I’m about to break down for you some of the tyrannical and dystopian points implied by “truth-telling”. Truth telling is presented to be something lovely, and that in some way it imparts upon people ancient wisdom even. In reality it seems to be an excuse to manufacture “truths”, which will basically be the basis of legal arguments, largely to do with how a state is run. And that state being either the potential treaty recognized sovereign nation, and/or the current Australian nation.
Everything quoted in this article is from the Uluru statement from the heart, document 14.
“Adelaide ROM, p4: ‘We want Australia to take a giant leap in humanity. This is about truth-telling. Whether it is constitutional change or Treaty. It is not about colour. It is about truth-telling and justice.’ – In the fine print of pg.7
So let’s break this down. “This is about truth telling whether it is constitutional change or treaty” Indicates the main purpose of truth telling; to ultimately change the laws of Australia including the Australian constitution and recognising a sovereign nation within Australia, which is the main purpose of a treaty.
Secondly it says, “this is not about colour”, and boy do we know that already. This has nothing to do with aboriginals. Many of the campaigners and organisers, including some signatories to the Uluru statement are fair skinned. At least one of the leading figures of the Yes campaign have been alleged to be withholding their grants and aboriginal movement benefits from the actual aboriginal people. Including inflating house prices in order to profit.
Thirdly, “it is about truth-telling and justice” Telling the truth on what? truths on constitutional change? On recognition of a successor state with native title? Native title owned by corporations to which the aboriginals in remote communities get nothing? Would “the creation of a ‘Black Parliament’” pg.18 be linked to some sort of truth?
Did the ancient aboriginals sit around a camp fire, telling stories of the rainbow serpent and how it brought down from the stars the Westminster system and the ownership of native title and land rights run by only a select few organizations who are less than 1% of the population?
I’m no expert, but I’m fairly certain that the ancient aboriginals believed that no one owned the land…
So where did this “truth-telling” idea come from? Simple, they’ll tell you: “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) enshrines the importance of truth-telling” pg.12. Yes that’s right. The ancient aboriginals in all their wisdom, envisioned in the stars that a globalist pseudo-communist multinational conglomerate of nations would have the best interests in mind for their isolated and vulnerable people. And that the aboriginal ancestors would be happy with this globalist organisation being the arbiter for what they have collectively learned over thousands of years.
You have to be really engaged in some demented mental gymnastics to believe that “truth telling” is sincere.
But wait, it gets better:
“… a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…” pg.19
A “truth commission”, in other words, a “ministry of truth”, now where have we read that before? In George Orwell’s book 1984 maybe? Next up is reparations. We know from this document that “treaty” and “truth-telling” are both intrinsically linked, along with “the voice”. Their ancestors did not envision reparations, And even if they did, there are no reparations needed as no one today has any legal basis for a reparations claim. Otherwise, if that were the case, I could claim reparations on the British government for taking any and all of my Celtic ancestor’s lands and subjecting us to servitude, to which the mathematics of ancestry would dictate that I’m owed reparations for at least half of Britain and a whole heap of trauma payments.
If the aboriginal ancestors actually wanted to impart truths onto our modern people, it would be about how certain landmarks were formed, where they are, where their tribes’ Wandjina’s are, where the good food and water spots are, how to survive in the wild, and the creation of the world according to their ancient beliefs. NOT how to run a modern government, create laws to control people, demand exclusive ownership of land, demand the extortion of finances from other races, or how to own land via organizations and keep Aboriginals locked in squalor in remote communities so you can eventually profit off of the resources by selling them to China.
There is so much more to this, and I prepared so many more quotes, but I’ve wrote enough for today. This “truth-telling” idea is also a global idea as well. Many nations are now being subject to ideas such as this. Understanding history is a great idea. Acknowledging wrongs from the past is also a brilliant idea. But re-hatching the problems of the past and shoving them down people’s throats will only lead to problems. And especially using those problems as a scapegoat for governmental control and systematic profit will also only lead to problems. History should stay as history. And our modern government should avoid repeating it. This is the point of history.
“truth telling” although the name sounds nice, is seemingly using the problems of the past to justify some sort of enshrined legal revenge, a revenge system where only a select few will benefit at the expense of everyone else, including the aboriginals who they are pretending to be.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that the most likely scenario is most of these “truths” will be entirely fabricated, most likely they’ll say they were “passed down orally”
The voice vote is not far away. Make sure to #VoteNo.
The Voice = Treaty = Truth.
And now you have a simple understanding of what they could mean by truth.
Alex James.