Former activists for the Voice have a new campaign underway. They are now supporting Hamas, thus diverting their childish name-calling away from the “No” voters.

This gives us the opportunity to consider what the intention of the Voice really was.

The emotional blackmail of the “Yes” campaign has subsided and time has allowed for a credible reflection on what might have been.

Starting at the beginning, it is now clear that the Voice proposal was not a demand from the Aboriginal people.

Rather, a few activists came up with the idea, marketed it, collected a handful of selected Aboriginal “representatives”, produced the “Statement from the Heart”, then set out to “enshrine” it with the politicians.

The then Federal Coalition rejected it, but Labor thought it was a “nice thing to do”.

It was divisive, it was racist, it was totally unnecessary and it was opposed by level-headed Aboriginal leaders – but Labor (“where is your heart”?) believed it was “nice”.

But the “nice thing to do” overshadowed the objective, as we now know that the Voice was just the first part of a strategy trifecta designed to institute an indigenous power, land and money grab.

Following the success of the Voice, “truth telling” and “treaty” were intended wrap up the process.

The fact that the nation might just have imploded under the weight of this reckless indigenous coup was of little concern to the activists – and apparently beyond the understanding of most Labor politicians.

The purpose of the Voice had little to do with the severe social problems facing indigenous communities.

If “Yes” voters believed that Aboriginal children suffering violent sexual abuse and kids running wild in Alice Springs were problems to be addressed by the Voice, they were wrong.

The Voice would be “managed” by a small group of activists, and regressive Aboriginal “cultural” matters would be off topic. After all, it seems, white people were to blame for everything.

Next in line would be the much heralded “truth telling”. But will it all be the truth? Not as we understand truth.

If it ever happens, it will be a combination take-away comprising four distinct categories:

  1. Factual events,
  2. Unverified and embellished claims from doubtful sources,
  3. The omission of facts that do not meet the agenda criteria, and
  4. Downright untruths

The purpose of “truth telling”? There are two basic objectives here; the first is to destroy the history of how the British developed and civilised the continent.

The second is an offshoot from the first – to produce a suitable guilt trip for white Australians, particularly for those of British heritage.

This process is akin to an artillery barrage prior to an infantry attack – it is the “softening up” process just prior to the main thrust. And the main thrust here is – “TREATY”.

What precisely the Aboriginal activists have in mind for a treaty, I don’t know. The whole idea is so absurd and off putting one loses interest long before reaching the discussion stage.

The only belief a sensible person would have, is that whatever is adopted in a proposed treaty would be nationally divisive.

It will do very little for most Aboriginal people, while the “elites” will pocket the benefits.

Meanwhile, Aboriginal motivation to undertake paid work or attend school slips even further; alcohol, drugs and other social problems are fostered, and compassionate non-Aboriginal criticism is silenced for being “racist”.

The implications of the extremist trifecta of Voice, “truth telling” and treaty, if allowed by the Albanese government to quietly reincarnate, will undermine Australia beyond any previous national dispute.

This is the type of woke government policy that goes beyond a joke and becomes serious.

The Voice proposal was a farcical exercise in wokeness, but did Labor learn anything from the result? The “Yes” politicians will dodge the issue, but time will tell.

About thirty years ago I studied, in detail, the core problems afflicting Aboriginal communities.

My conclusion at the time was that various forms of separation were critical problems and part of the solution was for Aboriginal Australia to join the team.

This remains my belief, but for the past three decades I have witnessed entrenched divisions creeping into woke policies.

These include the separatist Aboriginal flag, the political ignoring of barbaric cultural practices and the alteration of Aboriginal history to comply with irrational and combative leftist ideology.  

The aspiration of reasonable people is to see the Voice, “truth telling” and treaty quietly disappearing, never to destructively re-engage with the nation again.

Unfortunately, one of the features of the Prime Minister’s performance during the latter half of 2023 has been weakness – the unaddressed blunders of his selected mediocre ministers will attest to that.

This is a danger signal that extreme woke behaviour is not far away.

The Voice fiasco was encouraged by poor leadership. Anthony Albanese was too politically comfortable doing the rounds in his 1950s hat and motived T shirt.

This was the old socialist revolutionary re-engaging with the people – but the idea of the Voice was about as relevant as the hat.   

Meanwhile, the Aboriginal activists have temporarily re-directed their extremism in favour of Hamas, with whom they draw parallels as being victims of colonialism.

This is a sign of the true political level of extreme Aboriginal political engagement – including the inability to recognise how Islam is using them as useful idiots.