!"[18]
The Institution of the Throne
And what of the "Institution of the Throne"? Taking into consideration its past and present (and, no doubt, future) misuse by the Royal Family, it has become totally useless.
Due to established "conventions", the Queen (and the rest of the Royal Family) will never interfere with the anti-Freedom laws and activities instituted in Australia.
The Royals will ignore all "Fabian-style" (bit-by-bit) encroachments on our civil liberties. They will do nothing whatsoever to stop any moves against our fundamental rights or freedoms. Especially if such moves are made bit-by-bit, and even more so when the Royals agree with those who would take away our freedoms.
In Western societies, in modern times, it is highly unlikely that we will lose our freedoms by the taking of power by a Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. In such a case, it is easier to see freedoms being snatched from the people, it is easier to become angry and rebel against a dictatorship. Instead, our freedoms are being taken bit by bit, piece by piece, never in one huge grab, never in one event that compells everyone to stand up and be counted. We are losing our freedoms piecemeal, our rights are being slowly eroded away, just as the sea erodes the seaside cliffs. The death of our freedoms is always death by degrees. Governments always have a "good excuse" to take away individual rights and freedoms, their spokesmen always sound so "reasonable" when they take away those freedoms - and never has the Queen stopped the loss of any of those rights being stripped from us.
As for a republic: The Royals have happily signed the Statute of Wesminster of 1931(Australia, 1942), the Australia Act of 1986, and will no doubt happily sign the Republic of Australia Enabling Act (or any law of like intent) when that time comes. Due to "convention" the Queen will sign all legislation passed in parliament, "upon the advice of her Ministers", no matter if the Ministers happen to be of such dubious quality as Al Grassby, Paul Keating, John Howard, or perhaps even Jack the Ripper.
Britain to the rescue?
It must be recognised that Australia owes much to the British people. It was the British who set in place the original foundation stone for our nation, by providing the bulk of those people who colonised, settled, pioneered, explored, opened up the land, and otherwise established the basis for modern Australia. Indeed, most Europeans in Australia are descended from British stock.
However, it should also be recognised that the British Government did not always have the best interests of Australia foremost in their hearts.
Britain stopped the explicit setting up of the White Australia Policy when the Australian colonies federated in 1901. Because of political, diplomatic, and economic reasons, they didn't want to offend Japan or their Empire interests (India and the coloured colonies). The Australian government was forced to use a sham “dictation test” to exclude non-Europeans, because the British Government had threatened to refuse Royal assent to any White Australia legislation (just as they had stopped several Australian parliamentary bills, which were designed to stop coloured immigration, from becoming law in 1896).[19]
British interference with White Australia legislation did not end in 1901. Several other attempts were made by Britain to interfere with proposed laws, and - on occasion - such pressure was successful.[20]
The transfer of the Cocos Islands in the 1950s from British rule to Australian rule almost didn't happen, due to British demands that the Cocos Islanders "be given sympathetic consideration" for settling in Australia. A compromise was later drawn up, whereby Australia would give the Islanders "sympathetic consideration" "to enter" (not "to settle") in Australia. Once again, Britain had tried to interfere with our policies on immigration to the detriment of our nation.[21]
Following such incidents, many people have come to the realisation that Australia cannot truly rely on Britain. Indeed, we now realise that only patriotic Australians could be relied upon to put Australia first.
Another widespread realisation is that Australia's European population is no longer "just British". Apart from those of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish descent (who still comprise the bulk of our population), there are now many here of Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, and other European descent. Indeed, our nation has produced a mixed-European population, which - due to our nation's unique heritage, history, culture, and way of life - has established a new nationality: The Australian.
Naturally, the Australian people will always have an affinity with the people of Britain. However, independent minded Australians would not want to be under the symbolic rule of Britain, anymore than the British would want to be under the symbolic rule of Australia.
Nevertheless, many of us have felt that Australia had much to gain (or, at least, nothing to lose) by permanently remaining under the umbrella of the British monarchy. But all that has changed. The anti-Australian activities of the Royal Family and the British Establishment have been revealed time and time again. The British monarchy is now just another part of the Fabian-style System that is choking Australia to death.
What path for the future?
After considering all of the foregoing, we can arrive at several realistic conclusions.
1) We can't trust, nor rely upon, the Queen - or Britain - to look after Australia's future. We don't want an internationalist Queen or King as our Head of State - a Royal traitor is still a traitor.
2) However, that being said, we need to balance the relatively low impact of the Monarchy upon Australia in modern times against the anti-Australian nature of a Multiculturalist republic - a republic that would have a disastrous impact upon the future of the Australian people.
3) A republic set up by the Multiculturalists is certain to be anti-Australian in form and intent. A new system is more than likely to increase government powers, that will eventually be used against the Australian People. Retaining the current system may stop the Multiculturalists from implementing some of their anti-national goals. Any new constitution put in place by anti-Australian traitors is sure to create a worse state of affairs than we currently have.
4) We must recognise that the Royal Family, Britain, the USA, and the United Nations are not only going to not aid us in our struggle for survival, but that they have actually assisted in the attempt to strangle our Nation to death via immigration, Multiculturalism, and multiracialism. To paraphrase Henry Lawson: Australia must look to herself for strength in the storm that is yet to come; that is, we can only rely upon ourselves to look after our national future.
What's the solution?
We must recognise that both the fake Republic and the anti-national Monarchy are opposed to Australia's national interests. We must strive for a People's Sovereign Nation, an Australia that asserts her independence not only politically but also in terms of our national identity - and stands fully committed to the future of our People.
1. Sarah Bradford, Elizabeth: A Biography of Her Majesty the Queen, Hermann, London, 1996, p.382-384
James Callaghan, Time and Chance, Collins, London, 1987, p.380.
Elizabeth Longford, Elizabeth R: A Biography, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1983, p.352.
Ben Pimlott, The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II, Harper Collins, London, 1996, p.347, 468-469.
2. Douglas Keay, Elizabeth II: Portrait of a Monarch, Ebury Press, London, 1991, p.186.
3. Bradford, p. 381.
4. Bradford, p.386-387.
Pimlott, p.507-512.
"Queen, Maggie rift on Sth Africa", Sunday Press (Melbourne), 8 June 1986.
"The spitting image of a real royal feud", newspaper and date unknown.
5. Ronald Allison and Sarah Riddell (editors), The Royal Encyclopedia, MacMillan Press, London, 1991, p.518.
6. "Christmas Broadcast 1983",
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3596.asp,
http://www.royal.gov.uk/print/Page3596.asp "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second: Christmas Message 1983", loose-leaf, no publication details.
"The Queen's Christmas Message - 1983", loose-leaf, no publication details.
7. "The Queen's Christmas Message - 1982", loose-leaf, no publication details.
8. "The Queen's Christmas Message - 1981", loose-leaf, no publication details.
9.A Queen Speaks to Her People: A Complete Record of Her Majesty's Christmas Messages to the Commonwealth from 1952 to 1976, Australian Heritage Society, Inglewood, Western Australia, 1977, p.38.
10.A Queen Speaks to Her People, p.34.
11.A Queen Speaks to Her People, p.30.
12.A Queen Speaks to Her People, p.10-11.
13. Trevor McDonald and Peter Tiffin, The Queen and the Commonwealth, Thames Methuen, London, 1986, p.172.
14. HRH. Queen Elizabeth II, "The Queens Christmas Message 1996", http://www.sim64.co.uk/queens-speech-1996.html Robert Hardman, "Queen Hails Mandela", The Age (Melbourne), 11 July 1996, p.A9.
15. "Royal On Racism", Sunday Press (Melbourne), 24 August 1986.
16. Rosemary York (compiler), Charles In His Own Words, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1981, p.118-119.
17. Correspondence between Mark Andrews and Buckingham Palace (Simon Gimson), 1997, copies in the author's possession, courtesy of Mark Andrews.
18. Colin McAndrew, "Broken royal promises", 7th June 2005, http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/mcandrew2.php [note: The three Coronation promises may be found in: The Music with the Form and Order of the Service to be Performed at the Coronation of Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the Abbey Church of Westminster on Tuesday the 2nd day of June 1953, Novello, London, 1953, p. 14.
19. Bill Murray, Crisis, Conflict and Consensus: Selected Documents Illustrating 200 Years in the Making of Australia, Rigby, Adelaide, 1984, p. 154-156.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, Vol. IV, 1901-2, pp. 4658-4659, 4660; cited in: Gordon Greenwood and Charles Grimshaw (eds.), Documents on Australian International Affairs 1901-1918, Thomas Nelson, West Melbourne, 1977, p.395-396.
Christopher Cunneen, King's Men: Australia's Governors-General from Hopetoun to Isaacs, George Allen & Unwin, North Sydney, 1983, p.26-28.
W.J. Hudson and M.P. Sharp, Australian Independence: Colony to Reluctant Kingdom, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, p.39-40.
John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1901, p.624-627.
Robin Gollan, Radical and Working Class Politics: A Study of Eastern Australia, 1850-1910, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, 1967, p.162-164.
J.T. Lang, I Remember, McNamara's Books, Leura, N.S.W., 1980, p.34.
Gordon Greenwood and Charles Grimshaw (eds.), Documents on Australian International Affairs 1901-1918, p.387-390, 451 (footnote 2). ADSS A4919.
"Proceedings of a Conference between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Premiers of the Self-Governing Colonies, held at the Colonial Office, London, June and July 1897"; cited in: Gordon Greenwood and Charles Grimshaw (eds.) Documents on Australian International Affairs 1901- 1918, p.386-387.
20. Christopher Cunneen, King's Men, p.65-67.
W.J. Hudson and M.P. Sharp, Australian Independence, p.40.
Malcolm Turnbull, cited in: Tom Keneally, Our Republic, William Heinemann, Port Melbourne, 1993, p.145.
21. Dennis Atkins, "Bitterness in Cocos Transfer", The Sun (Melbourne), 6 January 1996, p.30.
