In another article I refer to the movement which is getting underway now for a treaty and truth commission, after the failure of the Voice referendum. As documented below, the prime minister is going right ahead with this agenda. I have said that the treaty will be pushed by legislation, as is being done in the states in America, such as California. A Truth Inquisition would be easy to set up. It would be a disaster for so-called reconciliation, as it by definition will champion the black arm band view of history, that the nation of Australia is illegitimate, being founded upon genocide and dispossession, as was seen in the Uluru Statement from the heart.

The real battle now lies ahead, so get ready, the time of celebration comes to a close.

I have said that after the defeat of the Voice, which seemed to be likely by the polls, that the globalist elites will not be stopping with a defeat in the referendum. That means that the constitutional road to their agenda is closed for maybe ten years. Thus, they proceed with Plan B, the treaty and South Africa style Truth Commission. This issue will be covered in another article where we can see the prime minister supporting this idea. Independent senator and progressive No vote campaigner Lidia Thorpe has said that indigenous Australians need truth telling and treaty. We will see that some leading lights from the No side who opposed the Voice will be coming out to support a treaty. As in the United States, this will be pushed through by legislation, unless met by massive public opposition. Time to start organising is now; we can defeat it once more!

The response of the Left to the Voice referendums failure has been covered today at the Alor.org blog, but for the record, here is material from the Left Guardian.com, that has everything, just to show that we are not making this stuff up! Voting against the Voice is an act of denial of the guilt of the past that whites must carry. For example: “It was vitriolic, mean-spirited, full of misinformation, driven by racism, petty grievances and conspiracy theories based on fear and ignorance. The referendum became by proxy a vote on Indigenous peoples’ right to exist in our own land – and our fellow Australians voted to reject us.”

No, the vote was about a specific constitutional proposal, not whether Australians believed that indigenous people had a right to exist. How exactly today has anything changed to threaten such a right? I imagine that those who have the liberty to have jobs hitting computer keyboards and getting paid for it, still are? So, where is the existential threat?

Their ABC must be hurting deeply after the Voice defeat. These types of elites when they face disappointments, like to over-think events, so they have featured a professional sociologist to tell us all that university educated people tended to vote Yes. The other mob, presumably uneducated by these standards, go for the more primitive No side. According to the sociologist: “it's been shown in other situations, where people who are more cosmopolitan and globally oriented are likely to be supportive of something like this, as they were in relationship to the same-sex marriage plebiscite."

Here is what really needs to be done now the voice referendum farce has ended in a pile of ashes for the Yes mob. As proposed by leading No campaigner Warren Mundine, the time for accountability has come. As he says, billions have been spent on the indigenous communities each year, but where is the money actually going, and does it really get spent the way the books may say? “There are programs that have done good work. There are other programs that have gone backwards. So we’ve got to really focus on how we are spending our money and getting the outcomes we need, working with the people on the ground.”

I would really like to know as well where  my tax payer dollars go, since I have to be subjected to all the black arm band guilt from the cultural elites. Am I getting bang for my buck? I certainly am getting abuse for my use!

One thing that is clear in the aftermath of the Voice referendum, is that indigenous people have been used in the political game played by the elites. The prime minister asked No campaign leader Senator Price whether indigenous people in the Northern Territory voted for No. The senator did not know at the time, but we can answer now, that 60.5 percent of NT people voted No. There are some remote communities that voted Yes, but, in a democracy, small minorities doe not dictate results. And Senator Price had some harsh words about how voters in those remote communities may have been treated: “One thing that I do know is the way in which Indigenous people in remote communities are exploited for the purpose of somebody else’s agenda,” she said.

“I think going ahead we probably need to look at the way in which the AEC, the NTEC [Northern Territory Electoral Commission] conduct themselves when it comes to remote polling and elections at referendums.

So, after the Voice defeat we are going to witness a week of silence, a symbolic mourning and grieving by the Yes side of the Voice referendum. It is not just those indigenous activists who supported the Voice, but apparently the prime minister as well is going to button his lip. We will see if he can do this; my bet is that he will speak, then say, no, the time of silence has not yet started. Then he speaks again, to play the blame game, and will reset the clock of guilt once more. Forever, or until he loses in a leadership challenge.

The claim that the No vote was a rejection of reconciliation is nonsense, since the referendum as never about that, with the issue of reconciliation being way down the list. And I would argue, that the entire idea of reconciliation should be rejected for the historical absurdity that it is:

A great substack post by blogger Steven Reason, gives the main reason why the Voice was so dangerous, and why the elites are still pressing ahead with their agenda for a treaty and South African style truth commission. As he notes, the UN globalists have been using the indigenous people, through the 2007 “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),” as pawns in their quest with Agenda 2030, to forge a technocratic New World Order, under their control.

AS he eloquently puts it: “They were coming for our farmlands, rural regions, forests, coastlines, river-ways, resources, livestock, harvests, precious minerals and metals — and then they would eventually abolish our private land rights by repatriating all our land to themselves via the decoy of the “Indigenous.” They were intending on “closing the gap” by systematically regressing Australia into a de-industrialised failed-nation. Rather than raising up the living standards of the underprivileged, these Globalists are striving to impose a pathological sense of “egalitarianism.” They envision a world in which all Global Citizens are rendered “equal” — that is, equally impoverished, and equally enslaved, as the First World is collapsed to replicate the abysmal conditions of the Third World: hence, equal.”

Dissent blogger Alison Bevege describes her experience, and my experience as well at the polling booth last Saturday. There were a couple of us No people to man the station all day, while the Yes side had an endless supply of eager liberal Left whites to make their attempt to bury traditional Australia; I did not see any indigenous people on their team. And, as Alison details, the Yes side represented Big Business Australia, the global corporate elites, and every other group, such as the so-called intellectuals, and New Class, who like vultures, were circling, waiting their time.

And, despite it all, the elites lost! The reasons are detailed in other posts at the blog today, but what I heard from the No voters whom I spoke with, there was no details about what they were voting for; the voters were deliberately kept in the dark, like the proverbial mushrooms. The prime minster was asking people to trust him with a blank cheque giving the Labor Party the power to make, who knows what laws. People did not buy it, having been hood winked over the Covid vax, and good for us! This I my opinion alone, but I would not buy a used car from the prime minister, let alone a used ideology.

The prime minster, basking in the glory of his defeat, asked Senator Price, who led the No campaign, how she thought Aboriginal Australians voted. She did not directly answer the question, as the polls were not yet in at that level of detail. Well, we can tell you now. First, are the poll results from the seats with the largest indigenous populations, delivering a resounding NO: Lingiari NT, 63 percent; Durack WA, 79 percent; Leichhardt Qld 65 percent; Parkes NSW 79 percent and Kennedy Qld 79 percent.

How about at the territory level? Of course, these votes only count towards the national total, but we have with a high indigenous population, NT 64.4 percent to No, while the only territory delivering Yes, was the enclave of white New Class elites in the ACT of 37.8 percent. So, once more this conforms that the Voice referendum was an act of the New Class, not the indigenous people.

Rebekah Barnett gives her take on the Voice referendum, taking the No side. She responds to the week of silence that the indigenous radicals have called for, and which the prime minister is apparently granting too, which I think could be in some ways a good thing, not to hear them all for a week. Could they extend it to a month, or how about, forever? Not discriminatory; all of them, of all colours, need to give it a rest, especially the prime minister. Enough of this ear-bashing and black arm band woes.

Anyway, the statement by the indigenous elites is "Recognition in the constitution of the descendants of the original and continuing owners of Australia would have been a great advance for Australians. Alas, the majority have rejected it." But as she points out, this was not what the referendum was about. It was to write into the constitution a whole new chapter that would create the Voice body, and all the laws necessary for its operation. There was constitutional law debate about just how far this power would go, whether there would be any limits to it at all. Barnett goes into detail for those interested in the division that existed even within the indigenous communities over this referendum. And even if they all supported it, it would have still been right to reject it for all the reasons given by the No side in the debate, and summarised at the Alor.org blog throughout the long and winding road of the so-called debate. They would simply have been wrong!

With all the over-the-top woke things going on in the UK, it is perhaps no surprise to learn that George Orwell, author of 1984, is being cancelled as well. The leading early critic of the technocracy, falling to the technocracy! That is not irony, but to be expected, as the elites want to eliminate anything that might allow the masses the imagination for resistance. The attack upon Orwell, for the moment is upon his person, that he was a "sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic and sometimes violent" person, but expect more to come.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ministry-bullst-tries-cancel-orwell-telegraph-follows-orwellian-formula

This is how far the UK has gone down the woke highway to hell. The British Labour party is planning to make Misgendering someone a crime, when it takes office. It will because politics is always, hit them with the Left, then sucker punch them with the Right. This will be done once more by adding to the already draconian hate laws. Misgendering will be on the same level as assault or harassment motivated by race or religion, which is two years in prison.

Even George Orwell, who is also being cancelled, did not dream of this, nor any of he pre-World War II social critics. It is beyond the theatre of the absurd.

Doctor Walid Farhat, chief of paediatric urology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health, has stated that research about the impacts of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers is “severely lacking.” The claims were made in a grant application. He argued that ““lack of information” is being used to deny hormone therapy to minors. Farhat claimed that the “politicization of conversations about transgender identities is having a negative impact” on “transgender, nonbinary, and/or gender-diverse” adolescents as well as “impaired open and honest discussions about the best ways to support transgender children and adolescents.””

Be that as it may, the claim about the lack of scientific knowledge about the effects of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers is revealing since the trans agenda is based upon the idea that given the social construction of sex/gender, these alterations are not a problem. But, that is not know at present, yet the policies change on.

Dr Mercola, at a now deleted post, has given a fine one-stop shop overview of all of the parts of the globalists’ plan for a New World Order technocracy, so this discussion is worth preserving in a more open forum.  As usual the United Nations is at the forefront of setting up a world government, with its Sustainable Development goals.

While the goals seem to be about dealing with some sort of global crisis, they are so broadly defined as to be easily used to achieve further social control and power. Thus, the first goal of “no poverty’ leaves open how this is to be achieved, and be sure that they have in mind a vast wealth redistribution from the West to the Third World. The goal to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” involves implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID), as the UN has independently advanced. It will create an even more dystopian world of total control over the individual.

Ben Shapiro, political commentator has said:

““If Israel is forced to the wall, the possibility of nuclear exchange is extremely high.” Today Ben Shapiro told his audience that unless the United States provides material aid to Israel, it could find itself in a scenario where it’s nuking its neighbors.” While that seems shocking, this strategy is exactly the same one held by Russia and China, of using nukes to counter an existential threat.

As an expat, an Aussie living in America, I followed the Voice campaign with intense interest, although the heavy lifting was done by others such as the relentless James Reed at the Alor.org blog. A great effort over many months.

A nice piece was published at American Renaissance by racial realist Gregory Hood. He optimistically sees the decisive No vote as a revolt by traditional white Australia against the elite New Class. There is some truth to that, but he under-estimates the level of whites left in Australia. The Bureau of Statistics won’t tell you, merely rattling Census data, but one’s eyeballs tell the tale of “spot the whitey” in most of the large cities. Multicult Australia had no time for the Voice. Even Western Sydney voted against it. So, maybe this is a turning point for the remaining whites tottering on the abyss of racial dispossession, but we will see.

Steve Cortes has given a conservative critique of the proposal that the US should take in masses of Palestinian refugees. He puts the case for taking in no refugees at all, and his case can be applied directly to other Western countries such as Australia.

America has spent billions aiding the Middle Eastern countries, and they have done little for America. So, the least they can do now is take in their fellow Arabs, whom they support anyway. The other reasons are the crime rate, and potential terrorist acts, as it will be impossible to cull out any terrorists. Terrorists have got into America from the open southern border and they will get in through this proposed refugee program. And, America can’t afford it as most of these people, through no fault of their own, lacking language and technical skills, in an economy already under assault by AI advances, will be sadly unemployed.

While  globalism seems unbeatable, there is a case that globalism will self-destruct, like all other centralists movements have in human history, due to a type of social entropy, for the organisation has critical diseconomies built into its very conceptual framework. One case, extracted below at International Man.com, is that globalism is based around the US, and its power is beginning to collapse. It is challenged by the BRICS countries, and is likely to be exhausted by endless wars, and collapse, if not from internal chaos.

The drop in birth-rates across the West, and advanced countries in Asia, has been explained by an academic examining French history. The argument of Guillaume Blanc, a researcher with the University of Manchester, is that France was further down the path of secularisation than most other countries in Europe, and there was opposition to the dominance of the Catholic Church who were against birth control. When this dominance collapsed, the people were freer to adopt birth control and hence achieve a lower population level.