Change for the Better?
While the division from the Voice referendum will last for many years, it's served a valuable purpose in waking people up to the true intent of the Aboriginal industry.
The Voice is already changing Australian society - in some ways for the better.
I sense more people are prepared to speak up about some of the stupidity we have accepted under the guise of reconciliation and Aboriginal culture.
We’ve accepted it because, while it’s annoying and insulting to hear the welcome to country every hour or so, it's essentially harmless.
One could say the same about the billions in payments given to a small group of people, who then blame us for their woes while spending our money, with no visible benefit and no explanation as to where it's actually gone.
It’s the local equivalent of sending money to Ukraine - it disappears into an untraceable maze of self-enrichment.
We’ve accepted that charade for decades because we don’t want to be told we are racist.
But it’s time we became realists.
The Voice has exposed the real agenda behind these ‘harmless’ tributes and how the Voice is just the next step in a move towards a treaty and truth-telling.
They mean more money, more power and more racial division in this country than ever before.
That exposure has opened the eyes of many Australians and has some of the elders of the Aboriginal industry talking at odds.
Marcia Langton threatened no more welcome to country ceremonies if the voice failed. Many cheered at that remark and hoped it was a promise.
Now, Noel Pearson has read the tea leaves and argued the acknowledgement of country risks being overused. He said as much on radio 2GB:
I think we’re still in the learning phase … we ought to come to a consensus about when we use the welcome,
Strangely, he’s never mentioned this before.
I am also wondering why, after 65000 years of continuous culture and use how anyone can be in the learning phase of when it’s appropriate.
Could it be because it’s a modern invention attributed to Ernie Dingo in 1976? Or could it be because Noel Pearson is seeking to change from his aggressive early stance, promising ‘almost endless protest' should the referendum fail?
Could it be that he wants to subdue a suddenly awake public back into slumber about the Aboriginal industry and its agenda?
I don’t know…and neither do you.
Actually, no one knows much about the voice and how it will work, how much it will cost and what it will do.
Those who do claim to know are the architects of it. Some also acknowledge it is more than a single-page document, as the Prime Minister asserts.
In totality, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is about reparations, treaty, a separate Aboriginal nation and money, money, money.
But we are told their words were taken out of context, or are not representative, or even the words spoken aren’t true.
So, if we are told to ignore the voice of some behind the voice debate, one has to wonder whose voice we should be listening to.
That we don’t know, and if you don’t know, then it's best to vote no.