Towards a World of Sovereign Republics: Why the Evils of Party Politics Must be Overcome
Based upon the disgusting remarks of Canada’s Prime Minister who asserted on — his belief that the rights of minority groups can and even must be overridden by the will of a majority and that no protection to fundamental rights is to be found in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I have decided to publish this study originally published in Canadian Patriot Review #4 (January 2013)
The Clash of Two Futures
Our current society has the choice of either collapsing into a long dark age, or renewing the great birth of mankind which expressed itself brilliantly with the establishment of its first Constitutional Republic via the American Revolution of 1776. As those foolish decisions shaping history would have it, the world of sovereign republics free of colonialism would not be carried into reality with the birth of America.
All developments leading up to the present crises have been shaped directly by the intrinsic tension between two inclinations. On the one side, we find the spirit of discovery and faith in the perfectibility of the universe and man embodied in the best traditions of the United States of America, while on the other do we find an inclination towards stasis and the pessimistic attitude that not only is the universe a cold, evil place, but so too is the humanity found within it. While history has been a struggle between representatives of these two outlooks, with the advent of thermonuclear capabilities, and the actual possibility of self extermination, no longer is mankind afforded the liberty to tolerate their co-existence. One must prevail.
Canada must locate its true character within this historical dynamic if it is to overcome the greatest obstacle to its evolution. This obstacle is to be found within the un-principled British imperial system which formed its historical and present behaviour.
It is the design of the present report to shed light several key fallacies embedded within the foundations of Canada’s paradoxical system in order to ensure that she does not remain a tool of those interests intent on subverting the best traditions of humanity during this time of economic crisis and war. Rather, the author intends that these existential crises provide an opportunity of honest self examination such that this great northern territory take up its vital role as a servant to the interests of humankind as a true sovereign nation.
To re-emphasize; this system has proven to be one of the greatest sources of confusion and evil in our nation’s history and if we are to overcome its intended limitations, we must take a moment and evaluate what underlies it.
What is a Sovereign Nation?
The very toleration of something as self contradictory as a Party System as a pillar of a nation state, could only occur to the extent that a fallacious idea of sovereignty were maintained. Contrary to popular belief, nations are not the effect of some “social contract” agreed upon to check the innate selfishness of mankind. Nor can it be assumed that empires are simply the natural outgrowth of nations, within a Hobbesian world of each against all.
Since modern international law and the sacred right to national sovereignty now being threatened by the Blair doctrine of R2P and the `World Government“, is rooted in the 1648 Treaty signed in Westphalia, it would do well to look to that founding document to see first hand upon what basis a nation is to be considered sovereign. In this way, we may re-evaluate to what degree sovereignty has been destroyed under the monetarist system of Globalization… especially in those nations popularly perceived to be the most free and democratic of the world.
`That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty and his most Christian Majesty as also between all and each of the Allies…That this Peace and Amity shall be observed and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish by entertaining a good and faithful neighbourhood
The preamble goes on to outline the need for mutual forgiveness of transgressions, and mutual cooperation of all parties. What is remarkable is that for the first time in history, was a legal framework crafted that not only put an end to war, but established the necessary ingredients foe a durable peace… not as a negation of war, or a list of `do nots`, but rather as a positive principle` of creative change.
One is also struck by the spirit of Grace, Forgiveness and Charity which shine forth in these words, especially the mandate of `the benefit of the other`. This spirit did not embody the vast majority of signers of the Treaty, but rather only a small minority of individuals working directly with its leading architect, Cardinal Mazarin of France. Yet, even so, the principled character of the individual personality, not some mob, was necessary to forge its success, and as an effect has had a durable effect upon the cultivation of personalities born and raised under the new framework shaped by Mazarin and his law. A handful of such personalities would go on to found the United States of America as a direct outgrowth of this revolution in statecraft.
What we find is that Sovereign nations have a character analogous to the character of what we would classify as the virtuous individual. Just as some individuals are weaker and stronger, some are foolish, and others wise, some are trapped by selfish impulses they themselves don’t fully understand and others by principled motives, so too do we discover nations are similarly defined. As the character of a human is also known as his or her constitution, so too are statesmen obliged not to act as careerists or pragmatists for present concerns as is too often the case today, but rather to ensure the foundation, defence and cultivation of good constitutions which will form the character of its people, in order for its people to reciprocally reinforce and develop their nation’s constitution.
This fact has been a matter of intense reflection by the most powerful minds and strategists for good and evil throughout history, so it would be wise for any reader to take such considerations as seriously as the founding fathers did when they chose to risk their lives for those universal ideals expressed in the words written on the founding documents of the U.S. republic. It must also be considered when evaluating the unprincipled founding documents of Canada, a nation which, though many believe to be a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world, is actually one of the most tightly controlled colonies of an unseen empire. This British empire advocates nothing less than the reduction of humanity both in quantity and quality as proposed by the likes of Prince Philip. This has been the legacy of the British Empire System of Empire, of which Canada is still an unacknowledged part, as juxtaposed against the empire’s mortal adversary, the American system of political economy embedded in the United States Constitution.
A Necessary investigation of two constitutions:
Before embarking upon a comparative study of these two systems, it must first be noted that Canada has no explicit single constitution. It has a list of “founding documents” which include the Quebec Act of 1774 included among the intolerable acts of the 13 colonies, the Act of 1791 that established Upper and Lower Canada, the failed Act of Union of 1840 and the British North American Act of 1867. The later was established as a response by a bankrupt British oligarchy to keep Canada from developing a real constitution modelled on that of Lincoln’s USA after the British-run Confederacy operation failed in its attempted dissolution of the Union with Lincoln’s victory in 1865. While this Act lasted another century, a final Canada Act passed by an order in council in the British and Canadian Parliaments in 1982, now called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was added to the mix of legal documents. Many believe (falsely) that this document is now the sole Canadian Constitution.
In the case of the United States, two founding documents exist, amended over time, but unchanged in principle. These are the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787). Just as Abraham Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were to be viewed as one doubly connected document, so too will we here.
The American Declaration of Independence begins with the words:
“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 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.”
In the midst of a laundry list of rights granted by order of the Queen, we find article 7 of the Canadian Constitution of 1982 that reads;
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” And then a little later, in article 15: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
After a comparative reading, a nominalist would conclude that both systems are almost equivalent. The right to life, and liberty are to be found in both, as well as the acknowledgement of individual equality. So why is the Canadian Constitution vastly inferior to its American counterpart? To answer this, it is useful to pose another question, namely, what is the source from which these rights are derived in both cases? In the case of the American system, such rights are deemed self-evident and inherent in the soul and as such to be given or taken by no mortal as one would treat a physical object. In the Canadian Constitution, a very different beast rears its head. These rights are granted to the people, as a form of legal contract! While souls cannot be made null and void based on whim and circumstance of a dictator, a contract always can. If the source of Canada’s true director is still ambiguous to the reader, let them merely refer to the last article (62) of the act; “This Act may be cited as the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975”
It is here that the cat is let out of the bag. The Constitution Act of 1982 did not replace the longstanding British North American Act of 1867 as most Canadians have been led to believe. Rather, the Act of 1867 was merely amended, and renamed, though its principles and intent never repealed. Thus, let us see what the 1867 constitution establishes clearly in its preamble, as the true purpose of Canada:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire”
There it is. The rights of people in Canada are presumed to be derived from the “fount of all honours” otherwise known as the monarchy, while Canada’s stated purpose is nothing more than to “promote the interests of the British Empire”! Looking towards the geopolitical dynamics of Canada’s history, one is struck that not one ounce of blood was ever dropped for liberty in establishing our founding documents, and for that reason, no honest liberty was ever won. Only a cheap counterfeit for liberty prances around the Canadian soul calling herself “comfort”, or the freedom to ”go along to get along”.
Let us compare this with the “mission statement” of America by looking at the preamble of its Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The liberty derived from this idea is a far different matter than the thing roaming around with the same name in Canada. The fact is that nowhere in the U.S. founding documents do we find that the republic is at all a party system, nor even a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, designed explicitly around the principle of the General Welfare, not only for present generations, but into infinite posterity. That is an idea of freedom worth fighting for.
Canada’s founding documents were modelled explicitly on the British geopolitical doctrine known as balance of power, derived from the bestial social program of each against all. The absolute power of a monarch using her appendages of the Privy Council and Governor General must “counter balance” the power of an unelected House of Lords representing the aristocracy and nobility (in Canada known as “The Senate”) who in turn “balance” the power of the those elected by “the commoners” known as the House of Commons. The Commoners must not be allowed to decide their destiny on principle, but only according to a perverted form of group think known as “party politics”.