Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

Australia is more “grown up” than any other nation in the world.

On my piece this week against Australia becoming a republic, Kingbuzz left this comment.

Adam, love your work, but not sure why we wouldn’t want Australians to elect their own head of state? Shouldn’t we “grow up” as a country, cut the ties from the old empire, and become a republic? I imagine this would give us a stronger sense of who we are as a country, not to mention also give us a better standing in Asia…but I’m interested in hearing arguments to the contrary.

This appeal to an emotional state of feelings that Australia for its entire existence has been immature; a problem to which the only solution, and a quick and magical one at that, is to become a republic, was a common rhetorical tactic used by the pro-republic side in 1999. Like all good rhetoric, it stuck.

This rhetorical rubbish is not only easy to debunk, but in its debunking we learn, not surprisingly, that the opposite of what is claimed is the real truth.

The claim that Australia will “grow up” if it adopts a republican model and its accompanying presidential head of state, assumes that Australia’s current government model is immature. Australia is a Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchies are quite common forms of government. The United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg, Sweden, and Japan all enjoy constitutional monarchies, not to mention the sixteen governments that make up the Commonwealth.

If Australia supposedly needs to grow up then there are a great many other nations with rich histories that need to do the same. Far from giving us a greater sense of identity, cutting the ties that bind us to our cultural and historical roots with Great Britain would leave us adrift and open to any sort of historical revisionism. This is precisely the situation that socialists, Marxists, and progressives crave.

Immaturity is best measured in actions, not words. A person can say whatever they want but it is from their actions that one can accurately gauge their level of maturity. So too with nations.

Australia is a Federal parliament. It has been around for some time.

Australia is the seventh oldest federation in the world after the United States (1789), Mexico (1824), Switzerland (1848), Canada (1867), the German Empire (1871), and Brazil (1891). Australia is the only one of those countries in which the territory of the original constituent states has since remained unchanged (although some overseas territories have since been gained and relinquished).

Seventh oldest in the world? Hardly the sign of an immature nation. The key to that passage though is the last sentence – Australia is the only one of those countries whose territory has remained unchanged.

The reason for this is that Australia is the only nation in the history of the human race where separate and self-governing states came together in a voluntary act to form a federation with no threat of war or force and with no blood being spilt. No other nation has ever achieved this. The American model which the Australian republicans wish to copy enjoyed the bloodiest civil war in modern history so as to force federation on the southern states.

Actions speak louder than words, and even louder again than intentions. Based on this history it could very well be argued that the Federation of Australia is the most mature nation that the world has ever known. It is the only nation existing on earth at this point in time where no blood has ever been spilled on its soil over internal political unrest.

Our standing in Asia, and to a larger extent the world, should be one of great pride. The more pride that we as Australians show in our own institutions and our own history then the more that other nations will seek to emulate us. One does not gain greater standing in the international community by throwing away the most successful political structure and history that has ever existed.

On the contrary, such an act would eventually open us up to pity. The pity that comes when a nation is torn apart by political unrest. It has happened to every other nation that presently exists in the world. The only nation where this has never occurred is Australia. And people want to change this state of affairs to feel “more grown up”. It is nothing short of pitiful.



Friday Hawt chicks & links – The 2018 edition.


Bachelor cooking – cooking with bacon.


  1. I would argue that Australia should abandon the monarchy on the basis that the monarchy has completely failed to carry out its duties.

    Under the British constitutional monarchy model, the monarch is supposed to step in and relieve prime ministers of power if they overstep the boundaries of their office. Yet left-wing radicals like Pierre Trudeau, Tony Blair, and Gough Whitlam were allowed to abrogate power for themselves and fundamentally change the demographic/cultural character of their countries while the Queen and her representatives did nothing.

    Right now, republics have a better track record of containing left-wing poz (e.g. the U.S., Hungary, Poland, Austria), and with Prince Harry marrying a black woman solely to appease the left, I don’t see anything redeeming about currently extant European royal families. Even the head of the Habsburg clan is an open-borders globalist.

    • Adam

      The present monarch is a woman, and although she has reigned for a long time she has all of the associated weaknesses of the fairer sex. Hopefully her grandson can take the throne and begin to put things right.

  2. Mr Black

    Australia is going to need a civil war to become Australia again. We may as well hurry it along while we still have the numbers.

  3. Dan

    The monarch is the mother and Australia is a valued child.

    Malcolm isn’t a believer since mum ran off to NZ. Then dad died 15 years later.

    Malcy has orphan syndrome and expects the rest of us to be as “up for it” as he is.

    Any leader, I’m talking ANY worth his salt would have this so low on the list of priorities…

    Turnbull’s social agenda is absolutely in step with Shorten and DiNatalie. He’s keen to do “great” things with them…

  4. MarkT

    The ideal for any government (of any country) is a republic, with a strong constitution limiting their powers and role, and all government representatives accountable to voters. The ideal therefore is to have no hereditary monarchy, as Australia currently has.

    However – given our current culture, a move towards a republic now would almost certainly move us away from this ideal rather than towards it. Yes we’d lose the hereditary monarchy, but that doesn’t mean much given their largely symbolic role. What we’d probably lose to some degree is some of the protections against tyranny provided by the Constitution, the tie to British law and precedents going back to the 18-19th century , and the rights of appeal to the Crown built into our legal system. The negatives of such a move would almost certainly outweigh any positives. The Left and other tyrants would likely end up with more of a carte blanche in implementing their agenda than they already have.

  5. A republic being from the Latin meaning “of the public” one finds that the government is a public matter and being controlled by the citizens. Which of course Australia has had for any number of years. So what are they really trying to sell?

    If I have read and understood about the Australian form of government Australia has a legislature elected by the citizens and the Prime Minister who is the head of government comes through the same election process. But wait some say, the head of state is the Queen who is represented by the Governor General. Which has always been chosen at the advice of the Prime Minister. In fact as with many forms of this type of government the head of state only acts at the behest of the head of government.

    Australia has no pressing need, that I have been able to discern, to change their system so some other agenda is at play. A hidden agenda always means bad news. It’s for your own good but I can’t tell you about it.

  6. England is surely no example of a civilised country. Rather, has it become a left-wing dictatorship, with its restrictions on free speech and private behaviour; its asinine debates on immigration, as the country continues to be invaded by savages (like those delightful North Africans); its clear determination to thwart Brexit. The list is endless.

    There was no: ‘civil war’ in the United States – but rather a slaughter initiated by the dictator Lincoln, for economic reasons. In so doing, he began the destruction of a country founded on a reasonably good idea – but only that.

    As an outsider, I think Australia committed national suicide in abandoning the policy known as: White Australia.

    Culture is determined through genetics. Hence, the manifest superiority of the West.

    • “There was no: ‘civil war’ in the United States – but rather a slaughter initiated by the dictator Lincoln”

      A “slaughter”, because no unionists died.

      This is asinine. Of course it was a civil war. By definition. That’s what the word means. As for what the war was about, I will take my opinions from the declarations which each seceding state made at the time rather than some internet pundit with an axe to grind.

      Nevertheless, it is perfectly true that the Somalis aren’t adapting all that well to the idea of living a law-abiding, quietly productive life. It turns out that “warrior culture” simply means “a life of violent crime’. Obvious in retrospect, I suppose.

      They aren’t refugees. They are the people the refugees are trying to get away from.

  7. Dave

    If we become a republic, then the most obvious, visible link to who and what we are is broken.

    Look at our flag. We are Britons under the southern cross. The Queen is our sovereign. I am a New South Welshman. My southern kin are Victorians. South Welshmen. Victorians. British through and through, as 96% of our population was until the 1950’s. We are not a nation of immigrants, but a British settler society.

    Break this link, and turncoat and his ilk have done away with the last vestiges of our kin and heritage, clearing the way to recreate us in whatever image they choose. New south China we become.

    Has anyone noticed the advertising for the new light rail. The motto is ‘ we’re building tomorrows Sydney’. The people photographed are almost all Asian or Indian. That’s what’s being constructed, not light rail. Letting these dangerous people get their republic will bring the end of Anglo Australia about ever more swiftly.

    As it stands, the monarchy and our flag are like a cross to a vampire for our politicians. Labor so recoils at it that they long ago did away with the union jack for their own logo.

    Yes, The Queen has much to answer for in allowing Britain to fall into the state it has. Even more disgraceful is their consent to allow Harry to marry this woman. Nevertheless, the monarchy is bigger than any family or one ruling monarch. If the west and the Anglosphere is to be revived, it is a rock and long standing foundation we can rally to as our forefathers did for generations.

  8. David Moore

    Look, it’s a very simple economic question. The Queen doesn’t cost Australia very much and isn’t ever likely to do very much. That seems like a bargain to me when the alternative is going to be a President, who will cost a fortune and costs will go up from there, as well as an inclination to start ‘doing’ things, which will always have a price tag.

    The idea that you somehow grow up as a country by disconnecting from the system that made you such a success in the first place is also quite odd.

  9. Bobs

    An Australian republic is baby steps of globalist symbolism, to show our neighbouring Asia pacific countries we have changed, we are no longer the Nation of racist white Britons. Kevin Rudd proposed the concept years ago to test the water publicly, being the Asia Pacific Union. It’s just the ever march forward of a centralizing repressive totalitarian state, much like the UK has already turned into. Centralisation of a system is more a show of a system attempting to hold off decline rather then ascension.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: