Australians have overwhelmingly voted against the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, held Saturday, 14th October 2023; as of late Sunday (with the majority of votes counted), the "No" vote leads by more than 60%.

 In short, referendum ballot papers asked voters:

"A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.  Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

Of course, this rather innocuous passage itself was misleading to voters (and yet still soundly rejected), as the following chapter would've been included in Australia's Constitution:

"In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

Not satisfied with Australians needing to hear these words before every event, we've since been subjected to the nauseating "Welcome to Country", a ritual or ceremony in which Aboriginals perform smoking ceremonies, music or dance in specific garb; the "Welcome to Country" has largely superseded "Acknowledgement of Country", at least with key national and state events, whereby anything televised will almost certainly have a "Welcome to Country".

Regarding the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, what would a "Yes" case have entailed?

Well, frankly, it's largely unknown, as the public received little information on the subject which thus left Australians very confused and rightfully suspicious; rudimentary questions about its function, composition and operation simply couldn't or wouldn't be answered by those from the "Yes" side.

As XYZ discusses (https://xyz.net.au/2023/09/voice-to-parliament-will-ultimately-rule-over-parliament/), the "Voice to Parliament" would've enshrined an extra-parliamentary body, another arm of parliament in Australia's constitution never intended by its founding fathers.

(left, Anthony Albanese, globalist traitor)

In short, every matter brought before parliament likely would've required "consultation" from the "Voice to Parliament", thus incrementally increasing its power to the point where every matter brought before parliament would've required ratification from the "Voice to Parliament"; this would've eventually led to the "Voice to Parliament" becoming Australia's most powerful government body with any opposition being dismissed as racist and in contravention of the Australian Constitution.

Even more frightening is the full content of the "Uluru Statement", from which the "Voice to Parliament" was derived, which seeks the following:

• A Makaratta (an Aboriginal word meaning, "a spear penetrating, usually the thigh, of a person that has done wrong") Commission to oversee a national treaty framework;

• Establishing a process of "truth-telling" under the Makaratta Commission about Australia's history;

• Reparations via a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP); and

• Non-Indigenous Australians pay rent under a "race-based rent tax".

As with any significant societal change, the activists behind it don't stop after a single victory; they continue working away in view of a greater goal, the details of which are never disclosed to the public until it's too late.

It's worth noting that Australia previously had an organisation, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), that was specifically designed to address Indigenous issues; however, it was disbanded in 2005 following widespread issues of corruption, nepotism and waste.

Are these trends limited to Australia alone?

New Zealand

New Zealand is currently grappling with the fallout from its "co-governance" model, enacted under its Labour government and without any say from ordinary New Zealanders:

'Co-governance' is an emerging and developing model of decision-making in New Zealand. The term refers to a shared governance arrangement - with representatives of iwi on one side, and representatives of central and/or local government on the other, each side having equal voting rights at the decision-making table... 'Co-governance' is not only increasingly being implemented to manage natural resources, but it has now extended to public services such as the new water utility companies, and the new national health system, which now has a dual governance structure - one for Māori citizens and the other for all other New Zealanders.

https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/what_the_hell_is_co_governance_an_explainer

Julian Batchelor, an evangelical author and former school principal, currently leads a growing movement opposed to the country's co-governance model, attracting thousands of people to a series of packed events since the start of the year where the 65-year-old rails against what he calls "apartheid" and a "coup by stealth".

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/purely-racist-inside-new-zealands-growing-rightwing-movement-against-maori-cogovernance/news-story/f9a320f7d28d4b9275381e3e0600d5d0

Canada

At an NBA game in earlier this year, Jully Black caused a stir when performing Canada's national anthem by singing "Our Home on native land" rather than "our home and native land".

In an interview with BBC following her performance, Black said the current national anthem is a lie and will refuse to sing the words that imply the native land is not the home of Canadians.

"That was the most purposeful performance, meaningful and present I've been in my life," she said.

"I can't sing the anthem the other way anymore. It's permanently embedded in me. If I'm asked to flip it back, I'll probably have to say no, because it's not the truth."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-one-word-this-singer-changed-in-canadas-anthem-and-what-it-means-for-first-nations-people/cgc8sdf5m

According to a poll during mid-2023, only 1 in 3 Canadians supported changing its national anthem words to "our home on native land".

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-third-of-canadians-support-changing-anthem-to-say-our-home-on-native-land-poll\

So why is this happening?  Why has the focus on "First Nations" people (a name only recently introduced for Australia's Indigenous) exploded in the public consciousness to the point where we've just held a referendum on whether to enshrine an extra-parliamentary body in Australia's constitution?

In the writer's opinion, these recent events across Australia and other former British dominions are not about uplifting its Indigenous peoples but are instead a direct attack on its white populations and their right to exist.

The "Acknowledgement of Country", "Welcome to Country" and "Voice to Parliament" all work to psychologically remove white peoples' attachments to their homelands from constantly being told that someone else has more rights to them than they do.

Furthermore, it entrenches "white guilt" about past events and weakens white peoples' ability to collectively organise and resist the destruction of its culture and institutions; mass immigration from the 3rd world is also largely ignored, dismissed or tolerated as Australians are taught to see them as just another group of immigrants like themselves.

It's not by coincidence that events are happening simultaneously across Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Australians may have correctly voted against the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, but this is merely 1 win in what I suspect will be many more battles ahead.