The Uluru Statement and Indigenous Voice are Christian megacult dominionist imperatives

Being that native title and land rights are the purview of state governments, the Uluru Statement from the Heart with its proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament and treaty-supervising Makarrata Commission are not to be ignored by any independent running for New South Wales State Government. Moreover it is perhaps significant, and a significant concern, that there are no Indigenous Australian members of the New South Wales State Parliament. Perhaps to consider the Voice to (Federal) Parliament there first need to be some First Nations MPs in the State Parliament?

Perhaps indigenous MPs in Australia's State Parliaments at the same ratio as in Federal Parliament (about 4.3%) would be better than a 'cordoned off' Voice to Parliament?

The Uluru Statement and its Voice From the Heart are not necessarily to be endorsed by the reasonable. They're not progressive, and they are not intended to make the kind of progress that their marketing suggests, and for whom it suggests. The Uluru Statement from the Heart and the proposed indigenous voice to parliament are not about indigenous Australians except inasmuch as they are about furthering the subsumption of First Nations culture, society, and narratives, under the overarching, overbearing, dominionist grand narrative of the Europeanised Christian megacult and its various sects and their institutions.

(Despite recent overtures about dominionism being some kind of new, regional theological movement within the Christian megacult, all major Christian megacult sects are undeniably both dominionist and infideliphobic in their core values, missions, doctrines, and imperatives. Dominionism is not new. It is just a new term for new tricks and new expressions based on the specious contemporary motives of sects of the Christian megacult. There are exceptions to be found in exclusivist sects of the megacult, but even in those cases, what the cultists refer to as The Church and its deity are unambiguously taken to be in dominion over the world and humanity.)

These are strong statements to be sure, and to be just as sure - there are other factors that are at play in relation to the Voice associated with land rights, various sovereignties, and democracy. However, they're not unfair or unreasonable statements when applied to a nation where the courts and parliament are infested with the delusional narratives of the Christian megacult and the imperial Christianising influence of the the Crown, and where the main divisions in our long-running federal parliamentary duopoly have reduced to the division between Catholic and Protestant Christian megacult sectarianism for most of the history of The Federation of Australia.

Let whomsoever doubts this latter statement refer to the recent controversy over the character and behaviour of the late anti-Catholic (Masonic) Presbyterian deist Sir Donald Bradman:

Lack of detail is a problem with The Uluru Statement. There does seem to be a lot of handwaving assurance and promissory notes in lieu of actual concrete plans for implementation of systematic change based on the constitutional enshrinement of the Voice. A greater problem, however, seems to be conceptual and definitional ambiguity around the issue of sovereignty - or sovereignties.

The overarching problem with both The Uluru Statement from the Heart and its accompanying Voice to Parliament is that both are grounded in concepts of, and narratives about, sovereignty favoured by various Christian megacult dominionists (using the general sense of the term as defined above). For example, refer to the Statement from the Heart itself:

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. (Emphasis added.)

It does look very much like an effort to perpetuate and reinforce the social and legal enshrinement of the subsumption of indigenous (sovereign?) spirituality and cultural narratives under the sovereign cultural, political, and legal dominance of the Crown.

Why not just leave the Crown out of it?

While you're trying to figure out which sovereignty is which, and of what kind, and whose coexisting, non-overlapping sovereignty has the most authority (and which megacult's imaginary male friend might be sovereign over it somehow), consider these facts:

• The Crown represents the governance of Great Britain's Royal family, the head of which - currently King Charles - is the actual (not nominal) commander in chief of the UK military and The Church of England sect of the Christian megacult.

• The sovereignty of the British Crown is multifaceted according to Church of England cultists and The Crown itself. It is a corporeal, earthly, political sovereignty. It is the sovereignty of their deity over their nation, politics, and citizenry. It is the sovereignty of Great Britain over The Commonwealth. It's a material, ideological, political, and spiritual sovereignty.

• The Crown presides over and is infused throughout our Federal and State Court systems.

• The Crown presides over our Federal Parliament in terms of constitution, ultimate legislative authority, and right of veto of election outcomes by The Governor General.

• It took until the 1992 Mabo Case for terra nullius - implemented by the Crown - to be overturned.

• The White Australia policy.

This list could easily be longer. Sure there is secularism in the UK itself and there are many non-religious English. Yet the Crown, and the Church of England of which it is the head, and their multiply sovereign influence remain.

Just as the ambition and project of the various sects of the Christian megacult (which have moved over the planet through history like some kind of all-consuming plague) is to subsume all peoples, societies, and cultures under the grand narrative of the Christian megacult - the ambition of the initiators and architects of The Uluru Statement is to make the Christian megacult grand narrative supreme in Australia. It apparently doesn't matter overmuch to pro-Voice Catholic and Protestant cult sectarians which sect of the Christian megacult is most influential in this (with Warren Mundine being the only notable possible exception).

What really cannot be tolerated, presumably, are infidel and pagans. Like Lidia Thorpe, perhaps?

What certainly cannot be tolerated is infidel and pagans having control of government. Again - like Lidia Thorpe, perhaps? That includes Freemasonic deists, who are shot at by several Protestant and Catholic sects alike (although the historical animosity and acrimony are certainly far more associated with the latter.) Of course Freemasonic deists tend to have a penchant for Voltairean religious syncretism, and generally require deism, so it is arguable that as parareligionists they contribute to the problem of the perpetuation of Christian megacult sects.

No one said that memetic cultural and political narratology was simple. Yet it is clear which culture and which institutions' narratives are intended to prevail as dominant according to the Uluru Statement. The indigenous victims of the lie of Terra Nullius must have their hand out in supplication, as usual. The Voice may well get politely ignored, so that no one listens. Or if they listen - don't act.

The Christian megacult and dominionist sovereignty narratives of the Anglican Crown and its religious and cultural nemeses - the Catholic sect of the Christian megacult and not a few anarchistic Protestant sects - have been intrinsically instrumental in varying degrees to the actual and structural genocides inflicted upon indigenous Australians ever since The Admiralty lied to the Crown about Terra Nullius and the Crown pretended not to notice. Assertions and inferences to the effect that anyone opposing the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is opposed to the advancement and betterment of Indigenous Australians and their wellbeing are thus farcical.

(If one wants to split hairs and refer to the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects as megacults in their own right then this is reasonable too given that a megacult is simply a cult with more than one million adherents.)

A voice 'to', or a voice 'in'?

The cost of Prime Minister Albanese’s referendum on The Voice will be upwards of $80 million. Yet there are already 11 indigenous MPs already in Federal Parliament. Australia is supposed to be a representative democracy. Of course it is a representative democracy (duopoly) that has contributed historically to structural genocide of indigenous Australians.

So maybe the Voice is the solution to that?

Uluru Statement co-architect Professor Megan Davis seems to think so. Davis has expressed the belief that the Voice to Parliament will bring desired changes faster than approaches that focus only upon treaties. Yet without strong legislation and proposed bills for implementing and achieving that progress, this seems like a vacuous promissory note at best, and at worst is just hand-waving.

There's one other serious problem with Professor Davis' contribution. It is very difficult to determine if she is a Christian megacultist (or some other megacultist like a Masonic deist). If she is, then this is entirely relevant and should be made public. Christian megacultists are highly motivated to make their narrative the grand narrative, and that would mean that - were Professor Davis a Christian megacultist - her contribution on the matter would be heavily biased on that basis. To the extent that the Professor should probably recuse herself as compromised or having a conflict of interest.

Or - and based upon historical precedent this is more likely - maybe The Statement is designed to keep the world of Australian democratic process buffered from the world of treaty? To hold notions of treaty at arms length and keep them from being in Parliament and in legislation. Indigenous Australian's can ask in supplication with their voice to Parliament from outside Parliament. It is this that will be constitutionally enshrined.

It doesn't look so good for remote and disenfranchised Indigenous Australians when one looks at it that way.

Indigenous Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe has called the proposed referendum a complete waste of money. In Thorpe's case this is significantly because she favours the underemphasised truth and treaty elements of the Makarrata component of The Uluru Statement from the heart, which move reflects Thorpe’s pursuit of a national treaty. Thorpe has joined Greens leader Adam Bandt in calling for the government to spend $40 million on the truth and treaty initiative of The Makarrata Commission initiative of The Uluru Statement which they feel is conducive to delivering serious outcomes in terms of a treaty.

If Albanese's referendum affirms the Voice in Australia's constitution, then what happens with Makarrata is likely to be the real test of the true nature of the Uluru Statement. It is probably better if things don't get that far and constitutional change brings about Treaty on the basis of Indigenous voices in our Parliaments, leading to legislative change.

Interestingly, devout Catholic Nyunggai Warren Mundine has expressed concerns about the supervisory role of the proposed Makarrata. Makarrata is Thorpe's condition for considering any endorsement of The Uluru Statement, but Mundine's position against The Uluru Statement is more strongly stated:

The assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don’t already have a voice to Parliament, or that Indigenous voices are limited, is ridiculous.

All my adult life there have been Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices in Canberra. (Source)

Moreover, Mundine sees the installation of The Uluru Statement in the constitution as redundant and divisive and as a cementing of division and separation in the constitution itself:

Constitutional amendments are usually to give the Commonwealth some power it doesn’t already have and rightly needs. But the federal government already has the power to create an Indigenous ‘voice’ — or numerous voices, as we’ve seen. So, why does this power need to be added at all? Why not just legislate now? (Source)

As an Catholic, Mundine is an apparent outlier. Most of the architects of The Uluru Statement and their advisors are practicing Christian megacultists. It should be remembered, perhaps, that subcults of the Christian megacult have been at war in cultural, theological, social, and military terms with each other for centuries. It should be further remembered that Australia's duopoly has been based - to varying and diminishing degrees historically - upon the division between Catholic and Protestant megacult sects. Perhaps it is best not to even mention the historical divisions between Anglicanism and Presbyterianism, and Freemasonry and Catholicism, nor the partnership between Presbyterianism and Freemasonry. Down that road lies narrative and social hell.

Here is The 2017 Referendum Council, including the main architects of the Uluru Statement Professor Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, and Pat Anderson with megacult affiliations of each listed where known:

Out of 15 members of the council, all of those for whom any information about their religious affiliation is available (7) are either cultural, practicing, or devout Christian (or else theist) megacultists with most being practicing. That has to be significant. This makes it imperative that total transparency is needed from the remaining members about any membership in the Christian megacult.

Narrative Warfare and Structural Genocide

Even if it turns out that Anderson and Davis are not Christian megacultists like Pearson (and this is unlikely): that's a lot of upstream theist megacult input and control. Which cultural, spiritual, and political narrative is intended to be the overarching grand narrative and the prevailing narrative seems unambiguous.

Remember that people are motivated and driven by the narratives that make them tick. The delusional influence of theist megacult narratives is powerful. It involves deeply influential psychological dynamics related to terror management (managing one's personal terror) for self-esteem and mortality, emotion-based problem solving, and what psychologists call appraisal (in relation to goals).

The Christian megacult has many sects. Because this particular megacult is so large, with a primary division into three large categories due to the original cult schism at Constantinople - which resulted in the Orthodox and Catholic sects - and the Protestant Reformation which spawned the Protestant sect of the megacult, there are hundreds of Christian sub-cults. Many sects were spawned from the Protestant megacult sect, including hundreds of quasi-Christian sects considered by the Christian megacult to be heretical such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy).

The schisms in the megacult were often born of extreme antagonism and often accompanied by internecine war and persecution. Noel Pearson's Lutheran heritage is due to German Lutheran megacult dissidents fleeing the violence of the theocratic principality of Germany towards dissident sects.

Country Liberal Party MP Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has also called the Voice to Parliament a waste of resources, and has referred to it as a way for elites to assuage their guilt over historical abuses by way of an essentially empty gesture.

Indigenous Affairs Minister, Labour MP Lesley Turner, in her Guardian article of 1st December 2022 criticising Price's opposition to The Voice, responded by asking the usual loaded question:

A voice that allows local representatives to be heard about laws and policies that affect them and offer solutions informed by their unique knowledge and lived experience. What could be more practical? What could be fairer, more modest and unifying?

First of all: clearly it's not that unifying. Lidia Thorpe, Catholic Outlier-dissenter Warren Mundine, and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have provided some valid reasons why the Voice may be less than fair, and not very modest in its true aims.

Most troubling, however, are:

1. The lack of any real details about how legislation and treaty-based reform would follow from or be facilitated by the installation of the Voice in the constitution.

2. The inclusion of references to the sovereignty of the Crown along with a lot of ambiguous references to other kinds of sovereignty that together seem very much intended to make the Crown pre-eminent over all.

3. That the refences to co-sovereignty of the Crown in the Uluru Statement seem designed to support the ongoing subversion of democracy and continuance in narrative and cultural terms of the structural genocide of Indigenous Australians.

4. That the language - and even the name - of the Voice to Parliament is inherently exclusionary and othering: Lidia Thorpe and Warren Mundine are right about the importance of Indigenous voices in Parliament.

Even more problematic, however, than the ambiguous but nefarious sovereignty-slinging, the cloud of othering language, and the dearth of details about how the Voice in the constitution will actually catalyse and accelerate legislative change on behalf of remote Indigenous communities is that all of these seem very much to be subservient to the aim of more structural genocide. Structural genocide in the form of subsuming Indigenous culture and Indigenous narratives under the domineering Christian megacult grand narrative of the Crown.

---

Bibliography