Hidden and suppressed Australasian history: An online overview
But intriguingly the Strongs enter the picture and muddy the waters with their claims that the Gosford rock wall hieroglyphics actually depict the intervention of aliens – yes aliens – because one of the symbols could resemble a flying saucer. It could also resemble a jellyfish or some sort of headwear.
And then there is the unique rock art of the Kimberleys (the Bradshaw paintings) researched for years by Grahame Walsh, who maintained the rock art was probably the work of long-since disappeared Aboriginal peoples. Major Les Hiddins of Bush Tucker Man fame, who spent time with the local Aboriginals, was told by elders that they were not their paintings. Hiddins and others believe they are distinctly African.
But Walsh’s theory has been disowned by the academic establishment and the Kimberley Foundation, funded by mining companies and Melbourne’s Myer family. Professer Peter Veth, “Chair of Rock Art” at the University of WA, told the ABC “we see the art as being made by the original Aboriginal people … whose descendants live throughout the Kimberley today”.
But the notion of ancient migration is at odds with the dominant cultural Marxist narrative of “indigenous identity” as recently illustrated in a commentary in the academic discussion website The Conversation, where Deakin University anthropologist Emma Kowal and Walter and Eliza Institute immunologist Misty Jenkins attack a TV documentary exploring the DNA connections to Africa of Australians Ian Thorpe, Julia Zemiro and Ernie Dingo.
“Viewers had to switch channels to Stan Grant’s NITV talk show The Point directly after DNA Nation for an airing of the tricky issues. For instance, does the idea that everyone comes from Africa undermine the land rights of Indigenous Australians? The panel didn’t provide a clear answer, but we can: it doesn’t,” the academics declared.
Late in the article the pair reveal their involvement in the National Centre for Indigenous Genomics “the first Indigenous-governed genome facility in the world” which began when the Australian National University “developed a management strategy for 7000 blood samples collected from Indigenous communities, mostly in the 1960s and 70s”.
So, the DNA of indigenous Australians is “being protected” by the country’s academic establishment. One can imagine the uproar if an institution was set up to protect the DNA of white Anglo-Saxons. Then again, shouldn’t everyone’s DNA be protected from abuse by big pharma companies and the like, pushing their genetic modification treatments posing, for instance, as vaccines?
Across the Tasman in the north of New Zealand’s North Island, stone structures in the Waipoua State Forest on the west coast point to a possible pre-Maori culture, but no-one in the political and academic establishment wants to know about it. Local Maori (iwi) have threatened people who come to look at them. Why?
If these stone structures were evidence of early Maori culture, the site should be the centre of study for archaeologists. But to the contrary, the structures are planted over by commercial pine forest and in danger of being run over by logging bulldozers and completely covered by regrowth.
What is so unusual about these stone structures is that they are starkly different to the traditional timber huts and meeting houses built by the Maori in their fortified settlements. The stone structures are believed to have been built by a pre-Maori, red-headed, fair-skinned people inhabiting the islands.
[Until recently, New Zealanders generally believed a Polynesian sub-group on the islands known as Moriori were all but wiped out by genocide committed by the later-arriving Maori. But this history was revised by the late Michael King, maintaining they left Aoteroa (NZ) of their own accord seeking a great land to the east. Later, Maori tribes from what is now the Wellington area, pursued them and committed the genocide on the Chathams.]
Investigations at the Northland stone site reveal boundary boulders fenced off from a central cairn heap. Investigators believe the cairn was once a “Beehive House” hovel dwelling, that is now collapsed into an irregular pile.
There are hundreds of cairns amid the trees of the Waipoua Forest and many thousands more are said to be found in other vast forested regions. “The stone hovel dome dwelling was a common form of domicile in megalithic Great Britain and Continental Europe and the selfsame building method was most certainly utilised by New Zealand’s pre-Maori ‘Stone People’,” researchers claim.
The famous expedition by Thor Heyerdahl who built a ship of balsa wood and reeds and sailed west 4300km from Peru to French Polynesia in 1947 lent credence to the theory of Polynesia being populated by South American people. Heyerdahl made a very interesting observation of Maori culture: “Irrespective of how and when the Maori began to cover their carvings with spirals, the habit is absent in their Polynesian homeland and may therefore very well be so in their still earlier fatherland further away. There is, indeed, no such curvilinear surface design on the wood carvings of the Society Islands and these include the very tall ancestral posts which were erected in ancient Tahiti.” (see American Indians in the Pacific, pg. 116).
But claiming that Maori were not the original inhabitants again upsets the current “indigenist” political narrative that unreasonably heaps guilt upon European settlers as colonialist invaders who ravaged the land and stole it from the peaceful indigenous people.
That story was developed over decades in Australia and spread through academia and media by the Communist Party, whose long-term, international objective was (and still is) to foster indigenous separatism, and break up nation states into regional indigenous zones under some sort of utopian global community. This plan was detailed by ex-Australian Communist Party member Geoff MacDonald in his 1980s book Red Over Black.
The strategy has been incredibly successful, with indigenous culture in Australia, New Zealand and Canada now given almost deity status, to which we all must bow and acknowledge in contrived customs such as Welcome to Country and widespread adoption of Maori words in New Zealand. Not all Aboriginal and Maori people buy into this and some actively oppose the narrative, but they are sidelined by the rampant woke culture.
It’s not denied that some serious wrongs against indigenous peoples took place in the past, but if we do not know history accurately, the neo-Marxist grievance industry manipulates it for political and financial gain.
The grievance narrative is of the European colonists being brutal, ruthless invaders trampling on the innocent natives living in their alleged pre-industrial paradise. The truth is that the technologically and socially advanced European culture naturally dominated tribal society. In Australia and New Zealand there were brutal battles between settlers and the indigenous tribes, but also mutual understanding and many indigenous people, whose culture was essentially spiritual, accepted Christianity and whatever else the European culture offered.
New Zealand’s colonial government offered the warring Maori tribes a new unified culture under the protection of the Crown. The agreement between the English Crown and the tribes to cede to the Queen and partake in all the rights and duties of the people of England was strongly endorsed by about five hundred chiefs around the country who added their signatures. The treaty text had been translated into Maori, a spoken language given a written English form by the missionaries.
However, recent New Zealand governments, under the influence of the grievance industry, have fallen over themselves to compensate for the alleged failings of the treaty because it has been reinterpreted into a modern dual-sovereignty paradigm. This interpretation is now being used to promote “co-governance” between Māori and the Crown.
Scientist and historian Bruce Moon has repeatedly debunked the claims of Maori activism: “More and more today, do we see part-Maori radicals waving a black, white and red flag which they call the “tino rangatiratanga” flag, claiming that those two words in the Treaty somehow mean that there is something called ‘Maori sovereignty’ which continues to exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. No such thing ever existed as a unified concept.”
Maori and Aboriginal society was tribal and hierarchical, as were tribal societies elsewhere. Punishment was given under tribal law and hereditary rulers and there was no concept of English law based on national and individual sovereignty with private property rights.
The Australian Aboriginal attempts to right past wrongs resulted in the Mabo court case that began in May 1982, when a group of men from Meriam fought against the Queensland government for acknowledgment of the rights of Aboriginals as the traditional owners of their land. Since then, land claims have ballooned, many of them questionable.
So how indigenous is “indigenous”? Are we not all indigenous if we are born in the location referred to? And does being indigenous give us a higher status than the mere migrant? The fact of the matter is that the early Aborigines and Maori were all migrants, as were the later colonizing English, French, Dutch and other nationalities.
Much more fascinating evidence of pre-Maori people is detailed on a page at Celtic NZ with answers to correspondence (some threatening) on the issue. Topics include the so-called white-skinned “fairy people”; the tall, cave-dwelling “Aztec tribe” of Port Waikato; the bullaun bowls or cup bowls carved out of solid rock, also common in ancient European cultures; geometrically-placed stone markers in the Waitapu Valley in Northland and other locations; the caucasoid Lapita people and their influence in the Pacific.