With the Failure of the Voice, The Communist Infiltration Of Aboriginal Australia Has Finally Run Its Course — Dark Emu Exposed

May 19

May 19 With the Failure of the Voice, The Communist Infiltration Of Aboriginal Australia Has Finally Run Its Course

In 1931, the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) published a ‘manifesto’ in their newspaper, the Worker’s Weekly entitled, 'Draft Program of Struggle Against [Aboriginal] Slavery’.

Figure 1 - *The Workers' Weekly* (1923-1939) was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA). It was published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Australia from 1939 to 1991. Initially it had been published as *The Australian Communist*, (1920-1921); *The* *Communist,* (1921-1923) and later the *Tribune* (1939-1991) ***Wikipedia***

Their ‘manifesto’ for the improvement in the social conditions, and the treatment of, the Australian Aborigine had a list of 14 ‘demands’ (see Figure 3.)

**Figure 2 - Workers' Weekly (Sydney, NSW), Friday 25 September 1931, p2.** *[See Figure 3 below for the 14 ‘demands’, and full article* ***here***]

**Figures 3A&B - List of 14 ‘demands’ for Aboriginal rights published in the CPA newspaper, Workers' Weekly (Sydney, NSW), Friday 25 September 1931, p2.** ***Source:***

Readers will note that most of these 14 demands from 1931 would be completely acceptable to us today.

Indeed, many of them have in fact been accepted and implemented into law without Australia ever having to ‘go Communist.’ [see Further Reading 1 below].

The Communist Party, speaking in the name of white and black workers of Australia, demands:—

(1) Full and equal rights of all aborigines—economically, socially, and politically—with white races.

(2) Absolute political freedom for Aborigines and half-castes; right to membership in, and right to organise, political, economic and cultural organisations, "mixed," or aboriginal. Right, to participate in demonstrations and public affairs. Right to leave Australia as full citizens.

(3) Removal of all color [sic] restrictions on aborigines or half-castes, in professions, sports, etc. Aboriginal intellectuals, school teachers, etc., not to be prevented from practising because of the "color line."[sic]

(4) Cancellation of all licenses to employ aborigines without pay. Cancellation of all indentures and forced labor [sic] conditions from aborigines, and payment at full wages for all time worked.

(5) Prohibition of slave and forced labor [sic], whether through the A.P.B., police, indentures, missions, or otherwise, and compensation for all previously employed.

(6) Unconditional release from gaol of all aborigines or half-castes, and no further arrests until aboriginal juries can hear and decide cases.

(7) Abolition of Aborigines Protection Boards—Capitalism's slave recruiting agencies and terror organisations against aborigines and half-castes.

(8) Absolute prohibition of the kidnapping of aboriginal children by the A.P.B., whether to hire them out as slaves, place them in "missions," gaols or "correction" homes.

(9) Full and unrestricted right of aboriginal and half-caste parents to their children without living in constant fear that the A.P.B. or mission stations will kidnap them to send into slavery.

(10) Aboriginal children to be permitted to attend public and high schools and to sit for all examinations.

(11) Liquidation of all missions and so-called homes for aborigines, as these are part of the weapons being used to exterminate the aboriginal race by segregating the sexes and ending the young girls into slavery.

(12) Full right of the aborigines to develop native culture. Right to establish their own schools, train their own teachers, for the children of the aborigines and half-castes. The Australian Government to make available sums of money for such purposes, to be paid into and controlled by committees comprised solely of aborigines and half-castes.

(13) Unemployed aborigines to be paid sums not less than other workers as unemployment allowance. Employed workers to have the 7-hour day, 5-day week, with pay at the same rates as other races.

(14) The handing over to the aborigines of large tracts of watered and fertile country, with towns, seaports, railways, roads, etc., to become one or more independent aboriginal states or republics. The handing back to the aborigines of all Central, Northern, and North West Australia to enable the aborigines to develop their native pursuits. These aboriginal republics to be independent of Australian or other foreign powers. To have the right to make treaties with foreign owners, including Australia, establish their own army, governments, industries, and in every way be independent of imperialism.

Workers, intellectuals, humanitarians, scientists, anti-imperialists, fight for these demands for the aboriginal race. Prevent Capitalism exterminating this race through bare-faced murder or slavery. Struggle with the aborigines against Australian Imperialism! Workers and oppressed peoples of all lands, unite! Smash Imperialism!

Eight of the ‘demands’, made in points 1 to 5, 9, 10, and 13, have all been passed into law today and would have been acceptable even in 1931 had Aboriginal people as a collective been sufficiently ready for these changes themselves.

But the economic and social circumstances of many Aboriginal people, as well as the poor conditions prevalent in the Australian economy, society and political sphere at the time of the depression in the 1930s, precluded the widespread adoption of these ‘demands.’

There had to be a distinction between the rights and responsibilites of the still ‘tribalised’ or ‘wild’ blacks and the rest of Australian society. Development for many Aboriginal people had just not progressed far enough to the point where all Aboriginal people could, collectively by legislation, be given the rights inherent in these eight demands. [see Further Reading 2 below on how many individual Aborigines were well and truely qualified to meet the civic responsibilities of these eight ‘demands’ and were completely equal to the ‘white man’ (indeed often more so when compared to many lower socio-economic ‘whites’ - see William Harris Delegation in 1928 below].

The call by the CPA for the three demands in points 7, 8 & 11, which called for the abolition of the Aboriginal Protection Boards, missions and the Aboriginal child-welfare policies of the day, had no way of be successful in 1931.

The moral and legal requirement of Australian society to provide welfare to Aborigines via the established Protection Boards and the mission system was too far entrenched to be abolished overnight. As the economy improved, and self-sufficiency by Aboriginal people themselves increased, Aboriginal welfare policies were modified until ultimately these three demands of the CPA were finally adopted during the 1950s and 60s [more or less].

Thus we come to the last three of the fourteen ‘demands’ by the CPA - points 6, 12 & 14.

Like all proposals from the communists, there is always a sting in the tail.

In this case, these final three points reveal the hidden agenda - the real aim of the ‘manifesto’ is actually to beguile the “useful idiots”, the Australian activists of goodwill, with the eleven, completely reasonable and ethical, demands and then slip in three demands that essentially would lead to the self-determination of Australia’s Aboriginal people in their own, new, self-governing nation-state.

This is the classic Motte and Bailey strategy we have discussed before and here - that is, offer the Australian people the easily defendable idea of full equality for Aboriginal people (the 11 demands of the Motte) but slip in the much harder to defend demand to set up a separate, self-governing, Aboriginal nation-state (the 3 demands of the Bailey).

That is, the CPA want to use the racial status Aboriginal people, whether those people as a collective all agree or not, to form a new polity that would lead to ‘the break-up of Australia’, an agenda well documented previously by others.

In essence, the three demands encompassed in points 6, 12 & 14 were decided by the Australian public in the Voice referendum of 2023 - and roundly defeated. [The Voice would have been the first, important constitutional step along the way to achieving the three CPA demands in points 6,12 & 14].

Australians chose to keep the CPA’s eleven demands for the full equality of Aboriginal people (as cemented by the 1967 referendum), but they refused to politically and socially regress by accepting the final part of the communist manifesto, which was an Apartheid-like political fix of three demands that would have Aboriginal people forever treated differently - economically, politically and culturally - from the rest of us, based solely on their race.

And so ultimately, a 90year campaign by the communists to seize power under the foil of the Aboriginal people, is dead in the water.

It was the last throw of the dice by the old communist and Aboriginal activist battle axes and they failed; and they know they failed and their time has now passed.

That is why you don’t see them anymore, in the media berating us - they have all slunk off, their dreams of grandeur in tatters. And the young ones just don’t have the credibility to carry on the ‘good fight’, so their ‘peasant army’ have all donned kaffiyehs and moved onto the next exciting crusade. Even 'Albo has abandoned the cause.

It is almost as if the “useful idiots” turned out to be not us naive Australians of goodwill, but the “communists” themselves along with their fellow travellers in that “remote community” called Canberra.

They thought they were manipulating us in the Voice referendum but instead, the Thomas Mayo’s, Teela Reid’s, and Marcia Langton’s turned out to perhaps be the best of the “useful idiots” - their campaigning actually “won” the referendum for the NO case. Perhaps the biggest own-goal in our nation’s political history.

And once again, the Australians, the people of the Lucky Country, dodged a bullet.

Further Reading 1 - The Political Awakening of the Plight of Australia’s Aboriginal People

There was a growing awareness, from the 1920s and 30s onwards, by a number of people and organisations, who had an intimate knowledge, of the ‘problems’ faced and posed by Aboriginal people in a modernising Australia.

Paul Hasluck, in his 1988 book Shades of Darkness details this period, and the ‘growing awareness’, by observing that,

‘… that we [Australia] had missed our opportunity to do better in the 1930s and would have to recover lost ground. Between 1938 and 1950 there were both continued detribalization and further social deterioration [of Aboriginal societies].’ (ibid., p76)

Hasluck goes on to describe the relatively non-partisan, post-war support between political parties for policies to solve the Aboriginal ‘problem’. The first tenative steps, although somewhat reluctantly taken by Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley, occurred in 1946 and 1948, followed by a more rapid and committed program under the Menzies Liberal governments from 1949 onwards. Hasluck continues:

“An attempt to renew the pre-war interest and policies [regarding Aboriginal welfare] expressed in the conference of Commonwealth and State authorities in April 1937 was made at the tail-end of a conference of Commonwealth and State ministers held under the chairmanship of [Labor Prime Minister] Chifley in January 1946.

The [Labor] Minister for the Interior, V. Johnson, submitted the topic … however, [he] referred only to the promptings of “welfare bodies, missionary societies, church organizations. anthropologists and the like” … The minister spoke rather vaguely about measures to '“devise a uniform policy”, and the outcome of the discussion was to set up a commitee “representative of the Department of Social Services, the Department of the Interior and the appropriate State officers” to consider the matter.

The dry comment of Mr Chifley to his own minister was: “The Premiers have almost convinced me, Mr Johnson, that you are trying to leave a problem child on my hands”.

The committee met two years later in Canberra on 3 and 4 February 1948. The representatives were all at the departmental level and came from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia [Victoria declined to attend - see conference notes below]. Professor Elkin attended as vice-chairman of the Aborigines Welfare Board of New South Wales.

The officials discussed such subjects as social service benefits for Aborigines, health, education, wages and conditions of employment, mission activities, training programmes, the development of aboriginal reserves and the need for exchange of information between the various administrators. They also considered the need for financial aid.

Possibly this conference marked the beginning of a post-war move [a “turning point” as WEH Stanner would say] to improved administrative measures in all fields.

Certainly it marks the acceptance at the official level of the idea that the entitlement of the Aborigines to benefits and services was the same as that of all other Australian citizens.

It is doubtful, however, whether the 1948 conference brought about any renewal of political interest and activity or any reconsideration by the ministry or Parliament of the problem. It certainly did nothing to bring about an increase in financial provisions for Aborigines.

The question of doing more for the Aborigines was still subordinate to the question of Federal-State financial relations, some States asking for special grants and the Commonwealth resisting on the general principle (which at that time it also applied to subjects such as education) that it had no obligation to pay for undertakings under control of the States and that it should not make individual grants for a variety of purposes but keep to the tax reimbursement grants.

This was still the prevailing official view in Canberra after the change of government at the end of 1949. One of my earliest speeches in the House of Representatives while I was still a private member was on the subject of Aborigines.

On 8 June 1950, I [Hasluck] moved a motion urging co-operation between Commonwealth and State governments in measures for '"the social advancement as well as the protection of people of the aboriginal race” including additional financial aid. In support of the motion I described the existing situation and identifed some of the problems.

The reply from the [Menzies Liberal] government was made by P.A.M. (later Sir Philip) McBride, then Minister for the Interior. He had previously discussed the matter with me and I had found that personally he was in sympathy with the move I was making. After the debate was over he handed to me the folder containing the material supplied to him by the Department of the Interior and the Treasury to counter my arguments. He had used only parts of it. The official view, briefly summarized, was that the responsibility rested with the States, the expenditure on native affairs was part of the general expenditure of the States, which was taken into account in fixing the tax-reimbursement grant, and if extra provision were made it would be a special purpose grant not available for all States.

On the parliamentary side that debate of June 1950 was signifcant both as the first post-war occasion on which Parliament made the future policy towards Aborigines the sole subject of a debate and as an illustration that it was a subject on which a national and non-partisan approach might be achieved.

My motion was seconded by a member of the Opposition, K. E. Beazley (Fremantle) and was favourably received by the Minister (McBride) on behalf of the government. This was a gratifying outcome of discussions I had with them before l moved the motion.

The minister commented in part:

“Although there have been differences of action, I think it is generally conceded that governments, no matter of what political party, and people of all sorts of political allegiance, feel that the Aborigines of this country are a national responsibility which cannot be shirked under any circumstances at all ...I believe that a public consciousness of the responsibilities of parliaments and peoples towards the Aborigines has gradually awakened”.

[That is, Stanner’s so-called “cult of forgetfulness” in the public’s mind might well have been on the way to being expunged by 1950, if indeed it had ever existed at all.]

With later experience in my memory, I would now describe this statement as hopeful rather than factual but at the time it gave us the same encouragement as when a cloudless dawn promises a brighter day to come.

The debate of 8 June 1950 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol. 208, pp. 3976-86 - see file here) is a basic document in the study of the emergence of ideas about aboriginal welfare in Australia, and should be read alongside the report of the conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Welfare Authorities held in Canberra on 3 and 4 February 1948 (volumes downloadable “Notes on Conference” here and 1948 Part 1 here and more “Notes on Conference” here. Both illustrate that the wartime hiatus would soon be ended.’

Paul Hasluck, Shades of Darkness, MUP, 1988, pp76-8

Further Reading 2 - William Harris Delegation 1928

On Friday 9 March 1928 a delegation, led by William Harris, of full-blood and half-caste West Australian Aborigines had a meeting with the WA premier to air their grievances at the injustices they suffered for not be treated as equal to the ‘white man.’

Like the Communist party of 1931, no-one today would argue that their grievances were not valid and a great injustice was being done to these particular Aborigines.

However, where the Communist Party called for all Aborigines, regardless of their level of assimilation into the wider white Australian society, to be given fully equal rights, William Harris was sensible enough to know that ‘wild’ aborigines did need special protection and policies, as he explained in newspaper record of the meeting.

'Neatly clad and looking slightly self-conscious in the clothes of white men, a deputation, comprising seven full-blooded aborigines and half-castes— the first of its kind on record in this State—waited upon the Premier (Mr. P. Collier) yesterday, and ventilated a series of grievances.

The Chief Protector of Aborigines (Mr. A. O. Neville) and Mrs. Daisy Bates, old Ooldea were adversely criticised by the speakers. One of the deputationists, an educated half-caste, is a vigneron in the Swan district.

William Harris, a half-caste, the spokesman of the deputation stated the deputation's case in perfect English and showed no small signs of erudition. The Aborigines Act, he said, had always operated to the detriment of the aborigines and lately it had become unbearable. Educated natives were punished under the British law but otherwise they were treated like wild blackfellows. They should not be debarred from entering the capital city of their own country.

The Premier: Do you think it would be well for the natives if they were allowed to enter the city without restriction? I suggest that the association of natives with the whites has not been altogether beneficial to your people.

Mr Harris: That is due to the absurd regulations of the Act. The restrictions should not be enforced against educated aborigines, who are paying taxes like the white men.

Mr. Harris said that any man who read the Aborigines Act with an unbiassed mind knew it was dead against the natives. Why should the aborigines be dumped into any place the Chief Protector might choose? There was much injustice in the provision that em-ployers must secure a licence before em-ploying aborigines.

The Premier: If there were unrestricted employment of natives, it would encourage sweating by employers.

Mr Harris: Natives south of Carnarvon are quite capable of looking after themselves, although those in the Far North may not be. There were no reserves, he continued, where natives might live in their natural state. Although the reserves were set aside for natives, they were within the area of pastoral leases, and squatters drove the aborigines away. The native reserve at Mogumber was a prison because men were forced to stay there against their will. What was to prevent the natives from living like other free citizens of the Commonwealth?

The Premier: There would be no objection if they were all like you and other members of the deputation, but your whole race could not be allowed to live freely under the same conditions as the whites.

The natives, Mr. Harris resumed, objected to the Chief Protector's transferring families and individuals from their natural districts to settlements like Mogumber, where they were forced to mingle with hostile natives from other tribes. They also objected to native police being placed in control at the settlement, as this led to undesirable practices. "These cut-throats [native police] from the North," he continued, "have unlimited power. White men should be appointed, if police must be kept there."

Another member of the deputation interjected that at Mogumber women and children were forced to associate with gaol-birds from the North. Most of the black police were gaol-birds. "Policemen, white or black, are the terror of the natives,'' Mr. Harris said, "The natives run for their lives when they see a policeman."

The Premier: What do they do when they see a black policeman? —They run twice as fast!

Aboriginals, said the speaker, had no time for the Chief Protector, and were afraid of him.

The Premier: Mr. Neville merely administers the laws; he is not responsible for them. I don't think a college education is any advantage to a Protector of Aborigines. A man with practical experience and an early association with natives, who understands their customs and habits, is required. The whole point lies in the administration of the law. Undoubtedly, your people have suffered through want of discretion. White people suffer similar disabilities through foolish administration of the law.

Mr. Harris: We want to live up to the white man's standard. It is no trouble to follow the white man's ideals, although there is room for improvement.

The Premier: Do you suggest that the Chief Protector should live among the natives so that he might be better able to understand their requirements?

Mr. Harris: That would be no good at all. The prohibition against carrying firearms, he continued, was another hard-ship, as it prevented natives in the North from providing for their needs.

The Premier: I don't think any native will touch a white man without provocation. In any report of the murder of a white man by a native, the white man seems to have been blameworthy.

Mr Harris: "If a native State is provided nearly as many soldiers and police as there are aborigines will be required to keep them there." Mr Harris said. "The department established to protect us, is cleaning us up. We were far better off under administration from England. Under the present Act, Mr. Neville owns us body and soul. There should be discrimination under the Act between full-blooded aborigines and half-castes."

A member of the deputation: “Natives living in the North should be subject to control different from that exercised over those in the south”.

Mr. Harris said that Mrs. Daisy Bates and Mr. Neville were the worst enemies of the aborigines.

The Premier: I understood Mrs. Bates was the saviour of the natives.

Mr. Harris: She is doing it for publicity, so that people may call her a courageous woman for living amongst the blacks. If she did not encourage the natives to cadge at Ooldea, they would fend for themselves.

Concluding, he said that natives educated up to the standard of white men should be exempted from the Aborigines Act.

The Premier, in reply, said he was very glad to have met the deputation, whose members had presented their case in a concise and logical manner that would have done credit to any deputation he had received in his office. The problem was a great one. Whenever the white and the coloured races came into contact, social problems were always created.

In Australia, more than in any other part of the world, the white man was under a great obligation to do justice to the aboriginal, because he had deprived him of his country. Aborigines were extinct in some parts and were rapidly disappearing in other parts of Australia.

It would be one of the calamities of civilisation if the aboriginal were to become extinct in Western Australia not only from a humanitarian, but from a scientific point of view. Legislation on the part of the white races likely to prevent the decay of the aborigines, should be enacted.

Mr. Harris: Then the laws should be drafted by someone who knows something about the blackfellow.

"I entirely sympathise with that," concluded the Premier, "and if I can help you in any way, I shall be only too glad to do what I can for you."

- BLACK MAN'S BURDEN. The West Australian (Perth, WA) Sat 10 Mar 1928, p18