70 min 5 mths

Australians are labouring to comprehend the proposed Aboriginal Voice [to] Parliament. We are not being asked, but coerced, into voting “yes” to this nebulously defined “voice” based on the invocation of human rights about the plight of “indigenous people.” We are pressured to enable this Voice that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese characterises as a “modest change”—in the name of “colonial oppression” and other demonic white vices. Many will succumb to the moral blackmail and vote yes “from the heart.” But we should use our heads because hearts are easily manipulated. Unless the contagion of hyper liberalism has melted our capacity for reason, we will vehemently vote NO. The Voice is a big bowl of wrong, and we’ll explain why. Hold onto your paternal britches, we’re about to disappear down a rabbit hole.


Nobody in the affirmative camp can articulate what it all means. Either that or if they did, their cover would be blown, as much of the detail is being kept quiet about. They misleadingly offer generalities and assurances about it being “the right thing” to do. But what would they do—or more to the point, what would we be doing—by voting yes to this proposal? Most importantly, why are we being asked to allow it? And how do we define “right” and “wrong” in this matter?

Bear in mind, “they”—those from the Referendum Working Group cobbling it together—can’t agree on what it will be. Many contradictory statements are being aired. Ultimately, though, the idea is to compose a satisfactory definition and worry about the detail after it’s passed.

Anthony Albanese revealed at a Canberra press conference on March 23, “The question Australians will be asked at this year’s referendum is very simple. It will read, ‘A proposed law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this approved alteration?’”

He added, “That’s the question before the Australian people. Nothing more but nothing less.” This is the equivalent of somebody asking you, “Can you loan me fifty dollars?” When you enquire why, they respond, “Uh-uh, that wasn’t the question.”

Albanese continued to outline The Voice, explaining, “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have the power to make laws concerning matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Albanese flicking his lizard tongue briefed the gallery that, “The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, respecting their work. And, as has been made clear very many times, the Voice will not have veto power, and it will not deliver programs, or manage … funding.

“One person, one vote. People from all faiths, backgrounds and traditions. All of us will have an equal say. All of us can own an equal share of what I believe will be an inspiring and unifying Australian moment.”

Albanese shared only the “principle” of The Voice, that which would appear in the Constitution. The details and legislation would be nutted out for parliament to vote on later.

At its most benign, The Voice is touted as a means for Aboriginal and Islander people to advise the Australian government about policies and laws affecting their communities. To achieve this, they and their supporters maintain recognition of Aborigines in the constitution is vital. However, as critics argue, doing so is tantamount to preferential treatment.

And it must be asked, why do they need special consideration, indeed, why do they deserve it? Is this an admission of failure? Are their terms of surrender power-sharing? Must we vote yes because they were here first? We’re all here now; Australians are as indigenous as any full-blooded black fella. But more immigrants keep coming courtesy of the very government plugging The Voice. Contradictive policies are in motion.

The given reason Australia needs an Aboriginal voice [to] Parliament is: “For the recognition of … the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australian history and contemporary Australian society.”

Yes, if nothing else, it’s unique.


We worship the Primitive, and Aboriginal exceptionalism is a powerful currency. Their culture is valid, ours is not. They are virtuous and through secularity, we’re spiritually bereft. We are alternately their oppressors but they demand we adopt them all the same. Throughout the past 230 years, we’ve done nothing but “genocide” them and steal their land. Their relationship with the “country” is deep and mystical while all we do is rape their hallowed spread.

Thus, we address the syrupy Uluru Statement from the Heart. Uluru is a sacred site for Aborigines “owned” by “traditional custodians” with peculiar animism that connects them to “country” in a way mere European descendants couldn’t begin to fathom. People who never discovered the wheel or anything beyond fire and crude tools teach us a lot.

The paradox of their inability to function at a comparative level as the most unsophisticated migrant can only be blamed on “whitey.” Even though the full-blooded Aborigine is, like the New Guinean highlanders—and the Amazon tribes frozen in time—an anthropological curiosity. We shall refrain from asking why quaint people merit such esteem, much less query the wisdom of inviting them to influence the affairs of a modern state. But the question rests while we remind the reader that everything about them is reinforced by a “narrative” we must accept unconditionally.

When facts don’t suit the narrative, they change them. If history refuses to bear out those “facts,” they revise that history with “scientific discoveries” that present their evolutionary shortcomings in a manner that contrariwise advances them. We find that, holistically, they shame us with their idyllic systems, harmonious culture and lifestyle. Take the Bruce Pascoe controversy. Pascoe, who claims ancestral links to no less than three Aboriginal tribes, is a 76-year-old Melbourne writer raised to prominence on the back of his book Dark Emu.

This 2014 non-fiction fable advanced the theory that colonial historiography of Aboriginal existence was tainted and that Aborigines had sophisticated agricultural practises, construction techniques, and other proof of advancement that repudiates the “hunter-gatherer” label. In effect, they were as good as us, only their methods were environmentally sound. Academia bought into this text, which is being taught in Australian schools. The ABC promoted him heavily, while Melbourne University made him a professor.

The trouble is, like Pascoe’s Aboriginal heritage, it is false. Aborigines have themselves questioned Pascoe’s claims of Aboriginality. Elsewhere, scholars criticized Pascoe’s dubious revisionism. But not many. See, Pascoe’s value resides in the advancement of the Aboriginal agenda. Not the Aboriginal people, but the patronising white liberal program for them. Consequently, a biased search engine like Google only links to content affirming Pascoe’s work. Later, we’ll learn why. But at least two Aboriginal groups declared him a fake Aborigine, while his declarations of Aboriginal ancestry on his maternal side were proven untrue. He even admitted the ‘error.’ None of this has tarnished him, however.

So, what was his story? Pascoe has long written from an Aboriginal perspective. In the 1980s, a review of one of his books, while praising the authorship, criticized his rendition for appropriating an Aboriginal viewpoint in its narration. Then, in his 40s, Pascoe miraculously unearthed his Aboriginal lineage, thus, validating his work. And despite the obviousness of his fraud, he is defended by left-wing pundits.

Analysis of Census data divulges that anywhere up to one-third of those claiming to descend from Aborigines are lying. Yet, that area of “identity” is a taboo as unchallengeable as transgender assertions about gender identification—As Andrew Bolt discovered in the landmark case Eatock vs Bolt. Bugger how it affects actual Aborigines, whom white liberals masquerading as Aborigines—the latter who complain are displacing them in the top jobs in Aboriginal land councils and organisations—squeeze their livelihood. Furthermore, they are contributing to actual Aboriginal genocide.


Returning to Uluru, where the international tourist attraction formerly known as Ayer’s Rock hunches, we meet another lie—that of the Rock’s sacredness. At least, it’s not sacred in that sense. The story of the Rock is secret: its ancestral mythology, not the physical rock. To emphasise the opposite is fallacious. It’s not a pernickety distinction, but a crucial delineation, or, put another way, imbuing the rock with the numinous of furtive tribal myth is a deception.

Shaky foundations crumble. Likewise, whatsoever is founded on a lie is untrue. And we won’t mince words here. But the Uluru Statement from the Heart—evincing the spirituality of Ayer’s Rock—is bolshy propaganda.

          Central to this assemblage of emotive sentences is that Uluru is a pure invention like the Welcome to Country ceremony Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley cobbled together in 1976 to impress visiting Māori. Aborigines have no such words in their languages. Also, the Welcome to Country ceremony is now a source of income for Aborigines. That amounts to them being a tourist attraction. Nobody is highlighting the inherent condescension of institutionalising this made-up ritual.

          Climbing Ayer’s Rock—or Uluru—was banned in October 2019. The board of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park referred to the sanctity of the site, aggrieved at how they believed it was being disrespectfully treated by tourists. They shut down the climb. The problem is the Rock’s most senior custodian, the late Paddy Uluru, an Anangu man discredited the sacredness myth. It’s just a rock.

          Tourists have climbed the rock for as long as they’ve travelled to the Northern Territory. But objections arose only in recent years. Records indicate that 35 people have died attempting the climb while many more have gotten stuck since 1946. Rescue attempts are costly and pose logistical difficulties. Was this the real reason?

          Paddy Uluru died in 1979 but before that, he assured that the Rock held no cultural significance other than in story-time. Various interviews with him are recorded. One of those was published in The Alice Springs News. Paddy was quoted as saying, “If tourists are stupid enough to climb the Rock, go for it.” He added (and this is doubtless paraphrased): “The physical act of climbing is of no cultural interest.”

This is one case of weaponizing the mysteries of Aboriginal culture against Australia. When it comes to Aboriginal custom, we only have their word for it. And we’re accepting the say-so of people both bearing a grudge and recognising an opportunity. We cannot be sure these are true stories or agreed-upon fabrications. You may call us cynical. Tribal lore has been invoked elsewhere to restrict Australians from enjoying nature. Parks Victoria banned rock climbers from scaling a third of the Victorian Grampians in a decision supported by three “traditional owner” corporations with Title over the parkland. Those indifferent to the decision, who may not visit nature, or are swayed by anecdotes of “sacred rock art” being desecrated, might assume that it’s a good idea from the context of preserving the parkland. But that spurious reasoning obviates the serious implications—that this is the restriction of movement determined by race—all based on a debatable “lore.”


The Stolen Lands narrative heavily relies on the myth of “genocide.” Certainly, Aborigines died, but so did settlers. Contemporary history is not so keen to vitiate the potency of its “shaming” when it comes to the so-called “massacre” of Aborigines. It seldom countenances vigilante revanchism—retaliation against Aboriginal raiding parties that slaughtered settlers for their goods.

It presupposes that killing Aborigines was tolerable even though from the moment of Captain Phillip’s arrival the safeguarding of their persons was encoded in law and severely punished if broken. Furthermore, the narrative—crafted by partisan white historians—seeks to romanticise delinquency as Aboriginal resistance.

          One of those debunking falsities about European Settler brutality is Keith Windschuttle. An Australian historian and editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle holds a list of scholarly accomplishments. Formerly of the political Left, in the 1970s he shifted Rightwards. This suggests he writes, not from a fixed position, but from discovery. If enlightenment underscores his political conversion, then truth-seeking facilitated that journey.

Windschuttle initiated “history wars” by holding contemporary historians to account for their ‘laziness,’ ‘arrogance,’ and proclivity to patronise. We direct the reader to his investigations from which he found the traditional academics skewing research. Among those was an inflation of the death toll of Aborigines during the confrontations with colonial settlers. This was particularly so with his examination of the ‘Black War’ against Tasmanian Aborigines. Similarly, he dared to point out that the weight of historical analysis by this “orthodox school” of historians recounting the Australian frontier attributed all of the hostility to the Europeans while intentionally casting the Aborigines in a passive-but-heroic light.

Windschuttle contends that attacks on English settlements, far from “guerrilla warfare” were iniquitous intrusion—home invasion—in pursuit of sugar, tobacco, tea and flour supplies. After all, to suggest otherwise is to contend that settlers killed Aborigines for sport, which is ludicrous, and unsupportable. His scrutiny of the “orthodox historians” unearthed a tendency for them to fabricate sources, manipulate facts, and draw from unreliable testimony. In regards to Tasmania, he adduces introduced disease accounted for the majority of Aboriginal deaths. Additionally, he challenges the myth of the noble savage, observing that Tasmanian Aborigines were dysfunctional primitives facing extinction due to cultural practices involving their women. It’s hard to consider the Aboriginal situation today and repudiate his fallacy.

And his studies dug up instructive anecdotes, such as an 1820 account by a British sailor who recorded the flight of Aboriginal women from their considerably “harsh” and “tyrannical” husbands, prostituting themselves to convicts, sailors, and sealers then following them around and, sadly, contracting venereal diseases as a consequence of this promiscuity. Those maladies aided the “genocide” but were misadventures. More ignominious, their husbands acted as pimps and traded their womenfolk.

Appraising the “truth” of massacres of Aboriginal peoples, historians maintain butchery was rampant and whatever figures conjured are “conservative” estimations. Investigations into this alleged dark cloud of our history are ongoing. But even here Windschuttle makes the most sense.

He has no dispute with the Myall Creek Massacre of June 1838, in which 28 Aborigines were slaughtered by 12 stockmen following the discovery of a murdered cow. The bloodshed occurred at the station owned by pastoralist Henry Dangar, in NSW. By December, seven men were hanged for the crime.

However, he draws the line at the so-called Hospital Creek massacre of 1859. The historian failed to uncover any record of the “400 indigenous Australians” supposedly slain there. A plaque commemorates the “slaughter” at the alleged site, yet Windschuttle found nothing in Trove, Parliamentary records contained no reference, and the only account appeared by circulation in a generic 1914 newspaper article citing as a source a “noted character” named “One-Eyed Pete” who claimed to have survived the onslaught. As Windschuttle reasons, if such a large-scale massacre occurred, somebody (aside from One-Eyed Pete) had to notice it. Disposing of 400 bodies would’ve required effort and the presence of attentive carrion circling overhead could hardly have gone unnoticed.

Hereafter, we are asked to simply accept based on probability, that many other massacres of hundreds of “men, women and children” happened. If, like Windschuttle, you question putative history, your obstinacy means your entire value system is questionable.

Accordingly, Windschuttle has copped criticism for his controversial findings and ‘interpretations.’ Among these were myths about Aboriginal land ownership: they had no concept of trespass and were therefore not bound within territorial borders; throwing Native Title into question. Also, anathema to Aboriginal culture was the reprehension of what we consider crimes, especially murder. Killing persons outside of their immediate clan was no big deal. That’s not to suggest they habitually engaged in reckless killing but when advantage presented itself, they were no more averse to committing such acts than the worst of the convicts, or the pastoralists.

At what point do we free ourselves enough to state that the Aboriginal way of life is over? Modernity declared it obsolete. The failure of their ‘noble savagery’ spelt their end; not the aggression of the ‘imperialists’ who were, ironically, the ones to import all the advances in ethical and moral thought.

While this is but a snippet of a substantiative subject, the insight buttresses our argument regarding The Voice—it is unashamed propaganda. We see it in history, hear it on the streets, and are bombarded with it by the news. ABC and SBS, publicly funded broadcasters, drive us to fatigue with the constant radiation of this narrative.

We cannot click on a government site without the repetitious pop-up of the ubiquitous “acknowledgement” notice. Suddenly, we have to hear about “traditional owners” of just about every laneway and underpass from here to the Nullarbor. And it’s time to call codswallop on the whole project.

          For instance, Aboriginal art is a scam—a complete nobble. Take their “dot painting.” This is about as Aboriginal as Andy Warhol’s soup tins. Western Desert Art—or “dot painting”—was introduced to Aborigines by a white school teacher in the 1970s. He was called Geoffrey Bardon and he taught art. The dot painting was a testament to his excellence as a teacher. During his tenure in Alice Springs in 1971 he encouraged Kooris to express their stories in paint, guiding them in technique, and this lucrative grift was born. Even the Aboriginal flag—the symbol of black resistance in this country—was designed by a ‘gubbah.’

          Finally, logic, not historicism, quashes the “oldest continuous culture” canard since they’re saying that it never evolved. That is epic spin: a magical flip of what could alternatively be called “the world’s most stagnant culture.” Then, of course, the word “culture” serves its purpose without illustrating what that culture is. Moreover, the 60,000-year clock—if that’s even true—stopped counting 230 years ago. If it hadn’t, and they still lived that beatific existence today, then “national workforce shortages,” “global supply interruptions,” and “rising fuel prices” wouldn’t affect their remote communities a fleck.

 Culture is such an important measurement of civilisation—which is not a word we associate with Aborigines—so in the case of the black mob, either collectivist expertise turns a blind eye or is deadpan about the implications of being stuck still for 60 millennia. But a spear and a boomerang hardly rate above the achievements of those who forged bronze and iron, advancing technology. And you could never travel to the moon on a dingo’s leg bone. After “60,000 years” you’d imagine they’d have come up with something. But no, bugger all.


Without wringing our way through the entirety of Albanese’s transcript from March 23, the questions from the press gallery, and emotive posturing from board members, we’ll just say this is strictly about Black VS White.

Quoted on the ‘Ross River dialogue’ page of the Uluru Statement website, an Aboriginal fella insists, “We don’t want to be white people.”

The rhetoric of firebrand Aboriginal lobbyists decries, “Colonialism”; employs slogans like “White Australia has a Black History”; “You are on Stolen Land”; “200 Years of White Lies”; “Decolonise Australia”; and the litany of Aboriginal agitprop.

Reality is blurred in their mantras, talking points, and rehearsed rhetoric. It is a salvo of grievance mortars primed with impossible and illogical demands. We hear all of this coming out of America, and have, ever since the late 1960s when the socialist Black Power movement arose.

We’re assailed on Australia Day with the African-American-affected “Black Lives Matter” sloganeering, incorporating the Aboriginal lobby into that Marxist franchise. In 2020, BLM rallies were held across the country. Militant Aboriginal groups and their left-wing counterparts “identified with” George Floyd, the African American felon who overdosed on fentanyl while being restrained by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. As such, the incident, exploited for a radical political agenda in the US, was adopted by the Aboriginal grievance lobby that conflated deaths in custody with Floyd’s self-inflicted demise.

Their rhetoric stinks of the Marxist manipulation of speech. Meaningless designates such as the imported “First Nations” have become universal. Crucially, this movement complements the globalist “indigenous peoples” victimhood program that seeks to elevate those so-called indigenous peoples to a sainted position. The same is true in America, Canada, and the displacement of native Whites throughout Europe by weaponizing immigration from non-White countries; mainly the Subcontinent, Middle East and Africa. The agenda is singularly anti-European. Its justification is a payback for the bygone days of imperialism; withholding the argument that European Imperialism advanced Africa and the East.

They betray their malevolence by conflating ‘Australians’ with ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonisation.’ Australia was a project that sought to retain the best of European civilisation while disposing of class tyranny.

England in her glory days of Empire settled ‘the colony,’ but they’re making no demands for “reparations” from the English Government (reparations do and will constitute a major part of The Voice program). ‘Australians’ were prisoners of His Majesty and enjoyed fewer rights than the natives. Australia grew out of the states and territories peopled by the descendants of ex-convicts, settlers, and immigrants from Europe and America.

But their divisive bunkum conceals bigger incongruities in their logic and you only need to return to earlier in this article when Albanese stated, “…from all backgrounds, faiths and traditions.” This is a critical contradiction in the conception of The Voice.

Australia hasn’t been “White” for all too long. Yet, these lobbyists are silent about immigration. Moreover, when questioned, their representatives claim to “welcome” non-White immigrants. They have no problem with the Chinese, Indians, Africans, Arabs, etc. Yet, how can they condemn Australians as “colonisers” and consider those visa-entitled invaders spiritual allies? Their racial grievance is out of time and place; it is inconsistent and much of their activities are crafted and acted by white liberals. The architects of The Voice are careful to acknowledge ‘Multicultural Australia,’ as the third Australian era in their report.

Mind you, stuck out in remote communities, how could the true mob know what’s going on with immigration? They’re hoodwinked by the urban Aborigines and their Jewish campaigner friends who love opening borders in White countries.

All aside, by overlooking multi-racial Australia, the Aboriginal Lobby cannot perceive the indifference with which fortune-seeking migrant communities regard them—as the Australia that fostered that antagonism is gone and economic advantage attracts them. In short, why would those who aren’t sectional allies give a cuss? What’s in it for them? These communities are preoccupied with their own. Outright enmity exists between other “coloureds” (such as Islanders and Africans) and themselves. Even more feeble is their lack of comprehension regarding the reality of Australia—that we are a province of the American empire.


A disconnect splits the liberals championing ‘Aboriginal rights’ and those styling themselves as ‘Aboriginal warriors.’

Senator Lidia Thorpe has made herself widely known, and quite disliked. The former Melbourne-based Greens Senator broke away from her Party, The Greens, over disagreements with their stance on The Voice. Previously, she was forced to resign as Deputy Leader of the Greens when her former relationship with the President of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle club was exposed. At the time, she served on a committee investigating bikie gangs. But her differences over The Voice were too much and she crossed the floor.

Ms Thorpe is a “radical” as they come. For her, nothing short of a sovereign Aboriginal parliament will suffice. Thorpe believes before any Voice there must be a treaty. She advocates for Australians to “pay the rent,” or financial compensation for every Aborigine.

The mother of three hails from a family of Aboriginal agitators. Her mother, Marjorie Thorpe, co-commissioned The Stolen Generations inquiry. Her grandmother, Alma Thorpe, helped found the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service. Robbie Thorpe, her uncle, was a social justice warrior from way back. Meriki Onus co-founded the extremist Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) collective behind the Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty movement.

Thorpe, 49, is not so open about her father, Roy Illingworth. Firstly, she refused to take his name. The father and daughter are estranged. Illingworth revealed all to conservative commentator Andrew Bolt in an interview with Sky News. He described his daughter as, “a very racist person.” By all accounts, the paternal side of her family threatens her image. Illingworth told Bolt, “She has got an English background, as well as Irish—the convict side of English. She’s never mentioned anything about her white father.”

Dispelling any kinship with the “struggles” of her people while growing up, he said, “She was spoilt. She never went without, she got everything she wanted, and she knows that too.” He added, “She’s even more privileged now with the position she’s in. Maybe the power’s gone to her head?”

Speculating on how the true Aborigines of his day might view his daughter, he admitted, “They wouldn’t be liking any of this either.”

Thorpe thrives on controversy and is rarely out of the news. Her outbursts are frequent but none so impressive as an encounter with a group of men outside a Melbourne nightclub in the small hours of a mid-April night. The incident was filmed and the news went viral. In the fallout, Thorpe would claim “harassment” while all the evidence exposes a “belligerent drunk.”

The Senator was celebrating Shelley Johnson’s 50th with her girlfriends, one of whom was NAIDOC chair, Stacie Piper. The birthday girl on that night is the brother of Brisbane Lions AFL hero Chris Johnson, who looks White, but is purportedly “indigenous.” For undisclosed reasons, the group wound up at a Melbourne strip club. The establishment’s late hours might’ve enticed them. It’s styled more as a venue where scantily-clad models serve drinks.

Regardless, staff were alerted to Thorpe’s behaviour after she singled out white male patrons, reportedly accosting and accusing them of “stealing my land.”

Financially sound, and privileged with a “voice” denied to most Australians, her feral antics are not only undignified but histrionic. Thorpe relies on public exhibition but with an A-lister’s petulance. She embodies the obnoxious “Urban Aborigine.” The fracas at Maxine’s Gentlemen’s Club epitomised her chauvinism.

In the video, Thorpe is dressed like criminal matriarch Roberta Williams. She reacts to being called a “racist dog.” Blacks and whites are witnessing her blow up. Thorpe squares up to the men, singling out the blacks by raving, “All I want to say to the black brothers there and anyone that we’re fighting. Any black man that stands with the f—— while little c— like that, ‘youse’ can all get F—d too!”

Later, the Senator would claim she was the victim of racist bullying, even though a member of her entourage admitted to the media that Thorpe was “out of control.”

Before that, she taunted her detractors by mocking them as having small penises; emphasising the “small” by making a circle with her fingers. Never mind the big vagina. One patron doesn’t hide his contempt, asking, “How does someone like you get into parliament?”

Thorpe is triggered, and goes ballistic, shouting, “We’ve been repressed all our f—— life in this country and you let this little dog speak!”

Thorpe resists her friends’ efforts to drag her into a waiting taxi and returns with her finger levelled menacingly—pointing the bone, as it were—while threatening, “You, you are marked!

During the encounter, Thorpe vacillated back and forth from the taxi while her companions desperately tried coaxing her in. But Thorpe was driving the confrontation. CCTV footage contradicts her claims of provocation, clearly showing the men remaining calm while, in her final stage of ranting, she invasively films them with her phone. The majority ignores her.

Is the woman’s indignation pathological? Was she drunk? Management observed her conduct inside the club and when reporting on her later it was stated that she didn’t appear inebriated, although staff warned her to relax.

Bearing in mind her underworld contacts, is Thorpe partial to cocaine? That might explain a lot. A hankering for the devil’s dandruff may be responsible for her fractiousness as well as masking the effects of liquor. Yet, can it also account for her cognitive dissonance? Thorpe has failed to perceive the most uncomfortable truths about herself—that corrupted blood runs through veins.

Nothing has harmed the Aboriginal race more than miscegenation, which she is a product of. Whether Thorpe likes it or not, she is an exemplar of why pureblood Aborigines are in decline. Although she indisputably has Aboriginal blood, Thorpe typifies the evangelical fervour of the 1% Aborigine who goes native with a vengeance.

Despite being big political news, the Australian Broadcasting Network (ABC) was criticised for “censoring” the story. The ABC gave her meltdown limited coverage, reporting it only on their afternoon briefing, not digital platforms.

Thorpe was widely condemned for the fracas, with calls for her to be removed from parliament, and the General Manager of Maxine’s banning her for life. The Prime Minister weighed in, suggesting the rogue Senator should consider “her health.”

If Lidia Thorpe was a foreigner applying for a visa, you’d never let her in the country.

Whether or not a pro-Voice actor is moderate or not means nothing—in the end, they will negotiate with absolutists like Thorpe, whose recalcitrance will be viewed as dogged determination.


The Woke factors their crusade against “institutional racism” as pivotal to their agenda. Paradoxically, they theorise that to counteract institutional racism then racism must become institutionalised. Once it was called ‘affirmative action’ and, in the US, the civil service hired on a preferential basis. Colleges favoured minority applicants with scholarships and places—which is to say, blacks, browns and others, but not Whites. Nothing has changed.

          Instructively, Whites constitute “the others,” but also increasingly Asians, who’re considered too successful. Ironically, Jews, who identify with the “others” also fall afoul of this practice, which they, more than any other race, helped create.

Far from ‘closing the gap,’ it’s widened. Now, all manner of neo-Marxist jargon is employed to ‘advance’ blacks and browns at the expense of Whites. The latest manifestation of this inculcated bias is that the discerning employer can now satisfy their diversity quotas without ever having to reject a white person’s application. LinkedIn’s new system allows the employer to filter out the loathed oppressor and link directly to people of colour and gender-correct appointees. If that’s not “institutionalised racism,” we don’t know what is.

          Australia is not immune to Critical Race Theory. We inevitably adopt American fashions since we’re Imperial USA’s most dutiful lap dog. Our corporate plutocrats are in rigid lockstep with the policies workshopped at the World Economic Forum and then disseminated for Western satellites to emulate. Little wonder, either, since corporations are borderless: they have no homeland. Meanwhile, Public Service culture reflects government policy, which itself, is deferential to our masters in Washington, Davos, New York and, for that matter, Disneyland.

          As such, working for the Australian Public Service is like endless diversity training. The corporate sector, government, big tech, and the whole shebang are giant activist organisations. But let’s return to the pretext for a moment—to ‘advance’ minorities.

          Firstly, we don’t like the term ‘minority’ because it’s increasingly Whites falling into that category. But the model of advancement so far has involved lowering the bar. Society is in peril because standards are sacrificed at the altar of ‘inclusivity,’ which patronises coloured people by presupposing (often with good reason) they’re incapable of achieving White and Asian performance levels. Hard work and perfectionism are derided as “white supremacist” traits. But putting all that aside, just how racist toward Aborigines is our system?

          For a start, there is no shortage of Aborigines in parliament with enough White blood to instinctively understand how the wheels are greased. At present, there are six (part) Aboriginal “voices” [in] the federal parliament. Aboriginal representation in the form of MPs is hardly new either. Neville Bonner was elected to the Senate in 1971. He was followed by Ken Wyatt who joined the House of Reps in 2010. Thereafter came Nova Peris, the egregious Linda Burney and others. Given Aborigines are such a small percentage of the population there isn’t necessarily a lack of balance.

          All the same, Aborigines don’t suffer for want of services, entitlements and grants. The hard-working and self-reliant “mobs” receive funding to the tune of $4b annually, all provided by the taxpayer. Survivors of the so-called Stolen Generations—Aboriginal children removed from dysfunctional families destroyed by the grog and offered a leg-up in the White man’s world—receive an ex gratis payment of $75,000 for the horrors they experienced in polite civilisation. Then comes the sweetest plum of all—mining royalties.

Mining royalties are gathered by the federal government and then divvied out accordingly for disbursement among their communities. What happens to that money?

          An ABC story from 2021 focused on Tenant Creek in the NT at mining distribution time. The journalist interviewed Joebessgo Mayers, the head of the community’s anti-truancy team who has his work cut out for him since 40% of kids play truant. Yet, what incentive for them is there when they’ll get money for doing stuff all? The community receives royalties from the mining companies for operating on “their” land. But they’re also remunerated for infrastructure such as mine haul roads and railway crossings.

Royalties in the NT amount to about $230m a year. Since 1976, the government has collected $3.2b for the federal-government-managed Aboriginal Benefits Account (ABC). So, how has this almighty shekel improved their lives?

Mayers reckons, “When they get their royalties, families are more active with alcohol. They buy cars and electronics and whatever’s left over goes straight into alcohol and gambling at a certain house where people play for big money.”

He then explains how the kids don’t attend school because they’re “watching their parents gamble.”

And, while Tennant Creek is technically a dry town, the entrepreneurial “brothers” hop in a Ute and drive to Mount Isa where they pick up the grog and flog it for a 400% markup back home. So much for throwing money at the problem. Still, they could always travel to the big smoke and get a job.

Woke hiring practices guarantee that any black fella with half their salts could approach a company and be guaranteed an “employee of the month” plaque before hands were even shaken. Universities would prostrate themselves before any budding young Aboriginal student who turned up interested in a scholarship. When it comes to “diversity” the absolute apex of the pyramid is Aborigines. So, where is institutional racism? It appears to be pointing in only one direction—at the despised Whites. The only reason Aborigines aren’t availing themselves of these free kicks into polite society is that they can’t be bothered. How else does a varying race achieve “60,000 years of continuous culture”? The secret to their lack of success lies in the untapped resource of indifference.

          Besides, who needs to “strive”—or not, in their case—when by dint of being “indigenous” and belonging to a lucky community is a cash cow in itself? And we’re not talking about the loser ‘boongs’ stuck in corrugated tin shacks out the back of buggery, but the ones living in mineral-rich Native Title areas, where sitting on your arse and dreaming up an unwritten history grants you territorial rights and ensures your mob receives a sizeable slice of annual mining rights once the government bean counters are done playing their Jewish piano.

          The biggest mistake the “Right” makes is assuming that all this social justice claptrap is tied to an [misguided] egalitarian intention. Like everything else, it’s about the lolly. If the government seriously gave a damn about unilaterally “tackling disadvantage” they’d raise the dole from $40 a day to an amount that a human being can live on.

The other side of that argument is job availability which they could solve by ending immigration. The rental crisis would end as it did during COVID when the borders were closed. Education standards would improve by returning to the basics of teaching and avoiding PC fads in the classroom. If universities weren’t marketed to Indians and Chinese students eyeing permanent residency but were concerned with imparting higher skills to Australians, they would be free. Most importantly, they would disengage us from the disastrous American global capital system and deal directly with the Cost-of-Living crisis. A loyal administration would dispense with the fallacy of sustainable energy, making power bills affordable. All they would need to do is put Australia First and that would include Aborigines by default.

But none of this will change. Instead, we need a “Voice” [to] parliament as a panacea for all that afflicts the “soul” of the nation. The world needs to see us vote ‘Yes’. But more so, the global corporate plutocracy and the UN Human Rights Commission demand our obedience.


The fervour for the multi-billion-dollar Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was embraced by extremist Marxist-inspired militant Aboriginal groups such as WAR.

Captain Cook, who has become an expression of “invasion,” is targeted by these ignorant partisan soldiers and their ideological cohorts. Sure, he’s dead, but his statues were vandalised during recent Australia Day protests. In concert with the war on European history which we see across America, Canada and Europe, councils are now suggesting the “solution” is to remove the statues. Captain Cook’s legacy is addressed in the controversial Referendum Council Final Report 2017, p. 17:

‘Cook did not discover us, because we saw him. We were telling each other with smoke, yet in his diary, he said “discovered”.’ (Torres Strait)14

‘Australia must acknowledge its history, its true history. Not Captain Cook. What happened all across Australia: the massacres and the wars. If that were taught in schools, we might have one nation, where we are all together.’ (Darwin)15

Then again, Australia Day is itself under mortar, with Woke councils around the country doing their bit to abolish this “divisive date.” We’re told we need a “national conversation” about our national day. The date, according to Indigenous Australians—or rather their far-left inner-city “voices”—is a painful reminder of their dispossession. It’s an obvious target for those inclined to abolish White Australia by abolishing the date. This fails to take into account that White Australia was abolished as soon as they tore up the WAP, and sanctioned multiculturalism as our national policy—all due to the efforts of conservatives, leftists, and their Jewish “advisors.”

          A referendum on The Voice is a de facto referendum on Australia Day and, let’s face it, the last vestiges of White Australia.

One of the first items on an elected Council’s agenda will (likely) be to “change the date.” Again, this is necessary for us to maintain our place in the crumbling globalist order. But we do know that two sections of the Constitution in the Council’s crosshairs are 25 and 51(26) with their references to ‘race provisions.’ Forget that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 supersedes both (they say that Federal Parliament is not bound by this Act so it doesn’t go far enough). Section 25 can be used to prevent someone from voting based on race. That’s a Section that needs exercising, not removing. However, when has any party, or government since the day prevented a single person from voting based on race? They pander to the various races, not stifle them. Notwithstanding, they consternate Aborigines and their Zionist legal Advisor, Mark Leibler. Therefore, they also insist on including the following, “…inserting a constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination.”

So, they aren’t just asking for an amendment to ‘include’ an Aboriginal voice, but they insist on doctoring two sections that have previously been the subject of certain procedural complexities. Then they want that little assurance tucked into our national paper. What else do they want? Their wish list hardly ends there. The most insidious and ironic dimension here is that they’re asking for the removal of references to “race” all the while bending the Constitution to a particular “race provision” that enables them. Then again, they’ve got a Jewish lawyer.


Whether by design or not, the new Australia will bear the motif of Aboriginality. What good is a faded European identity with a nation of multiracial consumers? By conditioning us to embrace “multiculturalism” they successfully deculturalized us. Take a look around—the only cultural cleansing is against Australians, who, even our kin aren’t aware are distinct people of the world.

Australians may one day heed Nationalists and realise that we’re being expunged from the country our ancestors built. Nothing less than absolutism will preserve us. The Aborigines are bafflingly silent on the issue of the millions of immigrants being poured into Australia, with every one of them driving us further into minority status. That would run afoul of their Zionist colleagues.

The Jewish Community, by and large, are a champion of The Voice and Aboriginal Grievance. Mark Leibler is a high-flying legal beagle and a senior partner at Arnold Bloch Leibler. Yet, he is also the National Chairman of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). A long-time social justice lobbyist, it’s fair to say he’s no friend to White Australia. So, it’s little wonder we find he’s also the co-chair at the Referendum Council. Right now, he is tirelessly plugging the Voice and is deriding any “naysayers” as “a minority.”

Historically, this traces back to 1938 when an Aboriginal rabble-rouser named William Cooper marched to Melbourne’s German consulate bearing a letter condemning Kristallnacht and the treatment of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Needless to say, the letter was never received. Resultantly, Aborigines are one of the few races that Jews are prepared to allow to share the mantle of victimhood as ‘Holocaust’ equals.

Leibler recently wrote in the Australian Jewish News, “Keep in mind that, just as we bristle when other sections of the Australian community try to dictate to us what antisemitism is and isn’t, or how we should feel about the Holocaust 70-plus years down the track, we should respect, trust and support Indigenous Australians to determine the best approach to healing their wounds.”

Or, to put it another way, they should capitalise on their perceived grievances forevermore, just like the Jews.

Unsurprisingly, the Referendum Council embraces the dissolution of Australia through the vice of “multiculturalism,” which is counter-intuitive to the whole aversion to “invasion.” The arrival of the English was wrong, but every other race under the sun is welcome. If you recognise that incongruity you may be instructed by its portent. Never forget, the role that Jews played in forcing multiculturalism on Australia with Polish Jew Jerzy Zubrzycki revered as the “godfather of Australian multiculturalism.”

          The next question follows: what do we do? One option we no longer have, hypothetically speaking, is to disengage from society and establish communes on sustainable land. No, all of that land is protected by Native Title. How much of it? Australians would be staggered, but 50% of the continent is controlled by Native Title holders. That figure is growing along with the claims.


Aborigines make up 3% of the population. Yet, they’re the tail that wags the dog. The corporate cartels are right behind The Voice. One per cent of the world’s population owns two-thirds of its wealth. Tens of trillions of that capital are controlled by two investment management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard. The comparable influence between the social value of Aborigines and the power of the corporate oligarchy is interesting, even though it’s just a parallel.

          BlackRock and Vanguard are, naturally enough, big players in the WEF’s 2030 agenda. They are in accord with the Global Reset, or Fourth Industrial Revolution. That being so, they subscribe to ESG Investing (Environmental, Social and Governance Investing). As Investopedia explains, “Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)—or Impact Investment—refers to a set of standards for a company’s behaviour used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.

“Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change, for example. Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.”

In other words, an investment may be subject to de-financing if it isn’t on board with the social and environmental programme espoused by the WEF and adopted by the corporate plutocracy. This involves everything from preferential hiring of LBGTQI people, promotion of transgenderism, abortion-positivity, renewable energy and carbon control, and the social justice issues of “minorities” and “First Nations People.”

ESG compliance is monitored and rated according to the Corporate Equality Index, which is assigned with “Rating workplaces on equality and inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.” The CEI is a report published by The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which is an intimidatory front for the LGBTQI community. So, BlackRock and Vanguard, which control so many companies, are also charged with ensuring that companies comply with the social justice regimen, which masquerades as “human rights” campaigning.

Naturally enough, BlackRock is backing The Voice, so therefore its Australian companies are promoting it. BlackRock is the main investor in Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks: ANZ, the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, and Westpac. It also controls Woolworths and Suncorp. All are committed to The Voice’s success. The SMH reported that earlier in the year, Thomas May, a representative of the maritime union and an “Indigenous advocate” who serves on the board of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AIRC), briefed NAB employees “about his involvement in the Yes campaign.”

The article reads, “He explained what is being asked and what it will mean for Indigenous people and Australia if the referendum is successful or if it fails. About one-fifth of NAB’s 28,700 Australian staff attended or watched the briefing.”

But whether or not these corporate overlords are involved, all Australian companies follow the principles of ESG, as such it’s predictable to find the list of those promoting The Voice are BHP, NAB, CommBank, ANZ, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, Woolworth, Coles, and just about every “leading social justice and civil body.”

Finally, for those companies, bodies, and individuals donating to the Yes campaign, tax deductions are being offered. However, not so for those funding the No campaign, because they’re officially regarded as spreading “misinformation.”


We make a big mistake if we assume that Aborigines, in all their different groupings, unilaterally support a Voice. When we hit the outback, and the remote communities, most have never heard of it. Those who are questioned prove sceptical about what it would achieve. For many, it’s seen as the hobbyhorse of the “urban Aborigine” with all its Marxist affiliations.

          Aboriginal representatives make themselves wholly unpopular when they criticize their communities’ reliance on welfare and the expectation that the government bears the onus for their wellbeing. The other lot demonstrates hostility to the government and insists on self-determination while simultaneously demanding government support; thus, posing an irreconcilable duality.

Firstly, they are rejecting responsibility, and secondly, they’re seemingly handing control of their fortunes to the government—two stupid mistakes. If they’re genuine about trusting in the parliament—which they’re not—it is both lazy and disingenuous. After that, they cry “institutional racism” and tout statistics that should shame them, to adduce that bias. Rather than be humbled by their incarceration rates, the statistics are a political cudgel to wield, while the responsibility for their actions is absolved on the grounds of alleged persecution; and therefore justified.

If they embraced the Australian project, that criticism might be harder to wield against them. Under those circumstances, a duty of care is implied, at least in the Nationalist interpretation of the function of government. But only insofar as they can give in proportion to what they take. This, of course, is easier said than done, and we’re aware of that, but to rally behind a different flag, screech anti-Australian slogans, and adopt a “sovereign” identity hostile to the nation makes them enemies of the state. But the strategy of the Aboriginal lobby is to agitate Western liberal guilt to achieve the best of both worlds.

As with the African Americans, with whom the staunch elements of their movement identify, the reality is at odds with their rhetoric. So much is offered to Aborigines to help them “close the gap” that it’s tantamount to favouritism. Much of it is exploited by fake Aborigines. The truth is, those who do not take the opportunities, are indolent. But in education, the figures of those committing to bettering themselves, either for personal reasons or on behalf of their community, are improving, so where there is an independent will, there is a way.

Superficially, the only reason the Aboriginal grievance industry wants Constitutional Recognition is “just because,” so there has to be more. Viewed objectively, nothing of substance is in it, and the basis for wanting a “Voice” is spurious. But that’s “just because” they know Australia would not tolerate what they’re asking for. A Voice is meaningless. There is no argument, no report, and no perspective that articulates a single compelling reason why they should have it. It’s all an appeal to emotion that risks rolling in a Trojan Horse cloaked in the drivel of humanistic sentiment. So, who are they petitioning?

A notion to dispel is that the Australian government acts independently or in the interests of the Australian people. We have a definition of government—we have the idea—but then we have the reality. That reality is what put Anthony Albanese in the Prime Minister’s office since no majority voted for him. Albanese landed the top spot through preferences, and protest votes, but mainly due to the egregious performance of the outgoing mob. That’s democracy. In effect, and to put it crudely, it’s like choosing between two lumps of dogshit. If Australians were permitted a range of voting choices real change might occur should a nascent party on the fringes be allowed its chance, then democracy might produce a force that works solely for Australian interests. But the government saw that when they changed the electoral rules to hinder micro-parties.

That’s aside from all the obstacles the AEC places in the path of those foolish optimists who take the electoral pathway to nowhere. The game is on show in America with the Democrat Party and their lies, disinformation, treasons, hypocrisies and—without putting a too finer point on it—their evil. That’s the playbook that Albanese and the gang are reading from. The Voice is more about pleasing the gatekeepers of the New World Order than offering a random boong a hand up the ladder.

Another mistake is to chastise the first arrivals via a critical construal of history. Such programs dominate what we shall call the “New West” and arrive at the conclusion, nearly always, that history must end at that point and begin anew while removing all trace of that which preceded. This is a uniquely American attitude to history, which is not a source of pride or knowledge, but an inconvenient point that must be abandoned as quickly as possible for the sake of ‘moving forward.’

In this instance, and contrarily, it means making the Aborigines’ inglorious past the official history of Australia, with a bunch of stuff about how evil Whitey was. What matters most is the future, not the present, and certainly not the past; which is something shameful and hateful. The future of Australia shall be the past but with that past at the helm. The American view is that the past was a place where bad things happened, injustices that must be addressed today, and reparations offered for those historic wrongs—reparations which are always material as if pouring money on a wound will cure the cut.

And right there is the unstable element in this mindset: the notion of ‘guilt,’ fashioned after the arguments of ideologues haranguing us with an issue that is part of a deeper, wider agenda. Conscience supplants all in their worldview, even if that conscience is reacting to emotional coercion and not rational considerations.

Throwing government at the problem hasn’t worked, much less money, which as we saw in Tenant Creek, is fuelling the very vices destroying the Aborigines. No government has achieved anything with the Aboriginal portfolio and the answer as to why is something that they cannot stomach—that nothing can be done. Nothing should be done. It’s all up to them, not to us. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Handing them the steering wheel to Australia will result in a massive wreck.

Hypothetically speaking, while owning so much Land Title, and if “recognition” is achieved in another reworking of the Constitution—the next phase of the process—what if the Council decides it wants to let the Communist Chinese onto Australian soil? If Parliament vetoes the move, what if they ask the Chinese for ‘help,’ citing their sovereignty as overriding any objections by the Australian government? What if the new definition of Australian IS Aboriginal?

By far, the first concept to grasp is that Aborigines are not Australians but Aborigines. Conflating the two blurs clarity on the issue and has nothing to do with right or wrong, good or bad. Before settlement and Federation, Australia was not a nation, or even a “nation of nations” as the misleading speech behind the confected term “First Nations” implies. The vast continent was not a developed land subject to agriculture, housing, and the logistics of carriageways and infrastructure—at least not in the influential European fashion. You can see why Captain Cook assumed by the standards of the day that it was terra nullius.

Having been here “first,” in migratory tribes (as opposed to being unified in a nation or state), it is flawed to confer on them the status of ‘Australian citizens’ (much less, subjects of the irrelevant British Crown), and it’s not something they should want. That’s not to forget the Aborigines that served valiantly in the armed forces and who continue to protect the top-end in NORFORCE or to dishonour those who’ve displayed the utmost hospitality to outback stragglers in times past. This is not about hate at all, as Marcia Langton would have us believe when she says that if the referendum doesn’t get up it will “embolden racists.”

Nevertheless, they are recognized as Australian citizens and have been since 1949 with the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948. Yet, in their council dialogues, they either betray ignorance of this fact or regard it as immaterial without inclusion in the Constitution.

The essential deception of the Voice and the changing of the Constitution—and we hammer this point because it’s so important—is confusing Aborigines and Australia. We are two separate entities, and inviting the “fauna” (sic) to be recognised, not only as “Australians”, but the first Australians, overlooks that Australia is a nation apart from the primitive tribes that squatted on the land, without the concept of “ownership.”

They were not a “Nation”, much less the plurality as the misleading nomenclature of “First Nations” implies. Moreover, there was no unity. They are citizens of Australia and therefore entitled to all that brings. But they are Aborigines, not Australians, nor should they want to be, especially given the bellicosity of their objections and their so-called “truth-telling” with all its rigid and persistent criticisms of Australia. This country was not cultivated for their benefit or to reflect their culture, so there will always be a cause for disunity. They’re asking to sit up front of the bus, euphemistically speaking.

The Voice is a test case for Recognition to lead to a “treaty,” which is when we start talking about reparations, and thereafter a ruling race of former spear-throwers. If the voice is only laid out insofar as to guide parliament, what would a house top-heavy with Marxist-schooled lefties want to achieve on behalf of Aboriginal Australia? Sure, alterations might be subject to successive governments, but they may not, because we’re in unchartered waters and sailing without a compass.


Adjacent to the implied ‘recognition’ that a Voice will impart is actual ‘recognition.’ But that’s a whole different board game and where the proverbial devil is in the detail. Recognition leads to the ‘Treaty’ and Treaty is where Australia begins being broken up. We’ve already headed that way thanks to Native Title, which those who partook in the formation of the final Report don’t believe grants them anything.

          As it stands, where the High Court doesn’t hand ‘stolen lands’ to Native Title, governments simply buy up the disputed area and gift it to the Aborigines. This has happened in Tasmania and elsewhere. But it’s not just land that’s been given over. In late March, the South Australian government inaugurated a Voice to Parliament, the first state to do so. If all the States followed suit, it would amount to the same thing, at least in theory.

          Far from being purely domestic, as we’ve been told, the Voice is already preparing for representation on the world stage. This is an obeisance to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In March, Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney, herself part-Aboriginal, announced the appointment of Justin Mohamed as Australia’s official Ambassador for First Nations People, a title as convoluted in its sophistry of wording as in its application.

          In this new role, Mohamed will “lead the Office of First Nations Engagement in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,” most likely to oversee lucrative mining contracts. However, it means that Aborigines—or at least their Marxist arm—are now involved in shaping Foreign Affairs policy. Nothing could go wrong there, considering they cannot even handle their affairs, much less that of a “Second Nation” (sic).

          It’s apparent then that this Labor government has big plans for The Voice, and being as how it borrows so heavily from the corrupt American Democrat Party’s handbook, there’s no telling what level of subterfuge they’ll resort to realise this ambition for the UN.

          Putting aside all of the conservative arguments about a Voice—that it will “divide the nation by race” (the nation is not just divided but drawn and quartered by race due to multiculturalism)—it’s the expectation of “Recognition” followed by the “Treaty.” If history is any guide, we only need to look to New Zealand. But not for too long or you might develop cataracts.  However, when the NZ High Court opened the door for the Waitangi Tribunal as an advisory body it created a monster. It’s now wormed its way into every major policy decision in NZ, with the power of veto over major pieces of legislation, effectively making NZ’s parliament a bitch for the Māori lobby, which explains a lot.

          As Canada set the model for this madness, it’s expected we follow suit. Thus far, we’ve held out, owing to a mewling conservative government. If the Liberals had continued moving to the centre, and as the centre moves further to the left, inevitably they’d have pushed for it too. Peter Dutton might be plugging the No Vote, but he’s an indefinite leader and we already know there is a desire for bipartisan approval among the “squishers.” And what would they be approving?

          A quote from the Statement of Record of the Referendum Council’s 2017 dialogue articulates the underlying resentment, “Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”

But it’s what was removed from the final report and retrieved under the Freedom of Information Act that reveals the smoking gun, proving that the ambition of the Council is not just to put Aborigines in the Constitutional driver’s seat, but to heap upon them lavish sums of taxpayer money:

Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”

The bracketed section was redacted. Ultimately, though, or at least according to a “secret agenda” discovered in a Canberra and handed to One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, the Voice is very much a Trojan Horse. The agenda leaks what they hope to pursue if the Referendum passes and it’s quite a list. Among the items are that Aborigines would pay only 50% tax; they would “own” beaches and national parks, meaning, as happens in New Guinea, we’d have to pay to use them; Aborigines would get first pick on all public housing; Aborigines would make up 10% of all judges, magistrates and police officers; since they owned the water, we’d have to pay whatever corporation Aborigines formed for the utility; and the Voice Council would receive a budget equal to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. There’s more but if you aren’t trembling now the rest might send you flying through a plate glass window.

           A legal question exists as to whether the act of introducing a Voice, amounts to “Recognition” and automatically triggers the Treaty process. If that’s the case, and Australians are stupid enough to vote Yes, then it’s welcome to the Plantation. Australians would be living to support the greatest race in the world, the Aborigine. If that happens, civil war might very well follow. And who would the Abos call on to “re-establish order”? If it wasn’t China, then you could call us pigeon pie and eat us up. ■

About Author

One thought on “WHY WE MUST VOTE NO!

  1. One thing to remember is that the referendum itself will cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and administration of the Voice will also cost millions a year. This is a small fortune that could have been spent on housing, infrastructure or road repairs.

Leave a Reply

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