It's the Voice, try and understand it!
I mentioned the word “Makaratta” to a few University-educated types the other day at the office, asking them what it is. They’d never heard of it, nevermind that it’s mentioned at least twice on the Uluru Statement “1-pager” that’s actually 26 pages. It’s the “treaty” commission that comes after the Voice is enshrined, and will set off all manner of reparations, separate development and other UN-inspired horrors that will divide and enthrall the nation. The idea that the “Voice” ends in some sort of idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia is so laughable, but the average normie quite literally has absolutely no idea what any of this is about, but they get to pat themselves on the back by reminding each other just how virtuous and amazing they are for caring about aboriginals because they truly swallow every bit of mainstream bullshit imaginable.
A few months back I wrote to the Australian Electoral Commission inquiring whether we will be voting on between John Farnham' The Voice and Yothu Yindi's Treaty, I got a serious but bemused reply!
The linking of two consequences to one question is fraudulent and the referendum should not even go forward until it is honesty defined.
My fear is that the corrupt AEC will show a miraculous wing to Yes, and the treasonous fraud will continue to empower the Globalist war against humanity.
Australians fail to realise this is *not* a vote about Aboriginal recognition, but about constitutionally altering how the allegedly 'democractic' process occurs in Australia. Read the amendment! Its 100% about giving the Federal Government MORE POWERS it doesnt currently have, namely, the power to create a new BODY which can only be populated by one racial group and whose functions are utterly undefined. "The Voice," whatever it ends up being, is slated to become Australia's 4th branch of constitutionally-derived power, alongside Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
We need a referendum vote to STRIP power from the last 6 years of accursed governments who brought us the COVAX CON and more besides. They most certainly *do not* deserve more constitutional powers.
When it comes to politics, as in nuclear war, the best outcome is not to play.
Politics is theatre. Maybe it wasn't always, but now it is. Now's the time to go inside the mind and explore, instead of being distracted by the inanity outside of it.
Politicians wouldn't know truth or honour if it fell on them and killed them.
p.s. The Voice is an eternal principle. They're trying to tell everyone to meditate on truth, not find it in political theatre.
Holding politicians - and the corporations that they serve - ought to be held accountable for all the trouble and misery and deaths that they've caused.
However I've lost all faith in the present judiciary system
>and those with a University education
I think they will find the "shy Tory effect" in play amongst the lower-level university mob (Bachelors and Masters). Those who universitymax in the hard sciences at the highest level are a HELL NO and not shy at all about it.
Dear Rebekah, Our Heroine, who brings us the actual deeper truths of current affairs in Australia!
In case you missed it, and thanks to the finding by one of your great readers, Marsha McGuire please have a listen to this Original and her absolutely excellent summary of and warning over the YES Campaign:
IT SAYS IT ALL!
Based on the results so far, I suspect that people are reading your poll question incorrectly (or I am) because I think most people would support recognition in the constitution preamble but certainly not a constitutionally enshrined voice which is a 'blank cheque'.
They already have their own government departments that no other group has, so what do they want? I know, the suppression of the white race. Our Prime Minister, is an intellectual nit-wit. People voted for him.
In a perfect world the Voice could be a positive change. In the real world it is a political ploy that will ensure Labour stays in power for a very long time...
Please note that the rules for passing a referendum are a hard hurdle to jump over.
The rules relating to referendums
Section 128 of the Constitution provides for the ‘mode of altering the Constitution’.
Specifically, it requires:
A law be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament (that is, half or more of all the members of each chamber), or under certain conditions, a law be passed by a majority of either House twice within three months.
The proposal be put to the electors qualified to vote in elections for the House of Representatives between two and six months after the passage of the law.
A majority of Australians vote to approve the change, as a total and in a majority of the six states (this is referred to as the ‘double majority’).
The Constitution leaves the details of the voting process to ‘such manner as the Parliament prescribes’. Accordingly, the Parliament prescribed this via the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Act).
Emboldened by the general acceptance of and passivity before the false pandemic's absurdities and contradictions, even when these were revealed as such, commentators of all stripes now seem to believe they can say anything and the public will fall for it. They're not far wrong, are they?
French clinical psychologist Ariane Bilheran, author of a work on the psychopathology of totalitarianism, has remarked that the individual psyche will accept any sort of official misinformation/disinformation once it has swallowed the big lies of SARS-Cov-2. Chinese videos of people dropping dead in the streets Blind Freddy could see were fakes. Science-fiction "super spreaders" and "asymptomatics". Mass testing, false positives and, hey presto! "cases" by the thousands. The unprecedented lock-down of entire (non-prison) populations. "Safe and effective" experimental gene therapies that neither protected against transmission nor infection nor, contrary to an adjustment of those lies that went unremarked by the hypnotized vaccinated, prevented serious illness or death. An "epidemic of the unvaccinated". Deaths FROM not WITH covid of patients with two, even three comorbidities, or who died in car accidents. A mortality rate less than the annual flu, but millions of modeled deaths that never were and lives never saved by the so-called health measures. Masked mania and hysteria of those who continue to wear the useless, harmful things...
So that now the gormless nonentity who replaced the Wicked Witch of the South Seas as New Zealand's Prime Minister has the temerity to claim that the fellow-citizens his government blackmailed into being vaccinated or lose their jobs were given a choice. Hobson's! Worse, he may actually believe it. And here's Aussie PM Elbow recycling the tactic we've seen used time and again over the past three years - the flinging accusations of "extreme right-wing", "antisemitic" or "conspiracy theorist" at anyone who questions the narrative of the moment. But seriously: "Q-Anon"? Elbow's choice of this dried- and worn-out foreign mud (likely a psy-op orchestrated by US government intelligence agents) only shows his arrogant complacency. He KNOWS he can spout any old Q-anonsense and be applauded by the same bien pensants/useful idiots currently hypnotized by Woke, Trans and Climate.
Woke Aboriginal militants and lawyers, and the Cobble Cobble Woman professor, have grasped that in post-Truth times when Reality is abolished they have a golden opportunity to advance their project. And who can blame them? That they refer to themselves as "mob" I find curiously apropos and ironic. For it's as one big MOB, in the general pejorative sense of the word, that we are all of us being herded, black and white. And even were they to obtain some semblance or illusion of historical and social justice, it would surely be perverted and brought to naught by the imminent transformation of Australia and the rest of the industrialized world into a network of globally governed, fascist non-states, where the rule of law, including tribal/traditional law, will be entirely absent, and no one, black or white, will be "welcome in country".
From Igor's blog I've begun pulling this more together, beginning...
Indigenous people identify on every political line. The political party "Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP)" has a strong Indigenous contingent. I think they (accidentally?) set fire to Old Parliament House at anti-vax protest during the mandates, but perhaps that was agent provocateurs. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/31/old-parliament-house-fire-protesters-linked-to-anti-vaccine-and-conspiracy-groups
Also described here as "Far-Right Provocateurs" :D https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/far-right-provocateurs-have-descended-upon-old-parliament-house/
So, the Far Left Indigenous are with the Global Marxists pushing The Voice. And Pfizer is out in front supporting The Voice.
And the Indigenous being demonised as "Far Right" are protesting alongside with the anti-vax.
When the community Indigenous came out in video against forced vaccination I didn't see Left Wing twitter show any interest in their voice. You'd think that the people pushing The Voice would be listening, but they're 'our way or the highway'. .
The people running The Voice have a political ideology that is not interested in NON-COMPLIANT voices.
Tell me The Voice isn't part of the new techno-totalitarian takeover.
[BELOW are all good excerpts NOT my words but I know some of those voices and this is why the Pathocracy represented by Albino & Co are looking at and wanting to focus on only ONE page.]
Group 5 – Agreement Making/Treaty
Working Group Leader – The whole group presented back to the Plenary
Vs constitutional recognition – Treaty is the best form of recognition. Treaties are already possible without constitutional change.
Where do we start and who with?
o Beginning process in constitution Benefit: government brought in
Risk: we are enclosed by government
Needs rights to land and sovereignty – not just constitutional recognition.
The 7th state concept of a defined territory in Australia made up of Aboriginal- owned or native title lands; an elected Assembly with powers of State governments; having its own constitution; etc.
Need to look at the international community, learn from best practice.
I am sick of these governments. All they have ever done is steal our country. This land belongs to the First Nations of this country. You have a lot of imposters in Parliament – they are not the sovereign peoples of this country.
Let’s make our own constitution, the Yolngu Constitution. We’ve been too much pushed around by their constitution. We’ve been pushed around like a leaf when the tide goes out and the tide comes in.
My big question – why are we going for the constitution? I’ve already been recognised. 1967 was recognition. Mabo was a form of recognition. The apology was recognition.
I look at when they said ‘Sorry’, yes, it was a great acknowledgement, and helped through healing process but if we don’t educate the country, we’ll be back in 25 years doing the same thing.
The government will always try to find a way to break you or beat you down. That doesn’t mean that we’re any weaker as Indigenous people because we lost. We’ve only lost in their eyes, they don’t know what we have underneath.
I’m pretty emotional on this issue. I’ve been with it for a long time. It’s unfinished business. We have to stay focussed.
The question here is why are we all talking, our past elders have been through this. Now it is up to us.
Delegates preferred the word ‘reform’ to ‘recognition’.
A Bill of Rights should precede constitutional reform.
I am not a supporter of the Recognise campaign. They are not a grassroots campaign. It is a mainstream brand. They have a lot of money and here we have a council [the Referendum Council] struggling to get the funds to bring the community together. There should be an army behind this council going from community to community. As far as I’m concerned, Recognise should be scrapped and the money devoted to this process.
Get the Indigenous Advisory Council to resign. They are handpicked people who don’t represent us.
For the last 50 years we’ve had countrymen down south who talk for us. We’re grateful for that but today, now, we in remote communities want to be involved in consultation with governments. We can’t be left out. We want our voice to be heard.
I hope they don’t go along the lines of separating the Aboriginal peoples across the nation. I want to stay as a collective and talk as a collective.
I don’t trust this government to do the right thing.
“We’ve got to continue the fight for the unwritten constitutions. We know there were 260 language groups, and in each language group there were unwritten constitutions. ... Prior to white man coming, there were 260 unwritten constitutions, rules, policies, procedures governing Aboriginal People and their lands.
The Voice to Parliament could take many forms. The Voice is connected to the affirmation that First Nations people have never ceded their sovereignty.
The meeting strongly affirmed that Aboriginal people have never ceded their sovereignty. Some delegates said they were concerned about being involved in a process that might result in sovereignty being ceded. Some people objected to the Constitution and the basis on which it is built.
“We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty. ... People need to get serious about our sovereign rights. Not other watered down rights.”
“They developed a Constitution that is not traditional to us as Aboriginal people.”
“Putting us in the Constitution is going to do nothing for us.”
“Section 51(26) is a race power. That race power has never given us equal rights to whitefellas.”
“Before you make decisions on the constitution we need to understand what we are giving up.”
A number of delegates expressed support for pursuing a Treaty because they said it would recognise Aboriginal sovereignty.
“Treaty is about sovereign rights. Treaty is about being real in sitting down and speaking to us as equals, about our customs, our country, our future, our kids’ and our grandkids’ future.”
A number of delegates expressed concern that politicians were seeking constitutional recognition to appease their own conscience, to make the Constitution “look nice”, and that constitutional change will only benefit the government, and not Aboriginal people. A lot of distrust was expressed about the government and the Constitution, and that under non-Aboriginal law there have been killings, massacres, genocide, the stealing of land, the introduction of disease, and the taking of children. The question was raised as to whether constitutional recognition would diminish racism, or make any difference to Aboriginal people, or whether it would give government greater control over Aboriginal people.
Delegates objected that when native title rights came in, Aboriginal people were told by government they had to prove connection and continuation with culture, history and bloodline. Another delegate stated that the change to the races power in 1967 didn’t achieve equal rights for Aboriginal people.
Another suggestion was to establish an Aboriginal Parliament, and an Aboriginal Constitution. It was said that before ATSIC was abolished, Aboriginal people did have the right to make decisions for themselves. Delegates spoke of the need to assert our right to self-determination.
Another idea that was put forward was a Bill of Rights that identifies Aboriginal people as the First People of this country.
“A Bill of Rights that sits comfortably within the Constitution will give us a greater say in our own rights and where we want to go.”
Some were angry about the millions of dollars that have been spent by the government on ‘Closing The Gap’,“but the gap has gotten wider”.
Some concerns were expressed that if a package was chosen, even though the different options might work together and strengthen each other, the weaker options might be cherry-picked by the politicians, watered down, and the government might pursue a minimalist approach.
A number of delegates expressed different concerns about process. There were concerns expressed about the work of the Recognise campaign, for example, that there was lots of money spent on the campaign, and that Recognise will push ahead regardless of the outcome of this regional dialogue process.
Some delegates expressed concern that the process was too rushed, without the ability to consult with traditional owners, elders and communities. Some demands were made that the process be opened to all Aboriginal people. It was said that many people in communities wouldn’t understand the concepts that were being talked about, and how important it is to reach out to people in the bush to ensure their voices are captured. Others also explained that government often says they are going to consult with the mob, but that “who really consults with the mob?” and that often there are language barriers that prevent this from happening.
Concerns were expressed that there were only two dialogues scheduled in New South Wales, which was not representative of the size of the Aboriginal population in the state. Another delegate expressed concern that there was no dialogue scheduled to be held in the Australian Capital Territory.
Intergenerational trauma was highlighted. There was a belief that our children are affected by the past because the struggle is multi-generational.
This applies even to people who have been educated. The scars are still there and they’re raw and red.
Excellent. This too: http://2smsupernetwork.com/audio/laws/PDCALLER.mp3?mibextid=Zxz2cZ