W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page    Contents Page for Volume    What is New








Canberra Doings, Australia Day Riots and Spitting in Context

What IS Australia ?


NEWS  454

The Australian, January 28, pp. 1 and 4.



In the dangerous increment of aboriginal 'rights' apparently for some at least, including the right to violence, which may be growing into a religious icon, as with terrorists, though this is certainly unusual at the present time in this category, there has been what appears a violent outthrust from the Tent Embassy near Parliament in Canberra. Amid enraged and seemingly seething approval, on the part of a number of aborigines,  there was an  apparent attempt to burn and to spit on the Australian flag. It appeared one more emotional pre-emptive act in a political drama, currently growing more misled in the indulgence that readily promotes intolerance and rabid activism, even in those favoured.

Amongst the most atrocious comments made about this - and many from various sources were far more moderate and some aboriginal responses excellent - was one to the effect that the land of Australia belongs to aborigines and these parliamentarians are visitors. This is an extrapolation of an increasingly common point of view.



It is one thing to try to remedy a former error, although there is great divergence on precisely what it was. Furthermore, it is good to be kind, considerate, looking for good for those in trouble, and to seek to help. That however because of truth, which abhors error, should not be confused with convenient or increasingly conventional falsehood. Some aborigines at one former time, before the official British settlement, for a period were inhabitants of part of Australia as it now is.

These, in view of the limits of science, were not necessarily the first people here. Quite certainly, they were not systematised or verified occupants of it all, by any evidence. They appear to have been tribes, and without a centralised government, with stated  and illimitable boundaries. If that were their preference, so be it; but let us not endue it with current conceptions of developed nations, inventing what was not so in the process. Let us not make myths, merely be careful about facts.

Some parts of the land, they knew, inhabited and valued; some they appear to have held sacred, or now to  do so, according to their religion, or culture if you want to use that word concerning what people do and think. It is of course only a rough generalisation, since many differ, and some greatly, as now is the case both among aborigines and later settlers. An aboriginal view concerning God as the One who made all things, in whom was the outcome of life, who made at the first and would judge at the last, in tests made in various parts of New South Wales,  seems to have good and early evidence considered with critically watchful care,  as attested in The Sydney Morning Herald Saturday, November 4, 1882*1.

Indeed, variety is easily made into conformity about a nation or a race, such as the aboriginal one,  and it is good to have this early data, among whatever else may be found. The article in question was shown to me by an aboriginal entrepreneur often called by the sobriquet, Golden Brown, with some concern about ignoring this aspect of aboriginal past belief. Thus evolutionism has invasively become all but lord in its divisive and delusive dynamic (despite reality - The gods of naturalism have no go!), and facts about races or actuality become mere fodder for the chaff-cutter which generalises as if on a guided tour, while as if dreaming, simultaneously loves to reduce all to little bits, achieving the multiple creaturely unites of life by continual miracle unacknowledged, such myths failing at every turn, to stand except by arrogant presumption and false generalisation, disdaining contradiction and aborting scientific method (as predicted - II TImothy 4).

Is it not then enough


that children are now mentally manipulated and
differentially denied the teaching of every aspect of such issues!
with reason and attention to empirical fact,


that they are burnt with bellicose religious furore,
smuggled by scientistic elements among a specialist group,


that we now need to have races a criterion of some special kind, lest truth rule!

Is it to become a pre-fabricated society, torturing truth, generalising by preference, applying results by mere will, prey of arrant ideologues, whose pretentions have neither ground nor restraint!

Again, any talk about owning the land, or even being custodians, on the part of any one race, is not objective. It is a point of view based on a value system and a limited mode of research at the same time, including the argument from absence at a given time. It is certainly not normal to speak of some people who at a former time held some of a land as owning it all, or being its custodians. Inhabitants is the term; the rest is manufactured. To be required to accept a race that had some of Australia for some time before the British settlement as owning all the land, or of their being custodians for it, represents a religious view which it is hard to find accepted so simplistically on a broad scale throughout all nations.

It is discriminatory in the extreme against many applying the biblical fact that God is the Creator, and owns us as well as the land, having made both. How could ANYONE in any case, OWN a land they did not (beyond opinion) create, and in which they have not left (as for example did Rome), vast evidences of having transformed it.

Even if they had, this is not in itself a bill to own it. If you find a place you did not make, or an anything else, living in some of it, or with something of it, does not at all constitute ownership. The question always arises, But where did it come from, that anyone should own it ? Is it those who invested most in it, or by inventions did most for it, or in transformative efforts, achieved most for it ? Not necessarily, but it is certainly not just by living in it, and being made the subject of romanticist conceptions. In effect, this new potential aboriginal compact represents in part a move to establish a religion about people and land and ultimate reality, which contradicts the current Constitution by the ideas it is establishing.

Any attempt to lasso this limitation on religious norms and forms, and then to disregard it, instead imposing a chosen fixed idea, as in making a multiple change to the constitution, would have to change even more in the Constitution. It would require the deletion or dilution of the part about religious establishment also, and in compromising this, lead to the elevation of one cultural/religious/moral approach, by law with its provision for lawyers to put it into concrete and dollars, prison and fines.

Tyrannies are already apparent in the schools for all, propagandising in naturalism by law; is it necessary further to foul the land with hypocrisy with more of these political sanctions! Is it necessary to allow a further advent from that source now, so that one more source is sanctioned, invested with power to take away the nation's liberty by force, whether by law or its later applications.

Much the same applies to the effort to make aboriginal people legally select, instead merely as is right, if desired, recipients of special care ex gratia. If you extend that to 'rights', then in so doing for others you make wrongs, limiting their power and individuality as persons by this false dichotomy. One aboriginal writer expressed it far less intrusively and divisively, indeed very well, with far less peril to equality before law, in saying that ALL are conceived as Australians whether aborigines, or settlers*1A, for many have been immigrants from here or there. It is far from impossible that aborigines were immigrants not least from India. There are times, but priniciples remain the same.

This is far better than the racism which seems imminent, divisive, demeaning, corrosively corruptive, making many aborigines members of a master race in this, that they have SUCH special consideration that there is scarcely any limit to the special power given to them AS A RACE. Racism is horrid in any dress!

This is more horrid in that it creates delusion, defiles Australian liberty and does it on the grounds of race. When, again, it involves attitudes and acceptance of certain claims about the nation which are not accurate, about a 'culture' which is only partially  'one', being actually diversified, and thus in such elevation of some, breaches fundamental approaches to all reality relative to many,  we have an insidious evil. It is the unacknowledged, partial establishment of a religion. It involves the confusion of kindness with kind-ness, of religion and race. Moreover, it is the ostensible rescue of a race by racism, which defiles the site of all races; and it is simply contrary to the Constitution of this Nation, like an erosive cancer.

KINDNESS, they say, be big! Great, a few billion for aboriginal work here and there are already reported in educational and allied fields (we will not even speak of wasted housing). It appears almost  as a mere trifle, when debt can be covered by China, as Australia comes more into line wi th debtor nations, dependencies in the long run, unless the thing be corrected in time! But kindness is not the same as corruption, corrosion of liberty and differential exaltation of the fundamental privileges and liberties of one race. One said that if the Constitutional amendments were NOT accepted, Australia would be shown racism.

This is precisely the opposite of the fact. If such constitutional changes as are commonly in view, for the above reasons, were accepted by a delusion in the Australian people, they would OF NECESSITY, and not merely as an opinion, be operating on racist grounds. It would further be religiously offensive and give help to attitudes concerning religion on a differential basis. It COULD make religious liberty subject to invasion, as already in the classrooms, by naturalists, so any such new tyranny would add to the breach of religious liberty already in force*2.



They are all equally people of a nation. Why do we need political adventurism, trying to glorify, if not deify in naturalistic (and demeaning) terms, the aboriginal contingent in the continent, as if to make them cripples, rather than components.

It is one thing to see a former rampancy in part (along with great kindness, sinuously subverted in Rudd's particularly gross generalisation in his culturally correct but morally perverted apology), contribute to a need of the aloe of mercy.

It is another to invest one race with personal privileges which can foul freedom for others, and indirectly, magnify the difficulties. This misled step can be taken, instead of appealing as all must to all races, to find ways to be individual but productive, different but not indulged, succoured if need be for a time in needful areas, but never made into people who can say, Hi visitors, welcome to our country! or worse, and why ? because they lived in some of it, before the British created another civilisation for all of it. That is a gross distortion. They neither made the land nor made anything particularly remarkable of it. We have ALL failed before the Maker of it all, and to select a race for such discriminatory positives, is to abuse principles of the first order.

Act if you must, but freedom is a delicate plant (cf. Ch. 1 above), and intolerance of truth is as efficient a way as any of subverting it. There are in fact not two peoples, but a multitude of peoples insulted by any such sullying of reality by this particular, all too near, racism apparent in popular approach to subjecting the Constitution to change. Criteria must be deeply considered. In particular, people need to pause and ponder well, before divesting the Constitution of Australia of some of its better points, to indulge a fragmentation perspective, which does not even SEE the value of a nation, of its precious liberty, and protecting this against confusion with a particular political effort to do good.

The work of many to improve, educate, make sacrifices for the welfare of aborigines, by report many at their own request, or to rescue them from abuse or deprivation, is not well treated by apology. The real apology now needed is to those who have done these good things, thus vilified by such an awesomely distortive apology. In fact, there are many races,  all mortals, all forms of a type, all with a potential unity, all with corruptible master and servant possibilities, all with or without self-discipline, and there is one way of bringing them to the knowledge of their place and what is beyond race, the situation for all races, any race, any mortal man, woman or child whatsoever. This was not at all excluded from view when the States agreed to federate. If this is the biblical approach, is this to be vilified as other things are glorified or elevated or indulged as mandatory for all, in this or that way, as part of some revisionist reversion program, which will stand almost anything but its origin!

This writer has personally seen many of the aboriginal race corrupted by government policy, ready cash, ready drugs it appears, ready marijuana, with evidence of a sense of power in manipulating judges to give them what they want, as judicial people of strange but useful disposition in their own favour, presented as almost laughable! Bright children become accustomed to drugs in the home, violent conduct, and immorality - cases have been cited - and this leads to a most pitiable result with the evacuated use of law to require accountability comes with what appears as a squalid legal surrender.

With intervention in absentia, as if one were to withdraw from certain suburbs in any attempt to prevent crime,  saying THESE are from this or that tribe or nation, what follows ? There remains the foul the use made of children, in many cases, aboriginal mothers seeking deliverance; or enlightened laxity in their education. Again, excluded, very often, is discipline, replaced by violence, which might have led to efforts to maximise opportunity and so help to avoid the same evils which destroy peoples of all races, leading to surrender to abuse of many kinds.

Opportunities are lost, attitudes to life which omit responsibility for the use of one's own being, so that one sees potential bright sparks, turn into drug receivers and cultural receivers of this patronising delusion.

Instead of making a kind of religious saga and elevation out of the approach of one race, and increasingly putting it into racist laws or procedures, as in the chanting in State affairs, of a song about aboriginal ownership or custodianship before meetings, racism in all its horror, there should be an essential openness, which does not ignore the differentiation even among aborigines, or make them,  some Christian, some not, into one type of vitamised aboriginal human. That is inaccurate and demeaning, especially to liberty. It is as if to make ALL (other) Australians into one beaten cream, and insult some by making it seem ALL are like that! It is not so.

Well-known aboriginal leader Mundine is not by any means altogether mistaken in his speech against a new race power in the Constitution (The Australian, front page, December 19,  2011). In fact, there is a very sound realism about his concern for unproductive legal entanglements, and his view that this change in view, is going "a hundred steps too far." Here is one who stands out in current aboriginal culture, as no mere conformist, conditioned by a political, interventionist policy.

An aborigine is a human being (and one's own experience shows this individuality to be so, underlying the governmental inaccuracy as if to make them one paste, or pastiche), and should be treated like one, not made into a model, religious or other. EACH member of that as of ANY other race should be regarded openly as taking, preferring or investing time and talent in whatever religion is preferred, without demeaning them into a type, indoctrinating them into one  approach, far less making it appear that the Christian approach is contrary to aboriginal reality.

Where good for all is sought, wisdom does not have to be a casualty, nor sophisticated, shallow conceptions that are racist in type, perilous in implications and ill-thought out in portent, an affront to some, and a cheapening of the supposed beneficiaries. This clamorous confusion does not need to rule. Democracy does not need to accept it. Raw prawns may appeal to some; but they still seem decidedly fishy.



Worst of All -

and its Offensive Outcomes

Evicting Christ in the name of a homogenised culture, a mere myth, since there are many elements and approaches that many have taken, is mere religious intolerance. Indeed, NEVER have I see a happier group of shining faced aborigines than that at one Western Australian mission, where I participated for some  weeks, and taking a class, saw the mental talent available in this identification with the ways of Jesus Christ! On the other hand, rarely have I personally seen corruption more saddening than that of closely 'helped' aborigines, where a political culture interfered grossly in their ways, win the way of individual possibilities. With such procedures, it is small wonder that great sums of money are reported in these fields to have been spent almost in vain, with almost invisible improvement.

In ANY race, it is always the same; and where anything in any people, or nation, fascinates or corrupts, destroys talent or does not bother to unearth it, following  rash and unproven models, there is a grief beyond all race. It is time to look at the human race, and its preposterously increasing human racism, the worst of all,  in putting itself first in all things, even when this involves a virtual worship of naturalism, or anything else it happens to desire, with lust of mind or heart, but no discernible reason or sound result. It is especially so when children are bound to culture or ideology, not free to pursue the opportunities because they are delimited in advance. It becomes a practice in puppetry, with governmental fingers heavily laid on.

Racism insists on such an approach; liberty insists on its erosion. From the biblical perspective, whatever the superficial reasons, this means that many aboriginal people are treated as if OF COURSE they are of one type of culture, of course there can be no change. In that case, of course all Britons should be regarded (in years past) as Christians, of course they should be not be allowed differentiation, but each one must accept this cultural fact, and be so regarded. Is that really so, in either of these two cases ?




Christianity does not work by scheme or scimitar, atomic bomb or nerve gas, whichever be chosen. It insists there is a oneness in one Creator, and one answer to the sins of all creation, in one remedy, with one basis evidentially, rationally and in terms of verification. This is not the place to rehearse this but SMR, Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny, with  Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ, present some of the features involved. To indoctrinate to the contrary, without room for reasoning, whether the butt be those of whiter  or darker skin, with this or that prevenient history,  is mere totalitarian subversion of liberty.

That it also subverts reason is shown in the above sites, and generically on this site, but that is not the present point. Liberty of thought for all races, for all of WHATEVER background is what is constitutionally required, and constitutionally in danger of overthrow. It is already violated for ALL peoples in the land; and to further the folly by acting in a swaggering and partonising way, protective in motive or not, now in racist terms, merely aggravates the presumption. At least let us leave the Constitution free from these religious breaches, whether racist or ideological (cf. the lore of Professor Lewontin, Ch. 6,    *2 above).

The Gospel is not to be made superfluous, far less inimical, to any people by the Australian Constitution. It is this fact that makes it necessary for its defence to be made here (cf. Philippians 1:7), amid naturalistic assumptions increasingly being taken for granted in a land whose foremost political leader has "no religion," whose frankly indoctrinative educational system*3, at this level, is unashamedly so tilted that it is ruled in this field by assumption, run by preferred attitudes and in the absence of equal tuition rights as provided in principle but not in fact, is contrary to the UN Declaration against discrimination in the field of religion (cf. Mystery of Iniquity).

What then of further movements in baseless confusion ?

As to the Constitution, If it must be changed, here in one part, then this becomes an example that could be cited. Thus,  if this racism enters in its assumed homogeneous concept of a people at the political level, and added to this, then makes divergence in privileges between one select race and others, then the principle of  liberty for all being broken, so is the protection not of this or that race, but of the races, all of them, in this relatively blessed land. Australia is one nation, it has many races of many historical emphases, with many and vastly important variations within; and political intrusion to type these, to mould them for ambition or convenience, make the passing parade of the past in some culture, basis for the binding law for the present on such assumptions, or present partial cultural preference to be enshrined in law, is merely one more way of denying liberty through inept generalisation.



It is also one that dehumanises, making all into types, despite the fact that some of the most conspicuous actions in the past for any race, have been individual in presentation, often associated with long endurance, with eventual results. Making a mandatory mould from a stream of past events is not only inaccurate, it is divisive by diversion, setting up ideas instead of liberty for actual people. We have built our Constitution, our liberties, and if there is any conflict, then this can be resolved, BUT not at the expense of changing the nature of one people into two or more, or imagining whether with Islam or earlier cultures, that there is room for shifting voting power as with all, into special licence!

To treat a person on the basis of some racial TYPE, is grossly offensive to individual liberty and even to the importance of people as individuals. If a Communist Constitution be  desired, for example, then this could be noted and put to the people. Its background against the individual would need to be adopted, for it to rule, and Australia, noted for their independence, would have a new ruler over the soul, and body. This is not so, here and now. Let us stay free, and change if so be, when the mandate is to do so, and alter a Constitution so happy a base for so much so far beyond the force States than impose without limit, always starting somewhere their rabid thrust to endless subordination and division.

By all means be kind to some if you will, and have special reason, but never even consider legally elevating the gods or religious conceptions of one race, including values based on concepts,  by operative law, that will affect truth or freedom. It is important not to push around the ultimates and to make legal sanctions in the application of those matters, in terms of mandates, requirements, statements of the very nature of the nation. It would be difficult to be more in contradiction of the Constitution in this aspect of its freedom, that on religion, that to take any such step.

All that is needed at this point, in essence, is to remove anything contrary to liberty and equality before law, not to impose it; to enable acts of kindness not in any way limiting liberty before the law, or freedom of speech without prejudice, and to recognise. If so desired, it could be stated what all know, that aborigines were a prior race here and have a contribution to make, without favour or establishment of any kind. The rest can become a political contest for votes, an arrogation for one party, of liberties for all, an intrusion into our peaceable liberties and a false elevation in KIND, of a particular group,  as if this were warranted by errors in the past.

That errors in the present by all races, aboriginal and settlers and immigrants,  are frequent enough, is quite obvious, and this makes it the more necessary to avoid such elevations, which can remove a sense of realism, and allow a discriminatory ambivalence about what is right and wrong before the law, and even gross improprieties in making law come to accord all kinds of outcomes, where wisdom and application to any particular case would have been safer for all.

It is in the last degree divisive and demeaning to ALL, as human beings,  to have such religious approaches formalised, legalised and made into harassments; and it is non-aborigines who seem to be the chief promoters and subverters in such moves, as in the case in S.A., by report, concerning things that have to be said or chanted before certain Council meetings of one kind or another, strange little words about land ownership, custody or the like, aborting freedom of religious concept.

Freedom of speech and of religion is far better than this attempt to make 'culture', the general conception of what goes on, lord and god to man, whether it be British or aboriginal, or other. It is only self-worship at best, if and when applied without grounds but desire, in terms of inaccurate generalisations.



Indeed, and further, any change from the Preamble, conceived as not legally binding, must likewise be considered. Such must also be seen by this people of Australia, not as manipulees, but as those who living here have votes, as an exceedingly significant alteration. Thus each acting on a personal value systems and belief, there is at length applied what is held by the majority, not directives about perilous ways of turning due kindness into undue legal laceration and religious establishment. If a majority wish to remove an apparently non-binding statement of where the nation  was in its foundation, concerning Almighty God, then it should do so because it does not see it that way.

If it wants to change the characterisation of our land from the start, if the votes are there, in a democracy, that can be done. But let it not be by intimidation based on the elevation of any culture, whether atheist, agnostic, racial or other, by some kind of social effrontery. Believe it, say it in a democracy, vote for it, but do not injure the liberty within the law by making legally binding prejudicial preferences. How easy it is for people to believe it and NOT say it, because hypnotised, as in Hitler's day, by what happens for the moment to have some kind of oft-repeated political appeal. Like SIMON SAYS in the old child's game, this then becomes Culture Says, in what, not being a game, comes to virtual inanity. The method is then wrong, inept, in applicable.

To pursue the Preamble aspect: If Australia wants a fundamental change in this measure of attribution of its conviction, then this is a vast move. There will be consequences as similarly for the conceived changes of the body of the Constitution. Let nothing be done lightly, or by simple confusion of categories.

You do not need to make a new sort of legal people in order to be kind, helpful, concerned and generous. You do not need to wipe out the reference to God Almighty in the non-binding part of the Constitution, or by implication, to Christ Jesus in this historic document. You need not change the place for any race, whether for sharia law or that of other peoples.

If Islam rules, it has its laws; if Judaism did so, it has its scope; if any race, aboriginal or Germanic or Russian, has a place through some citizens in Australia, it may be given vote and through this the means to achieve what it prefers, if it is able; but it is not made into another group with a special tag and privilege. You can help without being a whelp! It applies to one and all; and if you want to make reparations to any, it is not in giving them the nation or a lawless exclusion zone, or special exemptions to abuse the freedom of others, and so abase or obliterate the character of the nation, with specious freedom to none and special liberty to all, but in giving help in grace as SUCH!

In particular, where a Christian-based nation exists, and chooses multicultural freedom, this is not to be identified with characterless indifference, following every tinge and scent, like some stray dog! It means gracious tolerance of what does not colonise for cultural clutch that seizes, or as a prelude to force, liberty to add to the races which can in the aggregate express what they have within the law, where freedom remains uninhibited by a blather which means we have NO principles, NO ways, NOTHING but unlimited licence to anything to be helped to have special privilege because it is new. We do not give licence and latitude to races old or new (and which are not in the end old ?) to subvert, to distort, to import and apply themselves as if dominant, directive or peculiar We are a nation, not a continental druggie, ready to be intoxicated by every new or old thing, without wisdom or understanding, exaggerating desire without the discipline of voting procedures.

If we vote in a government, as now, which does this, then this is a subversive element, and if tolerated, if disruptive of Australia as one people, with one past, and one foundation and one reason for tolerance, and not a body awaiting subversion by privilege, with new forms of divisiveness. What can grow, let it; but let not the government imagine it is in the business of nation fiddling, rather than growing.

It is not only individuals who, to use the old phrase, can lose their character. There are references other than personal ones; and there are great peoples who fall in thrall to this or that hypnotism with power or wealth or ease or vainglory or indifference during operations on their very minds, to distort and delete, till they become like a giant heaving mass of beached whales.

Some nations value character, and are not ashamed of aspects of their national inheritance. Some merely limp into muddles, until in a mess, they wish they had thought about popular moves, not a little, but very much more, very much sooner. Hitler's culturally commanding bugle led to such a result, as did Lenin's and Stalin's relentless percussions.

It is all as  common as dirt.  But care and thought, reflection and due gratitude for the good that one has, realism and an urgent seeking for reality without modulation into models that suit some, these are needed like salt on meat. There MUST be liberty to criticise without inhibition, where reason is concerned, lest the wily or the wild usurp power amid a listless people, mesmerised by propaganda, to become 'tolerant' of a division of races to the point that there is a new KIND of master race, indulged with fantasy, as if this were for them or us, any solution to their problems.

All do well to consider the rock from which they are hewn, or to ponder the point, if it what is in view is but sand. Building on sand may not only give you cheap real estate, but cheapen you altogether. It also tends neither to last nor to be stable. Racism, of this new kind, or any other, including the outrageous folly of human racism, resting yourself on yourself as if that meant something interpretive with reason.

That is never the point, for it is mere pointless presumption and invasion of liberty. People are free with the cultures for good or evil, but never for force's play, with  the ways of living, the prized ideals, the gods or the God they worship, for which they live. In this land, liberty without foundation of any new religion for basis is the case; and in this realm, NOTHING may be established by law, whether its hiding place be culture or force, custom or convention, with its ultimate understanding attached, by inference or word. If it bears on the nature of ultimate reality, then its religious presentation or aspiration has no ground BY LAW in this land.

This however is precisely what is becoming so popular, that it threatens the nation with cleavages in KIND so ultimate, that they reduce citizens to political divisions, with ultimate results, its ideologifcal heart set on creating two or more KINDS of people with different rights, and rites than can have special preservation powers at law, disrupting truth by force, legal force, as a criterion. Freedom is not enough; there must be sanctions, force, rule, new powers, special enclosure as well as many lands with other laws. What is this Australia, that it is so prostituted! Things then stand by law, are ready to be forced by mischievous differentiation, while discrimination lords it over us and we are expected to AGREE TO IT!

Has sanity become an outlaw! Has justice washed in tar ? It resembles more and more the finale of follies noted in Isaiah 59, before the return of the Messiah to bring truth back from its fallen place, and righteousness its place where belongs, in the Author of mind, the Donor of validity, the Maker of man*2. It is perhaps those who love Him least, who deal out discriminatory divisions as if they were party cake, or drugs...

Certainly, they play the fool with looseness concerning mankind, on NO basis but themselves and their own lore, as new Canberra lore, that sets itself above the Constitution in so lording over Australians with the divisive stick of empty assertion. When lore lords, neither reason nor righteousness is in force. Man is ruled by whatever he is doing, has done, would like to do, fooled by whatever appeals, making hay and artificial divisions: for which RACE has not something special and which PEOPLE has not a cultural including values, a religious bearing special even if conglomerate, particular to itself. So does the land sink into the maw of lore, and the dignity of truth becomes an ancient tradition, to be dismissed over a glass of this or that political drug.

RACISM as here in view, including human racism, as for so long in view in educational warping and violation of our undertaking re the UN Declaration against discrimination based on religion or belief (despite its own failings), is an unlovely thing. Let's stop playing with mankind, and return to the concept of equality before the law, subordination to truth and grace not force, in dealing with differentiation. The elimination of God may seem a precious resolution to some, but as famously with Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher: God is dead, signed Nietzsche: Nietzsche is dead, signed God, is a differentiation that brings a little pause for thought for the magicians who have anything at all for no reason at all (before reason ever was, on such a model, for that matter) make up everything with no power to do it; or just beg the question altogether, in parts or in multi-partite bits and scraps, like stealing jewels case by case, or a heap at once. 






For this, see TMR, Ch. 8, as marked.



Thus Bronwyn Penrith of Redfern, NSW is cited in The Week-End Australian Magazine as follows.

I'm a very proud First Nations Australian woman. Often Aboriginal people see themselves as being separate but the truth is that Aboriginal history, even though it is a different experience, is Australian history, as well as convict history, as well as settler history. They're all just different parts of Australia...



See for example Ch. 1 above, esp. *4 and reference made there.



On the indoctrination and distortion of nothing-to-something, slow or fast, organic evolution, and the refashioning of gods without power to achieve glory, see The gods of naturalism have no go!,  a work of several million words and several  volumes, written over the last 14 years or so.



See for example Ch. 1 below and Ch. 11 above, with *2 above in this Chapter.