Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over

time, evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

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

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

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

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

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Hello, we're back, dear listener.

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast, episode 449.

And this one is just your regular panel.

Myself, Trevor, the Iron Fist, coming in all the way from a

new LNP electorate in Mackay.

Scott the Velvet Glove, Scott.

How are you?

I'm not too bad, thank you, and yourself?

Um, I'm okay.

The electorate of Cooper, marginal swing to Labor, funnily enough.

And Joe, in the Pine Rivers electorate, which, what's the story there?

Just hanging on?

TBD.

I think, uh, currently Labor are 400 or 200 ahead.

Uh, at one stage they were predicting that it was going to change.

Uh, currently ABC are predicting that it's not.

I couldn't see how they, they Given the ECQ numbers, I couldn't see

how the ABC were predicting it, but

Yeah, I, I saw they had, were predicting Nicky Boyd

leads by an estimated 210 votes.

Mm hmm.

Based on the preferences that they think will come through, so Yeah.

That's pretty skinny.

Yes.

Yeah.

So, um, so yes, dear, dear listener, we're going to talk about the Queensland

election result and sort of, uh, think about how it came about, what

it might mean, and are there any wider implications in the federal

sphere, and, ah, all the usual things about what it means for our society.

In particular, we're going to talk about, dear listener, The youth crime debate,

how that affected people's thinking.

And also the abortion debate and how that affected people's thinking and what

might happen with that down the track.

And um, yes, and see where we end up.

So, um, yeah.

So, uh, What else have we got to say at the moment?

Well, overall, at the last overall count that I looked at, 7.

2 percent swing to the LNP and, uh, the LNP have got a comfortable winning

margin, Scott, and pretty much what it was looking like, although perhaps

it was looking a bit worse for Labor.

And in the end, it's an okay ish result from which they can win.

Potentially get back in next time.

It's one of those things.

I

had Stephen Miles one and that sort of stuff.

You'd want to be singing his praises.

However, I'm not convinced he's the right man to lead the party back into victory.

Um, I personally feel that Anastasia Palaszczuk stayed in office too long.

And she should have probably, she probably should have got the factions together six

months, probably 12 months ahead of when she did and actually got them together and

say, right, nut it out amongst yourselves.

I want a bloodless coup that's going to replace me.

And

she

was, she should have given them a timeline when she was prepared

to stand down and everything else.

They could have found someone else that they would have then had two

years to get acquainted with the electorate rather than 10 months.

And then it probably would have.

Gone a little better for them.

It did seem that the longer it went the better.

He was going so

exactly.

Yes It's one of those things and I just think that

Also, there was a bit of good luck for Labor in that, um, Robbie

Catter made that an absolute balls up over the abortion issue.

Yes.

You know, because that was something that wasn't even going to

fall into the laps of either side.

But

Yes, for those who don't know, from down south, the Catter party,

Catter's Australia party, basically said that When the new government is

formed, which he hoped to be a sort of hoping for a minority government that he

would be in coalition with That he would be calling on a new vote on abortion

laws seeking to have them overturned And that caused enormous problems for

Christopher Foley, who avoided the question 172 times as to Yeah, I was gonna

say the, the background on that was Christopher Foley and a lot of the

candidates are very much anti-abortion.

Mm-Hmm.

And, and he merely said, oh, we have no plans.

Mm-Hmm.

Um, but given that last time round, they were given a conscience vote.

And generally the LMP do give conscience votes on this sort of thing.

Mm-Hmm.

, the vast majority of the LMP members will vote against.

Abortion given half a chance, and Robbie Carter was basically saying he

was going to give them the half chance.

Yes, and when Christopher Lee was saying he has no plans The

problem was, Catter had a plan, and if he put a bill before Parliament,

and there was a conscience vote, that would have changed the law without

Christopher Lee having a plan.

So that's what, um, had people scared a little bit.

And, um, rightfully so.

They don't blame them for being scared,

you know, it's just one of those things, like, you know, we saw

how Roe vs Wade was overturned in the United States fairly quickly, you know.

Settled law.

Settled law.

It was settled law right up until the three of them had

the opportunity to vote for it.

Exactly.

You know, anyway,

it's just, I just don't understand how the hell anyone could actually

look at that and think that that was a bloody good idea.

Which part?

The

abortion laws and that sort of stuff, you know, it was,

it was a strange I guess people

felt at the end, surely they wouldn't be doing that,

I reckon.

I don't know.

Yeah, I suppose so, and you know, it's like, um, if you actually believe

what Christopher Woolley had to say in his acceptance speech, then I think

we've got nothing to worry about.

But there is an old saying that says, how do you tell, how can

you tell if a politician's lying?

His lips are moving, you know, and his lips were moving a hell of a

lot of, were moving a hell of a lot in that, uh, acceptance speech.

So, I don't know, you know, am I actually, am I shit scared of this government?

Not really, but I also remember just how bad they were.

When they last had their control of the office, and their Christian

Nutter ratio has gone up, not down.

Yes.

There are more of them now than what there once were.

Yeah, guys like Blayze and that.

Oh,

Blayze is the Deputy Premier now, isn't he?

Yes, yeah, and he's very much a Christian Nutter.

I know he's a Christian Nutter.

He was the same fuckwit that, um, Overturned the, um, overturned the,

the civil unions for same sex couples.

And he said, Oh, by the way, we're also, we're also going to move against

adoption for same sex couples too.

And I just thought to myself, that was never part of the election campaign.

He

wasn't happy with our satanic activity either, I remember, so.

No, he

wasn't!

But um, we were talking about pre poll before we went to air, Joe and

I were, and Joe, you were saying that pre polls favoured the LNP by about 5

percent more than the regular voting.

It was mentioned on the ABC coverage, I've pulled the initial

stats from eCQ for my electorate.

So if you go onto the eCQ website and then, uh, by electorate, you can

then do, uh, sort by polling booth.

And you can download that as an Excel or as a CSV file.

Uh, and pulled some interesting stats out of that, and it did look like, so,

it's a bit difficult to tell because really I could only find, um, Samford

and, uh, Strathpine, I think, had early polling, but it did seem to be

about 5 percent more conservative.

Yeah, see,

I thought that was unusual, that you associate the conservative

vote with older people, and I would have thought they're more likely to

vote on the day, and it would be younger people who would be Doing the pre poll.

So that sort of just seems strange to me.

And you thought maybe The pre polls hadn't been scared off by the abortion debate

because it was kind of late in that day.

It was last minute.

And yeah, there was there was a lot of heavy Labor advertising last minute and

whether that made the difference because certainly Labor seemed to pick up a few

points Towards the end of the campaign.

They

did, absolutely.

And that was that was all because of you know, Robbie Canna.

Mm hmm You know, had he not actually put his foot in his mouth the way

he did, then I think Labor would have been, the LNP would have walked

the floor with the Labor Party.

Yeah.

You know, there are a

number of things that Labor did wrong.

You know, that QSAC proposal is a ridiculous idea, that they want

to actually spend money out there.

You know, they've got two people Which one was that?

That was the QSAC out there at, um,

out there next to Griffith University.

That was the, um, where, the QE2 stadium where they had the the

Olympics?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Where they had the, where they had the 1982 Commonwealth Games.

So you think that cost Labor?

I don't know.

I think it did cost Labor a hell of a lot of votes.

But Chris Ofuli didn't say what he was going to do, did he?

No, Chris

Ofuli said that he's still going to look into it and that sort of stuff.

Now, one would hope that Chris Ofuli has a, um, a long, hard think

about it and that sort of stuff.

He might actually decide that the best thing to do is to choose a new site

and that sort of stuff to build the, um, to build the stadium, which then

leaves, um, Two pieces of prime real estate that are available to sell.

You know, you could sell, uh, you could sell both CUSAC and, uh, the Gabba.

You could sell them both.

That would make a very pretty penny for the government.

And then you could even get the, um, you could even get the whole lot built

by, um, Private Enterprise in exchange for 30 years worth of naming rights

and control and that sort of thing.

It's no problem at all.

Giving government money to Private Enterprise again.

I was looking at government money

to Private Enterprise.

Yeah, it is.

No, you, you were just, you were, uh, you, you get them to build it for you.

They, they incur all the costs.

Oh, Scott, hang on.

We can't hear you, Scott.

Oh, maybe it's me.

No, no.

Now I can.

I can hear you now, Scott.

It's working now.

you now.

We can hear you now.

Okay.

You disappeared for some reason.

Anyway,

um, you get them to build it and they pay for the building

and all that sort of stuff.

And then after that you've got to hand over naming rights and

control the stadium for 30 years.

And you've got a free stadium that is available.

Now, if you did it, if you did that But Benningham, they own

it for 30 years, right?

No, they don't own it.

The government still owns it.

Right.

But they just own the naming

rights.

Is naming rights worth the cost of building a stadium?

I don't know, but apparently it worked very well in Sydney.

Because that doesn't, that doesn't seem to stack up, Scott.

That is how they, no, not through naming

rights, it is also the, um, control of it.

And the profits for the stadium.

Exactly.

The profits of the stadium and everything go back to the people that built it.

And then at the end of 30 years, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

But at the end of 30 years, you've got a stadium that you need to

knock down on, because these things only last 30 30 years,

you sell it to the Catholic Church for 1.

Because,

yeah.

Yeah, but anyway, it's just one of those things that they could have actually done.

And they could have actually sold off those two pieces

of real estate and moved on.

See what Christopher Lee does.

I reckon it's going to happen at Victoria Park.

But here's what I reckon.

It goes to Victoria Park.

Here's my explanation.

I reckon it's going to happen at Victoria Park.

Here's my explanation.

As I travel this wide brown land and speak to people from all walks of life,

and in particular boomers, about the election, both before the election and

afterwards, the thing that is always mentioned is increasing violence

and in particular youth offenders.

and how it was just out of control and time for a change of government because

this miles government, um, Labor doesn't know how to, how to fix the crime problem.

And you know, when these kids do adult crime, they should do adult time.

And so basically what they're saying

is we should lock up the black kids.

Well, it basically, Because that's the

underlying.

Basically that there has been a crime wave that Labor has been unable to control.

And that's why they need to be booted out.

That, to me, is the overwhelming response I've had when talking to people.

Do either of you disagree with that?

Do you think anything else is bigger than that?

That's the biggest Driving decision for people swapping.

Yeah, I think it probably was, but I don't believe that there is actually

a massive crime wave going on right now.

Correct.

So, so certainly I think the northern cities, yes, that's, that's the narrative.

Yeah, Cairns

and Townsville for sure.

Down here, uh, I think it's more cost of living.

Uh, I did see a lot of commentary around, oh, you know, um, the fuel,

uh, the electric prices are too high.

Yeah.

Because the Miles government hadn't rebuilt, um, the power station

that blew up, the coal fired one.

Right, yeah.

That's shutting down in 2027 anyway.

Right, yeah.

So, why hadn't we spent 15 billion dollars redoing it for three years?

Yeah.

Okay, that might have been one as well, but I still maintain that a key,

sort of, policy Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Was the youth crime and, of course, there is no crime wave.

No.

The statistics, when you look at them, show that, um, That, uh,

is, if anything, a decrease in crime, in juvenile crime, and No,

no, I did see, apparently he'd put out a statistic that

showed the line going up,

and

if you look at the ten year statistic, it's plummeted, plummeted,

plummeted, and there's been a tiny little uptick at the end.

And they basically cut out the uptick at the end and go, Look

at that, crime rate's increasing.

Yeah.

Well, I was at, um, I'm down the coast at the moment and just met

up, met a couple of, um, uh, fellow beamers in the swimming pool.

And said to them, you know, obviously got around to politics

and the distant results.

And one of them started about the crime wave.

And I said, you realise that if anything, the statistics show

that crime's on the decrease.

Including juvenile crime, juvenile offenders, number of offenders,

and they were both flabbergasted.

I said, what are you talking about?

I said, yeah, it's, it's actually a downward trend.

That can't be right.

I said, well, that's because you've been reading the Courier Mail and

you've been watching Sky News.

End.

And one of the guys said, look, I don't read the courier mail.

And I said, that's fine.

But you have a friend or somebody that you have coffee with.

And they've said to you that there's a crime problem.

And I said, you know, I've walked down to the swimming pool now and you've both

basically said, There's a crime problem in Queensland, and, and it gets passed

around, this sort of, narrative, even if you don't read the fucking courier mail.

And this is, you know, at the end of the last federal election, I

was thinking, oh, maybe this is a sign that Murdoch's lost its power.

But, you know, despite the falling, sort of, readership of the Courier

Mail, and the lack of people, um, watching Sky News, it's still the case

that it sets the narrative, and these things just get multiplied through

our community, these narratives.

It's quite depressing to me that these furfies just move this way, so

Well, I reckon most of them are on Facebook and they're probably in

groups that are sharing the memes.

Yes!

And, um, it'll possibly come as a surprise to some people, no surprise to others.

That, um, Russia and China are very interested in seeing liberal democracies

fail and are pumping huge amounts of money into just sowing dissent.

They don't care which side of the argument, they just want to

sow mistrust in the whole system.

They create and boost posts that spread bullshit, basically.

Yeah.

So, um, There's one, uh, on the screen for the people who are

watching is the graph from Queensland Police, um, where they say the latest

crime statistics from the Queensland Police Service compare the financial

year 23 24 to the financial year 22 23.

A reduction in the rate of youth offences of 6.

7%, the number of unique youth offenders reduced by 2%.

And by 18 percent since 2012.

And, um, a whole bunch of statistics there showing that, that there's no crime wave.

And there was an article in, uh, an ABC, uh, piece, um, on the screen again.

Youth crime is the graph.

Queensland is right in the middle.

And you can see all states basically have falling youth crime.

And that's, uh, previous one was the number of offences.

Uh, number of offenders is also falling, and, um, youth crime is actually

shrinking faster than adult crime, and, um, you know, various other statistics

were in there, so no matter how you want to sort of, um, jiggle your

statistics, it's a pretty compelling argument that there's no crime wave

worthy

of note.

A conversation piece that was saying, um, this 7 percent drop in

the last year is because basically they swarmed the areas where

there were problems with police.

But this is not a sustainable thing, and that this will rebound.

No matter who's in government, this will rebound.

Yeah, well, swarming was part of an increase as well, because they were

so keen on catching people that they caught more than they normally would.

So, um, so I The thing about it is that, um, Miles and Labor did not

try and fight that narrative at all.

They basically accepted Oh yeah, there's a crime problem and we're

going to be harsh on people and

Well, and they were On the ABC election coverage, they did argue back,

saying, oh yeah, the, the, whatever it was, police statistics show it's

down by 6%, and the LNP were going, oh no, because, um, ABS or so and so

have got it up by however many percent.

I didn't see enough fight back, and there was one particular politician

who tried to argue it and was told by the party not to and to sort of take

it off his Facebook page because they felt that they didn't want people.

belittling the idea that they should have fought the idea on the facts.

As someone else said, I don't care whether the crime rates are

falling or not, if I'm having to replace my lock every two weeks.

And this is the point, you know, you can always find the outlier, the, the anomaly.

Yes.

And this is the, you know, what the courier file would do is cherry pick.

And whenever there was any sort of, um, Car Stolen or whatever.

You know, throw it on the front page or page three and talk about it forever.

And people will get the impression that there's a crime wave.

They're only going to execute youths for major crimes like murder,

or breaking into somebody's house and stealing things, or breaking into

somebody's business and stealing things.

Because they were going, oh, it's only serious offences, and then breaking and

entering is a serious offence, apparently.

It's one of those things.

I just Don't understand why that, um, you know, that, uh, guy that lost

his, uh, son in law and daughter, you know, they were killed by a,

a juvenile driver and that sort of stuff that cleaned him up on the road.

Yeah, an absolutely tragic thing that happened.

There's no doubt about that.

But they were saying that, um, I don't even know what the eventual

outcome was of that, of that original criminal case, whether or not they

did get let off or anything else.

It's just, um, I just don't understand why they got the, the, why they got

the lead billing of any of the news items that were going on at the time.

Well, it's because it's in the interest of the Murdoch press

to get rid of a Labor government.

Plain and simple.

The other thing was, of course, they are locking people up more,

and youths, and they're locking them up, um, prior to conviction, so when

they're not granting bail as well.

And, um, And just locking kids up is not actually the solution anyway.

No, it's one of those things.

I actually said to Nigel Dalton the time that I met him, you know,

I said, I'm very disappointed that you're standing in front of a sign

saying adult, adult crime, adult time.

I said, you and I both know that it is a hell of a lot more nuanced than that.

We've actually got to find a very, Complicated solution to

a very complicated problem.

And he sort of agreed, he didn't really, he sort of agreed with me

without actually agreeing with me.

You know, and he was a very impressive candidate, but I actually told him,

I said, I can't vote for you because you know, I'm not convinced that

Christopher Lee's got his dickhead frontbench on a short enough leash.

I've got in this article from the ABC, uh, Griffith University criminologist

Ross Hommel said both parties were perpetrating the big lie that tougher

penalties would reduce youth crime rates.

He said the opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated through twin studies,

randomised control trials, natural experiments and longitudinal studies.

And he says that criminal justice processing of juveniles is itself

a cause of future offending.

It doesn't make the community safer.

It sends them into a training camp.

And he says, um, it fails to address the underlying causes of youth

crime, which is driven by factors such as fetal alcohol syndrome, neurodevelopmental

disability, sexual and physical violence, poverty and low education.

That all makes complete sense.

But it's such an easy thing for the Courier Mail and Sky News to say.

Lock these kids up, they need harsher penalties, the judges are too soft.

And the fact that it has a racist outcome is just a nice side effect.

Yes.

It's not actually the aim of it.

Yes.

And do you think that the fucking Labor Party could just run an argument?

Like, this is the, this, a lot more hate him.

Dan Andrews.

Yeah, could run an argument.

In Victoria.

Would go to these press conferences and he would stare down the

Murdoch press and answer all of their questions and just dare them, yeah,

and

he would dare them to basically repeat these answers.

I mean, Miles should have taken these characters on and said, you're

just not a legitimate newspaper, you are a propaganda rag for the LNP.

I dare you to show these charts on your page 3 or page 5.

You won't do it.

And he should have taken them on, but he's, it's Labor.

Too gutless.

Too gutless.

They deserve to be in power.

What are they going to do anyway?

It's one of those things, I just honestly believe that they

should actually, they should actually have a policy of taking them on.

Actually fighting them.

And discrediting them.

Yeah.

People need to understand.

On any number of issues, you just can't listen to the nonsense that

comes out of this mainstream media.

If they'd said,

you've just cherry picked that statistic, you know, long term

rates are showing it's gone down.

Yes.

With a minor uptick at the end, you know, what would they

have said?

Yes, exactly.

But they're too afraid to argue something.

It's Incredible.

But, um, uh, Scott, um, Greens, um, basically maintained their same sort of

level of voting, around the 10%, But, um, didn't get the votes in the right places.

So, well,

I just think that it's probably also didn't help them

that the LNP decided to preference the Labor Party in South Brisbane.

Yeah, they wanted rid of Trad, which is why they preference the Greens.

And that's why the Greens won that seat last time.

Yes.

So, um, so dear listener in South Brisbane, where there was

a Greens candidate last time

The Greens candidate l and p this referenced, uh, sorry, last time

L and p referenced the Greens candidate and this time they haven't.

However, there is still an outside chance that, um, that the two leading candidates

will be the l and p candidate and the Greens candidate, in which case the

labor preferences will get the Greens candidate ahead as an outside chance.

Gotcha.

So, um.

Yes, but that's how our wonderful democracy works.

I still

think a preferential system is, is preferable to first past the post.

Well, a proportional system would be even better.

I know, proportional would be even better, but then you've got to

work out, you've got to work out where you, you've got to work out where

you're going to put your members though.

Because if, if you've got all your members and everything like

that down in the southeast corner.

that don't want to move, then where did the, where did the, where did the rest of

the state get their representatives from?

I'm sure we could find them.

They must be done somewhere, in some places, they figure out a way

of those things.

They've got to have to work out how to do it, and they've got to work

out how to do it, and they've got to actually tell us how they're

going to do it in the first place.

You know, maybe Federal Upper House, you know, fill in 75

candidates in order of preference.

Maybe if politicians didn't have to attend every local FATE and PNC

meeting, we might get better candidates, because they'd go, I'm not going to

do the job if I've got to turn up to all that sort of shite all the time.

Maybe.

Is that really the misuse

of our leaders?

No, possibly not, but however, you know, I was just talking to Deepthroat on

Sunday morning because I rang him up to commiserate over the loss of the election.

And I just said to him, I said, he was talking about his

member that just got reelected.

Don T.

Bush?

Is he in Cooper as well?

Yeah, yeah.

He said that she, she basically would attend the opening of an envelope.

Yes.

You know, so she was there being seen and that sort of stuff.

So people just got the impression that she was out there doing something.

Yes.

Yeah, she was probably just turning up something and pressing the

flash and that sort of stuff and pissing off after half an hour.

You never know.

You know, it's just, I agree with you.

You've got to have, you've got to have a better use of time, but

it's par for the course though.

You know, you've got to be seen to be out there doing something rather

than actually doing something.

Mmm.

City versus rural as well.

When you look at a map.

The Labor electorates are all clustered around, you know, Brisbane suburbs.

Well, so they did have

the cities up north, but they lost them.

And I think that's the, that was the big swing, wasn't it?

Yes.

Well, they lost Townsville

and Mackay and

Mackay.

Yeah.

And I think

they've lost Rocky too, haven't

they?

Not

sure.

Oh, but it wasn't that, um, uh, Gotham.

The mayor who's been there for ages is now, um, Strollo.

She was Mayor for years, and is now standing as a candidate, and

I think, because she's just so well known in the community, I

think that's why she got the vote.

Okay.

Yeah.

So anyway, um Is she from the LNP or the Labor Party?

I

think she's LNP.

So the other, just, um, circling back to the other issue of

abortion, and whether that will now get on the national agenda, um National?

Yeah, well,

that's fucking idiot Jacinta Price.

That's where we're getting to.

So, Coalition Senator Jacinta Nepijimpa Price wants abortion

on the national agenda.

So, um, it's this importation of American cultures.

Well, because it works for Americans and they think possibly

they can capture some of the, uh,

These are the very same people who will be bitching about

Halloween, saying, Oh, we don't need this American Halloween culture.

You know, we call them biscuits, not cookies.

And, you know, they'd be the first ones to rail against the importation of That sort

of American culture, but they were quite willing to, to bring in this American

culture war, um, and play it out here.

Well, I just had an email from Binary, who are the anti trans mob,

um, and they were going on about how there's only one candidate that they

see that's going to support women's rights in America, and that was Trump.

Yeah,

because he's going to protect them from the nasty trans people.

Yeah.

What a load of shit.

I know.

Yeah.

So, um, just back on abortion, Joe, you came up with, um, you sent something

in Messenger about a case in America and it was to do with abortion.

So, uh, four US states are suing the FDA over Mifepristil,

I think, which is the, um, abortion drug.

Yes.

So it's used in medication abortions.

People are accessing it via the post,

is it?

And as part of their arguments why they say that the FDA shouldn't have been

allowed to, um, legalise Mifepristil or allow it, Um, is that, uh, there has

been a drop in the number of teenage pregnancies, and they rely on these

teenage pregnancies to increase their state population, allowing them federal

representation in the future, because for every 10, 000 people or whatever it

is, they get another seat in Congress.

Yes.

This is part of their official pleading in the court document.

What was that they should be allowed to force women to give

birth so that they can have better representation in the future?

Jesus

Christ.

I think it was paragraph 752 where they wrote, A loss of potential population

causes further injuries as well.

The state's subsequent diminishment of political representation and loss

of federal funds, such as potentially losing a seat in Congress, or

qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are reduced.

Or their population increase diminished.

So yes, if we don't get enough babies, it will be a financial problem.

Fucking kidding.

Nope.

We need to force teenagers to have babies.

I think one of the other ones was we need to force teenagers to have babies

because there are a lot of childless couples out there that need babies to

be able to adopt, which Handmaid's Tale.

Yeah, I know.

It's one of those things I just don't understand.

That anyone could actually, how anyone could vote for the Republicans in good

conscience right now is beyond me.

Well, especially with Hitler, uh, sorry, with Trump, um, espousing

Hitler, having, you know, now being quoted as saying, why can't

I have the kind of generals that Hitler had that are loyal to me?

Yeah.

To which he was told, they weren't loyal to Hitler, a

number of them tried to kill him.

Yeah.

Still on abortion.

Yes.

Australian Catholic University had a graduation speech.

Oh, yes.

Yeah, that was hilarious, wasn't it?

Yes, and um

I'm sorry, but what the fuck do you expect if you go to an

Australian Catholic University?

Well, that's what, indeed, that's what Greg Sheridan said.

Um, so yeah, at the Australian Catholic University, um, De Bruijn,

Joe De Bruijn, um, union leader.

of the Shoppies Union.

So dear listener, just bear in mind as we rail against the Christian conservatism of

the, you know, Liberal National Parties, the Labor Party has its own problem with

Christian nutters and that is lurking deep in some of the unions, in particular the

Shoppies Union, which is a powerful union.

Grace Grace was a, um, was

Yeah, how great R.

I.

was, wasn't she?

Yes, indeed.

Um, so, De Bruyn was offered an honorary doctorate at ACU

and invited to give a speech.

And apparently, he, they got a copy of the speech beforehand and they

said to him, uh, Do you think it'd be good if you could change a few things?

But they didn't tell him what to change, and so he just ran with the speech anyway.

And in it, um, uh, he was putting forward some pretty hardcore,

uh, anti abortion statements.

And I've just got from this article here, um, so during the, um, graduation

ceremony, Students have staged a mass walkout during a speech by

former union boss Joe DeBruin, during which he espoused anti abortion

and anti same sex marriage views.

DeBruin was being presented with an honorary degree.

The university said it was deeply disappointed that the speech was not

more befitting a graduation ceremony and has refunded ticket fees for graduates.

One of the students told ABC Radio that DeBruin's speech took a hard right turn.

He started talking about how abortion was wrong and he had a list of things he

wanted to talk about and it was shocking.

Uh, in the speech, Deb Bruin claimed abortion was the single biggest killer

of human beings in the world and referred to it as a tragedy that must be ended.

And he told the audience they may be faced with issues that are at odds with

the teachings of the Catholic church.

And he said, my experience is many Catholics cave into peer pressure.

They think their professional lives will be harmed if they promote

the teachings of the church.

The student reckons about 95 percent of people left the auditorium.

I think the remaining 5 percent were there just to sort of film the empty auditorium.

And, um, yeah, um, of course, uh, DeBroom is an officer of the Order of Australia

in the Queen's Birthday Honours List 2022.

So

Australian Catholic University invites this guy to speak.

And he, he speaks about solid Catholic ideology.

And they have to say, you can't say the quiet bit out loud.

Not, not here.

Well, my

daughter was saying it was a beat up because she'd seen a video

on TikTok that showed that they were all leaving normally at the end.

And I'm going, well, if that's the case, why were they refunding

people who left their money?

Yes, and what did she say to that?

Oh, she then went and looked for this video that she'd seen and

found that actually people were leaving in the middle of his talk.

There we go.

But, so, it's interesting, there was originally a counter narrative.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

So, you know, on the one hand, at least he's consistent.

Well, yeah, absolutely.

And not hypocritical, like the authorities running the university.

He was actually, he was actually espousing Catholic views.

He was actually saying what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Yes, and don't be afraid to hold on to your faith.

No,

exactly.

So, you know,

it's just a, you know, I cannot believe that, um, he was the head of the

shoppies union and all that sort of stuff.

And when was the last time you ever got into a conversation with any one of the,

with any of the checkout chicks at Coles?

Oh, you can't use them anymore because they're all self serve.

But when was the last time you got involved, got involved in

a conversation with anyone who works there about abortion rights?

You know, never, you know, but he wants to make out it's some big thing.

It's not.

Well, and didn't the, um, shoppies sell out their members anyway?

Oh, absolutely they did.

So,

you know, it's, it's,

I had to agree with the, uh, one of the whole, might've been The Shovel or

something like that, that said that, um, at the time that their members were, their

members were saying that their members of the, uh, unions, uh, Union representing,

um, hotel workers and that sort of stuff.

They'd said they would, they'd be, their members would be quite in favour of the

same sort of, um, rhetoric and that sort of stuff that the CFMEU was pulling, if

they could afford to buy their own house.

Right, yes.

And I actually agree with that.

You know,

the

militant, the militant, the militant behavior of the

CFMEU is quite justified, really.

Yeah,

they managed to get for their members, extract value for

them that other unions haven't.

CFMU members can buy houses.

Exactly, they can.

Yes.

You know,

no other

union members can.

Speaking of the shovel, just a final word on the Queensland election.

In the shovel, they reported that Queenslanders will turn their

clocks back to 1954 this morning.

After electing David Chrisafulli as Premier, Chrisafulli, who has campaigned

on putting children in prison and has failed to rule out reintroducing abortion

laws, thanked Queenslanders for their support, saying he wanted to lead the

state until well into the last century.

Quote, It's an exciting time to be a Queenslander.

Thank you to all the men and their lady wives.

Who have sent telegrams expressing their congratulations.

As we emerge from the post war years and look ahead to the 1960s, there's

nothing this state cannot achieve.

A government spokesperson reminded Queenslanders to adjust

their wind up watches before leaving for work this morning.

Remember now, instead of getting Dark at 7pm, it will be dark most of the time.

Critics say the change could cause curtains and women's

reproductive rights to fade.

Ah, well done, shovel.

Good report.

Um, yeah.

Okay, um, so, uh, just that, um, that event at the

Australian Catholic University.

I was with some other friends, did a party type situation, and one of them said that,

Oh, I read this great article, it really just encapsulated how China is a threat,

and how our culture is, is not up to the task of, um, of battling this new threat.

And it was a really well written piece.

And I just said to him, mate, I think I'm going to disagree with.

Everything in that article, and asked him to eventually send me the link,

and he did, and it was in the Weekend Australian, an article by Greg Sheridan,

and I was like, oh for fuck's sake, like, an idiot like Greg Sheridan.

has this platform, and even though he's been proved wrong on countless

occasions, and just plain stupid on thousands, he's just got a platform

that continues to cause mischief, and people of a certain era still trust

opinion pieces in newspapers, and don't recognise that the propaganda that it is.

It's very depressing, um, really depressing.

Anyway, I, dear listener, at the end of this podcast, when we've finished,

wrapped up, you'll hear me read the Greg Sheridan piece, and then I

went back to that, um, notebook LM.

Yeah.

And I instructed it to, um, do a short podcast criticising Greg Sheridan.

And I said, with particular emphasis on how China, I use words like how

China is, well actually what did I say?

Um, I'll tell you.

I specifically asked Notebook LM to criticise the article emphasising

Sheridan's cultural bias against a relatively benign China.

That's how I instructed it.

So if you're watching this live, grab hold of the audio in the podcast app and

fast forward to the end and I'll read it and then you'll see their response.

Actually, it was pretty good.

In particular, they talked about how he's so stuck in an old culture,

both, you know, Sheridan is obsessed with, Like John Anderson, former

Deputy, um, Prime Minister, who loves Jordan Peterson, with this whole

idea of Western culture is in demise.

just because it's changing and it's different to what it was and it's as if

a culture is supposed to be just static and any change to it is seen as a demise

and so, you know, these kids at the Australian Catholic University walking out

is really because the culture is changing to be more inclusive of trans people

and of women's rights to their own body and, um, so it was sort of that argument

come through and also then just in this piece, when I read it you'll hear, um,

basically a Sheridan rails against China and Iran and Russia and all the rest

of it, like, again it's about culture.

He's stuck in his culture and doesn't recognise other cultures.

Might be different, but perfectly legitimate, so, um,

so yeah, that'll be at the end.

But, um, ah, what else happened in social interaction circles?

Um, talking to my brother, who plays pickleball in Sydney, again, with

a lot of other boomers, they're all retired, eastern suburbs, and a fairly

high contingent of Jewish people.

And he said, it's great.

You know, we play pickleball three times a week and blah, blah, blah, go

for coffees and whatnot afterwards.

And I said, so at the coffee afterwards, does anybody ever

mention Gaza and Palestine?

He says, Oh God, no.

It's totally off.

You just can't talk about it.

Totally off, off limits.

Do you guys get to talk about it with other people at all?

Like, with acquaintances?

Or, is it a no go zone?

Yeah, I do.

And, um, I always preface it by saying that Israel was right to respond,

but I think they have overreacted.

Right.

You know, um,

just, just think.

Like, absolutely.

Convinced that they've gone way over the top and it's a genocide.

They have gone way over the top.

They have gone way over the top and it certainly looks

and smells like a genocide.

What gets me is the people who are saying, Oh, well, you know, the

upcoming US election, there's no difference between the candidates.

So, because they're both the same on Palestine.

And it's like, hang on a second.

Have you heard of Trump Heights?

Go and have a look at Wikipedia.

There is an area of the occupied territory that is called Trump Heights

by the Jewish settlers, because of how great President Trump has been to them.

Right, so he'll be even more keen to support Israel.

Yeah, absolutely.

So we think he will,

you know, because he loves all that sort of shit that's done for him.

Yeah, okay, the genocide in Israel is bad, but do we

really want a Nazi in America?

No.

Stop the fucking equivocation.

Stop the, the, the failing of The US democracy as, yeah,

what little democracy there is.

Hmm.

Um, just because, you know, you think they're equally as bad on Palestine.

Well, if one rates as 100 out of 100 and the other rates as 98 out

of 100 in terms of badness Vote for

the 98 still.

Okay.

And also stop the overthrow of democracy at the same time.

Okay.

Exactly.

So please don't celebrate when Kamala gets in because she'll

just be as big a worm Bumpy.

Warmonger is

probably Biden has

been, yes.

But celebrate that, you know, theocratic fascism

hasn't taken over the US.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Which is one of those things, I just don't understand how anyone could

actually contemplate voting for Trump.

So,

so,

I did read various people saying, the point is, they want people to be hurt.

These people who vote for Trump want the others to be hurt.

They just don't expect it that they will be the ones being hurt.

And in fact, there have been people who said, But he was supposed to

hurt the other people, not me.

When they've been hit by whatever social security funding cut came

about from Trump's policies.

Anyway, I've reached the point in social interactions now

that when when Gaza and Palestine come up, if if somebody is equivocal

on this, I'm just going for them.

I can't help myself.

I've seen too many Kids bodies dragged out of rubble.

I've seen too much statistics.

These, you know, the Israeli government is bloody targeting journalists,

doctors, schools, hospitals.

Kids are being hit by snipers in the heart and in the head like

they're just UN peacekeepers.

These aren't just casual, um, collateral.

Damage accidents, actually targeting these groups.

So Now if somebody says like again, I was at something and somebody

said oh, it's terrible, isn't it?

Well, at least Israel's targeting.

It's uh, it's missiles and I just went off and said What do

you mean they're targeting them?

They're targeting them, but they're innocent people.

That's what they're doing or I can't hold back anymore and just let it go.

On the

flip side, you can be pro Palestine, an independent

Palestine, without being pro Hamas.

Exactly.

Because I have seen people who go, oh yeah, I now support

Hamas because Israel's bad.

And you're going, do you honestly think that Hamas are better?

Well

Yes.

I don't think they are any better, I think they're, you know, it's like I

have said dozens of times before, if the PLO were as well armed as the IDF,

do we honestly believe that they would actually negotiate with the Israelis

or would they drive them into the sea?

And would they slaughter the innocent?

Exactly.

Uh,

it, the problem is it just doesn't start.

Historically, it all goes back, doesn't it?

It goes right back,

right back to 1948 when a terrible, terrible mistake was made.

Well, but also,

um, the Imam of, uh, Jerusalem.

But, but, think of it this way.

Nazis.

If today you were a Palestinian living in Gaza and, and your mother, your father.

So I'm lucky enough to still be alive?

Yes.

It's your mother and your father, your grandparents.

are all just killed in front of you, your wife also, your three or four kids

you've had to pluck out of the rubble, your nieces and nephews have been shot.

Yeah, then you're going to sign up to Hamas.

If you went through that experience.

Do you think you could come out of it and not be seeking revenge?

Revenge?

That's half played.

And it's not like Revenge, I

understand.

It's the idea that you want a totalitarian state.

Well,

you know, this sort of carnage, though, has been

going on before October 7th.

So there would be other people who that has happened to where their homes have

been bulldozed and all sorts of similar atrocities have happened to them.

And it's like, what do we expect them to do?

What would you do in that situation?

I don't disagree that they're morally justified.

What I'm saying I don't think they're morally justified for is

imposing Sharia or an Islamic state.

So if there was a non Islamist resistance group,

then yes, absolutely.

And how do we know how Islamist they are?

I don't know.

Because they say so.

Who says they say so?

They, they themselves have said it.

It's hard to know, I think, what sort of government they'd want to run.

Anyway, it's a case of put yourself in the shoes.

They've said it actually, where they said that, you know, from the river

to the sea, Palestine will be free, which means there's leaving no room

for the Jews to actually live there.

Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that.

We don't know.

I think we've heard enough from them to say that

they would actually do that.

I

don't know.

1200 people were murdered on the September, on the October 7th, and

however many hundreds were taken hostage.

It's a A horrible thing that started this whole conflict.

Now, Israel has clearly overreacted, and they have bombed the place into a

pile of rubble, and they are continuing to bomb it, which is God knows why,

because there's nothing left standing.

Except, I just think to myself, they must be targeting the civilian population.

They must be trying to kill them all off.

But when it comes to, um, statements attributed to Hamas or the

Palestinian people, I've reached the point where I'm questioning everything because

of the misinformation and disinformation that the Israelis have shown in this

whole Gaza war and that's been sort of propagated by mainstream press.

I've just, I just, it's almost like religion.

You know, when you sort of.

You're a believer, and then you, and then at some point you go, hang on a minute,

this can't, this doesn't all add up, and you suddenly realise that you've had a

whole heap of bullshit indoctrinated into you, and that priest that you trusted,

you can't priest, and those teachers that you trusted, you can't, you can't trust.

Sorry, um, I just have reached the point where I don't know what to

believe, um, anymore when it comes to statements attributed that may

have been influenced by Israel.

Because I can, it seems to me they're the ultimate propagandists.

I don't think there's any doubt about that they're

propagandizing everything.

It's one of those things like, you know, that bastard Netanyahu is prolonging

the war so he can stay in office.

Yeah, he's not interested in the hostages.

I know that.

It's one of those things.

That's why he turned up at a, giving a speech on the September,

on the October 7th anniversary.

And he was jeered by the, by the members of the public that had

family members who were hostages.

See, like, the initial thing when that, um, incident occurred,

October 7th, was allegations that, um, women were raped and babies beheaded.

And it's since turned out there's no evidence of any of that.

No evidence at all.

But it still gets repeated by presidents and presidential candidates,

and it's just accepted as a fact.

But there is absolutely no evidence.

So, um, so I just, yeah, when it comes to, uh, how bad would Hamas be, I just wonder

how much is part of that propaganda.

I don't know.

So.

It's a pretty good question.

Yeah.

It's like the Uyghurs.

Like, at one point it was accepted that You know, China had done all

sorts of terrible things to hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and had them

in, you know, in camps and things.

And I think when we eventually get to an episode on that,

what's actually proven is going to be quite different to the narrative where

people want to say, Oh, bloody China and its human rights against the Uyghurs

is going to be quite a different story.

So I'm just super conscious now.

Because of Gaza, of the, of the blatant propaganda and lying that's going on.

So that's where I'm at in this world at the moment.

Well, fair enough.

I just don't want to see you ever putting a tinfoil on your head and

that sort of stuff to be scared of the 5G towers or anything.

No, I'm

nowhere near on, on that sort of stuff.

Well, that's good.

Because I can, um, Because I can just look at the science of that and

read credible sources, obviously.

The Earth's not flat.

That's good.

Chemtrails are not released to, you know, to do crazy things to us.

Of course, renewables and solar is the way to go, and nuclear's a stupid idea,

and of course climate change is real.

Because there's science you can back up with that.

Incidentally, um Ah, there's been sort of Senate hearings or something

about that and I've been getting I don't want to digress on that, hang

on a second, what else have I got on this, um Um Yeah That was that, that

Yeah, it just, finally I'm almost You know, I talked about, I've been running

against the Murdoch and And the whole sort of, even though not many people

buy that rag, it still has an influence.

I think I'm at the point where if a coffee shop has these things for

free for people to read when they're drinking their coffee, we need a protest

movement to say to coffee shops, you realise this is a poisonous piece of

shite that you've got sitting here?

It's not good for your customers.

Or people should put stickers on courier mail, newspapers and cafes,

you know, with a health hazard warning or something like that.

There's got to be a campaign to make people just stop and question the

rubbish that is coming out of the courier mail, the Australian and Sky News.

So, alright, different topic.

Lydia Thorpe wasn't happy with the King.

What do you think of that, Scott?

Ah.

Yeah, she got her point across because the world's media were talking

about it and all that type of thing, but, um, I would have thought that

the preferable protest would have been for her not to show up, you know,

just like the Greens didn't show up.

Nobody would have noticed that protest.

Exactly.

It's one of those things, like, you know, she's demanding sovereignty and all that

sort of stuff, but she won't actually explain what the hell sovereignty means.

I personally think she's a bit like Jay DeBruin.

In what respect?

She's at least consistent.

Consistent.

She's not a hypocrite.

Yeah, I suppose.

Everyone else there is a hypocrite.

When they, when they want to have ceremonies acknowledging the traditional

owners of the land, and then they want to welcome the monarch as the monarch

of the land, and she is at least being consistent and saying, no, hang on, we're

the traditional owners and he's not.

He can piss off.

Like, at least that is a consistent line, even if I don't agree with it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Joe, you don't care about Lydia Thorpe, or, you don't see anything?

Oh,

I think, possibly, as people have said, she's a hypocrite being part of

the system, and then railing against it.

Mm.

Scott, Albanese's in trouble because of Qantas, um,

freebies.

I was talking to the better half about this, and I just, and he and

I both come to the conclusion that he's as thick as two short planks.

You know, he's not very bright and he's just,

it's as though he wants to hand government over to someone else

because he's just a dickhead.

But you know, I cannot believe he bought a four point, was it 4.

3

or 4.

1 million dollar

home, you know, at the heart of the whole housing crisis and everything else.

And, You know, that was the first stupid thing he did.

The second stupid thing he did was, he was clearly too close to, um, Alan Joyce.

And now it's all blowing up in his face.

Now, do I actually believe that he rang Alan Joyce to demand, to ask

for upgrades and everything else?

Nothing would surprise me.

I'm sure he did.

You know, it's one of those things, like, the only other thing is that I

heard on a podcast the other morning.

He was on, uh, Fear and Greed, and they said that the response from the

opposition has been fairly muted.

And the reason is that all sides get upgrades and all that type of thing.

So they leave it up to the right wing journalists to do it.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

But, you know, the thing

about Albanese is He thinks that because he declared it on his

register of interests, every upgrade he got, he thinks that's okay.

But he was the goddamn transport minister, when decisions were being

made about whether to allow Qatar.

Into Australia, and he knocked Qatar back, which was clearly an advantage for Qantas

and getting freebies from Qantas and special stuff, like, so he thinks that's

all perfectly fine because he declared it.

But it's not.

It's not.

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

He's a dickhead.

And of course, it's a beat up by the right wing press.

They're going to town on it.

When the, when the, when the Morrison government was committing all

sorts of corrupt, openly corrupt

practices.

Do you honestly think that the Morrison ministers didn't

take free Qantas prisoners?

Of course they took.

Exactly.

They took that.

But of course.

You know, no mention was made then, um, so, but it's all people can talk

about now, again, if you're reading this goddamn fucking Murdoch Press.

So, um, uh, so yeah.

Albanese, uh, stupid, and also out of touch, and just plain wrong

to be taking freebies when you are the transport minister making

decisions that affect that group.

Just don't do it.

Exactly.

Suck it up and pay your own upgrade.

Um,

I mean, I suppose it would have been a different story had he logged

up to the airport and everything else.

They said, Oh, Mr.

Albanese, we were upgrading you.

That would have been okay.

If he did actually ring up Alan Joyce, which I don't know whether

or not he did, but it really wouldn't surprise me that he did.

If he did actually ring it up and say, I've got this travel coming up.

Can you upgrade me, please?

Then that would've been an exercise in complete stupidity.

You, you know what?

It's still not okay.

When, when somebody offers you stuff then, and you say, oh, I didn't ask for it,

but they offered it to me, so therefore I'm not, I'm not gonna be influenced.

Of course, you're still gonna be influenced.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's not, it's not good enough.

Like, if you think that you deserve business class travel all the time, well,

pass a law that says politicians get business class travel or get, I mean,

they get enough expense stuff anyway.

Dip into your expense money or whatever.

Um, but it's, it's, it's just not okay.

Well, no, cause then he'll be questioned about that.

Yeah.

Why he's travelling business class.

Yeah.

Um, just.

While we're still on this whole propaganda newspaper stuff, the Washington Post

has

said that it's not going to endorse any presidential candidate.

Apparently they have lost quite a large number of subscribers over this.

Yes, they lost like 10 percent of their subscribers or possibly even more.

Because, well, dear listener, newspapers are in the habit, about a week before an

election happens, In the editorial, to say, Well, we've considered everything

going on in the world, and we reckon you lot should vote for candidate X or Y.

And they're outraged that Jeff Bezos told his editorial team, Well, we're

just not going to do that anymore.

Now, Jeff Bezos may well have underlying reasons why.

Yeah, he does.

He's going to get some kickback from Donald Trump and he doesn't

want to offend Donald Trump.

But, and I understand that, but his actual reason that he gave, which is

probably not his real reason, but the reason he gave makes sense because

he said, Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election.

No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, I'm going

with newspaper A's endorsement.

None.

What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias,

a perception of non independence.

Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one.

I think he's right.

That reason is, I don't think it's his real reason,

but I think it's a good reason.

But this particular election is the one election he chooses to stand up.

Did he own it four years ago?

How long has he

owned it?

I don't know.

I don't know either.

I agree, Joe, like it's all suspicious.

There's um, some immigrant, billionaire, Indian guy, um, he's a

doctor, owns patents on various things, owns one of the other newspapers.

And he forbade the editorial team from writing an editorial.

Right.

Yep.

Yep.

And they were going

The fucking immigrant.

We've

sworn a lot on this episode, but we can't help it.

It's just the way it is.

But you know, this immigrant is happy to, uh, for us not to

go against the president who wants to kick out all immigrants.

Yeah.

We're going to wind it up soon.

Um, so, so yeah, I think as a matter of practice, it's a good idea for newspapers

to just not give their opinion because who cares anyway and it just demonstrates

bias when they should be talking about this pretending to be unbiased yes

in in the various i think this was the leopards eating my face again um

somebody saying that there was a church that had a big poster up going on about

how the people needed to vote this election and had a picture of Trump.

And this guy had reported it to the IRS.

So in America, for them to be tax free, they are not allowed to

campaign for any particular candidate.

They can campaign on issues.

They can say, this is a very important thing to us, but they can't say,

we think you should vote this way.

And, um, there is no longer a picture of Trump on that poster.

There you go.

So they have been forced by the IRS to take that down.

And

there have been complaints in the past about how toothless the IRA,

uh, IRS was against electioneering, and it sounds like suddenly

they're starting to grow a pair.

Right.

Right.

Next week.

We're going to talk about Guy Rundle got sacked from Crikey.

Does it show?

Oh yes.

Did he?

Yes.

I saw the headline, clicked on it, and it said, oh no, this is a pay for

article, you've got to sign up to read it.

Right.

So I didn't read it.

Okay.

We're going to talk about that.

We're going to talk about the National Anti Corruption Commission.

Sounds like they're cracking down on somebody there.

Jeez.

It's said that they are going to re examine their decisions.

Yes, and somebody's starting to feel some heat there.

Which is

probably

a bloody good thing

because the bastard should have absented himself.

Yeah, we're going to talk about, um, the recent BRICS meeting.

Our Prime Minister went off to Chogham.

Meanwhile, um, uh, the most important meeting of BRICS was being held.

Um, and we'll talk about other things.

Still a lot of stuff on the list.

So.

Um, in the chat room, good on you James and Alison and Ann

and Don for your comments.

Um, listen to the audio version because I will read that Greg Sheridan piece and

if you want to hear the fake Notebook LM podcast critique of that, it'll be there.

I'm surprised it allows you to say nice things about China.

So, yeah, I directed it to do that.

So, um, there we go.

All right.

Um, very good.

We'll be, are you with us next week, Scott?

You'll be busy.

I take it you're not podcasting next week, are you?

You're away.

No, I'll be back.

Oh, you'll be back?

Yeah, I'll be, are we meeting on Monday night or Wednesday night?

Cause I'm not free Wednesday night.

It'll be back to Monday night.

Yep.

I'll be free Monday night.

Okay.

All right.

We'll be back next week.

Talk to you then everyone, bye for now.

And it's a good night from me.

And it's a good night from him.

Good night.

Okay dear listener, this is the article by Craig Sheridan with the title, Axis

of Ill Will Made Bold by Our Weakness.

And he says, Australia is facing external threat plus internal polarisation and

demoralisation On a scale unlike anything since the end of the Cold War, perhaps

since World War II, and we're not coping.

Renowned British historian Niall Ferguson told the first Australian Alliance for

Responsible Citizenship conference in Sydney that the access of authoritarian

powers, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, are now acting in close concert,

which makes them much more dangerous.

Events this week demonstrate the case.

The US has confirmed North Korea has at least 3, 000 troops in Russia.

They appear to be training with drones, presumably to fight

for the Russians in Ukraine.

Their presence marks a clear stage in the evolution to full alliance

among the authoritarian Axis.

Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong commented, This is

deeply concerning development.

To see not only Russia continue its illegal and immoral war, but

to see a state such as North Korea be invited by President Putin to

join or support this illegal war.

Similarly, US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell last month for

the first time reported that China is supplying Russia with direct components

of its military effort in Ukraine.

These are not dual use capabilities.

These are component pieces of a very substantial effort on the part of China to

help sustain, build and diversify various elements of the Russian war machine.

The support goes across the axis.

North Korea sends missiles to Russia.

Iran sells Russia drones.

Moscow assists Beijing with high tech weapons technology, including submarine

missile and aeronautic systems.

All

four connive to frustrate Western sanctions.

ARC, this is the group he's talking about, this conference, has been driven

by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, working closely with Canadian

author Jordan Peterson and British think tank leader Baroness Philippa Stroud.

I'm sorry to listen, it's hard not to laugh.

John Anderson, Jordan Peterson, and Baroness of Phillipa

Stroud, for God's sake.

Anyway, Anderson and Stroud in a joint newspaper article

asserted, the West is weak.

Culturally, we are witnessing the deconstruction of the value

system that laid the foundations of our freedom, prosperity, and

in Australia, our egalitarianism.

British Christian author Osk Guinness, a leading ARC light, argues the West

is now in a civilisational moment where it's in danger from external enemies,

but also in danger of fatally losing touch with the basis of its own culture,

inheritance and social operating system.

ARC is perhaps unique in trying to deal with both the external

and internal challenges.

Trying to integrate an analysis and synthesise a cultural response, while

acknowledging the gravity of the threats.

It also taps the reservoir of strength and resilience in the Western

tradition, seeking to chart a way forward across big policy questions.

Ferguson, uh, sorry, um, Ferguson was the, that would be Niall Ferguson,

was the international star among the 700 attendees at Sydney ARC.

His analysis of the crisis links the external and internal threats.

Externally, our foes are stronger than they've ever

been, more united and dangerous.

They're also, at the leadership level at least, full of passionate

self belief and conviction.

They've all moved to wartime economies.

We, by contrast, have seldom been more divided internally.

Many of our institutions have lost faith in their mission

and the society they serve.

And we're not doing anything significant to meet the external challenge.

Consider, this week the Albanese government announced it would

spend 7 billion buying new, powerful air defence missiles.

The SM 2 and SM 6.

These are the most advanced missiles we will operate.

They are air defence missiles, but the SM 6 can also strike ships.

Pretty impressive, huh?

Well, not so much.

When you look at the fine print, it turns out the 7 billion is over 10 years.

Whenever the Albanese government announces seemingly big defence

expenditure, The number has bulked up by being spread over 10 years.

Typically, the expenditure increase doesn't kick in seriously until the first

year of a national third Labor government.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, who made the announcement,

typically didn't announce a quantity, schedule of delivery, or even a

timetable for dispersing the money.

Within our pitifully small, antique, undergunned and generally

impotent Navy, The only ships that can use the new missiles are

our three air warfare destroyers.

The Air Warfare destroyers ad's are quite good ships, but they're second,

perhaps even third tier combat ships with only half the fire power of

an American Ali Burke destroyer, or of our modern Chinese destroyers,

or those of many other nations.

And there's only three of them.

Three exclamation mark.

That's it.

At any one time we can.

Put precisely one to sea.

The new missiles will also go on the Hunter class frigates.

We're going to build six of these.

But the first doesn't come into service, if we're lucky, until 2032 or 2033.

The Albanese government has implemented no serious increase in defence spending

in a relevant time frame, and no serious increase in defence capabilities.

It's singing jingles in la la land and calling it defence.

Ferguson warned of this lazy performance across the anglophone world.

Quote, We confront a really serious external threat.

I don't think there's sufficient recognition of how dangerous

the access of ill will is.

That access is wreaking havoc in Ukraine.

It's wreaking havoc in Israel, and it may well wreak havoc in Taiwan.

We face one of the biggest external threats since World War II.

AUKUS exists, but neither the US, the UK, nor Australia is yet making sufficient

effort to deter the access of ill will.

Ferguson makes a critical analytical point, which the Albanese

government refuses to confront.

Much of the discussion about AUKUS is on the wrong time frame.

In other words, the Albanese government, like other Western governments,

talks big, but delivers very little.

Ferguson continued.

It's no accident that CIA Director Bill Burns, twice last year, said that China's

Xi Jinping had told his military to be ready for war over Taiwan by 2027.

Ferguson thinks the next US presidential term will likely face

military engagement over Taiwan.

Quote.

We need urgently to improve our deterrence in the Taiwan Strait and

in the South China Sea, and we need to recognise the extent to which the

hostile powers are acting together.

We're no longer dealing with separate regional conflicts,

we face a global challenge.

Sheridan continues, One of the almost psychotic paradoxes of the present

moment globally is that the four authoritarian allies are each enslaved

to to monstrous and grotesque ideologies.

Yet the leadership of each nation believes in them passionately and mobilises great

national power beyond these ideologies.

In Western societies like Australia, we inherit the most humane,

decent and generous political cultures the world has known.

Yet tear each other apart with internal conflict.

And many regard our history and legacy as Uniquely evil.

In reality, every national story contains good and bad, but in

the West the arc of time has bent towards human rights, provision

for the poor, opportunity for all.

It's in the irrational demonisation of this heritage

that we now enfeeble ourselves.

Each of the four authoritarian nations follows a system that

subjugates human beings to the ideological purposes of the state.

And that sees itself inherently of its essence in conflict with the West.

Kevin Rudd's brilliant new book on Xi Jinping, How Xi's Marxist Nationalism

is Shaping China and the World, makes clear that for both Xi and the Chinese

Communist Party, Marxist Leninist ideology comes before everything else.

Rudd 2018 speech in which Xi praised Karl Marx as the greatest

thinker in human history.

Xi also argued that Marxist theory remained universally

applicable, not just to China.

Rudd writes that Xi has a Manchurian worldview, China good, the West bad.

Rudd quotes the CCP's 2021 historical resolution.

Marxism has brought to light the laws governing the

development of human society.

It is a scientific truth for understanding and shaping the world.

The resolution is confident China's development has significantly shifted

the worldwide historical evolution of, and contest between, the two

different ideologies and social systems of socialism and capitalism

in a way that favours socialism.

Xi's renewed emphasis on ideology and Marxist Leninist practice has

significantly stalled the Chinese economy.

Gotta stop, this is such shit.

But Beijing has invested massively in military capabilities and backup

reserves of critical supplies.

The North Korean ideology of Juche J U C H E, or self reliance, has impoverished and

half starved the beleaguered population.

But the Kim dynasty, into its third generation of rulers, has already

lasted an impressive 75 years.

It's a formidable historical dynasty, with its nuclear weapons developments

and intimate role in the authoritarian axis, it has never been more secure.

The Ayatollahs who rule Iran believe fervently in their

extreme Islamist ideology.

From the earliest days of the 1979 revolution, they denounced

the USA as the Great Satan and Israel as the Little Satan.

They've never lost conviction.

Even Russia's Vladimir Putin has his ideology.

Extreme paranoid Russian nationalism, given its fullest expression, in the

mad, Eurasianist books of Alexander Dugan Putin has outlined much of this belief

his own lengthy essays and soliloquies on why Ukraine is really Russia none of this

ever Exercises our symbol wielding class, but their hostility to everything about

our own history tradition politics and nation is pathological Ferguson, this is

Niall Ferguson, elucidated one connection between the domestic and the external

when he remarked how the US now resembles the late Soviet Union with pervasive

cynicism and loss of belief, zero budget discipline and rising depths of despair.

It's suggestive rather than a clear parallel.

All this would be manageable if our internal morale was strong.

The collapse of will, purpose, strength and clarify, clarity is evident in a

thousand seemingly disconnected episodes.

Take one extraordinary depressing case from last week.

Joe De Bruin, 40 years head of the Shop Assistance Union and many years a

member of the ALP's National Executive.

is a Catholic with orthodox Catholic views that follow church teaching.

He was awarded an honorary PhD from the Australian Catholic University and

in his address recounted in modest, unemotional language his opposition to

abortion, in line with Catholic teaching, and his opposition to same sex marriage,

also in line with Catholic teaching.

Here was a distinguished, decent Catholic layman expressing

support for Catholic teaching.

As espoused by Pope Francis and Australian bishops.

At the first mention of abortion, the majority of

students and faculty walked out.

Next day, the university offered counselling to any student or staff

distressed by what it described as De Bruyn's controversial speech.

It also offered students a refund of the graduation fee.

The Vice Chancellor, Professor Slatko Skrbiz.

wrote to staff saying the university leadership had asked a Bruin to

reconsider delivering such a speech and bizarrely that it, quote, did not meet

the standards we strive for, end quote.

This may seem a trivial punctuation point in the larger grammar of madness but in

its way it's a telling sign of cultural exhaustion and institutional disarray.

An institution claiming to be a Catholic university.

Is embarrassed by Catholic doctrine, apologises for its public expression,

and offers counselling for the trauma of students having to hear it.

Has the world gone completely insane?

Tony Abbott, a Catholic former Prime Minister, told me, If a Catholic

university can't even listen respectfully to orthodox Catholic teaching, it's

completely lost its sense of purpose.

A Catholic university which seeks to censure orthodox Catholic

teaching Thank you, Wanda.

What is the point of the institution?

You have to ask what the Vice Chancellor is doing in his job.

I asked George Weagle, famed biographer of Pope John Paul II.

And perhaps today's leading Catholic intellectual for his reaction.

He said, The Catholic Church invented what we know as the university

during the high middle ages and invented it as a place of robust

debate within the bounds of civility.

If the Australian Catholic University is to be that kind of place, its leaders

will have to regain their nerve and stop treating petulant, misbehaving

students like delicate snowflakes.

And the cancer cultural faculty who walked out of Mr De Bruyn's

talk will have to grub up.

He goes on, Sheridan.

Melbourne's Catholic Archbishop, Peter Collins Sully, issued a statement

in which he said, Inter alia, which means in effect, the unborn, all

those on the margins who have no voice are owed the upholding of

their lives and dignity, end quote.

That seems to agree with de Bruin in substance.

He also called for civil engagement, which seems to agree with de

Bruin in style, for de Bruin was certainly not the uncivil party.

The stupidity of ill mannered students is not the big issue.

Rather, it's that the leadership of a Catholic university put no importance on

proclaiming or even hearing the teachings of their church, instead showing every

sign of being cowed by a run of the mill display of secular zeitgeist intolerance.

If that's the courage displayed by an organisation charged

with upholding transcendent.

transcendent values, it can be read as a shocking sign of a wider cultural malaise.

The University Administration has failed badly, but the University is in some

measure answerable to Catholic bishops.

The bishops need to address this.

If even Catholic institutions are ashamed of Catholic doctrine, that's

an appalling sign of the struts of civilisation simply falling apart.

John Anderson told me that a RC is a one minute to midnight attempt

to restore the primacy of rational and evidence-based thinking as Oz

Guinness put it, it is playing.

The west has lost faith and confidence in itself, but we've reached a

turning point, not a conclusion.

Renewal is as possible as decline.

A RC comp, comprehends the crisis, strives for renewal.

It has a lot of work ahead.

So that was Greg Sheridan.

I asked Notebook LM to critique.

I specifically asked her to criticize the article emphasizing Sheridan's

cultural bias against a relatively benign China, and I will play that in a moment.

But first I could probably speak for an hour and a half dissecting this shit from.

Greg Sheridan, if anyone wants me to do that, um, send me a message.

Trevor at ironfistvelvetglove.

com.

au or a message via the Facebook page or something, and I'll do it.

But if I don't get enough calls for it, I won't.

In any event, here is what the, uh, fake podcast has to say when asked to critique

Greg Sheridan, or asked to criticise.

That piece with, uh, the emphasis that I mentioned before.

All right, so, um, you know, this deep dive is gonna be a fun one.

You sent over Greg Sheridan's opinion piece, Axis of Ill Will Made Bold by

Our Weakness and specifically asked us for like a critical take on it.

Mm

hmm.

Especially when it comes to like his views on China.

Yeah, it's a pretty intense article, but that's kind of why we're here, right?

To like break it all down.

So like basically Sheridan's hating this picture of you know, all

these authoritarian powers like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea,

and You know, the usual suspects.

And he's saying they're all teaming up

and

that the West is, you know, like falling apart.

Yeah, you've definitely picked up on something important there.

Sheridan's tone is, I think it's safe to say, pretty alarmist.

And you're spot on about focusing on China.

It's interesting how much of his argument Like, hinges on China

being this, like, huge, looming, almost, you know, monolithic threat.

Exactly.

And he brings up stuff like North Korean troops training in Russia, China,

supplying all these military components.

Yeah.

It all sounds pretty crazy.

And he's saying it's all because the West is weak, culturally exhausted.

Like, we've totally lost our way.

I don't know about you, but it all feels a bit exaggerated to me.

Like, is he maybe Looking at China through like a specific lens that, you

know, might be distorting things a bit.

Yeah, that's the question, isn't it?

Opinion pieces, especially in geopolitics, they often say more about

the author's worldview than they do about like what's actually happening.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

We'll definitely get into the specifics of what Sheridan's

claiming, but it's super important to remember that lens he's looking through.

Okay, so like the first thing that jumps out is this whole idea of this

Powerful axis of authoritarian powers.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea.

He even throws the Taliban in there for good measure.

It's like he's saying they're all best buds working together

to, you know, destroy the West.

He brings up things like, you know, the North Korean troops

training in Russia, and there's talk of Chinese companies potentially

giving Russia military parts.

And on the surface, it does seem like there's some coordination going on, but

the truth is often a bit more complicated.

So you're saying this axis isn't as Tight knit, as Sheridan makes it sound.

Well, let's think about it for a second.

Do these countries actually have the same goals?

Like Russia's driven by, you know, that whole imperial ambition thing

they've got going on in Ukraine.

Then you've got China with their economic goals, which often

And then there's Iran.

They're all about regional power in the Middle East and North Korea.

Well, they're kind of doing their own thing.

Yeah, that's true.

It's not like they're all part of some big evil group chat planning world domination.

They've each got their own thing going on.

And sometimes those things overlap, but it's not this, you

know, grand unified conspiracy.

Exactly.

And even when their interests do line up, it's more about like

taking advantage of an opportunity.

You know, rather than some deep ideological connection.

OK, so let's talk about China specifically, because

Sheridan really goes in on this.

He keeps saying that they're like the main threat, that they're helping

Russia out in Ukraine and that they're actively trying to undermine the West.

It's pretty intense.

It's interesting how he frames everything China does

as, like, inherently hostile.

He talks about China giving military components to Russia, but

he doesn't really go into detail.

Like, what kind of components are we talking about?

Are they directly tied to what's happening in Ukraine?

Or are they things that could be used for civilian stuff, too?

And how does that even compare to all the military and financial help

that the West is giving to Ukraine?

It's a very different story.

I see what you mean.

It's like he's cherry picking certain things China does to fit

this narrative, while downplaying or straight up ignoring other stuff.

Right.

And this goes back to that cultural bias we were talking about.

Sheridan's view seems to be stuck in this Cold War mindset, you know,

that whole us versus them mentality.

But it's way more nuanced than that China has its own interests and goals.

And while some of them might clash with the West's, there's also a ton of

room for, you know, working together.

So is Sheridan's focus on China as the big bad actually distracting

us from other important stuff?

It's definitely possible.

I mean, he barely even mentions Russia's whole thing in Ukraine, which you could

argue is the most pressing threat to, you know, global stability right now.

It's like, by focusing so much on China, he's missing the bigger picture.

Alright, let's shift gears a bit and talk about this whole Western

weakness and cultural exhaustion thing.

Sheridan paints a really bleak picture of the West, like we're

divided, we've lost our purpose, and our institutions are crumbling

because of all this woke ideology.

It's pretty heavy.

And here's where his cultural bias really comes through.

He uses this story about the Australian Catholic University and how they

reacted to a speech by Joe DeBruyne.

He's a former union leader and he was expressing like traditional

Catholic views on things like abortion and same sex marriage and

Some students and faculty walked out.

Sheridan uses this as an example of the West's decline.

But is that really what it is?

Or could you see it as the university trying to be more inclusive?

Right.

And is this cultural exhaustion thing even as widespread as he says?

Or is it more about Sheridan's own worldview?

You know, like his own anxieties about how society is changing?

That's a really good question.

It's easy to look at the world and only see things that confirm

what you already believe.

But we've got to challenge those assumptions, look for different

explanations, and be careful about accepting these simple narratives.

Okay, so we've covered how Sheridan portrays this unified

authoritarian axis, his focus on China as the main threat, and his

view that the West's declining.

Let's dive into some more of his specific claims, keeping in

mind what we've talked about so far.

We'll look at his take on things like defense spending, AUCAS, and

this idea of ideological conviction versus the West's self doubt.

Looks like we've got a lot more to unpack.

This deep dive is already getting interesting.

So, let's pick up where we left off with this idea of the West's position.

And all of these people are just being weak.

Sheridan keeps coming back to this, you know?

And it seems like he's saying democracies are just inherently weaker than

authoritarian regimes because of all the debates and different viewpoints.

Like, it's holding us back.

Yeah.

He contrasts that with what he calls the, you know, passionate self

belief of authoritarian leaders.

Like, they're all united and driven.

He even quotes Kevin Rudd's book on Xi Jinping.

And he points to how Xi's focus on Marxist Leninist ideology

is what makes him so strong.

It's a compelling story, right?

The idea that these strongman leaders don't have to deal with all the messy

democratic processes, so they can just act decisively and get things done.

But is it really that straightforward?

History's full of examples of authoritarian regimes making terrible

decisions because of, you know, ideology.

Just because the leader felt like it.

Yeah, I mean, look at what happened with Putin

deciding to invade Ukraine.

That didn't exactly work out how he planned right.

And even if we look at China, Their economic success

hasn't come without a cost.

Like, human rights and political freedom aren't exactly high

on their list of priorities.

Is that really something we should be aspiring to?

That's my point.

Sheridan seems to be forgetting about how resilient democratic

societies actually are.

Sure, they can be a bit chaotic and messy, but that's also what makes them strong.

All the debate and negotiation means they can change course when they

need to adapt to new situations and include different perspectives.

So you're saying that while Sheridan sees these internal

debates as a weakness, they could actually be a strength.

Absolutely.

Democracies are constantly evolving, challenging themselves and trying

to live up to their ideals.

It's a messy process for sure, but it's also essential.

Okay, let's move on to another one of Sheridan's

critiques, defense spending.

He really goes after Australia's recent investment in air defense missiles.

They spent seven billion dollars and he calls it a drop in the

bucket compared to the threat.

Like it's nothing.

He's definitely not holding back, but again, context is key.

Australia is not a global superpower like the U.

S.

or China.

Their goals are different and they have a different role to play in their region.

So is it unfair to compare Australia's spending

to these bigger countries?

It's misleading for sure.

Australia's a middle power.

They don't have a huge population or economy.

So their defense spending needs to be looked at in terms of what they're

trying to achieve and who the potential threats are in their part of the world.

It's not just about how much money they're throwing around.

And it's not just about spending alone, right?

Australia's part of alliances like Amelius and Academy to Gracie,

which Sheridan isn't a fan of.

But those alliances must provide some security benefits, right?

Oh, absolutely.

Alliances mean countries can work together, pool resources, share intel,

and coordinate their strategies.

It's way more effective than going it alone.

But Sheridan seems to think AUKUS isn't doing enough to deter this

axis of ill will he keeps talking about.

His criticism of Iokia's comes down to his belief that the West needs

to be way more aggressive towards China.

He thinks Aukus is too focused on diplomacy and talking things out,

like they're afraid to take a stand.

But isn't that a good thing?

Shouldn't we always try to solve things peacefully if we can?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

But Sheridan thinks China only responds to shows of force.

And that trying to talk to them just makes us look weak.

Again, it all goes back to his cultural bias.

He's basically saying China thinks the same way he does.

You know, like it's all about power and winning.

It's like he's trapped in this Cold War time warp.

He just doesn't get how complex the world is now.

Exactly.

China's not some cartoon villain who wants to take over the world.

They're a complex player with all sorts of different interests and motivations.

And engaging with them diplomatically while also having a strong defense?

Okay,

so we've talked about Sheridan's view on the West's weakness,

his criticism of defense spending, and his dislike of Ayatollahs.

Anything else we need to cover?

Let's go back to China for a minute.

Sheridan spends a lot of time making them out to be this aggressive power.

Like, they're set on changing the world order and they don't

care who they step on to do it.

Yeah, he mentions things like, They're military getting bigger,

their economic power, and how assertive they're being in the South China Sea.

Right, and those are things we need to pay attention to for sure.

But we have to be careful not to fall into this trap of seeing China

as some kind of existential threat.

Just because they're becoming more powerful doesn't

automatically make them the enemy.

So are you saying Sheridan's overblowing the China threat?

It's possible.

His analysis seems to be coming from a place of fear.

Like, he's scared of China's rise and that fear is clouding his judgment.

It all goes back to his cultural biases and that Cold War mentality.

He sees everything as a competition.

But what about all the evidence he talks about?

The military buildup, their economy growing, their foreign

policy getting more assertive?

Those are real things happening, but we need to understand

why China's military is getting bigger, partly because they want

to protect their own interests, especially in the South China Sea.

Their economy is growing because they're developing rapidly.

And yeah, their foreign policy is getting more assertive, but it's

also getting more aggressive.

More sophisticated and nuanced.

They're playing the long game.

So it's not as black and white as Sheridan makes it seem.

Not at all.

China's not some villain in a comic book.

They're a complicated player with a lot of different things driving them.

And if we want to navigate the challenges of this century,

we have to understand that.

This is really interesting.

It's like Sheridan's argument.

Peace by peace and seeing how his biases shape his whole analysis.

That's what deep dives are all about.

It's about looking past the headlines, questioning assumptions,

and really understanding the complex world we live in.

Okay, so we've unpacked Sheridan's arguments about China,

Western weakness, and this idea that we need to be tougher.

Mm

hmm.

What's the main takeaway?

The biggest lesson here is don't believe everything you read,

especially when it comes to geopolitics.

We need to be critical thinkers and look at things from different angles.

Don't just accept one person's narrative.

So it's not just about what's being said, but who's saying

it and what their agenda might be.

Exactly.

We need to be asking ourselves, What's motivating the author?

What are they assuming?

What's their worldview?

Like we need our own built in BS detector to filter out all the spin.

That's a great way to put it.

And that's what we've been doing with this deep dive.

We've examined Sheridan's argument, looked at the evidence, and

explored his potential biases.

And I think we've done a good job.

We've challenged his ideas, offered different perspectives, and

hopefully encouraged our listeners.

That's the goal.

We want our listeners to be informed and engaged and able to deal with

all the complexity in the world.

So what's your final thought for our listeners as they

keep learning about these topics?

Don't be afraid to question, challenge, and dig deeper.

There are all sorts of viewpoints out there.

It's up to each of us to figure out what we believe.

Great advice.

This has been a really thought provoking deep dive and I hope

our listeners have enjoyed it.

Okay, so we've spent a good chunk of time unpacking Sheridan's arguments

and how like his worldview kind of shapes his whole analysis.

But before we wrap things up, I want to go back to one last point he makes.

This idea of Like Cultural Exhaustion in the West.

He uses this story about the Australian Catholic University and what happened

when Joe DeBruyne gave a speech there.

He's a former union leader and he was talking about traditional

Catholic views on stuff like abortion and same sex marriage.

And some of the students and faculty walked out.

Yeah, it's interesting how Sheridan uses that as proof that

the West is, like, going downhill.

He's basically saying that any pushback against traditional values or any kind

of disagreement is a sign of weakness.

But maybe there's another way to look at it.

I'm listening.

How else could we interpret that?

Well, instead of seeing it as cultural exhaustion, what if it's

actually about social norms changing?

Maybe it shows that people are more aware of diversity and inclusion now

and they want to create environments where everyone feels safe and respected.

That's a good point.

It's like Sheridan seeing this through a very specific lens.

One that says traditional values equal strength and anything

different is a sign of decline, but cultures change all the time, right?

What looks like exhaustion to one person might be progress

or adaptation to someone else.

Exactly.

And we got to remember that the West isn't one big homogenous blob.

There are tons of different perspectives and values within Western societies

and those are constantly shifting.

What Sheridan calls Cultural exhaustion might just be part

of that natural evolution.

Okay, so we've done a deep dive into Sheridan's arguments.

We looked at his claims about the authoritarian axis, the threat from

China, the West being weak, and this whole cultural exhaustion thing.

What's the big takeaway here?

I think the most important thing is to be careful about what we

read and hear, especially with these complicated geopolitical issues.

We can't just accept one person's story as the whole truth.

We have to think critically and consider the source, the evidence,

and any biases that might be at play.

So it's not just about what's being said, but also who's saying

it and why they might be saying it.

Exactly.

We should always ask ourselves, what's the author's motivation?

What are they assuming?

What's their worldview?

Like, we need to have our own internal BS detector

going off all the time.

Exactly.

And that's what we've tried to do today.

We've peeled back the layers of Sheridan's argument, looked at the evidence,

and explored his potential biases.

And I think we've done a pretty good job.

We challenged some of his assumptions, offered alternative viewpoints,

and hopefully encouraged our listeners to think for themselves.

That's what we're here for.

We want our listeners to be informed, engaged, and able to handle all

the complexities of the world.

So any final thoughts for our listeners as they

continue to explore these topics?

Don't be afraid to ask questions, to challenge

things, and to really dig deeper.

There are so many different perspectives out there.

It's up to each of us to figure out what we believe.

Well said.

This has been a really interesting deep dive, and I hope our

listeners have enjoyed it.

Thanks for joining us.

So there you go.

That's the end of the podcast.

If you want me to give my own criticism of Greg Sheridan's piece in detail,

then let me know and I'll, I'll do it.

But if I don't hear enough, I won't bother.

So, we'll be back next week with the usual panel.

Bye for now.

Marty quit drinking.

Found religion for a while.

I didn't love that.

To be honest, I preferred him before.

He had a sense of humor then.