Albanese is taking advice "from a group within the aboriginal community".

Do these inner city elites really belong to any aboriginal community?

And, of course, hard Left Albanese is very much a 'group man', as are all collectivists and communists. It's all group rights, not the rights of individuals as in a democracy: something that Australia seems closer to not being since Albanese - division by race, the upcoming Bill to censor freedom of speech (no referendum on that).

It's hard to fathom how the Albanese gang wanted to "help" aborigines, but knocked back a Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of aboriginal children.

The Albanese gang appears to be interested only in 'certain' aborigines; ones that are unlikely to ever have been anywhere near a community of those actually needing help.

It's all about the aboriginal industry hoovering up $40 billion a year without any questions, with no results for needy people.

The author's description of the Voice and everything else about this wicked industry as a "sham" on behalf of the government is far too kind.

We have to treat everything about the Albanese government with "scepticism".

Good article.

The voice was only ever a cynical manipulative exercise in usury.

The sinister play behind the voice is the UN 30/30 Biodiversity charter.
Its plainly stated aim is to turn fallow 30% of the earths landmass by 2030.

It plainly and unmistakably nominates the main tool to achieve this aim as the indigenous inhabitants

You and I are excluded from entry and any use of the locked down land to be administered by indigenous administrations.
In short, the indigenous native may roam freely over all areas of the Australian Continent, but to you it will be Private Property do not enter.

The intention of the charter is to exclude all activity, including recreational activity such as entry into National and State Parks and exclusion from all crown lands, and the elimination of all commercial activity, particularly farming and grazing enterprises.

This is the Voice!

"Had the referendum been approved a defacto-third house of parliament would have been set up"

FFS. Are the RWNJ's still trotting out this blatant lie?

Give it a miss already.

Not a word about the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by mining interests in this country lobbying government. Not a word of the over 1700 orange pass holders who are allowed to roam the corridors of parliament unfettered, many of whom are lobbyists for mining interests, as unveiled by Senator Pocock.

"Federal authorities are being asked to reveal the names of the politicians who give lobbyists full access to Parliament House after growing frustration over hundreds of people who can wield influence in the building without disclosure.
A crossbench alliance is pushing for new rules to reveal the people who have gained unfettered access to the building’s private corridors with sponsored bright orange passes signed by federal politicians under a system that keeps their identities secret."
http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/orange-is-the-new-hack-891-more-lobbyists-gain-inside-access-to-parliament-house-20230502-p5d4so.html

The Voice would have been completely transparent and its lobbying open.

This author seems happy with the former.

Typical.

Poor o’l SteeleRedux thinks in the minority, the mining industry is the enemy, when actually for those involved in the real world, know the enemy as Aboriginal land rights and the straight out fraud it is.

Development plans are held up for years by Aboriginal bureaucracy with no interest in progress but plenty of interest in what’s in it for them personally.

I think my conclusion above yours implicating outside interests of the UN and it’s Climate Change hysteria, actually making more sense of the obfuscation which was the Voice, whereas he blames the lobbyists for getting in the way of information which may have shed some light on what was in truth the motivation behind it!

Deaar diver dan,

Mate, you go play with the conspiracy theories and the made up 'obfuscations' from Indigenous people while the rest of us acknowledge that Australia's wealthiest mining magnate played a substantial part in the No campaign.

I'm not claiming it altered the final outcome but her deep self interest in the Voice not getting up is as plain as the nose on your face even if you are determined to ignore it. Ultimately it delegitimised the result and tainted those who voted No who may well have done so for legitimate reasons.

And you might be completely happy with mining interests having unfettered and undocumented access to our political classes but i am most certainly not.

Agree with most of this!
Alan B.

SteeleRedux

You’re still on first base, whereas I’m sliding in on a home run.

There is no conspiracy theory, it’s true. The Aboriginals are being led by the nose willingly by Toady Politicians on all sides that lack imagination and inner fortitude enough to guide Australia on a path of independence.

Maybe do some research and follow the trail. At the least you can read that’s a good start, and allow yourself the pleasure of free thought.

.

Dear Murray (the author),

.

As Darwin explained in 1859 in his famous book “On the Origin of Species” :

« Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favourable traits are transmitted through generations. »

Our indigenous peoples have been obliged to follow that path, either by nature or by force.

About 60% of our approximately 1 million indigenous peoples have more or less assimilated our culture today and about 40% have not. The 60% are what we might term “progressives” ("one who favours, promotes, or commends social and political change in the name of progress") and the 40% are “conservatives” (preserving traditional values and maintaining the status quo).

The assimilation process has by no means been entirely “natural”. It has been largely forced. The 1937 Assimilation policy defines the objective as follows :

« Generally, by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation [2062 – 2087], all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine will be eradicated.... The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white (Commonwealth Government, 1937). »

The Aboriginal Welfare Board carried out the process of breeding out the black appearance, black culture and the black characteristics of Aboriginal people. Aboriginal children were adopted or fostered by non-Aboriginal parents or sent to institutions for non-Aboriginal children.

The Assimilation Policy was eventually dismantled in 1969, but the effects of racial bigotry and discriminatory practices continued well beyond that time.

The 40% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “conservatives” reject or are incapable of assimilation – which is their utmost right.

That is why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples exists and what the Voice referendum was aiming to accommodate.

.

Finally, some are waking up to Labor !

Banjo Patersons snow job for the day!

“That is why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples exists and what the Voice referendum was aiming to accommodate“.

You’re actually on third base, an improvement on our dim witted friend SteeleRedux. The problem you both share, is your self indulgent habit of lulling yourselves to sleep with the strains of your own violin music!

Since your argument above adds more traffic to the six lane highway of white racism, a question immediately popping into mind is; if Aboriginals were considered to be children at risk, judged on the community standard of 1936, why do you judge that act of kindness one of racism when those children were taken into white communities to be raised in a progressive and hygienic environment which offered them nurturing and an educated and integrated future? You advertise yourself as the racist with that one!

But moving on to home base, the UN 30/30 biodiversity charters aims are to use Indigenous populations to achieve its aims of locking away from functioning populations, vast areas of our Country for preservation purposes, which also includes voiding the use of the oceans for fishing and recreational use.

The UN charter clearly states the intention to use native title, treaties and whatever imaginative innovations such as the Voice to achieve the theft of land from the rightful inhabitants who are actually all Australian citizens. Australia does not belong to the UN to do with it what it wills.

The second hole in your theory promoting the voice is the pretence that the voice would assist in the welfare of the Native Australian. It dies not need my input to debunk that one, that was a straight out no it wouldn’t, and 60% of Australians recognised that point.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

You ask :

« … if Aboriginals were considered to be children at risk, judged on the community standard of 1936, why do you judge that act of kindness one of racism when those children were taken into white communities to be raised in a progressive and hygienic environment which offered them nurturing and an educated and integrated future? »
.

I find it difficult to imagine, diver dan, that you could possibly ignore that those “acts of kindness” as you describe them, were often executed without the slightest warning, aggressively, and sometimes even violently, as brutal acts of kidnapping – given the wide publication of numerous victim accounts and first-hand witness testimonies, as well as the ample literature, and numerous films and documentaries on the subject.

Colonisation is rarely a peaceful event and after the battle is won, the victor’s law prevails and it’s the victor’s version of events that goes down in history. We all know that.

Following the colonisation of Australia, the two policies that dominated the Colonial government’s approach to the Aboriginal population were biological absorption and cultural assimilation.

Biological absorption that reigned from the late 19th century until after the First World War attempted to integrate Aborigines into white society by segregating full-blooded individuals with the hope that they would eventually die out, and by encouraging mixed-race individuals to marry low-class white individuals, thereby reducing the Aboriginality of subsequent offspring.

Cultural assimilation, which became the preferred policy after the Second World War, attempted to culturally integrate Aboriginal peoples into white society. The focus was no longer on race but on the degree of civilisation and comfort within the white cultural and sociological sphere.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Aborigines were considered to be an inferior race – and possibly still are by some Australians of Caucasian descent, even including Aborigines with a much higher degree of academic, social and political status than themselves.
.

By the way, diver dan, I can’t help wondering what your attitude would have been if the Japanese had invaded Australia during the Second World War and driven you out of your home, parking you in a reserve somewhere in the Northern Territory and kidnapping your children “to be raised in a progressive and hygienic [Japanese] environment”. Would you describe that as an “act of kindness” ?

Let’s say the newly-installed Japanese government of Australia also decided to do exactly what the Colonial government of Australia did – you know : biological absorption : breed out your European genes – followed by cultural assimilation : oblige you to speak Japanese and adopt the Japanese culture.

Would you consider that too just another “argument that adds more traffic to the six-lane highway of white racism” ?

.

Banjo…Ho Ho you can’t help yourself can you!

You have a serious problem dealing with your brain washed University days.
Enter the real world is a challenging option, but in the end your own free thought will adequately guide you to a more realistic outlook towards an holistic approach to defining ta truth with a concrete base to reality; especially those of others, in this case Abiriginals.

I can’t help you. You must help yourself.

And hazarding a guess on an up to date subject, one which would nail in mÿ conclusions; you’d also be a happy Hamas clapper too?

.

Dear diver dan,

.

Before closing, if you are interested, allow me to recommend for further reading, an excellent book written by Anna Haebich entitled “Broken circles : Fragmenting Indigenous Families 1800-2000”, published by Freemantle Arts Centre Press in 2000.

You will find a brief preview of the book here :

http://archive.org/details/brokencirclesfra0000haeb/mode/2up

It can probably be found in your local public library.

.

Well Banjo,

it “Pays” to be Aboriginal, and it also pays to be “Mad”, so what are you getting from your Woke and privileged position in society following slavishly along their greasy money trail?

Is the answer money and status and a well paying job by ticking the correct boxes?

And it still is, my advice is to resign from your full time violin job, and enter the real world further towards the bottom, which is obviously where at least sixty percent of the population live; that world is a world of realism.

The sadness in current times such as we are in, with the whole Woke orchestra playing out of tune for the majority, is Aboriginals are in reality, being thrown under a bus while waiting in line outside the concert hall.

At least though, in a more positive light, Aboriginals have demonstrated an awareness of the damage caused by the meddling in their lives, those in positions the power can and do cause, with ill informed (or straight out usury and bad intent), to a simple desire to be treated as a normal component of society, and not pigeonholed and labeled as useful idiots for a cause!

I read & hear quite a lot about the high rate of Indigenous incarceration rates being too high.
Just last Sunday I watched a gang of indigenous & part-indigenous youths & kids running down the street with slingshots & spray cans. Some private property was defaced & business signs used for slingshot targets.
A friend called Police but no-one showed but an hour later a van with "Children Services" on the side slowly drove past the group of 9 then turned & drove off again. From what I witnessed if these kids would have been picked up & taken to the Police Station, the community would have been very vocal about 'targeting indigenous kids". I could not see any non-indigenous kids anywhere near & behave in that same manner.

Indyvidual

There is no point to having laws which are ignored for sections of society, but enforced for another section.
You’re not alone in your observation

It’s a disturbing trend which can only be described as a terrorist training ground; and actually a terrorist trying ground is the intention behind the promotion of outlaw behaviour which follows exactly the trends we observed in BLM rioting and looting in the US.

More evidence Aboriginals are promoted again to useful idiots , this time on the front line of as a weapon for the privileged elite whose irresponsible behaviour promotes the freedom of their love child causes to tick-off this outrage against the sixty percent enemy, who suffer the consequences from it in their communities.

And don’t dare object to your neighbourhood becoming a lawless war zone either, by countering the lawless with methods designed to discourage the rioters, that will be the point police will act decisively, but against the counter offensive.

We are doomed with these idiotic bleeding heart’s controlling from the power base of our Parliaments. The blinded fool here above posting as Banjo Paterson and his numerous mates are totally untouched by the consequences of their idiocy.

.