‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’ is, by its own admission, an emotion-based statement. It’s not titled ‘Uluru Statement from the Head’ (involving reason, rational thinking, logic, the scientific method).
However, it’s evident that emotions follow beliefs.
We need only experience any number of ‘frightening triggers’, to appreciate our bodies will start pumping the stress hormones—adrenaline and cortisol—with subsequent elevated heart-rate, and other physiological responses. All because we believe we’re threatened or in danger.
It’s the same for pleasant surprises or events. It’s our positive belief concerning the surprise, the gift, the hug, the compliment that induces the release of endorphins with the resulting feelings of pleasure, joy, euphoria and so on.
Our belief-system is the central command centre that determines how we think, feel and behave.
All of which begs the question: of those promoting a ‘Yes' vote, what are the beliefs of those who are Indigenous Australians (IA), and of those who are Non-Indigenous Australians (NIA)?
A key phrase in the Uluru Statement is that it is a “spiritual notion”.
How many of those who are Non-Indigenous Australians, and are promoting ‘yes’, are spiritual? How do atheists square their beliefs with those who have openly-stated spiritual beliefs? More to the point, why are those who are atheists, sceptics, agnostics, or are cynical of any form of ‘woo woo’ spirituality, intending to vote against their own beliefs?
Is there another agenda at play, one that involves personal, financial gain?
It’s been publicly stated that the World Economic Forum is working toward transhumanism, in which we’ll be implanted with microchips. This is not mere speculation, Klaus Schwab openly states as much. Elon Musk's Neuralink is experimenting with brain implants. Where is the spirituality in turning humans into half-robots?
Does being transhuman square with Indigenous-Australian spiritual beliefs? There are some (e.g. Prof. Richard Werner) who question if, when we're implanted with whichever microchips or brain implants, we will still be legally classed as 'humans'. If instead we are then legally classed as humanoid robots, will we still have rights? While the topic of transhumanism might seem unrelated to the referendum, it's evident some or many are intending to vote contrary to their personal beliefs. Why?
It’s prudent to vote NO, until such times as these sorts of questions are openly debated, and answered.
btw, as to "While the topic of transhumanism might seem unrelated to the referendum" Prof. Richard Werner provides sufficient insights for astute people to 'join the dots', in this YouTube video:
Loaded language weaponized then unleashed on a post-covid neo colonial she'll be roit population for the purposes of full emotional distraction.
Silly in its simplicity, switch the growing discontent away from governmental tyranny and the trauma it caused by launching a farcical appeal to 'national duty,' where we're suddenly meant to take seriously our new gifted responsibility.
By engaging in a compulsory referendum vote, no less, we are tricked into further division, distraction and dehumanization