Aboriginals and AOAAs

Foundation for a system of apartheid

From time out of mind groups of people have been everywhere on the move. Groups settled and sometimes merged with other groups to form a new independent people or nation which endured as long as the people had the cultural confidence and strength to do so. So has been the case of with Australia. The arrival of the First Fleet heralded the origination of a new independent country into which the Aboriginals (the British name for the many sparse nomadic tribes) would  naturally merged. The new incorporation of people, whatever their background, is now known as  Australia – Australia as distinct from a mass of land between geographical coordinates. It exists under one form of government, law and justice that is applicable to all. The rights and duties of citizenship extend to all whatever their background. There is no other system, however one wants to conceive it. One people under one flag as a symbol.

The High Court Mabo Judgement which recognised the ownership of the Murray Islands by the Meriam people was an example of judicial activism driven by a political purpose. The dissenting High Court judge Justice Dawson explained in his judgement why the Mabo Judgement was not based on or followed the established law. The Meriam people’s ownership of the Murray Islands, for which there was a strong commonsense case, could have been established without recourse to the High Court of Australia. Even if the judgement’s reasoning established that the Meriam people owned their islands, there was no logical or analogical or substantial basis for applying the same reasoning to the continent of Australia. None, except the political motivation, and the political objective. The politics wound up to fever pitch by the interested parties rammed the Native Title Act through parliament. Another powerful front for the subversion of Australia had been opened up.

The Native Title Act is the foundation of a far advanced plan to establish a system of apartheid in Australia – an apartheid that sets up a minority superior class to whom great expanses of the continent will be given and who will be the pensioners on the soldier ants who do all the work and produce all the wealth.

This page contains links to articles about the campaign by Australians I call AOAAs (Australians of Aboriginal Ancestry many of whom cannot be distinguished from white Australians) to establish a system of apartheid in Australia in which a minority superior class wrestles sovereignty from the rest of Australia. The support for the campaign comes from a traitor class of Australians using the institutions and associations they have gained control over, the foremost of which is the billion-dollar government funded ABC (The Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

A Statement from the Heart of Passivity

The Enduring Racism of Big Cheese

The Voice on ‘Invasion Day’ ***

A Decidedly One-Sided ‘Reconciliation’

First Ayers Rock, now Mount Warning

Whitefella, Be Gone! Landmarks and Racial Exclusion

Ken Wyatt’s warning: close the Indigenous gap or else

The White Privilege of Being Black

How Welcome to Country rituals are changing to make all Australians take note

Victoria to establish truth and justice process as part of Aboriginal treaty process

Aboriginal Flag licence

Coon cheese represents just one example of how cancel culture divides us

Special Investigation of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu

ABC’s Indigenous documentary ‘contains brand-new history’: Bolt

Establishing a system of apartheid

Victorian treaty vote for First Peoples’ Assembly delivers a different kind of state election

The Myth of Aboriginal Exceptionalism

Keith Windschuttle, Editor-in-Chief of Quadrant Magazine, has written extensively on the Aboriginal issue. His work includes the monumental series The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Below are two Quadrant articles he wrote in response to academic criticism of his book, The Break-up of Australia: The Real Agenda behind Aboriginal Recognition.

Part One: Fabricating Disenfranchised Aborigines

Part Two: The Intent of the Constitution’s Authors