Category Archives: Australia Colonial history

The (deceptive) Voice

The deceit is being slowly laid bare. The Voice is the biggest con in Australia’s history. The small clique of Aboriginal elites have only ever wanted to grab land and wealth from 95 percent of the population to create a separate country. If they succeed, it will be the biggest shakedown in history.

*****

Final Report of Referendum Council: Voice to Parliament will lead to Treaty, Reparations

David Hiscox, XYZ, 20 April 2023

A Freedom of Information Request has resulted in the publication of the Final Report of the Referendum Council, which you can read in full here.

Unsurprisingly, it reveals the intention of aboriginal activists for the so-called “voice to parliament” to lead to a so-called “treaty” which could in turn lead to “reparations”. An excellent summary has been provided by Aboriginal Voice Exposed:

Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process”.

And what’s in the treaty?

According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.

The documents explain:

… a 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 …

This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:

“Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”

Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?

But it gets worse.

According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.

What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as reparations?

Again, you can read the entire document here. It makes for startling reading. We can make a few brief observations.

Note that the document was published on 30 June, 2017. The process leading to this year’s referendum has been long and bipartisan:

In 2010 Prime Minister the Hon Julia Gillard established the Expert Panel on the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, co-chaired by Patrick Dodson and Mark Leibler, which reported in 2012. Prime Minister the Hon Tony Abbott established a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, co-chaired by Senator Ken Wyatt and Senator Nova Peris, which reported in June 2015. Prime Minister the Hon Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader the Hon Bill Shorten then established this Referendum Council in December 2015.

We should take the Coalition’s appearance of opposition to the “model” being proposed for the “voice” with a big grain of salt.

Read the rest here …

The Voice – be sure of what you wish for

The vote for the Aboriginal Voice in Parliament is the most critical vote living Australians will make in their lifetime. One should be absolutely sure of what one is voting for. David Barton has written one of the clearest articles I have come across on what’s at stake.

*****

As Lidia Thorpe so Eloquently Said, ‘It’s War’

David Barton, Quadrant, 6 April 2023

Most people don’t realise that Australia is at war – with itself. In a sense we are already engaged in an internal ‘us and them’ civil war which shows every sign of becoming much worse. This will be especially true if the ‘Voice’ referendum is successful. Indeed, the democracy of Australia has not been under such threat since World War II.

In 1940 Great Britain was under attack by Germany and losing heavily on all fronts. British forces hastily evacuated the beaches of Dunkirk, and France surrendered. The great battleship Hood was sunk by the Bismarck in early 1941 and with Japan entering the war in late 1941 the Prince of Wales and Repulse were both sunk and Singapore fell in early 1942. Things could not have looked worse. It was not until the Battle of El Alamein in November 1942 that the British had their first serious win and from then on there were many victories.

The ‘Voice’ referendum is Australia’s El Alamein. Let me explain why.

In many respects, Aboriginal activists have declared war on the rest of Australia and they did so many years ago. Senator Lidia Thorpe made this clear by declaring on January 26 “this is war” to the crowd at the Melbourne ‘Invasion Day’ Rally.1  Arguably, she is right. We, the citizens of Australia ought to consider ourselves at war with those who would seek to take over and reshape Australia in their own image and for their own purposes. Most Australians probably haven’t noticed, but we’ve been at war with ‘Aboriginal interests’ for a long time now, and over the last few decades it’s not been going well, to name but a few here:

♦ We have lost and given up vast tracts of land under spurious ‘Native Title’ legislation, now “formally recognised to be about 50% of Australia’s land mass”.2

♦ We have lost and given up to the now obligatory ‘Welcome to Country’, which in reality is a statement about who really owns Australia.

♦ We are now surrendering our language so that many English place names are being replaced with Aboriginal names.

♦ We have lost and given up to mountains, beaches and waterways being closed and ‘non-indigenous’ access denied or new access fees charged.

♦ We have lost and given up freehold title to National Parks now handed over to localised Aboriginal Corporations.

♦ We have lost and given up to having our children’s education about early Australian history now revised, distorted and perverted into self-loathing.

♦ We have lost and given up to our universities being run by socialist academics hell-bent on revising our history, society and culture.

We have lost so much, especially in the last five years; we have voluntarily given up so much at the hands of black and white racial oppressors. And they are oppressors, because no-one has ever asked us if we wanted any of this stifling treatment. All of what we have lost, of what has been forced upon us, has all been done to us without any consultation and without our permission or consent. Who gave them the right to do that?

Read the rest here …

The truth about colonialism

It is high time for some sense and historical accuracy to enter the vigorous ‘debate’ about colonialism in general and Great Britain’s colonial past in particular. Nigel Biggar Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford has done just that with his just published ‘Colonialism’. From Triggernometry’s description of the their interview with Biggar:

‘Nigel Biggar CBE was Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford. He holds a BA in Modern History from Oxford and a PhD in Christian Theology & Ethics from the University of Chicago. His most recent book ‘Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning’ was initially accepted by Bloomsbury, who later changed their mind claiming “public feeling on the subject does not currently support the publication of the book”. The book was ultimately published by William Collins and has become a Sunday Times Bestseller.’

See the final 10 minutes of the video to hear who at Bloomsbury kicked up the fuss, forcing the publisher to run away from the contract and the author to take it back.

The interview here: (1313) The Truth About Colonialism with Nigel Biggar – YouTube

Buy the book here: Amazon.com: Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning eBook : Biggar, Nigel: Kindle Store

British Colonialism – was it good or bad?

A long review of one’s cultural antecedents would reveal that the past has been a process of growth, adjustments, defeats, revival, consolidations until the present time. Take what I regard as Australian history. Time travel would take the majority of Australians back to the United Kingdom. From there, we would go back through the centuries, through migrations, invasions, colonization, and consolidation to the tribes of Northwestern Europe. From there one goes into the haze of pre-history or unrecorded history.

The point is that the above phases are a natural part of human history, a part of the nation into which one is born at a particular time. A country, a nation or a people is not illegitimate because it was the result of colonization and migration. Indeed, the new stable consolidation erases and supersedes whatever was prior to it.

However, one can make a moral and social judgment about a particular phase of migration and colonization. Prof. Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford and canon of Christ Church Cathedral does so in his new book, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning . Professor Biggar is interviewed by Peter Whittle on The New Culture Forum.

We’re on ‘stolen land’ – except for 700,000 of Australia’s 25.9 million citizens

Living on Stolen Land

Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, 12 February 2023

The garb worn by the radical indigenous politician, Lidia Thorpe, during her protests on Australia Day this year had a much greater impact than she could have hoped. Waving her fake sword in the air and sporting the T-shirt slogan “Sovereignty Never Ceded: Speak the Truth”, Thorpe posed for photographs that were later used by almost every newspaper and television news bulletin in the country to accompany stories of her unexpected desertion of The Greens  in the Senate. However, the proponents of a constitutional amendment for the Aboriginal Voice were less enthusiastic. They quickly recognized the threat these images represented. They have since tried to play down the concept Thorpe was advertising and to treat her as an isolated extremist rather than an accurate spokesperson for her cause.

In his article in The Australian (February 9 2023) the legal academic George Williams claimed that the referendum on the Voice promised by the Albanese government “has nothing to do with sovereignty”. This was, he argued, because the Constitutional Expert Group of which he was a member said so. The group was appointed by the Albanese government last year to advise on the issue and, predictably, it supported the line the government wanted it to take. Albanese was advised to take a position that Aboriginal activists had long supported in order to cover up the real agenda behind their demands.

Twenty years ago, in the book Treaty: Let’s Get it Right!, Mick Dodson had recommended that the term “sovereignty” be left out of any debate over constitutional amendment. Given the well-known failure of other referenda to be passed in Australia, Dodson said the Aborigines’ best hope of success would be if their wording kept to broad and less contentious principles such as “the right to self-determination” and ”the protection of indigenous laws and culture”.

Within the ranks of the educated Aboriginal elite, however, there has never been any hesitation about stating, both among themselves and in appeals to their white political supporters, what they really want. Here are some of the highlights from a campaign that goes back for more than forty years.

In April 1979, when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister, the then existing Aboriginal body advising the minister, the National Aboriginal Conference, began to publicly endorse the notion of sovereignty and a treaty between Aboriginal people and the government. The government referred these arguments to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which from 1980–82 conducted an inquiry into what it called a “Makarrata” or treaty agreement. The submission to this committee made by the National Aboriginal Conference declared:

In pursuing the Makarrata (Treaty) we assert our basic rights as sovereign Aboriginal nations who are equal in political status with the Commonwealth of Australia in accordance with the principal espoused by the International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara Case that sovereignty has always resided in the Aboriginal people.

Read the rest here …

Advancing the Marxist agenda – fabrications and white Anglo erasures

School library discards outdated and offensive books on colonisation

Adam Carey, 18 February 2023

Dozens of 20th century non-fiction titles deemed historically inaccurate or offensive have been removed from the Northcote High School library as part of a push to decolonise the school’s book collection.

Texts that refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as nomads or hunter-gatherers, or that depict European colonisation as peaceful and omit reference to frontier conflict, are among those that were cut from the school’s collection.

The audit resulted in 36 books being removed from the library and a further 12 titles being filed under a new restricted category.

Victoria’s school librarians’ association, which is developing a “diversity toolkit” for schools seeking to update their collections, said Northcote had set an example for other schools to follow. Northcote has also encouraged other schools to follow its lead.

The large government school in Melbourne’s north leaned heavily on the guidance of Dr Al Fricker, a Dja Dja Wurrung man and expert in Indigenous education with Deakin University, in auditing all 7000 titles on its library shelves.

Read the rest here …

The Voice – propagating fundamental errors

The left – from mild to far left – have an ideology to propagate. The ideology is central. Propositions that are contrary to the Marxist vision of 99% of the left are simply rejected. This causes anxiety or embarrassment among some when they appear to be defying reason or plain observation, but little concern for most. They simply skip over the blaring problems when applying their ideological vision to the major issues of our time. Louise Milligan is a good example of this blissful evasion as Professor Gans pointed out recently.

Other common ways for the leftist mind to deal with objections rational people raise are to distort, misrepresent or create a myth. In the issue of the day – the Voice – mythmaking is running out of control. Gerard Henderson in an article in today’s Australian brings up a favourite. In this case, he was responding to a claim made by ABC journalist Dan Bourchier about the 1967 referendum. Here are the relevant paragraphs.

‘However, my interest was sparked as Bourchier wound up the segment [on the Drum]. He stated that Australians “don’t like changing the Constitution” and added “there have been 44 attempts, only eight successful”. Correct. And added: “Coincidentally, the most successful (referendum was) in ’67 to count Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as Australian ­citizens.”

‘This is wrong – and is one of the many myths of Australian history. Two referendum proposals were put to Australian electors by the Holt Coalition government in May 1967.

‘The first concerned the nexus between the number of parliamentarians in the House of Representatives compared with the Senate …

‘The second proposal sought to give the commonwealth parliament power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people wherever they lived in Australia. And also to make it possible to include Aboriginal people in the national census. This was a great success, with 91 per cent of Australians voting “yes” across the nation and obtaining majority support in all states …

‘The 1967 referendum had nothing to do with citizenship. All Indigenous Australians were classified as citizens – along with all other Australians – by no later than 1948 when Australian citizenship was introduced. Formerly, Australians were classified as British subjects.

‘In 1962, commonwealth legislation provided that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders could vote in federal elections. Before that, Indigenous Australians who had voting rights in some states were also able to vote at the federal level but their number was limited. Both changes were in place before the 1967 referendum …’

I suppose I could not blame Bouchier in one way. He was repeating a long propagated myth. I remember the 1967 referendum well. I was present at one of Charles Perkins’ rallies. (I was twenty-one.) The impression I had from Perkins’ fiery performance was that for Australia Aboriginal people were invisible. They were of no account. They weren’t even citizens. Of course, I voted ‘yes’.

If one wants to have an idea of the body of myths that Aboriginal activists are spreading, I refer you to Keith Windschuttle’s comprehensive The Break-Up of Australia: The Real agenda behind Aboriginal Recognition.

Edmund Burke on what it means to be people

Gerard Charles Wilson

This essay should be read with the post, Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788, to appreciate the full argument.

When Edmund Burke claimed in An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs that the French Revolution ‘was a wild attempt to methodise anarchy; to perpetuate and fix disorder … that it was a foul, impious, monstrous thing, wholly out of the course of moral nature,’[1] he was targeting a particular theory of political organisation now known as ‘social contract theory’. It is essential to understand that in Burke’s understanding, social contract theory not only determines the form of political organisation of a particular people but the accompanying social organisation as well.[2]

The early theorists of social contract were Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Hobbes is considered the first to introduce the idea. Burke was clearly familiar with the writings of these political philosophers. There are recognisable references to Hobbes (Leviathan) and Locke (The Second Treatise of Government) in his speeches and writings, although he does not name them. He was scathing about Rousseau, reducing his entire philosophy (including the Social Contract) to one of vanity, claiming that ‘with this vice he was possessed to a degree little short of madness,’ and that ‘it is plain that the present rebellion [in France] was its legitimate offspring.’ [3] In other words, he attributed the ‘wild attempt to methodise anarchy [and] to perpetuate and fix disorder’ in France to Rousseau as a major influence.

In his writings on the influence of social contract theory in Britain, however, he had several contemporaries foremost in mind, notably Joseph Priestly (1733-1804),[4] Dr Richard Price (1723-1791)[5] and Thomas Paine (1737-1809).[6] He did not name Priestley or Paine but openly attacked Price in the Reflections on the Revolution in France, precisely on his understanding of the social contract.

Continue reading Edmund Burke on what it means to be people

List of companies boycotting Australia Day

Once upon a time, as fables used to begin, Australians could rely on established Australian companies and the corporate world in general to defend Australia and its history. Not any more. The corporate world is showing its lost its backbone. It’s now filled with weak men and wokist women. The companies and individuals below have chosen to destroy the Australia nation, as it originated in Sydney Cove, erase its history, and replace it with a reinvented Aboriginal culture with its accompanying myths. An Aboriginal Frankenstein.

These culturally empty people stink of self-loathing.

K-Mart
(699) ‘Totalitarianism in the name of kindness’: Kmart boycotts Aus Day – YouTube

Kmart under fire for dumping Australia Day merchandise range in 2023: ‘Please explain’ | 7NEWS

Kmart’s anti-Australia Day push is ‘anti-migrant’ | Sky News Australia

Beverley McGarvey Channel 10 Boss
Media Diary: ‘January 26 is January 26’: Ten boycotts Australia Day | The Australian

Sandra Sully Channel 10 newsreader confirms what most people think about her.
Sandra Sully defends Channel 10’s boycott of Australia Day after staff encouraged to work | Daily Mail Online

P & O Australia
The cruise ship operator sent an internal memo to staff last week prohibiting the use of the flag or playing of the national anthem as well as banning any Australia Day paraphernalia. They said they wanted to ‘include’ everyone. What nonsense. They were too gutless to go against the woke activists.
P&O Cruises overturn Australia Day ban following community backlash | Sky News Australia

Telstra – CEO Vicki Brady
The Coalition has accused Labor of encouraging corporate Australia “to change our national day by stealth” after Telstra chief executive Vicki Brady revealed she would work on Thursday, ­declaring that for many First ­Nations people January 26 was a “painful reminder of discrimination and exclusion”.

Ms Brady is, to date, the highest profile corporate figure who has chosen to publicly announce they will be working on Thursday, as the national debate continues about the appropriateness of celebrating the day when Sir Arthur Phillip arrived in Sydney Cove in 1788. (The Australian, 25 January)

Canva

Lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills and Gilbert + Tobin

Eve Studio – a yoga and fitness business with locations in Brunswick and Preston, Melbourne.
The businesses going further than an Australia Day boycott (smartcompany.com.au)

* * * * * *

Why Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788

(699) Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788 – Part 1: The Voyage Out – YouTube

(699) Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788 – Part 2: Establishing the settlement. – YouTube

Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788

The historical detail for my claim that Australia did not exist before the 26th of January 1788 is in chapter 1 ‘Foundations of a New Nation’ of my book Prison Hulk to Redemption. The key issue is the concept of nation. I use the text (below) from my book for my two-part youtube presentation. I include helpful illustrations in the videos.

(699) Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788 – Part 1: The Voyage Out – YouTube

(699) Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788 – Part 2: Establishing the settlement. – YouTube

The philosophical arguments about what it means to be a people or nation are in my presentation ‘Edmund Burke on what it means to be a people’. Both should be read or heard in combination to appreciate the full argument.

*****

Prison Hulk to Redemption

Chapter 1

Foundations of a new nation

ON 28 APRIL 1770, Lieutenant James Cook steered his ship, the Endeavour, into a broad open bay and dropped anchor at its southern shore. He named it Stingray Bay because of the abundance of stingrays in its waters on which his crew gorged. He later crossed out Stingray Bay in the ship’s logs and entered Botany Bay in tribute to Botanist Joseph Banks, the ship’s eager scientist. Banks had put together an impressive collection of specimens of unknown plants and animals after trekking around the land bordering the bay’s shores.

Cook and the Endeavour were on their way back to England after carrying out the official task of observing the transit of Venus from the island of Tahiti. There were also unofficial tasks, one of which was to investigate the existence of the South Land, whose ancient mythology promised great riches. From Roman times, it had been called Terra Australis Incognita—Unknown South Land. The search for the mysterious land of the south had occupied the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish, and later Englishman William Dampier (1688 and 1689). Dampier added little to the findings of the Dutch seamen.

Until Cook’s voyage, the most successful effort to map whatever was south of present-day Indonesia and New Guinea was Dutchman Abel Tasman’s voyage in 1642 and 1643. The Governor of Batavia had ordered Tasman to find the unknown South Land. On his eight-month voyage, Tasman sailed west from Batavia (today’s Jakarta). Keeping the Indonesian islands to the north, he eventually turned and sailed far to the south before turning east. After navigating a great distance, he hit landfall. He followed the shoreline south, mapping it as he went, turned east, then north, but left the coast to head east again. He named this bushy landmass Anthoni Van Diemens Landt after Batavia’s governor. After some days, he made landfall again. Thinking he had sailed as far as Tierra Del Fuego in South America, he noted Staten Landt in his logbook. Staten Landt was the Dutch for the Spanish name of Argentine’s Isla de Los Estados. But Tasman was well short of Staten Landt

Continue reading Australia did not exist before 26 January 1788