The Real Reason Pfizer Supports Australia’s Indigenous Voice to Parliament
Pfizer supports The Voice for woke brownie points from BlackRock, but the whole truth is much darker
The world’s most trusted company and purveyor of safe and effective medicines is up to its old tricks again.
This time the humanitarian juggernaut which allegedly saved the planet from an illness with a 99.98% survival rate is dipping its toe into the rainbow sludge of wokeism.
Last week Pfizer Australia pledged its support for the Voice to Parliament saying:
“We believe the Voice will enable better health outcomes for First Nations communities in Australia and provide a route to help inform policy decisions that impact their lives.
Reconciliation helps to address the most significant disparity in Australia’s population: the health and wellbeing of First Nations peoples.
We respect the conversations around the Voice and encourage people to engage in genuine learning about the past, to ensure Australia has a well-informed referendum about the proposed constitutional change.”
The Voice to Parliament seeks to amend Australia’s constitution by recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia’s ‘First Peoples’ and to establish an indigenous ‘advisory’ body called ‘The Voice’ which will be able to make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Importantly, the constitutional change will give parliament the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
If that sounds as drearily vague to you as it does to me, allow me to paraphrase: The Voice will subvert Australia’s democracy by establishing an unelected, unaccountable, race-based branch of government.
“No, no! It’s just an advisory body”, cry the earnest white liberals of Sydney and Melbourne who will be casting fervent YES votes later this year when the referendum on The Voice is held.
To this credulous cadre of soy-sipping hipsters and champagne socialists I respond: Certainly, The Voice will have only advisory powers on paper, but show me the politician in contemporary Canberra with the balls to vote NO on a submission that has been tabled by our sanctified First Peoples…
Few such MPs or senators exist, and it should be obvious to anyone paying attention, not just to Australia but politics throughout the West this past decade, that to adopt such a position immediately invites accusations of RACISM – a moniker all but a handful of the saltiest politicos will do anything to avoid.
We’ll return to this point but let’s get back to Pfizer.
Why does it matter that a pharmaceutical company with Pfizer’s credentials is getting behind the Voice to Parliament? The glomming-on to woke causes by big corporations is nothing new and I’ve discussed this at length in the context of ESG. Pfizer is chasing woke clout, no doubt about it. This will earn them plenty of brownie points on the ‘S’ quotient of their ESG score and ensure that Larry Fink doesn’t take Albert Bourla off his Christmas card list.
But I’m going to take it a step further and suggest a far more nefarious motive.
I submit that the true reason Pfizer is interested in amending the Australian constitution to establish a Voice to Parliament is that this will provide a handy legislative backdoor to enable commercially favourable outcomes for the pharmaceutical giant.
Consider this: Pfizer, a company that has no qualms about shady business practices (just Google ‘who paid the largest criminal fine in history’) approaches a few indigenous activists and non-profits and has a conversation that goes something along these lines:
“We really admire the work you’re doing – we think it’s so important for the health and wellbeing of at risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities here in Australia. As such, we’d like to give you a grant of $1 million per year.”
Nothing illegal about that right? It happens all the time. But here’s where it gets shady.
When it comes time to renew the endowment, the friendly Pfizer rep says “You know, there’s a lobby group out of Sydney bringing a bill before parliament next month that would make flu vaccinations mandatory in Australia. We believe that our new mRNA flu vaccine is going to be a real game changer – especially in at risk indigenous communities where health outcomes are well below the national average. We think your support of this bill would send a powerful message to parliament about the need for stronger public health legislation.”
So now we have several indigenous activist groups making positive noises about this new bill. As the representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Voice to Parliament naturally picks up the issue and begins advocating the same (it is of course possible in our hypothetical scenario that one or more members of The Voice are themselves also receiving some kind of stipend from Pfizer).
With the weight of The Voice behind this new bill (whose lobby group may be based in Sydney but receives its funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which in turn receives donations from Pfizer) parliament must now seriously debate the issue – for to brush something aside when it has the backing of The Voice would not be a good look at all. The whole point of The Voice was so that the deplorable racist white people could show the world how much they’ve changed, and how much they now love their indigenous brethren.
We now reach the point where the voting begins and, as discussed earlier, no politician who seriously values their position within the system wants to be called a racist and so a majority of the house vote to pass the bill. A similar capitulation occurs in the senate and the bill becomes law.
And there you have it – the real reason Pfizer has pledged its support for The Voice.
Tempting as it may be to dismiss such a scenario as tinfoil hat-wearing paranoia, such skulduggery in the world of corporate lobbyists and political functionaries is not only common, but indeed the norm.
And it’s not just Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry either. Pick your bad actor… Any commercial interest can easily concoct a reason for donating a few million to any given activist group in order to exert subsequent pressure on an extra-legislative body like The Voice. Indeed this is a core tenet of ESG – how do you think ‘social responsibility’ manifests itself? The most visible aspect is of course the Rainbow flags that companies pin to their mastheads every June, and the saccharine LinkedIn posts that rhapsodise about the deep significance of International Women’s Day. But this kind of tokenism is by no means enough to ensure that precious investment capital from BlackRock – no, you need to put your money where your mouth is.
As such, most companies now donate large sums of money – hundreds of thousands, millions, or even hundreds of millions, depending on their size – to a kaleidoscope of non-profits and activist groups to ensure a high social responsibility score on their annual corporate citizenship evaluation. I’ve seen this firsthand at the company where I work but you don’t need to take my word for it, just go check out the ESG section of your favourite corporation’s website or get your hands on a copy of their annual report and you might be surprised to see just how many dollars are frittered away on ‘social good’ – dollars, I might add, that are not going toward pay rises for employees struggling with the massive inflation we have been subject to for the past two years, much less into shareholders’ pockets. But challenge any executive on this subject and you’ll be told – “Oh no, our shareholders demand that we invest in social good!”
Do they? Do they really? And who decides what constitutes a social good? This is a question that leads us down some very revealing paths. But you get the point – everything is for sale, not least political favours, and bodies like The Voice merely provide a convenient side door into the legislature for powerful monied interests who wish to circumvent the cumbersome democratic process.
This is what it boils down to – a subversion of democracy by power elites. The same process is underway in New Zealand with the Māori co-governance movement, socially and politically indistinguishable from the Australian Voice, broadly popular among the mass of low-info liberal voters, and heartily championed by trendy urban ‘thought leaders’ and the corporate media. Similar moves are underway in Canada also, and of course the US is well along the path toward a new race-based privilege system, including reparations for Black Americans with California’s total taxpayer-funded liability already estimated at $800 billion.
This newly invigorated obsession with race and past victimhood, whatever form it takes, has one universal feature – it serves as a cudgel for those in power with which to beat any opponent, while doing nothing to help the people it purports to be uplifting.
But what about the Western countries where there is no indigenous underclass, or where there was no slave population? The UK and Western Europe for example. Why, you simply import millions of dark-skinned people from the Third World and manufacture a highly visible underclass whose ‘human rights’ you can then use as the very same cudgel, by way of hate speech laws and other such benevolent legislation nominally designed to protect and uplift the poor and downtrodden – seen what’s currently going on in Ireland?
The plays become easy to spot once you know what you’re looking for. Keep an eye on Australia’s Voice to Parliament and the parallel movements underway in your jurisdiction, wherever that may be, and take note of the large corporate interests that attach themselves to these ‘causes’, and ask yourself, what do they stand to gain?
Yep. If the voice does get a nod from the referendum the only way to beat this issue is to demand an Irish Australian voice, a Sudanese Australian voice, a Greek Australian voice, and so on until every ethnic group here has its own voice. If we all have one, then no one has one.
Might bankrupt Pfizer to cover them all.