Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over

time, evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

But today, we observe a small tribe, akin to a group of meerkats, that

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Welcome back to your listener, episode 428, feeling very fresh

and invigorated after a break.

This is our first podcast for two weeks.

I'm Trevor, aka The Iron Fist, with me as always, Joe, the tech guy.

How are you, Joe?

Good.

Evening all.

Yes.

Scott is not with us.

No, it's not because his private school employer has found out his, his night job.

But rather, you might think that regional Queensland doesn't have much of a

social scene, but apparently Scott does, and he's always got people visiting,

particularly on Monday nights, and he's got that tonight, so he's entertaining

and doing other things, and isn't on board, but presumably will be back

next week, unless somebody else visits and entertains, so it's just Joe and

myself, and there's people in the chat room already, hello Watley, and hello

John in the chat room, so, Yes, if you've got comments to make, make them

and we will try to incorporate them.

Well, what is on the agenda tonight?

A lot of topics.

I finally managed to watch the Yanis Varoufakis documentary.

We'll talk about that.

we'll talk about RFK a little bit.

A little bit about Sam Harris.

a Gaza update.

Because it's just so terrible over there that it's almost a crime

not to mention what is going on.

An update, a bit about David McBride, the whistleblower, a bit about, the

budget briefly, how we're all being screwed by the GST carve up, except

if you're in Western Australia.

oh, Ukraine, China, world sort of geopolitics type stuff.

Trump, and all sorts of things along those lines.

So, so yeah, that's on the agenda.

But first up, What are we grateful for?

This is copying unashamedly from the PEP podcast, and

it's just a nice way to start.

Dear listener, if you don't want to listen to our, carryings on about

our private lives or inconsequential matters, look at your app.

There are timestamps and chapters you can scoot around and fast

forward to the bits that might interest you if this bit doesn't.

But, Joe, I was in Sydney for a week.

And I'm grateful for, A, Sydney Public Transport, particularly the trains, and

B, the Opal app, which is a fantastic little app that you can just say, I'm

at this place and I want to go to this place, and it tells you what buses, what

trains, what platform you'll arrive on, what platform you need to change to.

Makes it very easy, stress free travel.

Transport for London have something similar.

Yes.

And there's a Brisbane Translang app.

Yeah.

Not as quiet as it was.

Not as good, I don't think.

I had a quick look, and, you know, there's lots of advantages to living in the leafy,

upper middle class western suburbs of Brisbane, but one disadvantage is there's

no train out here, so it's all bus.

And, you just get caught in the traffic.

So, anyway, I managed to avoid all the traffic in my day to day

life, so I'm grateful for that.

Grateful for the public transport in Sydney.

The view from the Circular Quay train station, looking out to the Sydney

Harbour Bridge, on a beautiful day, blue sky, it's a hell of a view.

Good public transport experience I had in Sydney.

And what else?

There's one other thing.

And the Manly Ferry.

I'm grateful for the Manly Ferry.

Love taking that across to Manly.

Going to a little pub I know on the other side and having fish and chips.

It's the little things in life, Joe.

You grateful?

You grateful for anything?

I think the Martyr IBD clinic.

Ah, okay.

What have they done for you lately?

I was due a script and the appointment system was wrong.

Basically, I was going to see them the day after my injection was due.

So I emailed them and had a telephone appointment the following week.

So everything is Underway and all sorted out.

Hmm.

This is the only podcast, dear listener, with where both the co-hosts suffer

from Crohn's Disease and the podcast is nothing about Crohn's Disease.

So there you go.

Yeah.

Alright.

John asks if it's a three hour pod tonight, it might be John,

given the list of topics.

It's quite possible, and we're not constrained by Scott

toddling off to bed early, so.

Joe, you going to be up?

Got any constraints?

Got plenty of coke there?

I was going to limit on the amount of rum I've got.

Okay.

Yeah, all right.

Well, let's, I'll catch up on a few things.

So, I've been speaking in previous weeks about the documentary about Janus

Furufakis called In the Eye of the Storm.

And big shout out to Steve who sent me a 30 donation to

cover the cost of buying it.

And Steve, I went and bought it and I enjoyed every minute of it.

It was fantastic, You come away from it, what a man, I reckon, he's an

ubermensch, a Yannis, very, very, very intelligent, very well spoken, a good

way of speaking clearly, emphatically, amazing detail of economics, but then

will mix in, sort of, Greek mythology stories and anecdotes at the same time.

A super engaging guy to listen to.

Really good documentary about his time initially in the, as a Greek

foreign minister and his dealings with the German banks and, and how he was

just gutted when his Prime Minister?

President?

Prime Minister, I think.

Yeah, caved in.

caved into the demands of the German banks and then his adventures as he

then started, an alternative sort of political movement in Germany.

All

very interesting, highly recommend it if you are inclined.

Also interesting listening about his father.

Yes.

That was interesting.

His father was a, a rebellious character who was imprisoned under a

fascist Greek government and tortured.

And all he had to do was renounce communism.

And even the communists were telling him, just renounce it and get out of there.

But he refused and, was tortured some more.

Super tough, resilient character, his father.

But, but also the comment that he said, even if our side had won, so the

communists, it would have, he still have been in that concentration camp

just with different set of guards.

Yes.

Yeah.

Because he refused to toe the party line.

Yes.

So, with that sort of upbringing.

Yeah, an amazing guy, amazing story.

And he said, you know, with the whole negotiation against the Troika,

so the IMF, the World Bank and the Eurobank, he said, what pressure was I

under compared to what my father was?

Yes.

Yes.

He said, yes, it was stressful, but all I had to do was think, well, at

least I'm not in a concentration camp.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, really good.

in the chat room, Watley's grateful for his Donald Trump toilet paper.

Get on your Watley, use it.

Sparingly, so it lasts.

I would have thought it'd be fairly thin skinned, and you'd end

up getting smears on your hands.

Yeah, if it was truly Donald Trump toilet paper, it would be quite

defective and unusable, wouldn't it?

That's true.

Yeah, true.

that's good.

Okay.

back to my list.

What else have I got here?

got a lovely message from Patron Paige, at the end of it, Said,

thanks for the, grateful section.

She likes that.

thank you for persisting with the Iron Fist and Velvet Glove.

You provide much needed light in the gloom.

Thank you, Paige.

I really appreciate that comment.

And earlier on in it, though, she said that, she heard that I'm not

much of a fan of, Robert Kennedy Jr.

And she wasn't sure about him, but she Watched a video about him and

thinks that perhaps everything else might be propaganda and maybe he's

been unfairly branded as a crazy and the video kind of swayed her to

perhaps be a bit more Pro RFK Jr.

But, Well, I watched the video page.

I mean, it was produced by his supporters.

So, of course it's going to be flattering of him.

and also, he's a slippery character in that he changes his message

depending on the audience.

So, he goes on podcasts and tells people what they want

to hear depending where he is.

So, And I would highly recommend to you to, go to the Sam Harris podcast,

which is, Making Sense, episode 325, a few thoughts about RFK Jr.

And I think he gives a pretty good expose of RFK Jr.

So what are your thoughts, Joe, on, on RFK Jr.

as he,

I've been a member of the scientific sceptics for quite

a while and long before COVID.

Great.

We were aware of him.

He's, he was an environmental lawyer.

He, I think he still is, but, he'd made a name for himself, doing a lot,

clean water, clean air in the States.

Hmm.

And then got involved in the misinformation around vaccines.

Yep.

And has been spreading lies, basically, around vaccines for 15, 20 years.

Particularly about

mercury in some things.

thimerosal.

Right.

So, if you remember any of your high school, chemistry, No.

Okay.

Well, you remember salt is sodium chloride.

Yes.

Okay, so.

NaCl.

Salt is chlorine.

Yes, yes.

So you're putting chlorine in your food.

Yes.

Thimerosal contains mercury in the same way that salt contains chlorine.

Right.

Right.

Right.

So it's a component, but it's harmless in that form.

and so, he kept on saying that thimerosal was in vaccines, which it

was taken out because of concerns.

Not because there were any valid concerns, but to allay people's fears.

Mm.

historically, it was in multi dose vaccines.

because it's a preservative.

And so if you're injecting multiple people, you've broken the seal.

There's no guarantees that it wouldn't go off between injections.

with single dose vaccines, it was taken out.

So it's in none of the children's vaccines, but he

has been saying that it is in.

Yes.

And the fear was that this was causing autism.

Yes.

So they pulled it out and strangely enough, no change in autism.

Yeah.

And, the Sam Harris podcast gets quite specific about what he says and

when and how it's just plainly wrong.

So,

At most of the point, he's been told it's been wrong, by

people who know considerably more and he doesn't want to listen.

Mm.

But, he's running for president, he's going to get some

votes, and according to the latest PEP podcast, it seems like his

running will be more damaging for Biden than it will be for Trump.

And also there were other polls, a recent New York Times poll or

something like that which, It was all bad, a lot of bad news for Biden.

So it's increasingly looking like Trump is going to make it.

My goodness me.

We're going to coast through to episode 500.

If that's the coast, we're going to have so much, it's probably

going to be American focused, but, it's a bit like when

he's said what he's going to do when he gets back in.

Yes, which parts in particular are you thinking of?

Most specifically he said he's going to take vengeance on everyone.

Right, yep.

Yeah,

so,

ah, yes, there'll be no shortage of material.

Just, if you, if you are listening to Sam Harris podcast though, he, he's

done one recently in relation to Gaza and the genocide that's going on there.

And, He strikes me as completely deluded about it.

he's very pro Israel.

He really doesn't refer to the Palestinians as Palestinians.

He just calls them Hamas.

And there's almost no recognition that These thousands of kids cannot

be Hamas because they're just kids and, I just think he's in

a bubble of his own on that one.

And while normally, as sort of one of the modern day gurus, Sam Harris

has been pretty good on most things, I think he's terrible on Gaza.

So Have a listen to that episode and see what you think about it.

But,

I've been listening to the podcast that goes along

with the Yanis Varoufakis show.

and there's an episode of Gabor Marti and Yanis talking about, Palestine.

Yes.

And it was interesting, Yanis is saying that, he thinks the Holocaust

is different, not necessarily in human cost, but the attention to detail, that

this was about wiping out a people, whereas all the other genocides have

much mean, much more been about, land or resources or Whereas the Holocaust

was very much focused on a, on a population, and it didn't matter where

they were, they just wanted to kill them.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, that's in a distinction.

Yep.

That would be the, Eye of the Storm podcast.

So, there's another one to add to your list, dear listener.

I

have to say, I've not enjoyed it as much as the, documentary.

Hmm.

True.

But anyway, it's it's all there.

So that was Sam Harris Joe Remember we had the terrible stabbing in Bondi,

but then there was that stabbing of the of the Of The Well, is he a shay?

No, he's not a shay, he's just a, what was he, like a Greek Orthodox?

Yeah, the priest.

he wasn't Orthodox, he was Maronite?

Yes, like that.

So Apparently there's a story in the Sydney Morning Herald which, in

summary, says that, that priest has been accused of sexually assaulting

a vulnerable young woman in 2014.

And, he's the director of the breakaway church that happened

to purchase 12 million dollars worth of property last year alone.

So, so there you go.

yeah, same old story.

Yeah, absolutely.

The judge had said that he'd acted in a way that wasn't

fitting for a priest, I think.

He doesn't know enough priests, this judge.

It's perfect, it's perfectly in line with with common priestly behaviour from what

we've observed over our 430 episodes, Joe.

Well, yeah, yeah, that's the ideal of, of it, yeah.

Yeah, and Joe, last week with Scott we were talking about whether Netanyahu was

popular or not and did a quick Google, just grabbed a paragraph from the Times

of Israel saying just because Israelis back the overarching goals Netanyahu has

set in Gaza doesn't mean they back him.

Netanyahu's approval rating in Israel has plummeted and polls have consistently

shown That if early elections were to be held, his party would lose seats in the

Knesset and his coalition would be soundly defeated according to the times of Israel.

So I think that's the story there.

But

he's been Prime Minister for an awfully long time.

Yeah.

Yep.

Feels like it.

Another podcast to recommend to you, dear listener, is I find The Guardian

disappointing these days on a lot of fronts, very lightweight and incorrect

on a lot of things, and their treatment of Julian Assange appalling, but

occasionally they come out with some good stuff, and their podcast called

Full Story by The Guardian, our latest episode has two Australian doctors.

talking about their experience working in Gaza.

So they went over and worked for a couple of weeks in, you know, one of

the hospitals and just the chaos and just, just the appalling conditions

that they witnessed, worth listening to.

These are things where we just have to stop averting our eyes

and ears and have to actually listen to what's going on there.

And, Just gut wrenching, what's going over there, and so yeah, two Australian

doctors, have a listen to what they say about their experience in Gaza.

That's called Full Story, that podcast.

now, also from The Guardian, printed version, Joe, we've got this crazy

situation where, instead of trucks rolling in by road, with relief,

into Gaza, the Israelis, decided that they're going to build this pier or a

port and cause all aid to be funneled through onto a jetty and then into Gaza.

Presumably because it would be so much easier for them to inspect

and control what's coming in.

Red.

It's actually shipped to, another port in the Med where it's inspected

and it's then loaded on barges that go across to this American built jetty.

Yep.

Cyprus, I think it goes via.

That's it.

Yeah.

And then gets onto this jetty.

But, that just creates an unbelievable bottleneck.

And there's just not enough aid getting through.

So, the head of the U.

S.

Agency for International Development, U.

S.

Aid, Samantha Power, said they're going to start using the C Route to deliver

metric tonnes of life saving aid.

It's a pretty stupid phrase because that might be just three

metric tons and that's not much.

Anyway, she added, the pier that opened today does not replace or substitute

for land crossings in the Gaza, every one of which needs to operate

at maximum capacity and efficiency.

Every moment that a crossing is not open, the trucks are not moving, or where

aid cannot be distributed increases the terrible human cost in this conflict.

In the past two weeks, food and fuel entering Gaza has slowed

to dangerously low levels.

Barely 100 trucks of aid a day, far less than the 600 needed every day

to address the threat of famine, this woman says, who is from USAID.

So, barely 100 trucks a day when they need help.

At least 600.

And,

Well, hang on.

They need 600 to avoid famine.

Yes.

Yes.

So they

want more than that.

Yes.

Thousands, just for normal Yeah.

sort of normal lifestyle.

So, Actually, in that podcast with the two doctors, one of the doctors

was saying that this hospital was going to close down because it

simply did not have enough fuel.

To operate the generators for the hospital.

And, it's such a simple thing to allow enough fuel in for that, but nope.

So, so yeah.

That's that, just a criminal element to the Israeli actions

there of proposing to funnel it all through this bottleneck of a pier.

Ah, what else we got?

I came across this, Joe, at the last moment, was Al Jazeera obtained a

copy of the Gaza ceasefire proposal that Hamas said that it had accepted.

So this was a deal put forward by Egypt and Qatar, a three stage

deal that Hamas said They accepted.

The Israelis said, no, we're not accepting it.

And, three stages to it.

The first stage basically involved Israel withdrawing Eastwood's unhindered

humanitarian aid to be let in.

Israeli planes and drones to stop flying over Gaza for 10 hours a day.

Actually that was one of the other things these doctors mentioned was the incessant

noise of drones flying overhead in Gaza.

Now, Hamas would release 33 captives, which would be women, the sick, and male

civilians aged below 19 and above 50.

And as part of the deal, Israel releases 30 Palestinian prisoners

for each civilian captive.

And 50 for each captive female soldier, so a sort of 30 to 1 ratio, but you

know, I'm just saying, we're going to release 33 captives, and then in stage

2, which would happen 42 days later.

It would be the exchange of remaining captive Israeli men and

soldiers for sort of an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners.

So Joe, if you were a relative of one of the captive Israelis,

you would be seriously pissed.

and distraught and just incensed that Israel has not agreed to

this deal cause it did involve the release of 30 Palestinian prisoners

initially in prisoner swap deals and the remaining ones after 42 days.

So it's obviously not about returning the prisoners as far as the current

Israeli government is concerned.

Well certainly not.

Returning the number to 30 to 1 ratio.

Yeah, yeah.

John says the U.

S.

is building the port.

Correct.

Yeah, U.

S.

military.

okay.

U.

N.

vote, Joe, on, admission of new members, of a new member to the

United Nations, namely Palestine, and should Palestine be admitted as

a new member to the United Nations, Yes votes, 143, including Australia.

No votes, 9 and 25 abstaining.

Let's go through the no votes, in alphabetical order.

Argentina, who has currently got a very right wing, crazy in charge.

No,

Galtier is dead.

What's the name of the guy, Mierre, something like that.

he's had the chain, he had a running chainsaw operating in his campaigning.

So, he's a very pro America, neo liberal crazy.

he's just gonna take that country to rack and ruin, but, that's Argentina.

the other note, Chech, Chechya?

Czech

Republic.

is that, is that the Czech Republic?

Is it CZECHIA?

I don't know.

what other no's have we got here?

Hungary, Israel.

No prizes for guessing that one.

Hungary's Orbán, isn't it?

Um, I think so.

I don't know much about Hungary and what's going on there.

Fairly sure it's a very, very right wing regime.

Yes, I think that's ringing a bell for me now that you mention that.

A series of small Pacific Island type states like Micronesia,

Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea.

I think all of those have had some, something heavy has

been leaning on them, I think.

the other no, of course, would be the United States.

So It was essentially the no vote for the Palestinian admission was the United

States, Israel, Hungary and Argentina, and a bunch of very small states.

Actually I wonder about the Pacific states, whether

that's Christianity related.

Yeah, maybe.

Um.

maybe.

Tonga is here and it doesn't have anything against them as to what they did.

So, can't say about that one.

Vanuatu abstained.

let's do some abstentions.

Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Finland.

What's going on there, Joe?

I would have thought a progressive Finland.

Fiji, there's another, Pacific Island country, Pacific Ocean country that's,

Georgia, Germany, these are abstentions,

Italy, Lithuania, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands.

I'm kind of surprised by the Scandinavian countries.

I thought they might have been yeses.

more abstentions.

North Macedonia, Paraguay, Republic of Moldovia, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland,

Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

There we go.

It seems, Joe, that all of Africa and all of Asia has voted in favour of.

in favour of Palestine, that sort of, and, and pretty much all of

South America and Central America, Latin America, except for Argentina.

That's, that's that global South that we've been talking about as now, you know,

aligning with, China and BRICS nations.

So, yeah.

Anyway, I think the fact that the United States voted against it was enough to make

sure that they're not a full member but they have some sort of right to be Because

they're not

the Security Council.

They have some right to be involved in putting forward motions and things

but unable to vote and be a full member So I don't know the quite the

full detail on that yet Joe, did you have any opinion on David McBride,

the whistleblower, and his sentence?

Did you have any initial thoughts on him?

Only what I've heard third hand, and that's mostly been he

wasn't looking out for the soldiers.

Oh sorry, he was not worried about the victims, he was

worried about the soldiers.

And,

Lower rank soldiers in particular.

Yes.

he was standing up for them and possibly his leaks weren't

in the best intention, even if they came to good outcomes.

Yes, it's complicated with him.

Yeah, he's he's not the pure hero whistleblower That we

would like him to he's not a

perfect victim.

No,

he's not it is complicated with him.

So it seems that his motivation was about exposing corruption by the upper

levels of the military and which was leading to the lower levels being

unfairly blamed for things, more so than perhaps a desire to reveal war crimes.

And at some level it was argued that he was in fact doing the opposite in wanting

to protect some soldiers from prosecution.

So his motivations are definitely part of it.

And, the judge Mossop said the intent of the material McBride disclosed was the

opposite of what those stories published.

He implied McBride's intention should be understood in simple terms.

McBride thought he was doing the right thing for all the wrong

reasons and was an undeserving hero.

But this is always the, or not always the case, but certainly Fairly often.

I mean, Assange is definitely not a perfect victim.

Yes.

So I think if we allow this, oh well, you know, they're

a bad person because reasons.

Yep.

then we silence the whistleblowers.

Yes.

And, in one of the articles I read, Kieran Pender from Human Rights Law Centre said,

Australian whistleblower protection laws were intentionally amended to remove a

good faith threshold in recognition that the focus should be on public interest.

So, I guess the judge is saying in a way, it doesn't matter that there's a

public interest in this case because the legislation doesn't allow for it.

End.

And what we really need is if the person exposes something that is of

public interest, which this undoubtedly was, then it probably shouldn't really

matter why they did, because if it, if it, if it passes that public interest

test, then that should be enough.

And one of the reporters involved in the ABC story was sort of saying that

that this guy's motivation was murky.

Um, I'll read this bit here.

The focus on McBride's intentionality was highlighted in March in

an episode of Four Corners.

Dan Oakes, one of the journalists who broke the Afghan file story,

called McBride's intent Murky, mirroring Mossop's sentiment, so

mirroring what the judge said.

McBride was painted as someone who was attempting to cover up war crimes rather

than expose them by arguing soldiers were being unfairly targeted and investigated

for decisions made by leadership.

So it was kind of like McBride went to the journalist with an agenda

relating to military corruption.

And of course the journalists saw the material and went, well these are

war crimes, and ran with that, which wasn't necessarily what McBride had in

mind when he handed over the material.

But in reality, it was very much undoubtedly of public interest,

so we should have whistleblower laws that encourage the exposing

of public interest material like

that.

I think that's it.

I said at the time, it was obvious that these soldiers didn't act on their own.

Hmm.

That there was a level of oversight, from senior commanders

that allowed this to go on.

Hmm.

Yeah.

And I don't think any of them have faced charges.

Yeah.

In the John Kweropil, oh sorry, in the John Minidue blog, was an

article by John Kweropil, I've quoted in the past, not favourably, because

John is a Newcastle based historian, theologian, social commentator.

but anyway, he sometimes comes out with some good stuff

and some interesting stuff.

And, he looked at the decision and he said, the offence was the

refusal to just follow orders.

Quoting from the article here, The only duty a soldier has is to follow

orders, whatever those orders may be.

There is no higher obligation, and to think there is, is to be accused

of the arrogance of knowing best.

One must operate within the constraints of the organisation, and those that

do not, must know, that breaching their legal obligations will be

met by significant punishment.

These are the words of Supreme Court Justice David

Mossop in sentencing McBride.

So, an emphasis on a soldier just following orders.

and operating within the constraints of the organisation.

And he makes the point, okay, I don't know if that's exactly what Mossop was

saying, there's a bit of that in there.

He makes the point that that's the mindset that was the defence mounted by the Nazis

facing trial in the Nuremberg Tribunal, where these guys were saying that I was

just following orders and what could I do?

I was just one man in an organisation and you know, I just

would have been shot if I didn't.

So I was just following orders.

And in the Nuremberg trial, it was like, well, just following

orders wasn't good enough.

that wasn't seen as a defence, was it, to the crimes that the Nazis were accused

of, simply say you were following orders.

So an interesting concept where it's a bit dangerous to say to soldiers, No

matter what, you must follow orders.

and don't be so smart to think you know what's best, when really it was expected

of other people in other circumstances.

You know, the genocide orders that you're following, maybe

you shouldn't follow them.

I also think, linking documents to a journalist isn't

thinking you know what's best.

It's taking it to somebody else for a second opinion.

Mm.

Yeah.

Yeah.

in the chat room, Whatley thinks good call Joe.

definitely Mormon in islands.

So the religious aspect of Pacific Islanders may have been a factor in

their vote on the Palestinian decision.

Yeah.

John, on the other hand, I'm a bit torn to McBride.

I do think he was a bit naive.

What did he think was going to happen?

Um, okay.

So that's those comments.

what else we got on this guy?

I think that's the main part about McBride.

but, so Rex Patrick, he's like this independent guy in South Australia, Joe?

Senator?

Senator, yeah.

Yeah, doing lots of stuff with freedom of information requests.

anyway.

Apparently the Senate voted, or tried to vote, that whistleblowers are

important and protections need to be enhanced as a matter of priority.

And it's like, I don't know, a bit of a motherhood statement.

let's help whistleblowers.

And the, the government and the coalition voted against it.

So it was just, yeah.

It's pretty, not so hard in voting in favour of improving

whistleblower protection laws to include public interest disclosure.

I just Well, because your guilty secrets might come out.

It's so disappointing by this Labor government.

another thing he's been up to, Rex Patrick, So, the War Memorial, Joe,

gets all sorts of crazy funding from the government and, let me just try

and see here, the Department of Foreign Affairs, according to Rex Patrick,

tried to influence the War Memorial's history of Australia's involvement

in East Timor two decades ago.

Remember, dear listener, we've done episodes in the past.

Explaining how Australia bugged the meeting room that the, well the cabinet

room, I think it was, of the East Timorese, so knew their negotiating

position and, and, you know, just behaved appallingly and in all sorts

of ways against the poor East Timorese.

And so he's asked for freedom of information material about representations

that the Department of Foreign Affairs.

May have made to the War Memorial, trying to water down Australia's

pretty poor record in East Timor.

And of course, the, the government is appealing the decision.

So, looks like he had a win with the freedom of information, but

then the Australian government has decided to appeal and hold

off and hide those documents.

And for God's sake, Labor government, like this was two decades ago.

Nobody.

Currently in your little group is going to be affected by this.

just let's, let's get our dirty laundry out.

Can't they just will the papers through cabinet?

Yes, the Kevin Rudd method.

Yeah, and say that, well, cabinet considered everything

on that trolley over there.

So it's now secret.

Yeah.

Joe, the budget came out.

When the highlight of the budget is everyone gets 300 to

cover their electricity bill, it's not much of a budget.

It's my assessment.

there's no big thinking in this one.

I wouldn't have thought.

This is the following, I think from the UK that did exactly

the same thing last winter.

Ah,

it's, it's so pathetic.

With all of the inherent problems in our budget, And this government is

way too scared to tackle anything.

interesting article.

Well, we've previously talked about the GST carve up and how unfair it

is to everybody now except Western Australia, who are getting an

amazing deal from the GST carve up.

And there's a good little summary by Ian McAuley where he says that, um

the Western Australian State Budget, they've increased funding for housing,

urban rail projects, capital funding for state schools, and they're going to

have a leftover operating surplus of 2.

6 billion.

And in the last, eight years Coal plating

the roads next.

Yeah.

In the last eight years, they've run up surpluses of 20 billion, while

the other states have in that period have run deficits totaling 300 billion.

So, in eight years, a 20 billion surplus to Western Australia.

A 300 billion deficit for the rest of the states and it's all

because a large, a little context.

So he says, this is Ian McAuley, compared to other federations such

as US, Canada and Germany, Australia has only minor disparities in

living standards between states.

Joe, were you aware of big disparities in living standards in

Canada and Germany, in the States?

No, I'm in the U.

S.

Yeah,

U.

S.

certainly.

And he says one reason is the Commonwealth collects about 80 percent of all taxes,

and it provides all of the income transfer programs in terms of pensions and social

security, and it distributes a big segment of funding, specifically revenue from GST.

On the basis of the needs of the state governments.

Now that's been in place since 1933, when the Grants Commission was established.

And it looks at each state, it looks at what are they able to get in terms

of revenue, how much do they have to spend, traditionally states that were

very large and sparsely populated, therefore had greater expenses in

providing infrastructure and facilities, so they would be compensated for that.

And get more money per head of population than a compact state such

as, Victoria or New South Wales.

So for most of our sort of, last hundred years, it's been New South Wales and

Victoria subsidizing the other states.

So Victoria, for example, might collect, For every a hundred dollars

that, Victorians pay in GST only, 90 would come back to Victoria, the other

10 would go to a less well off state.

So this worked very well for many years.

New South Wales Victoria, being good guys, having a grumble,

but subsidising the others.

And, and in fact, until 1960, Western Australia was a main beneficiary.

More recently it's been Tasmania.

But things have changed.

They started finding iron ore, gas and copper and lithium in Western Australia.

As a result, Western Australia was getting, It's now taking in 10 billion

a year in mineral royalties, which other states don't come close to.

And so what the Grants Commission did was they looked at it and said, well, you're

collecting 10 billion in mining royalties.

The other states have no capacity like that to generate income.

They've got all these expenses.

You guys are going to get almost nothing out of the GST because you've got so much

money from this mining royalties source.

And that didn't please the Western Australians.

They've got a lot of strategic pull because it was an important

place in terms of electoral power.

It's what got the Morrison government in.

When, he won that election, and It's what got Labor in with Albanese

when they managed to claw back some of the seats in Western Australia.

So both sides of politics are incredibly keen to keep Western Australia happy.

And what they decided to do was say that, that what we'll do is instead

of looking objectively at what your income and expenses are and taking into

account these things, we'll just make sure that you never get less than 70

percent of what you would have got if it was just on an equal per capita basis.

And that's way more than Western Australia should be getting.

Sawless Lake described it as the worst policy decision ever.

And, we've got an incredibly unbalanced distribution of funds

going to Western Australia.

Nice little summary of it there.

We've said it before, but it's worth repeating.

And these are just some of the fundamental things, Joe, that are in, you know, we've

talked about negative gearing, capital gains tax, a range of other things.

And this Labor government just flops around with a 300 electricity

subsidy without having the balls to try and fix any of this shit.

Yeah, I think they should have done it just after they got in.

Yeah.

Because by the time of the next general election, they'll have forgotten.

Yes, yes.

Just, voters, you are from a shiny tie.

just before the election and you get the votes in.

Yeah.

We'll just do what's right.

What is the point of being in power if you can't exercise the power and

you just have to enact whatever the Liberals were going to do anyway?

What's the point of being there if you just have to be whatever the

Liberals would have been anyway?

Because otherwise, you've not been in power, you don't get that

consultancy job when you leave.

Yeah.

It's just, honestly, these decisions.

Orcus, it's exactly the same as if, as if Dutton was in power.

These freedom of information requests that get knocked back,

Dutton would have done the same.

Persecuting McBride, Dutton would have done the same.

but just Oh,

but they're

not doing

nuclear.

True.

But we are going to open some coal mines.

Yes.

So much of what they are doing is just, you know, there's no

difference between these parties.

They're closer than any of the other parties.

They should be forming coalitions when they Yeah.

Anyway, he makes the point here actually that Western Australia has

always had a difficult relationship with the rest of Australia.

So it was the last state to hold a referendum to join the Federation.

And in 1933, as the Depression took hold, it held another referendum

on whether it should leave the Commonwealth, and two thirds of Western

Australians voted for secession.

This was in

1933.

Well, I know that for Federation, New Zealand was more likely to join than WA.

There we go.

And in 1933, the British government refused to accede the request.

Must have been at a time when our constitution still had enough.

British involvement?

How did

the British government refuse to receive the request anyway?

It was still a colony until the late 50s.

not because they respected Australia's sovereignty, but because

they feared Western Australia's secession would energise separatist movements

in other parts of the British Empire.

That makes sense.

Yeah, so that's Western Australia, Might be time to move there if

you're a young person, because I can't see either party changing it.

They're just going to get bucket loads of cash over the next 20 years.

Joe, if you're into construction and building and engineering

and infrastructure and stuff, it'll be the place to be.

Yeah.

Guy Rundle in Crikey had a big whinge about Labor, saying they're now the

party.

Probably saying that it was refused because of French interests in WA.

What's that?

Brits refused because we had

Because WA had French interests.

Ah, the French were interested in, in moving into WA if they succeeded.

Quite possibly, that would make sense.

So, hmm.

Okay, was that Watley?

Okay, good on you Watley.

Hmm.

He's well read, Whatley.

where am I?

Back to this.

Guy Rundle that, that they're the party of asset owners, but they're purporting

to represent the assetless and the poor, and therein lies a problem.

So he goes on about that, in a sense, our gutless of a.

For some reason I'm on the ACL, Australian Christian Lobby, email list.

Just before Mother's Day, they sent me an email encouraging me to complain about,

Well, she writes here, this is the lady from ACL, Michelle Pierce.

I'm excited to announce ACL's new Only Two initiative, a vital campaign

affirming the inherent value, meaning and complementary purpose of women's voices.

of the two biological sexes.

In our gender confused culture we must lovingly yet boldly

proclaim God's intentional design.

Will you join us in honouring his creation and protecting the next generation?

Visit our only two page to get involved by purchasing merchandise,

accessing resources, advocating for policies, sparking social

media conversations and more.

So that was my Mother's Day message from the Australian Christian Lobby.

Years ago, back when marriage equality was happening, I signed up

to leave a message for the anti group to tell them to go fuck themselves.

Yes.

And ended up on their mailing list, which is now binary, who

are an anti trans lobby group.

Right.

So, about two or three times a week I get a email from them,

railing against trans people.

Right, and you got onto the list because initially you wrote to them

telling to F off and they suddenly put you on the mailing list, right?

Basically, to leave a comment, you had to give an email address.

So I did.

Yeah.

And then they continued to spam me.

There you go.

And you're sort of enjoying just reading it any, well, not enjoying, but it's,

you're finding it interesting enough.

Archived it just for posterity.

Yeah.

Queensland Joe is looking at changing.

anti discrimination laws, that religious groups, in particular

schools, can only hire on the basis of faith if it's strictly necessary

for, as an occupational requirement.

So, for example, if you're teaching religious instruction, that

would be a religious, a genuine occupational requirement, so some

discrimination will be allowed there.

But presumably if you're teaching math, then religion is not a

genuine occupational requirement.

So, so it looks like the Queensland Labor Government is going to put that in before

the state election in late October.

Don't hear much about these sorts of things, but it's going on.

We don't hear much about it in the courier mail, or the courier fail.

What a surprise.

Yeah.

Well, actually I, I am surprised because it'd be something they

could beat up Steve and Miles about.

Yeah.

But you know what, I reckon they sense that most Queenslanders think

it would be a good idea and don't want to make it an issue, probably.

Maybe they think that way.

I don't know.

I just, I just read, as I read that paper, I just, I go, okay, I'm

about to read, the LNP newsletter.

And if I take that mindset in, it never fails.

Not even the LNP newsletter.

The Rupert Murdoch newsletter.

Yes.

Which is mostly aligned with them, but not necessarily.

Yes.

just the, the unmitigated bias that they exhibit.

It's, it's comical almost.

If I see people exiting, Joe, a newsagent, or walking in a

shopping centre, with one of those tucked under their arm, I just go,

honestly, what are you doing?

Well, he's buying a newspaper these days.

Yeah,

it's always old boomers, isn't it?

Yeah, same.

Oh, John says Watley has stopped showing up on my YouTube chat.

Watley, you might have disappeared.

From the YouTube chat, but it doesn't matter, John.

You can see him on the chat.

maybe Watley got banned for being a bad boy at one point.

I don't know.

Anyway, it's nothing we've done.

Nope.

Um, to give my voice a rest, John Mearsheimer, explaining

Ukraine to Piers Morgan.

I was reading something the other day where we get so much We get so much

from mainstream media, aka Murdoch, ABC and The Guardian, about the

Ukrainian position in that conflict.

But we very rarely get to see anything from the Russian point of view, whether

you want to agree with it or not, but just what that point of view is.

Anyway, just to give my voice a rest, here's a bit of, Mia Shimer talking

about, the, talking to Piers Morgan,

coming up here.

Here we go.

You want to remember that if you look at what's happening

in the conventional war, it looks like Putin's going to win.

Despite the fact that we've now passed this large scale arms package

for Ukraine, Putin is likely to win.

Why is that not a terrible thing?

For America and the West.

Because you have to prioritize the threats

that you face in the world.

And the fact of the matter is that what happens in Ukraine does not

matter that much to the United States.

I know for people like you, this is a life and death matter.

The thought of any country on the planet that the West defends losing is a major

defeat and has catastrophic consequences.

I mean, you felt this way about us pulling out of Afghanistan.

But I think that places like Afghanistan, even places like

Ukraine don't matter that much.

I didn't really.

I felt with Afghanistan, America should have kept a small military presence

there to maintain some kind of order.

And I think I was justified in saying that, given what's happened since.

I thought throwing the, the country back to the Taliban was a catastrophic

error of judgment and it wouldn't have happened in the way it's happened

if America had kept a couple of thousand troops there, as it does all

around the world in endless bases.

So it seemed to me having done, you know, many, many years of hard work

in Afghanistan as a response to 9 11 to then simply just overnight,

throw everybody out, and leave the country to the Taliban, particularly

for women's rights, I thought was an abrogation of America's duty and the UK.

Right, but this is your world view, which is the United States

has a responsibility to be everywhere, and to never quit until it wins.

Not everywhere, but they should

certainly be preserving freedom and democracy.

Otherwise, why self style yourself as leader of the free world?

You're either a leader of the free world, and America still has, I think,

half the world's military firepower, and obviously one of the biggest

economies, you're either are or are not.

entity, leader of the free world, or you're not.

And if you are, then what comes with that is a responsibility to protect freedom

and democracy when it comes under attack from totalitarian regimes, I would think.

I think if you look at the history of American foreign policy,

it's very hard to make the case that our principal goal has to be to Ben,

to protect freedom and democracy.

The United States has a rich history of overthrowing democracies around the world,

and we have a rich history of siding with some of the world's biggest dictators.

So this idea that we're out there protecting freedom and democracy,

and it's our principal goal, in my opinion, doesn't mesh with reality.

There we go.

So Mia Shimer, of course, is the one, who's always arguing that NATO

aggression and Putin warning and saying, don't put NATO in Ukraine and, and

sort of backing up a whole bunch of U.

S.

ambassadors and, Ken and Malik and the architects of the Monroe, not Monroe

Doctrine, the, Marshall Plan and others, who are basically saying it's

a really, really bad idea to expand.

Eastwoods, and it'll eventually reach a red line.

So, anyway, I thought he made a good point there about when Piers Morgan said,

well, they're the leader of the free world and they go around, supporting

democracies and that's their job.

And he said, well, quite rightly, actually, lots of times they don't,

and they're supporting terrible dictators when it suits them.

I'm sorry.

They're inconsistent in that regard.

Is that with Mearsheimer?

Yeah, but

they're not supporting Putin this time.

Not this time.

I tell you what, if he turned on Russia, on China, they would.

Maybe.

They'd be right with him straight away.

Speaking of China and Russia, big meeting between them, high powered discussions.

China and Russia issued a joint statement, 8000 word statement when it's translated

into English and basically saying there's, we now have Russia and China explicitly

stating that they're all in with each other to bring a new equal and orderly

multipolar world and the democratisation of international relations and put an

end to US hegemonic Hegemonic behaviour.

So basically, a statement pretty much saying, we're going to work together

as closely as we can, and we're going to work with the UN, and we're going

to be talking about international law, not the international rule of

law that these guys talk about, but actual proper international law,

and and they're not going to put up with US hegemonic behaviour anymore.

In an 8, 000 word statement, and those guys are as close

as they've been possibly ever.

I would have said China and Russia, so, what do you think, Joe?

Thick as thieves in China and Russia?

You see any reason that that's not the case?

I think it makes a very interesting show for the world.

I think behind the scenes, they're miles apart.

You think Russia and China are miles apart?

Yeah.

In what way?

China has been very reticent about supporting Russia and Ukraine.

Hmm.

And

Supplying, military, hardware and bits and pieces and chips?

Like

tiny bits.

they've also got a land border that they fight over, not

infrequently, China and Russia.

When was the last time they fought over their land border?

Wasn't that long ago.

Right.

I can't remember.

This isn't like with the Indians where they do it with sticks.

You're aware of that one?

Between the Danes and Canada?

Right.

You're aware of that?

No, but I just know that there's that one with India up in

some high pass, no sort of covered alp region where they've agreed.

That they can fight, but they're not allowed to use, weapons, except for

sticks and shovels and, and stuff, so they occasionally beat each

other with that to minimise, yeah.

I haven't heard of China and Russia having a border dispute for a while.

I thought,

maybe the 90s?

Right, okay.

Yep.

Yeah.

Whatley's going Sino Russian conflict, 1920s and 30s.

Yeah, I'm sure there's something more recently.

Okay.

Anyway, you know, you've essentially got,

America described Russia as like a gas station, something like

that, masquerading as a country.

So, they've got a lot of fuel and energy, Which is something that China would like

to have, and China can provide, all the sorts of stuff that Russia might not

be able to get because of sanctions.

intermediaries like India are happy to act as middlemen for selling stuff.

So, I was reading Joe, like, I think India now is, it used to sell, I

don't know, 5 percent of, Petroleum products to the UK and now it's like

50 percent because they're essentially just buying the Russian stuff and

rebadging it and sending it off again.

So these, these sort of sanctions just aren't working, which is a key to this

whole new world that we're going with.

okay.

let me see.

Oh God, there was an article about.

A ceasefire?

We reported on this, Joe, about two years ago when it happened, that

there were discussions because Reuters reported them and we reported what

Reuters was saying about ceasefire discussions and found this article

that's got a bit more detail about it.

So The German and French press are starting to talk about it and, are you

aware of a German publication Die Welt?

D I E?

Die Welt, yeah.

So is that like one of the major?

It is.

German, okay.

So what I'm reading is an English translation of an article that

appeared in that publication and, so, um, Ukraine and Russia, the secret

document that could have ended the war.

A few weeks after the Russian invasion, there could have

been a successful solution.

This is evident from a draft agreement that both warring parties negotiated by

the April 15th, 2022, so two years ago.

So, They've got the original document, and according to it,

Kiev and Moscow largely agreed on the conditions for ending the war.

Only a few points remained open.

These were going to be personally negotiated by Putin and Zelensky, but

that meeting never took place, and they go on to blame Boris Johnson for that.

And so they say immediately after the outbreak of the war,

Russian and Ukrainian negotiators.

began negotiating and it was mediated by Turkish President Erdogan in

Istanbul and they drafted an agreement.

Basic principles were that, Ukraine would commit permanently to neutrality, meaning

it would never be a member of NATO, and, but Kiev could be a member of the EU.

in return, Russia assured it would not attack the Ukraine again, and to

ensure Kiev could be confident of this.

Moscow would allow Ukraine to enter into security agreements with the USA, the

UK, France and China, basically providing a security guarantee, saying if you,

if we, Russia, invade you, Ukraine, you can have an agreement with these

countries to fight back, like a kind of a NATO like agreement, if we invade you.

that was to try and give some comfort to the Ukrainians that the

Russians wouldn't invade again.

And basically, Russia was going to keep the Donbass regions it had

already captured, the Crimea it had already captured, and and that

was kind of a lot of the nuts and bolts of it, was they'd stopped with

huge amount of

Oh, yes, sorry, good point.

Yes, let's get to that as well, which, let me get to that.

Uh, so yes, as part of it as well, it was Russia insisting

on Ukrainian demilitarization.

so Moscow demanded that Kiev reduce its army to 85, 000 soldiers.

It was currently at one million.

Ukraine offered a troop strength of 250.

So, the ideas also differed on the number of military equipment.

Russia demanded the number of tanks, this is Ukrainian tanks, be reduced to

342, while Kiev wanted to keep up to 800.

Ukraine wanted to reduce the number of armoured vehicles to 2400.

While Russia demanded only 1, 029, same with artillery pieces, Moscow

proposed 519, Kiev 1, 900 for multiple rocket launches, Kiev wanted 600.

With a range of 280 kilometres, Russia's vision was 96.

So, quite detailed stuff, Joe, about number of men, number of tanks.

So what I'm

hearing is, you have less weapons, you're not allowed any

foreign troops on your side.

So Russia's aim is, we invade, take the whole of Ukraine before the other

countries can come and fight us out.

Ah, I don't know the timing of this.

But it seems like, it seems like Ukraine was, was up for a lot of this stuff.

Like they're negotiating these numbers with them, like they're

talking significant numbers.

it doesn't seem that way because according to this article by this

respected German publication, Joe, would that be fair enough?

Yeah.

After more than two years of war, the deal seems advantageous in retrospect.

Quote, that was the best deal we could have had, said a member of

the then Ukrainian negotiating delegation to Weltam Sontag.

What's that, Joe?

Weltam Sontag.

Ah.

Ukraine has been on the defensive for months, suffering heavy losses.

In hindsight, Ukraine was in a stronger negotiating position then, than it is now.

Um, and it goes on to blame sort of Boris Johnson for not, sort of

kiboshing the idea along the way.

So it seems like two years ago, get rid of a lot of your army.

we'll keep the Donbass we've already got.

We'll keep the Crimea we've got.

You don't join NATO, but you can strike deals with these major parties.

about, them being involved if we decide to invade you.

And Joe, Zelensky should have said yes to that, in my opinion.

But I know we disagree on that one.

Yeah.

What else have we got here?

Well, you know, peace and our time.

Yes.

there's just tens of thousands of men that have been killed

unnecessarily for no gain.

They're not going to get that territory back.

They're just going to lose even more, so, ah, what else have I got here,

what are we up to, 917, ah, look at my list, we're about half way through it,

ah, and I'm inclined to keep a lot of it for next week, ah, is there any one

in particular that I want to do here,

Are there any you're saving for Scott?

Yes.

Okay.

My democracy ones and China ones, I'll save for Scott.

Yes.

Good point.

And economic zones.

Next week, we're going to talk about that, that Australian helicopter that

was supposedly, Joe, conducting, Ah, yes.

Legitimately, according to Australia, it was involved in Freedom

of navigation.

Yes, but more importantly, it was involved in making sure that North

Korea was not breaching its sanctions.

Remembering North Korea is not allowed to import a lot of stuff.

So, supposedly, according to the Australian government, the

helicopter was involved in in sort of regulating and making sure that the

North Koreans were not transporting illegal stuff across the ocean.

The strange thing is, dear listener, normally if you would be, you know,

transporting contraband of any substantive sort, you'd be doing it

in a ship that's on top of the ocean.

And the helicopters that we were using, well, why would you be using a helicopter?

You would be using a ship to intercept another ship, and

Well, a helicopter's got a greater line of sight.

And it just so happened that these helicopters are also equipped

with anti submarine detection stuff that they're custom designed to have.

And it could well have been the case that Australia was actually

dropping sonar buoys for submarine detection with the helicopters.

it's probably more plausible than conducting sanction enforcing

action against North Koreans.

And, anyway, that will be a topic for next week.

Hmm.

Right.

John says the fact is Russia invaded.

Yes, they did, but you gotta get an end to it somehow.

still sounds like a bad idea for Ukraine.

Say that to the mothers of the 10, 000 men who have died between, that

time and now, John, and their wives and their children and their siblings

and see what they think about that.

Alright, well, that'll do for one episode.

We'll be back probably with Scott next week, provided he's not on

some other social engagement.

We'll talk to you then.

Bye for now.

Do svidaniya.

What does that mean?

Goodbye.

Bloody show off, you and your foreign . language