18th April 2000
We are forced to use words to describe the reality around us, but words are often very imperfect tools of communication. Much misunderstanding occurs through the routine use of poorly defined words, and from the frequent accidental or deliberate misinterpretation or misuse of words.
After a recent group discussion in which I participated, dealing with the interpretation of words, we were rather surprised to realise that many of us had quite varied understandings of the same word. Variations in understanding are related to a person's age, education levels, environment, ethnic backgrounds, and many other factors such as the part of globe in which the person has recently been. Also complicating good communications in Australia is the Aussie's own brand of humour and his / her usage of slang terms.
It is well known that youngsters complain of a communications gap with their parents, and this is not surprising, especially when we consider that the news medias and entertainment industries have long been engaged in a continuing campaign to invent new words and terms, and to totally change the accepted meanings of established words and phrases. A prime example of this reversal of meanings is the word 'Gay'. Any accidental or deliberate confusion of terms such as this, can result in failures of communication that must contribute to disunity in any population.
As one travels from state to state, it is always necessary to ask for the local definition of the word 'sandwich'. Depending upon which state you are in, a sandwich can mean a quarter of two slices of bread, a half of two slices of bread, or two full slices of bread. In swimming wear one can wear swimmers, trunks, togs, cossies etc. Luggage can be luggage, ports, cases or trunks etc.
Even the pronunciation of the same word can vary widely. Certain slang usage can indicate where a person comes from such as "Lika aye" in North Queensland and "I reckon" in Tasmania.
Imperfect communications can cause a disunited community. A disunited community is always vulnerable to exploitation by ruthless manipulators. It provides an excellent opportunity for those who seek unlawful authority over the people to make a grab for power.
At our recent discussion mentioned above, the question was asked: " What do you understand to be the meaning of the word "Sovereign". Our answers varied from "I don't know" to "A coin" or "The Queen" or "The Queen as the ruler". Two suggested "Ruler".
I had been planning to write an article, and I now realised that I had better first define certain critical key words to make it clear what my article would really be about. It is important that the reader and I both agree on the meaning of the words that I am using, if we are to avoid misunderstandings.
In the political scene there are also many changes of interpretation that have developed. I feel this needs a separate section on it's own as it is so important for the people of Australia at this time to all understand the meaning of the words that are being used. The nature of the present critical situation in which we now find ourselves, is often hidden by a major game with words. Many people do not question if they find a word being used in a different context to what they are used to, and so often don't fully understand the significance of the change. Too often, words are used as a tool for deception and people are not fully aware of the new interpretation being placed upon them. This then causes a lack of understanding of the real issues being discussed.
For instance the young people claim that the older people do not understand them and all they request from their peers is to be accepted as a person with ideas and thoughts of their own. They forget that the older people also were young once and they had to earn respect as they undertook their role in a family, community and as a citizen. Although it was another era, there were still difficulties associated with being a young person trying to establish their own identity.
The younger people are in a difficult world and there is no question of this, but in the older generation a great deal more emphasis was placed on respect for the older person. These people have earned the right to be respected as they learnt wisdom and life's experiences the hard way and managed to survive them. They have much to teach the young.
An educated person could and still can respect and learn from an older person, even if the older person is not well educated. Many of the older people were too busy struggling to establish this wonderful country for their families and they did not have time or money to study and obtain degrees (education was not always free). Their degrees were from life itself.
In the last fifty years the gap in understanding is widening between young and old, and a lot of this can be blamed on the change of the meaning of words and the invention of new words. Words are being used as tools to manipulate the people and divide them. Words can be used to divert people's attention off a target that has been set so that their focus is directed at other interests. When this happens they don't successfully deal with their original target.
As I previously stated, words are our major tools that we use to communicate. Words can be used in many ways to manipulate. The tactics used on the public with the use of these tools become more apparent every day.
This was well demonstrated when the politicians wished to bring in an I.D. card. The people objected strongly. When they "united" they were a force to be reckoned with. They became a "Power" to be acknowledged. Diversions were needed by the politicians, and these were set up by stirring up the greenie issue, the abortion debate, the guns issue, and a range of other topics. The people took the bait and blindly diverted their energies in many splinter groups, while the taxation file went through without a mention. The people were too busy falling for the tactics that were used to divert their attention to even notice that the ID card had gone though by another name.
Words can be used to instill trust, love, authority, fear, hate etc. It is informative to read the interpretation of racist at the end of this article.
There are many beautiful Aboriginal and Asian people that are fine citizens and I am proud to call some of them my friends. We have so much bad publicity about some of the aborigines with their drinking problems and their many other socially unaccepted practices. This reflects badly on the aborigines as a whole. A similar situation exists in other ethnic societies and the media is not balanced in their reporting. It is obvious to see that there is a tactic being used here to further a long range plan or goal.
While there is no denying that there are many problems in the general society and that some cultures have more than their share of problems, the word "racist" is too often used as a tool to divide the people. There have been wrongs done in the past and people suffered because of these wrongs. This has been admitted and we must do what we can to relieve any suffering, then move on. Even the American black woman who won a Nobel prize for writing has stated clearly that the word "racism" is a tool that is used too often.
The word "racist" is used so frequently by the Australian media when often the incident is just the Australian way of life and could be either played down by the media or ignored altogether. Instead it is often flared up into a major item. Why?
In many other countries the tool used to create social division is religion but in Australia the word "racism" is used in this context. This is quite a concern. If the people would look at the big picture and question where this is leading us to, many problems would be avoided. Racism is a tool being set up as a powder keg to be used if needed by our manipulators. It would only need a spark to light the fuse of this powder keg. If this happens, we can say 'goodbye' to a "United Australian People" and with it, to any control over our future.
In the worst case scenario, the outcome of such a powder keg blowing up is all too obvious. Which of our brothers and sisters would be the victims and who would suffer in such an event? It would be wise to keep a "focus" on the big picture and not to be "diverted" into fragmenting our energy on unimportant targets. Our main goal should be to be united as a single Australian people to ensure the proper development of our beautiful country and the maintenance of our traditional freedoms.
In many instances where the white Australians are being targeted by acts of racism, the media usually does not even give it a mention, as they should if they were presenting a balanced case. Their goal, too often, seems to be to increase the size of the powder keg of racism.
Many nations realise what a wonderful rich country we have and would like it for their own. The life style here has been that of a free and happy people and many leave their own countries to migrate and join us. This description of Australia and her people won't continue for long unless we wake up and start to take some responsibility for what is happening to this wonderful Island Continent. It is the only Island Continent in the world.
Once we had free speech and had the right to voice our personal opinion, regardless of how offbeat it seemed, so long as it wasn't obscene. But, by today's rules we must be political correct, even if obscenity now seems to have become socially accepted . This only generates a division in the people, as many now feel they have been unfairly discriminated against by political correctness.
Pauline Hanson spoke her own thoughts and many people loved her for voicing her own opinions. That has been the Australian way of life and we have always agreed to differ if we wished. Many people found her a breath of fresh air after all the "political correctness that we have been indoctrinated with. Pauline was showing the Australian people what they were losing and she became a threat to the manipulative forces, so she had to be stopped. She was wakening the people out of their slumber and this could not be tolerated. Pauline had to be discriminated against and the people needed to be divided once more.
Whether we agree or disagree with Pauline is not the question. The question is about free will and our freedom to speak as we feel without undue censorship. People could have walked away if Pauline offended them. This has always been the normal thing to do as far back as Australia has been settled.
I will continue to voice my opinion while I am still able.
Mary asked me to write section 2 of this article, and to define key political words and phrases that have recently been subject to politically inspired manipulation. Let me begin. Firstly, we will look at the meaning of a key word or phrase, as a simple statement. For those words or phrases which need a fuller explanation, this will follow separately.
Part 1 - Simple Definitions
Target means goal, or planned objective, something to work or strive for, or a date for achieving something.
Tactics are a planned set of actions intended to help achieve a given target
Strategy is an overall plan of action, which, when fully carried out, is intended to achieve a given target. It may include the use of a variety of tactics to bring about the desired end result.
Focus is a concentration of attention on the achievement of a given target
United means for many to act as one to achieve a single agreed purpose or target
Tool means an instrument wielded by an individual or group to achieve a given purpose or target
Diversion means to move away from a common direction and target towards other unrelated directions and targets
People Power means the power available to, and inherent in, a united people with a common goal or target.
Sovereignty means 'the power of rulership' or 'ruler'.
Representative means a person delegated by another person or group to represent them.
Letters Patent are a written contract between the monarch and a Governor-General, empowering the Governor-General to act in the name of the monarch, and defining the limits to the power that the monarch has delegated to the Governor-General.
Governor-General means the person chosen by the monarch to represent the monarch in a nation (with predetermined limitations set for his authority).
Ministers of the Crown , technically, are created as administrators of the monarch's Departments of State, and are appointed from the ranks of elected politicians by the Governor General.
Prime Minister is a very interesting term which does not EVER appear in the Australian Constitution.
Member of Parliament in Australia means a person chosen by the people to represent them in either Federal or State Parliament, provided such a person is not disbarred from Parliament by the rules stated in the Australian Constitution.
Constitution A constitution is a formal set of rules describing how a group of people will behave towards each other, and who will referee in the event of disputes developing between individual members of the group.
Constitutional Conventions are oral traditions, created by oath-breaking politicians, to try to justify unconstitutional [treasonous] actions in which they are jointly and routinely participating.
Oath An oath is a solemn appeal to God in witness that a statement is true or a promise shall be kept.
The Crown is technically the immortal office of monarch (king or queen) as distinct from the mortal entity who temporarily holds that office.
Magna Carta is one of the never-ending contracts that the British Crown has undertaken to keep for all time.
Parliament consists jointly of the monarch (and Governor General), the Senate, and the House of Representatives and it is a body created in our Constitution solely for the purpose of lawmaking.
Political Parties were created originally by those who have long sought to eventually rule the entire world. The sole purpose of almost all political parties is to seize Sovereignty from the united people by dividing and confusing them.
Westminster System of Government The Westminster System of Government is the system of government presently operating in Australia, Britain and many other nations. It includes political parties, a Prime Minister and a Cabinet.
Party politics. There is no mention of party politics in the original Australian Constitution.
Political Correctness If you are politically correct, it means that you support the set of opinions and views being currently propagated for today's consumption by those who control the news media and the entertainment industry.
Racism is a newly created word, currently much used as a tool to produce a divided and fragmented society.
Part 2 - Fuller Explanation of Key Concepts
Sovereignty means 'the power of rulership' or 'ruler'. This power may be held by a person or a group of persons. Typically, Sovereignty is held by the united people of a nation, and it can be delegated by those people to an individual to act on their behalf. Traditionally, such a delegated Chief Executive Officer has been called a monarch, (king, or queen). In very recent times, this delegated Chief Executive Officer has often been called a President. At law, the authority of a united people always stands above the authority of their representative. For this reason, it is usually the object of those who unlawfully seek power, to disempower the people by dividing them, as a necessary first step to seizing Sovereignty for themselves.
Representative means a person delegated by another person or group to represent them. The word 'represent' is a combination of 're' (again) and 'present' (to exhibit something). In other words, a representative is a person who faithfully presents to designated others the previously stated will of the person or group who appointed him as their representative. A representative is only authorised to speak and act on behalf of whoever appointed him, within the specific pre-determined limitations of his appointment.
'Representative' often refers to a person elected by the people to represent their will at a gathering of such representatives (eg in Council or in Parliament). Technically, such a person cannot faithfully carry out his duty unless he first determines the collective will of those whom he represents (irrespective of his selection procedure), and then faithfully and meticulously carries out that collective will. His sole responsibility is to all the people in his electorate as he is appointed to carry out their wishes .
'Representative' can also refer to a Governor or Governor-General, chosen and appointed by the monarch to represent him/her. Technically, that Governor or Governor-General must be informed by the monarch who appointed him of his/her specific will on a range of matters and of the limits that the monarch sets to the executive authority that he/she delegates to the viceroy. This delegation of authority by monarchs to their chosen viceroy is traditionally done by means of Letters Patent. Technically, a Governor or Governor-General really acts only for the monarch who appointed him, and he ceases to have any delegated authority with the accension to formal authority of a new monarch. The new monarch may or may not chose to reappoint that viceroy chosen by their predecessor.
Governor-General means the person chosen by the monarch to represent the monarch in a nation (within predetermined limitations of delegated authority). Such a person acts as the monarch's representative, and he may use only such executive powers as the monarch choses to delegate to him. Within that given nation, a Governor General is the Chief Executive Officer. This is a very important and extremely responsible role, and ALL other government officers are subordinate to him, are directly or indirectly appointed by him, and are fully responsible and accountable to him.
The Governor General holds more government authority than any other resident Australian, and he plays a very important executive role in the Government of Australia ( he is not just a symbolic figure required for ceremonial purposes). His role, as stated in our Constitution, is definitely not that portrayed by the attorney general's department in the overview for a pocket sized booklet on the Australian Constitution, printed in 1995, by the government printer in Canberra.
The Governor General lawfully choses from amongst all elected parliamentarians the people best qualified to act as his Ministers of the Crown.
Ministers of the Crown , technically, are created as administrators of the monarch's Departments of State, and are appointed from the ranks of elected politicians by the Governor General. As administrators they use executive authority delegated to them from the monarch through the Governor-General. They become Ministers solely at the pleasure of the Governor-General and continue to exist as his Ministers, solely at his pleasure. Since they are only HIS ministers, they technically cease to hold office under the crown with either the completion of his term of office, or else his death (whichever comes first). They are merely his personally appointed assistants, whom he directly pays from an account created for him by the Australian Constitution.
Prime Minister is a very interesting term which does not EVER appear in the Australian Constitution. It is part of a quite recently devised system of Government called 'the Westminster System' which those who wrote our Australian Constitution are on record as not wanting. Since they definitely did not provide for the Westminster System of party politics in our Constitution, its imposition upon us is in defiance of our written law.
Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that, in 1829, it could still be said in Parliament [in Britain] that "nothing could be more mischievous or unconstitutional than to recognise by act of parliament the existence of such an office [ie of Prime Minister]." Such recognition was not granted until 1905, when by royal warrant the prime minister became known to the law merely as one who had precedence next after the archbishop of York. This still gave him no independent executive authority in Britain, only a symbolic prestige.
So, at the time of the writing of our Australian Constitution, and for quite some time afterwards, even Britain did not have a legally valid office of Prime Minister. Under true British Constitutional law, it still does not have such an executive office to this very day.
We may well ask how a person holding such a nebulous office as Prime Minister (ie first Minister of the Crown) can presume to instruct a monarch on who should be appointed to the Office of Governor General, the officer who has constitutional authority to appoint all Ministers of the Crown as his own specific servants. How can a person calling himself 'Prime Minister' instruct a monarch to dismiss the Governor General, the officer upon whom all Ministers of the Crown depend for their delegated authority? Prime Ministers have claimed to have such authority, but from where can such authority possibly come?
Member of Parliament in Australia means a person chosen by the people to represent them in either Federal or State Parliament, provided such a person is not disbarred from Parliament by the rules stated in the Australian Constitution. Each Member of Parliament is first selected by the votes of the people at an election. An elected representative of the people must then swear or affirm his / her allegiance to the monarch before the Governor-General, before becoming eligible to legally become a Member of Parliament. Later breach of that oath or affirmation technically immediately disbars that person from office and makes them subject to penalties under the criminal code of law.
Technically, such an elected person must not be sworn in as a Member of Parliament if their allegiance to the monarch is in question, or if they are disbarred by the Constitution from being a Member of Parliament. If, by unforseen accident, a constitutionally disbarred person is actually sworn in as a member of Parliament, then all other Parliamentarians are obliged, by Constitutional law, to immediately remove that disbarred person from Parliament, at peril of their own office.
Constitution A constitution is a formal set of rules describing how a group of people will behave towards each other, and who will referee in the event of disputes developing between individual members of the group. Of direct interest here are only those formal sets of rules governing the behaviour of States and Nations. These sets of formal rules may be established as merely a group of unenforceable statements, honoured more often by the breach rather than by the observance. The American Constitution is a classic example of such a Constitution without legal authority. Alternatively, the set of formal rules may be written as number of enforceable legal contracts, contracts that have real and enforceable penalties for those who break the rules. The Australian Constitution is the sole example of such a Constitution that exists in the world today.
A Constitution can never be any better than the people whose activities it is created to regulate. If the people do not know and understand the rules of the game, they can and will be deceived and cheated by their appointed referees, and by their opposition. Let me compare our Constitution with the rules for a football game.
Can you imagine anyone foolish enough to be playing competition grade football without any knowledge of the rules of the game? Can you imagine any football team allowing their opposing team to appoint the referee and then let their opposition make up the rules of the game as they are going along? I would be amazed if you could!
Are the refereeing of a nation, and the rules by which its people must live, so less important than a competition game of football, that people can afford to remain in ignorance of the rules, can let their opposition appoint the referee, the touch judges, and the ball boys, and then can let their opposition secretly make up the rules as they go along? What do you think?
Oath An oath is a solemn appeal to God in witness that a statement is true or a promise shall be kept. One cannot become a monarch, without taking such an oath to uphold the laws of one's people. One cannot become a Governor General, Minister of the Crown, Judge, Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, member of the police force or member of the armed forces, without making such a pledge of loyalty to the Crown. Even a member of a rifle club must make such an oath. In times past, fulfilling a given oath was regarded as taking priority over everything else, and people would forfeit their life rather than break an oath.
The Crown is technically the immortal office of monarch (king or queen) as distinct from the mortal entity who temporarily holds that office. If the officeholder of monarch breaks his/her oath to God and the people, and will not keep his/her oath when this is pointed out, then that person has lost their entitlement to hold the office, and must be replaced. But the office itself continues undiminished.
Magna Carta is one of the never-ending contracts that the British Crown has undertaken to keep for all time. It can only be repudiated by the united people, and never independently by a monarch. The Magna Carta outlines laws and freedoms that were ancient, even in 1215. It may be time for the united people to review it, but most is still highly relevant and useful.
Parliament consists jointly of the monarch (and Governor General), the Senate, and the House of Representatives and it is a body created in our Constitution solely for the purpose of lawmaking. Parliament made law requires a joint agreement between all three of these separate legal entities. When both the Senate and the House of Representatives approve of the wording of a new law, it technically becomes a Bill for an Act. When the monarch either directly agrees to the Bill, or indirectly agrees to it through her Governor-General, that Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Each of the three legal entities is expected to independently assess the proposed law, and to accept or reject it as an act of conscience, while ensuring that it is consistent with both Constitutional law and British/Australian Common Law.
Westminster System of Government The Westminster System of Government is the system of government presently operating in Australia, Britain and many other nations. Technically, the Westminster System of government amounts to nothing less than the serious crime of blackmailing the monarch. The blackmail consists of refusing to provide the Money Bill necessary to run the nation unless the monarch surrenders his/her delegated sovereignty to the political party with a majority of members in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is the only house where a money Bill can be introduced to Parliament. These same tactics of blackmail were used by the Commonwealth Government against the State Governments, when it unlawfully acquired the power to levy income tax, a former power of the States.
Party politics. There is no mention of party politics in the original Australian Constitution. If a person belongs to a political party his loyalties are divided between the people and that party and he cannot faithfully serve all the people of his electorate. It must be remembered that the representative for the people of each electorate is voted in by that electorate to represent them and their wishes, and not the wishes of a party.
Even when elected, such persons do not automatically become a Member of Parliament. They must first take an oath of allegiance to the Crown as the representative of the Australian people. By taking this oath of allegiance to the Crown, they publicly affirm that they will faithfully and singlemindedly serve the Australian people (not a party).
The Governor General then chooses his Ministers of the Crown, as written in the Constitution. This is somewhat like a compere selecting a panel for a tv session. But again we must ask how can the Governor General select his Ministers from those who represent a party rather than the people. His own sworn loyalties are to the Crown as the Representative of the united Australian people.
Racism is a new word, currently much used as a tool to create a divided and fragmented society. It does not even appear as a word in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1968 revision), despite its frequent current-day use. In the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1988, racism is defined as 'the theory that human abilities are determined by race.' So the orign of the word 'racism' is quite recent. Logically, it now means 'to irrationally discriminate against a person on the basis of their race, rather than on the basis of their established deeds'.
In practice the word 'racism' is often illogically and incorrectly used as a tool to divide and to manipulate people of diverse origins. In this context, as it typically appears in the news media, it is pretended that racism equates with "to criticise someone who is only incidentally of a given race for performing a socially unacceptable deed" or 'to note that a greater percentage of one race, relative to the population average, are factually involved in certain activities'.
April 16th, 2000
Conceived by Mary Foster
first part written by Mary Foster.
Second part written by John Harris