Many men and women are still sitting in the dark like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed shit from individuals and government departments .
Many state theres nothing we can do to end the trespass against us.
Many also state we have no rights to abolish this trespass against the free people of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Infact they could not be more further from the truth.
Our rights have been fought for many times.
1000s of years infact and these are well documented by every Island and continent on planet earth.
Mankind has forgotten who holds the true power in this life.
You and your fellow man and women.
Governments didn’t create themselves did they ?
Remember He or she who creates owns .
In political philosophy,
the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause.
Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.
In Europe, one example of the emergence of a right of revolution can be traced back to Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker, who in 1018 had a dramatic confrontation with the King of Sweden.
The lawspeaker claimed the King of Sweden was accountable to the people and would be overthrown by them if he continued with his unpopular war with Norway.
Another example is Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, that required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law.
It included a “security clause” that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force if needed. Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional documents including the Commonwealth of Australia.
“What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?
And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the peoples in the world to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism; it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The Ruetli Oath
From Schiller’s play, Wilhelm Tell
No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power,
when the oppressed can find no justice,
when the burden grows unbearable-he reaches
with hopeful courage up unto the heavens
and seizes hither his eternal rights,
which hang above, unalienable
and indestructible as stars themselves.
The primal state of nature reappears,
where man stands opposite his fellow man.
As a last resort, when not another means
is of avail, the sword is given him,
The highest of all goods we may defend
from violence, Thus stand we before our country,
thus stand we before our wives, and before our children.
-We will become a single land of brothers,
nor shall we part in danger and distress.
-We shall be free, just as our fathers were,
and sooner die, than live in slavery.
-We shall rely upon the highest God
and we shall never fear the might of men
The Golden Bull of 1222 was a golden bull, or edict, issued by King Andrew II of Hungary. The law established the rights of Hungary’s noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus resistendi).
The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the Bull was the first constitutional document of the nation of Hungary, while the Magna Carta was the first constitutional charter of the nation of England.
Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. Nicole Oresme, in his Livre de Politiques, categorically denied any right of resistance. John of Salisbury advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus.
This theological notion was expanded in the Early Modern Period.
The Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the natural law focus of the School of Salamanca.
John Calvin believed something similar.
In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God”, but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control”.
He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God”, so “it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them”.
When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny, he wrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it.
But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings”, as had the Tribunes of the Plebs in ancient Rome, the Ephors in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could support a right of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances.
At least publicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic Queen Mary I Tudor of England.
The Catholic Church shared Calvin’s prudential concerns – the Pope condemned Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake.
Instead, the safest course of action for the people was to endure tyranny for as long as it could be borne, rather than run the larger risks of armed revolution.
The right of revolution was expounded by the Monarchomachs in the context of the French Wars of Religion, and by Huguenots thinkers who legitimized tyrannicides.
We must never forget that mankind created Governments as such mankind will always be its master ,as its masters we reserve our right to abolish our creation when ever that creation becomes destructive or detrimental to the free people who created it.
Make no mistake
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Make no mistake — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Individual or collective right .
Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be a collective right under English constitutional and political theory.
As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “private individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries”.
Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “‘whole people who are the Public’, or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority’, indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society”.
By now it should be clear to all that
Only as one united people do we have the right to create or abolish any form of governance .
All those individuals currently trying to enter parliaments and governments to right this trespass against are still yet to work this out.
Voting our way out wont change a thing .
Being belligerent wont solve anything either.
We must organise peacefully and stand strong in our resolve.
Right versus duty
Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also their duty to do so.
Howard Evans Kiefer opines,
“It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it.”
Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries,
“The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature’s God when they threw off absolute despotism.”
The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”
(emphasis added).
The phrase “long train of abuses” is a reference to John Locke’s similar statement in Second Treatise of Government, where he explicitly established overthrow of a tyrant as an obligation.
Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.
If we look to the Commonwealth of Australia History
We can see that many times the people had to unite to abolish unjust laws.
Eureka being just one example however settlers indeed stood united in many small rebellions against tyranny and oppression of the red coats ,after all the convicts were not afraid to stand up for themselves.
It seems today the people are just not mad enough yet however history has a funny way of repeating itself.
Soon we will all have to make a choice.
Do we remain in chains or do we unite as one for our rights and freedoms.
That is a choice we shall all have to make in the near future.
If you wish to fight for our rights.
Come join us at Australia United Platform.