Malcolm Turnbull, when receiving the Uluru Statement put out a joint media statement which included the following;

Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights – all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national Parliament – the House of Representatives and the Senate.
A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.
It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament. The Referendum Council noted the concerns that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was advisory only.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that Turnbull has reiterated concerns that the body would have insufficient power. This is in contrast to the propaganda machine that implies that Turnbull thinks there will be an indigenous-only body that will have too much power including a veto.

To draw attention to another thing Turnbull has said here. He said “It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament“. He did not say it will be a third chamber.

This is a glitch in the Matrix. Breaking it down reveals an extremely sophisticated propaganda and misdirection campaign. One that must have been planned before the delegates even arrived at the Yulara convention.

What’s a Third Chamber?

The British Raj in India had a Third Chamber of parliament, which is not common. The planned decolonisation of Australia is partly using India as a template – Makaratta itself is based on Instruments of Accession. So the reference to the “Third Chamber” may be very relevant here.

During the British occupation of India the parliamentary system consisted of an upper house, lower house and a Chamber of Princes. The Chamber of Princes was alternatively referred to as the Third Chamber.

Here is India’s Parliament house under construction. It was built to accomodate the Three Chambers.

The Chamber of Princes was to represent the Princely States. The Princely States are pre-colonial kingdoms that were too powerful for the British and earlier colonisers to fully assimilate, so they were accommodated with special political structures. The Chamber of Princes didn’t have any constitutionally enshrined powers, it dealt with internal matters to do with the Princely States and with British-Princely State relations – or in other words – having a say in the making of laws that affect them (sound familiar?). These ‘matters’ eventually whittled down to nothing, as the Raj took over more and more power. As the ‘matters’ were not formally constitutionally protected, there was nothing the Princely States could do against it the erosion of their power in the face of the doctrine of British Supremacy. The Third Chamber does not exist anymore – it became redundant upon decolonisation of India.

Relate this to what Turnbull said… Turnbull reiterated the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was advisory only. The lack of constitutional function is precisely what caused the eventual demise of the Chamber of Princes. Turnbull was not saying the Voice will be a Third Chamber. He was actually warning us that the proposal is a dud because it doesn’t have enough protected power. In a legal, technical contractual sense – he was speaking as Prime Minister on behalf of Australians in reception of the offer, and was “acting in good faith” by warning the proposal is flawed; albeit in an obscure way.

Sophisticated propaganda

A very sophisticated and pre-planned propaganda campaign further obscured Turnbull’s vague warning. The campaign was designed to make sure his real warnings were ignored.

Propaganda works best when it can set the first impression. The first impression many from the general Australian public had of the Uluru Statement was through Barnaby Joyce’s negative and incorrect comments; as they came out the same time as news of the Yulara convention.

This narrative campaign was pre-planned. The entire result of the convention was pre-planned as well. There’s proof if you look at the narrative chronologically, here’s how it panned out…

Barnaby Joyce says the day after the Yulara convention that the Voice will literally be a Third Chamber.
The Voice is a literal Third Chamber narrative is correctly shot down in flames from many sides
Turnbull comes out saying it will look like a Third Chamber. This sounds like the same thing, but it is not.
Turnbull also under fire due to lack of nuance.
Conveniently timed leaks to the media build momentum at strategic times
Turnbull plays part of arrogant mansplainer in staged QandA with Teela Reid
Barnaby Joyce retracts his claims. Joyce doesn’t even remember how he came up with the idea in the first place!!
Turnbull does not retract (because he doesn’t need to, as he has made a different argument that Joyce)
Others take up Turnbull’s argument including Prime Ministers.

If you understand what the real Third Chamber reference means (India) – and you know that it is a legitimate warning dressed as an uninformed mansplain – you should be asking yourself this. How did Barnaby Joyce know to drop a Third Chamber reference THE DAY AFTER THE YULARA DIALOGS! Before any details were even out?

This is more proof that the dialog outcomes were pre-determined.

Of the hoards of lawyers and law firms who are behind this, they should have immediately recognised the Third Chamber reference. If you would study constitutional law – you would know about the modern Indian Constitution and how it was formed, you would also know about the historical Chamber of Princes as it is part of that story. But the lawyers feign ignorance.

We are being FAILED.

Before I get to the guts of the matter, I want to point out a few, seemingly unrelated points, but they are important background. If you are really pressed for time, or want some convincing first that this is worth reading, just scroll down to the 3rd and 4th diagrams.

I recommend you read carefully, scratch your head in confusion, don’t push yourself too hard trying to understand, but instead consider saving or bookmarking this text and coming back in a week and reading it again. There has been a systematic 20-year campaign constructing a house of mirrors and deception, nothing is what it seems. It takes time for the brain to untangle, one read is not enough for this information to sink in.

Importance of the Flag

The Aboriginal Flag has been proudly adopted by mob, has been used as a symbol of our united struggle, and has flown in protests and also from the Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy. It is our flag, the people have adopted it wholeheartedly.

The Torres Strait Islander flag is newer, and has been treated the same way by the Australian Govt. There are a few differences, but for simplicity I will restrict discussion mostly to the Aboriginal flag only (no disrespect intended for Torres Strait Islanders).

Keep in mind here, a flag is a symbol of a Nation. By Aboriginal peoples adopting the flag, it could be construed that they are identifying themselves as one Nation, under one law – as opposed to being many, separate, self-determining Nations. Our adoption of the Aboriginal flag (which is a symbol of our unity in our fight) is being exploited which I will discuss later.

The Aboriginal Flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag were entered into the Flags Act by proclamation in 1995. They are commonly flown alongside the State flags and the Australian flag on Government buildings.

Why does the Government fly these flags, while simultaneously denying recognition of Aboriginal Sovereignty?

I believe it is because they are preparing for the Aboriginal Nation and the Torres Strait Islander Nation to join their Federation of Australia.

What is Federalism

Federalism is a form of Treaty, and can involve Sovereign parties.

From wikipedia…

The terms ‘federalism’ and ‘confederalism’ both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning “treaty, pact or covenant.”

I was not at the Constitutional reform dialogs, but I am guessing they would have played a video about the history of the Constitution, and how Australia is a Federation. And delegates would have been sitting there like bored school kids, wondering when they going to get on with it and start talking Treaty business, probably not realising the significance of the video content.

The Referendum Council put this information about Federalism in a video so that later, they can prove prior and informed consent, because they explained to everyone what Federalism is. The video will be used as evidence later on when we realise we have been duped.

Federalism is a power sharing agreement. It has a central (federal) government and a number of regional governments. The regional governments are subordinate to the federal government (eg. Australia the federal govt can override the member States). These subordinate ‘regional’ governments do not necessarily need a land base, (side note I think the federal govt might need a land base, might be why they made the A.C.T.?).

In contrast, a confederation is similar, except the federal government is subordinate to the regional governments (eg. the European Union, the member States have Sovereignty. Canada is also a Confederation).

The important things to note are;

that a Federation is a power-sharing pool;
the powers sharing details are set out in the Constitution/s;
and that in a Federation, the states are subordinate to the Federal Government.

Also note that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the authority from the federal government and each state comes from the Crown. That’s why there are titles of Queen of Australia, Queen of New South Wales, Queen of Queensland etc., and corresponding Governor-General and Governors of each state who represent the Crown.

Uluru Statement is a request to become a new State

It is a request to join in, to “take our rightful place”. A request to have a Voice. Sometimes they go bold – Kevin Rudd in a tweet called it “a request for shared Sovereignty”. Is it just really just another toothless advisory board as some say?

No, it is far more dangerous. Remember – a Federation is a power-sharing pool. The Uluru Statement is a request for Federation membership. It is a request to share whatever powers we have (Sovereign powers!) with the Federation. In this power sharing agreement, we accept a consultative voice and Australian citizenship in exchange for our Sovereignty!

The Voice will be a seventh state, not a third chamber.

Enshrinement of the voice is also a Treaty, it is comparable to the reunification of West Germany with East Germany. Makarrata is not a Treaty, it is a post-Treaty negotiation framework.

And worse, they may have already stitched up a case that we already said ‘yes’ to this skulduggery.

Earlier I pointed out that because we are under one Aboriginal flag, that it could be construed that we are under one law (and also a second law and flag for Torres Strait Islanders). One nation, one Aboriginal State that can become a member of the Federation. If we are under one law, then Australia can argue that does not need to consult with each of our original sovereign nations, but merely with the “Aboriginal Nation”. Also, (as far as I know) we don’t have a written constitution that goes with the flag, so they could say we have not made it clear where our power lies. This can be manipulated by them going to their own hand-picked leaders, Government funded bodies, Land Councils etc. They will argue they didn’t have to choose representatives for every Sovereign Nation at the Yulara Convention, because we are under one Aboriginal flag.

The Government have been flying our flag on their buildings next to the other flags of the Federation, and we never objected. Flying the flags in such a manner is a declaration of intent. We never objected to this declaration. They can use this to later argue that we consented to our flag being used in this manner, and perhaps that we consent to become a State of the Federation.

At the Referendum Council dialogues they showed a video explaining the federal structure of Australia. So consider yourself informed.

The Uluru Statement itself was a document of request to join the Federation, or consent.

It’s time to educate about this grave danger, consider getting our flags off their buildings, get together to write an Emergency Continental Aboriginal Confederate Constitution based on the Continental law to pair with the flag, to preempt the Voice proposal and to protect each Sovereign nations inherent right to choose their own path, assert our individual Nations’ identities to deny them a case of consent. Say no to flying the flag on the Harbour Bridge next to the Australian flag – it sends the wrong message.

They refuse to release draft wording of the Voice, because we would catch on immediately merely by knowing which section the changes would fall under.

Correction #1: Westminster Statute and Australia Act make the “real” preamble hard to change

~~Also, note this on Page 37 of Referendum council report 2017…~~

~~“The Council recommends an extra-constitutional statement of recognition. “~~

~~I believe this “extra-constitutional statement” is actually the Constitution of the new Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander State. It needs to be written first before joining the Federation.~~

Was Recognise designed to fail?

Consider the possibility that Recognise was a psyop (psychological operation) to make everyone think so much about recognition, that they are blinded as to the true goal that has always been Federalism. In Psychology and sales negotiation this is called Anchoring. You think of Uluru Statement as being different from Recognise, a “substantive recognition” because they keep repeating that phrase, and you hear this on the back of the huge multi-year “Recognise” campaign. You are anchored; that is you are framing post-Yulara proposals in comparison to recognise/recognition campaigns and committees and such.

recognition… recognise… recognition… substantive recognition… constitutional recognition… etc.

5 years of brainwashing. The Australian public are being brainwashed by repetition. It struck me as odd that even today they keep referencing “recognition”, when they supposedly have so many problems with that particular word.

It is to distract you from seeing the truth.

Some noted the lack of Aboriginal Flags at Recognise rallies. It was openly supported by banks and mining companies. It looked too flashy and expensive to be grassroots. The “bad look” was no failure, they are not stupid. It was by design. They don’t spend millions of dollars on consultants to make campaigns so transparently flawed.

Now you are anchored with the overtly fake Recognise campaign, along comes post-Yulara “Voice Treaty Truth”. Low-key, trying hard to emulate a grassroots movement, yet campaigners have no problem flying all around the country and getting spots on Q&A. Seems an improvement over Recognise.

The Recognise campaign’s real purpose was to make the Voice proposal look good, and to disorient and anchor certain preconceptions that will make it difficult to see the Voice for what it really is – a seventh state.

“Recognise” was also not what it seems

There was a lot of concern during the Recognise campaign amongst the grassroots Aboriginal community. But I think much of this was based on deliberate misinformation.

One of the biggest concerns about Recognise was that the amendments to the race power could have immediate adverse affects on Aboriginal Sovereignty. This argument is presented in the following table which was doing rounds on social media at the time;

But changing the race power is inconsequential, because the Crown does not have the authority to pass laws for Aboriginal peoples. The Crown can only get this authority via consent in the form of an International agreement/Treaty.

Consider this: Australia can change it’s constitution to claim it has a power to pass laws for Mexican citizens, but this would have no effect because the Crown – the source of authority – has no authority over Mexican citizens*. The claim of power would conflict with international law. Whomever currently has the power to make laws for Mexican citizens (presumably the Mexican Government) would still need to make a formal agreement to transfer that authority, a Treaty.

* As long as the Mexican citizen is in Mexican Territory doing their thing under Mexican law. Mexican tourists in Australia would be under a visa.

The exact same applies for Aboriginal citizens of their respective nations as it would for Mexican citizens. Treaty is still required. There is no getting around this.

Planting this false information during Recognise was a deliberate tactic, so that in the next, post-Yulara iteration, they can propose leaving the race power unchanged. This is intended to disarm the Indigenous community who think “oh look it must be ok now, because they are not making a head of power that directly targets us and can override our consent”.

Section 51 xxxii is merely an itemisation of a power. Source of authority, “in the name of”, is what matters. The Crown simply has no power to pass laws for citizens of Aboriginal Nations, itemising a power without authority to back it up makes a dead letter.

The 1967 referendum also changed nothing for “the Aboriginal race”, it merely modified a itemisation of a dead power, dead because it still has no authority behind it. It only ‘works’ because Australia denies Aboriginal Sovereignty.

What was the real danger of “Recognise”?

The true danger of “recognition” was the modification to the preamble.

They often say something along the lines of “adding or modifying a Constitutional preamble has no legislative effect”, which is true. But that doesn’t mean changing it is inconsequential. What they don’t tell you is that it would change what happens on separation from the monarchy to form a republic.

On the formation of a republic, the Crown will have to hand-back to the rightful Sovereigns. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are mentioned in the Australian Constitution preamble and have not written their own Aboriginal Constitution, the Australian Constitution is where the hand-back will go. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have joined into the Federation via the Voice to Parliament – the “Aboriginal Constitution” has been written for them by stealth and locked in as a new, Aboriginal, landless State of the Federation.

The preamble matters. It declares the basis of power and ideals that the whole Constitution hangs on. Just look at preambles of different Constitutions around the world and you will see what I mean. Eg. the most famous, the USA – “We the People” is a declaration that the basis of authority lies in the People.

This is the reason why the states have quietly added recognition in their constitution preambles. They have to recognise the authority, the source of power to be able to receive and wield it later when it is ‘activated’.

Special Words and phrases that probably don’t mean what you think they mean

“Reconciliation”

Dictionary definitions of Reconciliation.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reconciliation

Reconciliation

NOUN

1. The restoration of friendly relations.

2. The action of making one view or belief compatible with another.

3. The action of making financial accounts consistent; harmonization.

Everyone thinks it’s definition 1, but it can’t be because there was never friendly relations to begin with. They could have called it “Conciliation” but they didn’t.

Definition 3 is a derivative of 2.

2, in other words, is to get the story straight. Australia is built on a tower of lies and they want to get their story consistent. This is the true meaning!

Referendum Council 2017 Weasel words

The Referendum Council formulated “Guiding Principles” against which they can evaluate various options. When you can see the grand scheme they are running, you can see these are formulated in order to push their own pre-chosen objective. One in particular deserves a special mention.

1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.

Diminish just means “to make less”. They are correct – Federalism, taking Aboriginal Sovereignty and sharing it with the Federation does not make it less. It doesn’t cede it either, which is another term they like to throw around when they say that the proposal wont cede Sovereignty. It is not ceding Sovereignty because Aboriginal people will still hold it through sharing. To say “does not diminish” is technically correct but grossly and deliberately misleading.

contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation

This was not in the guiding principals, but from another section. This word sounds nice, but cynically, it just means they want us all unified so they can dominate us in our unity.

The past leads to the present…

If you trace back events to Mabo 2, you can see how they have been busily putting all the pieces in place ready for Aboriginal federation. Might talk about that in my next post.

Thinking Sovereignty