Anthony Albanese’s Labor government is shooting for a historical legacy achievement. Australians are soon to be asked to vote for an indigenous voice in parliament. The proposal is so vague and its terms of reference so ill-defined that there’s no telling what kind of monster it will create. As it stands, the vote will be to determine whether or not the constitution should be amended to include an Aboriginal voice.

Before expanding on this topic, we ask the reader to consider whether or not you have a voice in this parliament. We ask that you ponder whether or not the Australian parliament is independent of the western liberal cabal to which we’re indentured. The parasitic elites will tell you that this is a democracy and your elected representatives are your voice in parliament. But when those who’ve been elected gather for drinks, they roll around laughing themselves silly at that illusion. Then they use their position to grab whatever they can for themselves, prepare for a cushy future after parliament and then milk the system for all it’s worth.

Recent revelations about the culture of the Australian national parliament have exposed a veritable brothel in our nation’s capital. The shindigs going on in there would make the Marquis De Sade blush. Those not having sex in their offices are getting rollicking drunk on the taxpayer’s dollar and making all manner of asses of themselves. Let’s never forget these things happened, and continue in the houses of power. Many of these people are shallow grifters and degenerates. They left all pretence at idealism at the parlour door aeons ago. That’s before they decided to hop aboard the gravy train and travel into the rhetorical sunset.

These confidence tricksters have, in their time, sold our natural resources off to Communist China. They have taken liberties with our liberty. Remember COVID-19? Remember the masks, the mass arrests, the police brutality? What voice did we have then? We now find out that those vaccines were hogwash and those “plague rats” who demurred the draconian measures to contain the glorified flu now look like national heroes. They lied then, but now this “parliament”, with its bogus “welcome to the nation” smoke ceremonies and other hollow gestures, wants to enshrine a sacred voice. The only sacred voice in parliament is the almighty shekel.

Where is the voice in parliament for those of us who want to end immigration and pursue our national destiny unfettered by the yoke of American western liberalism? There is no unified Australian community, as this proposal acknowledges. Moreover, no single Aboriginal voice exists because there is no unified Aboriginal community. Their tribes are plagued by violent feuds and disagreements. These are not problems generated by the Australian constitution, which is already an admittedly unsatisfying sheet of convoluted text as it stands.

The Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report to the Australian Government includes many references to the work done by “previous” Aboriginal advisory bodies. What finally emerges will be the culmination of those chattering bodies into two distinct groups: a local and regional voice. If these are to determine the wants and needs of Aborigines living in remote communities, then why not just go to those communities and find out what the problems are? Then again, we know what the problems are.

Aborigines share the same problems as we Anglo-Celtic-Europeans in the wider community: they are being shunted into an increasingly greater minority thanks to the ongoing immigration project. Very soon, they’ll be wondering about their pronouns and whether or not their right-handed people have more privilege than they do. This will distract them from the existential failure of this ill-conceived voice, which will, as with everything else, amount to a stupendous dialectic once the dust has settled. That might be that every other “minority” community demands its voice. Indians, Chinese, Africans, Arabs, and so on will all want a voice. Anything might happen when you open that constitutional Pandora’s box.

On the other hand, we don’t know what an Aboriginal voice in parliament is all about, or why it’s being promoted. So far, nobody knows. The Prime Minister made a general statement about “closing the gap”. This voice aims to “focus” on issues such as life expectancy, education, health, and the violence plaguing Aboriginal communities.

Surely, by the rules of parliament, as it stands, an Aboriginal voice equates to having MPs from those areas doing their job for their community and not coalescing with the interests of the party they represent. Right now, there are six people who “identify” as Aboriginal in the parliament; many might consider that over-representation given their numbers. Therefore, the ramifications of this vote auger the direst consequences if Australia votes “yes.” Because all they’ll be voting on is green-lighting a vague idea to discover what the actual idea is. Currently, there is no idea. The idea is to come up with an idea. Not exactly a solid foundation to start building upon.

Essentially, a yes vote will hand resources and influence to an as yet undefined group to do god knows what with. The moment you ensure regular resources, the securing of those resources inevitably becomes the ongoing function of that group or body. It is the penultimate extension of the welfare mentality. Worse still, it’s the culmination of every patronising exercise involving the Aboriginal question. It is an admission that, after all this time, nobody has a clue how to bring these people into the 21st century.

Who will make up this group? How will it elect members? When they’re elected, will they be pureblood Aborigines or just the usual 1/10th part Aboriginal from somewhere down the great great grandmother’s ancestral line? Shouldn’t we be doing more to preserve true Aborigines from being mixed up by these cosmopolitan genocidalists? But that’s another topic entirely. The makeup of this group, or whatever they end up being designated as is unlikely to support a conservative voice. So, who will be the duelling voices and what is the norm they’ll have to conform to? Will it be Lidia Thorpe, the anti-Australian nightmare wrecker in the Greens? Will it include “fake Abos”? Will it be their elders? Again, we only have questions, and as you can see, far too many of them.

What one hand does in benevolence, the other acts in ignorance. Then there are those hands that are told what to do. As such, as the price of belonging to the western liberal cabal, we are playing games with energy. We’re witnessing the implementation of the Great Reset across Europe. Germany, for instance, is now rationing power. All because of a fixation on the disputed phenomenon of climate change. If remote Aboriginal communities need electricity now, preventing them from accessing power isn’t going to placate that “voice” crying out for utilities. They’ll merely have a valid ticket aboard a sinking ship.

What kind of education are they about to get? Will they learn that women have penises? Are they to discover that men can also give birth to children? Are they to be taught how evil white civilisation is in order to perpetuate their dependence on the government? Where will the health professionals come from if the safety of nurses is not guaranteed in those lawless towns? If the gap is a matter of the Aborigines’ genes and not provisioning, what will it ever likely achieve?

Albanese delved even deeper into the rhetorical by telling The Australian, “I believe that a voice in parliament and lifting the status and respect of First Nations communities is a precondition for getting better practical outcomes and closing the gap in all areas.”

Respect? That’s just a bunch of sentences. Every government and corporate website, as well as every document released, includes an acknowledgement of Aborigines. The farce that is the “welcome to the country” ceremony, hastily cobbled together by the indigenous comedian Ernie Dingo (who married a white woman) back in the 1970s, is adopted as though it’s sacred and legitimate as a rite. How much respect can we be forced to show? That’s not respect anyway, it’s patronising Aborigines. And we’re talking about an absolute minority. According to government statistics, a mere 812,000 people “identified” as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in 2021. That was up 2.8% from 2016. Note that we parenthesised “identified” because the number of actual full-blooded Aborigines is far lower. They’re crowded out by the trendy shysters claiming Aboriginal heritage when they look as white as the ordinary Anglo. Therefore, this is an exercise in virtue signalling at its most shameless.

Consider this: there are 1.2 million Chinese living in Australia. There are 193,633 Middle Easterners entrenched in enclaves. The Indian population (doubtless higher than the stats show) is 673, 352. That’s catching up with the Aborigines, and it won’t be long before Indians in Australia surpass both the Chinese and the Aborigines. If Albanese allows New Zealanders carte blanche to migrate here with full rights as citizens, the numbers of Chinese, Indians and Middle Easterners coming through the back door will increase exponentially.

This embarrassing “acknowledgement” that Aborigines are incapable of coping with modern society is better left politely unsaid rather than trumpeted by an enormous “special needs” programme that opens up the rest of us to untold consequences. Are these Chinese and Indians likely to vote “yes” to a voice? What makes Africans care about the Aborigines? The Arabs are too busy fighting them for control of our prisons.

Whatever the “Seniors Offical Group” that evolves out of this messy process, should it go ahead, it will not be a unified voice. Aborigines are not a unified people, nor were they ever. Lidia Thorpe argues that “sovereignty was never ceded,” but sovereignty to what? An amorphous aggregation of disparate tribes fighting over land and resources? The structure of this group will be rigged. Again, will they be elected or appointed along political lines? But that’s another question. Just the privilege of victimhood.

The underlying dialogue won’t help but become “anti-racist.” The concession in the constitution will create porous borders and potentially hand control of resource-rich areas to Aboriginal syndicates, who, in theory, might choose to sell those to China. This has been the experience with such groups up until now—they’ve been rife with nepotism and corruption. Each different tribe will have its inherent interests, just as you find in Papua New Guinea. Those with the resources share them with their clan.

The twin danger of this referendum is that the majority of Australians blindly vote “yes” out of the typical western liberal sense of goodwill that is divorced from empirical reality. It can only exacerbate multiculturalism, which in turn will blow back on the Aboriginal people.

Likewise, we’re in danger of irreversibly splitting the constitution in two. One for Aborigines and one for “the rest.” Given that all it takes to be Australian is adherence to nebulous “values”, at present, there isn’t any need for special treatment for Aborigines. Yet, the constitution, once divided, opens up the prospect of this nation losing what little security of identity it has left. That means it puts us at the mercy of aggressive powers in the region.

There are Aborigines and there are Australians. The two are not mutually inclusive. Australia is the country that was built by the descendants of the convicts sent here after the land was claimed by Great Britain. The Aborigines had no say in it because they were a collection of conquered (not unified) tribes. It’s fallacious to claim “Australians” stole Australia, as Australians were born out of an enforced re-settlement of Brits, Irish, Scottish, etc. We bear no guilt for anything.

A “conscience” on the matter is pure Marxist revisionism. The sad truth is that in the great Darwinian quest for survival, Aborigines are losing the fight. They were too far for too long. They were so far behind advanced civilisations and so genetically unevolved that the intrusion into their land was a work of destiny, not an act of villainy. Would they have preferred the Chinese to have conquered this great continent? The entire concept of a “voice” is rooted in the self-destructive policies shaped by western liberalism that spouted after the Nuremberg trials of 1945–1946. Effectively, the “anti-fascist” mentality of the west is out of control. It is thanks to that aberration of Christianity and Semitic instruction that formerly white nations are committing suicide by immigration. This suicide affects Aborigines worse. The concept of a voice motivated by liberal idealism is insoluble. A “yes” vote will profoundly exacerbate the problems of migration, identity, and ownership. This will marginalise all Aborigines except the cosmopolitan liberals riding the gravy train. ■

About Author

Alfred

See author's posts