Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of Homo Sapians.

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

gather together a top, 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.

We're back for another episode.

Welcome back, dear listener, the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

We're gonna talk about news and politics and sex and religion.

I'm Trevor a K a, the Iron Fist.

With me as always, streaming in from regional Queensland.

Scott, the Velvet.

Glove, how are you, Scott?

Really well, thanks.

Goodday.

Trevor.

Goodday.

Joe Goodday listeners.

I hope you're all well.

And Joe, the tech guy, has got all the lights and whistles

humming along so far, so good.

Welcome aboard again, Joe.

Evening all.

Mm dear.

Oh, and hello in the chat room already.

Tanya's there.

Alison's there with a mum.

Bev.

Hello.

Hey if you wonder what we talk about prior to sort of pressing the go button.

The answer is we talk about our medical ailments because we are at an

age where just things are going wrong and Joe's gonna have a camera stuck

up his bottom and Scott's just had an infusion for his chronic illness.

I've had stitches in my back to have a cyst cut out.

And we're just comparing our, our old me and.

Ailments and injuries as we go along.

So that's what we get to, up to when we mm-hmm.

Preparing for the podcast.

Anyway, if you're in the chat room, say hello.

Anne's there as well.

Hello, Anne.

Right.

So what's on the agenda tonight?

Well, we need to talk about Ben Robert Smith and that case and what

it means, and also just the reaction of some of the right wing media,

like Sky News to the decision.

Incredibly, he's got sympathizers out there.

What, what do you have to do?

But we'll talk about that, that in a moment.

You have to be a war hero.

Yes.

I'm gonna talk about some good news on the religious instruction front,

some labor party policy stuff.

So some good news there and probably talk a little bit about China

as well, a bit down the track.

So anyway, before we get into the meat of it, just wanted to say Bit of an

apology for last week for the people listening to the audio of the episode

because in it we had our segment with the governor General's wife singing her song.

I forget which one it was.

This was the one about she was singing about palliative care, wasn't she?

Yes, I think so.

I think that was one anyway, on the audio that you would've got

on your podcast, it was very, very intermittent and didn't play it.

Hardly played any d thing at all.

You could, you could hear one or two words and I think this is what's happened.

It was a lucky escape for most people.

Yes.

Well, I run the audio through a, a program called Descript, and it's got this thing

in it where it takes away all of the background noise and it pumps up the

sort of voices and makes 'em a little bit nicer, little bit stronger, and anyway.

When it gets rid of background noise, it's essentially getting

rid of stuff that it thinks is shit and just shouldn't be in the audio.

And lo and behold, it virtually erased 90% of her singing and that was done

automatically by this audio program.

So sorry, bill AI hates it.

So for those listening to the recorded one, you missed out.

Sorry about that.

I, I'll have to remember that in future so that I can pop my audio dear through that.

Yes, so that was that deep Throat upgraded his Patreon pledge.

Thanks for that Deep Throat and got some feedback during the week

from a, I think it was on Patron.

I can't remember the person's name.

It was another great episode, Mr.

Fist.

I had a few chuckles, learned a thing or two, but for the second

time ever, I'm disagreeing with you.

You've sold me on China being no worse in America, but Russia

is another matter entirely.

Finland is a clear example of the best way to negotiate with Russian aggression.

Make them pay as dear a cost as possible, and hopefully you'll do

better than the countries who relied on the mercy of a cold dictator's heart.

Looking forward to the next episode, as always.

There we go.

And actually, you got that wrong.

It was Mr.

First.

Well, he did write Mr.

First, but I'm sure maybe he did mean Mr.

First.

Yeah.

Maybe, maybe he meant Mr.

Fist.

Yes, right.

He meant Mr.

Fist.

But anyway.

Mm.

Anyway, we're gonna talk a bit about China a bit later on because

I found the perfect China expert to back up everything I've been saying.

Mm-hmm.

So we can look forward to that.

So, so you're saying you are using a bit of what was it, positive reinforcement?

Yeah.

Yeah.

But I've got, I've got the China expert, I think, with this guy.

So, and, and, and the reason he's the China expert is

because he agrees with you?

No, I'll, I'll give you his credentials.

Okay.

And, and I, I think you'll agree with me.

So anyway, that'll be towards the end now.

Ben Robert Smith.

So Judge found that the newspapers established on the balance of

probabilities, which we'll get into the substantial truth of their

imputations, that he was a murderer and a bully who had disgraced his country.

They had results for Ben Robert Smith.

And turns out, basically the judge believed the witnesses who said

that Ben Robert Smith was pushed a handcuffed man down a hill and then

ordered someone else to shed him.

Yes, there, there was certainly some incriminating stuff around

the witness tampering wasn't there.

Yes.

And also witness intimidation and mm-hmm.

Other stuff going on.

So very damning for him.

Not surprising when you sort of looked at the case, what really

was of interest was, I mean, the SAS soldiers are a tight group.

Like you, you don't get any tighter than an SAS group.

And for those guys to turn on him and testify against him.

Yeah.

I mean my understanding is there is a lot of infighting.

Mm-hmm.

But there is external cohesion.

Mm-hmm.

Yes.

For them to, to come forward and testify against him, it's

pretty extraordinary really.

So anyway, who knows What'll happen to, like I was gonna

say, what'll happen to him?

He's gonna get a job on Sky News.

Do, do you remember, do you remember Nua Temple Satan Dinner we had up in at Nusa?

Yes.

Somebody turned up who was an ex-wife of one of Ben.

Yes.

Roberts.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

And was effect essentially saying that yes, it was true.

Nothing surprised them.

And they'd heard similar stories.

Yes.

Particularly, particularly about the prosthetic limb, I think.

Yes.

Was she a police woman?

Possibly.

I can't remember.

Yeah.

I thought about her later and I thought, I wonder if she was

planted by the prosecution to go along and see what we talked about.

So, was possible I think with her.

Dunno so.

Well there was also an AFP who turned up at one of the meets.

Do you remember?

No.

But when we met, met in the Valley or in Brisbane somewhere.

Was he?

Yeah.

A guy turned up and he was from the federal police.

Yeah.

So not sure.

Anyway, where does a guy like that go?

And I joked before that.

Well, Scott, the War Memorial currently has a Ben Robert Smith

display, and Ben Robert Smith currently holds a Victoria Cross.

Do you think he does anything should happen in respect to those two things?

I think it all depends on what happens with the war crimes that they're,

that they're investigating him for.

If he's actually charged and if he's convicted on that sort of

thing, then I think they should at least strip him of the medal.

I think that the Victoria Cross should be taken off him.

Mm-hmm.

And then I think the War Memorial will be quite within

its rights to Possibly maintain.

Its it depends how vindictive they want to be.

If they don't wish to be vindictive, then I think they should pull

him, pull him out and throw, throw his uniforms in the boxes.

If they wanted to be vindictive, then I would keep the display

there, but actually write something up about the write something up

about what he'd actually done.

And then they can have something there that said, this man was accused

and found guilty of these crimes.

If it was a true war memorial.

Exactly.

They would do that.

That is what they would do, is they would say, here's a display

of the disgrace, Ben Robert Smith.

Here is what he did.

This is what our troops have been guilty of.

And shame, shame, shame.

But that's never gonna happen.

In this War Memorial because it's run to glorify war in the sense of they've turned

it into almost a, well, they're turning it into a a theme park, attraction loading

in boys toys of all sorts in there for people to marvel at military weapons and

u and rover shiny metal killing machines.

So ideally keep the display but use it as a true sort of teaching tool.

It's not all, all fun and games in war, and Australia's

guilty of, of some atrocities.

Thanks to Ben Robert Smith, but it'll never happen.

We're capable of, we're incapable of that honesty.

No, that's right.

And you know, I tend to go into any country's war memorials wherever I go.

So I've been to I've been to the Swedish one and that was very interesting.

And they, they did have a very valid look at their peacekeeping forces.

They said that, you know, their peacekeeping forces involved in somewhere

in Africa were accused, were credibly accused of rape and that type of

thing, which they openly admitted to.

Okay, good.

You know, which is something that I thought at the time we could learn

from that sort of, you know, there was never a Ben Robert Smiths out there at

the time, but I thought to myself, you know, there could be one of our guys

doing something like that in the future.

And I think that if, if they are ever a accused of it credibly, then I think it's

probably something we should recognize.

I think there's enough evidence at this point that they should, should pull

down the glorifying Ben Robert Smith sort of display that they've got there.

Yeah.

Put it in a storage place and say, we'll wait the outcome of

further investigations mm-hmm.

And decide what we're gonna do.

But there's enough evidence on the ground now that we can safely say we should,

in all good conscience, not display him.

And and then there should must be, you know, some sort of war

crimes, hearing of some sort.

It's gonna investigate this guy and and his colleagues.

Yes, indeed.

Well, I thought there had been, I thought there had been something

that was started and that there were three of them that were under

investigation right now, wasn't there?

Mm-hmm.

I dunno what's under investigation.

So, John in the chat room ask, can you take a VC back?

And Brahman says there are precedents for VC to be taken away, but they

all happened a long time, long ago.

He's put, he's up for collateral.

So yes.

It to cover his costs.

Yes, potentially.

Yeah.

He's, it's valued at 2 million, but he's got a, he's potentially facing

a, a, a cost order of 35 million.

So one wonders whether it's worth less or is it worth more as a result of all this.

How does that work?

That's a good point.

I don't know.

Hmm.

You know, that the Victoria Cross Metals are all made out of a single piece of

brass that was recovered from the guns during the Crimean War, crime war.

Yeah.

Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember some story like that.

Yeah.

Hmm.

There we go.

So Ben, Robert Smith, but I mean, let's just.

Quickly, just some of the detail.

So it was ultimately proved that Robert Smith kicked an unarmed and

handcuffed Afghan man off a cliff.

His landing was so rough, it knocked his teeth out, and he directed a soldier

under his command to shoot that man.

He was also found to have pressured an inexperienced SAS

soldier to murder an unarmed and elderly Afghan man in a tunnel.

And the judge said the newspapers had established that Robert Smith murdered

a man with a prosthetic leg, with a machine gun in the same tunnel and kept

the leg as a novelty drinking vessel.

And he still has his supporters incredibly thanks to an article in Crikey where

they actually must pay somebody to watch Sky News and see what they're up to.

And.

Peter Credlin is leading the charge to, to support the good name.

Mm-hmm.

And Robert Smith.

Oh, incidentally, just back on Jesus Christ.

Corey Bernardi.

Corey Bernardi as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, bloody hell.

I know.

Actually, just before I get onto them, just on the balance of

probabilities, apparently, well there was a couple of things.

There was some allegation about the, from the wife let me see.

His ex-wife.

Yes.

That wasn't proven.

And cuz she was unreliable.

Yes.

That was not proven.

But the judge said, your reputation is so trashed by the things that have

been proven that it doesn't matter that this other particular matter is

potentially defamatory and, and unproven because the things you have been found.

Yeah.

Considerably worse have totally trashed your reputation.

So it doesn't matter.

And the other thing was that the balance of probabilities, like you often

hear that in a criminal case you must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Mm-hmm.

And in a civil case, it is on the balance of probabilities, but apparently

there's another level which I discovered, which was more likely than not.

Okay.

I, there's, there was a midway between beyond reasonable

doubt and balance probability.

Okay.

Well, this case highlighted that there's a thing called the standard, which is

basically the more serious the allegation then the higher the standard on the

balance of probabilities that is required.

So if you are accusing somebody of a relatively minor misdemeanor, Balance

of probabilities standard might be lower than if you were accusing somebody

of murdering innocent Afghan people.

So, yeah, I mean, I heard about defamation per se, which was

you've been accused of something that was so, hideous that by Yeah.

That automatically your reputation would be tarnished.

Mm-hmm.

So, you know, somebody could say something slanderous about you, but you'd

have to prove that it caused damage.

But there are certain things you were alleged to be mm-hmm.

That would automatically reduce you in the eyes of your pets.

Mm-hmm.

So, in this case the judge can adjust the balance according to

the gravity of the allegations.

The more serious the claims.

And it doesn't get more serious in the murder than the higher the bar.

So yes, it was on the balance of probabilities, but it was.

A quite high bar of balance probabilities because of the

serious nature of the allegations.

So anyway, so that's relevant because Peter Credlin is supporting Ben Robert

Smith, and so hosing down the significance of the historic judgment and casting

doubt on the reporting that led there.

So Credlin is leading the charge.

You know, I was in the swimming pool the other day at the unit at Kiran, one of

the elderly people that I'm friendly there with said he really likes Peter Credlin.

I just, okay.

Mm-hmm.

I didn't go any further.

I just couldn't.

Tony Abbott undoubtedly.

So.

She's saying, well, the judgment was just a civil law matter, lower burden of

proof, and it wasn't a war crime tribunal.

Yes.

So go easy on Ben Robert Smith is what Peter Kre saying.

It's not yet a war crime.

Corian.

Yes, and according to this article in Crikey, this was soon echoed across

the media by the Australians, Greg Sheridan in a Peace titled This is the

title that his peacefully wrote, going Woke Risks destroying the Australian

Defense Force as a real fighting force.

Oh, God's sake.

Yep.

Credlin wrote that even a criminal conviction wouldn't be enough for

her as the real fault for alleged crime, such as murdering a person

under control fell with the Australian government and military bureaucracy.

Quote.

Plainly, a succession of risk averse governments and military hierarchies

expected too much of the SAS in the commandos whose extraordinary level of

school and professionalism was thought to render them less likely to suffer

casualties than normal infantry she wrote.

Corey Bernardi took this argument a step further by declaring he cares nothing for

the alleged crimes of Ben Robert Smith.

He cited the trauma experienced by SAS soldiers as why Robert

Smith shouldn't, shouldn't be held responsible for his behavior.

And Steve Price rubbished a move to revoke Robert Smith's, Victoria Cross.

And it's the last bit here.

Credlin said that oh, and that uni, there were lots of comments

on her written piece and.

She said that the positive comments towards Robert Smith in the comments

section of her articles proved the public was on the veterans side.

Well, so I was at dinner on Saturday night with a mate of mine, and he

was not on Robert Smith's side.

Mm-hmm.

You know, he, he felt that it was a risky move that he actually took.

And what he should have done was when the papers first published that stuff,

he should have said, look, you can think what you like about me, but I know in

my heart of hearts I've done nothing wrong and stepped away from the camera.

Mm-hmm.

And all these idiots, this were still on his side now, would have

been on his side back then, and they would've just moved on with it.

But he, he wanted to take the journals to task, it's blowing up in his face.

Mm-hmm.

There was a period there of successful defamation actions, and I think.

People got the feeling that this was an easy way to make money.

Yeah.

And it'll all seem too hard to defend and that newspapers and television shows

will pay up rather than defend, and it's something like $30 million in legal fees.

Mm-hmm.

It's 35 million was what I saw today.

They won't get all of it back.

You never get all your fees.

He, you know, it's, it's one of those things like even if they do get a

cost order against him and that sort of stuff, well, he don't get all,

he won't be able to pay it back.

Yeah.

And you know, the the solicitors are gonna continue to get their money.

So the only ones, you know, the only ones who went outta this is, is the solicitors.

Well, you know, say a similar story was around a fresh

story of a similar type where.

The, the media group knew they had a strong, you know, proof.

Mm-hmm.

But they knew that they had somebody with financial backing who could take them on.

Even if you knew you were gonna win, you'd probably just back off from doing it

because the manpower or an angst in your corporation just running this rock show

for all these years enormously draining on your organization for one story.

Like they'll just resort to cheaper, easier stuff rather

than tackle the hard stuff.

Even I think Chris Masters, who was the one of the journalists involved,

said something like that was like, it's a victory, but it's such a

painful victory that it'll still scare off investigative journalism.

Why would you do it if you can be dragged through a court?

For so many years on such an expensive exercise.

And the other thing is what they call it now, it's called discovery in the states.

It's something else over here.

Discovering the documents.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But I mean, you really don't want to have to turn over reams of documents

about your internal business.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Yeah.

So, well, not worth what they would've had to discover, you know, with discovering

everything else on Robert Smith's.

They, if that was all public, then that would've been enough to actually put

me off taking any sort of court action.

Mm-hmm.

You know, I'll put my hand up.

I thought to myself when they, when the, when the, when they first

published the articles and that sort of stuff, I looked at them

very rarely and that sort of stuff.

I thought to myself, nah, they're just trying to take him down.

Mm-hmm.

But, As the case ca went on, I thought to myself, bloody

hell, that sounds pretty bad.

And then as the judgements come down and that sort of stuff, I thought to

myself, okay, they were right to continue.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

You know, Australia's involvement in all of these theaters of war, the

mental, just trashing of lots of young men is just one of the, just the whole

cost of the exercise is just enormous.

So many damaged people coming outta that.

In the chat room, Alison says they should change where he's pointing

an invisible gun in the war memorial to pointing it at his foot.

That's a good one.

Yes.

Yeah.

And Bronwin says, I conclude that I can only conclude

Robert Smith as a psychopath.

He thought he could get away with bullying the media.

He knew what he did.

I think you're right there.

Psychopath would be a good description for him.

So it just astounds me that support of a guy like that is divided

on political lines hard Right.

Nutts at Sky Creds, the Corey Menards price are, are coming

out in favor of this guy.

There'll be nobody on the left.

I, I remember coming out in, in favor of it, back, back in the, probably

the nineties, there was an active duty IRA cell that was shot and killed

by the SAS and Gibralter and there was lots of hand ringing about it,

but this wasn't unarmed civilians.

This was a group of terrorists who were on their way to plant a bomb.

Mm-hmm.

And they, they, they were unarmed at the time.

They didn't actually have the bomb on them.

But I, I don't think it was as clear cut as this is.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

This was captured severe civilians of war.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Captured people.

Yes.

Who, yeah.

Whose guilt or innocence was yet to be determined.

Yes.

But, but they were no, they were no danger.

No.

And there was no obvious.

Yeah.

It wasn't I thought they were robbed.

Yeah.

These people were detained.

Yeah.

Terrible culture in that, that guy that was kicked off that

cliff was in handcuff, wasn't he?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

That's what they said.

Yeah.

But just the way that this can break down in, in tribal political

lines that these people are favoring because they feel a must.

Defend the defense force at all costs?

Well, I think they just have no credibility.

These people, I think they're playing to their audience more than anything else.

And the, the, the Sky news audience is basically right.

Wingers and that sort of stuff are out there saying that you know, that they're

probably all backing bloody hell, I can't even remember his name, the form

of Victorian premier who said that they should come back with conscription.

Oh, Kenneth, yeah, Kenneth, you know, about there backing him, which is,

but it wouldn't have been that hard for them to say, okay, there's always

a bad apple in a barrel somewhere.

And this was one of them.

But on the whole, our, our boys are good.

I, you know, just, but they, you didn't have to go so boots and all

in your support for him, but they looked to their tribe, don't they?

Yeah.

And their tribe decided that they couldn't possibly, I wonder.

Yeah, they, I dunno.

I, I think they've, The world is black and white and he was

white and they were black.

Yeah.

Didn't do anything to those brown people.

Well, exactly.

You know, of course News Corp.

The right wing media doesn't have a problem in supporting.

It was just an headline in the, because we've been hearing about Price Waterhouse

Coopers and the mischief it was up to in advising the government and this article

in the Australian by Nick Cater headline, is PWC a victim of woke capitalism scam?

They're so obsessed with woke cuz they're just importing

this American propaganda idea.

They're just applying it everywhere.

Everything on the left is woke and if Yeah, I know.

Painted as woke, you can criticize it and say so, so being a

capitalist that put profit over everything else is woke now, is it?

No, it's woke.

It's, it's, oh wow.

I didn't read pwc a victim of woke capitalism scam.

I guess he's criticizing the capitalists who have turned on

PWC as traitors to their class.

No.

And, and as calling them woke?

Yeah.

He was also, the bit I read of it, which was in the lower path below the crease was

the Report of the Bud Light and that sort of stuff in the US and how it had lost

its market capitalization because of its support for a transgendered person only.

It didn't, but Yes.

Yeah, we did that story with the guy shooting the Bud Light.

Yeah.

So, yeah.

You know, they, they just loved to throw the word woke at things.

And even as I mentioned before, what was his name?

Greg Sheridan who is, yeah, going woke risks destroying the

ADF is a real fighting force.

They just keep latching onto these ideas and trotting 'em out.

And it's just a smaller and smaller group of people, hopefully, who have

nothing better to do except watch Sky News and read the Australian All Day.

People are fallen for this, and hopefully they're just growing older

and dying because none of the young people are formed for this, surely.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Moving on.

Let's talk some religious stuff.

Utah primary schools banned the Bible for vulgarity and violence, so upset.

Mm.

So a school district in the US state of Utah has removed the Bible from

elementary and middle schools for containing vulgarity and violence

following a complaint from a parent that the King James Bible is

material unsuitable for children.

And this relates to Utah's Republican government passing a

law last year, banning pornographic or indecent books from schools.

And that was always a risk of a backfire.

So the group who kicked this off, Utah, parents United mm-hmm.

Have put out a release that said, we appreciate this Christian news

article's perspective on the Bible ban.

This is retaliation.

It is sad when religious texts are used as weapons in a culture war.

Hmm.

They, they really don't get irony, do they?

No.

So, and it's happened in a few different states over there where they're basically

creating laws cuz they're wanting to ban books and they just never stop

to think, whoops, hang on a minute.

There's some pretty crazy stuff in that Bible.

They're trying to ban books that challenge anything that is not heteronormative.

Yes.

And so this is, yeah.

Effectively what it's been in place, put in place for is because there's,

you know, my two dads book for small children, which, oh my god we can't

have the normalization of gay parents.

Mm-hmm.

And, and, and that's what these laws were put in place to prevent.

And people have obviously gone Well, your bible's a fairly shitty morality tale.

Mm-hmm.

People don't understand.

Bob Johnson, the father of a primary school student in the Davis School

District, told CBS news that he opposes the Bible's removal quote.

I can't think of what's in the Bible that you would have to take out of it.

It's not like there's pictures in it.

He said, says someone who's never read a Bible in his life.

That's right.

The ironic thing, isn't it?

The non-religious atheist often.

No.

The Bible.

Way better than the religious ones do.

Yeah.

Still on religious news here in Queensland.

Wait for this.

Dear listener.

There was an a l P State Conference in Mackay and from

the Sunshine Coast District.

One of our listeners is involved in this.

They managed to get through a motion which was passed as a resolution.

That religious instruction be removed from lesson time to

lunchtime or before or after school.

Alternatively that non participating students continue

with learning the curriculum.

So either put it before or after school or during lunch, or alternatively, if

people are gonna take ri, the class keeps going and those kids miss out.

That was part of a block of 170 resolutions that was passed unanimously

at the Labor State Conference in Mackay.

So all factions left, right, middle, and whatever other ones are there.

All agreed to these 170.

And when they were sort of introducing the block of 170 resolutions saying,

well, here it is, there's 170 of them.

The person doing that picked out three of the resolutions for special mention.

And this religious instruction resolution was one of those three.

So people knew it was there.

And so that's good news that it's actually officially part of Queensland

Labor sort of policy, I guess.

And now it's up to the Parliament to actually pass laws that match its policy.

So there's no guarantee that'll happen.

Well, exactly.

But it's a really, really good move.

Great to see you happen.

It was brilliant.

Yes.

So I think I remember a story about voluntary assisted dying.

Yeah.

Got through in Queensland through a conference like this.

Mm-hmm.

Because.

It was put on the agenda, but it was put way down the bottom of the agenda.

Yes.

And they thought they'd never actually get to it, so they agreed to put

it on the agenda cuz they thought it wouldn't actually be discussed.

And they ended up rattling through so many agenda topics that they got

to it and it ended up getting passed.

That was voluntary assisted dying.

So, well done to the people involved.

Dunno that you want me mentioning your name on this podcast so I won't.

But but well done.

Really, really good work and when you are next running for parliament,

I will be up there handing out pamphlets on your behalf to help out.

And we'll be rusting up assistance for you.

So.

Alright.

That was really good.

Really good move.

That's Queensland Labor.

That was good news.

Do you want the bad news?

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Federal labor's not secular, so, So there's gonna be a national

conference for federal labor.

And what they do is they put forward a draft national platform for discussion.

And according to the Rationalist Society this was released for consultation.

And, and basically the previous wording included the word secular.

So it used to have universal free and secular public education as

part of federal labor policy.

And for some unknown reason, labor's removed universal free and secular out

of the wording and watered it down.

So, well, it doesn't have any, it's a, a 111 page draft policy document does not

include any mention of the word secular.

So what's going on there?

What, what is going on there?

They're so scared of, of the Christian vote still?

Or are there people who are making these decisions who are religious?

Yes.

I think Trevor's probably hit the nail on the head.

I think they're probably still scared of the religious vote, but God knows why,

because you know, the religious, I'm sure he does well, the religious nutts and

she, yeah, the religious nutts are never actually gonna vote for the Labor Party.

Mm-hmm.

So I don't understand why the Labor Party is trying to bend over backwards for them.

Mm-hmm.

So, so there was an article by Alistair Laurie.

And he's also talking about this sort of draft policy and he's sort of quite

active in the L G B T I Q community and he says the next conference is coming

up in Brisbane in August this year have released this draft policy and the L G

B T I Q people, there's also bad news.

So, it used to have in the 2021 version had strength and laws and expand

initiatives against discrimination, vilification, and harassment on the basis

of sexual orientation, gender identity, or sexual or sex characteristics.

So basically a policy to fairly strong wording.

Against discrimination and harassment and vilification based on gender and sex.

The new 2023 draft one, it doesn't have that at all.

And it just talks in merely mouthed, wishy-washy words about supporting

L G B T I Q, but has deleted what was quite strong words about you

know, expanding initiatives against discrimination and vilification.

So, so that's been taken out as far as it applies to the L G BT IQ community,

but it's there for religious groups.

So the sentiment that, you know, a, a policy that we

should never allow vilification discrimination based on religion.

Is there and it's there twice.

But the same sentiment in relation to L G B T I Q people has disappeared.

It's federal labor.

What Can you say, what, what, what are they scared of there or what's going on?

They, they want to be seen as the rational right wing party

that accepts climate change.

Leaving the greens is the only left wing party.

They, they do, they, they are trying to call this center right.

Emphasis on right position, ignoring the left.

Mm-hmm.

The greens are gonna have a field day at the next election with these

sorts of things when you're actually watering down what was previously

strong language to protect L G B T I Q.

You remove it, but you keep it there for the religious groups and

you repeat it so it's there twice.

How do you justify that?

There's, there's no justification.

Get hammered by these groups at the next election.

Come there a lot.

The, they, they deserve to.

Yeah.

Hmm.

In the chat room, Brahman says, don't forget elbows a Catholic

and not a Dan Andrews style one.

That is true.

Brahman, he's always said he was brought up on three faiths.

The south Sydney football, the Labor Party, Catholic church.

But you know, he's got a girlfriend, doesn't he?

Yes.

Yeah.

So they're not married.

No.

Right.

Well, you know, I would've selective Catholic.

Exactly.

You know, he's, he's, but but aren't they all?

Yes, of course they all are.

That's, that's how you prove you are a Catholic.

I'm being selective.

Yeah.

Probably.

This is a neat fish on a Friday either.

Yeah.

He really worries me.

Albert Elbow, is it just a lot of him being No, the Kyle Sand's

wedding, just the way he tries to be, a bit of the everyman sort of

persona with journals and people.

Now he's more of an every man than Scotty was, but yeah, he's

more, but he's playing it up.

He's more, I don't think he's a great deep thinker on these things.

He's, no, he's not.

You know, he's anyway, it's, it's one of those real tragedies that

I can't think of his name, shorten.

Why?

Why Shorten lost that last election.

Mm-hmm.

Because he actually took a very policy heavy manifesto to the public.

Yeah.

He had it all, he had it all lined up there with, you know, there could

be no doubt what we were voting for.

He couldn't sell it.

He couldn't be silent.

Yeah.

Alright.

And now we've, now we've got, you know, this lily livid, little weak man who's

out there trying to prove that he can be more right wing than Scott Morrison.

Yeah.

Just, you know, signing up to all this orca stuff,

watering down this other stuff.

It's not Yeah, I know.

It's really, it's not, it's refusing to change tax laws.

Just, yeah.

What's the point of being there?

God, what is the point?

Anyway it wouldn't be an episode if we didn't talk about the

voice and this is a news poll.

Poll on the voice.

And I've got what we had previously from essential Poll.

So Essential, which is the one that we normally talk about when

it comes to the voice and polls.

Started off 65 in favor and is now down to 59.

This one from News Poll back in February 56% was saying yes,

and that is now down to 46.

According to News Poll, if you can trust News Poll is News Poll, news Limited?

I dunno who owns it, but it certainly appears in the news.

ORP stable of outlets.

Mm-hmm.

So, In terms of the, yeah, so that's a significant drop in support.

46, 43 and 11.

Don't knows in terms of percentages just the breakdown as you'd expect,

green's more likely than the coalition to be in favor of a yes vote females

slightly more in favor than males.

Older people less likely to be in favor than younger people in the regions.

It's the metropolitan people who are voting yes in the

regions, more likely to say no.

And they had an education category here, so, university educated people.

56%, yes.

35%, no.

But if they did not have any tertiary qualifications and it was just 41%, yes.

And 45%, no.

Not really a surprise there.

That's just Sort of the breakdown is pretty much what we'd expect, but mm-hmm.

The whole thing seems to be tightening up a bit.

Sorry, did you wanna look at that again or?

Well, no, the age, you know, you've got 18 to 34, 60 5% in favor.

Mm-hmm.

35 to 49, 50 3% in favor, 50 to 64 down to 33%.

And those that are 65 and older, it's 30%.

Mm-hmm.

It's one of those things, I just think that it's a big factor.

It is.

Mm-hmm.

I don't think there's anything you can do about it though.

No, no.

You must have got a few more, don't knows in the 18 to 35 year old category.

Mm-hmm.

So consistently overall anyway, the don't knows are 11% according to this pole.

So there's still room for this to go the other way.

It's not over the line by any means.

So, We'll see where that ends up.

That's not, but let's say, let's say that half of that breaks in either direction,

then you're still gonna end up with 51% in favor and then you've got 49% opposed.

Now you dunno what it's gonna, you know, this is a, presumably a national poll.

Mm-hmm.

So you could end up with a majority Yes.

Across the whole country, but not the majority of states.

Mm-hmm.

See how it pans out.

Exactly.

Alright, so that's the latest news poll on that.

Ah, where are we Up to eight 17.

Bronwyn said, news poll is owned by you gov British Polling Company.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Ramon.

Okay.

News poll, generally well respected when it comes to sort of, voting

intentions, et cetera, as much as any polling company is, I think.

Mm-hmm.

So, but there's sort of a fair difference between them and curious with their

name, given that they would use poll.

Yeah.

But anyway, take polls with a grain of salt, especially that poll.

You know, like when Donald Trump got elected, the polls

Brexit did not show it Brexit.

There were situations where people felt like if they were to answer truthfully,

truthfully that they liked Donald Trump or they were in favor of Brexit, that they

would be frowned upon by the pollster.

Mm-hmm.

And so they lied or avoided the pollsters, I guess, refusing to answer.

And we got a very much a distorted response.

And this is the sort of topic that is ripe for that same sort of situation.

Yep.

Very much so.

Hmm.

I was talking last week about, you know, just the global south and and how, and

this was to do with Russia and I was trying to say that there's a lot of the

world that is still thinks favorably of Russia and Putin for example, had that

African, that South African guy and I was sort of talking about multipolar world and

there's just a significant lot of people who don't think how we think in the West.

And that sort of correlates with the issue of I'm just gonna share

my screen here cuz I forgot to put it on the on the PowerPoint.

This if you can see, it is a map of the world.

And there's countries in green there highlighted, and they're all

countries that recognize Palestine and that sort of division where you've

got Australian, New Zealand, north America, Europe a West, if you like.

On the one side is also that sort of Russian pro-Russian divide as well.

That that's the kind of Sweden, yes, Sweden stands out in Europe.

There would be exceptions within that, but that sort of broad stroke is how

the world is dividing up on a number of issues and things like to Europe too.

Yeah.

So quite a significant number of people or number of countries.

A hundred and 93.

There's 193 member states of the United Nations, and 72%

recognize the state of Palestine.

So Mexico was the most recent, oh, I was about to say, none

on the Security Council.

Of course, Russia is, yes.

Is it China?

You know, you got the PRC and the Russians from the, on the permanent

members of the Security Council.

So, you know, the, I think the tides really turned against the

state of Israel for a lot of people over the last five years.

Just increasingly, these scenes you see of what's happened to the Palestinians,

it's just a look at, you go with all sympathy to what happened to the Jews

in the Holocaust and second World War.

The situation that it's had at the moment is not a good one.

So I think they're just increasingly losing.

Support.

You don't agree, Scott?

No, I, I think you're right.

It's you know, it's, if you look at, if you look at that map there,

it very clearly shows that the majority of the world is on the,

is on the side of the Palestinians.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it's the only thing that I would say against that is if, you know,

does anyone honestly believe that if the p l o was as well armed as the

Israeli Defense Force, would they stop?

Would they show the same level of restraint the Israeli Defense

Force as, or would they drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea?

It'd be a mess.

No doubt.

Yeah, it'd be awful.

Yeah, it would, that would not be good.

No, it wouldn't be good.

But it's just, I agree with you what the, what the Israelis are

doing to the Palestinians is wrong.

Mm-hmm.

Anyway, that's a split up of the world that we're gonna see on a lot of topics.

Over the years to come is kind of in line with what we're

seeing there on that map there.

So, essential Lord Don says, did Trevor write the article below what

the West gets wrong about China?

Are you looking at my notes on the screen there?

Yes.

You're supposed to be looking at the map since you, lord Don.

So the answer is your your fault for showing it off.

Yeah, it is, isn't it?

So, the answer is no.

I did not write the article, but I'm gonna now hit you with a whole

bunch of clips that I threatened to do earlier cause it's time to talk.

China, China, China, China.

Okay.

Let me just like a China shop.

Yeah, that's it.

Let me just bring this across.

So, and give my introductory remarks.

So I came across this guy called John Thornton.

You guys ever heard of John Thornton?

Only what you've mentioned of him, right?

Okay.

Mm.

All right.

According to the writer of this particular piece, Thornton is

probably the single American who best knows the Chinese system.

That's a big statement to start with this, this is the claim that John

Thornton, who we've never heard of before is probably the single American

who best knows the Chinese system.

He is a personal friend of most of the Chinese leadership, including Xi Jinping.

In 2003, he became the first non-Chinese full professor

at, is it Shinwa University?

Since the establishment of the prc, you're thinking, okay, communist

lefty must be, he's also one of America's foremost business leaders.

Having been co-president of Goldman Sachs, that gives him

some right wing credentials.

And seating on the boards of companies such as Ford, Intel,

I c, bbc, China Unicorn, IMG B, sky B, DirecTV, and News Corp.

Like that's some pretty strong credentials for a power player.

I've never heard of the guy.

I thought that's a really interesting cv.

So, so this is gonna take a little while and this is the final topic that

we're gonna talk about, is what he had to say on a, on a range of things.

So I'm gonna go through some of these clips and and see what you

guys think of what he had to say.

So, just to sort of beef up his credentials of how close

he is to zing, ping, I'll play this one here to start with.

As it warms up here, it comes to the extent that any external people or even

internal people can have an impact on the Chinese system and the, the evolution

of the Chinese politics and all that.

For sure, you'll have more influence.

You've got the relationship and you've built the trust.

I once had a in 2007 Xi Jinping for a short period of time was

Party Secretary of Shanghai.

And at that point in time, I, I, I'd known him for about 10 years and he asked me

to do a project for him, which was how to ensure Shanghai remains or, or becomes

and remains a global financial center.

And so I went away to do this project and I came back to have

dinner with him to report and.

It just happened to coincide with I was writing a very short article

for Foreign Affairs Magazine.

It was maybe 20 pages long.

It took me 14 months to write it because I wanted to be sure it was accurate.

And so there were, there were four of us for dinner.

Xi Jinping, myself, the head of finance in Shanghai, who had not met

Xi Jinping, who was a mentee of mine.

And then a friend, close friend of mine is also close to Xi Jinping.

So I happened.

Xi Jinping, I happened to arrive first, and he says to me, so what

have you been doing recently?

I said, I've been writing this article on the political evolution of China.

That's very interesting.

He asked me a question, I answered, and I'm, I'm thinking,

he's just being courteous.

We sit down.

He keeps asking questions for four hours.

All we discussed was what I thought I was learning about the

political evolution of China.

We never touched the topic of Shanghai as a global financial center, and their

two friends didn't say a single word.

The reason I mentioned that story is because, because, so I have a, I've quite

a good understanding in that one area of how he thinks, but the reason, okay, so I

just wanna play that just to set the scene of somebody who's clearly a, a big hitter.

Like, my goodness me, the guy was co-president of Goldman Sachs and his

best mates was eating Ping in 2017.

Known him for 10 years and has that sort of, you know, contact with him.

So, so that was the first one, just as a more of a credentials

sort of, setting piece.

You guys have any thoughts so far on that at all?

Or anything?

Strike you from that?

I, I'm just gonna say American businesses have been.

Best buddies with authoritarian leaders around the world for years.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Ju just because this one happens to nominally espouse socialism.

Yes.

As long as it's a authoritarian state that is going to do the corporation's bidding.

Yes.

I, I think the businesses are quite happy to get into bed with them.

Yeah.

Yep.

Good point.

Let's let's talk about this one here.

So this is about understanding Xi Jinping.

So, so which you guys would know some of this stuff, but it's worth reflecting on.

I wanna start back in 2012 when Xi Jinping came to power and I, this is a

premier that, that you have watched and studied and know, help us understand who

he is and as a leader, what he wants.

Okay.

So this can make me very unpopular.

So she Xi Jinping.

And this goes back to what I was saying earlier.

I want you to keep your minds open for a second and try to imagine this.

And, and some of you may know this.

So Xi Jinping's father was the youngest vice premier in China in

1959, when he was 46 years old.

And Xi Jinping was six years old, 1962.

Xi Jinping's father was purged by Mao.

So Xi Jinping between age six and nine, his father's right in the center

of the power structure, and suddenly he's out altogether four years later,

1966 is the culture revolution.

Xi Jinping is 13 years old.

The father and the mother sent to prison two years later, SUGEN P, age 15.

Is sent to the countryside, sent down youth.

So he lives in the countryside from age 15 to age 22.

So for those seven years, those seven extremely formative years,

he's living the dirt, dirt, dirt, poor existence of the Chinese

farmer with both parents in prison.

Older half-sister commits suicide.

So their Xi Jing is in his teenage college years, by the way, of

course, not being educated.

There's no schooling, there's no university, and you

know, where's his future?

The, during that period, he applies 15 times to being in the Communist Party.

He gets turned down 15 times.

Eventually, of course, Mao dies.

Dun Shing comes back into power.

Dun Ching brings the father out from prison.

Xi Jinping is now free to go to university and start his life.

The father.

Meanwhile, dun Xing makes him the governor of Guang, Don Province.

Guang Don Province is the province right across from Hong Kong.

And Xi Jinping's father is the individual who goes to Dun Xing, says, we should

make this a special economic zone, an experiment with market economics.

So his father is the individual who, who goes to Duning.

So that's the kind of the, the first spark of the reform and opening period.

Later on when Dun Xing essentially removes who yo bang from power,

then Gentleman Square happens.

Xi Jinping's father is the only one of that generation who tells Don he's

wrong and he gets banished again.

So I want you to think about the sort of the strength of character of somebody

who goes through what I just described and comes out the other side of it.

Pretty much intact stays in the system, rises up to the position he's in.

I have four children, the youngest of whom is a sophomore in university

this past semester he had a course on a cultural revolution.

And the final paper was write a paper on what you think the impact was on the sent

down youth of the culture revolution.

And so my son interviewed six or seven, sent down youth, half of

whom are living in this country, and half of whom are living in China.

And of course in his paper he basically says, look, you can't, you can't

generalize for, for 17 million people on the basis of talking to seven.

But these are what these seven people told me.

And then he says, you know, it's interesting to speculate what was

the impact of the on the sent down youth of those sent down, youth

who stayed in the system and got to the top of the system like xp.

And my son says the following things in his paper, which I agree with, he

says, the first thing is if you're Xi Jinping, When he says, our single

highest priority is to improve the lives of the ordinary people.

When he says that this is a deeply felt personal, emotional comment,

this is not a conceptual comment, and this is not, you know, any of

the US leaders are my lifetime.

None of 'em live that, that life.

And so when they talk about improving the lives of ordinary Americans,

this is an intellectual concept.

They believe it to more or less extent for xp.

This is a highly personal comment.

That's number one.

The second one is, if you live through the insanity of the culture revolution

and you're a leader of China, priority one through five or one through 10

is social and political stability.

So those two things to me are the most defining characteristics of this person.

The third one being sheet and pink's desire.

For China as a country to reestablish itself.

Remembering that in 18 of the last 20th centuries, China was the world's

most, was the world's largest economy.

It's only the last two centuries, 19th and 20th, where it wasn't so, so

in the Chinese mind, they're reemer, they're reestablishing the norm.

They're not, they're not sort of, in Graham, Allison's or Graham.

Yeah.

Graham Allison's phase coming into a preexisting system, upsetting it.

Any thoughts on that?

No, I don't disagree with what he said.

Like, you know, I agree with, I agree with the history and that sort of stuff.

It, it makes sense compared to what I've learned from podcasts and all

that sort of stuff about she's life.

He did actually, he was right there, you know, with, with the culture revolution.

He really did get kicked around.

You know, and he had to live a dirt bore existence for a number of years.

And it was only when his father, it was only one's Mao

died and that sort of stuff.

And his father got pulled outta prison that he could actually start his life.

Mm.

He's had a life experience that none of the American leaders have had.

That's, I agree.

So, you know, it doesn't give him the right to invade Taiwan though.

No, but well, he doesn't have to invade.

Sorry.

He doesn't have to.

It's already part of China as far as he's concerned, as far as he's concerned.

It's part of China, but the reality is it's not part of China.

What, what about about then, sorry.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, I just thought it'd interesting three things.

Poverty, addressing that stability and reestablishing of the norm.

And I do think you missed out one other one.

Yes.

President for life.

President for life.

Yeah, well, which is all his, it's all about power.

It's, it's all about him maintaining the status quo of

China and all that type of thing.

And you know, you have, you know, money's got his own ego.

Oh, for sure.

He'd have to, you know, I don't think anyone would ever, would

ever make themselves president for life that didn't have an ego.

Mm-hmm.

In the chat room.

Bronn said, I've been scanning Thornton's Wikipedia article and

he has some other rather concerning friendships inverted with the likes

of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.

That's what I think finds, that's what I think Bron makes this guy interesting

is that he's clearly part of the right, or he is got friends in the right.

He, he, he's a fan of authoritarians full staff.

Well, there you go.

Yes.

So, so it's, it's not like he's a card carrying lefty who's coming

out with a lot of stuff, which will be quite positive about China.

So it's, the interesting part about this guy is he's fully aware of power in the

right of politics and business, yet has an admiration that is coming through for

XI and the Chinese system, which will get to in a moment cuz I've I've been

interested in this idea of the meritocracy of the Chinese Communist Party and, and,

and how you have to go through a process to get to the top which weeds out idiots.

Whereas in our system and in particularly it seems the American system has almost

become a system designed to filter out good people and only allow idiots in.

Is that cause they're writing poetry to get into the civil service?

The communist poetry that we mentioned last week, is that what you mean?

No, no.

Chinese civil service historically you had to write perpetrator, right?

You had to prove your communist sort of credentials I guess.

Yeah.

So, so anyway, have a listen to this cuz bear in mind with this one about

the meritocracy of what's involved in the Chinese Communist Party compared

to the incompetence of, in this case, the Americans, if you like.

In terms of just intellectual ability play this one, it's a little bit shorter.

Chinese communist party is essentially the meritocratic elite in the same

way that if you look back through Chinese history, there was an emperor

and then there was the kind of the Mandarin class running the country.

Mm-hmm.

That's essentially what you have at the moment.

And you don't get into the Chinese Communist Party if you're not very able.

You don't get the Ching University if you're not very able, you know.

10 million kids a year.

Take the, take the national examinations to go to university.

The top 3000 of those go to Ingwei University.

Mm-hmm.

3000 get admitted and 3000 go.

And so, and, and, and Ingwei University accounts for 50% of

the leadership of the country.

So, so the examination based culture, which has existed

for 2000 years, still exists.

And essentially that's what drives the, the input into all these institutions.

And so to put it in the, in the vernacular, if you get to the top of

the Chinese system, there's no chance you're not very smart and very able.

Mm-hmm.

And the only institution in this country, which is to me, is at all like it.

And when I tell them this, it drives me crazy.

The only institution in this country that's all like the Chinese

Communist Party is the US military.

Which is to say that if you and I were 18 years old and went to West Point

together, We went in the military and we stayed in the military one day.

We're four star generals.

We've known each other for, you know, whatever it is, 40 years.

And we're sitting around the same table.

That's the Chinese system.

And so they know each other intimately.

They've had real jobs.

They failed or they succeeded.

If they succeeded, they went ahead.

If they failed, they failed.

And like all big organizations there, of course there's plenty of rough justice

and infighting and all the rest of it that goes on in every corporation

in the United States, anywhere else.

But that's basically the system.

So I think the word communist kind of gets into the, gets in, gets

into the mental way of Americans understanding what you're dealing with.

Mm-hmm.

It's not a communist system period, which doesn't mean they don't have, when they

talk about common prosperity, for example, you might say that's the equivalent

of trying to fix incoming inequality.

That we would talk about.

But the other day another Chinese was saying to me, the capitalist system is

essentially a divide and conquer system.

The Chinese modernization is a unifying system.

And so they're so Xi Jinping to go back to him, he is determined, although

they haven't figured out how to do this yet, the common prosperity is for real.

They're proud of the fact they've lifted 800 million people out of poverty.

Of course, that's the most ever in history by a long, long way.

And they're proud of that.

And they think those people ought to continue to advance.

And that's this, you know, this big, big differences between the wealthy

and the poor is just, it's too much.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

And that's why you see him sort of cracking down now on some of that.

I just find this interesting insight.

I think I, I think this guy knows who he is talking about and.

I think it's just an interesting insight into how the Chinese system,

it's quite different, but it works for them and we don't get enough

of this in our mainstream media.

So I think it's yeah, valuable.

I've got a bunch of others, but I won't run you through all of 'em except to say

that in one of the clips he describes that John Kerry, former us, US state

of presidential state, wasn't he?

Yeah.

And he had a senior role.

Yeah.

He was in a meeting with Xi Jinping and Ping said, Hey, I've got this idea.

And he described the Belton Road system, and John Kerry

said, Oh, that's a good idea.

Can we join you and do that with you?

And Xi Jinping said, yeah, sure, no problem.

And then John Kerry went and tried to get it through some treasury

manda and grabbed him straight away and said, forget that idea.

It's never gonna happen.

We're not touching it.

So it never actually went to Obama, but but essentially the Belton Road

system was described to John Kerry who asked to be part of it, was told Sure.

But then they never went ahead with it.

And that John Kerry described that as one of the great regrets of his life

that he never pursued, that see, had the Yanks got involved in had the Yanks

been involved with the Belt and Road Initiative right from Word Go, then

they would've been able to control it.

They would've been able to also have the year of the Chinese Communist

Party and that sort of stuff.

They may well have been able to talk them down from the invasion of Taiwan,

which I know hasn't happened yet.

What invasion hasn't happened yet, but they are threatening it.

If, if you had the Yanks on site, if the Yanks had the years of the Chinese

Communist Party, they may well have been able to talk them out of it.

All they've said is Taiwan's part of China.

I know that's what they've said.

And that's, and that's what they've, and that's what America has said

and that what's, what Australia has said that they've also said is they

do not rule out the use of military force to bring them back online.

The other thing that was in this clips that I'll just mention as well

was He said the Chinese get really angry that people don't listen to what

they say and instead they listen to so-called China experts who interpret

what they say, which is very true.

Yeah.

And a classic example, and these China experts are wrong.

And a classic example of someone who's a China expert, who's wrong, was Kevin Rudd.

Really?

Yes.

Specifically mentioned by this in this clip as well.

So, and his theory was also in this, in these clips, there being

a link in the show notes to where you can watch the whole thing on

YouTube was that China was basically wanting not to be a hegemon itself.

That it didn't, once America's displaced, it just wants a multipolar

world and not one dominated by a single civilization, in his opinion.

So, Anyway, stolen's opinion.

Yes.

Yeah, that was how he saw them.

So anyway, I thought that was an interesting character to introduce to you.

If you've haven't heard of that guy before you know about him now.

What has he said about Taiwan?

There was nothing in that clip about it.

I'd have to investigate what other stuff I could find out.

So, I think that's about it for the moment.

I could get onto other things, but do that for another time, I think.

And you guys have something pressing that you would like to talk about?

We could wind it up.

No, I will go away and read about him because I think what you have

shown me is very interesting.

Mm-hmm.

I.

Yeah.

Joe, you're looking very skeptical there.

Like you're just like traveling in your bloody propaganda bullshit, like God sake.

It's one of those things like, I mean, I can understand where he is coming

from saying that the Chinese people don't want democracy because they've,

you know, they've never had it.

So as a result they've don't really have a long-term view of it.

But just across the Taiwan, straight Taiwan has evolved into a democracy.

Okay.

If they only knew about democracy, no, I'm not saying that.

I'm simply saying that that is why they have never moved into that sort of

realms because they've never known it.

Now they, there was just something there that I've gotta read.

Yeah, go on.

Well you're saying cuz they've never known it, they've never moved into it.

That is something that, that's just one of my theories that's been kicking

around in my head for a long time.

Right.

It's like the, it's like, you know, Russia has very, very comfortably moved back

into a dictatorship under Putin because they've never known no real democracy.

Okay.

I I, there is a clip here that's relevant to that, which I hadn't mentioned,

which let me find this, this one then, which is how much they understand

about the usa This, this one is kind of relevant to what you were just saying.

So let me play this one.

What are the three key things that you and all of us could do

to help the Chinese people to gain the understanding of the world?

And I think that's the key to world peace.

And if we get their mind share, Chinese people will be on our side.

I am very sure about that.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

A couple things.

First of all, I, no, I've been teaching at Ching WA now for 20 years.

So I, I deal with and know a lot of young Chinese from that and from other ways.

And, and of course I'm dealing in a sense with it's self-select, I'm dealing

with the most educated people, but at least among that group, I don't know

a single one of 'em who doesn't know what's going on in the outside world.

Not with any of your comments about Chinese control of media.

Mm-hmm.

A hundred percent of them are connected a hundred percent of the time, just like you

and I are to the, to the world's media.

Cause that's the first comment.

My second comment is, I know that this, this line of, you know, it's, it's

the United States versus the Chinese Communist Party, not the Chinese people.

It, it this has been a sort of a, a way of looking at the world that's

been perpetrated recently by a lot of the particularly Republican leaders.

And it sounds good, but in fact, Inside the Chinese system.

As I said earlier, even to this, in fact, even to this day, I remember

when I was teaching my very first year, I asked my students, what

do you wanna do when you finish?

And of course, had you asked that question 10 years earlier, a

hundred percent of them would've said, I wanna be in the government.

When you asked it, when I was teaching, this goes back 20 years

ago, you guys ought 20 years ago.

Just fast forward a little bit like, which I mean a whole raft of

activities, but what it basically means in it's essence is Chinese people

spending time here and vice versa.

I'd like to see a lot more going the other way.

I think that's the most powerful way to make a difference over time, and

I think it does make a difference.

We, we know, I skipped over the bit where it basically says that China spends a lot

more time and understands America, the USA much more than the USA understands China.

I don't doubt that.

So, yeah.

Which was another interesting aspect of it.

Well I think the world understands the US a lot better than the

US understands anywhere else.

Absolutely.

Because the culture comes outta the USA Hollywood.

But you see that lady's question at the beginning was if only the

Chinese could understand and know about us, they would be on our side.

And that was interesting cuz she sounded Asian to me.

She did, yes, she did.

Sound Asian.

I agree.

Yeah.

Which sounded a little bit like what you were heading in the direction,

Scott, where you were saying if they only knew democracy, they would've

taken it up and Well, I think you've only just look, if you just look

back at the Tiananmen Square protest.

Mm-hmm.

Now that was a uprising and that sort of stuff, and they were

basically demanding democracy.

Mm-hmm.

But they they were not prosperous.

They weren't, the Chinese that I know now are prosperous.

I, you know, I know people over here and they were saying what a

wonderful life they had back in China.

Yeah.

Because they can they Exactly.

And that, that was the whole point.

Like the, the deal that was struck between the Chinese people and the Chinese

Communist Party was, you know, we'll give you a beautiful flat screen television

if you don't ever protest again.

So that is, well, well, well, we've got a system and we'll improve your lifestyle.

Mm-hmm.

If we're, and and to a degree.

Yeah.

And this, okay, so there's this article here from Harvard Business Review and

sort of dealing with these issues in that kind of along those lines, But, but the

Chinese people largely, and there are polls to show this and I'll, I was looking

at one of those earlier on again, we're basically, the Chinese people are happy

with the political system they have.

And I don't doubt that.

And I don't doubt that because they've got a very good reason.

What's that?

I don't doubt that.

Because they've got a very good life.

Yeah.

And, and to them, okay.

It's not democracy as we know it, and it's authoritarian, but that doesn't

make it illegitimate in their rights.

Right.

And I agree.

Yeah.

And the other one was that, you know, people have assumed that

economics and democracy are two sides of the same coin, that successful

economies go with democracies, and that is not necessarily the case.

So they don't have to go hand in hand.

So, so you can have a successful economy without a democracy.

You can have people who accept or autocracies.

Yep.

You can have people who accept an authoritarian political

system as the best that suits them, and you can be legitimate.

So, I'm, the, the problem is it's the whole benevolent dictator.

Mm-hmm.

The, the best form of government is a benevolent dictator because

they make good decisions.

They're not worried about reelection, they're making

long-term strategic decisions.

But the problem is all benevolent dictators in the end become DPOs.

Mm-hmm.

And it's all about personal gain rather than the betterment of the people.

So if you, if you can find a rare example of someone who really is caring about the

people and isn't insulated our problem is our democracies are achieving the same

result for the oligarchs at the moment.

Yes.

So, so with donation laws and other factors in play our, our democracies

have become corrupt, are, are rewarding.

An an unelected dictatorship.

Yes.

At the same time.

So they're not democracies really?

Yes.

Because they don't reflect the will of the people.

Yes.

Just because you're holding an election gives the, the pretense of

a democracy, but if the substance isn't there, you don't have one.

So yeah.

Bit, bit like labor and the liberals on secularism.

Mm-hmm.

Yes.

There we go.

All food for thought.

Dear listener.

Just trying to expand our ways of thinking about the world.

So, Hope you enjoyed that little look at China and its way of thinking from

a guy who's got an interesting cv.

Mm, right.

Well that's definitely it.

Done and dusted.

We'll be back next week to talk about stuff, but do a book review again soon.

Gotta talk to Paul about that.

Meanwhile have a good week.

Talk to you next week.

Bye for now.

Yeah, that's a good night from me.

Oh, that's a good night from him.