Prime Minister Rudd Changes Protocols

[clapstyx]

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today over turned the premiss of his election to the Australian leadership by deciding to support the growth of pollution.

 

During the nomination of his candidacy to Australia he confirmed that one of his first acts would be to add gestural support of understanding to the global scenario by signing the Kyoto Protocol, which although now several years old still represents the status quo in relation to each nations position towards supporting the environment or remaining oppositional to the ecological fortunes of the planet.

 

Upon election less than 2 weeks ago the first nation he acknowledged was The United States of America despite the fact that technically Australia's head of state is a British citizen and Australia gives greater loyalty to the Queen on that basis. It is widely felt that the American cultural influence has been under rapid escalation since the first election of George W. Bush and indeed for some time much of that nations thinking has revolved around the negativity associated with the American's alarming escalation of focus on the terror recently escalated to another degree with his talk not only of an Armageddon but now a world war three no doubt conducted on American terms and with them as an active participant.

 

The Australian people generally, and it is hoped that the Queen is in agreeance, believe that the Bush policy of global unity is based upon uniting the rest of the world against the United States of America and then resolving the issue by coming back into line with the more positive aspirations of the rest of the world by openly handing world leadership to a truer custodian as a gesture of forebearance. It is the only logic that we can determine and we continue to judge his actions against that protocol scenario.

 

Kevin Rudd it appears supports that initiative of creating mistrust in personal integrity by not openly stating his goals in order that his actions may be evaluated against them so that the degree of perfect harmony can be assessed. Most people have in Australia have multi goals perfectly defined to a point of absolute preference on a variety of levels which they seek to not only keep in tune at multiple levels simultaneously but which they aim to make most common such that accidental support possibilities are created which is a phenomenom of harmony as it reaches the upper echalons of perfection to an over riding concept commonly understood.

 

No clear response has yet been given by the Queen as to her approval or disapproval of a Prime Minister who is elected on a basis and then pursues a completely opposite objective. In 1975 the Queen through her representitive the Governor General of Australia acted to remove the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and this option remains openly valid if indeed she sees todays decision to be negative to the greater interests she seeks to represent on a world leadership basis. Several years ago the Australian people were given the option to abolish the monarchy from their system of government but she received support for her presence. This support was largely on the basis that most people saw it ridiculous to eliminate a playing option without due cause. Whilst the Australians acknowledged that social leadership had not been able to maintain its acceleration curve since the incident in the mid 1970's her head remained firmly intact with her shoulders and she remains a welcome visitor.

 

Undoubtably Australia gives greater consideration to Her position than many other nations who do not operate under a positive monarchial arrangement. Indeed in present times the due deferences relate to the ascendancy of Charles to King. It is generally considered that a King holds greater pre-eminence to a Queen but the Queens predicament is based on a precedent set in relation to the abdication of Edward. Edward as you may recall married an American divorcee and it was seen that this arrangement tarnished the integrity of the Monarchy because in a sense they have an obligation to set and maintain higher standards as the fundamental basis for their existence. The people give due deference to that fact. The marriage of Charles to Carmilla (also a divorcee), then, creates a dilemma. If Charles becomes King and does not abdicate it is a slur to the Americans because it implies that the abdication of Edward was due to the fact that Wallace Simpson was an American rather than the fact that the Monarch as the conceptual head of the Protestant church (on Earth ie second in line to God and more or less equivalent to the Pope but with the monarch having monarchial strength over and above that of the Pope..although that matter seems to remain perpetually in dispute) had an endorsement/disendorsement position on the matter of the sanctity of marriage. Conceivably the Pope had similar sentiments at the time so an abdication was acknowledged to be the most proper thing to do.

 

In the present time however, and the monarchy has an obligation of soughts to maintain the concept of consistency to propriety, it creates a dilemma almost paralelled to an absurdity. From a family structure point of view it would be best if Charles was King whilst his mother could play a tutors role so that the strength of Williams Kingship could be enhanced when/if Charles then did abdicate because he would then have two generations above him and foreseeably a succession backup coming into place if he were to wed.

 

On the other hand however the Australians also consider their own ideal situation and effectively at this time it is this. They have a desire to fully reconcile their differences with the aboriginal people which a previous British monarch thoughtlessly caused. Conceivably it would require the creation of something in the order of a Black and White Monarchy co-operative to the Queen in times when difficult due deferences must be summarily resolved. However the formation of a White and Black monarchy would theoretically be of greater standing than the present day monarchy of Queen Elizabeth not the least in part that theirs in the first instance would have one or possibly even two kings in it, no doubt two Queens, one at least of Hearts.

 

In chess parlance terms many people within their culture are able to be co-operative on a God level battle basis of thinking because they have a person who on occasions has proven that he can create a statement of harmony simultaneously as Christ, God and the Devil and this person is consistently one up on Eric Clapton whom for the purposes of game playing is the stand in for God (although there is an unresolved dispute as to whether who is or not in present living existence). If the Queen were to become co-operative on the basis that this person was the equivalent Christ to her Clapton as God and monarchial due deferences were to be sorted out in battles of greater harmony to establish seniority of consciousness in the moment then a new world force could emerge that had greater integrity than the American selfly desiganted world leader so long as that newly formed monarchy could take an expression of harmony to another level early.

 

Some plans to that end are in place at the Australian end of the spectrum and the Queen is hereby invited to condone fully her pleasure or displeasure on the matter and a charge of treason should be laid if her disposition is in the negative.

[LaurieAG]

Some plans to that end are in place at the Australian end of the spectrum and the Queen is hereby invited to condone fully her pleasure or displeasure on the matter and a charge of treason should be laid if her disposition is in the negative.

 

Hi Clapstyx,

 

The royal protocol was changed in the Australia Act 1986 when all Australian subjects of the queen were denied access to the court of that very same monarch, by Australian politicians who have yet to gain referrendum yes votes in a majority of the states to rattify the change of national sovereignty status contained in the preamble to the act.