To commit genocide we must first demonise the enemy.

 Watch Israel's demonisation of Hamas get ever more hysterical as they try to justify their genocide of the Palestinian people.

There will be hostages cooked and canned before they are finished. All designed to distract the gullible from the reality of what is happening.

Demonise the enemy is an ancient rule of war. But NOTHING will ever justify Israel's genocide against Palestine for more than 75 years beginning with the Jewish terrorist gangs, Irgun and Stern before 1947, and the slaughter and dispossession from 1947 onwards.

Israelis consider the Palestinians to be subhuman. Of course they must because how could they live with themselves treating other humans in the evil ways that they do and have done for so long?

The irony in this age is that people become outraged if animals are treated badly and no doubt the Israelis treat animals far better than they do the Palestinians whom they crush under occupation.

So, the enemy, which is the native people of the land Israel has stolen, must not only be subhuman they must be evil beyond measure so that no compassion can be allowed.

None of it is new of course and all of it is the true evil. To rid Palestine of every non-Jew which has always been the goal since Zionism was invented in the 1890's, requires Israelis, their supporters and as many of those they can gather in the world, to believe the Palestinians are not to be treated like real humans, or even helpless animals, but represent an evil threat which must be exterminated.

There are signs up in Tel Aviv calling for their extermination so that is the word which applies to Israel's genocide.

One would think, surely, who could believe such shocking things about a people crushed under the most venal and longest military colonial occupation in modern history. You would be surprised, I would say. I know I have been at how many seemingly intelligenct people have swallowed whole the Israeli propaganda and who would quietly rejoice if every last Palestinian was dead.

It is a pity, they might say to themselves that so many Palestinian Christians had to die, but a price which must be paid to rid the world of the evil of Muslims and to teach those uppity Arabs a lesson.

Bigotry toward Arabs also plays a part in this genocidal onslaught although ironically, being Jewish can eradicate that taint because in 1947 Israel gave immediate citizenship to all Arab Palestinian Jews, thereby demonstrating even an Arab can be accepted as human if they follow the right religion.

After all they console themselves and their withered conscience, Islam is going to take over the entire world if we don't get rid of the Palestinians. Never let facts or logic get in the way of propaganda. Brain function is always diminished in the fear-driven haters of anything.

The supporters of genocide also wince a bit at so many children killed, but, for some it is a necessary price to prevent them growing up and becoming evil subhuman, Untermenschen adults. Hang on, where have we heard that before?

So, Israel's evil war against Palestine is a mirror to our own evil and we can only hope that most people will recognise that ghastly image and stand up for what is right.

Just in case you do not recognise them, below are the faces of evil subhumans. They are only young but still dangerous. They need to be exterminated apparently.

Quote:

In his powerful study of the First World War, Paul Fussell elaborated upon the logic that seemed to underwrite a soldier’s ability or willingness to kill his fellow man. Fussell pointed to what he called “gross dichotomizing,” which he identified as “a persisting imaginative habit of modern times, traceable, it would seem, to the actualities of the Great War.”

As he explained,

“We” are all here on this side; “the enemy” is over there. “We” are individuals with names and personal identities; “he” is a mere collective identity. We are visible; he is invisible. We are normal; he is grotesque.

Our appurtenances are natural; his, bizarre. He is not as good as we are. Indeed, he may be like “the Turk” on the Gallipoli Peninsula, characterized by a staff officer before the British landings there as “an enemy who has never shown himself as good a fighter as the white man.” Nevertheless, he threatens us and must be destroyed, or, if not destroyed, contained and disarmed.

(Fussell 1975, p. 75)

The racial distinction, of course, is part of the demonization of the enemy as well—Fussell’s quotation of the British officer comes from Robert Rhodes James’s 1965 book, Gallipoli (James 1965, p. 86)—but racial difference explains little about the gross dichotomizing Fussell identifies, particularly as the “sides” in question were equally “white,” that is, British and German. (It is well worth recalling that the British Royal Family itself was German, and during the war, in June 1917 specifically, King Georg V cannily opted to change the family’s ancestral moniker from the rather Teutonic-sounding House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha [i.e., Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha] to a more English-like House of Windsor, owing to quite understandable anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom at the time.)

Fussell goes on to quote British soldiers apparently in awe of the enemy’s “monstrous and grotesque” attributes. “Sometimes the shadowy enemy resembled the vilest animals,” with enemy soldiers being compared to water-rats scrambling into their holes or earwigs scattering under a rotten tree stump (Fussell 1975, p. 79). Fussell notes that descriptions of the German dead frequently mentioned the bodies’ porcine qualities. All of this contributes to the general idea that one’s wartime enemy is not entirely human.

Like

Comment

Share

Palestine aches

  

 

 

The dead have silent teeth and empty throats,
they have no voice with which to speak, to cry
of all the horrors they have seen and been and
known; to call for justice, freedom from the

power of those who kill to claim what is not
theirs, the land of others, who suffocate children
in waves of dust and shredded metal moments,
where blood and tears and destiny are driven

deep into the waiting earth; dressing broken
fragments of their lives, their souls, their
hearts, that costuming of evil which war does
primp and posture into place, for those who

are the victims, for those who cannot speak,
and for whom the only hope can be for others,
that their throats are not empty, their teeth
are not silent, their words are not crushed

beneath the boot of evil and injustice and
military might, and that in the darkened
quietness of this awful, suppurating wound,
their only hope is that the voices of the living

will be speaking out for those who lie strewn,
fleshed like scattered crops, in that harvest
which bleeds and grieves and slowly seeds
the fields of future justice in aching Palestine.

THE MYTHS WHICH DAMN US ALL

 

Logic and reason are mist against the stone of ideology and that is the reality. Humans are more reluctant to give up dreams than realities and too many of the stories of our aboriginal stone-age history, repeated today are largely fantasy and have been for half a century.

 

The public has been immersed in the lies, now mythology, since the 67 Referendum when the Yes case used outright lies to win the day. The argument, and it was admitted at the time these were untruths, was that Australians would not be able to understand what the Referendum was about - in essence to transfer responsibility from State Governments to Federal for aborigines who remained living in tribal/clan systems - and the means justified the end. The means were the lies that aborigines were not citizens, did not have the vote, were not counted in the census and had been classed as Flora and Fauna, so not even human.

A very good paper was written by Helen Irving, Sydney University, in 2015, Indigenous Recognition and Constitutional Myths to counter this misinformation. Irving supports constitutional recognition and in general takes the recent academic view of aboriginal history, but, she clearly felt moved to correct the myths told during the 67 Referendum which too many still believe.  Helen Irving was appointed Professor Emerita at Sydney Law School in 2021. Her research includes Australian and United States constitutional law and history; constitutional citizenship; comparative constitutional design and gender; the use of history in constitutional interpretation, and models of judicial review.

 

Unfortunately, as has been said, a lie repeated often enough becomes a 'truth' and that is what has happened since 1967. And so, today, most people, including those who should know better like teachers, school principals and academics, believe the lies.

 

The mist of reason does not make a dent against the stone edifice of disinformation masquerading as gloriously dressed mythology.

1. That Australians without aboriginal ancestry owe recognition and compensation to Australians with aboriginal ancestry because the British colonised this land more than two centuries ago.

This ignores the fact that everywhere on earth has been colonised as humans migrated around the globe and that those many different peoples here in 1788, called Aborigines by the British, had also colonised the land in different waves of migration. Why is colonisation by stone-age hunter-gatherers, called Aborigines, acceptable and colonisation by Anglo-Europeans is not? The only reason there is an issue today is that the British were more enlightened than stone-age hunter-gatherers and they did not wipe out those they found here, but instead sought to preserve and protect them.

2. That having Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how small and for most who register as Indigenous it is minimal and for some non-existent, gives one greater rights to this land and greater connection to the land including a spiritual link which no human without aboriginal ancestry can possess.

This ignores the fact that all humans were once stone-age hunter-gatherers and connected to the land in order to survive. It also ignores the fact that no-one has lived a true stone-age hunter-gatherer life in Australia for nearly two centuries. When survival depends on what the land does and provides, then of course the connection is powerful and we see this in farmers who are deeply connected to their land because they depend upon it for survival.

And it ignores the fact that if there were some spiritual links to the land and some unique connection then Aboriginal communities would be other than what they are – cesspits of filth and environmental vandalism and degradation.

3. That having Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how small, means the rest of society should respect and honour those with it, particularly anyone over the age of fifty.

Ignoring the fact that respect is earned and there was nothing to respect in the stone-age hunter-gatherer lives found here in 1788 and there is nothing to respect in the remnants of what is called traditional life, but which is a dysfunctional Aboriginal/Anglo European hybrid found in Aboriginal communities. There are of course many Australians with Aboriginal ancestry whose efforts are deserving of respect but that is because it has been earned. If we were to respect people from the past then surely, we would have even greater respect for the settlers who created this modern nation out of nothing?

4. That aboriginality and its myths, traditions and cultures can be invented without any substance in facts and that Australians must accept it all without question. For example, the British practice of children calling adults who were not family members, Uncle or Auntie, has now been co-opted by the aboriginal brigade for any man or woman with some aboriginal ancestry who does or says anything. This honorific has no source in any of the hundreds of different Aboriginal clan traditions and is insulting because adults are being asked to use the terms. These people are not our Auntie or Uncle and in fact they are not even Auntie or Uncle to most Australians with aboriginal ancestry given the rigidity still of tribal/clan divides.

5. That nothing negative can ever be said about the brutal reality, well documented, of stone-age hunter-gatherer aboriginal lives where topics like cannibalism, infanticide, child marriage, violence toward women are censored and condemned and where even academics rewrite history to pretend that the world of stone-age Australia was a Utopia destroyed by colonialism.

6. That reconciliation is needed between Australians with Aboriginal ancestry, around 900,000, most of them minimal in such ancestry, and those without it, more than 25 million Australians.

 

This ignores the fact that the reason why so many are more Anglo European than they are aboriginal is because we have had high levels of intermarriage for more than two centuries. Indeed, today, most Australians with aboriginal ancestry are in mixed marriages. There is no greater reconciliation and acceptance than intermarriage and no greater testament to the lack of racism in most Australians over centuries.

7. That Australians with Aboriginal ancestry are owed ‘rent’ because the settlers created this nation on land where their ancestors lived. Ignoring the fact that the gift of this modern democracy, one of the best places in the world to live, is something for which they should be grateful.

8. That Australians without Aboriginal ancestry are to blame for any dysfunction in Aboriginal communities because it would never have happened if they had not been colonised.

Ignoring the fact that most Australians with Aboriginal ancestry are doing fine with the same sorts of lives and outcomes as anyone else, sometimes better, and that those struggling are generally in communities which, unlike the majority, are not assimilated into the modern world but remain trapped in backward and violent tribal/clan systems. Most people talk about indigenous Australians as if they were one with the same sorts of lives and outcomes when of course they are not. The Linda Burney, Stan Grant, Ken Wyatt, Lidia Thorpe brigade, to name just a few of many, have nothing in common with the few who continue to struggle.

It also ignores the fact that all humans are descended from the persecuted, abused, traumatised and colonised and most do not live lives of dysfunction today because of ancestral suffering. If the claims of inter-generational trauma had any substance, then everyone would suffer from it, particularly those with some Aboriginal ancestry and they do not.

9. That Aboriginal tribal beliefs, practices, lore should be supported and encouraged regardless of how violent and backward they might be.

Ignoring the fact that civil law exists to protect all of us and goes beyond tribe, clan, community or culture for that very reason. Which stone-age practices should be restored? Cannibalism, child marriage, infanticide, women as slaves, brutal initiation practices to boys and girls which often killed them or left them sterile?

10. That longevity of ancestry should give one greater rights as a citizen and greater power over Government.

This is the premise of the voice which wants to single out Australians with Aboriginal ancestry for greater rights and power. Ignoring the fact that our democratic systems have been hard won and evolved in order that tribal systems could be discarded and every citizen would be treated equally as a citizen and where we all had the same voice, the vote. To give one group more voice is to betray our democracy.

These lies have become mythology over the past few decades and the only positive thing about the voice is that it is making more people question them and this racist division of our nation which has been stealing its way into power for too long. Never underestimate the power of a myth for it is a lie dressed in appealing form and too easily mistaken as a truth.

 

Falling

 

Falling into being ...

Did I trip, or was I pushed, perhaps

a jump, unconscious but intended.

The sex that dare not speak its name

Roslyn Ross

26 June 2023

Who would have thought there would come a time in human history when educated adults could not answer a simple question: What is a woman?

Between the silences and stammers, languishes the simple answer – a woman is an adult human female.

What is astonishing is that so many cannot, or rather, will not, provide this answer.

It is as if there is a force at work within society to diminish, downgrade, and even extinguish women as a sex. What purpose could that serve? To me, it represents a vicious and evil misogyny. While women continue to protest against discrimination, many support the greatest discrimination of all – a movement that seeks to eradicate the concept of woman as female from our language and our social lexicon. Everything unique about the feminine, the female, and womanhood is being debased in service of this goal.

The claim is that society is seeking the concept of inclusion, where a tiny minority of men who wish to identify as women should be described and treated as though they really are women, even though biology disagrees. But why should the world (and sanity) be turned upside down supporting something that is still considered a tragic mental illness.

True gender dysphoria remains rare (that is, clinically diagnosed dysphoria). Up until very recently, those suffering were not affirmed in their dysphoric beliefs. There are other illness that doctors treat rather than affirm, including conditions such as the Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), where an individual desires the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or, who desires to be made a paraplegic. Doctors do not humour patients with amputations for the latter, and yet there is a growing (and lucrative) industry offering exactly that for the former.

Children, in particular, have a propensity to believe fantasies about themselves, such as being able to fly like their favourite heroes. We do not encourage children in this delusion, because it could be dangerous, but we are doing it with children who believe they are the opposite sex. The most vocal part of this movement appears to come from males wanting to be female, hence the accompanying campaign against the rights of biological women.

The general public should know better than to choke on the word woman, but today they seem desperate to apply it correctly in social agenda terms. Companies do the same thing, leading to insanities like men with evident equipment modelling women’s bathing suits or insisting we normalise the bulge; men using female toilets, even in the presence of young girls; and men participating as women on the sporting field and being acclaimed for winning with their clear biological and physiological advantage!

Sure there is a backlash to such things, but there is no sign of it slowing down in Australia. One Australian academic and medical institution has attempted to eradicate women from language completely as part of their glossary of LGBQT+ terms. While a gay man attracted to other men remains a man, a gay woman is described as a non-man attracted to non-men. If they cannot define a woman, why can they define a man?

If reducing women to non-men is not a putdown, I don’t know what is. Yes, this glossary has caused a firestorm of criticism and rightly so, but how did it ever come to be in the first place? Who thought it was a good idea to call women non-men as if the only biological reality is male? Surely it carries shades of centuries past when women were perceived to be mentally inferior to men and deemed as such by God.

The anti-female sentiment has continued apace. In 2019, The Guardian ran an article suggesting that periods offered little if any benefit to health and that it was a good idea to use synthetic contraception to stop them altogether. It was merely one of many such pieces of commentary on the topic of female fertility.

Women have had a hard time in patriarchal societies coming to terms with their gift of menstruation, and it is a gift, for without it there is no future for the human race. Just as we started reaching a point where advertisements for sanitary napkins were brave enough to use red ink and not blue, we now have moves to encourage women to reject their menstrual cycle to the point of cancelling it altogether.

Instead of encouraging girls and women to embrace their bodies, there are, it seems, moves to encourage them to deny their femininity by artificially intervening. How can there be ‘no health benefit’, children aside, to such a biological reality for females?

Surely telling women it is fine to prevent menstruation is like telling someone it is fine to never urinate or defecate again? The clinical lead for Women’s Health at the Royal College of GPs says there is no health benefit to them: ‘99 percent of women don’t need to bleed.’

A professor of sexual and reproductive health at University College London says the same. ‘In some ways, it seems like one of God’s great design faults… It is not helpful to have these periods.’

Wow, you know the hubris level has ratcheted up a few notches when medicos say God got it wrong. Millions of years of human evolution and clear biological realities and necessities have been wrong, according to so-called experts.

There has long been evidence that a hysterectomy in women under 50 increases the risk of heart disease and stroke, so why would there not be negative effects from artificially preventing menstruation? But hey, no periods and you save money…

However, it would seem not even God is on the side of women anymore with the Church of England refusing to define the word ‘woman’.

The Church of England declined to offer a definition of a woman, arguing that recent developments required ‘additional care’ when attempting to define the word.

‘There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy,’ Senior Bishop Rt Rev Robert Innes said, when asked to define the word, according to reporting from GB News.

The remarks came in response to a question posed by lay member during the General Synod, who asked: ‘What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?’

The Bishop argued that the definition of a woman used to be ‘self-evident’ but no longer had a simple answer. Well, it does have a simple answer, a woman is an adult human female as established in Matt Walsh’s documentary released in June 2022, titled, What is a Woman?

As Matt Walsh, author and filmmaker said: ‘People are too afraid to just say what they actually think about this. It is our empathy being used against us but it is being used against us in such a way that this lie, this insanity has taken over our culture.’ Walsh says the issue has split across political divides, and no doubt in an age when only the clicks count, it is not surprising that few are brave enough to challenge the concept that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be called a non-man, or that boys who want to be girls can be surgically and chemically altered in pursuit of that end.

Why and how have religions, governments, and medical institutions bought into this insanity?

And why are so many feminists not taking a stand against a movement, an agenda, that not only disenfranchises women, but seeks to eradicate them as an entity… As Walsh says, in recent years they have invented this sex/gender distinction and even more recently they have collapsed the distinction completely.

We now have a situation where a man, complete with penis, can say he is a woman and be encouraged in that belief. We have chestfeeding not breastfeeding and a litany of terms that insult pregnant, birthing, and breastfeeding women. Why does any woman allow such abuse of her nature, her being, and her womanhood?

Is it a case of the clicks where people are motivated in this age of ever-present technology to ‘behave’ in accordance with social agendas, regardless of what they may personally believe? Or is there something more devious at work? Whatever the answer, one thing is certain, women need to stand up and take back their unique identity as biological females, able to do things no man can ever do, and a precious sex which creates and gives birth to life.

Some radical and fringe elements of gender theory have decided to parody all that is female and feminine, while mocking the glory of womanhood. Never have some men been more dangerous.

NB: And the madness continues with womb transplants into men, the womb likely to be coming from some young girl or woman who believes she is a man and wants to rid herself of the equipment nature gave her as a woman. https://www.spectator.com.au/.../the-god-delusion-men.../

https://www.spectator.com.au/.../the-sex-that-dare-not.../

SPECTATOR.COM.AU

The sex that dare not speak its name | The Spectator Australia

Who would have thought there would come a ti

CERTAINTY

 

 

For certainty was never born

And never lived, to die;

For certainty is phantom-

The world's best and greatest lie!

So know it for illusion

And call it by its name,

For certainty can never rid

You, or life, of pain.

It's nothing and it knows it,

It answers to your call,

But has no truth in being,

Illusion … that is all!

Certainty, that shadowed thing,

A light both brief and clear,

It flashes, teases, disappears

And promises to be

A presence, sure and lasting,

A solid place to be,

And then it cries 'illusion'

Destroys the hope of dream.

It dresses ever prettily,

It primps, and pouts with glee

It dances on my hopes and then

It skips away from me.

This darkling, fairy being

Is no more certain now,

Will no more keep its promise

Than life allowed it should.

WHEN WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DON’T KNOW

 

If one thing is certain in terms of the voice, most Australians do not really understand what it means, how it will work and how it will be set up. You could be forgiven for thinking that neither do those promoting a Yes vote. The reason for that is because the Government which is pushing the voice has not explained in clear and coherent detail such critical factors.

When has trust me, I’m from the Government ever worked? Who would buy anything on the basis of, don’t you worry about how it’s going to work?

Neither is the Government presenting Yes and No positions as it is required to do under regulations pertaining to a Referendum.

Section 11 of the Act requires the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to distribute a pamphlet with a written argument for and against the passage of the referendum. This pamphlet should be received by each household with an enrolled elector not later than 14 days before polling day. These written arguments (no more than 2,000 words each) are to be authorised by a majority of parliamentary members who voted for or against the Referendum Bill, respectively.

Now, clearly the Government still has time to create and distribute said pamphlet, after battering Australians with the guilt-waddy for months, and playing the emotional card which was used, along with a lot of lies,  now called myths, to win the 1967 Referendum.  Advertisements promoting a Yes vote are now being used by the Federal Government. Then again, the Act is hardly what it once was, where previously, “it allowed the Commonwealth to only spend money in relation to preparing and distributing the pamphlets and prohibits any Government-funded referendum education campaign or advertising. However, in 1999 the Government legislated to allow additional expenditure, such as for advertising, in relation to that specific referendum, and the recent history of public funding of referendum campaigns has been relatively ad hoc.”

So, the public is presented with a pro-Yes campaign from the Federal Government in the months leading up to the Referendum, which hardly seems right, let alone fair. And that leads most people to rely on what the media offers. Unfortunately, in the realm of mainstream media, with some noble exceptions, there is more promoting a Yes vote than making a case for a No vote.

And given the lack of clarity on the voice and its structure, function and powers, there is little basis for the average Australian to gain perspective. From what is presented we have a suggested position that the voice is going to resolve the problems in aboriginal communities, which it seems dozens if not hundreds of groups and consultations, billions of dollars and decades of time and attention have failed to do.

How many live in such communities? A small minority.

Based on projections for 2022, among Indigenous Australians: 38% (344,800) live in Major cities. 44% (395,900) live in Inner and outer regional areas. 17% (155,600) live in Remote and very remote areas combined (Figure 2, ABS 2019b).

So, a small minority live in the troubled communities and the guess of how many are fully Aboriginal in ancestry is around 1%. The data is hard to find because one presumes in this age it is a no-no to enquire into such ancestry percentages, given the prevailing view that Aboriginality is something spiritual and there is no relevance between 100% of such spiritual ancestry or less than 1%.

But, the most common presenting position suggests that Australians owe those with Aboriginal ancestry special treatment because, they have been here a very long time, 40,000 years, pick a figure onwards and upwards. Or rather, they believe they can trace back their ancestry furthest and that makes them unique and deserving of special treatment and what amounts to a louder and extra voice and in essence, their own chamber in Parliament and an additional vote.

How is any of that fair, constitutional, democratic or not racist? The basic premise with longevity ancestry is that the further back someone can trace some of their ancestry, the superior they are as a citizen, i.e. they deserve special rights. This means that someone with 100% Aboriginal ancestry is top of the ranking, although we don’t actually know if any of those here in 1788 were descended from the first Homo Sapiens to arrive on this land, and someone who became a citizen last week is bottom. None of that is democratic and all of it is an insult to Australians in general and migrants in particular.

We also have the insanity that someone like Senator Jacinta Price, if the voice gets up, is a superior citizen along with her mother and her sons, and her father and husband are inferior citizens, despite the fact they all live the same sorts of lives.  Would a Yes vote mean that in divorce situations the parent with some Aboriginal ancestry gets greater rights over any children? It could, because nothing has been spelled out. And it is an important question because most Australians with aboriginal ancestry are in mixed marriages. In fact, we have more than two centuries of intermarriage which is why most Australians with Aboriginal ancestry are more Anglo-European than anything else. This fact alone is a testament to the lack of racism in Australia.

Analysis of the 2006 census reveals that 52% of Aboriginal men and 55% of Aboriginal women were married to non-Aboriginal Australians. In Australia's larger east coast cities, the intermarriage rate was well above 70%; in Sydney, as many as nine out of 10 university-educated Aborigines had a non-indigenous partner.

But, with the shocking dysfunction and violence in Aboriginal communities, that position also raises the question, since the entire group is deemed to be in need of this voice, of whether or not any amount of Aboriginal ancestry predisposes to serious dysfunction or inferior function at best. We know that is not the case because the majority of Australians with aboriginal ancestry, now numbering around 900,000 because we allow people to register as ‘native’ even with truly trivial amounts of Aboriginal ancestry, are doing fine. They have the same sorts of lives and outcomes as other Australians, experience no Gap and are as successful as the average and often more so. We see it in the fact that with the inflated numbers for Aboriginality, those with such ancestry make up around 3% of the population and yet are represented in State and Federal Parliaments at nearly 5%. These are the minimals who are fully assimilated into the modern world and broader community and who have been for generations in most cases.

They have absolutely nothing in common with those struggling in tribal/clan communities for the simple and tragic fact, they are the least assimilated into the modern world, and instead remain trapped in backward and violent aboriginal tribal clan systems. This group of urban elites do not speak as one because they are descended from different tribal/clan groups. In fact their only capacity to speak as one is in English as Australians. Neither do they speak as one in communities, riven as they are by familial and tribal/clan divisions. As far as many in tribal communities are concerned, these Aborigine Lites are whitefellas. Anyone who thinks that Linda Burnie, Marcia Langton, Ken Wyatt, Lidia Thorpe or Noel Pearson live the same sorts of lives as those in Aboriginal communities needs to think again.

So, we do not have one voice among those who have been elected to Parliament despite them all having some Aboriginal ancestry. We do not have one voice in each Aboriginal community and we certainly do not have one voice from all communities, let alone from every single Australian who has registered themselves as native. And yet we are being asked to change our constitution, betray our democracy and introduce racism into our society by voting for a voice which does not exist and which will never exist. 

How could it? In 1788 there were between 350-500 different groups, most not even big enough to be tribes, but instead, family clans, without a common language and generally at war with each other. They were descended from waves of migration across 40,000 years with the most recent thought to be the arrival of colonists from southern India, who brought their native dog with them which became the Dingo. Did those stone-age peoples eradicate anyone they found in their path, apart perhaps from a few useful females? Probably, for that was the way of it in the times. In a modern democracy 40,000 or 4,000 years are no more important than 40 years or 4 weeks, for that is the nature of the system.

In Aboriginal communities the clans are still at war with each other and as Noel Pearson recently demonstrated with his attack on Mick Gooda, there is infighting even with the elites. If the urban Aborigine Lites are at war with each other what hope is there of a voice even from this mob?

And there are many notable Australians with Aboriginal ancestry like Senator Jacinta Price, Anthony Dillon and Warren Mundine who are firmly in the No camp. There is no unity even among those who are well educated and highly successful in Australian society. And yet we are being told that Australians with aboriginal ancestry, codename indigenous, need to speak with one voice and this needs to be written into our Constitution, a document which is meant to represent each of us equally. It would not even represent Australians with aboriginal ancestry equally because there is no unity and there is no one voice. Never was, never will be.

Meanwhile, with nothing clarified or spelled out in terms of this voice,  Australians can only sift through the propaganda and snippets of information, apply common sense and try to avoid making a serious error of judgement which our children and grandchildren will inherit to their terrible cost.

On something as important as our Constitution and our democracy, ‘she’ll be right mate, ’just doesn’t cut it. When you don’t know then vote NO.