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.
Rothwell’s article deserves the closest scrutiny for its detailed presentation of this plan and indication of how its exponents look at matters and/or want Australians to look at them. Needless to say, it steers well clear of examining the case against ‘constitutional’ recognition. The rest of this analysis will merely comment on a few striking points. Extracts from Rothwell’s piece are given in italics.
‘Today’s proponents of a new referendum hope their proposals for constitutional reform also may have the potential to bring about a revolutionary change in the social landscape.’
Yes, revolution in the mode of France 1789, China 1911 and Russia 1917 is the threat this campaign contains.
‘Levelling the playing field, of giving equal rights to Aboriginal Australians…..the  referendum proposal incarnated the core Australian legend: it was a chance to say yes to equality, to fairness, mateship trumped prejudice…’
The core Australian legend is not egalitarianism or even ‘mateship’: it is the transplantation of British culture and civilisation, founded in Christianity, in a new land. This project has been successful; now sinister forces wish to end it, so evidently they perceive it as a danger to their own interests.
‘But the most far-reaching downstream result of the 1967 referendum…was the coming of native title, established by the ruling of the High Court in the Mabo case in June 1992….. Native title was accepted on the basis of a much deeper principle: the concept of pre-existing Aboriginal law and tenure. At a stroke it… made the nation, by legal judgement, into an occupying settler-state.’
There is good reason to believe that the Mabo decision was a case of thoroughly unjustified judicial adventurism (see The High Court of Australia in Mabo by the Hon Peter Connolly QC and Mr S.E.K. Hulme QC, two papers delivered to the Samuel Griffith Society, The Association of Mining & Exploration Companies, WA, 1993). Australia is not, in 2017, an ‘occupying settler-state’ but a thoroughly sovereign nation enjoying de jure status. The attempt to browbeat us into resigning that hard-won status by pseudo-moral argumentation needs to be unequivocally resisted. Rothwell argues that after Paul Keating’s one-sided Redfern Speech in 1992 there has been ‘a shadow’ over our nation ‘that requires and demands expiation.’ Such is untrue but is part of a confidence trick being attempted upon us.
‘Positive views on Aboriginal questions now became tokens of a general world view… at once progressive and revisionist, enlightened and free from the vulgar trappings of self-interest.’
On the contrary, the self-interest of various Aboriginal activists and groups is blindingly obvious; that of the power behind them is not so easy to identify, but how else is one to explain the compliance of the major media and most politicians?.
Rothwell does not identify the obvious manipulation of definitions of ‘Aboriginality’ since the time of the first Whitlam government (as chronicled in Peter B. English’s 1985 book Land Rights – Birth Rights); nor does he consider that this might have been planned deliberately to create the present situation where Aboriginals are 3 per cent of our population and activists (not necessarily representative of most Aboriginals) are preparing a nationwide ‘resistance programme’ (which could lead to bloodshed and even civil war).
Nor does Rothwell analyse properly the complex question of ‘Aboriginal identity’; but it is clear that many ‘Aboriginals’ are really only part-Aboriginals and thus do not have the ‘moral high ground’ claimed for them or the ‘entitlements’ they claim.
A further omission by Rothwell concerns the ‘expert panel’ set up by the Gillard government in 2010 to ‘build consensus’ and the current 16-member Referendum Council established to advise on steps to a ‘successful’ referendum. Rothwell does not admit that these committees were stacked with advocates of change and cannot possibly be regarded as impartial. The same objection can be made to his discussion of Recognise, the government-funded body working towards a ‘yes’ result.
Rothwell also notes that the 12 recent ‘Aboriginal led and managed’ ‘First Nations meetings’ organised by the Referendum Council were organised on the basis of limitation of participants to ‘100 by invitation only’, which clearly suggests (he does not notice this) further stacking of discussions to arrive at a pre-planned result. The unrepresentative nature of such gatherings is obvious.
Good news is that Rothwell admits that Australians generally are losing interest in Aboriginal claims and are much more likely to vote ‘no’ than they did in 1967. He fails, however, to admit that this might be because their eyes have been opened somewhat to the nefarious nature of this brazen attempt to steal away their sovereignty and security. Despite this, every thoughtful and patriotic Australian should speak out strongly against ‘constitutional’ recognition. We cannot afford to be complacent.