A racist referendum failed to win over the Australian people, although nearly 40 percent (overwhelmingly white, upper-middle class, and urban, the same classes that dominate fascist leftism in America and the UK) voted for it. The referendum would create a de facto tribunal of indigenous Australians who, by their race alone, would be qualified to check any law, any regulation the Australian legislature and administration might create or modify.
When the idea was first proposed, of creating a race-based tribunal to have more de facto power to check government than even our Supreme Court does (and not having to even rely on Rule of Law to do so), 60 to 70 percent of Australians supported it. They must not have fully understood the ramifications of the racist referendum, however, for as the campaign wore on and they realized this wasn’t just an “advisory body” but one that would result in real de facto law-changing powers, the mood changed and the leftist fascists lost their opportunity to condition a people to accept their brand of totalitarian authoritarianism based on racial hierarchies (race fascism).
The language itself smacks of race supremacism, referring to the “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples” as being the First Peoples of Australia. The First Peoples in the subconscious mind becomes the best people, and the crafters of this language know full well the hate they are spreading, the divisions they hope to create between the Aboriginals and everyone else.
The crafters of the Yes position tried to avoid the obvious fact that this was, on its face, an explicitly racist law, but that didn’t fly with the Australian people, who are now being accused of being racist for rejecting a racist law.
From Telegraph UK:
Aware that this was No’s strongest argument, Yes tried to rebut it by pointing out that there is only one human race, which means distinctions based on race can’t exist. The distinction, Yes claimed, is one only of ancestry, and refers to “inherent rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold as the original inhabitants of the Australian continent.”
Lawyers call this sort of argument “trivially true”. Biological race does not exist among humans. We are not genetically distinct enough. Chimpanzees possess biological race (biologists use the term “sub-species”). Humans don’t. However, Aboriginal ancestry in even tiny amounts stands out in a 23andMe test. The Yes claim that the Voice wasn’t conferring rights based on race thus looked like prestidigitation. Descent from the First Peoples of Australia (a real thing) was being used to draw distinctions between groups in the same way that nineteenth century racists drew distinctions based on race (not a real thing).
It also led to a situation where people who voted against a proposed law intended to distinguish between groups of Australians based on ancestry and cultural practice were accused of racism. I’m afraid those who support race-based policies designed to ameliorate “structural disadvantage” or “inequity” – of which the Voice is one – need to understand that to most people, they just look like more racism.
When leftists “defend” their perverse positions based on fear, hate, and fake hope, to the non-indoctrinated, their “best” arguments simply expose their true depravity even more, as has happened here, and hopefully will happen elsewhere in the world, including here in America where perversion is glorified and righteousness is outlawed.
6 thoughts on “Australians Dodge Race-Based Fascism by Rejecting “Voice to Parliament””