The concept of a “Commonwealth” was originally an idea from an influential political philisopher, Thomas Hobbes.

In this post, I am going to look a his Commonwealth concept, and I will comment on how this concept fits in with the Commonwealth of Australia, with the Commonwealth of Nations (as the sucessor to the British Empire), and with Aboriginal peoples’ sovereignty.

The texts quoted here come fromHobbes’ book, Leviathan, chapter 7, you can read here.

Men love Liberty and Dominion over others

Chapter 7 opens with this paragraph:

The End Of Common-wealth, Particular Security The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shewn) to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down in the fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters

Hobbes

Men “naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others”, especially when driven by the illusion of the Ego. And the Western, individualist-centric mindset feeds into this by cultivating a system where each individual plays a game to strive for their most contented life – playing against everything and everyone else. A dog eats dog world which is replicated on another scale in a nation eats nation world.

I think this paragraph from Hobbes also ties in nicely with an observation I made in my post, A Roadmap to Self-Determination where I wrote:

 the principle of non-interference in international law is born out of war. It is born out of an expectation that if you agree to not interfere with others – they won’t interfere with you. The root of this is not empathy, but fear and an expectation of reciprocity

In the European/Western cultures, there is a deeply-seated belief that the only reason why an individual would follow a law is if they are forced to out of fear. And that fear must be administered by a centralised authoritative figure – whether it be God, a King, a Lord, a Parliament, or someone else who sits on-top of a hierarchy who will punish law-breakers. This belief can also be seen in some circles of ultra-religious Christians – Christians who think that atheists must be incapable of following any laws at all.

However, this is not a universal belief. Many other cultures that are not built on the individual; but on family units, small communities or tribes do not ascribe to this. In smaller groups and communities, each individual has capacity to build and nurture closer relationships with others around them – hence people are connected and can empathise with those around them. It is that empathy and respect which is the motivation to follow laws – not fear. Harming a complete stranger is much easier than harming a close friend. Also in smaller communities, every person has a chance at exercising a share of power, of building their own niche in that community.

In large mega-societies, power is distributed very unevenly. Jordan Peterson says hierarchies are inevitable because of very old biochemical pathways that have evolved into serotonin seeking behaviors – behaviors so evolutionarily ancient they can be observed in lobsters. I agree with Jordan Peterson’s reasoning that hierarchies are inevitable – however hierarchies themselves can be broken down into complex networks of smaller hierarchical units. This is what Aboriginal society does very well, and is also a reason why Aboriginal society is so difficult for outsiders to understand – because it is so complex. Hierarchies are formed as a function of serotonin seeking behavior on part of individuals in context of societal values. Fostering societal values that can build healthy societal hierarchies is something that, in my opinion, western society does very badly.

Highly-centralised power

The Generation Of A Common-wealth

The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person; and every one to owne, and acknowledge himselfe to be Author of whatsoever he that so beareth their Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concerne the Common Peace and Safetie; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment. This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.”

So here is the heirachy, placing all of the power of the people into a singularity – the head of the Commonwealth. This concept is represented in the artwork on the cover of the book;

In this Commonwealth, the King is the HEAD OF STATE, and the people are the BODY POLITIC. Look on the clothing the King wears – it is made of many faces of the King’s subjects. The HEAD and the BODY together are sovereign over the land, this illustration shows this really well.

The people submit their authority to the Common-wealth or the King, and the King has an obligation to act in the right of the subjects and to protect the subjects – especially from foreign invasion, which is a big concern in Europe where they all invading each other all the time.

This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.

The immortal god in the sky chooses his favourite Mortal God/Leviathan/King to win various wars with other Kings. If a King loses a war, it may be because he has lost favour with the immortal God. And the people of the various Common-wealths owe their support to whichever King they are under, and that King is supposed to protect them from foreign enemies.

Protecting the subjects against foreign enemies is, I think, one possible interpretation of the concept of “protection” as in historical Aboriginal Protection acts. The Crown has Protection Acts to protect Aboriginal peoples against enemies abroad such as French, Dutch or other would-be colonisers. This action would imply that Aboriginal peoples are themselves Crown subjects. But many “protectors” were also leading massacres against Aboriginal people. This makes sense if those Aboriginal people massacred are also “enemies abroad”, unbelieving heathens who do not lick the boot.

Definition of a Common-wealth

The Definition Of A Common-wealth And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is “One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.“

A Common-wealth is One person, of whose Acts a great Multitude. If there is ONE PERSON per ONE COMMONWEALTH, let’s look at the situation of the Commonwealth of Nations vs the Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian people are part of more than one Commonwealth. How are these Commonwealths structured?

Look at the coronation oath of Queen Elizabeth II:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the
Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other
Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws
and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

This was one single oath to the peoples, one ceremony with an oath to the peoples of the list of nations enumerated. I mocked up this illustration below of the coronation of the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations. The different colours represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon.

The coronation ceremony was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual head of the Church of England, in accordance with the Doctrine of Two Swords. Part of the ceremony reflects this – as the Sword of State was presented to Elizabeth II, she placed it on the alter, and then a peer took it from the alter after paying 100 shillings. The Archbishop has coronated a woman as a Queen of England, as his church has spiritual authority in England.

But who has the authority to coronate a “Queen of Australia”, the head of the “Commonwealth of Australia”?

I will put a graphic below to show what I mean This illustration below shows the “Queen of Australia” is and it’s relation to the peoples of Australia and the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Coronation of the Queen of Australia

I think there was an attempt to coronate the “Queen of Australia” by the Referendum Council. The Uluru Statement asserts “Spiritual Sovereignty” – much like the Archbishop of the Church of England has spiritual sovereignty. The Uluru Statement also says that this spiritual sovereignty co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. This is consistent with the Doctrine of Two Swords. In some schools of thought, it is the spiritual sovereign who coronates the temporal/material sovereign (although there are variations on who gives who what sword).

The “Queen of Australia” is an abstraction for the sovereign body of the Australian people. It is a head on the back of a coin, much like the Statue of Liberty/Libertas is a symbol of the state in the United States. Queen Elizabeth II was never coronated as “Queen of Australia”, the title was created during her reign. This ideally should be sorted before her successor as head of the Commonwealth of Nations is coronated.

The Aboriginal members of the Referendum Council made an offer of ceremonial objects and sharing of sovereignty to the Australian people. This is a coronation of the Australian people – giving them temporal/material sovereignty, while the First Nations people retain spiritual sovereignty.

The Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the spiritual authority to do this.

An Australian Coronation ceremony based on European law.

Here is the result below. A completely independent republic, the “Queen of Australia” figuratively representing the republic itself, and the Common-wealth of states (colonies plus the acceded “First Nations” state), Republic coronated by Aboriginal spiritual sovereigns, a Republic with full temporal sovereignty over the Australian/Aboriginal land. Aboriginal spiritual sovereignty is held in high esteem symbolically. But symbolic only – sorry, “separation of church and state, b*tches”. Expect plenty more welcomes, pats on the back, and acknowledgements of “Aunties”, “Uncles” and “traditional elders”, and talk of the “worlds oldest culture” blah blah blah… but no material support. If the republic wouldn’t throw money and land at a church, the same goes for spiritual sovereigns.

Attaining Sovereign Power

So – reading further through Hobbes’ book;

The attaining to this Soveraigne Power, is by two wayes. One, by Naturall force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves, and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse, or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This later, may be called a Politicall Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and the former, a Common-wealth by Acquisition.

In context of Australia and looking at what actually happened with colonisation, I have no idea which of these ways sovereign power of the Queen of Australia was attained over Aboriginal people. I suppose Aboriginal people came under the British Crown by Acquisition/force – however we are not children of England, nor have we ever surrendered under war, submitted or agreed to be protected.

Retrospectively though, if First Nations coronate the “Queen of Australia”, it would be a legitimate political Common-wealth under the definition Hobbes gives here – with the Australian people submitting to the Parliament, who is in-turn authorised by the spiritual sovereigns. Given that Australia has officially called itself a Commonwealth since Federation in 1901, the Queen of Australia must have existed since at least then. People talk of “elders past, present and future…”, so my guess is that old Queen Victoria will retrospectively made a past elder, as she was the first Queen of Australia the Common-wealth.

Sovereign Citizen’s idea of Australia as a “Corporation”

Sovcits have this idea that there was treason, and the real Queen was usurped by a corporation that is listed on the New York Stock exchange – or something to that effect. Here’s an example… https://web.archive.org/web/20220107003210/https://commonlaw.earth/a-simple-explanation-about-government-treason/

I think they are right that there really is something going on – but I think their interpretation is way off.

There are two crowns – one for the Commonwealth of Nations, one for the Commonwealth of Australia.

The newer Crown for the Commonwealth of Australia is being built-up in parallel as an independent, autochthonous Crown to replace the old colonial empire Crown. The new Crown will usurp Aboriginal sovereignty for the Australian people.

Sovereign citizens have noted the steps playing out, and blame a socialist plot to usurp the old Crown. But most of the steps noted on this SovCit page linked here make perfect sense under a transitional Crown model.

For example – removing “defender of the Faith” from the Queen of Australia title – this makes sense as Australia is supposed to be a secular state, plus the Crown has done a shit job at defending Aboriginal spirituality/faith – which is supposed to be the new basis of the Republic.

Another example;

Whitlam changed the name of the government from the “Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia” to the “Parliament of Australia”. Australia is the landmass! The People are the Commonwealth of Australia.

Yes, very well observed. But the change is needed because the British Crown never properly acquired sovereignty over the land itself. But the “Queen of Australia” will be the sovereign head of the “Parliament of Australia” including the land and Aboriginal people once the “Indigenous Voice” is enshrined.

SovCit Australian nationalists have it all upside-down. The new corporate Crown was made FOR THEM so they don’t have to share a foreign British Empire Crown. The Crown NEEDS a revolution to install the new Crown, and needs one soon (ideally before the next coronation). And the Crown probably needs revolutions in other Common-wealth lands as well. The current happenings (Truck convoys) in various Common-wealth countries right now smell to me like engineered revolutions, like Euromaidan in Ukraine or other western-backed “regime-change” “colour revolutions”. The truck convoys and burning down parliament doors could also be to weed out would-be revolutionists to keep an eye on them, while the real revolution happens by paper (eg – see paper here section Declaration of autochthony (a ‘disguised’ constitutional revolution) in the halls of Parliament.

The Referendum Council have done a really stupid thing in making offers of sovereignty on behalf of First Nations to the “Australian People”, because they have in effect authorised this false-flag LARP burning of Old Parliament House doors and the other mess created by Australian nationalists. Expect to see more chaos, and more movements – both Government and otherwise – trying to hunt down and indoctrinate “Elders” to do “Treaties” with. Whichever movement secures treaties, will have sovereignty over the land.