by Alan Gourley

Don't be fooled by politicians! Learn about the Constitution under which we agreed to be governed. Discover and use it!


To the understanding of true democracy.

Q. "Why is the understanding of true democracy important?

A. Because true democracy is the only political system which ensures that we, the people, can know the truth of matters that vitally concern us!"

In the meantime we will be tempted by rumours, assaulted by thinly disguised threats and annoyed by misleading copycats. Do not be surprised that lies, slurs and false associations are used to try to discredit those who champion truth; it has always been so and will be so until we learn to ask ourselves - CUI BONO? (who benefits?) and then, for the sake of justice, persist.


Author's Introduction
1 Discovering Democracy
Our Heritage;
The Subversion;
Our Constitution is Important;
General Points.
2 The Challenge 11
Electorate Pre-selection
3 Can True Democracy Work? 15
4 Will We make an Effort? 17
Mind-blocks to Reform;
Democracy is Not `Mob Rule';
Freedom of Truth.
5 Mind Manipulation 21
6 What is at Stake 23
Social Crimes Reflect Political Corruption
Our Future is in Our Hands.
ISBN 0 646 25281 X

Written for the "Campaign for Democracy by year 2000".
First published (1/9/1995) by:


The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society
.P.O. Box Q381, Sydney 2000

Alan Gourley is also the author of a number of successful books on social order; the following are reader comments on earlier literature.

Dr. Bevan Reid (Med): ... can best be summarised by the assertion that no society can prosper, or has the right to prosper, until it takes full account of ... the nature of the forces that created it..

Dr. David Mitchell (Law): How many Australians understand their system of government? How many politicians fail to represent their constituents? How many know the nature of their heritage?


It has taken a rather surprising nine months to express this concept. A concept that could hardly be called new and is certainly not complex in comparison to the corrupted system we now endure. This time has been mainly occupied in trying to explain away fears and imagined problems that are not a result of any community dullness of mind but reflect the effect of many generations of deceit and the difficulty we all have of believing that our leading authorities would treat us as animals rather than as human beings. May this situation now end. My best wishes to you all.

* * * * *

NOTE 1.: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [deprived] of his freehold or liberties or free customs or be allowed to be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him nor condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we do not deny nor defer to any man either justice or right but by the law of the land." Chapter 29 - The Magna Carta. "The law of the land" here means the fixed or constitutional law.

NOTE 2: This treatise is not about Australia becoming a Republic; that is another question. The point to be made here is that any such change would be detrimental to the quality of government unless such change is made with full public understanding of our present protections and potentials.

NOTE 3: All evidence cannot be shown in a short paper. Our books and literature contain further detail but, even there, the material available is greatly condensed. The evidence is too massive for normal reading. A list of some of our earlier literature appears on the back page but it is important to focus on the immediate problem.

NOTE 4: By tradition "man" means "man/woman" inclusive.

Author's Introduction

Dear Reader,

Thank you for caring about the future of our nation. The aim of this program is to introduce a legal and moral path to social reform.

Our treatise is not about hidden secrets or some new invention of my own, but rather of matters well established and which could be known by anyone with time to investigate honestly and thoroughly. If, perhaps, there is something of me, it is in expressing the matter to take advantage of the new understanding and potential available as we approach the 21st century.

As we shall see, the important nature of politics has been long known, but this does not mean that nothing changes - social change does occur and the wise seek any window of opportunity that may open.

Political reform is not easy; it is natural for people to rally around leaders in times of trouble or change. However, while historically this may have made sense, in today's world, with modern communications so easily able to spread both information and misinformation, an establishment under pressure can easily create 'demons' to rally public support.

War crimes trials should be a warning that we cannot trust those who push themselves into leading positions for personal power! Such trials should also remind us that we are responsible; we have no excuse for blindly believing and obeying. It is evident that a modern community needs a more secure public access to truth!

There is also the question of "guilt". In recent years we have been made to feel guilty of many crimes that are not our individual fault: issues of racism, sexism etc., and already many 'Toads', in their mentally smug 'Toad Halls', will be looking for an excuse to put this aside and avoid the issue.

But why be negative? Let's reject artificial guilts and face a guilt we can deal with. Our communal responsibility is for the organisation and behaviour of future culture. It will become obvious to caring people that we cannot continue to live with a responsibility and guilt we all share for an increasingly violent and corrupt world - a common shame should force us to put aside our excuses and evasions and slothful unconcern for future generations.

Let human intelligence face itself. The longer our evasion the less able we will be to live with the horrors we cause; I expect to show that reform is as simple as doing our social duty.

However, while physical barriers are low, mental barriers are high; we become confused by the contrast between clear reality and convictions that have been imposed on us over our lifetime.

Here are three main barriers to reform.

1st hurdle

Peaceful reform: it is so boring! News media won't report it! Leaders fear and try to suppress it!

People can't be bothered! We prefer whingeing to learning.

2nd hurdle

Our blindness to the vital need for ELECTORATE PRE-SELECTION. We cannot sell this social duty to any vested interest group and still expect honest government.

3rd hurdle

We refuse to look past the mind-set that we cannot elect someone who has not performed the ritual of buying our vote with futile election promises!

COMMUNITY Control requires that electorates pre-select representatives for their known values and abilities, not for their group affiliations. Law is not imposed, it is made in response to public need.

That is our heritage.

I hope you will continue with your concern and join us to help awaken our community to both its dangers and opportunities.

For the first time in history mankind has the knowledge and technology to take that one small step to freedom. All it needs is a little faith, a little courage, a little surrender of selfishness.

The choice is between a glorious future or one horrendous. This window of opportunity is small and when it closes the technology that made it possible will, from then on, make it impossible.

I will try not to harangue, but should I fail, please accept that it is because I am so aware of the urgency; as you finish these pages I hope you will see this concern as justified.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Gourley

To understand what true democracy represents we have to know something of the forces at work over the years. Government of the people, by the people and for the people, equally expresses both democratic Monarchy and Republic but does not explain their working.

IN an Elizabethan Statute of our common law known as, "De allaglio non Concendendo" appears this passage:

We will grant for us and our heirs, that all clerks and laymen of our land shall have their laws, liberties and customs, as wholly as they have used to have the same at any time that they had them best. Through an antique language we see a guarantee of justice - but we still do not know how to maintain this heritage!

THE first national attempt at democracy is credited to the ancient Greeks. In its best Grecian form, members of parliament were elected by ballot from among those counted as accredited citizens; basically a more efficient and democratic system than modern elections and eliminating at once those two great insults - the intrinsic corruption of trading promises for power, and tied 'ideology' voting. However, as Greek citizenship was restricted, it was really democracy only within an "oligarchy" (elitist group).

In "Plato: The Laws" (Penguin) we find a special interest among items that could have been written today rather than 2,400 years ago; quote:

In some cities, you see, this is the sort of thing that has happened thousands of times.

...When offices are filled competitively, the winners take over the affairs of state so completely that they totally deny the losers and the losers' descendants any share of power. Each side passes its time in a narrow scrutiny of the other, apprehensive lest someone with memories of past injustices should gain some office and start a revolution. Of course, our position is that this kind of arrangement is very far from being a genuine political system; we maintain that laws which are not established for the good of the whole state are bogus laws, and when they favour particular sections of the community, their authors are not citizens but party men; and people who say that those laws have a claim to be obeyed are wasting their breath. We've said all this because in your new state we aren't going to appoint a man to office because of his wealth or some other claim like that ... We insist that the highest office in the service of the gods must be allocated to the man who is best at obeying the established laws ... End quote.

It is interesting that Plato denied citizenship, and any moral authority to make law, to party men; that was 2,400 years ago.

On the 4/7/1995 Barry Cohen, columnist for "The Australian" wrote: Only a minuscule proportion of the population are members of political parties and, as those parties are controlled by an elite, it ensures the decision as to who represents us in parliament is in the hands of very, very few.

We should be thankful that now, for the first time in history, we have a window of opportunity to achieve the ideals Plato proposed.

OUR own first attempt at democracy was begun by King Edward I (1295). It became known as the "Model Parliament" because it became the model for following English parliaments.

Subversion of this parliament began 300 years later with the introduction of political parties in the reign of Charles II (1630-85). Then began the secret 300 year struggle for power that is now reaching its climax.

Sir Ninian Stephen was recently reported to claim that Australians already submit to 50,000 United Nations agreements. Whatever the number, these changes - made quietly and generally without significant public comment - can be given precedence over our common law without referral to the authority of the people.

The threat of political parties to good government has been long known. Roman historian Livy, some 2,000 years ago, wrote: "The struggle between parties is and will always remain, a worse misfortune for the people than war, famine, plague or other manifestation of God's wrath."

While Emperor Diocletian is quoted to have said of elitism in 301 AD:

"Raging greed blazes on without limit and, with no respect for mankind, races after its own gains and profits ... the sole desire of these insatiably greedy men is to disregard completely the public good."


We usually date our common law defences from the 1215 Magna Carta, but that was only the result of one struggle among traditions of independence whose roots are lost in the dim mists of time.

In our heritage, all our tradition of free and independent peoples converged to meet with the substance of Christian Revelation and so added a higher purpose and meaning to our struggle.

In process of defending our age-old independence we created signposts such as: "Magna Carta"; "The English Bill of Rights" (1688); "The Australian Courts Act" (1828) and all "inalienable rights" that made up our common law at the time of Federation. That these are rightly ours to the present day is confirmed by the report of the 1986-8 (Government set-up) Constitutional Commission; quote:

Laws dealing with individual and democratic rights, which are also called "fundamental freedoms" and "guarantees", have a long and cherished history, beginning with Magna Carta, continuing with the British Bill of Rights of 1688, which is still law in Australia. End quote.


Most Australians think these bulwarks still defend us, but do they?

By heritage, yes! These rights and Bills and Statutes were ours when we approved our Australian Constitution and we believed that they were safe because we agreed that this Constitution could not be changed in any important way without a referendum.

But a recent letter to a Federal MP brought this reply;

I have sought advice in this matter from the office of the Attorney-General, who advises that the 1688 Bill of Rights has never been applicable to Australia.

Party-typical and an obvious deceit, but not to most Australians - only to those who know the facts.

IN 1986 there was quietly passed into law an Act supported by ALL elected parties in ALL States. This Act, called the "Australia Act 1986" states P2 sect.3:

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a State shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England.

They may tell you that this was to prevent English interference with our law! But there had been no such problem! The important effect was to arguably negate our common law protections. These protections were not written into our Constitution because we were under the protection of the Crown and a legally binding Coronation Oath to rule in accord with the "Laws and Customs of this Realm". These laws and customs do not refer to laws that may be made by parliament but to the common law set up over centuries of trial and struggle and which serve as the British Constitution.

The deceit of the Australia Act is no oddity, it is part of a long line of deceit. But are Bills and foreign treaties, that bypass our Constitution, legitimate? Such actions would have been regarded as acts of treason at the time our Constitution was approved. The introduction of international law that is without test and safeguard is itself unconscionable and shows total contempt for our legal Constitution and the public authority.

As Sir Richard Coke said to King James 1, "You may not rule this country by proclamation out of your head ... you have only the power that the law gives you!" Likewise our government today has no legitimate power to sign away sovereignty of this country.

It would be difficult to convince any normally intelligent person that the Australia Act (and laws brought in without public understanding to bypass our common law) are legitimate. Bills and agreements brought in to bypass our Constitution can only be legitimate if we, the people, vote for them in a referendum; or legally break our ties with Britain as would occur if we voted to become a full republic.

Can we defeat this takeover?


"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth." Quote from The Constitution.

Note: "directly chosen"; this is our key to the democratic ideal - if we learn to use it.

Directly chosen is more than just a right, it is an instruction based on the fact that our parliament is our official voice to communicate our needs to the Crown. It should be understood that in our system the people hold the power of government. The purpose of the parliament is to convey the wishes of the people (normally in the form of legislation) to the Crown. The role of the Crown is to execute our desires so long as they do not contravene the overall "common law" rights of individual and minorities. Alone neither Crown nor parliament has lawmaking power.

Therefore it is evident that if the parliament does not directly represent the people - if the people allow other interests to control parliament - then the whole design of the Constitution becomes a farce - null and void - empty - the people have given their birthright to others.

Our Constitution is the legal agreement whereby the Australian people set the limits of a Federal parliament. If this is subverted there is no other effective control.

This Constitution gave us our right to common law protection through our attachment to the Monarchy. It was intended to be our guarantee that all, from Prime Minister to playboy, are equal under the law. It was to be our human defence against tyranny and our legal base for true democracy.

Do we still have a legal defence? Yes! There is still something to be done that is both Constitutional and effective. It needs no new law or devious use of law; it therefore requires no violence or even the raising of large funds.

What is this magic that can convert political tragedy to democratic paradise?

It is that we do our moral and civic duty to our community, to future generations and to the Constitution that we agreed to be governed under.


SUMMARY: Today we still have our National Constitution to defend us. "DIRECTLY CHOSEN": these words are our key to honest government - if we learn to use that key.

We need no new law; no violence. All it will take is that people of vision and courage do their social duty.

CAN it be that peaceful progress - or even human survival - is too little to stir our human spirit? Let us not refuse to visualise situations outside of personal and social experience.

If we think we live in a democracy then it's time we stopped believing politicians.

HOW can a representative, self-chosen or vested-interests-chosen (to serve self or vested interests) be confused as being equal to a representative chosen by the electorate itself to represent electorate interests?

No party can be part of any democratic constitution because it is not possible for a party to operate democratically! A party cannot operate democratically because its existence depends on the agreement of its members to vote on party lines - a democratic illegality. A party politician must give his dominant loyalty to the party that gives him his perks and position. Any electorate promise he may make is subject to party needs decided by unknown faces of unknown loyalty. Parties are a long known corruption of politics.

It is not possible for our democratic constitution to function as planned when associated with the party system.

Item: The Australian, editorial 12/7/1995: However, the reality is that the Senate is no longer effectively functioning as a House whose main purpose is to protect the interests of the States. The Senate has been swept into the party system. It works and votes on party lines.

Our Constitution cannot operate in a party environment!


In a Sydney street survey we found well over 60% of people of the opinion that this is not democracy!

We know we are lied to and cheated! There is no way we can ever know the truth about important issues until we accept our responsibility to our own government. The solution to present problems is as legal as our approved Constitution.

Our National Constitution offers democracy and common-law justice; yet we have neither! Will another paper called "Bill of Rights"; "Citizens Initiated Referendums" change anything? Will a new name for our Head of State or calling ourselves a Republic, change anything if our Constitutional power is still given to the same vested interests?

ARE we afraid? Over recent years there has been a fear campaign attempt to group all opposed to government and label them "Extremists". To label such widespread opposition in this way exposes the elitism of the establishment. Fears and guilts are used to herd people into support of governments.

We can never know what is true or covered-up so long as we leave information services in the control of vested interests.

We should realize that any suffering that may result from resistance to tyranny can not be as bad as that which will certainly follow surrender to it.

Sir Barton Pope: "... we have wasted too much time on petty party politics and in-fighting. We cannot afford [the] party system ..."

Sir Mark Oliphant "Until the voters reject candidates pre-selected because of their affiliations ... Australia could continue to be a dis-united nation ... becoming rapidly an ecological and technological wilderness."

Learned thinkers agree! Sound logic confirms the benefits of community chosen parliaments to be beyond our imagination! We complain, but do we care enough to do our civic duty? Will we make the small effort needed to choose our own representatives?

If anyone can show that there is a better way to solve the problems created by a sectional interest control of national affairs;

or: would be easier to introduce;

or: can be more easily explained;

or: will be more permanent and complete;

or: would be more likely to revitalise honesty and compassion in world culture:



Why is it that so many people have such difficulty in understanding the imperative of electorate pre-selection if we are to achieve true democracy and the secure human welfare of our heritage?

This is a life and death matter for millions and affects us all, so let us really try!

THE FORCE OF LOYALTY! A representative is the employee of those being represented and in the human nature of things will give loyalty to those by whom he is chosen and who most directly control his salary.

Although corruption is possible, the problem of achieving this is with the usurper.

When the number of representatives is large and carefully chosen, successful corruption is virtually impossible; if attempted in secret, those honest will expose the corrupting agent to be dealt with by law.

In public, as we (the people) should well know, successful pressure is equally difficult. Never before has Australia had such huge spread of social protest:

Justice; Guardianship; Health; Family Law; Youth & Community; Education; Foreign Treaties; Toxic Waste; Violence - continual political muck-ups in dozens of areas.

But protest, petition, street parade, new political parties - all are as ineffectual as punching water. The "whinge culture" is a futile culture.

All protests, pleadings or threats (to vote out) etc., do little more than guide the party system to the best way of achieving goals.

Employee loyalty is a significant moral force!

It seems the difficulty of accepting the imperative of pre-selection is mental rather than procedural.

The problem of a present day electorate is that the number of people is too large to collect around a camp-fire or in a meeting-room. Nevertheless, what we are talking about is just another community choice of candidates and the community election of its own chosen representatives.

The people who choose the representative are those who are entitled to be represented! But, deceivers are ever-present!

It is the SELECTION that defines democracy, NOT the election.

THE concept is, if anything, too simple. This was exposed in Barambah Q'land when an off-the-cuff Citizens Electoral Council was formed a few weeks before an election and won with a makeshift candidate.

Unfortunately, failure to understand the true political situation; lack of electorate education about the actual nature of democracy; ignorance about the difference between community chosen and community elected, etc., meant that the value of this demonstration was wasted.

A community must learn that it cannot expect fair, honest government if it trades its pre-selection duties for the trivial convenience of having some vested interest group choose for whom it may vote.

BY failing to understand, or explain, that a citizen-chosen parliament is TOTALLY different from one composed of people chosen by vested interests, the great initiative at Barambah did more harm than good.

In addition, it must be admitted, that a good part of the Barambah failure was bound up with the inclusive promotion of Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) which distracted attention from the basic problem. CIR was designed to help control the corruption of party-system government, it has no purpose when parliament is composed of electorate chosen representatives!

Would you put leg irons on yourself to stop yourself kicking yourself?

If community chosen representatives were elected in a majority of electorates (as would quickly happen if people break free of indoctrination) then we would have true democracy without need for CIR = Cumbersome Ineffective Restraints.

On the other hand, IF we COULD force a quisling parliament to introduce true CIR, all we would gain is a feeling of achievement. CIR exists in many parts of the world but nowhere has it given the people effective control of either parliament or information. With CIR every issue must be separately fought and won - forever!

It is neither constitutional nor necessary to stand-over and bully your own representative! A true democracy is totally in opposition to a "party system" parliament. We must rid our mind of the deceit that electing just anyone's choice makes a person equally our representative.

A community elects its own representative or it elects someone else's representative; what could be more brutally different.

THE full authority of the people is exercised through the parliament and the importance of this goes far beyond the value of the millions of dollars taken from our pockets to pay parliamentary salaries.

If we want good government we need to accept that party system control is a criminal take-over of government just as was recognised by Plato 2,400 years ago. Party people should not be counted as citizens and their laws should not be accepted.

The difference between a Citizen Controlled State and one party controlled is so great that the attitude and behaviour of both citizen and parliamentarian can not be assumed to transpose between one and the other. When MPs are elected for community service rather than to serve sectional interest bribery, the whole social attitude will change.

THE democracy confidence trick must be the world's most successful, yet most transparent, confidence trick. Is it possible that even the survival of the human race will not motivate conscience to want to see through it?

WE have a Constitution that gives us a right to democracy and a common-law justice; why do we have neither democracy or justice? If we reject our Constitution there is no other device of control that can protect us.

Is another piece of paper, giving us another right - a Bill of Rights - C.I.R. - new name for the Head of State, going to make any difference if we will not do our civic duty, or defend our right to democracy?

We should all see that so long as the party system remains in control it is of no importance how a Head of State is chosen; he will always be the puppet of the system. Whether this control is exercised legally or illegally will depend solely on what is necessary to protect the increased powers gained by the change.

If we will not defend our right to democracy itself how and why will we defend any lesser - more cumbersome - right?

What value can there be in new rights that require far more effort to maintain and are far less effective than what is already legally ours?

SO long as we submit to the deceits of corrupt party-system politics and allow vested interests to control education and information, we are no more than cattle to be used or abused at will.

Our problems are not caused by international buy-out; our lack of armed defence is not caused by inefficient defence forces; our crime and corruption is not caused by a bad legal system; our government muddle is not caused by a bad Constitution. Our problems are caused by our own adolescent refusal to accept our civic and moral responsibilities!

Is it not futile to complain about problems that we ourselves create?

SOME like to believe that God will take care of us but those who believe Jesus know that this is not how it works. We have obligations to accept our share of responsibility.

God works through people dedicated to truth!

We cannot trash our birthright and expect to retain its benefits.

Some will object that the people have no ability to choose representatives who understand government, but, can anyone give a logical explanation as to why a representative chosen by the people will not be better at serving the interests of the people than one chosen by (and to represent the interests of) those who control the party system? Our challenge is easy to defend. There is no certificate of competency attached to a politician!

True democracy is totally different and opposed to the form of government now called democracy. We cannot do worse!

PERHAPS the best example of a non-party parliament is the elitist directed world parliament itself - the United Nations. We see no political parties here disrupting proceedings and screaming abuse. All work to the set objective.

In industry we see no industrial empires setting up party systems to aid efficiency. The idea is ridiculous.

IT is sometimes said that government is the world's biggest and most important business, but how many of present elected representatives are proven capable of running any kind of business? And would any kind of business survive if operated by divided management?

In the nature of party government it is the world's most inefficient business in all of its functions other than service to behind-scenes forces. For this reason alone, government powers and responsibilities should be the MINIMUM needed to operate the affairs of state. Do not be misled by "privatisation", it is not for improving government but to empower a bankrupt system.

Given power, an establishment will seek to increase its power; the results of that are disastrous as all alert students of modern history must now see. For this reason it is essential, in a high-technology world, that the people, in agreement on a common law, be the effective head of government.

SHOULD we not ask: where does present political control have its roots? Who sets the agenda? Parties have signed hundreds of U.N. agreements which follow a very strict agenda of social engineering; where do these plans originate? Did the world press ever publicise U.N. delegates presenting proposals for restructuring world society and on what evidence of value? Why are agreements that so vitally change world culture not first discussed in our media and parliament?

Is it a sufficient explanation that the world is now in the control of adolescent political ideologies; or following the whims of nature? Is it not more likely that a long established self-interest is involved?

Impartial studies will show the latter is by far the more rational conclusion and ideologies of left and right as the deliberate product of a system of Hegelian social manipulation.

A famous person once said words to the effect that if we will not fight when winning is easy we may have to fight when there is no hope of success because it is better to die honourably than suffer death insultingly. I have modernised the comment, but the wisdom is from W. Churchill.

This is not a call to militancy! Our battle is of mind and morality. If it comes to physical violence that will be the time, as above, when people fight for honour rather than victory. Guns alone are hopelessly outdated.

WHEN seeking understanding of culture, structure must be taken into account. Social structures are based on principles just as are engineering structures, but people are not educated to know this. Social engineers believe that they can change nature by manipulating human behaviour. But behavioral change does not change our nature. Lasting change can only come from intellectual decisions based on real life. True democracy offers our only access to truth.

THE slide to inequality, violence and injustice can be reversed, but only if it is based on fact. We need to know what is going on if we are to know what action to take in our own defence.

To know the facts we have to take responsibility for our government, education and mass media. Only then can we know the true situation!

To exercise the authority that is ours, all we need do is to claim our ageless heritage.

IT may seem to some that I dwell too long on matters simple but years of experience have shown that to advance in the face of ingrained convention requires attention to detail. Few of us can visualise situations totally new.

Willingness to make an effort is, of course, the catch. People try to avoid responsibility for any simple, everyday, non-glamorous duty.

We put out the garbage only because we can't live with it.

If random reform activity could be seen as just wasting our time and money and working against our common good - if concerned people were just concerned enough to devote their effort to understanding and promoting the simple civic duty of a citizen in a genuine democracy - there could begin a world-wide movement back to truth and justice.

So long as we persist in promoting self-interest parties and self-interest programs then we can never have either democracy - or justice.

DO we accept party-system government out of self-satisfied ignorance or because we fear the trauma of admitting, even to ourselves, that we have been aiding the betrayal of our own country and family for the whole of our voting lives?

So long as those expressing social concern refuse to put out the social garbage we all have to live with social garbage!

True democracy is the ONLY SAFE form of government in a HIGH-TECHNOLOGY world. No-one has shown a viable alternative.


Without experience of democracy we see everything from a 'party-controlled community' point of view!

First: we fail to see that legal peaceful reform can be important. We complain about violence but without the excitement of battle refuse to focus on a non-violent natural solution.

Second: we don't like to admit we have been fooled into the false belief that elections deliver democracy.

Third: we have a fixation that we cannot elect a representative who does not buy our vote with promises even though we know that the promises are worthless.

People protest: "Who will give us policies to choose from?"

People claim: "Our representative will still tell us the lies we want to hear even without parties."

Others throw up their hands and say, "But how can we vote for someone if we do not know what he stands for?"

BUT we do know what our community-chosen representative stands for! Representatives stand for those by whom they are chosen! This is a natural loyalty. When people accept responsibility for their own governing they will give more serious thought to government and the entire social scene will change. If MPs are elected on promises that they can't, or won't, keep it is because greed is always an optimist. How can we expect this to result in good government? The community should be able to see that we all benefit when laws benefit the community as a whole and the whole community loses when law favours the few.

Is it so unimaginable that we could choose a person by reputation of honesty and ability and not ask for any promise other than the oath of office; i.e., a promise to do what one is paid to do.

What other realistic promise can a representative make?

HOW CAN our representative know community needs? Suggestion boxes, newsletters, public meetings, Internet, newspaper notices; these are a few of the simple ways of communicating.

There should be no general legislation enacted


COULD we imagine our representative being told that there have been a number of requests in the suggestion box that fluoride be removed from the water supply?

Could we imagine a notice in the local media asking for additional community comment? Or then, if significant concern was demonstrated, the publication of for and against evidence and a public meeting on the matter?

It is OUR government and we should not be smothered in unwanted legislation! We should initiate changes we see to be needed! What is so confusing about that?

There can be no group bribery in a democratic election! There are no self-appointed, self promoted, representatives! IN a democracy the candidates are chosen by the people. Those who accept nomination play no part in the election, other than to accept nomination.

Pressure groups may, at first, try to bribe the community with promises, but any campaign dedicated to public bribery by election promise would be quickly seen through by an informed electorate and rejected. Manipulators would soon find it a waste of money and time.


Democracy is not my invention; nor is democracy mob rule. Our democracy is a system of INDIVIDUAL responsibility operating under a common-law based on well tried ancient and Christian principles that are as unchanging as our physical limitations - democracy is true to the natural order of human life; there is no conflict.

Equality of justice and responsibility is something we either support or subvert. Justice is based on an agreed common law, acceptance of human frailty and recognition of human need as learned from age-old experience.

Nor is our representative a mindless servant of the electorate; this is expressed quite well in writings from a time when we were closer to the ideal than today. The following quotes were earlier used in our book "BRAINWASH"; quote:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment: and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. ... what sort of reason is [it] where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? Edmund Burke.

Balance that with the following:

It may happen that your own judgment may occasionally come in conflict with my own ... but I promise you that any difference of opinion between us will always lead me to distrust my own views, carefully examine and, if erroneous, frankly to correct them. ... ... if, unfortunately, occasions should occur ... on which there should arise between us, on points of serious importance, a radical and irreconcilable difference of opinion, I will not abuse my trust, but will give you the earliest opportunity of recalling or reconsidering your delegation of it. Wilberforce 1812.

WHEN choosing our representative we should always be aware that there will be occasions when it is imperative that decisions be made without reference to the electorate. We should choose our representative with care, they are not slaves. Also, technical issues may come before parliament; there are times when the views of independent authorities have to be considered.

Now a word from a present day thinker:

"Ordinary folk best to govern." Theoretical physicist Dr. George Christos of Curtin University is speaking of the ancient Greek lottery elections.

The governing of Australia should be taken out of the hands of politicians like Paul Keating and placed in the hands of ordinary people. ... Another interesting feature is that all parliamentarians would be on the same side, working together towards the unified principle of governing a country in the best interests of all.

True democracy offers the above advantages plus the electorate choice of people of known ability.


For years there have been promoted, as fundamental rights, a "freedom of the press" and a "freedom of speech", but when we examine these we find that they only enshrine a freedom to deceive. A responsible ideal is to enshrine "freedom of truth". Until freedom to deceive becomes effectively restrained (and here we refer to significant fact, not opinion or religious belief) we can never know if the information we receive is real or false.

The achievement of freedom of truth could be aided by government support for citizen owned education and communications services as opposed to government owned or privately controlled. In any event the change is not so much to prevent people telling lies as to allow people to tell the truth. It would ensure matters, such as brought forward here, be featured rather than suppressed.

Freedom of Truth is the essence of democracy.

True democracy cannot exist until the mass media's power to deceive is restrained by a community chosen parliament.

A LIFETIME of study has impressed on me what should be self-evident to all: that if everyone knew the whole truth of a situation there would be no conflict or argument. Equally, and what we seem to miss, is that social conflict and violence, pain and suffering is, in general, the result of lies, deceits and misunderstandings. We need to learn to love and honour truth to become truly human.

In an early campaign book "How to Avoid the Looming Catastrophe" I wrote: "As a matter of simple logic we either do things because we expect that they will bring certain reasonably predictable results, or we walk in front of cars and get killed. Intelligence insists we live in accord with what we believe to be true. Not necessarily what is factually true but what we believe to be true.

It is reasonable to believe that, at some time long in the past, 'smart' people observed that different cultures had different beliefs and, as a result, gave different values to different things. In consequence they behaved differently. Seeing this, leaders realized that if they created a curtain of make-believe and painted in the images that they wanted people to see, and painted out the images that they did not want people to see, then they could direct people to believe what they wanted people to believe and have them do what they wanted them to do.

Ever since that time the majority of the people of the world have been the slaves of misinformation. We kill each other and allow oppression because of the lies we believe. Jesus of Nazareth reminded us of our slavery but we chose not to understand.

We should appreciate that the socialist/capitalist competition represents planning based on the principle of "Hegelian Dialectic Process". This system, more commonly known as divide and rule, is guided and maintained through the matching 'adversary' party-government administration. With this system the answer to all social problems is legislation and indoctrination i.e. (laws & lies).

Although misinformation leads to universal fixations that protect the system, mind manipulation is not about forcing everyone to believe the same thing. Remember, the system we suffer has been perfected over 300 years.

Modern mind control is about creating a climate of dogmatic opinions to maintain a wide diversity of mental fixations. This diversity gives an impression of mind freedom and so helps hide nonsensical fixations such as those about democracy being created by public election rather than by public selection.

Many people will reject this treatise out of hand not because what is proposed is against their best interests or because they have made an in-depth study and find fault with it, but just because they feel disloyal to their mental fixations when facing challenging evidence.

Social engineering directed through mass media and education is quite sufficient to prevent a community uniting against the system. To achieve its purpose most social engineering is divisive or oppressive. Contrived unity of public belief is related to matters essential to elitist control such as 'that elections mean democracy'.

However, although the elitists have many great advantages, they are still subject to human frailty. It is yet to be seen whether they have made any disastrous mistakes in their calculations.

Why do we idolise a system devoted to the election to parliament of best liars?

WE are not keen to face that we are subject to mind-manipulation! With consequences hidden from us we find it just too traumatic to honestly look at the evidence and accept the truth.

Misinformation does not stop thought, it entices pig-headed loyalty to unreasoned ideas.

By wanting and seeking the true reality we can escape.

BE ALERT. War-crimes trials held after World-War II show that we cannot be sure to escape punishment for moral crime simply by trusting, and blindly obeying, government! National-Socialism in Germany was introduced legally but not democratically. Politicians passed the "Enabling Act" and Hitler ended the German Federation to structure power to a central government to bring about a result similar to what is happening in Australia. Our ignorance does not make us innocent; when we close our eyes to understanding we are responsible.

IF we are able to face up to the enormity of the consequences we will surely not let childish dogma stand in the way of civilized advance.

What is at stake is ownership of the world! How it is to be achieved and who will gain is visible only in the way in which it is being achieved.

A significant item of recent news concerned the use of the old nerve gas "Sarin" on the Japanese underground rail system. Threats to use chemicals and complaints of their use are common among small waring nations and factions.

A few years ago the threat of nuclear war was the official 'frightener' to keep people grouped around national leaders or ideology; but nuclear war, even then, was not the most serious threat to civilization - these weapons have been under major-nation control. Biological and chemical weapons however can be more easily produced and could be just as (or even more) deadly.

The item to follow may well be found disturbing! However, if we do not know of a danger then we cannot defend against it.

REMEMBER, I am not reporting on ideas created by myself or secrets newly discovered. We deal with matters of long established knowledge that many are aware of but about which few have given in-depth study. A possible reason for lack of attention may be that these matters are not given the "front page" headlines they deserve.

We tend to think that things of great national or human importance will be massively presented by the news media. If they appear only occasionally in short 'middle pages' items then we dismiss them as unimportant.

But we were warned! Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, in his book, "Can Society Keep Pace With Science" lifted a veil back in 1946. He was in a position to see developments that are more recently coming to public notice; quote:

Any country reasonably free to visitors can be neutralised as an effective fighting force within a few weeks. If any government becomes convinced that it will have to fight any other country at any time it would be very foolish indeed not to neutralise that other country at once. Any realistic government can be counted on to take that action. A thousand or so of visitors could spread bacteria or toxins to paralyze any country's power of aggression." End quote.

That device is not confined to nations. Any group that meets, recruits and trains can be infiltrated and secretly poisoned out of existence. Over recent years we have already had two reported incidents of well organised and prospering groups poisoning themselves. Did they really do it to themselves or was it done for them?

Are all the new diseases and new strains of old diseases natural developments or experimental testing in the development of weapons that could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons? Are nuclear tests still used to keep the public mind focused on 'red herrings'? Can we expect governments to keep to international agreements?

We can never know how best to use, or defend ourselves aganist new potentials, unless we exercise our right of self-government.

As Dr. Chisholm presents it, any nation that is seen as a possible opponent must be treated as an aggressor and neutralised. The nation that actually attacks secretly and kills indiscriminately, is, in this view, the defender.

Now it is easy for the 'toads' in their ideological 'toad halls' to agree with the nice Dr.; if you believe someone is about to attack you then it makes sense to get in first. However he does not actually say that. What he said was that if any government becomes convinced that it will have to fight any other country at any time.

Where does it end - or, perhaps more to the point, where does it begin?

How many countries in the world today might see the USA as becoming a threat? How many does the USA see as may become a threat to it? How many others could see their neighbours as a potential threat?

In the New World Order (that we seldom hear of unless world leaders mention it) toxins and deadly bacteria can be produced far easier, far cheaper, and much more secretly, than nuclear weapons; they can also be used carelessly and without warning or identification of the attacker.

Let us suppose some country decides that our defence force could be a danger to their 'friendly' immigration. Suppose that, on a warm summer night with a gentle breeze from the west, there was opened a line of poison canisters in western Sydney; what could be the death toll? Hundreds of thousands - a million perhaps. Would there be enough healthy to bury the dead? Would the city have to be abandoned? Would there be panic in other cities?

What government is not going to try to strike first once they have suitably developed toxins or genetic weapons? The seed of fear has been planted. Who dares wait to see who will move first?

I am not going to enlarge on the possibilities of this or other forms of secret war which, if not immediately probable are imminently possible. Is there any significant nation today that has not the ability (perhaps not yet the know-how) but the ability, to produce these forms of death. The only possible defence is for the people of the world to take control of government - learn and teach the importance of moral behaviour before it is too late.

Oh yes! Some of you may be asking "Who is this Brock Chisholm M.D."? He was the first director of the World Health Organisation and lauded by the Humanist Association as Humanist of the year. He represents, very well, the amoral attitude of the New World Order.

WAYS and means of causing death are virtually endless. If there is a crazy in my vicinity I would much prefer that he has a gun than that he has to think of options that are best unmentioned.

Are incidents of terrorism more widely reported when authorities want public opinion led to a desired conclusion?

Are authorities concerned about mass killings or about the means of INDIVIDUAL assassinations that may focus on themselves?

NOTE: While it is understandable that some people might feel a need to form militant groups to defend against political dictatorship, such action is both counter-productive and self-destructive. So long as reform can be carried out legally, violence is criminal.

A RISING level of violence indicates a growing social distress. An obvious cause is a confusion of information leading to frustrations. Less obvious causes are repressive laws, injustice and a growing deformity of human values and understanding.

Many do not like to think of these things but it is the accumulating effects of our evasions that would logically bring us to this state of affairs. If we do not accept reality it will destroy us.

When knowledge is power ignorance may be death. We must ask ourselves: Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? IS there a plot to reduce world population and conserve resources to an elitist benefit? Our future IS our business!

OF course the many puppets of international power are conducting a constant propaganda to make such claims sound ridiculous, but if we look, and think carefully about the evidence, we see that conspiracy for power is an urge coming second only to the sex drive. Some argue that social change is just a natural progress and we might agree if it is accepted that greed and conspiracy for power are a very natural part of it. However, if it is to be maintained that human greed must be excluded, then the 'natural' argument is just too unnatural for intelligent reasoning people.

If there is nothing to cover-up why is it necessary to create so many false conspiracy stories in order to mask the reality?

Why do those who claim to be truly concerned for public rights and welfare not reveal our rights to true democracy? If they hide that, what else do they hide? And WHY? And to what lengths do they go? There are so many questions that go unpublished and unanswered!

OVER three hundred years of experience has produced a hierarchy of greed and arrogance. It has given the vision of world ownership to those who have mastered the techniques of laws and lies.

Those who deny this have failed to support their position with sound logic or hard evidence. Their claims prove that they know nothing of our Constitution or the true nature of democracy and are not caring enough to find out. Ask why they are promoting an arrogant elitism.

We must always expect confidence trickery when dealing with confidence tricksters!

THE more technically advanced a culture becomes the more important it is that it's people behave in a morally responsible manner.

Some may think we, the people, are already too confused to govern ourselves, but if we have the will then we have the way. The majority, given the facts, will always decide more responsibly in their own interests. In any event, what have we to lose?

As subversion of democracy began over 300 years ago and the true working of democracy has been quite lost from our social understanding, what is simple may, at first, seem complex. The following may not be the only, or best, pre-selection procedure but is included as an example.

To introduce Community Control all that is needed is a suitably instructed Electoral Commission (or elected "Citizen's Commission") in an electorate with enough alert and responsible people to give it authority. It is not the purpose of this commission to choose the people's representative but to facilitate the pre-selection that will produce an electorate-chosen representative.

To begin, a group of concerned people need to inform their electorate; house to house if necessary.

This should be backed with local media promotion but media support would be unlikely without the pressure of a substantial community behind the movement.

With the electorate informed, registered electors can submit names to these initiators for a Citizens' Commission. The Commission could be formed at a public meeting or by the nominated themselves and the elected commission would ask the electorate to nominate candidates for election.

Candidates would be nominated to the commission by candidate support groups: no elector to support more than one nomination. At first the number of nominees could be set quite low. For example 25 people, but this could be expected to increase with experience.

No self-chosen volunteers thank you!

WITH preliminary nominations in hand, names, and a short account of abilities, experience, length of residence, occupation, social commitments, etc., together with names of nominees, would be published. This could be followed by a non-compulsory poll of registered voters to choose the top candidate; however, with democracy established, it would be preferable that the candidate be chosen from those nominated by ballot as this would totally eliminate the bribery aspects of electioneering and also embarrassment.

This would not mean that others could not stand but would mean that this candidate would be the official community candidate.

Commonly expressed fears that parties and sectional interests would quickly take control are groundless. Most people today despise party politics and politicians. Even though few electors might know a candidate it would be almost impossible to misrepresent a candidate who has been living in the electorate; also the 25 nominees would be assumed character references, they have to live with their relatives, friends and neighbours. When a community has the chance to choose an electorate representative any candidate in group service would have little chance.


Q. How can ordinary people deal with national finances.

A. If ordinary people are not being elected now, who is? Would any competent home manager run up consumer debt to the extent that more than half of household income goes on interest payments? That is now our national situation.

Q. Could pre-selections create more community squabbles?

A. Party systems live by factions. Democratic elections have no divisive campaigning to generate squabbles.

Q. Will honest people accept nomination?

A. With a party system most honest people shy away from involvement but given a chance to serve in a community government most would see it as an honour.

A change to democracy changes everything.

AFTER pre-selection, democratic elections would proceed as usual but without the 'campaign lies' competition. The credentials of the community candidates would, after checking, be presented by the Citizens' Commission.

With democratic procedure established the Electoral Commission could replace the Citizens' Commission.


Horrors mentioned in this treatise expose only part of a danger. There is a growing social instability as a result of the promotion of misleading information and a rapidly growing danger from ego-mania and paranoia. This threat is both national and international.

There is a saying that if you educate a fool all you get is an educated fool. Perhaps Dr. Chisholm is one of those, but then, what of those who gave him his position? To have the power of life or death in the hands of educated fools is not less frightening than to have it in the hands of paranoid ego-maniacs.

As it becomes easier to wreck mass transport; cripple national economies; kill; infect communications with false information or wreck them with computer viruses, etc., so civilization becomes more and more dependent on self-disciplined moral behaviour. Laws and lies are not sufficient to inspire a human standard of behaviour.

SHOULD we not ask ourselves: Why have so many lost so much social confidence that they have to join "politically correct" sects of extremists in order to try to convince themselves that they are still human?

Why do so many huddle in "peer groupie cells" unable to decide on correct opinion, behaviour, or even dress, without mental prostitution to a group attitude?

Can civilization continue to advance without reversal of the political corruption now infecting education and mass media?

Can we continue to ignore reality! Can we afford the risks?


Party government shows strong evidence of being internationalist directed through the party inner cabinet. Other MPs are there for appearance only and rubber-stamp policy without understanding of social consequences.

Party government means quisling government!

Party government is in no way democracy! We DO NOT choose its members! We DO NOT give it orders and it does not act on our behalf! We DO NOT pay its wages; though the money comes from our earnings it is the party hierarchy that sets and delivers the rewards!

THE word "party" only appeared in our constitution as a result of party corruption in 1977.

The party politician is chosen by the party either because of his submissive loyalty or for his mindless support of a left/right ideology.


Don't leave it to God! If a person thinks he is not worth his own effort what worth is he to anyone else? We are all unique but still there are millions like us. The decisions of those first informed will decide (within human limits) the fate of nations!

We can effectively end bureaucratic stand-over and political corruptions. We can end enslavement to egomania!

"FEAR of GUNS" campaigns entice people to support anti-gun laws. Is this, as many believe, just a ruse to disarm us and make us all that much more submissive to the rule of ideological fanaticism?

If a person has a grudge against society and a gun is available he may well use it but, in doing so, becomes an easy target for law enforcers.

But what could he do if no gun is available?

Quite evidently a person with a grudge against society will delight in spending time planning how to make society suffer and the death and destruction from one calculated disaster could be more than a year's gun fatalities in Australia.


CHPS is non-profit; non-party; non-sectarian and operated by unpaid volunteers. There are no expense accounts, royalties or membership fees. Feel free to ask questions. It is not a business. If you would like to help, join us by purchasing 15 (or more) of these booklets for distribution to caring and concerned people.

Post paid prices: 1 for $1; 15 for $10. 110 for $66.

Leaflets for letterboxing, street hand-out or other distribution, available in boxes of 1,500; or 600; or of 50. $3=100. All prices post-paid; 1995.

Author/Editor Alan Gourley. agourley@ozemail.com.au


(General overview of social situation)

(More detail on the political aspect)

(More detail on how it was done)
Single copies $6. Campaign special: 8 for $24.

A non-denominational report on the Christian alternative
(hard cover).Single copies $8.50. Campaign special: 5 for $37.


Is this the Government YOU Deserve?
The Government WE Choose
5 for $3.50

Home/Group Study Kit
4 x 90 tapes with two sets of literature: $34

Address all communications to:

The Constitutional Heritage Protection Society (CHPS)
PO Box Q381,
SYDNEY NSW 2000 AUSTRALIA or, agourley@ozemail.com.au