RED OVER BLACK

Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights is the title of a book written first published in 1982 but even more pertinent today given  insistent demands for "Recognition" and a treaty being even greater threats to continued Australian unity than ever before.

The book's extraordinary value is lies in the background of the the author, Geoff Macdonald, writing as a lapsed Communist, being formerly a  high-flyer in the now defunct Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and intimately conversant with the methods and machinations of this Stalinist organisation Down Under, the most tried and trusted of which was the always reliable divide and conquer tactic.

Adding to his credentials as an authority on the subject he tackles is his many years experience in Central Australia where he represented the Royal Australian Nurses Federation, naturally having wide contact with the white nurses selflessly forsaking the comforts of city living, and the mostly full-blooded Aborigines to whom they ministrated. His obvious affection for both groups shines through the pages.

Red Over Black shows how in taking up the cudgel for Australian Blacks, the actions of the CPA were similar indeed to the way in which American Jews championed the rights of US Blacks, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) being founded and staffed almost solely by Jews. In both cases, the motivation was in fact not out of love for the supposedly downtrodden but rather the pursuit of a hidden agenda. Its not known how many members of the CPA were Jews but given the historical precedents of Jews swarming to the political philosophy invented by their kinsman, an over-representation could be fairly assumed.

MacDonald joined the CPA in 1948 as a callow but idealistic eighteen year old. As an example of  rapid- fire geopolitical transformation illustrated so well by Orwell, affable Uncle Joe Stalin had only a few years earlier been switched to being the successor of Hitler as the AntiChrist. However, the CPA was still enjoying the the lingering boost to Communism given by the Soviets being our gallant ally (the most atrocious mass rape since the hordes of Ghengis Khan rolled over the Steppes being conveniently ignored if not hidden).

He evidently showed promise because within a relatively short time he was being "educated" at the party's secret training centre in Minto NSW. It was here some time later in 1959 that he first came into contact with two leading Communists of the era, JB Miles and Lance Sharkey, and it was from them that he learned that in order to bring about a red Australian republic, the first major step needed to be a splitting off of an aboriginal republic. Stirring up a crusade for aboriginal land rights was the method by which this was to be eventually achieved.

 Because a revolution was completely out of the question in conservative, relatively well off Australia, the type of "gradualism" honed to perfection by Fabian Socialists was deemed to be perfectly suited to achieving the same result. Patiently settling in for the long haul has shown proven results. As an example of how well "gradualism" can work, one only has to note the eventual creation of the basically socialist EU which was originally presented to the unsuspecting European people as the simple Common Market. Who could argue with such a concept when told that the rising synergistic tide created by free trade within this organisation would lift all boats and and rain gold over all involved? Downside? (loss of national sovereignty perhaps?) Why, none at all.

MacDonald was also to learn of how the party, driven by ideological fanaticism, was at the forefront of tearing apart the White Australia policy. Again, the ultimate aim was to produce discord, disharmony and as much damage as possible to Australian nationalism, nationalism being seen as a despised obstacle to communist internationalism.

Curiously though, the party was opposed to large parts of the great refugee programme offering Australia as a new home to some of the "displaced persons" wandering stunned amongst the ruins of a Europe shattered by the war.  It viewed with particular suspicion, for example, the "Balts" because of their perceived affinity with fascism. If the party had've had its way, it would have sorted the European refugees into those amenable or receptive to their philosophy and those that weren't, the latter not being allowed entry.

It would later have no disagreement with non-European immigrants except perhaps the perceived right wingers fleeing triumphant Vietnamese communists. The party was essentially colour blind, hardly surprising when class struggle was seen as the engine of history - class and not race was what mattered. This goes a long way  toward  explaining  how Australian whites would have been perfectly happy to see perhaps as much as a half of the Australian continent hived off into a red aboriginal republic. As long as people were communist, they could be any colour.

It was at Minto that MacDonald began to make sense of Marxist dialectics. He wondered for instance at the seeming contradiction of the party being vehemently opposed to South African Apartheid, while energetically trying to fashion what would essentially be the same thing in Australia. Dialectics is best explained as a system of thought that can accommodate glaring contradictions like this by focusing on the supreme good and the supreme good was the victory of communism. It is of course no secret that the driving force behind the destruction of Apartheid in South Africa was communism, the terrorist Mandela himself as well as his ANC being thoroughly Marxist indoctrinated. To sum up Marxist dialectics, the Good can be found by asking, is it good for communism? In this, Marxism is almost a twin of Judaism/Zionism, which shouldn't surprise considering the impressive overlap. Marxists ask, is it good for communism? Jews ask, is it good for Jews.

MacDonald was also intrigued to find out how much leftist tentacles had reached out to infiltrate churches, especially the World Council of Churches (WCC). He discloses how "Mick" Miller, another prominent Australian Marxist of the time was financed by the WCC while he was claiming to represent Aborigines through the North Queensland Land Council. In MacDonald's reincarnation as an anti-Communist he states that "Mister Miller represents only himself and a small number of radical activists." Radical activists, it goes without saying are invariably city-bred fair-skins, and this was while genuine spokesmen for Aborigines were all but ignored. On a separate occasion,  not long after holding its Central Committee meeting in communist East Germany, the WCC awarded 56,000 dollars to Autralian "Aboriginal organisations". This arrangement was almost identical to the marriage between Marxism and Christianity for which large swathes of South America became famous.

In a similar vein in a later part of the book, he writes, "... full blood Aborigines in the Northern Territory constantly complained of the whites and part-Aborigines who were continually meddling in their lives and acting as imposters because of a wrong authority given them by the Federal Government." These "imposters" even physically assaulted them when they tried to attend church. "Go back to the old ways," they were ordered.

In a major U turn from two thousand years of Christian teaching, churchmen were also discouraging Aborigines from attending church and were as well adivising that the old ways were best for them, regardless of the old ways - in strict compliance with the Malthusian assertion that population is limited by food supply - guaranteeing that even after many thousands of years the Aboriginal population probably never exceeded 300,000.  McDonald quotes historian, Geoffrey Blainey in elaborating on the dire result of ecological pressure: " the conclusion seems inescapable: over a long span of time millions of newborn Aboriginals must have been deliberately killed by their mother or father. Infanticide was almost certainly the strongest check on the increase of  the population of Aboriginals". Similarly, the old and the lame would simply be abandoned.

 Hunters and gatherers are particularly vulnerable to the deadly effects of droughts which in Australia are more normal than abnormal. And even though evil whites are invariable found guilty of introducing diseases to the "noble savage" in his halcyon idyll, the reality was that the land was long ravaged by disease. The effects were compounded by the superstitious beliefs of Aborigines causing sickness to be viewed as a the result of a curse directed by an enemy. The squaring-up added to the pile of bodies left by the disease. This was the life radical, mixed-race communists and leftists with a hot-line to heaven were urging Aborigines to return to.

Mainly due to lack of interest after the implosion of the Soviet Union, the CPA folded its tent in 1991. Naturally though, that didn't mean the end of Marxism in Australia - just a shape-shift into Cultural Marxism, basically what was left of the main body after jettisoning the ecomomic mumbo jumbo which had sunk the Soviets. It was quieter, much more subtle and far more palatable to a greatly increased range of people who would have felt faint in the face of the old ham-fisted communism. This was the crowd who now ran with the baton of social justice, especially "justice" for Aborigines, appearing not to notice how much had already been achieved for them - by foul means or fair.

The Australian people had essentially been hoodwinked in the lead-up to the 1967 referendum, purportedly to amend article 127 of the constitution which ahd failed to include Aborigines in the political process via a vote. That they hadn't been given a vote before this because of the near impossibility of providing ballot boxes to nomads was lost in the hyteria over white racism being the alleged real reason for the franchise not being extended to them.

That white Australia had a bountiful store of good will toward their black counterparts was demonstrated by 90.77% voting in favour of the Aboriginal right to vote. The quiet rider in the referendum though was the second question regarding an amendment of article 51: "The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: [section 26] The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any state for whom it is necessary to make special laws." [emphasis added]

Oddly, no attempt was made to clarify what this actually meant, so it is not surprising that voters saw this as yet another slight to Aborigines which needed rectifying. How could they have known that this provision had been aimed negatively at races considered problematic at the time of Federation - people of uncertain status at the fringes of Australian society such as Chinese and Kanaka non-citizens with an eye to a potential need to decree where such people could live and at what jobs they could work? The exclusion of Aborigines from this was in fact protection against their being affected by this law. The opposite perception though naturally led to this having having to be ditched along with the prohibition of the aboriginal vote.

How could they also have known that the amendment of 51 that they voted for, after including Aborigines in the purview of "special laws" would convert the original negative potential effects to potential positive effects for Aborigines for whom laws could be passed but which could not be passed for the general population. Ergo, the land rights that communists, half white radicals and fellow travellers had agitated for so determinedly began springing to fruition like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

The magic of once having achieved victim status is that the ending of grievances perpetually recedes like a mirage on the horizon. At the time Red Over Black was first published, land being claimed by Aborigines extended over 738,032 square kilometres of Australia's total land mass. "This vests 9.6 per cent of land in 1.2 per cent of the population, and the national total could rise even further ..." Macdonald writes. And it has.

But it's still not enough. In referring to  "the now redundant eyesore that is the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra ...", a Mister David Davies had this to say in a recent letter he wrote to Sydney's Sunday Telegraph, "... We have the Native Title Act. We have had a national parliamentary apology. We have an annual Sorry Day and NAIDOC Week. We both recognise and rejoice with indigenous citizens achieving their best. But can we not also be mature and willing enough to admit that the good of our first peoples is not now predominantly dictated by past sins, present racism or outstanding land claims, but by culturally self-inflicted wounds? ..."

We are now well and truly into the zone of diminishing returns. In fact white Australia is perilously close to crossing into the black from the red in the ledger of good will toward Aborigines. Expecting people to continue giving when they've given their all and are still being excoriated for past sins to not become resentful is the dream of someone asleep at the wheel while driving through reality. Further insatiable demands can only be counter-productive for Aborigines. The deep well of good will displayed by white Australia in 1967 is rapidly drying up  Reaction awaits in the wings. It's called human nature.

The current demand is for "recognition" and a treaty. Whatever "recognition" means, we have a clear idea of the meaning of the word treaty. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has this to say: "Treaty: formally concluded and ratified agreement between states." [emphasis added] Needless to say, an aboriginal "state" has never existed. The words, absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical are simply not up to the job in describing a treaty between whites and Aborigines.

The British settled the land that would become Australia on the legal basis of Terra nullius (nobody's land). This is now of course bitterly contested, the argument being that it was somebody's land, willfully ignoring the original intended sense of there being no-one, no organisation, no state with whom to deal - only a relatively small number of wandering hunters and gatherers. However for argument's sake let it be conceded that Terra nullius doesn't hold up. That leaves only conquest as the legal basis for British settlement. A treaty in the sense of one drawn up between warring parties with a view to end the conflict (such as the 1845 Waitangi treaty between New Zealand Maories and the British) is not something appealed to in the case of conquest, allowing that isolated skirmishes over isolated grievances constituted an actual war. Conquest in fact abrogates entirely the need for a treaty. Calling for a treaty more than two hundred years after the non-war is several orders of magnitude even more ridiculous.

But contiuing the game of hypotheticals, let' say we've crossed over to the world of anti-reality and a treaty is drawn up and signed. Would this mean that by implication aboriginal Australia, albeit scattered, disorganised and the opposite of monolitic, has become a state and thereby realised the dream of the communists? Probably not. That would have to be the next step. And given that once a group or subculture has attained victim status, relinguishing this status would be tantamount to killing the golden goose, (for example who would dare suggest that, now that homosexuals have been granted the right to marry, no more demands for "rights" will somehow be conjured up?) there will of course be a next step.

"Assume a virtue, if you have it not." So said Shakespeare through the mouth of Hamlet. A reasonable interpretation of this might be that the assumption will eventually become the reality. By appealing to a supranational body such as World Government in waiting, the UN, such as has been done long ago by the likes of the fair-skinned communist radical, Gary Foley, quite a bit of assuming was being done - so much so that one could be forgiven for thinking Foley already represented a separate sovereign state.

Fortunately though, with the UN still being much more than the paper tiger than the tyrannical giant its founders envisioned it to be, Foley was pretty much relieving himself into the wind. But what if, even if only  on paper, some kind of large autonomous aboriginal body was one day formed, and representatives of that body - which they have begun calling a republic - actually appealed for help to a foreign body with a little more fire-power than the UN? That foreign body could hypothetically be a national government - one like China's for example which, again purely hypothetically, has taken umbrage at the way it perceives the huge number of Chinese in Australia being mistreated. Listen once again to McDonald: "As we have shown, the call for a treaty was an invention of white radicals. It has been equally so with regard to predictions of violence and international support with military aid, or what they sometimes call 'physical' support from other countries. The tranlation of 'physical' is military aid from outside the country."

As already noted, push-back will eventuall arrive. But why hasn't it come sooner - much, much sooner? Here's an outsider's take on our paralysing, national neurosis: "Today's Australian schoolchildren are taught that whatever its present virtues, their nation was founded on genocide and theft. The fact that those original colonial forces were also white and European makes the act unsurpassably worse than it would be were the story the equally familiar one of dark-skinned peoples taking land from other dark-skinned peoples." (Coincidentally, an accumulating body of evidence points to this actually having happened in Australia long ago.)

Moreover, "But for Australians the historic treatment of the Aborigines ... is a subject that has in recent decades moved from the margins of public debate to the core - to the country's deepest founding sin. Strangely, this narrative of guilt seems actually desired and welcomed by Australian society."*

The writer, Douglas Murray, is completely on the money. Unless we break out of this trance and stop wallowing in guilt like the nation of masochists we've become, the destruction of the Australian nation, originally planned by communists and carried on by cultural Marxists, will inexorably find its  Götterdämmerung. In this version though, there will be no renewal - not for anyone, not for comunists, not for bleeding hearts, not for dreamers, and not for Aborigines.

*The Strange Death of Europe, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017