The ongoing campaign for ‘constitutional’ recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is an enormous and dangerous scam, no matter how idealistic or not its various proponents are. An attempt to work a vast fraud on the Australian people is in progress; and it is difficult not to believe that there is a ‘third party’, financially and thus politically powerful, behind the whole adventure.

     This critical situation became even more apparent in a huge article in The Australian (20-21 May), ‘Renewing the Faith of 67’ by Nicolas Rothwell, journalist, authority on Aboriginal affairs and long-time advocate for ‘constitutional’ recognition. Although this article is far from impartial and thus genuinely comprehensive, it gives a useful summary of the moves towards ‘Aboriginal sovereignty’ (and thus future national division) since the 1967 referendum. It shows (unintentionally) that a clear pattern emerges of a long-term plan to destabilise the Australian nation, just as former communist Geoff McDonald predicted in his 1982 book Red Over Black.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Australia has badly needed for some time the statement on 'constitutional' recognition provided by Greg Sheridan ('Misguided, squeamish liberals are failing Aborigines', 25/5). Yes, any such recognition is fundamentally unjust as well as being nationally divisive. While Sheridan is right to object to the one-sided government campaign in support of this misguided project, the Liberals are by no means the only culprits. What about the foolish idealists of the left who have learned nothing from their predecessors' contribution to the disaster that is Zimbabwe? And what about external enemies only too eager to weaken our nation in pursuit of their own ambitions? 
NJ, Belgrave, Vic   

to THE AGE
     The great majority of Australians are unlikely to endorse 'constitutional' recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, no matter what formula is produced at the  Uluru meeting ('Call to be bold on recognition', 25/5). This is because it is so obviously against the national interest as a whole. We are not willing to yield the sovereignty of any part of our nation to a very small ethnic group, no matter what their ancestry or the past sufferings of their ancestors during dispossession.

     Thus, their talk of 'indigenous sovereignty' at once arouses our opposition. So do demands that 'substantive change' must 'tell the truth about history.' We insist on maintaining open debate on all aspects of human history. Moreover, the current public debate in the media is not doing justice to non-Aboriginal Australians. A good example is the extraordinary assertion by Cheryl Saunders ('Constitutional recognition is a work in progress', 24/5) that the question of the meaning of recognition 'can only be answered by those being recognised.' Those doing the recognising have rights too!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic   

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs.
This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

    I am taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to decisions made by the meeting of more than 250 community leaders forming the Indigenous Referendum Council (or as they call it ‘the 2017 National Constitutional Convention’ held at Uluru this week.

     The Referendum Council grew out of the multi-million dollar federally funded Recognise organisation formed to gather support for the “recognise” (in the Australian Constitution) movement.

to THE AGE
     There is no just and equitable path to any form of ‘constitutional’ recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, if the interests of other Australians (the great majority) are to be taken into account as well. The key proposals of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (‘Summit calls for Indigenous voice, a path to treaty’, 27/5) need to be firmly rejected. Ideally, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should politely respond by saying that they are unacceptable to Australians as a whole, so that no referendum on them will be arranged.

     What has happened is that a very small minority of Australians who, while sharing indigenous heritage, also in many cases share non-indigenous heritage too, are trying to secure unjustified advantages for themselves. It is not even certain that the participants at the all-indigenous convention truly represented Aboriginals as a whole. The Uluru proposals will not win in a referendum; and our politicians must be told that no introduction of them through Parliament without a referendum is acceptable.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     It is reasonable for our media to have an ‘Anglo-Saxon/European focus’ as in their news presentation of the Manchester bombing (Letters, 26/5), because we are a nation with predominantly British origins and because a majority of our citizens have some British ancestry. One can approve of this coverage and yet also feel indignation at the West’s violent intrusions in the Middle East.
     A different area of imbalance concerns the campaign for Aboriginal ‘constitutional’ recognition. Almost daily we read of the latest pronouncements on this by Aboriginal spokespeople. Why is so little comment on the proposal by ordinary Australians opposed to its injustice and potentiality for national division appearing in our media? The Anglo-Saxon/European bias is nowhere to be seen!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Indigenous business leader Sean Gordon appears to be correct in stating (‘1967 did not change indigenous lives: CEO’, 16/5) that the campaign for ‘reconciliation’ and constitutional recognition has ‘weakened’. This is because it is becoming clearer that the whole operation is against the interests of Australians generally. Respect for our Aboriginal culture and affection for the Aboriginal people as prior occupants of the continent before European settlement is widespread in our nation and rightly so; but self-interested special pleading by a very small group that will take Australia towards constitutional disunity and eventual political partition is thoroughly on the nose, as it should be.

     Moreover, Gordon should note that it does not matter what our politicians may have already decided, the issue will ultimately be decided by the entire Australian people at referendum; any attempt to disenfranchise us in this context would be bitterly resisted.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The assertions of a couple of eminent citizens on constitutional recognition (‘Conservatives back “tangible” change model’, 17/5) are unlikely to change the views of the great mass of conservative Australians, who in any referendum will not support any proposal, ‘minimalist’ or ‘substantive’, that threatens the political unity of our nation and which is fundamentally inequitable.
     We keep seeing it from republicans; now we see it from advocates of constitutional recognition: intensely uttered assertions quite unsupported by convincing analysis and reasoning. What fools Australians will be if they allow either noisy group to disrupt the peace and security of our continent and nation! Adequate recognition can and does occur without any dangerous tampering with the constitution.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic  

    An article that was mentioned briefly before in these pages, needs to be remembered: https://cairnsnews.org/2015/09/25/dreamtime-a-cruel-delusion-of-british-anthropologists/. The article makes the argument that following anthropologist Alfred Cort Haddon’s book, The Races of Man (1909), the Aborigines are likely to be new comers, compared to a Negrito people who allegedly originally inhabited the country. Pre-1770 explorers such as William Dampier who visited West and Northern Australia in the late 1600s saw these people. He described a race of people with hair “curled like the Negroes,” which the modern Aborigine does not have. The Aborigines may displaced them, for where else could they have gone?

    Anyone supporting this theory will need to address arguments such as that given by R. Tobler (et al.), “Aboriginal Mitogenomes Reveal 50,000 Years of Regionalism in Australia,” Nature, (2017); doi:10.1038/nature21416, which allegedly found “evidence for the continuous presence of populations in discrete geographic areas dating back to around 50 [thousand years], in agreement with the notable Aboriginal Australian cultural attachment to their country.”

I imagine the local globalists, certainly from the Liberals, have nightmares something like being in a great nationalist amusement park, and sliding down a slippery slope into a giant Hanson-like face, with large engulfing mouth and big teeth. Or, thereabouts.

The Australian (February 27, 2017, p. 1), reports “Libs Slide as Voters Turn to Hanson.” The latest Newspoll is all bad news for hyper-capitalist globalist, Mal Turnbull, as the government, if it can be called that, trials Labor 45 to 55 percent in two part terms. People who have had enough have pushed One Nation to 10 percent of the primary vote. This is double the party’s support since November 2016, when, to rub it in their faces again, Donald J. Trump defeated globalist candidate, Hillary Clinton. Can I say it again: Hillary lost!

The Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, has invalidated a series of native title land-use agreements across the country. (The Australian, February 8, 2017, p. 1).

The decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10, which overrules QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave (No. 2) [2010] FCA 1019, threatens mines, gas fields, agricultural projects and other infrastructure projects, with thousands of jobs at stake by the invalidation of around 200 agreements. The decision is set to be used against the $ 16 billion Carmichael coalmine in central Queensland.

To The Age
The proposal for significant change to our marriage law is not just 'a straightforward reform about fairness', as Alex Greenwich claims ('Momentum builds for MP free vote', 6/2). There are subtle issues concerning religious liberty and the welfare of children which need to be carefully considered, so that the slogan 'marriage equality' is simplistic and misleading.

The Prime Minister is right that 'this issue should be determined by a vote of every Australian in a plebiscite.' It is too important to be decided by a so-called 'free vote' by MPs, most of whom hold their seats thanks to their party membership, not their personal views on marriage law. It will be a disgrace if the Government allows itself to be swayed by a poll organised by an interested group.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Alice Springs councillor and daughter of former Aboriginal MP Bess Price, recently had this to say about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the culture of political correctness:

“Political correctness is a set of rules that governs the way in which we use language about, or towards, minority groups so as not to offend them. Oddly, people of Caucasian backgrounds are exempt from this protection. They are fair game... .
If a non-Aboriginal person attempts to address any of these issues [of Aboriginal poverty and dysfunction] and an Aboriginal person is offended, they can simply call out “racist” and the debate is shut down...
What, then, are the non-Aboriginal people to do in order to address any issues their Aboriginal or ethnic loved ones are facing? How are they supposed to deal with the issues causing incredible suffering to their fellow Australians who happen not to be white?
I believe 18C invalidates the idea that we are all human and hold differing opinions. It denies basic human nature that allows us critical thinking and the means to learn and grow. It is absurd that 18C ever became legislation...
The Racial Discrimination Act has made many who identify as indigenous believe they are exempt from its provisions. That they can’t be racist and therefore they feel free to insult, offend and humiliate whomever they please. They do it to white people and they do it to other Aboriginal people who refuse to follow the “party line”.
In Alice Springs a member of the public is far more likely to be randomly assaulted, physically or verbally, if they are perceived as “white” rather than “black”. Grossly offensive racist insults are used liberally in the streets of Alice Springs against white people. I have walked the streets of this town with my white friends to protect them from this sort of thing. But there have been no complaints under 18C, which is not seen as a protection of the rights of Australians generally. White Australians feel intimidated, not protected, by this act.
Both my mother (a senior Warlpiri woman and former minister of the crown) and I have been vilified in obscene sexist and racist terms by somebody who described themselves as an indigenous activist, because we refuse to be told what to think and say. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been called a coconut and much worse.
We have not once been insulted in racist terms by white people, not as far as we know. And if that happens we know how to defend ourselves. We aren’t victims, we aren’t afraid to stand up for our people and ourselves.
Our people are suffering and their problems are daunting and complex. We will not find the answers if we are denied the right to take part in an open and honest debate.
We can’t do that without offending those who are ideologically committed to the party line that has been laid down by the activists of the eastern cities and their white allies.
They are educated, speak English and know how to use the system against anybody with whom they disagree. We speak for the most marginalised, those whom the education system has failed, who are often illiterate and don’t speak standard English.
It is not just the white people who are closed down, it’s also the most marginalised and least powerful of the Aboriginal population who are denied a voice by the self-appointed spokespeople who know nothing of the circumstances in which they live. The agenda is controlled by an English-speaking Aboriginal middle class ignorant of the values and issues of those who live remotely.
The Racial Discrimination Act’s 18C treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can’t speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non-Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us, especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.
White people are not game to speak out. That should never be allowed to happen in a democracy.
The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.
We have an absolute right to find our own solutions, to find our own way forward out of this misery without being vilified by those who claim to be on our side and claim to speak for us.”

Australia Day, January 26, is basically the Aussie equivalent of America’s Fourth of July. It is called “Invasion Day” by the usual university types, leftoids and radical Left Aboriginalists. In Sydney this year, a man tried to burn the Australian flag, and violence erupted with protestors duplicating Black Lives matter-style battles with police. See the action shots here: http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/violence-at-invasion-day-protest-in-sydney/news-story/5501ab73659c57e2a2936cf24eaac591

The protestors see Australia as an illegitimate nation, founded on invasion (which makes most nations illegitimate), a “day of killing” and of “genocide” which is “still going on today.” It seems that the majority of the protestors were whites, as we have come to expect from the 1960s on, the offspring of those who committed genocide.
Should they therefore engage in acts of “self-punishment” as comfortable US academics have advised their students, while these academics sit back and feel morally superior? Should they emigrate from Australia, and to where? Should all of the infrastructure and buildings in Australia be levelled and an attempt made to return the land to what it might have been prior to European settlement? Or should the white liberals just wait for Australia to fall into communist China, so that a really good society is created, as they see it? It is hard to work out their demands beyond the baby elites’ desire for violence and assaulting police. And in a few years’ time, these folk will rule us, no doubt growing up and becoming globalists. Better to follow Trump and dish out 10-year gaol terms, to put the evil day off.

The standard reference to 40,000 years for the alleged first Aboriginal settlement of the landmass that would come to be called “Australia” by the British keeps getting pushed further back into pre-history, according to mainstream and less than mainstream archaeology. I have heard a 75,000 year figure: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/dna-confirms-aboriginal-culture-one-of-earths-oldest/.  On the net, various groups even go so far as to claim that Aboriginal Australians are 400,000 years old: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australian-aboriginal-history-timeline.

There is an interesting paper about this at: http://thestringer.com.au/homo-sapien-sapiens-originated-in-australia-not-out-of-africa-dna-evidence-5938#.WD4nV4N95aQ.
See also: http://humansarefree.com/2014/08/the-first-human-race-came-from.html.
The logical conclusion of all of this is that modern humans did not arise in Africa, as the “Out-of-Africa” anti-race hypothesis posits, but arose in Australia!

Some media statements by notable people need to be quoted rather than paraphrased for the full impact to hit. Thus, consider Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s comments about the “racist” ABC (The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 1) in the context of Paul Keating’s promising reforms which had been:

“Wrecked by ignorant ministers and malign bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the media, not the least the country’s miserable, racist national broadcaster.” The ABC was “a spittoon’s worth of perverse people willing the wretched to fail.”

It seems likely that there will be an appeal lodged in the QUT student case. (The Australian, November 22, 2016, pp. 1, 6) The case has been widely condemned as one that should never have got as far as it did, but now it could proceed to trial. At stake here is the freedom to say anything, because the student comment that the indigenous computer lab was “segregation,” is surely a legitimate, basic, political comment that does not touch section 18 C. The other student comment about where the “white supremacist computer lab is,” is also a legitimate, basic, political comment, if there is any, repeat any, free speech in Australia at all.

The Human Rights Commission claims that it has examined whether section 18 C and the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are consistent, and has concluded that there is no conflict because free speech is “not an absolute and unfettered right.” But neither are the multicult “rights” behind section 18 C which give carte blanche legal power to offended ethnics for hurt feelings. The point is that section 18 C completely erodes all free speech worth having as the QUT/student case well demonstrates.

To The Australian
Noel Pearson's hagiography of Paul Keating is unconvincing ('A visionary of power', 22/11). It ignores the fact that the Australian people soon recognised, within one term of government, that their country was being led in the wrong direction by Keating. They chose as replacement a much greater prime minister and re-elected him several times.

Pearson's potted account of the 'three defining moments' of our history is misleading. Australia is first and fundamentally a British nation. The facts that long ago people crossed the Torres Strait land bridge and that there has been much non-British immigration in the last half century do not affect this truth.  Keating attacked the prime foundation stone of our British culture - the Australian monarchy. Australians didn't buy that and they won't buy the current 'reconciliation' campaign - really a hypocritical power grab - either.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic                  

To The Age
Louise Adler correctly says that the best cartoonists 'make us reflect on our prejudices and blind spots' ('It's no laughing matter', 22/11). However, she is on less secure ground in bluntly asserting that 'in a civil society racism or sexism is deemed unacceptable' and that legislation such as 18C 'serves as an educative tool and a moral compass for a decent society'.

One problem is that opinions differ on what is or is not sexist or racist. Adler's phrase 'moral compass' tends to suggest that all good people see things the same way. They don't. Another problem is that, as a matter of fact, laws against racial hatred and vilification have been used in many countries to achieve political censorship. Perhaps oversensitivity to alleged slurs is one of Adler's blind spots.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic