Now let’s fast forward to modern-day Australia and look at an example that, although nowhere near as violent, still follows the same governmental strategy, albeit wrapped in an opaque socialist veneer.

So, NAIDOC Week. Celebrated across the country. This government initiative is, I assume, intended to help reconciliation between the Aboriginal community and… who exactly? The government? No. Australian society in general.

Attending an awards ceremony, opened by an “Aunty” who welcomed us to Country and presented trophies to several “champions” of Aboriginal rights and initiatives, I watched a video outlining the terrible atrocities committed by the early colonial governments, right through to, let’s face it, the Stolen Generations, where Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families and placed with white families. I also learnt about the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897, legislation supposedly aimed at protecting Aboriginal people from the harms of opium while, at the same time, giving government sweeping control over many aspects of Aboriginal people’s lives and freedoms, reminding me of COVID lockdowns.

For anyone interested in the legislation, the Wikipedia article is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginals_Protection_and_Restriction_of_the_Sale_of_Opium_Act_1897

So far, so good. The ceremony focused on acknowledging past atrocities. But then it quickly pivoted from those atrocities to government collecting taxes to support Australians—meaning, in the immediate context, funding policies aimed at helping the Aboriginal community.

That sounds great. Government caring, looking out for those in need, and trying to address past wrongs.

But look just a little deeper and it all falls apart.

If you’re in government, there’s no way you want to focus the spotlight of shame and guilt on yourselves. There’s no way you want to identify today’s politicians, their families, or those who directly benefited over generations from stolen land, stolen property, violence, or the oppression of Aboriginal people.

So what do you do instead?

You socialise the guilt.

Everyone is responsible. We’re all in this together. The same sort of rhetoric we heard during COVID.

But how do you gain acceptance? How do you push this agenda? From a public choice perspective, governments have incentives to continually expand programs, agencies and bureaucracy, all of which require ongoing funding, staff, consultants and contracts.

Well, just like in Virginia during the 1700s, where authorities encouraged treachery within the ranks of their opponents, you do the same today. Hire, employ and pay Aboriginal people—or anyone identifying as Aboriginal—to advocate government policy. Who can argue when Aboriginal representatives themselves support the policies? See? They supposedly represent a homogeneous and united Aboriginal community.

Viewed through this lens, these representatives become the modern equivalent of those informants in colonial Virginia who betrayed planned rebellions for personal material reward, knowing others would ultimately suffer at the hands of the state.

These policies are nothing but a money-laundering exercise for the political class, creating agencies and expanding the machinery of government that endlessly cycles taxpayer money while superficially promoting Aboriginal reconciliation.

It’s a rational strategy—if you’re an unscrupulous government happy to hide behind bureaucracy, absorb the fruits of ordinary Australians’ labour through taxation, pay comfortable salaries, and award lucrative contracts, all while shifting guilt away from the actual perpetrators and their descendants onto society as a whole.

It’s also the best way to ensure there is never any serious attempt to open the historical archives, investigate specific atrocities, identify who benefited, and assess whether compensation should instead be directed from the descendants of those who committed or profited from those crimes to the direct descendants of the victims.

Surely the vast majority of Australians would support at least exploring such a process if they knew it were possible. That would be a far more targeted use of taxpayer funds—one focused on those who perpetrated the crimes and those who suffered them, with a defined beginning and a defined end.

Instead, we have an ongoing government program that continually socialises guilt, continually expands bureaucracy, and continually asks taxpayers to fund it indefinitely.

The question is: will we continue down that path, or will something actually be done about it?