Pfizer Backs The Voice: The Kiss of Death?
Rebekah Barnett: The Brownstone Institute
Pfizer has weighed in on the upcoming referendum in which Australians will vote on whether to change their constitution.
Australians will be asked to vote YES or NO to the following question:
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
If the YES vote wins, the Australian constitution will be altered to formally recognise the First Nations Peoples, and an Indigenous advisory body will be established to speak to the Parliament on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This would be equivalent to the US constitution being amended to formally recognise the First Peoples status of Native Americans, with a separate advisory body being established to represent this group to Congress.
On 11 May, Pfizer Australia – a global pharmaceutical company – publicly announced its support for the YES vote for the Voice to Parliament referendum.
Since Pfizer’s rebrand as a quasi-humanitarian organisation during the Covid pandemic, the company has repositioned itself as an ‘ally’ of marginalised minority groups through their Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) initiatives.
Pfizer says that its new pledge to support the Voice is the result of continued engagement with its suitably diverse RAP advisory board of elders and advisors. One of these advisors is Uncle Michael West, a member of the Stolen Generations and Aboriginal men of the Gamilaroi Nation.
West says,
“Pfizer has demonstrated its commitment to education by listening to our stories and lived experiences. These learnings are key to understanding the social determinants of health, housing, education and employment and their symbiotic nature and the inequalities faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.”
The Pfizer vaccine-injured can only dream of the pharmaceutical giant listening with such commitment to their lived experiences.
Pfizer is widely regarded as one of the most fraudulent, corrupt organisations on the face of the planet. So why the Woke-Face?
Part of the answer likely lies in Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG). ESG frameworks require performative Woke-Face for maintenance of a high ESG score, the corporate version of social credit. It’s back-door totalitarianism, imposed by unelected advisory groups, using a coercive corporate regulatory framework to recruit corporations to act as the shock troops for globalist Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Companies that don’t play ball on ESG are squeezed out of capital markets and targeted with regulatory lawfare.
As in totalitarian socialist regimes of times past, everything is politics. You can’t have a beer, visit your doctor, buy groceries, or watch sports without being saturated in the regime propaganda, and subjected to performative displays of deference. Companies and businesses advertise their devotion to the tenets of the secular religion, so their business will be safe to continue operating.
It is also likely that some mutual back-scratching is at play in Pfizer’s support for the Voice. The Australian Government did Pfizer a solid when it signed off on secret Covid vaccine contracts that the public is not privy to, provisionally approved the under-tested shots despite glaring reasons not to, and purchased stocks in gross excess, resulting in massive wastage.
Now, it’s Pfizer’s turn to add value to the Australian Government’s agenda. As previously mentioned, the sitting government is leading the YES campaign for the Voice referendum.
Those who have not been so dazzled by Pfizer’s Woke-Face makeover as to forget why the company was previously reviled as one of the most corrupt companies of all time will see Pfizer’s backing of the Voice to Parliament as a blood-red flag.
Australia's indigenous population have been strong critics of the push for mass vaccination in Australia, with Pfizer being one of the major targets of their hostility.
Rebekah Barnett writes for Dystopian Down Under. She holds a BA (Hons First Class) in Communications.
If the indigenous have been strong critics, why is “Uncle” promoting the initiative, I wonder (said w/ sarc). It always comes down to $$ & power. I remember reading about the aboriginals who refused the jab being treated horribly....