Asia Australia Equality Ethics Media Music Politics Sex and sexuality USA

Quantum 267 – The Voice and the Sound of Silence – Featuring Peru

In this weeks Quantum  we look at The Voice in Australia; the Bible in Finland;  Banning the Lord’s Prayer in Victoria; the EU and freedom of speech; Misinformation; US government tries to silence Twitter; the Hate Police in Britain; ‘Punch a Terf’ not hate speech; Sound of Freedom; China and CO2; North Korea and Russia; Norway buys up grain; Denmark bans burning the Quran; featuring Peru; SEEK – being patriotic; Alice in Wonderland; Queer nature; Oliver Anthony, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, with music of John Farnham, Disturbed; Dire Straits; Andre Rieu; Jefferson Airplane; John Rutter; and the Gettys, Shane and Shane


“Just a note to say thank you for shining light on the dark places of our world and societies. And pointing us to the bright sparks of hope around us. And national anthems!! You’ve broadened my music appreciation and listening skills, as well as awareness of world events. “

Catch up on last week – Quantum 266 – Lies, Lies, Lies – and India, Trump, Biden and much more….

Support Quantum here –

All the music used is on the September Spotify Quantum playlist


#benshapiro #show #dailywire #news #thebenshapiroshow #benshapironews #fyr

♬ original sound – Ben Shapiro News



  1. Thanks for 267 ! A comment you make in respect of the Voice does not ring true. You suggest the Government has been deliberately unclear about “The Voice”. I think it is quite the opposite. This is a myth proposed by the opposition that is repeated often. What could be clearer…”The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. Very clear I think.
    As in many previous referendums for important constitutional change giving the Commonwealth power over matters such as Social Security, the question is simple and the detail understandably left to Parliament to work out and deliver. This is consistent and the Westminster system. As to John Farnham and your ‘own goal’suggestion because of the line “your the voice try and understand it”…if you look at it the other way our Indigenous people are asking for a voice and us to try to understand them. 243/250 Leaders called for this after years of consultation and it is a moment in our History to grab and essential to reconciliation, justice mercy and being able to humble ourselves.

    1. Thanks Bruce – appreciate your comment and great to have some healthy and respectful disagreement!

      However I’m not convinced. The government has been deliberately unclear – and hasn’t hidden the fact. That was a calculated political gamble – allowing them to appeal to all sides – but opening them up to the charge of not being clear! For example the government have not been clear about what the Voice will do, how it will work, who will be on it, will it be elected etc.

      The Westminster system tends not to use referenda – I can recall only one in my lifetime – Brexit.

      Lots of indigenous people are not supporting the Voice. Many are – but many are also opposed. Of course the majority of those who are already part of government quangos etc will be happy to see yet another one – and one with more power.

      I love the idea of reconciliation, justice, mercy and and being able to humble ourselves. If the Voice is meant to provide this – so far it ain’t working – there is division, injustice, anger and pride! Perhaps the route to reconcilation, justice, mercy and humility is through another way?! The One who is the Way!

      1. My point about Westminster was not about referendum but rather that parliament is responsible for the detail and makes the laws. This is refined over and over in the life of a country.
        Your point “ For example the government have not been clear about what the Voice will do, how it will work, who will be on it, will it be elected etc. ” fails to recognise this.
        This is why I gave the example of previous referendums , we vote on principle and big issues with a straightforward question but the detail is for the parliament.
        Of course there is not a unanimous indigenous position but estimates are an amazing 85% for the voice and 243/250 leaders signed the request for a constitutional voice after a decade of indigenous consultation supported by both Liberal and Labour Governments.
        Those who long for meaningful reconciliation and the one true way see hope in this moment in our history.

      2. Thanks Bruce…but having looked at all the successful referendums in Australia – none of them were as vague as this bill. The 243 leaders you mention were delegates at a conference called to promote the idea of a Voice – they were hardly going to be against it. The 85% figure is not correct.

        But these are details compared with your last point. You are bound to be disappointed if you are relying on a political measure (especially one as vague and open to exploitation as this one) for meaningful reconciliation and hope. Trust not in princes!

      3. You sound puffed up with righteousness, “the 85% is not correct” full stop.
        You deem this a “political measure( ….vague and open to exploitation…)”.

        This saddens me, I do have hope and I want to believe it is true that the vast majority of indigenous people want this. I also have hope that it is not politics but compassion on a huge scale that dares to move us forward.

      4. Sadly Bruce you have stopped being reasonable. Once you start saying that people who question your ‘facts’ are ‘puffed up with righteousness’ – you’re done. I’m out. The fact that you want to believe something is true does not either make it true, or give you the right to abuse those who question whether it is true.

      5. Fair point I will take on board.
        It seemed just as unreasonable for you to dismiss my 85% comment in 5 words…simply stating it incorrect.
        See ref below.
        Keep up good work on your blogs and Quantum.

        From UNSW Gabrielle Appleby
        1. Do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice?
        While there is not a single view among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is significant – indeed extraordinary – levels of support among them for the Voice.

        First, Indigenous support is demonstrated by the deliberative processes that sits behind the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This involved more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across the country (the claim that non-Indigenous people attended the dialogues is false).

        From this process, delegates were able to arrive at a national consensus position, prioritising the reforms of Voice, towards Makarrata (Treaty and Truth).

        Second, polling confirms the Voice continues to receive overwhelming Indigenous support. Two polls from 2023 confirm that 80% and 83% of Indigenous people support the Voice.

        Further, Indigenous organisations across the country have indicated their support for the Voice. This includes land-based representative bodies such as the Northern Territory Land Councils and the Kimberley Land Council, and peak service organisations such as the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association.

  2. Thanks for the Dire Straits clip. The drumming of Terry Williams is absolutely superb .

    Rumour has it that Williams left DS because Knopfler was unhappy with how the Welsh wizard kept the beat during the band’s boring, slow numbers.

  3. Under your ‘Asia’ rubric , it is interesting to note that India’s PM Modi has renamed his country, Bharat , at least for the G20 meeting.

    As we all know , this is a Sanskrit descriptor created by the ancient Aryan Invaders and caste – bringers , who were much Whiter , epidermis – wise , than most of latter – day London.

    The International Marxists are going have conniptions about this interesting new development.

  4. Hi David, may I recommend Malcolm MCCusker’s address on altering the constitution. He lists 25 reasonable questions – all unanswered. As he states it is a racially based proposition. As such for me it’s morally reprehensible proposition. Australia’s referendum should not provide for its society to be divided by those whose ancestors predate 1788 and those who came after that date.

    1. Australia’s referendum does not provide the racial divide it already exists and has since 1788. I won’t go into all the history but this is just another step in addressing the divide. The last referendum to take a step and amend the Constitution was 1967 which recognised indigenous Australians as people. Previously they were not counted in the population.

      1. “not counted”, such an assertion is without foundation. One could easily be forgiven for believing it to be true but the historical facts clearly prove that it is a falsehood.
        Historian Professor Blainey proves this in his article in The Weekend Australian July 1-2 2023.
        “They had been counted in every federal census since 1901, and counted moreover in the face of obstacles confronted by few other national statisticians. Thus the state officials then in charge of that 1901 census specifically counted them. They set up a special category that comprised “full blood Aboriginals” and those “nomadic half castes” who were living with them. In the five mainland states they totalled 41,389. An even larger number could not be counted, being nomadic and too far distant.”
        This is a divisive proposition. As is evident by what’s happening right now and if enacted will forever be divisive. God has made us male and female not aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We have one humanity and our constitution shouldn’t negate that truth.

      2. Sorry Michael you are quite wrong.
        This is section 127 of the Constitution repealed by the 1967 Referendum

        127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted.

        In fact, so far from trying to suppress news of their existence, the colonial census authorities put considerable effort into counting Aboriginal people in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the results were published with other census data, given that s 127 excluded Aboriginal people only from being counted for constitutional purposes, not from general population censuses.9 Nor were the founders concerned to deny the reality of prior Aboriginal presence in Australia, let alone their basic humanity: ‘the inference that “aboriginal natives” are not “people” never seems to have occurred to any of the hundreds of delegates, officials and members of the colonial parliaments who perused the draft Constitution in its various forms … between 1891 and 1899.’10 There was even an exhibition of Aboriginal dance at the celebration in Sydney of the inauguration of the Commonwealth on 1 January 1901.11 M
        I believe Historian Professor G Blainey has correctly represented the history on this matter.
        When all is said and done a lot more is said than done but regardless the assessment that this proposal is a re-racialization of the existing constitution cannot, justifiably be refuted or rebutted.
        In sociology, racialization or ethnicization is a political process of ascribing ethnic or racial identities to a relationship, social practice, or group . Australian society divided by those who are “aboriginal”, and so become entitled to a second “Voice” and those who are not. This is one of the intended consequences.

  5. There are two interesting recent posts on one by Peter Sandeman, ‘The Anglican Marks of Mission and the Voice to Parliament’ and one by John Sandeman, ‘Male led, Presbyterians work on hearing the voices of women’. For some reason, to me, these two seem to bounce off each other. What do you think, David?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: