From Recognition to Racial Separatism: Neo-Apartheidism by Ian Wilson LL.B.

Apart from the philosophical implications of section 18 C, from a legal perspective, I am concerned about the consequences of a successful “Yes” vote from the constitutional recognition of Aborigines. This issue is pushed as a big social justice issue, like same sex marriage, and dissents are slammed for disagreeing. Probably discrimination law will be used to silence any critics, because that is the real reason the elites put it in place.

hus it is good to see social critic Keith Windschuttle speaking up. (The Weekend Australian, October 22-23, 2016, p. 20), saying: “Australia as we know it will not survive the agenda of those seeking greater autonomy.” The aim of many, if not most, in the Aboriginal movement, is not to make the constitution complete, but to “get their country back,” and he quotes the title of a recent book on this, It’s Our Country, to illustrate the thought processes. The aim is political autonomy and sovereignty, traditional law in their own separate nation. It is not explained how all of this fits in with multiculturalism and Asianisation, but no doubt, as I see it, China will work all of this out for “us” in the future.

The Aboriginalists argue that Aboriginal sovereignty was never extinguished because they signed no treaty and were never conquered, so “as the first landowners they remain the continent’s sovereign people.” The issue of sovereignty arose in many submissions to the Gillard government’s expert panel on constitutional recognition and the “sovereignty status’ issue is held by numerous Aboriginal organisations and communities, Windschuttle says. He quotes leading Aboriginalists who support the sovereignty position and support a separate Aboriginal nation, “local indigenous sovereignty.” That way the Aboriginal state won’t have to worry about putting together a defence force, because it could enjoy such benefits, presumably including social welfare and health care, from Australia, while having the relative autonomy of a state of their own.

Windschuttle quotes a 2011 survey by the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples that found that 88 per cent of members believed that constitutional recognition and Aboriginal sovereignty were a top priority.

So where will the new Aboriginal nation be? Apparently, everywhere, with all existing Aboriginal clan associations and language groups being “first nations.” All existing native title claims will be fast tracked and accepted. That is, a total of 851,654 square kilometres of Australia, with, Windschuttle notes, native title existing non-exclusively over another 1,488, 237 square kilometres of land: 2,339,890 square kilometres of land or 30.4 per cent of the entire country!!! He notes that claims not yet determined could add another 31.7 per cent of Australia to that, over 60 percent of Australia.
As I see it, if Australia is to break up, then Anglo-Australia should have its own ethno-state, primarily of traditionalist people. Let the trendies form their own state, which soon enough will collapse leading to natural selection sorting things out.

However, in the meantime, it is the duty of all traditionalist to oppose the recognition campaign. It does not matter how old you are, whether you can walk or not. Talking is enough. Try and talk to everybody you know about why they should vote “NO.” Yes, the system is “rigged’ and the “Yes” side will, with government blessing and your money, attempt to push this through. So take a stand and fight this! Make wining this battle the crowning glory in your life. Pick up the phone now and get busy!