Cantica Templariorum
Reply
Category Archives: History
They were the most primitive people on earth
Pauline Hanson was (and is) correct about the Australian Aboriginals being the most primitive people on earth at the time of settlement. This was the shared opinion by the Europeans who first observed them. Of course, we’re talking about full-blood Aboriginals untouched by European civilisation and not the reinvented white Aboriginals who have grown up and been educated in ordinary Australian society. In the Quadrant article below, Robert Hill comments.
*****
The Unspeakable Truth
Robert Hill, Quadrant, September 15 2026
Pauline Hanson has once again committed the apparently unforgivable Australian political sin of saying something about Aboriginal history that everyone is expected to condemn before anybody examines whether it is true.
The remarkable thing is that the controversy is not even about something she said this week. In September 2025, appearing on the Jamie J podcast, Hanson was discussing what she regards as the warping of Australian education. She recounted being contacted by a teacher from Western Australia who complained that curriculum previously devoted to Australian history and civil rights was instead being directed towards Aboriginal culture and language. It was in that context, questioning what children were being asked to celebrate and why, that Hanson asked what Aboriginal Australians had achieved over some 60,000 years and described them as “the most primitive race on Earth”. The interview sat largely unnoticed for a year. On September 14, the remarks resurfaced in the national media and abruptly became a political controversy.
That context does not determine whether her language was justified, but it does matter. Hanson was making an argument about the historical content being taught in Australian schools, not simply announcing a racial epithet without context.
The timing is difficult to ignore. These were not newly discovered words. They had been publicly available for twelve months. Yet they suddenly became a national scandal at the very moment One Nation had emerged as a major electoral force, polling in the mid-20s and challenging both major parties.
That does not establish that somebody coordinated a political hit. But it gives the affair the strong appearance of political excavation: an old recording dragged back into the light at the moment its author has become politically dangerous.
The Code of Chivalry
The Code of Chivalry was a moral and social framework guiding medieval knights, emphasizing honor, loyalty, bravery, courtesy, and the protection of the weak.
Origins and Historical Context
The Code of Chivalry emerged between the 11th and 12th centuries, blending Germanic warrior traditions with Christian ethics and feudal obligations. It transformed the rough warrior ethos of early medieval Europe into a system rooted in faith, justice, and moral restraint, guiding knights not only in battle but also in their social and spiritual lives. The Church played a key role, encouraging knights to defend Christianity, protect the defenseless, and exercise self-discipline.
Core Virtues and Principles
The Code of Chivalry emphasized several key virtues:
- Honor and Loyalty: Knights were expected to remain faithful to their lord, uphold oaths, and maintain personal integrity.
- Bravery and Courage: Valor in battle was essential, but courage also included perseverance, discipline, and readiness to face danger.
- Protection of the Weak: Knights had a duty to defend non-combatants, widows, pilgrims, and those unable to protect themselves.
- Courtesy and Courtly Behavior: Politeness, respect toward women, and refined conduct distinguished knights from ordinary warriors.
- Religious Devotion: Knights were expected to serve the Church and uphold Christian values, particularly during the Crusades.
- Generosity and Justice: Fairness, mercy, and the ethical treatment of others were central to the knightly ideal
The coming strife over welcome to country
I don’t acknowledge the sham of all that stuff that the political class of reinvented white Aboriginals have concocted over the last decades and with the backing of the treasonous elites are forcing it on the descendants of the original Australians.
I acknowledge the dedication, endurance, and ability of those Europeans who came to this unnamed continental mass and originated the nation of Australia without any input whatever from the sparse primitive people who had wandered its surface for centuries without any improvements in the basics of human existence.
Australia – every inch of it – belongs to the Australian people – not to the political class of reinvented white Aboriginals. Those supporting this political class are engaged in treasonous activity.
The Native Title Act must be repealed.
I don’t acknowledge this political sham
I don’t acknowledge the sham of all that stuff that the political class of reinvented white Aboriginals have concocted over the last decades and with the backing of the treasonous elites are forcing it on the descendants of the original Australians.
I acknowledge the dedication, endurance, and ability of those Europeans who came to this unnamed continental mass and originated the nation of Australia without any input whatever from the sparse primitive people who had wandered its surface for centuries without any improvements in the basics of human existence.
Australia – every inch of it – belongs to the Australian people – not to the political class of reinvented white Aboriginals. Those supporting this political class are engaged in treasonous activity.
The Native Title Act must be repealed.
Evidence civil war is coming to Europe
A warning for Australia.
Ave Christe Rex
Non Nobis Domine
The inspiring masculine end to Kenneth Brenaugh’s production of Henry V.
The Australian War Memorial scandal
The AWM and Historians’ Made-up Wars
Robert Hill, Quadrant, Aug 28 2026
On November 14, 2025, Rachel Perkins and Henry Reynolds came to the Australian War Memorial to launch The Australian Wars, a collection edited by Perkins, Stephen Gapps, Mina Murray and Reynolds. There is nothing remarkable about a work of military history being launched at the War Memorial; it is precisely where one might expect such a book to be presented and sold. What was remarkable was that The Australian Wars does not establish its subject as military history so much as assert it. The book presents a politically and ideologically charged reconstruction of colonial violence as warfare, yet the military characteristics necessary to sustain that classification are not merely contested: when examined, they are strikingly absent. Its launch inside the Memorial, and its inclusion within the Memorial’s bookshop, therefore, did more than promote a book: it bestowed institutional legitimacy upon the conclusion before the historical case had been made.
The issue is not whether violence occurred on the British colonial frontier in Australia — hereafter, the “British frontier”. Aboriginal people were killed, settlers were killed, massacres occurred and reprisals followed. The far larger claim is that these events amounted to wars: conflicts properly belonging to the same historical category as the wars and military operations commemorated within the Australian War Memorial. That distinction matters. Much of the alleged warfare occurred not on the frontier of an Australian nation, but on the frontiers of separate British colonies under the Crown. To place those conflicts within the Australian War Memorial therefore requires more than demonstrating colonial violence. It requires demonstrating that the historical threshold of war was actually met. That proposition deserves something stronger than repetition, moral force or modern consensus.
It requires proof.
In my earlier article at Quadrant Online, The ‘Wars’ That Weren’t, I demonstrated that once the constituent incidents are disaggregated, the national “Frontier Wars” narrative loses its military coherence. What remains are separate episodes of killing, reprisal, policing and local resistance. Here I reach the same conclusion from the opposite direction. If these really were wars, where is the military footprint they should have left behind?
Endemic violence in primitive communities
A Blood-Soaked Land: Part II
Robert Hill, Quadrant, Aug 21 2026
Cultural lethal violence was institutionalised in Aboriginal societies in a way that sustained warfare was not. Payback and retaliatory punishment could be socially sanctioned or obligatory, but there were no standing armies, permanent commands or institutions for sustained military campaigning. The deep record is therefore one of recurring lethal violence, not continuous war.
The same caution should apply to the frontier. Killing, reprisal and punitive expedition did not automatically become “war” merely because one participant was British. Yet modern revisionism increasingly reverses the categories: raid and reprisal between Aboriginal groups remain “feud” or “payback”, while analogous episodes involving the British are aggregated across decades and vast distances into “Frontier Wars”. In the process, scattered resistance is retrospectively endowed with a military coherence the underlying social organisation did not possess.
Demographically, the terminology changes nothing. A man killed in revenge is no less dead because his death is called payback rather than warfare. What matters is frequency, lethality and persistence.
Comparative anthropology reinforces the distinction. Lawrence Keeley, professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and author of the influential Oxford University Press study War Before Civilization, showed from archaeological and ethnographic evidence that recurring raids and relatively small clashes could impose heavy proportional losses on non-state populations. More revealing still are anthropologists Douglas Fry and Patrik Söderberg. In a peer-reviewed 2013 study published in Science, they systematically examined lethal aggression in 21 mobile forager societies drawn from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Their conclusion cuts against claims of ubiquitous primitive warfare: most lethal incidents were homicide, interpersonal disputes or feud, while warfare constituted only a minority.
That does not weaken the argument. It defines it.
Read Robert Hill’s The myth of Invasion