In 2017, the Referendum Council held a Constitutional Convention at Yulara, and the result was the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
There has been some criticism about this process. But today I am going to talk about how the process was designed, and how there is a very high chance that it will be accepted by the international community as a legitimate exercise of self-determination in a decolonial sense.
Keywords: Referendum Council, Kirribilli Statement, Act of Free Choice, West Papua, Indonesia, Musyawara
As horrible as this bill is going to look like at the end – it will pass, because it’s related to the Uluru Statement and the project to usurp Aboriginal Sovereignty for the Australian people.
It is necessary to create complete religious freedom for the colonial project to legitimize itself. Here I will explain why.
Trip back in history…
In Phillips First Fleet instructions, there’s a couple of drafts available. One of the major differences in the drafts is to do with having freedom of religion vs. setting up Church of England/Anglican church as the official church. It’s interesting that was such an important detail worth considering in Phillips instructions, given the sheer logistics of the First Fleet voyage. Think about it – Arthur Phillip had a tonne of responsibilities, but some were worried what the religious status of the colony should be. I think in the end, the religious stuff was left out completely from the instructions (but I’m not 100% sure because this is one of those “missing” founding documents).
But initially in the Colony, church services were Church of England/Anglican and were compulsory on paper. Your rations would be cut if you don’t go to church, but in practice this was not enforced. Catholics (mostly Irish) were discriminated against, and couldn’t have their own Catholic services until some time later.
The official religion of the governing system is important because it is the ultimate source of Authority of the whole government. Everything sits under the Crown, and the Crown is coronated and gets authority from God via the Church. This is not a trivial issue. This is the basis of authority of the whole system we are talking about. That is why people can swear oath on the bible in Court – because the bible sits on top of the whole system.
So what is the official religion of the Australian system?
There are TWO crowns, sitting parallel to each other.
THE FIRST CROWN is The Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms who is coronated in The Church of England. This Queen is the head of State. This Crown has authority over British Subjects which includes Australian people. But this Crown has no TREATY with Aboriginal people – and has no authority over Aboriginal people or Aboriginal Land.
The SECOND CROWN has not yet been coronated. This is the Crown that SovCits call the fake treasonous Crown – with it’s own title, coat of arms, parliament house, etc. BUT SovCits got it wrong – the second Crown is not fake, it is a symbolic placeholder. The second Crown is the “Queen of Australia”. It is a symbolic-only Crown, it is a head on a coin – not a person. Queen Elizabeth II was NEVER coronated as “Queen of Australia” – she was coronated Queen of UK and the Commonwealth of Nations. The “Queen of Australia” is a title representing the sovereignty of AUSTRALIA. “AUSTRALIA” includes “First Australians”, Aboriginal land, the white squattocracy, convicts and immigrants. But what is the source of authority and/or religion of this second Crown – and who is going to coronate this Crown?
The two crowns together running parallel have enough power between them to run Australia. Problem is one of the Crowns hasn’t gone through ceremony.
Coronation of the Australian People
Remembering that “First Nations” have asserted “spiritual sovereignty” in the Uluru Statement. It is these First Nations spiritual sovereigns who will coronate the “Queen of Australia” – the Australian people – the SECOND CROWN.
The “First Nations” have legitimacy through their strong spiritual connection to country, in the same manner as a European Pope or Archbishop has a connection to God. And just like a Pope coronates a European King or Queen, First Nations will use their spiritual sovereignty to coronate the Australian people, then the Australian people will be sovereign.
As the Spiritual Sovereign stands in the chain of authority ABOVE the “Queen of Australia”, the spiritual sovereign must be completely free of spiritual restriction from the Queen.
The Australian people (represented symbolically by the “Queen of Australia”) cannot be coronated while they are imposing restrictions on Aboriginal religious practice. They must bow down to the spiritual authority. So any and all restrictions must be lifted. Under Aboriginal law – there is discrimination based on sex, for example, there is men’s business and women’s business. Current Australian law may be a restriction on this, and restrictions must be lifted – even if just temporarily for the Coronation to happen.
This is why they need this Religious Discrimination Bill – to remove all restrictions on the spiritual sovereigns to allow them to freely coronate the “Queen of Australia” and to give Australian people the land and full temporal sovereign power.
Churches like Hillsong etc will also temporarily have freedom to discriminate, which might upset everyone but it is necessary as part of the plan to usurp Aboriginal Sovereignty.
The concept of a “Commonwealth” was originally an idea from an influential political philisopher, Thomas Hobbes.
In this post, I am going to look a his Commonwealth concept, and I will comment on how this concept fits in with the Commonwealth of Australia, with the Commonwealth of Nations (as the sucessor to the British Empire), and with Aboriginal peoples’ sovereignty.
The texts quoted here come fromHobbes’ book, Leviathan, chapter 7, you can read here.
Men love Liberty and Dominion over others
Chapter 7 opens with this paragraph:
The End Of Common-wealth, Particular Security The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shewn) to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down in the fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters
Hobbes
Men “naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others”, especially when driven by the illusion of the Ego. And the Western, individualist-centric mindset feeds into this by cultivating a system where each individual plays a game to strive for their most contented life – playing against everything and everyone else. A dog eats dog world which is replicated on another scale in a nation eats nation world.
I think this paragraph from Hobbes also ties in nicely with an observation I made in my post, A Roadmap to Self-Determination where I wrote:
the principle of non-interference in international law is born out of war. It is born out of an expectation that if you agree to not interfere with others – they won’t interfere with you. The root of this is not empathy, but fear and an expectation of reciprocity
In the European/Western cultures, there is a deeply-seated belief that the only reason why an individual would follow a law is if they are forced to out of fear. And that fear must be administered by a centralised authoritative figure – whether it be God, a King, a Lord, a Parliament, or someone else who sits on-top of a hierarchy who will punish law-breakers. This belief can also be seen in some circles of ultra-religious Christians – Christians who think that atheists must be incapable of following any laws at all.
However, this is not a universal belief. Many other cultures that are not built on the individual; but on family units, small communities or tribes do not ascribe to this. In smaller groups and communities, each individual has capacity to build and nurture closer relationships with others around them – hence people are connected and can empathise with those around them. It is that empathy and respect which is the motivation to follow laws – not fear. Harming a complete stranger is much easier than harming a close friend. Also in smaller communities, every person has a chance at exercising a share of power, of building their own niche in that community.
In large mega-societies, power is distributed very unevenly. Jordan Peterson says hierarchies are inevitable because of very old biochemical pathways that have evolved into serotonin seeking behaviors – behaviors so evolutionarily ancient they can be observed in lobsters. I agree with Jordan Peterson’s reasoning that hierarchies are inevitable – however hierarchies themselves can be broken down into complex networks of smaller hierarchical units. This is what Aboriginal society does very well, and is also a reason why Aboriginal society is so difficult for outsiders to understand – because it is so complex. Hierarchies are formed as a function of serotonin seeking behavior on part of individuals in context of societal values. Fostering societal values that can build healthy societal hierarchies is something that, in my opinion, western society does very badly.
Highly-centralised power
The Generation Of A Common-wealth
The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person; and every one to owne, and acknowledge himselfe to be Author of whatsoever he that so beareth their Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concerne the Common Peace and Safetie; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment. This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.”
So here is the heirachy, placing all of the power of the people into a singularity – the head of the Commonwealth. This concept is represented in the artwork on the cover of the book;
In this Commonwealth, the King is the HEAD OF STATE, and the people are the BODY POLITIC. Look on the clothing the King wears – it is made of many faces of the King’s subjects. The HEAD and the BODY together are sovereign over the land, this illustration shows this really well.
The people submit their authority to the Common-wealth or the King, and the King has an obligation to act in the right of the subjects and to protect the subjects – especially from foreign invasion, which is a big concern in Europe where they all invading each other all the time.
This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.
The immortal god in the sky chooses his favourite Mortal God/Leviathan/King to win various wars with other Kings. If a King loses a war, it may be because he has lost favour with the immortal God. And the people of the various Common-wealths owe their support to whichever King they are under, and that King is supposed to protect them from foreign enemies.
Protecting the subjects against foreign enemies is, I think, one possible interpretation of the concept of “protection” as in historical Aboriginal Protection acts. The Crown has Protection Acts to protect Aboriginal peoples against enemies abroad such as French, Dutch or other would-be colonisers. This action would imply that Aboriginal peoples are themselves Crown subjects. But many “protectors” were also leading massacres against Aboriginal people. This makes sense if those Aboriginal people massacred are also “enemies abroad”, unbelieving heathens who do not lick the boot.
Definition of a Common-wealth
The Definition Of A Common-wealth And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is “One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.“
A Common-wealth is One person, of whose Acts a great Multitude. If there is ONE PERSON per ONE COMMONWEALTH, let’s look at the situation of the Commonwealth of Nations vs the Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian people are part of more than one Commonwealth. How are these Commonwealths structured?
Look at the coronation oath of Queen Elizabeth II:
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
This was one single oath to the peoples, one ceremony with an oath to the peoples of the list of nations enumerated. I mocked up this illustration below of the coronation of the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations. The different colours represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon.
One Crown. One Common-wealth of Nations.
The coronation ceremony was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual head of the Church of England, in accordance with the Doctrine of Two Swords. Part of the ceremony reflects this – as the Sword of State was presented to Elizabeth II, she placed it on the alter, and then a peer took it from the alter after paying 100 shillings. The Archbishop has coronated a woman as a Queen of England, as his church has spiritual authority in England.
But who has the authority to coronate a “Queen of Australia”, the head of the “Commonwealth of Australia”?
I will put a graphic below to show what I mean This illustration below shows the “Queen of Australia” is and it’s relation to the peoples of Australia and the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations.
The Queen of Australia (smaller head) – an abstraction representing the People of Australia (dark blue) as another Common-wealth body.
Coronation of the Queen of Australia
I think there was an attempt to coronate the “Queen of Australia” by the Referendum Council. The Uluru Statement asserts “Spiritual Sovereignty” – much like the Archbishop of the Church of England has spiritual sovereignty. The Uluru Statement also says that this spiritual sovereignty co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. This is consistent with the Doctrine of Two Swords. In some schools of thought, it is the spiritual sovereign who coronates the temporal/material sovereign (although there are variations on who gives who what sword).
The “Queen of Australia” is an abstraction for the sovereign body of the Australian people. It is a head on the back of a coin, much like the Statue of Liberty/Libertas is a symbol of the state in the United States. Queen Elizabeth II was never coronated as “Queen of Australia”, the title was created during her reign. This ideally should be sorted before her successor as head of the Commonwealth of Nations is coronated.
The Aboriginal members of the Referendum Council made an offer of ceremonial objects and sharing of sovereignty to the Australian people. This is a coronation of the Australian people – giving them temporal/material sovereignty, while the First Nations people retain spiritual sovereignty.
The Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the spiritual authority to do this.
An Australian Coronation ceremony based on European law.
Here is the result below. A completely independent republic, the “Queen of Australia” figuratively representing the republic itself, and the Common-wealth of states (colonies plus the acceded “First Nations” state), Republic coronated by Aboriginal spiritual sovereigns, a Republic with full temporal sovereignty over the Australian/Aboriginal land. Aboriginal spiritual sovereignty is held in high esteem symbolically. But symbolic only – sorry, “separation of church and state, b*tches”. Expect plenty more welcomes, pats on the back, and acknowledgements of “Aunties”, “Uncles” and “traditional elders”, and talk of the “worlds oldest culture” blah blah blah… but no material support. If the republic wouldn’t throw money and land at a church, the same goes for spiritual sovereigns.
Attaining Sovereign Power
So – reading further through Hobbes’ book;
The attaining to this Soveraigne Power, is by two wayes. One, by Naturall force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves, and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse, or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This later, may be called a Politicall Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and the former, a Common-wealth by Acquisition.
In context of Australia and looking at what actually happened with colonisation, I have no idea which of these ways sovereign power of the Queen of Australia was attained over Aboriginal people. I suppose Aboriginal people came under the British Crown by Acquisition/force – however we are not children of England, nor have we ever surrendered under war, submitted or agreed to be protected.
Retrospectively though, if First Nations coronate the “Queen of Australia”, it would be a legitimate political Common-wealth under the definition Hobbes gives here – with the Australian people submitting to the Parliament, who is in-turn authorised by the spiritual sovereigns. Given that Australia has officially called itself a Commonwealth since Federation in 1901, the Queen of Australia must have existed since at least then. People talk of “elders past, present and future…”, so my guess is that old Queen Victoria will retrospectively made a past elder, as she was the first Queen of Australia the Common-wealth.
Sovereign Citizen’s idea of Australia as a “Corporation”
I think they are right that there really is something going on – but I think their interpretation is way off.
There are two crowns – one for the Commonwealth of Nations, one for the Commonwealth of Australia.
The newer Crown for the Commonwealth of Australia is being built-up in parallel as an independent, autochthonous Crown to replace the old colonial empire Crown. The new Crown will usurp Aboriginal sovereignty for the Australian people.
Sovereign citizens have noted the steps playing out, and blame a socialist plot to usurp the old Crown. But most of the steps noted on this SovCit page linked here make perfect sense under a transitional Crown model.
For example – removing “defender of the Faith” from the Queen of Australia title – this makes sense as Australia is supposed to be a secular state, plus the Crown has done a shit job at defending Aboriginal spirituality/faith – which is supposed to be the new basis of the Republic.
Another example;
Whitlam changed the name of the government from the “Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia” to the “Parliament of Australia”. Australia is the landmass! The People are the Commonwealth of Australia.
Yes, very well observed. But the change is needed because the British Crown never properly acquired sovereignty over the land itself. But the “Queen of Australia” will be the sovereign head of the “Parliament of Australia” including the land and Aboriginal people once the “Indigenous Voice” is enshrined.
SovCit Australian nationalists have it all upside-down. The new corporate Crown was made FOR THEM so they don’t have to share a foreign British Empire Crown. The Crown NEEDS a revolution to install the new Crown, and needs one soon (ideally before the next coronation). And the Crown probably needs revolutions in other Common-wealth lands as well. The current happenings (Truck convoys) in various Common-wealth countries right now smell to me like engineered revolutions, like Euromaidan in Ukraine or other western-backed “regime-change” “colour revolutions”. The truck convoys and burning down parliament doors could also be to weed out would-be revolutionists to keep an eye on them, while the real revolution happens by paper (eg – see paper here section Declaration of autochthony (a ‘disguised’ constitutional revolution) in the halls of Parliament.
The Referendum Council have done a really stupid thing in making offers of sovereignty on behalf of First Nations to the “Australian People”, because they have in effect authorised this false-flag LARP burning of Old Parliament House doors and the other mess created by Australian nationalists. Expect to see more chaos, and more movements – both Government and otherwise – trying to hunt down and indoctrinate “Elders” to do “Treaties” with. Whichever movement secures treaties, will have sovereignty over the land.
The Referendum Council’s goal was to come up with a solution for Australia to decolonise according to the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. As part of this, a political solution must be put forward having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned. How well does the solution meet this criteria of having due regard?
Let’s look at the process behind the Dialogues. They involved a series of invite-only meetings across Australia. There were roughly 13 regional meetings, each capped at 100 participants. From these meeting attendees, some were then chosen to go to the final convention at Uluru/Yulara. So at most – there were 1300 participants in total who had a say in this process.
If we roughly estimate the total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population – it is about 800,000 people as of 2016. 1300 participants from 800,000 is a very small proportion.
The western Papua “Act of Free Choice”
Now let’s look in comparison at the Act of Free Choice which was a process run in western Papua in 1969. This was a UN supervised decolonial process in which the people of western Papua expressed their will and their right to self-determination. The people of western Papua needed to be treated separately in the process because as a peoples, they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the rest of Indonesia.
In the Act of Free Choice, a “referendum” was held to allow the people of western Papua to express their will. The total population of western Papua was at the time, about 800,000. This makes comparisons with the Uluru Statement process easy – as it is coincidentally about the same as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in Australia as of 2016.
The Indonesian military hand-picked 1024 Melanesian people from western Papua who voted unanimously on a proposal to join western Papua with Indonesia. This is how western Papua decolonised and became part of Indonesia.
There were widespread allegations of death threats and blackmail associated with the vote. It is also very suspicious that the vote was unanimous. Despite this, the UN and international community seems to support this so-called Act of Free Choice.
Comparison of processes
In western Papua, 1024 hand-picked persons chose the fate for 800,000 colonised peoples of western Papua. The United Nations and the International community stood by this, even though a very small proportion of people actually expressed their will. If this very small vote is accepted – it sets an extremely low bar for any future decolonisation processes in other parts of the world.
This may the low bar that the Referendum Council was intending to meet. A maximum of 1300 out of a population of 800,000 is proportionally very similar.
Why did Australia support East Timor independence, but has not supported western Papua?
Perhaps the reason why Australia has not stepped up against supporting the people of western Papua is because they want to avoid being seen as hypocrites later on. Australia can hardly complain about Indonesia/the UN with their support of the dodgy “Act of Free Choice”, when Australia themselves are planning to stoop just as low in the future.
Australia – while initially late to the party – in the end supported East Timor’s independence. However, East Timor was historically a Portuguese colony, and was separate to the Dutch East Indies which surrounded it. Under the principle ofUti possidetus juris as applied in a decolonial context, East Timor is it’s own, separate case, standing on it’s own. Uti possidetus juris means (very rough oversimplification here – but anyways..) an old colony becomes one, single new independent nation upon decolonising. It was, in some respects, in Australia’s interest to support East Timor – as it helps uphold Uti possidetus juris as a decolonisation principle. Upholding this principle may help Australia to decolonise itself in a unified way – without being split territorially. To be consistent with upholding the Uti possidetus juris principle, Australia should also support Indonesia’s claim over western Papua, as it is part of the Dutch East Indies historically.
Why is western Papua part of Indonesia anyway?
The reason western Papua is seen as part of the Dutch East Indies – ironically may be to do with the actions of Queensland. Going back historically, before Cooks 1770 voyage, at least some parts of western Papua island were on the territorial fringe of the Dutch East Indies due to treaties conducted by the Dutch with the Sultanate of Tidore.
But the big line on the map – the border that divides western Papua/Indonesia from Papua New Guinea at 141 degrees East, was drawn on the map during Queensland’s annexation of Papua in 1883.
The annexation by Queensland was in response to some propaganda, fabricated, fear-fantasy pumped up by Australian newspapers about Germans annexing it if the British did not annex it first. A German geographer named Emil Deckert did a talk in Dresden for the Verein fuer Erdkunde (Geography special-interest club). The talk was about what a good idea it would be for Germany to colonise New Guinea. This was not an official government position – it was a personal opinion, in a special interest club – something which happens every day (Germans are kind of big on “Vereins”, I see posters for them everywhere here, although not so many since COVID). The Sydney Morning Herald translated and published his talk as if it were an official German government position – which led to Queensland pre-emptively annexing half of New Guinea. I can vouch that the translation of the talk itself was accurate, but it was presented out of context. Many decades later on, western Papua was scooped-up by Indonesia from the other side of that 141 degrees east line.
Conclusion
Main point of this post is to show that – as gammon as such a tiny representative sample (less than 1%) the Referendum Council actually asked is – there is already precedent for it to be accepted by the International community, because a gammon process HAS been accepted in the case of western Papua.
The colony has planned this scheme out in a LOT of intricate detail. It wouldn’t surprise be if they were actually using the Act of Free Choice as their “bar” to meet, given how closely the numbers line up. We are talking 1024 delegates for western Papua process vs. an unknown, but maximum of 1300 for the Referendum Council – from similar ballpark number of total population of 800,000. The Referendum Council used funding as an excuse to limit participation and hosting dialogues – yet they had all the money in the world to spend on ‘experts’ and ‘consultants’ at the big end of town, and had enough to fly everyone to Yulara – which is probably not the most economical place if the goal is including as many people as possible for a set amount of $$’s.
But being such a low bar, is not a completely bad thing. Because it means you only need to get 2000-odd Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people together to put together a competing alternative on the table. Note – you can’t just have 2000 of your buddies from your own circle, it needs to be geographically and situationally diverse. By situationally diverse – I mean you would need to include old-skool Traditional Owners, people from Stolen Generations, people from the Missions, etc. The time is golden right now to start thinking about alternatives and putting them out to the people.
