SCREWED AT ULURU

SCREWED AT ULURU

The recent and, some would say, abortive convention on the constitutional recognition of First Nations people in Australia has raised more questions than it has answered.

Amid the collective blowing of gaskets among the right-wingers, the ill-informed cheering of the White bourgeoisie and the callous schadenfreude of the social media pundits, the substance of the resolutions reached and the chicanery behind the scenes has gone largely unreported by the mainstream press.

For those interested in the radical Aboriginal position Ghillar Michael Anderson of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic has penned a detailed article describing his experiences at the Uluru convention; the picture he paints of the workshops and the participants is one of dysfunction, division and outside manipulation of the agenda.

Historically the Australian nationalists have supported Aboriginal advancement, this is beyond contradiction and the position of amity and peaceful co-existence between White and Indigenous remains to this day.

The can of worms opened by the Uluru declaration, though, raises some interesting issues for us, particularly on the status of nations, or those asserting nationhood however defined, under the present commonwealth system.

gough aborigines
Gough confronted a lot of these issues, but they still remain unresolved

The declaration calls for a Makaratta Commission as a supervisory body entrusted with oversight of all agreements between first peoples and governments, Makaratta being there defined as “the coming together after a struggle”.

According to Ghillar, however, Makaratta might be better defined as the resumption of social norms after blood debts have been settled by payback and the appropriate ceremonies have been performed. As a veteran campaigner, he recalls that this approach was tried in the past as a workaround, but that the opinion of the state was, and presumably remains, that such a framework could be accommodated by the present “colonial” legal system.

The can of worms opened by the Uluru declaration, though, raises some interesting issues for us, particularly on the status of nations, or those asserting nationhood however defined, under the present commonwealth system.

We can agree on principle that each nation has the authority to define itself, collectively, however, it chooses and that any treaties or agreements should be made according to international law rather than current state or commonwealth laws.

Little wonder that this subversive concept of a Makaratta body representing First Nations operating under the present system was mooted given the reported makeup of the body of delegates at Uluru.

From the top down, from the Referendum Council to the group discussion level, the accusation has been made that the whole consultative process has been rigged and is being directed by “hidden hands”, namely east coast Aboriginal bureaucrats, right-wingers and agents of the state.

leibler-pearson
Yes, he is always there, yet nothing ever seems to change for the better

The makeup of the Constitutional Recognition Referendum Council itself is an indicator that something is on the nose; Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton, Patrick Dodson and Mark Leibler, to White Nationalists, at least represent the essence of the problem facing any ethno-nationalist or indigenous sovereignty movement on this continent.

This board of sell outs, globalist shills, moderates and the ever present Zionist influence in Leibler cannot be seen to have the interests of any nation, tribe or ethnic group in mind simply because they are known to be hostile to the very concepts of nation and ethnicity.

From the top down, from the Referendum Council to the group discussion level, the accusation has been made that the whole consultative process has been rigged and is being directed by “hidden hands”, namely east coast Aboriginal bureaucrats, right-wingers and agents of the state.

The goal of the declaration, it seems to us, is to nullify concepts of nationality separate from Commonwealth citizenship or a sense of belonging to anything beyond the narrow, prescribed, globalist-cosmopolitan identity, via a dubious process of reconciliation.

It is further alleged that the council and its paid employees are mere “puppets” of Mr Leibler, who reportedly sat in a separate room in Yulara resort during the conference, his instructions to his co-chair being relayed back and forth by runners or electronic messaging.

We leave that comment hanging as we can only rely upon the accounts of others, needless to say, that we are not surprised that Mr Leibler is at the centre of this process and that as a result, events have taken this turn.

1st-tent-embassy2
Ghillar Michael Anderson is the last surviving member of the original tent embassy

There are broader issues here too, the demands for sovereignty by radicals, such as Ghillar Michael Anderson are well and good, we would be hypocrites to disagree; however, land rights and occupation of territory do not mean the same today as they did in 1788.

Ownership of natural resources by First Nations, in a globalised economy dominated by multinationals, will not necessarily guarantee a return for those nations; if leasing and royalty fees are too onerous the capitalists will simply invest elsewhere or import materials from the global marketplace.

There are broader issues here too, the demands for sovereignty by radicals, such as Ghillar Michael Anderson are well and good, we would be hypocrites to disagree; however, land rights and occupation of territory do not mean the same today as they did in 1788.

Another unhelpful development arising from the Uluru conference was a claim, by some, for separate dealings with “urban, educated” Aborigines and “full bloods”; this we interpret as the creation of categories of assimilated and unassimilated persons, which further betrays another agenda by the convenors and the Turnbull government.

For the White Nationalists, there is no issue of splitting our people up into defined groups based upon, perhaps, degrees of loyalty to cosmopolitanism, or whether our people are assimilated into multiculturalism or not and we reject the idea that this type of divisive meddling should be imposed upon others.

We will not be so silly as to trumpet “solidarity” with the First Nations, we all have a long way to go in our parallel national struggles before that could become a realistic proposition. We merely point out these interesting developments as they highlight to the general public the realities of national struggle and the systems which are deployed against any group deviating from the prescribed globalist-consumerist-cosmopolitan pathway.

marcia
Marcia Langton was once a radical activist too
Advertisements