Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of homo sapiens.

But today we observe a small tribe, a akin to a group of mere cats 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.

Yes, episode 392 of the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

I'm Trevor a k a, the Iron Fist with me as always.

N b n Connections, provided the working Scott the Velvet Glove.

Good day, Trevor.

Good day, Joe.

Good day listeners.

I hope everyone's

well.

And Joe the tech guy.

Evening all.

Scott, you had a week off.

Did you listen?

Yeah, I did.

Did you listen to the podcast?

Yeah.

I'm always listening to

the podcast even when I'm on here.

Mm.

Always listen to it.

Were you upset with us when we suggested you, you really should be a Greens

voter and it's just you're in denial?

or did you recognize that we're probably right and just

No, I I don't think you're right because I think that if they, if they ever

did get their hands on the government benches, then they would actually lose

control and they would go outta control and they would do some ridiculous

radical shit.

Do they do anything more ridiculous or radical than what the liberal

government did in the previous term and what the labor government

is doing in the current term?

I'm thinking orca.

Could they be anywhere?

Cus isn't radical.

No.

Yeah, could.

They could

really, anyway, the whole point is that, did you see that thing that was

on Facebook where the max, whatever

his name is, the Max Charm something or other?

Or Max something Charmers?

Yes.

The guy that's the member for

Griffith.

Yep.

Did you see his speech that

he gave in Parliament?

Oh, I've seen bits of his different speeches.

Yeah.

Anyway,

that was really hard to disagree with and I found myself feeling very

dirty while I was listening to it.

Yeah.

Because I just thought to myself, yeah, that bastard is

making a hell of a lot of sense.

So, you know, if they would actually restrain themselves to

that type of attack, then I wouldn't have a problem supporting them.

But you know, and I will never forgive them for that whole Adani

convoy that, that Dick Ed, Bob Brown.

Launched.

Mm-hmm.

And they, they did fuck up the Labor Party's chances of winning in, in

central Queensland.

It was a great election to lose.

Yeah.

It was a great election to

lose

because, you know, fantastic election to lose.

Yeah, I know.

Because the liberals had to print money, ruin the budget, and now

lost all credibility when it comes to financial competence.

It was great.

That's the best thing the greens have ever done.

Scott.

Scott, I reckon this is like your battle with,

they're lunatics.

They're lunatics,

Scott.

So it's just like your battle with religion.

You must have walked up to the line, thought about it for a while, and then

eventually crossed and that's what's gonna happen here with the greens, I think.

No, I don't think so.

Okay.

Alright.

In the chat room, Alison and probably her mother, Bev is there, I reckon.

Hello Alison?

Anyone else in the chat room?

There's three people there.

Say hello.

If you're in the chat room, we'll try and incorporate your comments.

Well, what's on the agenda besides teasing Scott, in the first few minutes?

You can tease me all you want to, but I just think to myself they are lunatics.

So

anyway, yeah.

we are going to talk about, well, this podcast is about news and

politics and sex and religion.

We're gonna tick all those boxes in this episode and we're gonna talk

about that book, which was Welcome to Sex and the Reaction, awareness of the

Price, Pricewaterhouse, shenanigans, Dan Canceling the Commonwealth Games,

scripture Union and their tax status, labor and submarines, bit on Ukraine.

And then we're gonna eventually find our way to.

an in-depth discussion, hopefully about the voice looking particularly at culture.

And one of the reasons I'm against the voice, which requires

an in-depth look at culture.

So what we normally do on this podcast, if you're new to it, is we kind of cover the

weekly topics in the beginning and then put the more meaty ones towards the end.

If you've got a podcast app like the Apple Podcast app, you'll see chapters.

And so the topics that I've just mentioned will be in a chapter and you can skip some

if you don't like the look of them, we could go back and easily repeat a section

if you'd really like the look of it.

So have a look at the chapters if you wanna scoot around.

I won't be offended much.

You decide to skip I'll.

Yeah.

Alright.

first up, Joe, last week you mentioned that book, welcome to Sex.

Yes.

So, which has

now been withdrawn from Big W because of death threats

to staff.

Was that the reason why Death threats?

Yes.

Right.

Oh, I dunno.

Certainly threats of violence to staff.

Yes.

Right.

Jesus dunno if

it went as far as death threats.

Yeah.

yes.

Again, the Christian, terrorists have won, this is just like they

did with the Noosa Temple of Satan.

Up at the J.

Correct.

This is very, I was just about to say, it's reminiscent of us being banned

from the J because Christians were threatening staff and abusing them.

Yes.

For allowing us to use the service available to the public.

Very reminiscent.

Hmm.

It's had a lot more publicity since we spoke last week.

Yes, it has.

So apparently though it's a bestseller on Amazon and other book retailers.

So I had a quick look on Amazon.

Ratings total average score from 61 global ratings is three and a half outta five,

which would suggest not particularly good.

Yeah.

However, five star ratings were 53%, one star ratings were 32%.

And that's highly unusual when you look at, in a book, like normally

people are fairly, there's always gonna be some people in the 1%

category you can just never satisfy in, in the one star category.

But, that shows a divided community yet again.

And, yeah, I mean if you look

at, I've got, what's his name's War on Christmas or Saving Christmas, the movie.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

A lot of those Christian movies, they're, they're all five

star or all one star reviews.

Yes.

So this is, there is no middle ground.

Pretty much 53% were five star, 32% were one star.

And the next one's a four star at 11%.

Mm-hmm.

Three and two star got 2%.

2%.

So just looking at the comments, five star review from Frank who says, great book

covers all the standard topics, and also those that are probably two embarrassing

for your kid to ask you about.

An excellent resource for teenagers trying to work out what it, what is what.

That was actually from

Sharon.

from Sharon.

Yes.

The headline.

Yeah, the headline said Frank.

Informative and

to the point.

Thank you.

That's true.

Just in case Sharon was listening.

Yes.

14 people found that helpful.

Meanwhile, Dee Wilkins, subject title or comment title, absolutely disgusting.

The content that's being aimed at kids.

Since when did sexuality and sexual content get pushed so

hard against kids until now?

Let the kids be kids.

This content is absolutely disgusting and no way is this even remotely

appropriate for the suggested age content.

What's more is any child can just grab this from the shelves in a store.

Disgusting.

75 people found that helpful.

Yeah.

And thi this is obviously someone who hasn't had a child in school for at least

30 years, I would say maybe 20 years.

As soon as kids got access to mobile devices.

Might be just, believe me, they're, they're, they're seeing considerably

more than that in the playground.

Mm-hmm.

Maybe just delusional about what kids are reading, whether they want to or not.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Alison in the chat room, it's still for sale at Big W, but it's order online

and can pick up in store or post.

There we go.

Hmm.

Hello to Sharon in the chat room as well.

Right.

you mentioned a theory, Sharon, now, are you Yes.

A friend.

Sharon's a friend of yours from, is she in the island or something?

Yes, she lives in Wales.

Wales.

There we go.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Joe, you mentioned a theory about kids who get sex education

are less likely to be abused.

Abused, yeah.

Yes.

and you sent me a link to a study.

Mm-hmm.

But that was really studies where they'd kind of, were doing role playing

thing, talked about abuse prevention.

Yeah.

Kind of dealing specifically with what to do if you are touched

inappropriately or something like that.

So is it, is it definitely the case though that just general sex

ed makes you, less susceptible?

So, short answer is yes, but it's, it's to do with the ability for.

children to find safe adults that they can broach these topics with.

Mm-hmm.

and to have the words and to feel comfortable discussing this.

Mm.

And the more the subject is discussed, the more normative it is,

the less shame they feel about it.

I mean, there's the horrible story of a girl who was kidnapped in

the States and she said, you know, everything in her upbringing was all

based, her value was her virginity.

Yes.

And she felt that having been kidnapped and raped, that she had no value and

therefore she didn't try to escape.

She felt that she was worthless.

Yeah.

and, and therefore she didn't even bother trying to eGate because

she had no value to her family now that she'd lost her virginity.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Which to me is, you know, is repugnant.

Yeah.

And therefore, the more we can have these sensitive, sensible

conversations, that are Yeah, absolutely.

Age appropriate.

people seem to be in this naive bubble that kids of 15 and 16 are,

are still playing with dollies.

I don't know.

maybe they are, but not in the way that we think they think.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Maybe.

Yes.

It's, I don't understand why these people believe we live in the Republic of Gilead.

Well, they aspire to that perhaps.

Yeah.

I'm, it's just that this nonsense, you know, it's

mm-hmm.

Absolute garbage.

Your friend Sharon says, I live in repressed socialist whales.

Everything gets banned here.

Well,

that's 'cause

they have the sheep to worry instead.

Come on Sharon.

Surely the socialists would be fairly liberal when it comes to bedroom issues.

Yeah.

Well, no.

Russia was, notoriously, I.

Sex

negative.

Was it at the time of the Russian Revolution?

Are we talking?

Is that No, just No.

During the commun, the Soviet Union

was, the Soviet Union was terribly

repressive.

Ah, okay.

Yeah.

Alright.

Okay.

That's

why I don't like Vladimir Putin all that much

is He's anti-gay.

Yeah, he's anti-gay.

Right.

But you know, it's just one of those things.

I don't think the Nazi elements in the Ukrainian army are too

fond of you either, Scott.

No,

but there's not a hell of a lot of them there.

You know, even, even, even the Wagner group head left and that sort of stuff.

And he said that there is no fascists.

There are no fascists in the Ukrainian government.

However,

the Wagner group on the other hand was set up by a fascist who has fucking

ssss swastika thing, not swastikas.

The sss EPIs tattooed on his, collarbone.

And that doesn't surprise me.

Mm-hmm.

It.

So, yeah, going on about how the, the Ukraines were full of Nazis.

It's like, hang on, your own forces are full of Nazis.

Maybe you should look at

your, couldn't they both be full of Nazis?

Quite possibly.

Mm-hmm.

Well, I do think that the, you know, the, the Jewish president of Ukraine would be

highly unlikely to be a Nazi sympathizer.

Well, did, did he control everything in Ukraine and when he came to power, was he

shit scared that he was gonna be killed by some of these elements and ended up

Potentially, possibly, possibly, yes.

Or, or did he find them useful to set out on the front line?

Mm-hmm.

And maybe have less Nazis left

at the end of it?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You know, I don't know.

I don't know that a Jewish leader coming into power in the Ukraine could suddenly

go, yeah, I think I'm gonna get rid of.

A large section of the military force here, especially

some of the, the highest trained

Yes.

There's a limit to the power that he acquired upon becoming the president.

Yeah.

just speaking of Ukraine, how's that Counteroffensive going?

Still waning the same.

It hasn't started still waning.

It has not started,

you know, it is one of those things.

Ukraine doesn't have the air superiority to take out the pre-prepared Russian

defensive positions.

Ergo there will be no counter offensive that is potentially

not effective in any way.

That, that, that will Exactly.

There will not be.

Well, same as first World War, there was no air, you know, even the

second World War was kind of sorter.

Yep.

it, it's, we are looking at this with American eyes, which was, or even more

European eyes where we scaled back.

Huge artillery, barrages.

And Russia and Ukraine have always relied on artillery barrage.

Hmm.

So each normal Soviet doctrine, the problem is shortage of munitions.

basically there aren't the huge stockpiles.

Russia had the largest stockpiles, but they're burning through those as well.

the, the question is whether the Wests are willing to ramp up the production

of munitions to the point where Russia realizes that it count are out bombard,

Ukraine.

Mm-hmm.

I sent you guys a link, which was basically quoting

a guy a US Army War College.

John Naggy or Nagil, told the Wall Street Journal America would

never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority.

But they, the Ukrainians don't have air superiority.

And he said, it's impossible to overstate how important air superiority

is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.

So don't air superiority unless they're gonna give them, so Soviet,

Soviet doctrines said otherwise.

Soviet doctrine said,

artillery, artillery, artillery, forget the, the fighters forget air superiority.

Right.

I, I, I think what we're, we are looking at it through western eyes that said

air superiority is the way to go.

but this is a Soviet era,

battle.

Mm-hmm.

Which was all about.

Mm-hmm.

Well, it's just gonna keep going.

It's a meat grinder for the poor Ukrainians.

Mm-hmm.

It'll just keep going and going until eventually, Zelensky or somebody

agrees to a ceasefire, which will be for everyone to stay where they

kind of are right at this moment.

What eventually we'll get there.

The,

the analyst that I listen to is saying, effectively, Putin thinks

he can win because he thinks the west are gonna give up.

Mm-hmm.

and and the way to get Putin to realize that he's not gonna win is for the West

to say, here's a long-term agreement that we will support your defense.

Mm.

and that makes it just too costly for Putin.

Mm.

We'll see how it all ends up.

Mm-hmm.

right.

Awareness of the Pricewaterhouse confidentiality misuse.

So we're we on this podcast, a new dear listener, as a regular listener, are

aware that PricewaterhouseCoopers pwc, as it's probably now known, basically

was giving advice to the government about how to catch tax sheets and

then was turning around to its clients and saying, well, this is the advice

we're giving to the government and if you wanna get around that advice,

this is what you should be doing.

Kind of like that.

Mm-hmm.

This is what you need to bear in mind.

So, part of the essential poll was asking people whether, they're aware of

it, just testing the awareness of the public, and, so asking people, to respond.

One response was, I've heard about it and I know what it's about.

That was 33% of people, 27% said, I've heard of it, but I dunno what it is about.

And 40% of people said, I haven't heard of this.

Where the fuck do these people put their heads?

Mm-hmm.

Facebook.

Yeah.

TikTok Interesting.

I like the, I can't believe that 40% of people

haven't heard of it.

Mm.

40% of people do not follow current affairs.

Yes.

There's only about 250 listening to this podcast.

That's a problem.

We could have bumped that number up if we'd had more people.

Mm-hmm.

But, yeah.

Well, oh, talking of such things.

Mm-hmm.

I, I heard a really interesting podcast about how to hack the, listener algorithms

to turn up in the top 20 podcast

charts.

Oh, okay.

Well, if I would, if I was interested.

I'll look it up.

Hey, what I like about essential is they ask that broad questions

often, and then they break it down by gender, age, and voting intention.

Mm-hmm.

And so I've just told you that 40% of people overall have never heard of

this Pricewaterhouse Keepers fiasco.

If you break it up by gender, dear listener, 51% of females

have not heard about it.

30% of males have not.

So big gender difference there.

Hmm.

it doesn't surprise me.

I think this is historical stereotypes that, leads into the expectation that

that's for somebody else to worry about.

My wife for a long time was like, oh, well, you just tell me which

way to vote at the next election.

Right.

Which I refuse to do.

Yes.

But I did, I did show her.

I have to look up, you know, the different political parties, websites,

and at least make an informed decision rather than just going down

and picking the first thing that

she was handed.

Okay.

Just repeating a gender stereotype there.

Okay.

All right.

Yes.

Look, it's an end of one, but I think historically people were not encouraged.

Certainly girls were not encouraged.

Mm-hmm.

Maybe boys were slightly more encouraged.

Mm-hmm.

I don't, I don't know that it's necessarily a gender

stereotype as much as societal

expectations.

Maybe it's, I should have looked at the age one because, is it

still the same now with the age?

You know, because I

was gonna say my daughter is, yeah.

Was Youth Parliament quite interested still in going into politics?

Mm, yeah.

and actually Youth Parliament, not with the Greens.

I

hope Scott.

I don't think so.

Yeah.

Honestly, Scott, you are just, I listen to, Liam gets very frustrated with you.

Really?

With your Yes.

He's like, come on, you've never come up with proper reasons for this.

He finds it very frustrating.

Okay.

That's fine.

Well, you can give him my email address if you want to.

We can, we can have a, we can have a

discussion offline.

I might get him on the podcast actually.

Open invitation.

Liam, you can go for Scotty's.

You can have a, you can have a debate.

Yeah.

Anyway.

Gender?

Yeah.

51% of women haven't heard of it.

There we go.

one more, couple more polls before we move on.

Actually, I, saw something by, Paul Vapor, who wasn't happy with me.

The, the amount of we've done looking at polls on the voice Oh yes.

Frustrated him.

I simply responded and said, well, I find it really interesting that

the voice polls sort of looked like a win for the yes vote.

It has now shifted to what seemed like a win for the no vote and just the

way, because you're a racist Trevor.

Well, I just found it interesting that it shifted and the, the categories

that it shifted in amongst gender and.

Voting intention and all that.

So, sorry Paul, but I, okay.

The polls don't come with explanations as to why people think that way.

But when you take into account, gender and voting intention and

age and stuff like that, you can speculate about these things.

That's all part

of the fun.

I also wonder, the whole Trump and the whole Brexit thing were such

surprises because people didn't feel that they could tell the pollsters

which way they were going to vote.

Yes.

And therefore the actual votes were a surprise.

So does that mean that people are more willing to say to the pollsters

what they're thinking about?

Or are we gonna get a huge surprise when it comes to the referendum that

actually it's another 10 or 15% Yes.

Who were saying that they would vote yes when they're not going

to.

There is that deplorables argument in play here.

Mm-hmm.

Yes.

Anyway, I found it all interesting.

Paul, I'm gonna keep going with polls on the voice whenever I see

one, and I'll let you know what it is and I'll do some speculating.

Dan canceled the Commonwealth Games for Victoria.

We mentioned that before they asked people and that, because he's a comedy fascist.

Right.

But people like, isn't that

news.com au playing?

People hate Dean Andrews, there's no adjective that they

wouldn't use to describe it.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Well,

Godland knows

why he keeps winning.

Well, because what the, what the media say, what Sky news say

doesn't actually reflect reality.

What NewsCorp says doesn't reflect what exactly.

Yeah.

so question, was Victoria withdrawing as host of the Commonwealth Games,

do you approve of the decision by Victoria's government to pull out of

hosting of the Commonwealth Games?

And think about it, dear listener.

The answer is 41% approve of Dan's decision, 36%, say no.

The game should have gone ahead.

That's a lot closer than I thought it would've been.

The rest were, but

this is a, this is a national poll.

Yes.

I suspect if you look at, Melbourne, it would be closer to 80%.

Yes.

And regional Victoria would be closer to 80%.

No.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Ah, because Regional Victoria was gonna get the funding and Melbourne was funded.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Maybe if you can quickly, while I'm doing this, Joe, I didn't look at the

state breakdown of the answer to this.

Okay.

I'll see if I can find it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

essential poll.

See if you can get the state breakdown while we're talking.

I'll keep going with, still that same question.

younger people in the 18 to 34 group.

48% happy with Dan.

Older age group, 37%.

were happy with Dan.

So the younger you were, the happier you were that the games were canceled.

So that was, the essential poll, but I did then see a different poll.

This is on Q and A, the q and a audience poll.

Now there's a left wing, urban, elite poll in sample.

If ever you've seen one, I would've thought, take this

one with a grain of salt.

they ask people, should the federal government intervene to keep the

Commonwealth Games in Australia?

And 83% said no.

12% said yes.

Who are these?

12%?

Alright, I have the

state-based results.

Ah, yes.

it was 44 to 36.

Agreeing with Dan in Victoria.

44% agreed with Dan in Victoria.

Yeah.

36 disagreed.

Okay, so same number disagreed.

Not that different.

That 36 figure is Yeah, it was 3% extra.

Who agreed?

Hmm.

Queensland was 42% New.

South Wales was 40.

South Australia was 39 and WA was

36.

I think that's why I didn't put it up was because actually it wasn't that different.

So fairly even amongst the states, in their opinion about what Dan did, even

Victoria compared to the other states.

Not that different.

Yeah.

8% compared to wa, which is the largest swing.

Yeah.

There we go.

So it's not happening anyway.

Scott, do you reckon, might be the end of the Commonwealth Games?

It's one of those things I did read that, that they reckon it could be

the end of the Commonwealth Games.

Because, you know, you've got these African countries and all that sort of

stuff that could never afford to put on the sort of party and that sort of stuff

that we are beginning to demand from it.

Mm-hmm.

And you know, apparently the only one that's put their hand up saying they

could be interested in it would be London.

Right now, London, you know, wouldn't have to build anything

new because they've still got it.

So it's just one of those things.

Mm-hmm.

You know,

it still probably costs a lot of money even if you have the infrastructure.

I don't know.

Yeah.

It's, you've only gotta

house them then.

Oh, you, no.

Now gotta provide all sorts of security housing, sort of

broadcasting facilities and.

well, they've

got, they'd have all those broadcasting facilities left over

from when London hosted the Olympics.

Mm-hmm.

So they'd, they'd have

all that sort of stuff.

You gotta man them and staff them and Yeah.

But that, that's gonna be

staffed by the, people that broadcasting it so that wouldn't

be a cost for them.

Mm-hmm.

gold Coast Commonwealth Games had a big cybersecurity response room.

'cause they were worried about somebody hacking them during the games.

There's, there's a whole load of additional security that, and just

overheads that aren't obvious.

Hmm.

And you have to ask, will you get extra people to pay for it all in terms of,

are these people coming to London anyway?

I dunno, it's such a tourist mecca.

Who knows?

Yeah.

How the sums that up.

Look, I, all I do know is that if you want a report, to recommend that you,

you know, that London take the games on.

There will be a consultant out there somewhere.

He'll give you that report.

Sure.

Exactly.

And if you want a report that says that you shouldn't, there'll be a

consultant in there somewhere out there that would do that for you.

Yeah.

I think with this, Commonwealth Games one, there's a bit of discussion about, well,

who provided reports and forecasts about costs and what, what did we, who were we

relying on and what did they say in the beginning when Victoria took this on?

Because I think the original estimates were like 2 billion

and it's blown out to six.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

It was one and a half.

It went up to three, and then it went up to six.

Yeah.

So it's doubled each time.

So, well, who wrote these reports that got the figures so bad and, you know,

was that, was that legitimate to be so off in your costings because things

have gone up so much since that time?

Or was it, I believe

that there were differences in opinion between the Commonwealth Games

Committee and the Victorian government.

Oh, in terms of cost, right?

Mm-hmm.

So the Commonwealth Games said, oh no, it's quite cheap to run.

Mm-hmm.

And the Victorian government did their own figures and went, yeah, we don't, not so

sure about that.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Anyway, there'll be consultants', fingers on reports all over the place.

last week we, well I think for the, the podcast picture, I had a, a picture of

Scripture Union and Al Capone and I, and I said, what do they have in common?

And of course it was about tax evasion, tax problems.

Yes.

And I mentioned at the time, I shout out to Allison and suggested a

statue for her, and I just wanted to also mention that, Allison is part

of a team there at the Queensland Parents for secular state schools.

And one of the team, of course is Julia, who I think was Julia.

One who came to a very early meeting of the secular.

Artie in the very early days.

I, I remember the Queensland parents.

I think Kathy was there.

Dunno if Julia was there.

I, I don't remember.

It's a long time

ago.

Yeah, it was a long time ago.

but anyway, Julia, I should have mentioned because it was, Julia who discovered

the problem with the Scripture union and what they were claiming with their

deductible gift recipient status.

And while Alison lodged it, certainly, initiated in a large degree by Julia.

So a special mention for Julia for the good work.

I don't think I'm allowed to say your last name, Julia.

I think you wanna keep yourself anonymous.

Being mentioned on this podcast is probably a risky career move.

For a lot of people.

yeah, so Alison's the spokesperson for Q P S S S, Julie does a lot of

work as well in there, and I've, I've, I've forgotten other people.

Let me know and I'll mention you as well.

So there we go.

Alright.

labor Party and Albanese and Submarines and a tweet by Rex Patrick.

Apparently Albanese has said that at the upcoming, party conference, he

does not want orcus or the submarines discussed and on the agenda.

And this is a real problem with we're having with this presidential style

of politics where the leaders of these parties now feel that they can control.

The policies, ethos, culture, everything about a party and not recognize that.

Hang on a minute.

The membership and the other leaders have some say in this.

So Rex Patrick tweeted, it costs it's cost 368 billion, delivers a first sub

in 10 years time, introduces nuclear reactors to Australia, benefits foreign

shipyards over local, was announced as a fate accompli and you don't want to

discuss it at your party conference.

Really.

And I think he's got a good point.

he's got a very good point.

What's the point of a party conference?

Hmm.

To

agree with the leaders.

It's one of those things like, you know, the Labor Party used to be

very proud of having knock down, slap out fights and that sort of stuff.

Mm-hmm.

You know, and they, they also made it very much open and that type of thing

where you had, you had cabinet ministers.

On opposing sides that were having these verbal doubters with one another.

At the end of the day, they shook hands and moved on.

It's one of those things that,

that was one of the strengths of the Labor Party.

Absolutely.

It was, it was a real strength of them.

That was when it represented the working people.

Yes.

And, and when that

was under Hawke and Keating and that sort of stuff, that you still had

those, you still had those brawls and that type of thing going on.

Mm-hmm.

So I would've thought that, you know, that's where they were starting

to lose their touch with the, with working people was back then.

So I don't understand what Planet Albanese is on because he's from the

left faction and all that type of thing, and God alone knows why he's

so enamored with these submarines.

You know, I really would've thought that, That with a $368 billion

price tag on it, he could turn around and say, nah, that's far

too expensive.

You know, in the scheme of things, Scott, the Greens could make a lot of mistakes

and they wouldn't add up to Yeah, agree.

The Orca submarine mistake, they, they wouldn't, they

wouldn't add up.

that's just an argument for Liam for later on if he comes on.

Yeah,

I know.

It's one of those things, it, it, it's like I said, you know, I felt

very dirty 'cause I found myself agreeing with Max a hell of a lot.

Mm-hmm.

You know, because he was making

a hell of a lot of sense.

Mm-hmm.

I, I was just watching a thing about South Korea and talking, one of the things

they were talking about there, defense policy and, and saying that they've

built these very, very small, very, very quiet air independent submarines.

Because if South Korea was gonna be fighting a war, they were gonna be

fighting it around South Korea and they didn't need these huge nuclear submarines

that the Americans had because they weren't gonna be fighting away from home.

And I went, that sounds like an awfully familiar argument.

Yes.

Where did they buy 'em from?

They make 'em themselves, probably German.

Oh, German, yes.

Yeah.

Probably for just a a billion dollars off the shelf.

Get it next week.

I also saw

that that

was the

Japanese price, wasn't it?

About a billion dollars actually, somewhere.

Yeah, that was similar pricing, I think.

Yeah.

See,

you know, it's $12 billion versus what have we got here?

We got one that's 360 8, 60 8 billion.

You know, none of it makes any sense except that the Yanks appeared determined

to dress into a war over Taiwan.

Mm-hmm.

You.

It's, and, and, the American submarines are not invincible.

There was a Swedish female submarine captain who has

successfully stalked and killed one.

and their, their submarines

used sterling engines.

And this was in Val Exercises where they did this.

Yeah, this was in exercises, but

yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

It's, it's the first time that one of these, you know, nuclear hunter

killers has been stalked effectively and

killed.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Bit quiet in the chat.

Come on guys, you can make some comments.

We'll read them out.

just back to Allison, she's a friend on Facebook.

She changed her cover photo to include something positive

about the voice and voting.

Yes.

I think, I don't think I've ever seen somebody's, yes, I'm actually gonna be

voting yes.

Four, but I think that I'm on the losing side

of that.

I, I, I've never seen somebody change a Facebook photo and launch such a debate.

Over a simple photo change.

It just went, the comments went kaboom.

I quite enjoyed reading them because people were, well-meaning,

I think people didn't get, nasty.

but there was certainly some toing and froing on the topic amongst,

she has every right to be wrong.

but this is amongst, Allison's, you know, rationalist, secular friends, mixed bag

of opinions here, entertaining to read.

I thought John Perkins was quite good, his comment saying former,

well, is he the current president of what was the secular party?

I don't know what his role is now, so, oh yeah.

Anyway, yes.

I, I didn't think she was wrong to put it up there, you know.

Thanks.

It's one of those things, I just think to myself that we've gotta actually spark

this debate because the Yes campaign has been silent on a whole lot of things.

Mm-hmm.

And I think to myself, if they would actually open their mouths and that

type of thing and actually not be afraid of debate, then they might

actually find themselves turning the corner on the, on the, the

whole thing.

Well, you reckon the Yes vote's not vocal enough.

They haven't been out there enough?

No, I don't think they've been out enough.

Okay.

I seem to see them everywhere, but maybe that's just the circles I mix in.

Well, you know, it's one of those things up here in Rocky.

You

don't see it?

No, probably not.

No.

Yep.

You're a hotbed of no voters up there.

I would've thought so, yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Scott, do you reckon if the polls got really bad and it was a certain defeat, I.

That Albanese would just call it off, you think?

No,

I don't think he would call it off.

I think he should, but I don't think he would call

it off.

Okay.

You know, I, I think

he's, he's just got it in his head and that sort of stuff that

he's gotta actually deliver this.

Mm-hmm.

And I just think to myself, it would be an absolute bloody

disaster if it was actually defeated resoundingly and that sort of stuff

at the, at the upcoming referendum.

Now, it depends on what your definition of disastrous is, because if it was,

if it was narrowly defeated in that, you know, you didn't get a majority

of states, but you did have a majority yes, across the country, then that

would be a shattering case for them.

It's one of those things, if it was defeated both in the maj, if, if it failed

to get a majority of yes, and it also failed to get a majority of states, then

that would be a crushing defeat for them.

And that would actually.

Knock it on the head for another generation.

Mm-hmm.

So if the no vote wins, you see it as a, international humiliation for Australia?

Is that what you're, when you're saying No, I don't think it's international.

What you saying?

A disaster.

What do you mean by disaster?

Just a disaster for the no campaign, anything beyond that.

It would be a

disaster for the Yes.

Campaign if it

was defeated.

Sorry.

Yes.

Mm-hmm.

And it's just one of those things.

And I just think to myself that he should have a closer eye on the polls and he

should actually look at the polls more.

Well, maybe he is, but what he is he, 'cause he's out there, he was on two GB

talking to Ben Fordham or whatever, and Albanese iss trying to sell it, I think.

Yeah, he's in the bub.

in the Murdoch rags that he wore a t-shirt that said the voice, the, the treaty.

The whole truth or something.

Yes.

Yep.

So they were saying this is the thin end of the wedge.

Yes.

They were saying that this is the first of three things, treaty mm-hmm.

And some sort of truth.

and reconciliation.

Yes.

Yeah.

Sort of South African style type

thing, which I don't have a problem with.

I don't have a problem neither with the truth telling thing.

I think we've gotta actually had that because it's one of those things I

think that if you actually say to the average Aussie out there that, well

they were pretty badly mistreated, I think they'd actually think to

themselves, no, they haven't been.

It, it's

one of those things that, that would think what?

I, I think that the average Aussie would say, no, they haven't been mistreated.

Right.

You know, I, I don't think they're his, they're aware of the history

of the, of the treatment of Aboriginal people in this country.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it was,

I dunno, I just find an essential poll on that one.

I don't know.

well, I think the average pollster and that sort of stuff that essential would

be, would be auditioning for, would be finding people that would be aware of it.

Mm-hmm.

But, you know, it's one of those things, I only started reading

about it five or six years ago.

Mm-hmm.

And I was aghast at what we'd actually done, you know?

but I, I find that a lot of the, the, the zeitgeist these days is, is very

much the myth of the noble savage that everything with sunshine and

roses till the white fella repair.

I agree.

And that is wrong.

You know, I, that's where we've gotta have, that's where we've gotta

have truth telling from both sides.

Absolutely.

That they actually have to acknowledge that, they weren't

particularly nice to each other.

You know, they did actually bludgeon each other over the bludgeon, each

other to death and that type of thing.

It's very

brutal, even.

Even, you know, no access to modern healthcare.

Yeah.

I, I think

there, there, there needs to be some understanding that it wasn't all bad,

that there were some horrible things.

But I think that I don't, there have also been

some positives.

I'm gonna take a punt and say, that would not be on the agenda of a truth.

Almost.

Almost shouldn't.

No, it wouldn't be.

It wouldn't

be.

But I think it should be.

Yeah.

Well, because

I don't think, I don't think that I, I did actually agree with John

Howard and that sort of stuff at the time when he said he doesn't

believe in intergenerational guilt.

And I agree with him.

I don't believe in inter intergenerational guilt either.

But I do believe that we've got to actually have an open, honest discussion

about it.

It, it's very much what are the romas ever done for us, isn't it?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, it is.

For sure.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it, it's one of those things like, you know, it's,

I think one of your friends, was it Scott or Joe was saying, because you just go

through what's gonna happen, if there's a no or a yes, like what's the outcome?

I've not seen that.

maybe it was Scott.

Oh.

But anyway, I don't recall.

I mean, you know what?

I reckon in this day and age, if the no vote wins, there'll be an

uproar about it and six months later people will be just wondering who's

gonna win the next Melbourne Cup.

Like honestly, people, I agree.

Attention span for these things amongst a certain sector, it'll

be ongoing grievance, but a lot of people will just charge on.

I think

the, I think that Albanese will charge on to create something and that sort of stuff

that'll be, recognized by the Parliament.

If, if we're following the American line as we seem to do culturally and the things

that Donald Trump has got up to, and then just the world just keeps moving on.

you know, lots of bad things can happen to people.

Forget about it.

If the yes vote gets up, then you know what?

Nothing's gonna change because, there'll be this voice and it will

make the recommendations that have been always recommended, and they

won't deal with the real issue, which we're about to deal with right now.

Dear listener.

Well,

and that has been a complaint, isn't it?

Mm-hmm.

That this is a good way of distracting people.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

So, well, this is the first of at least a three part series that I've,

I've written a little thing here.

We'll just work our way through it.

But I wanted to look at culture in terms of the voice and here we go.

Interrupt me whenever you feel like it.

blacks say a lot of we black fellows and you white fellas in

statements that emphasize the difference between the two groups.

Sympathetic whites, say them and us, and defer to indigenous

claims of being special.

Both of these groups, we'd say are from the left, encourage the

idea that indigenous people are inherently different to white people.

And that really annoys me and I reject it in many ways.

Okay, there's gonna be differences because of culture, which we're

gonna get to, but inherently, I.

Isn't.

the truth is that any inherited biological differences are trivial.

Real differences are cultural.

To use a computing analogy, we have the same hardware, which is our d n a.

Some of us use a different operating system, which is our culture,

like that example tech guy, Joe.

Yeah.

Hardware for d n a, operating system for culture.

I think there's some good similarities there.

It's not a bad analogy.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm trying to look at also, hardware is seen more as fixed

and operating systems are things that get updated and are more flexible.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

it's, it's, yeah.

The difference between a gene and a meme.

Yep.

And you could have two computers with the same hardware, but work quite differently

with a different operating system.

Anyway, I like the analogy, so I'm gonna keep using it.

so the discourse around the voice fails to contemplate that the operating system of

culture is changeable and can be upgraded.

Culture is seen as more legitimate if it is pure and uncontaminated

by modern influences in indigenous circles, it is given an almost sacred

quality beyond rational criticism.

To suggest a purposeful cultural change is to commit cultural blasphemy,

except for religion.

They're allowed to upgrade their religion because that's fine.

Yes.

Strange that.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Noel Pearson himself quite religious.

Yeah.

You know that he wants the Bible translated into his.

Local language and will not be satisfied or comfortable until it is.

Yeah.

That's episode three of this podcast.

Scott, you don't remember us talking about that seven years ago?

No, I don't.

A hell of what's happened since then.

Yes.

Yeah.

So, the left has failed by refusing to acknowledge the ideological cultural

choices that many indigenous people make.

Now, before speaking about choice, I'll make a couple of concessions, namely

number one, and obviously black man does not have a choice when racially

discriminated against in a shop or a police station or something like that.

So while race is a myth, racism isn't, and secondly, an indigenous person who has

grown up in a strict indigenous culture.

It's not unlike a member of a cult or a strict religious community in the

sense that they have been indoctrinated into accepting a certain way of life,

and they don't have much choice either.

So in the following paragraphs and minutes, as I'm talking about choice,

I'm recognizing that there are people who are deeply indoctrinated into a culture.

And let's be honest, they don't have choice because they're not aware

of their options, much like a cult member who's, in that situation.

But if you're a moral

relativist mm-hmm.

And all cultures are equal,

yes.

And equally

valid.

Yes.

I guess I'm not one of those.

No.

yeah, we'll get onto that.

But, so I talked about the exceptions.

And there could be others I just haven't thought of.

so this choice argument of culture, but there are a significant number of

people, of indigenous people who have been exposed to alternative cultures

and ideologies who could decide to create, to curate their cultural values.

Some people have the ability to decide for these people.

Identifying as indigenous and adopting indigenous culture and

values is an ideological choice.

That statement's gonna really annoy a lot of people.

So I'll repeat it for these people already.

It's not all of 'em, but a fair number of them.

those who have been exposed to alternative cultures, Identifying as indigenous

and adopting indigenous culture and values is an ideological choice.

Nothing wrong with that, but all ideologies are open to criticism.

No ideology is sacred.

I found as I was writing this, I see a lot of similarities with

religion, with these things.

an untouchable, sacredness to the indigenous culture, the spiritual

nature of indigenous culture.

The fact that you can't criticize it, because that's pla for

me.

And, and this is not a new thing, as I said, I, I actually looked at the

Wikipedia article on the Noble Savage.

Mm-hmm.

and that's well over a hundred years old.

Mm-hmm.

This idea that indigenous people were pure, were.

More closest to nature and, and, and lived in harmony and mm-hmm.

It was very much a, an unassailable idealism.

And part of that is because it's seen as inherent an inherent,

almost biological function rather than a intellectual choice.

And inherent biological functions are seen as more pure and worthy

and not open to criticism.

I think that's sort of part of this whole thing.

Anyway, the ideas, norms, and practices that some indigenous people

choose to adopt are up for debate.

So, remember Margaret Thatcher, who could forget her, who could, we

can't criticize her for an inherent characteristic like being a woman, but

we can criticize her neoliberal ideology.

This argument is the same thing.

We can criticize cultural ideology.

I see urban, elite, indigenous leaders like archbishops.

Of course there are exceptions, but some broad sweeping generalizations.

You want some broad sweeping generalizations of my analogy

between elite, indigenous, urban leaders and archbishops.

Here we go.

they want special privileges for their group by virtue of

holding a certain ideology.

They think their members are better than non-members.

Like original sin.

White fellas have inherited the guilt of their ancestors.

Black fellas have inherited the noble spirituality of their ancestors.

Yeah, I mean, unlike original sin, you can be a.

Yeah, partially aboriginal, you can have one aboriginal ancestor.

Mm-hmm.

You can't have partial, original sin.

True.

Your original sin gets wiped away, through and by a choice when

you're older through confession.

Mm-hmm.

And it gets wiped away by latching onto an indigenous.

And again,

does it though?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, it does.

Or you, 'cause people with mixed, mixed ancestry completely just wipe away their

white ancestry.

I see.

But, but, but a white person can't adopt

No.

Can't, can't go and confess and be given a solution.

No,

that's true.

So it, it's not something that can be assuaged.

Yeah.

I'll keep going with these similarities.

they believe so the similarities between, indigenous leaders and archbishops.

They believe that all of their members are persecuted and they rarely acknowledge

class differences within their community.

number four, it's their job to accentuate difference with outsiders.

Number five, it's their job to maintain traditional dogma and values.

This is an important one.

both of them are conservative to change as change could threaten

their privileged positions.

If cultural change is obviously needed, they will be the last to accept it.

This is the leaders because change leads to assimilation

and loss of group identity.

Two more similarities to go.

they both purport to speak for their members, but the lived experience is

often completely foreign to the most downtrodden members of their group.

I'm thinking.

There have been elite indigenous leaders in Canberra and remote people in raccoon.

I'm thinking archbishops in fancy palaces and downtrodden

Catholics out the back of Ipswich.

they both speak of the common good, but their effect is to divide our society.

So, of course, many indigenous people are suffering.

Of course, we should help them.

But maybe just maybe instead of blindly encouraging indigenous

culture and identity, we should encourage a critique of that ideology.

Maybe parts of the ideology are to blame for some of the mess.

Oh, people won't like that.

Maybe humbugging and communal ownership should be dropped from

the ideology, from the culture.

It's just culture.

It's supposed to change and evolve.

Maybe living in remote areas as a nomadic hunter-gatherer made sense 2,250 years

ago, but maybe times have changed.

And living a sedentary lifestyle in a remote area with few employment prospects

and a social welfare system is not a good combination of circumstances.

You know, that could be the root of the problem here for a lot of communities.

And if it is, then the voice isn't gonna solve it.

I'll get to that.

I,

I did see, actually weipa.

Mm-hmm.

No, not weipa.

What's the other one?

Go, up in the territory.

Mm-hmm.

Apparently the box site mine is going to close within the next, is it five years?

And when the book site mine closes, the royalties will dry up.

Right.

And they're saying that there is quite a large community up there that will

suddenly have a lack of income that the, the miners were giving them.

Mm-hmm.

And that effectively they're gonna be dumped out onto the welfare system.

Right.

Unless some careful planning is.

Mm-hmm.

So there, there, there was a concern that, yeah.

Historically, remote communities that have made a living from

selling mining rights Yep.

In their areas, that's not gonna last forever,

were those successful communities relying on royalties where people

didn't have to actually do anything but just collect the royalties.

I, I strongly suspect that led to dysfunction as well.

I.

I know the circumstance.

They,

they said, I think, the local community leader had made sure that

it wasn't just, living easy money that they had set up some Right.

businesses with the money.

Okay.

But again, that there were cultural issues.

Mm-hmm.

so yeah, I, I think it was highlighting

that, yeah.

living in remote communities is not a, an easy thing.

No.

so yeah, so I've said, maybe times have change.

living in a sedentary lifestyle in a remote area with few employment prospects

and a social welfare system is not a good combination of circumstances.

Maybe it is those circumstances and not racism, which are

causing indigenous suffering.

Maybe the current version of indigenous culture is locking

people into a hopeless situation.

Maybe that culture needs an adjustment.

Of course this is Blass for me.

Many rationalists consider it is their duty to confront religious zealots and

debate the pros and cons of the religious belief, or at least debate the ethics

of the special privileges they claim by virtue of their religious ideology.

But on indigenous issues, many rationalists have allowed empathy

to overtake critical thinking.

It is possible to sympathize with downtrodden indigenous people, and

at the same time disagree with the solutions demanded by their leaders

who are blinkered by a sacred devotion to maintaining cultural dogma.

So

I, I think, but we, we've seen well-meaning white people imposing

solutions from the outside.

And the harms that that has caused.

And I think that's also why people feel unable to criticize.

Mm-hmm.

It is because of past actions.

Mm-hmm.

Which have been seen as paternalistic.

Which ones are you thinking of in particular, Joe?

Well, I'm thinking of the stolen generation.

Mm-hmm.

But also, just the, what was the wage, retention

that happened?

Yeah.

When people were working on she and cattle stations and Yeah.

Wages were confiscate.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It, it

was, you know, you are not capable of looking after this yourself.

We'll look after it for you.

Yeah.

Was, was very paternalistic and, and, yeah.

not in the best interests.

Have I told you this paternalistic story?

my brother-in-law was working as a teacher in Bamager, which

is a indigenous settlement.

Off cans.

Mm-hmm.

And apparently one of the locals won, this is years ago, like 30

years ago or something like that.

Won some money on like a casket ticket, significant amount of money.

And the local white storekeeper who sold him the ticket and confirmed his winnings,

and another white friend just grabbed this guy, took him in a boat back to the Cairns

and forced him to buy a boat because had he taken the money, it would've

been dissipated within hours or weeks.

and there would've been nothing to shave for it at the end of the day.

And it would all have gone on, on drink and whatnot and just good times.

Oh, ing yes.

Yeah.

And they made him buy that so that he then had an asset from it, only

the boat that was then his, and.

that was a paternalistic white thing that was done at the time.

Just a digression of the story.

I was

gonna, I was gonna say, the, the number of lottery winners who end up, you know,

jacking their, jacking their job Yes.

And end up going back to work within a year.

'cause they've burned through all their winnings.

Yes, yes.

okay.

Back to my little spiel here.

right.

yes.

Proponents argue that the voice is just another source of

information to help decision makers.

How can it be harmful to share more opinions, to get more information?

That seems a reasonable proposition.

Like it can't be bad.

It, maybe it won't do any good, but at least it's more

information, more direct feedback.

How could that be bad?

And I've got two reasons why it could be bad.

So the first is, A problem with the voice in that it's tied to a commitment

to create an advisory group with a racist membership requirement.

So past racist policies do not justify creating new racist policies.

The voices of indigenous people can be heard and arguably already

are within the spirit of a colorblind, egalitarian community.

The benefit of hearing from another group of special representatives

from the victim community is outweighed by the disadvantage

of perpetuating racial division.

So yes, you'll have another voice and more words, but you have on the downside

justified creating an institution based on a membership of based on skin color of

race, you have institutionalized a racist.

Categorization.

That's really not good.

I, I

just had a sudden thought.

Mm-hmm.

This would be the equivalent of lobbying.

Yes.

See, this would be a specially created lobbying group.

Yes.

and I think that maybe a lobbying group counteract the voices of rich people

in parliament wouldn't be a bad thing.

Yes.

So maybe we could have a voice that was made up of people who

lived below the poverty line.

Yes.

So it wouldn't be racially based, but would be majority aboriginal

just given up the fact that the

demographics sounds like a class-based voice too.

Absolutely.

Yes.

We're gonna talk about class in, in the third episode of this, okay.

Little spiel.

Yes.

You've got me with class Joe.

Mm-hmm.

I think I'm a, I think this, it's a bit like the indigenous N R L All-Star

team selection is based on race.

The benefit of a good football game is outweighed by

reinforcing racial difference.

Can you imagine in the U Ss A, the National Basketball Association or the

National Football League organizing a Blacks versus Whites game in the U S A?

Can you imagine it?

No way.

Hang on.

We've got state of origin.

I mean, it's obvious that Queensland is, are better, but

yeah, there's no way America would contemplate a black first

we game of in a sporting context, but we are doing it here.

If they, it would be howled down as a terrible idea and Martin Luther King

quotes would be flooding social networks.

I, I don't

know, give it 10 years And it may yet happen

in the States.

I don't think so.

I guess like private school funding, we do things differently

down here, but I digress.

So that's my first, problem with the voice.

With the argument that says it's just more information, how

could that possibly be harmful?

Well, the problem is it institutionalizes and it's an institutional

approval of a racist division.

Second thing, there's a more important one.

I think indigenous advocates and their white supporters have been unwilling

to critique and modify indigenous culture, and the voice won't change that.

It will perpetuate the problem.

Members of the voice will view every problem through the lens of

maintaining traditional culture.

They will be precisely the wrong people to give advice because of that.

Because if I'm right, and the problem is a culture that is being

maintained, that is unsuitable in a modern 21st century country, if

I'm right, then they are precisely the wrong people to put in charge.

'cause there's no way they will be arguing for changes to traditional culture.

They're part of the indigenous industrial complex.

It's in their interest to maintain the status quo.

They're not about to water down culture.

If I'm right about that, then they are the wrong people.

They'll be a blockade to change.

So that's my thoughts on culture and indigenous voice issue.

Next time we deal with it, I'm gonna look at the historical suffering, the

inherited land rights, the inherited grievance, and the inherited guilt.

So in this spiel, I didn't touch on that.

And then the week after that it will be looking at the issue of contemporary

suffering and how indigenous people are having a hard time.

We just can't keep doing what we've always done.

Otherwise, we'll always get what we've always got.

no prizes for guessing, but I'm gonna be running a class based,

argument in relation to that.

So, Scott, any thoughts on my, if I swayed you at all is

my cultural argument or your.

You're still a yes voter.

Have I, have I given you pause for thought or not?

I'm gonna go, gonna go away and reread it.

Okay.

But I'm still inclined to vote.

Yes.

Fair enough.

Mm-hmm.

Alright.

All right.

what else we got here?

Eight 40.

I reckon that's enough.

What do you reckon?

Yep.

Yeah, no worries.

oh, we'll just quickly mention, so Council of Phil Trust almost succeeded

in having inserted into the Fraser Coast Council's acknowledgement

of country, a new form of wording.

and his suggestion was defeated by one vote.

So his acknowledgement of country that he wanted was this, Fra the case Regional

council acknowledges the God of creation who gave us the traditional custodians.

We pay our respects to the Lord God Almighty.

And all elders past president emerging one vote in't it nearly got it up Pilate hell.

did you also see there was a council down south, I think somewhere

that has recently removed prayers from council's order of business.

Yes.

And they were trying desperately to get it back

on.

Yes.

I can't keep track of all those councils.

the Rationalist society seems to be doing good work mm-hmm.

In that regard.

Yes.

So, yeah.

So, alright.

That's enough for the time being.

Lots of people are gonna unsubscribe now as a result of this.

That's okay.

Just, getting the opinion as I see it.

All of these statements, my own opinion necessarily belong to Joe

or Scott, unless they laughed.

I'll take that as a sign of consent, right next week we'll be back.

if you are a patron, you get the show notes.

You know what, I'll probably put that spiel in the general notes as well.

So if you wanna read that, it should be in your app in the notes.

my thoughts there and, well looking forward to the feedback.

But you know what, maybe hold off for three weeks until I get through

chapter two and chapter three.

'cause I am gonna deal with the historical grievance of indigenous people.

And then I'm also gonna deal with modern day suffering of indigenous people.

So if your argument relates to those things, kinda wait until

I've dealt with 'em in the

next couple.

How, how much of that was written by chat?

G

P T?

Yeah.

None of it.

Yeah, none of it.

So, Hmm.

I actually asked chat.

G P T.

Any, and then it said, no, I asked it, are there any sporting events

in the world where the participants are professional sporting events

where the participants mm-hmm.

Are, are selected along racial grounds?

And it said no.

I said, well, what about the, indigenous All-Star team?

I went, oh yes, so, well, the indigenous All-Star team is selected born race

and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Like, it was like, where's the apology?

You know, you just, you just gave me a completely wrong answer.

And that's what the aboriginals are saying.

Where's the apology?

That's right.

Boom.

Boom.

Yes.

I want an apology from, from that artificial intelligence.

From

from chat G P T.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

You're gonna be wasting a long time, I think.

Yeah.

Actually, Alison in the chat room says, I was pretty shocked.

L.

All I did was change my cover photo.

It was, yeah.

But you know, the caliber of debate was pretty good, Alison.

I thought so.

Matthew says, I think it's fair to say that European colonization has

brought a lot of good and a hell of a lot of bad for indigenous Australians

and remote indigenous communities arguably have a worse quality of life

now due to the introduction of Western diets, sedentism drugs and alcohol.

I agree.

They do entirely, for a lot of communities, for sure.

I guess it depends.

It, it depends on the quality of the lifestyle.

Some of the people in the, northern, sort of the Gulf region fishing quite

a good lifestyle for some indigenous, but, you know, arid regions, nomadic,

scratching away pretty tough life.

It varied.

Mm.

Yeah.

I, I was gonna say, I think it depends on the life they had before and yes,

and it was a mixture.

Some wives were not too bad in the scheme of things, others were pretty tough.

Hmm.

I I think the same is true of industrialization.

The same is true of the invention of agriculture.

Yeah.

The problem is that, yeah, we are living in a different world

and, it's necessary to adapt.

That's my argument.

Alright, well thank you for your attention.

you can read that spiel on the show notes.

We will be back next week unless we've been banned by YouTube or

Facebook or the internet in general.

Yes.

Talk to you then.

Bye for now.

And it's a good note from

me and it's a good note from him.