August 3, 2019

Rather than bending ourselves into a pretzel shape over the confusing and convoluted idea of an Aboriginal voice for parliament Aboriginal races (sic) should instead be creating their own constitution.

The very idea, put forth in the Uluru Statement of the Heart, for a “First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”, in which “[They] will walk in two worlds” is wildly hypocritical. Firstly, they slam the constitution, and as Galarrwuy Yunupingu did at the Garma Festival in the Northern Territory yesterday, demand exceptional inclusion at the threat of them, “throwing it in the sea” if they don’t.

Noel Pearson’s follow up contended: “(Our) opponents in the Institute of Public Affairs attempt to put a liberal philosophical sheen on Andrew Bolt’s argument that a First Nations voice would constitute separate treatment on the basis of race in the constitution.’

“This argument succeeds only if you ignore the truth that our claim is on the basis of our being indigenous to this country, not on the basis of race. Bolt and the IPA remain steadfastly obscurant on this.”

Noel’s not a bad bloke, and he’s got smarts, but he hasn’t displayed any here.  Because he goes on to speak specifically of races without acknowledging it: “The Yolngu of this land need Australia to afford them the chance of defining what Galarrwuy Yunupingu called ‘a modern version of ourselves’ under the framework of constitutional recognition of their right to be themselves and to retain their high culture and languages in all their classical glory.

“The interweaving of the Enlightenment and high culture of the Yolngu must be a journey of their own choosing, and the terrible structure of forced assimilation must end. The Yolngu need the freedom to define their future, anchored in their own heritage.”

Yolngu refers to “people” as in the aggregate of the Aboriginal tribes around Australia, which, we would argue, are comprised of different races. However, that pluralism still regards race in the collective notion of a separate — and singular — voice and representation under a constitution that previously, back in 1967, was amended to remove reference to Aboriginals as a “special” race.

Of course, Pearson’s argument about acknowledging ‘a modern version of ourselves’ is very wise, for, as Herbert Marcuse said in so many words, the progress of civilisation invalidates myth. And Yunupingu would have us regard myth as legitimate Aboriginal history stretching back “60,000 years” — a dubious estimate, particularly when he speaks of a diversity of tribes of whom arrived at varying points in time.

Pearson makes a positive assertion when he says that their people must end “forced assimilation”. Indeed, no nationalist can fault him on his desire to preserve their “high culture and languages in all their classical glory”. It would be the avowed mission of Australian Nationalists to assist the Yolngu in the preservation of their blood. We do not want them mixing theirs any more than we want ours assimilated out of existence.

Yet, here we are talking about all the fundaments of race. We are discussing Noel’s desire that his people’s blood and culture not be ‘assimilated’ into a polyglot. This puts them at odds with their liberal advocates who spend their time repudiating the notion of race. Presumably, these liberal defendants or those Pearson dismisses as ‘white progressives’, don’t really wish for the preservation of Aboriginal blood at all but want them integrated into the multi-racial muddle they’ve subverted this nation into. The white liberal confusion over its own meddlesome desires for the Aboriginal peoples couldn’t have been better typified than by Good Goy Thomas Keneally in his 1972 novel The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith.

This message about a parliamentary “voice” is therefore contradictory. But it’s not just its incongruities but its absence of detail which proves that nobody who’s advocating for it really understands what “it” is they are actually advocating for. Is it really a treaty, or a ‘Makarrata Commission’? Because on the one hand they want independence, and on the other (the voice) they wish a special reserve whereby they get to instruct and veto decisions made on their behalf, them being a separate [race].  Well, why not just write their own constitution and strike an agreement with Australia? This is feasible. Integration into parliament is, after all, integration into Australian society which is what they’ve just argued they do not really want at all; if indeed they do know what they want. A separate currency too? A new flag that isn’t owned by a budding entrepreneur?

Jacinta Price is an Aboriginal advocate and conservative, but we won’t hold the latter against her. She believes that the anti-racism campaigns waged by members of her broad community are proving detrimental overall.

The Warlpiri woman told media, “They (activists) believe indigenous people are babies and have to be compensated for their losses.

“They push for this dependency to continue instead of allowing Aboriginal people to stand on their own two feet and be responsible for our own opportunities and our own future. They say, ‘There, there — you’ve been wrongly done by, someone else should be fixing things for you. That’s not empowerment.”

Indigenous rapper Adam Briggs has used his Fat Albert wit to attack our national anthem in a television segment made for NAIDOC week and which aired on the ABC. In it, he eloquently summed up his issues with the national song by saying “It sucks”. This is classic identity politics from a blackfella who wouldn’t have an identity if he wasn’t espousing identity politics.

Yet, he stands with the rest of those militant activists who oppose Australia Day and argue the illegitimacy of British title over Australia — a legitimacy that was supported by the rest of the world. His sort doesn’t understand that by pushing questions of Australia’s legitimacy they open the doors for other, bigger, greedier, more hostile nations like, say, China to agree with them and stake a claim anew. In an era of overpopulation which will auger diminishing food supplies and water shortages, this is a slippery slope to go down.

Instead, should not their people be living with a shared commitment to this land; a commitment to defend it?

We wholeheartedly agree that they should avoid assimilation and the best way to ensure their homogeneity and preservation of their high culture is to take it where it belongs — to the remote communities. We agree that work must be done to allow more humane infrastructure for those communities, but Abos are not White Europeans, and the current trend of shutting down remote indigenous communities is killing them. Forcing them into bigger areas where they must by default assimilate is not the way to go.

Having said, it won’t take a “voice” in parliament for Nationalists to agree on assisting them with their living. We won’t need a lengthy debate on whether or not to ensure there is water, electricity, and all the necessary provisions to sustain life and to allow them the modern tools to sustain. It all goes without saying, and in this process, we gain acknowledgement that the Australian people are a race and just as real. We too need preservation from the globalist impositions of assimilation with overpopulated races which are encouraged onto our soil to outbreed us.

The pressing issues of health, law, and community savagely afflicting the remote communities cannot be legislated for in parliament. This all  ends up being the very interference which they decry. You cannot have a White solution for a Black problem. Blacks cannot on one hand condemn Whitey for historic grievances and then expect us to soothe the anxieties of the modern world we brought. All of this discord comes at the cost of this nation’s stability; there is enough of that being caused by the insanity of the ‘White progressives’ and the greed of the conservatives who Noel Pearson names. Multiracialising (sic) this country, while cleansing Whites, isn’t strengthening us but opening us up for partition and occupation by China and America.

Collectively, we can defend Australia, which, once these changes are made, will finally be a nation. Aboriginals can then commit as much to the defence of this great land as did their forebears 3000 of whom, without being conscripted, voluntarily took up arms in our services to fight for Australia. They did this because they had no misunderstanding over whether or not it was in their best interests.


  1. Great article. It’s important to distinguish between nations and states.

    The Australian state is basically our governments, courts and public service. The state’s function is to serve and protect the nation(s) inside the territory they govern. Where the state fails in this function, it becomes illegitimate. I’d suggest that the Australian state is failing us all at this stage – and is illegitimate in its current form.

    Nations are groups of people with a shared ancestry, culture and homeland. They’re like extended family trees. In Australia, there are two distinct nations that belong here, because they are of Australian soil and don’t belong anywhere else. These are the Aboriginal peoples (whose tribes could each be classed as separate nations themselves) – and white Australia.

    The Australian state is conflicted because on the one hand it doesn’t believe in organic nations. It works on the idea that citizenship – or being ‘Australian’ – comes from just being present in Australia for a (short) time. But on the other hand it confers special status to Aboriginal people who are defined on genetic and cultural grounds. To be entitled to this status, people must be of Aboriginal descent, identify as Aboriginal and be accepted by other Aboriginal people as one of them.

    In my opinion, these are excellent criteria. Imagine if white Australian citizenship was based on the same rules.

    A question for nationalists is whether it’s possible for one ‘state’ to successfully serve and protect multiple nations inside a country. The examples of South Africa and the former Yugoslavia suggest not. And if that’s the case, should Australia’s Aboriginal nation(s) have their own state?

    For the government’s position on defining Aboriginality, check out:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.