AUSTRALIA UNDER ATTACK BY THE UN - Insider Discovers Plot to Use ‘Voice’ to Strip Our Assets!!
Josephine Cashman, Aboriginal Australian lawyer (acclaimed Prosecutor), entrepreneur, and a former member of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council discovered a plot by the United Nations to…
Gough Whitlam started all this by using Aboriginal 'land rights' as a means to give crown land to 'indigenous peoples' who would then be paid a FORTUNE for use of the land by corrupt companies such as Rio Tinto. Interestingly, Rio Tinto means 'Red River' in spanish, as in turning a natural river red from all the iron ore mining. Sickos.
Rio Tinto is Rothschild/Vatican owned. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/executive-insight/industrys-reckoning-why-are-worlds-top-miners-at-the-vatican/article14184531/
Josephine Cashman has some entertaining opinions, but is sadly also funded by these same groups as they attempt to clean up their sloppy mess and plan an escape route.
I worked for a Rio Tinto arm 20 plus years ago. I still feel tainted by that brief period.
I've been trying to figure out the methodology of what is being done in canada. There has been an escalating pressure to evacuate the hinterlands and condense into the urban centers for decades. This coincides with an insincere expression of regret to the natives for the theft of their lands. Native groups are being increasingly empowered to stop or hinder any development that they object to.
I was hoping this article and the appended links might help clear things up but the picture doesn't appear any less fuzzy.
I've long said the “National Historic Preservation Act” or better known as the Indian Preservation Act was designed to hide our history. The Smithsonian Institution is the most corrupt historical society there is. For over 100 years, the Smithsonian Institution has been hiding and destroying evidence that would provide proof that the writings in the Old Testament and the Book Of Enoch are true. So, successful have they been using the “National Historic Preservation Act”, any artifact or remains that show the Amer-Ind were not the first people in North or South America, is quickly claimed as an "ancestral Native American". A lawsuit ensues and all analysis is halted. An example of this is the Kennewick Man, a 9,000 year old skeleton, whose skull measurements showed it didn't match existing Native American populations. Kennewick Man became the subject of a controversial nine-year court case between scientists and Native American tribes who claimed ownership of the remains. In 2016, the US House and Senate passed legislation to return the ancient bones to a coalition of Columbia Basin tribes for reburial according to their traditions, to which no further study of it's DNA can be made to determine its haplogroup significance. It was said the origin related to the Ainus (descendants of the Jōmon aboriginals of Japan). The Kennewick man is now lost. To make things worse, some argue further that the phrase "Native American" should be applied so that it spans the entire range from the Clovis culture (which cannot be positively assigned to any contemporary tribal group) to the Métis, a group of mixed ancestry who developed as an ethnic group as a consequence of European contact, yet constitute distinct cultural entity.
There is the same attempt being made here in the United States and other western countries to use native American rights to strip us of our property rights.
Read up on the Solutreans (https://www.ancientpages.com/2018/02/23/solutrean-people-first-americans-european-stone-age-people/). Apparently the first people in the Americas were Europeans. Hmmm, don't hear much about that, do you?
Thanks for those details fren. 100% agree. I too am of the very strong opinion that the indigenous Australians were at least sharing the land at some stage in the past with another race. That other race were probably quite tall... I’m well aware of all the skeletons the Smithsonian has hidden away....
It makes sense to me. There's the Tri-hybrid racial theory that seems to explain it. Every history is more complicated than what we are force fed.
We know the Tasmanian aborigines did not share the same technology as the the Australian aborigines. They never knew the art of boomerang, bone tools, fishing, barbed points, and ground axe heads were not found among the Tasmanians. They didn't even bury their dead.
By the time that Europeans were able to observe them, their entire material culture consisted of about 24 items: "wooden spears, throwing clubs, the women's club-chisel-digging stick, wooden wedges or spatulae, baskets woven from grass or rushes, possum-skin pouch bags, water buckets made from kelp, fire-sticks, kangaroo skin cloaks, shell necklaces, canoe-rafts, huts and a few stone tools."
Then there is the extinct Australian Negritos (pygmies),; (ala, Lake Mungo Man). There's evidence of these phenotype expressions of Tasmanian aborigines that are different from the mainland people, but most of it appears to be from Melanesian stock (Murrayians). Then, there are the “Australian canoes, which are constructed identically to those of the coastal Dravidian tribes of India, and wild tribes in the Deccan region of India are the only culture known to use the boomerang outside Australia.”
Lastly, there's evidence that the Egyptians made it Australia too.
More great info! Thank you!
To add to that: a Viking settlement was discovered in Western Australia a few years ago. Wish I'd archived it as it seems to have been scrubbed from the net. The articles at the time described the settlement as containing many artifacts including swords, axes and much more. A forge was also found.
Regarding the Egyptians: Yes! I've personally explored the hieroglyphs discovered in the Gosford region of NSW. The mainstream science official narrative of them is ridiculous. Having witnessed them with my own eyes I am 100% certain that they are very old and genuine.
These things are but a tiny sliver of the hidden history of Australia. And the world. The capital cities and the old "settlement" towns reveal so much more underground. Dare I mention Tartaria...
Viking settlement? I'd enjoy reading about this. Have you tried doing an archive search?
No. I'm not the most IT savvy bloke, more hands on haha. I'm a fast learner though. How and where do I archive search this topic? There were many Australian mainstream articles about it a few years ago, but trying to search after I saw your previous comment revealed nothing.
Is this the article you saw? "AUSTRALIA: ARCHAEOLOGISTS UNEARTH RUINS OF VIKING TRADE CENTER"
If so it came from WorldnetDaily, which according to this website is a satirical website. It may or may not be a credible article. It needs to be vetted with other archaeological news sites.
That article contains essentially the info I was talking about, yes. But there were multiple articles about it from mainstream news sources in Australia at the time. Including iirc the ABC. Probably around 3-5 years ago. Edit: Ah it was 8 years ago... They've clearly been scrubbed on purpose and this "voice to parliament" seems more than likely to be the reason why...
Edit #2: Thanks for finding!
Add New Zealand to that list.
Whitney Webb talks about this. UN has programs for "sustainable development" which will result in debt, then land takeover. Interview with her on the best podcast - the higherside chats
Here are some potential details:
"The alleged 11-point plan sent to Senator Hanson recommended First Nations people be granted first choice of all public housing and reverting beaches and national parks to 'ownership of the Mob that traditionally inhabits the area'.
Non-Indigenous Australians who use those beaches or national parks would subsequently be charged a fee, which would generate revenue for Indigenous owners, according to the alleged document.
Senator Hanson is now questioning whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is aware of the suggestions the group is purportedly putting forward and, if not, who oversees the body.
'If the Prime Minister is aware of these initiatives set out by the NIAA, it would appear that Mr Albanese continues to mislead the Australian people over the extent of powers given to the Voice to Parliament,' she said."
From this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11897017/Pauline-Hanson-receives-letter-detailing-11-point-secret-agenda-Voice.html
Pauline Hanson is the definition of controlled opposition. Her heart is likely in the right place, but she is a big spud!
Sorry mate, I disagree. She has done so much in the last few years to expose the criminal corruption in Australian politics. She was exposing Agenda 21 over a decade or more ago. She was unjustifiably jailed for 11 weeks as essentially a political prisoner. The system has dragged her through the mud and she keeps fighting back. While I've never met her, I know many people that have and all of them have had positive things to say about their meetings.
.... you gave up your guns.
What did you think would happen?
While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.
Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.
Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.
You are aware that the people of Australia are not privy to all the details of "The Voice to Parliament" aren't you? PM Albanese et al will not divulge. Instead we are fed "appeal to emotion" dribble designed to pull the heart strings of weak minded propaganda gobblers.
What we do know nefariously aligns with what we read in this article. I'm Australian. I was born here. There's no way in hell I'll be accepting new laws requiring payments to an unelected government entity if I want to go to the beach, a river, a national park, etc. Because that is what's on the table. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm well aware of the Mabo case. I was living in Townsville (as was he) while it unfolded. I grew up with many aboriginal and islander friends and school mates.
This "voice" bullshit is designed to sow division and encourage racism, all in the name of indigenous rights.
My family is Australian, though I have never lived there. I just have citizenship.
I don't know why the Mabo case was controversial. It didn't do anything new. Though the justices jumped through a lot of random hoops to create the impression there was something new. The Australian government could have authorized Queensland to make laws governing Mer. Instead it was like a LARP resulting in the native title act. You halfway wonder if the entire sequence of events wasn't designed to produce this.
Australia needs to get rowdy. There is too much compliance down there. During covid it was embarrassing to listen to my relatives act like all of that was necessary and none of it was bullshit. Was like 1938 Germany the redux. I know there are many who are hell bent on not putting up with this. But there are far too many eager to be governed harder by installed officials rigging elections just like here.
I agree with your first point. It was potentially, in hindsight, designed to facilitate and accomodate this planned UN agenda. The DS has always played the long game. Very interesting.
I have to set the record straight re your second point. Yes, there are compliant sheep in Australia. BUT, a huge shift occurred here in February last year, a shift that has only gained momentum. It was, in a way, inspired by the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Australians had had enough. I travelled to Canberra (21 hour round trip) along with at least 500K (conservative estimate) other Aussies to declare to the Federal Govt: WE THE PEOPLE will NOT comply with their bullshit any longer. (I personally never complied with any of it but that's beside the point). 500K is 2% of the population. Everyone who individually went there was representing at least 5-10 people who felt the same but for a variety of reasons were unable to make the journey. I honestly can not see the tyranny returning here as we saw two years ago.
Another point: Regarding the increasingly dull "but you gave up your guns:" line, this war will not be won with guns, it'll be won with non compliance and strength of character. I'm surrounded by a legion of warriors. Don't worry about Australia, The Lions are awakening.
Do you see any links between Calvins case and Mabo/native title acts?
Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?
Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.
I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/101754538
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043256101/indigenous-australians-get-land-back-queensland
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html