full

Episode 330 - International Women's Day and Ukraine Bonus

The topics include:

  • International Women’s Day
  • History
  • Is It Still Relevant?
  • Shae Volunteers
  • Essential Poll
  • Yikes
  • Dutton and Friendly Jordies
  • Clive Palmer
  • Scott Morrison
  • Robert Reich: Only the right has become more extreme over the last 50 years
  • Twitter feedback
  • My response
  • Gillard
  • Chinese Influence in Australian Politics
  • Chinese Influence in Australian Universities
  • Re Huawei
  • Email Feedback from Paul
  • Ukraine ep 330
  • What is Russia Demanding?
  • Kennedy Compromised
  • Trump
  • History and Context
  • Whataboutism
  • John Pilger
  • Vladimir Pozner – How the United States Created Vladimir Putin
  • The Treatment of Russia is being repeated with China
  • Experts Warned For Years That NATO Expansion Would Lead To This
  • John Mearsheimer
  • Stephen F Cohen
  • Stephen M Walt
  • George Kennan
  • William Burns
  • Jack Matlock
  • Joe Biden in 1997
  • Nelson Mandela on Atom Bomb
  • Unelected Tech and Ukraine
  • AUS Sanctions and Malcolm Fraser
  • More on Sanctions - Calwell and China
  • America Defeats Germany for the Third Time in a Century
  • Buy Gold?
  • Biden on Russia getting help from China
  • No Fly Zone – Is that a good idea?

Mentioned in this episode:

Website

Transcript
Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over time,

Speaker:

evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

Speaker:

Despite the reputation of their homeland, some are remarkably thin skinned.

Speaker:

Some seem to have multiple lifespans, a few were once thought

Speaker:

to be extinct in the region.

Speaker:

Others have been observed being sacrificed by their own.

Speaker:

But today We observe a small tribe akin to a group of meerkats that gather together

Speaker:

atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the current events of their city,

Speaker:

their country, and their world at large.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

Happy International Women's Day, everybody.

Speaker:

My name is Shea, and if this is your first time joining us, this is

Speaker:

a podcast called the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove, where we discuss

Speaker:

news, politics, sex, and religion.

Speaker:

Joining me tonight, as always, is the Iron Fist, aka Trevor, and Joe, the tech guy.

Speaker:

It's a pleasure to be on.

Speaker:

Thank you, Shea.

Speaker:

Evening all.

Speaker:

Um, thanks Shea for that introduction.

Speaker:

Do you want me to keep going or do you want to keep going?

Speaker:

I think, I think I'll handball it to you.

Speaker:

Okay, yep.

Speaker:

So in honour of International Women's Day, Shea kicked us off.

Speaker:

Uh, welcome dear listener.

Speaker:

Yes, the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast, news and

Speaker:

politics, sex and religion.

Speaker:

So, it's, uh, International Women's Day, um, shaded some volunteering with the

Speaker:

floods, we'll hear about that, we've got, um, oh, Peter Dutton, Clive Palmer, Scott

Speaker:

Morrison, up to their usual mischief.

Speaker:

God, I'll be glad to see the back of all of them.

Speaker:

And, um, we've got some feedback that I got from Twitter, and depending on how

Speaker:

much time we've got left How much we delve into more Ukraine stuff, and whatever else

Speaker:

Joe and Shea come up with in the meantime.

Speaker:

So, Shea, International Women's Day, did you do anything to celebrate?

Speaker:

Anything special?

Speaker:

Uh, I worked.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Uh, so I didn't do anything special.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

I haven't really worked out how to commemorate it yet.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Whether it should be a cupcake or a bra burning.

Speaker:

Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker:

I don't think there was any Well, I don't know, there might have been some

Speaker:

functions around town where businesswomen gathered together or ladies, I don't

Speaker:

know, but I don't know what was on, but um, you've been doing some volunteering

Speaker:

with the floods, is that right?

Speaker:

I have, yeah.

Speaker:

Like you took a week of holiday and you went and mucked out mud somewhere?

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

So, um, I took a week of holiday and I spent a little bit of time at the

Speaker:

Gold Coast and then I was supposed to go, um, to Sydney for the Mardi Gras,

Speaker:

uh, which was something that was, had been on the bucket list for a while.

Speaker:

But, uh, when I got back to my apartment, which is in Ashgrove,

Speaker:

which you may have seen on the news.

Speaker:

The devastation was pretty bad, so I decided I was needed here and that

Speaker:

the Mardi Gras could wait and that I'm sure they could celebrate without me

Speaker:

and I could come maybe next year and I signed up to do some volunteering.

Speaker:

So this is like the Mudd Army, just go online?

Speaker:

Yeah, the Mudd Army.

Speaker:

So first, um, it seemed like Um, it'd be on on Thursday, but then there was

Speaker:

this forecast of this dangerous storm, so it all got cancelled until Saturday.

Speaker:

So by Saturday, um, most of the volunteering was around community

Speaker:

places, so I went to a softball court and helped them move things, shift

Speaker:

things, find things, and then went on to the Strikers Soccer Club to help

Speaker:

them sort of gurney and scrub there.

Speaker:

Their walls.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So pretty muddy at the end.

Speaker:

Pretty muddy.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It was absolutely covered in shit at the end.

Speaker:

Not actual sewage, but yeah.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

It, it, I kept saying like, it smells like island.

Speaker:

'cause my grandparents own a farm in Ireland and Right.

Speaker:

That's what you could smell.

Speaker:

You could smell the mud and the Yeah.

Speaker:

The wetness and the dampness.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

And I was really, really impressed by, um, the spirit of the volunteers.

Speaker:

I think, um, even though we didn't have clear structures, it was really well

Speaker:

coordinated, um, and the people who were just like obvious leaders just showed

Speaker:

up and just started directing people.

Speaker:

Um, but yeah, I just did also observe that I think the goodwill of

Speaker:

Australians is starting to run out.

Speaker:

The frustration of not having appropriate planning, much consideration

Speaker:

around resilience, obviously.

Speaker:

No one's talking about climate change.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So people were mumbling these sorts of things as they're mucking away.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Did she say climate change?

Speaker:

Oh, yeah.

Speaker:

Did she drop the seam on?

Speaker:

Oh, she did.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Well, I'm glad.

Speaker:

She's still approving coal mines, but she at least knew about climate change.

Speaker:

This is, yeah, hypocrisy yet again.

Speaker:

If I rename this podcast, it'll be the Exposing Hypocrisy Podcast, because,

Speaker:

yeah, I mean you can have a position on something which sometimes might be right

Speaker:

or wrong, not that there is with climate change, but when you do one thing and

Speaker:

say another, it's um, it's often what is happening in our political system, yeah,

Speaker:

yeah, so, I saw her on the news tonight because In Brisbane, we've had this

Speaker:

restaurant that basically got unmoored.

Speaker:

It was like a floating restaurant, and it ended up washed on the side

Speaker:

of the Brisbane River after the last flood, and this time it got picked up

Speaker:

again and I thought that had happened.

Speaker:

and got washed again to the other side of the river.

Speaker:

And Anastasia Palaszczuk was on the news going You know, somebody

Speaker:

needs to do something about this.

Speaker:

We really need to start making some decisions about this place.

Speaker:

It was like, Anastasia, you are the Premier, isn't that your job?

Speaker:

Why do we have to keep reminding them?

Speaker:

Fuck, it's frustrating.

Speaker:

Excuse my French.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The people who are in government, Peter Dutton wants to start a

Speaker:

GoFundMe and it's like, I know.

Speaker:

You are the government.

Speaker:

That's for other people to do.

Speaker:

You should be rustling up government money from whatever funds are

Speaker:

available that are seemingly untouched.

Speaker:

There are four billion dollars sitting in the Future Emergencies

Speaker:

Fund, or whatever it is.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But, you know, that's what you do.

Speaker:

You lean into that, pull some money out, and splash it around.

Speaker:

Like, it's so easy.

Speaker:

You can just say, here, I've reached into the fund, I've provided this

Speaker:

money, and we're going to do all this.

Speaker:

Why wouldn't she?

Speaker:

Why wouldn't she?

Speaker:

Just, they're such hopeless organisers.

Speaker:

Liz Moore was saying that they'd been applying for emergency flood relief

Speaker:

funding to build infrastructure, you know, build a levee or whatever.

Speaker:

Um, and they got taken off the list because they weren't a marginal seed.

Speaker:

Yes, yeah, so Sorry, sorry, the second part was an assumption.

Speaker:

But the first part is true.

Speaker:

They were taken off the list.

Speaker:

Yeah, I've got two customers in, Liz Moore.

Speaker:

I managed to speak to one of them and yeah, they've been through so many

Speaker:

floods, they're completely crushed.

Speaker:

And they, you know, it's like three and four metres deep in the centre of town.

Speaker:

Even if you had a higher mezzanine level to put things on, it still got flooded.

Speaker:

And you know it's going to happen again.

Speaker:

And it's, you know, it's more of a sizeable country town, and that whole

Speaker:

CBD is just flat and subject to flooding.

Speaker:

And, and Oh, I just feel so sorry for people.

Speaker:

I couldn't do it.

Speaker:

I'd have to just cut my losses.

Speaker:

What's that?

Speaker:

Gimpy and Marabar too.

Speaker:

Yes, Marabar though!

Speaker:

I've got another customer in Meriburra, and they're in the CBD,

Speaker:

but Meriburra had the temporary levee.

Speaker:

Did you see that?

Speaker:

Uh, I saw it last time round when the water came up the storm drains

Speaker:

and got up behind the levee.

Speaker:

Yeah, they fixed that, and this time it worked quite effectively.

Speaker:

And so, um, if you're able to find a picture of it, throw it

Speaker:

up later, Joe, um, from Google.

Speaker:

It's a metal structure and plastic, and they put it up in the street

Speaker:

and protect most of the CBD.

Speaker:

So My customer in Maryborough, Main Street, would have been

Speaker:

flooded, but, um, rescued.

Speaker:

But, Lisbon was a different matter, you know, it's so big, and, um, and, uh, one

Speaker:

of my other friends was saying, you know in Christchurch, Shai, like how they have

Speaker:

regular earthquakes, and things like that.

Speaker:

In New Zealand, The government does the insurance because no insurer

Speaker:

would insure earthquake in, say, Christchurch, so the government doesn't.

Speaker:

And I think that's the case in some areas in America where it's flood

Speaker:

prone, where the government steps in and provides some sort of insurance.

Speaker:

at a reasonable rate and just wears the loss because you just have to.

Speaker:

Um, either that or just help an entire town relocate.

Speaker:

I don't know how you would do it.

Speaker:

So yeah, there's a picture, um, of that structure, which they whacked up.

Speaker:

The first time they did it in the floods a few months ago, it failed

Speaker:

because water sort of came up through the stormwater or something, but

Speaker:

this time it worked quite well.

Speaker:

And, um, that couldn't be done in, um, Lismore because

Speaker:

it's just too high in Lismore.

Speaker:

It's like three meters.

Speaker:

So, um, yeah, very interesting, that sort of thing.

Speaker:

So And of course tonight, if you're in Sydney, you're being,

Speaker:

um, you're very wet as well.

Speaker:

I'm so glad I didn't make that trip to Sydney.

Speaker:

I would have been stuck somewhere watching it.

Speaker:

So they've, um, so yeah, they're in trouble down there.

Speaker:

So at least, you know, the silver lining to all of this natural disaster is

Speaker:

people are thinking this isn't normal and Clearly, climate is acting in a peculiar

Speaker:

way that it hasn't acted before, and maybe something really is going on, so

Speaker:

it is getting people to, um, come across.

Speaker:

Yeah, I mean, the fact that we got almost a metre of rain in

Speaker:

three days, um, my local rain gauge, uh, Mount Glorious had 1.

Speaker:

8 metres.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Incredible amount, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, uh, Bromman says, New Zealand has earthquake commission, it can only

Speaker:

provide fairly basic assistance in the event of natural disasters, so, hmm,

Speaker:

okay, yeah, I just, yeah, I just feel sorry for these people in Lismore,

Speaker:

it's tough, so, yeah, and smelly, and And their stories, oh my god.

Speaker:

Another customer in Woolloomba.

Speaker:

And just the stench, and ugh, and not being able to redo your business, so.

Speaker:

Anyway, I cut my finger two weeks ago carving, um, uh, a zucchini, and five

Speaker:

stitches later it's still healing.

Speaker:

So I'm going nowhere near mud, particularly laced with sewerage, so.

Speaker:

Not that I would have anyway, so I applaud you, Shane, for your, um, good work.

Speaker:

I did the Mud Army in 2011, but by the time, like, the Council put us on

Speaker:

buses and sent us out to this suburb I'd never been to before, but kind

Speaker:

of the area they sent us to really pretty much had done everything they

Speaker:

needed to do, so there really wasn't anything for us to do at that point, so.

Speaker:

I kind of wasn't with the Mun Army.

Speaker:

I technically was part of the Labour Party's community sort of action thing.

Speaker:

Yeah, because I signed up for the Mun Army, but it all got too Hard.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yeah, I heard they were oversubscribed.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Meanwhile, Tom the Warehouse Guy says the Accident Compensation Corporation regime

Speaker:

in New Zealand is quite revolutionary.

Speaker:

It is a system that works very well in New Zealand.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So, Accident Compensation Corporation working well.

Speaker:

New Zealand Earthquake Commission maybe not so well.

Speaker:

Anyway, I know they have resorted to government insurance in New Zealand.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You'd have to be careful because otherwise insurers will just

Speaker:

be taking the easy way out.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So, you'd have to make sure that it wasn't gamed.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, I think Well, the CEO of Suncorp came out and actually really said some

Speaker:

things that I wish some of our government leaders had said, which is, we spend 97

Speaker:

percent or something on, um, cleanup.

Speaker:

And we spend like 3 percent on mitigation and prevention.

Speaker:

And it was just like so straight up.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

That, you know, the consumer's going to wear this, premiums are

Speaker:

going to go up, like, do something.

Speaker:

Yes, and people were complaining, we've got this money in these funds

Speaker:

and it just doesn't get spent.

Speaker:

Even though Liz Moore asked for it and they get knocked back, yeah.

Speaker:

So, plenty of ammunition for Labor to work with.

Speaker:

In the upcoming election, whenever that is.

Speaker:

You know, I'm getting quite philosophical about this election.

Speaker:

I'm Are you?

Speaker:

Yeah, in the sense, I'm actually quite cool with the Morrison victory now.

Speaker:

Because I really think if he wins, despite all of this, then you just

Speaker:

know that it's the end of the world.

Speaker:

The situation is truly hopeless.

Speaker:

If he can pull this off, then everybody has to understand there's a major problem.

Speaker:

I could have been rolled either way.

Speaker:

So, I'm quite philosophical about him actually.

Speaker:

Part of me wants him to win now, just so that there'll be a revolution

Speaker:

if he actually wins, I would think.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, anyway, either way, I'm okay now.

Speaker:

That's my philosophy on it.

Speaker:

International Women's Day, um, had its roots sort of in socialist,

Speaker:

leftist sort of movements, and um And a little bit to do with Soviet

Speaker:

Russia as well, anyway, as how they settled on the date, 8th of March.

Speaker:

So, definitely a left wing sort of origin to International Women's Day.

Speaker:

And, you know, do we still need it?

Speaker:

Um, I saw this tweet where this guy, Darren Gilmore, tweeted, um, So, New

Speaker:

South Wales girls in public schools get free tampons and sanitary products.

Speaker:

32 million dollars from the first year.

Speaker:

And wait for it, 28 million per year after that.

Speaker:

WTF?

Speaker:

What do the boys get?

Speaker:

This person responded, they get to never have to bleed out of their penis

Speaker:

every month or push a baby out of it.

Speaker:

I think there's still a place for International Women's Day based on that.

Speaker:

Yes, I think there is.

Speaker:

Um, let's go to, I've got this, Essential came out with some stuff.

Speaker:

Let me just, uh, find, no, not that, share, anyway, share

Speaker:

this screen, uh, share screen, hang on, uh, that one, share.

Speaker:

So, essential poll, to what extent do you agree or disagree with

Speaker:

the following statements about gender equality in Australia?

Speaker:

And the dark blue is strongly agree, the light blue somewhat agree,

Speaker:

orange somewhat disagree, and red strongly disagree, and grey is unsure.

Speaker:

So blue agree, red and orange disagree.

Speaker:

And first one is, gender equality, meaning that men and women are

Speaker:

equal, has come far enough already.

Speaker:

And you've got about 50 percent roughly, what's that, um, 48 percent

Speaker:

of people think that, um, gender equality, meaning that men and women

Speaker:

are equal, has come far enough already.

Speaker:

Next one, gender equality has already been mostly achieved,

Speaker:

and again, that's about 49%.

Speaker:

And work to achieve gender equality today benefits mostly well to do people.

Speaker:

That was 59%.

Speaker:

Um, there should be laws that require equal salaries for men

Speaker:

and women in the same position.

Speaker:

That's big.

Speaker:

That's 80%.

Speaker:

And, um, although there's been significant progress on gender equality,

Speaker:

there's still a long way to go.

Speaker:

And that's 70 odd percent.

Speaker:

Okay, let's deal with, there should be laws that require equal salaries for

Speaker:

men and women in the same position.

Speaker:

Well, it would be for jobs where there's a minimum wage.

Speaker:

But there's a lot of jobs that aren't, hey?

Speaker:

Like Hmm.

Speaker:

Um, but if you can prove that So it's very difficult where, uh,

Speaker:

you negotiate your own salary.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

But certainly if you are on a You could make the case that if you were getting

Speaker:

paid less than a male counterpart, that it was due to, uh, discrimination.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

And I'm fairly sure that a employment tribunal would find that persuasive.

Speaker:

Unless there was a good argument in terms of, you know, um,

Speaker:

experience or something like that.

Speaker:

But the problem with any of these where you negotiate your salary is, you

Speaker:

know, you could be getting paid 10%, 20 percent less than any of your colleagues,

Speaker:

whether they're male or female.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So I've never been in a large organisation, um, except when

Speaker:

I read my articles, really.

Speaker:

But people don't tend to share their salary with each other, their knowledge.

Speaker:

Is that right?

Speaker:

It seems to be not the done thing, but probably people should.

Speaker:

Yeah, I mean, uh, I was reading legally in the States, you're not

Speaker:

allowed to ban your employees from talking about how much they earn.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

However, most states are at will states, so they can fire

Speaker:

you and just make up an excuse.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

That's anything other than you were discussing your salary.

Speaker:

That's in the US.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Over here I've not seen anything and I'm, I've not read anything in my

Speaker:

contract that says I'm not allowed to.

Speaker:

But it's certainly not done.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I've, I've had conversations mostly with people who've left.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

As to how much they were earning.

Speaker:

Yes, that seems to be the way, when people are leaving, they tend to reveal.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

Particularly if they feel that maybe a colleague was, who

Speaker:

they like was being underpaid.

Speaker:

And they might say, hey, by the way, I was getting X amount,

Speaker:

you might want to ask for more.

Speaker:

Ask for that.

Speaker:

But it's probably something where people should seriously think about, talking to

Speaker:

their colleagues and swapping information.

Speaker:

What have you got to lose, other than the embarrassment that maybe you

Speaker:

are paid less and you'll soon know and you can do something about it.

Speaker:

Like, I would have thought it makes sense that people should proactively

Speaker:

in a workplace, um, interrogate their colleagues and say, look, I'll show you

Speaker:

mine if you show me yours, type of thing.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Have you ever done it?

Speaker:

Me?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Negotiated my pay.

Speaker:

Well, have you, have you been?

Speaker:

No, only as a collective.

Speaker:

I've been as part of enterprise bargaining agreements.

Speaker:

So I already know who's getting what and we're all getting the same.

Speaker:

In the chat room, have you ever?

Speaker:

You know, proactively talk to colleagues to check what everyone's getting paid

Speaker:

and swapped information so that you make sure you're getting what you deserve.

Speaker:

So, I think it'd be a good, I think it's something people

Speaker:

should be encouraged to do.

Speaker:

Yeah, so.

Speaker:

Um, Bronwyn put up a st uh, let me just show you that one.

Speaker:

I'll get rid of that screen, put that back up.

Speaker:

Um, another depressing statistic for you, which was released today.

Speaker:

Apparently one in five Australians believe that women who accuse men of

Speaker:

sexual and physical abuse are lying.

Speaker:

Hmm, one in five who accuse men of sexual physi Yeah, do you know what?

Speaker:

My problem is, Bronwyn, I worked a little bit in family law and I saw

Speaker:

abuse allegations used as a weapon in family law I was really suspicious

Speaker:

that that was just being put on.

Speaker:

I've heard of that just amongst friends as well.

Speaker:

Yeah, I mean, if it was, um, outside of a divorce proceeding.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

I wouldn't be suspicious.

Speaker:

But certainly in a family court proceeding, yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, I, I have heard that some lawyers are saying, oh yeah, make an allegation,

Speaker:

it makes it easier, um, just to push harder around access for the kids.

Speaker:

Yeah, and just And, and I can believe that there are unscrupulous, unscrupulous

Speaker:

lawyers who would advise their clients.

Speaker:

Mm, yep, or hint at it, but I think they're So why do you

Speaker:

think they're making them up?

Speaker:

What's the basis of that?

Speaker:

Oh, in the family court system is as a leverage to say, well, you shouldn't get

Speaker:

custody because you're a Uh, oh, I, well, um, that's more sort of, um, you're an

Speaker:

improper person to be a, um, a custody of the child, so, and, and the mother can't.

Speaker:

Yeah, I see.

Speaker:

The, and the mother can't.

Speaker:

I see, I see why someone might make an allegation, but I just don't

Speaker:

understand how we can presume or like what did you see that made you

Speaker:

think this person was making it up?

Speaker:

This would be in cases where, where they're family friends,

Speaker:

and so we know the guy in the.

Speaker:

Uh, Trevor, and uh, Landon Hardbottom.

Speaker:

That's all.

Speaker:

See you next time.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Husband who was supposed to be a really good bloke and then set them all on fire.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, like we've seen this repetitive story of like, bloke wouldn't do that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Actually did.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But then, you know, like in one case, for example, the female was a drug

Speaker:

addict who had gone out, who was, had moved out and was living with a bikey.

Speaker:

And the bikey was Throwing the stepkids into the swimming pool who couldn't

Speaker:

swim, like crazy stuff, like it was a really, truly dysfunctional stuff,

Speaker:

and she was making these allegations.

Speaker:

There was, there was one where we'd known the guy a long time.

Speaker:

You know, you're right, it might not, it could have been true, but it's certainly

Speaker:

the case where you've got vicious people who are seeking any leverage.

Speaker:

It's an opportunity.

Speaker:

So, and when you balance that like on sort of probability, so you have one, one

Speaker:

anecdote there, did you see that a lot?

Speaker:

That type of thing a lot?

Speaker:

Would you say?

Speaker:

Look, I wasn't one case enough to support that.

Speaker:

Off the top of my head, I couldn't say whether it's two or three personal cases

Speaker:

and maybe two or three professional cases.

Speaker:

Certainly the professional ones, who's to know?

Speaker:

Because I don't know the guy, it's just a client who's come in

Speaker:

and I haven't really known him.

Speaker:

But, um, it's an easy allegation to make, yeah.

Speaker:

Um, uh.

Speaker:

Is it?

Speaker:

Yeah, and, and Brodman says, Trevor, I've also heard stories of women who

Speaker:

are trying to protect their kids from abusive exes and the family court still

Speaker:

forces their kids to see their fathers.

Speaker:

Um, and that's true too, Brodman.

Speaker:

That is true.

Speaker:

Uh, and I've heard of cases where the fathers, for example, are abusive and

Speaker:

the women have to still give the father access and hand their kid over because

Speaker:

if they don't, they might end up losing custody and the father will get custody.

Speaker:

So they have to comply with the access orders, even though they're

Speaker:

deeply suspicious, oh wait, not more than suspicious, they know

Speaker:

that the father is a bad egg, so it does happen the other way as well.

Speaker:

That's true.

Speaker:

Um, so anyway, the original statistic was, um, was Brodmann's about a

Speaker:

fifth don't believe it, and in an ordinary case that seems high.

Speaker:

Just if they're a family court matter, I tend to just, just know

Speaker:

that they get bitter, these things.

Speaker:

Like, I'll tell you one story about how bitter these things are.

Speaker:

And if they aren't?

Speaker:

And then if they aren't?

Speaker:

If they aren't what?

Speaker:

Are you, um, likely to believe them?

Speaker:

If they're, I wouldn't even know.

Speaker:

Family court law matter and she's raising the allegation say, like, let's take the

Speaker:

example of we've had three Uh, sexual assault cases against footballers in a

Speaker:

matter of years, like, they're, certainly the media retellings of them is they're

Speaker:

particularly bad, they sound really, really awful, and um, We have these,

Speaker:

like, all these Facebook comments saying this girl's just looking for some money.

Speaker:

You don't get money from footballers by making rape allegations.

Speaker:

It seems really obvious to me from where I'm standing is that certainly

Speaker:

the NRL has a big culture problem that they are not dealing with

Speaker:

and actually shielding men from.

Speaker:

And yet, when these women raise their concerns, even though it seems like

Speaker:

They're not gonna get any justice.

Speaker:

They still do.

Speaker:

It doesn't seem to be anything to be gained.

Speaker:

And yet people still say, I don't believe it.

Speaker:

So there is an implicit bias, there is a cultural problem in Australia.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There would be.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Mm, yep.

Speaker:

Um, and so, yeah, I guess it definitely, it definitely happens.

Speaker:

Hear, hear an allegation.

Speaker:

It, it definitely happens.

Speaker:

The question is how much, like, is it say minuscule or is it not?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

The false allegations are supposed to be about 5 percent

Speaker:

depending on who you're asking.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

I think more worrying is the, uh, I was reading an article today, I

Speaker:

think in Independent Australia, uh, talking about the presumption of

Speaker:

innocence being, uh, argued against.

Speaker:

Um, and saying that, no, that isn't right.

Speaker:

We need to have a presumption of innocence.

Speaker:

Um, certainly the Title IX cases in America, where merely the allegation

Speaker:

will get you thrown off campus.

Speaker:

And there is no presumption of innocence, there is no, uh, beyond reasonable doubt.

Speaker:

And, yeah, there was, there was a horrible story of, um, the guy who woke up, In

Speaker:

bed with a young woman and realised that she had made claims against a

Speaker:

number of his, um, former classmates.

Speaker:

And he rushed down to make the allegation on her before she

Speaker:

made the allegation on him.

Speaker:

Mm, yeah.

Speaker:

Because, because they both fell into bed drunk.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And he said, you know, it was pre emptive.

Speaker:

If I hadn't done it to her, she'd have done it to me.

Speaker:

We were both unable to consent.

Speaker:

We were both that drunk.

Speaker:

Yeah, and, yeah, that would happen in family court stuff as well, where

Speaker:

there'd be a, you accuse me of this, well, I'll accuse you of the same thing

Speaker:

as well, you know, and, um, in order to get domestic violence orders and things,

Speaker:

so, um, I mean, things get bitter.

Speaker:

I'll tell you this story where this, uh, friend of mine was doing family

Speaker:

law, and he, was negotiating on behalf of the husband and he said to the

Speaker:

husband, look, we're really close here.

Speaker:

You could have just agreed to, um, what they've offered here, or, you know, you

Speaker:

can spend 5, 000 with me arguing about it, you know, over essentially 5, 000.

Speaker:

I mean, do you want to give me the 5, 000 or do you want to

Speaker:

give your, your ex the 5, 000?

Speaker:

You know, do you want to pay 5, 000 in legal fees or just Give

Speaker:

up and give her the 5, 000.

Speaker:

And the guy pulled out his checkbook and wrote a check for 5, 000 for the

Speaker:

lawyer and handed it over to him.

Speaker:

Without any further word.

Speaker:

It's pretty nasty out there.

Speaker:

So, um, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, well I've been puzzling about this Believe thing because, um, around

Speaker:

the time of our Um, last podcast together, I'd been suffering from

Speaker:

abdominal pain for about 24 hours.

Speaker:

And I'd been to the doctor the day before, or the day of the podcast.

Speaker:

And the doctor said to me, she asked me about the level of pain.

Speaker:

And I said, six out of 10.

Speaker:

Um, she was like, ah, stop eating airplane food.

Speaker:

It could be a bowels, could be your ovaries.

Speaker:

Go home, put a heat pack on it.

Speaker:

See ya.

Speaker:

Didn't examine me.

Speaker:

Didn't, didn't do a urine test, basically just asked me if I was, if

Speaker:

I was pregnant and that was it, right?

Speaker:

So Wednesday, I'm basically, unless I'm in the fetal position, I'm in pain.

Speaker:

So I present to emergency.

Speaker:

And I appreciate the context of if a woman presents to emergency

Speaker:

and abdominal pain, maybe, maybe people will take it more seriously.

Speaker:

But I had the real experience of being believed by the second doctor.

Speaker:

It was totally different, the way she responded, and it just got me thinking

Speaker:

about when we say being believed, we don't actually want men hung up by their ankles.

Speaker:

We're saying, when you take us at our word, you respond accordingly.

Speaker:

You examine me, you find out where the pain is, you investigate it.

Speaker:

Could it be this?

Speaker:

Let's do an ultrasound, that type of thing.

Speaker:

Let's get to the bottom of it, not just You've been eating too much plain food.

Speaker:

Go home.

Speaker:

Was the first doctor a male or a female?

Speaker:

The first doctor was a female.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

The second doctor was a female.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So there was an agenda bias.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

But there was an extension in their response.

Speaker:

Well, possibly.

Speaker:

I think it was more about me being overweight.

Speaker:

I thought there might have been some bias there.

Speaker:

About maybe I just experience abdominal pain because I'm overweight.

Speaker:

I'm not sure.

Speaker:

So, are you thinking there was anything in terms of gender

Speaker:

in relation to this incident?

Speaker:

Well, I was really curious, having had this experience, so I jumped on

Speaker:

the QUT library search, and there is just so much of this stuff.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Like, women present with something, they're not taken seriously, it turns

Speaker:

out to be serious, sometimes they die.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And that happens more than with men.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Well.

Speaker:

Tell me, Trevor, have you ever presented to the doctor with

Speaker:

abdominal pain and they told you to put a heat pack on your testicles?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

And waited out?

Speaker:

No?

Speaker:

What about you, Joe?

Speaker:

Well, I was going to say my Crohn's was misdiagnosed for two years.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

My GP believed me, but the specialist didn't.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And, and when, when I went off and got a second opinion and came

Speaker:

back and said, yeah, the second opinion is I've got cancer.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Uh, the specialist said, um, why did you get a second opinion?

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

You're gonna have to hide those.

Speaker:

Um, we've got a troll on the chat.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Sorry.

Speaker:

I'm just in the process of doing that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

, tell, finish your story if you like Jay, and we'll, um, yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Or we'll hide the chat, maybe.

Speaker:

How do we do that until you've got it fixed?

Speaker:

Uh, captions, uh Maybe I've got it.

Speaker:

You've got it?

Speaker:

Well, I thought I had it.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

I'll leave it with you.

Speaker:

Um, but yeah, you were misdiagnosed.

Speaker:

Um, I don't know.

Speaker:

Shah, you're telling that story and I don't know Okay.

Speaker:

So, when you went online, there's just a massive amount of cases, comparatively,

Speaker:

of women being Not believe abdominal pain, rather than men, it seems.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Especially, um, heart attacks in women.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Because they show up differently from men.

Speaker:

I believe shoulder pain is the classic symptom for heart attacks in women.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

They get less.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's not picked up as quickly.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

So just back to this, um, Uh, the screen, I'll share it

Speaker:

again, just the central poll.

Speaker:

Um, Work to achieve gender equality today benefits mostly well to do people.

Speaker:

Well, the not well to do, meaning the lower working classes, who might be

Speaker:

on some sort of minimum wage or award wage, I would have thought, where it

Speaker:

doesn't matter whether you're male or female, surely you are paid the same in

Speaker:

those industries, I would have thought.

Speaker:

So, it probably is in the industries where there is no minimum wage, where

Speaker:

it is a flexible by negotiation type thing, where there is a disparity, still.

Speaker:

And so that probably is where the work that's done today

Speaker:

benefits mostly the well to do.

Speaker:

Because I would have thought legislatively, the less well

Speaker:

to do are already covered.

Speaker:

Maybe I'm wrong, but, um, that's how I read that, um.

Speaker:

All right, so, uh, do do do do do, there is a law, I can't, um, but

Speaker:

basically there's a federal legislation, Workplace Relations Act 1996, Sex

Speaker:

Discrimination Act 1984, um, says that you must get equal pay for equal work.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So, say in a law firm, for example, you might have two

Speaker:

lawyers, one male, one female.

Speaker:

One male being paid 10 grand more than the female, there'd be arguments over

Speaker:

what type of work you were doing and other things, but Yeah, I guess if the

Speaker:

female has more experience and is clearly doing more difficult work and is being

Speaker:

paid less, she would have some claim of some sort, but yeah, it's a common

Speaker:

story, and I guess if I was part of a large organization, I would be Asking my

Speaker:

colleagues, um, around the lunch table and saying, Hey guys, let's all just

Speaker:

reveal our wages and make sure we're getting what we think we should get.

Speaker:

So, I'm keen to know in the chat room, has anybody done that?

Speaker:

And are you motivated to give it a go as a result of this?

Speaker:

So, um, good.

Speaker:

I did see an interesting argument that said, when we compare men and women,

Speaker:

it always seems to be around salary.

Speaker:

Um, um, women are more likely to have flexible working agreements

Speaker:

or flexible working arrangements generally around the kids.

Speaker:

Um, but whether we should value flexible working arrangements more

Speaker:

than salary, you know, we're, we're, we're placing a male lens on this.

Speaker:

The definition of success is pay.

Speaker:

Uh, maybe, maybe we need to shift the The discussion and say, actually, why aren't

Speaker:

we saying we should have, yeah, rather than working a 60 hour week, we should

Speaker:

be advocating for a fixed 35 hour week.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

I mean, the argument is, I guess, women would say, oh, we have to,

Speaker:

we leave the workforce for extended periods of time to have babies.

Speaker:

That interrupts with our career.

Speaker:

So our career development is hampered.

Speaker:

And so we reach 35 or 40 and our male colleague who hasn't been

Speaker:

interrupted has progressed through management or higher levels because

Speaker:

of that lack of interruption.

Speaker:

And the counter argument to that is, yeah, well, you've got to stay at home and enjoy

Speaker:

time with your kid and, um, and quality of life style component to all that.

Speaker:

Is that what you're saying, Joe?

Speaker:

Is that where you're heading?

Speaker:

Um, yeah, effectively.

Speaker:

I mean, for the people who choose to do that, I certainly

Speaker:

think there's a value to that.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Um, having, yeah, having been a father, been a, uh, Part of that, I used to

Speaker:

look after my daughter on weekends.

Speaker:

Um, it wasn't something that I would choose to be doing, but I know equally

Speaker:

that there are people who would love to be a stay at home dad, and would

Speaker:

consider that, um, uh, A benefit.

Speaker:

Yeah, better than earning a huge amount of money.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, um, So it's tricky and good comments in the chat room.

Speaker:

Can't get to all of them at this stage.

Speaker:

Um, but thank you for those comments and yeah.

Speaker:

Alright, I think that was all.

Speaker:

In terms of gender equality, do you have anything else to add in terms

Speaker:

of International Women's Day at all?

Speaker:

I just wanted to add the victory that I found, which I'm going to read out

Speaker:

because, uh, otherwise I'll put words in that aren't supposed to be there.

Speaker:

Um, so it's a current victory for women, so, um, it's this

Speaker:

thing called the Stellar Count.

Speaker:

It surveys 12 publications, national, regional, newspapers, journals, magazines.

Speaker:

And assesses the extent of gender bias in the field of book reviewing in Australia.

Speaker:

And the good news is, for the first time since the count started in 2012,

Speaker:

women authors have received over half of the reviews of the publishers counted.

Speaker:

55 percent reached in 2020.

Speaker:

Though they're not sure exactly why this is happening, uh, it's estimated that

Speaker:

65 percent of authors are women and 61 percent of women are frequent readers.

Speaker:

The Stellar count brought statistic visibility to gender bias in expert

Speaker:

commentary on authors and Because of that visibility, we're starting to see a shift.

Speaker:

So, soon women will be experts in literary commentary.

Speaker:

Okay, so the authors of the reviews were more than 50 percent women.

Speaker:

Is that what it was, rather than the reviews were of female authors?

Speaker:

are 65%.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

The 61 percent of women are frequent readers, so both the audience and the

Speaker:

authorship is predominantly female and now it's starting to show up in that

Speaker:

their books are being reviewed and there's real value in having your book reviewed

Speaker:

because then people bring those reviews into bookshops and say, have you got this

Speaker:

or, you know, it generates conversation and then they sell more books.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Just a final point on this.

Speaker:

I forgot to mention.

Speaker:

Um, final point, um, I forgot to mention was, but actually going

Speaker:

back to that one before I forget.

Speaker:

Would it be true that a lot of, okay, guilty of gender

Speaker:

stereotyping here, for example.

Speaker:

I think we should.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

That's what's cool about this podcast is we can actually discuss it.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

In my house, for example, you know what I'm reading here, like it's

Speaker:

obvious from, it's all to do with the podcast, there's no fiction.

Speaker:

My wife is reading fiction, uh, a lot, and on her Kindle, so,

Speaker:

um, in the same way that women seem to like True crime podcasts.

Speaker:

They also like novels and Yes, they will talk amongst themselves as to the

Speaker:

novels They're reading and share and what they're about and swap authors

Speaker:

and it's quite a social thing You know, you often hear of women's book clubs.

Speaker:

You very rarely hear of men's book clubs So, it might be just a gender thing that

Speaker:

women are into a type of literature, fiction, that is particularly handy to

Speaker:

have reviews from a female point of view as to whether the fiction is good or not.

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

It could be to do with the subject matter as much as anything.

Speaker:

Yeah, I'm guessing.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

I haven't considered that.

Speaker:

For those who've read Mills and Boone.

Speaker:

Or aware of Mills and Boone?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Uh, they, they're romantic fiction.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Um, otherwise known as mummy porn.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Barbara Cartland.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I, I'm, I'm guessing the majority of the readers are not male.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Whereas I'm going to say war, uh, biographies.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Are more likely to be male readers.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

But, you know, there's obviously very You don't know if that's correct, Trevor.

Speaker:

You don't know the stats.

Speaker:

No, but, I think, correct in that, I agree with your assumptions.

Speaker:

Those assumptions sound correct to me.

Speaker:

I don't know how you'd be able to pull those demographics.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

I'm sure Amazon's got plenty of I'm sure Amazon's got plenty of

Speaker:

I'm sure they'd be able to, yeah.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

Now, the other thing I wanted to mention, just, um, on International

Speaker:

Women's Day stuff, and whether there's equality We talked about this, um, a

Speaker:

few months ago, maybe a year ago, I've lost track, but at least in Queensland,

Speaker:

if you look at our major institutions, our parliament, our police force, our

Speaker:

judiciary, all headed up by women.

Speaker:

Um, so, there's a lot of, the Chief Justice, the Premier, the Police

Speaker:

Commissioner, the High Court Chief Justice, there's a lot of sort of

Speaker:

powerful, Governor General, yes, a lot of powerful positions actually.

Speaker:

Held by women, so that is something to bear in mind when looking at

Speaker:

the whole equality issue and trying to figure out how far we've come.

Speaker:

Yeah, and we've had some great women in the public eye in the past year.

Speaker:

I mean, Ash Barty, like such a show of good sportsmanship, you

Speaker:

know, like that's what she is.

Speaker:

And it's really beautiful to see, you know, that expression of leadership in

Speaker:

a different way, especially in tennis.

Speaker:

Yeah, and previous Chief Health Officer as well was, um, yeah, so.

Speaker:

Previous Chief Health Officer is now our Governor.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, um, so just bear that in mind when we're thinking of equality issues.

Speaker:

And, um, okay, just, um, what else have I got here?

Speaker:

Next topic.

Speaker:

Um, oh, just while we're on, while we're just on essential poll, um.

Speaker:

Um, might as well throw this one up as well.

Speaker:

I'm going to talk more about Ukraine if we have time, but just

Speaker:

a quick diversion to Ukraine.

Speaker:

Which political party do you think is better equipped to understand

Speaker:

and react to the current conflict between Russia and the Ukraine?

Speaker:

Um, Australians were asked.

Speaker:

24 percent said Liberal, 24 percent said Labor, 33 percent said no

Speaker:

difference, and 19 percent don't know.

Speaker:

That's a reassuring statistic, at least there was no major leaning towards the

Speaker:

Coalition being the better government in dealing with the Ukraine crisis

Speaker:

from an Australian point of view.

Speaker:

So, that was, that was heartening, at least, so.

Speaker:

Well, we didn't have Tony Abbott threatening to shirt front Putin.

Speaker:

No, but, um, Morrison would if given half a chance, um, um.

Speaker:

Do you think he would?

Speaker:

He seems so gutless, he can't even, you know, hold his ground with

Speaker:

the premiers, let alone Jesus.

Speaker:

Yeah, he would talk about it, so, um, but, you know, I was talking to my, one

Speaker:

of my neighbours, who's a very smart guy, a very, um, you know, sort of a medical

Speaker:

specialist type, and we briefly diverted onto Ukraine, and he said something like,

Speaker:

You know, I think Morrison was right when he spoke about a breakdown of the rules

Speaker:

based international order, and, uh, it was sort of a bit glowing about Morrison

Speaker:

in relation to, um, about this issue.

Speaker:

So, I'm still a bit worried about what some people might be falling for it.

Speaker:

So, anyway, we'll see.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

It is the worry.

Speaker:

Um, okay.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

So, Joe, you're in the Peter Dutton electorate.

Speaker:

Unfortunately, yes.

Speaker:

So you would have a keen interest in any news items that

Speaker:

might refer to Peter Dutton.

Speaker:

I might well be.

Speaker:

Yes, and did you see, well I know you did, the Friendly Geordies, dear listener, put

Speaker:

out quite a long segment for them, like a 20 minute odd YouTube expose of Just

Speaker:

some people associated with Peter Dutton.

Speaker:

Now we've got to be careful here with our language, um, because we don't want to be

Speaker:

the subject of a defamation proceeding.

Speaker:

But anyway, raised a number of allegations about contracts and people

Speaker:

who were associated with Peter Dutton.

Speaker:

And he clearly had got a lot of information from people on

Speaker:

the inside, sharing emails.

Speaker:

There were screenshots of confidential messages and documents and

Speaker:

clearly somebody has ratted out.

Speaker:

That's a draft.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

People with white substances on, on smooth counters lined up with powder and

Speaker:

stuff that looked awfully suspicious.

Speaker:

So It was quite an in depth exposé and raised a lot of issues and,

Speaker:

and have you seen anything in the mainstream media about it at all?

Speaker:

And the answer would be no, nothing.

Speaker:

Um, there was For someone who is quite possibly the next leader of the Liberals

Speaker:

There's a suspicious amount of silence.

Speaker:

Even if they're completely unfounded allegations, you'd

Speaker:

expect to hear something.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

You would, wouldn't you?

Speaker:

He was interviewed on Radio National this morning.

Speaker:

Not a peep out of her.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

She didn't put a thing to him.

Speaker:

And he was on Insiders on Sunday.

Speaker:

This all came out on, like, Friday, and he was already booked for Insiders.

Speaker:

Not a single question on it.

Speaker:

What's going on?

Speaker:

Well, you wonder, is this the same as Barnaby Joyce and his affair?

Speaker:

Which apparently was an open secret in Canberra.

Speaker:

All the press knew about it, but they all decided it wasn't in the

Speaker:

public interest that a Family Values man was banging his secretary.

Speaker:

And you know what?

Speaker:

I can get that to some extent.

Speaker:

But this is to do with government contracts.

Speaker:

Um, so it's more than just his integrity as a, you know, a father or a personal

Speaker:

thing like the Barnaby Joyce one was, it's about government money and, um, and it

Speaker:

obviously warrants questions even to say.

Speaker:

Well, you've seen this allegation from Friendly Geordie's that blah, blah,

Speaker:

blah, what have you got to say about it?

Speaker:

Nothing.

Speaker:

So, um, it's a really, dear listener, go and just Google,

Speaker:

just go onto the YouTube and the Friendly Geordie's YouTube channel.

Speaker:

It's still up, um, it was, you know, quite recently.

Speaker:

It might be taken down at some stage, but the interesting thing is that, you know,

Speaker:

he hasn't demanded That they take it down for, um, with a threat of defamation.

Speaker:

And he might have been taking due note of some other defamation cases.

Speaker:

That's right!

Speaker:

Like that!

Speaker:

Strikes in defence?

Speaker:

Ben Roberts Smith is the plaintiff!

Speaker:

Yes!

Speaker:

Oh my god!

Speaker:

You have to keep reminding yourself that he is the plaintiff.

Speaker:

He brought that action on.

Speaker:

And just a conga line of former colleagues coming out, coming

Speaker:

out saying terrible things.

Speaker:

And the same with, of course, um, what is it, Christian Porter?

Speaker:

Oh yes.

Speaker:

So, you know, maybe that is not so stupid.

Speaker:

He won that one.

Speaker:

And he had to pay costs, of course, but you know, you

Speaker:

always pay costs when you win.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I'm sorry.

Speaker:

Humiliating back down, I think was the phrase.

Speaker:

But, you know, full credit to Friendly Geordies.

Speaker:

Like, you're watching it and you're going, you guys have got balls to run this.

Speaker:

Definitely.

Speaker:

Fearless, ballsy move.

Speaker:

Um, you have to sort of tip your hat to them, and maybe even go onto their

Speaker:

Patreon account and throw them a few dollars, because that's the sort of

Speaker:

stuff that, you know, he almost single handedly got rid of Berejiklian, and

Speaker:

And the deputy, um, Barilaro, in New South Wales, like, you know, he caused

Speaker:

an enormous ruckus down there with what was going on, um, And just, you know,

Speaker:

just a YouTuber, um, is doing more than mainstream media to dig up this stuff.

Speaker:

So, um, some of the comments I saw on Twitter, Well, a satirical comedian

Speaker:

on YouTube is one of the most fearless investigative journalists in the country.

Speaker:

Who holds those in power to account, you know we have a real

Speaker:

problem with the mainstream media.

Speaker:

And another one which was, um, this is where we have got to in Australia

Speaker:

when a part time comedian can expose major government corruption.

Speaker:

Um, where the fuck are the investigative journalists in this country?

Speaker:

So It reminds me of the Moonlight State, have you seen it?

Speaker:

Yeah, it is.

Speaker:

Yeah, it is a bit like that.

Speaker:

Yeah, you're going, so where's the ABC Four Corners report

Speaker:

at digging all this up?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And even if they didn't know about it, because obviously

Speaker:

he's been given documents.

Speaker:

So somebody has perhaps used him as the first port of call, but that,

Speaker:

I think outlets should be following up and asking at least the question

Speaker:

of Dutton to say, well, there's this allegation, what have you got to say?

Speaker:

Um, the fact that the insiders.

Speaker:

They must do a deal with him.

Speaker:

He must say, I'm coming on your program, but I'm only, I'm not going

Speaker:

to answer these questions, or I'm only going to handle these questions.

Speaker:

Don't have him on.

Speaker:

Don't let him on.

Speaker:

If, if you can't ask whatever questions you want to ask, tell him to piss off.

Speaker:

He's the one who's trying to, you know, get re elected.

Speaker:

Yes, and, you know, try and potentially become the next Prime Minister.

Speaker:

Well, he can face the hard questions.

Speaker:

That's a, the thing about the ABC, they get such a hard time from this mob.

Speaker:

Um, they don't use the power when they've actually got it.

Speaker:

He's wanting publicity at the moment, like he's, he's talking about the

Speaker:

ADF with the floods and he's talking about China and talking about

Speaker:

there's all the chance he can get.

Speaker:

He wants oxygen and don't let him have it if he's not prepared

Speaker:

to answer any questions.

Speaker:

So, um, there we go.

Speaker:

Um, um, so there was one article in, um.

Speaker:

Uh, Victoria Fielding in Independent Australia, she said, um, Not only does

Speaker:

Dutton hold the powerful position of Minister for Defence, but he is also a

Speaker:

contender for leader in the Liberal Party, should Morrison choose to step down.

Speaker:

This scandal, therefore, has all the ingredients you would think

Speaker:

the mainstream media would need.

Speaker:

To make it top priority for journalists to follow up.

Speaker:

Um, Senior Minister, check, high profile candidate, stood

Speaker:

down, seemingly for no reason.

Speaker:

Um, Allegations of government contracts being used to enrich Liberal Party donors.

Speaker:

Um, Has all these features, and, so it's quite explosive.

Speaker:

And while the Sydney Morning Herald and the Courier Mail reported

Speaker:

Ryan Shaw's decision to step down from his Lilly candidacy.

Speaker:

Uh, there hasn't been any follow ups since Friendly Geordie's

Speaker:

video went live on Friday.

Speaker:

So, no media outlets, um, have mentioned the allegations made in the video.

Speaker:

So, despite these allegations being evidenced with a series of damning,

Speaker:

leaked photos and emails, it's true, there is supporting documentation

Speaker:

that looks pretty legit, it's, it's not just friendly Geordies making

Speaker:

shit up with no evidence, um, that's where we've got to, so, um, Clive

Speaker:

Palmer, uh, headline from the Chaser.

Speaker:

Saying um, how do we compete with this?

Speaker:

And the headline was Anti vax Aussie billionaire battling

Speaker:

COVID buys Hitler's car.

Speaker:

It wasn't the car's fault that he was owned by Hitler.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

He didn't end up buying it.

Speaker:

Clearly he was trying to.

Speaker:

Who falls for this guy?

Speaker:

Who are these numbskulls who could possibly fall for Clive Palmer's shtick?

Speaker:

Who possibly would fall for anything he says?

Speaker:

Um Well, the amount of money he's throwing at advertising.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Did you see the advert?

Speaker:

Somebody had rearranged the, um, the letters on a UAP advert?

Speaker:

I've seen a bit of that.

Speaker:

Oh, there was one here that, uh, they changed the ad to say, um You

Speaker:

can totally trust the bloke who just bought Hitler's car to look after

Speaker:

your interests, was that the one?

Speaker:

Uh, and the, well, they changed the United Australia Party to I'm just trying to

Speaker:

remember what it was, but it was, here we go, Free Us From United LNP Failure Party.

Speaker:

Right, yep, same.

Speaker:

Anyway, life Palmer.

Speaker:

Actually, I was having an interesting conversation on the weekend with my

Speaker:

brother, and he just thinks throwing, the throwing of lawsuits and all this stuff

Speaker:

is really just undermined democracy.

Speaker:

So, it doesn't matter whether people take him seriously or not.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

But, but, the fact that he managed to get Which is interesting.

Speaker:

The fact that he managed to get, what, three or four percent or something

Speaker:

in the last election, he felt, or he claimed that that enabled him to Stop a

Speaker:

Labor government and maybe he's right.

Speaker:

I don't know, but the fact that he could rustle up a hundred people

Speaker:

who would vote for him Who would think that he had in any way could

Speaker:

possibly represent their interests?

Speaker:

I just don't know how anyone could think that way.

Speaker:

So You see him claiming that they'd already had Three or four prime ministers.

Speaker:

Yes, because the former name of the Liberal Party was Something

Speaker:

like The United Australia Party?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Well, there was a United Australia Party that had had

Speaker:

three or four Prime Ministers.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And he changed the name of his party to be the United Australia Party.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Therefore, they were his Prime Ministers.

Speaker:

Such a shameless bullshitter.

Speaker:

Such a shameless bullshitter.

Speaker:

But didn't he come out and say the Hitler car thing is misinformation?

Speaker:

Well he said, he said, I never bought Hitler's car.

Speaker:

But the point was You tried to buy it.

Speaker:

What, are you prepared to say you never tried to buy it?

Speaker:

You never investigated buying it?

Speaker:

But he says, I never bought it.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So, yep.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

I see that they've had a big falling out with the anti vaxxer party.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

They're both?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Kidding.

Speaker:

Why's that?

Speaker:

I'm not over.

Speaker:

Uh, apparently they were only in it for themselves, to push

Speaker:

their own political agenda.

Speaker:

Oh, that's what the anti vaxxers No, no, no, this is what Clive

Speaker:

was saying about the anti Oh!

Speaker:

Yeah, apparently there was some sort of alliance between the

Speaker:

UAP and some anti vaxx party.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And they have had an acrimonious breaking up.

Speaker:

Oh dear.

Speaker:

Oh dear.

Speaker:

Alright, um, you send a link, um, Joe, about Robert Reich?

Speaker:

Rightch?

Speaker:

Rightch?

Speaker:

Yes, Robert Reich.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, um.

Speaker:

He was Secretary for Labor under Bill Clinton.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

And Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet

Speaker:

Secretaries of the 20th century.

Speaker:

So He wrote an article basically saying that only the right has become more

Speaker:

extreme over the last 50 years, and he says, how did we get so divided?

Speaker:

And he said that he started in American politics 50 years ago, and he figured he

Speaker:

was just left of centre at that point.

Speaker:

And 25 years later, he was in Bill Clinton's cabinet, and the left to right

Speaker:

spectrum had stretched much longer.

Speaker:

Um, the biggest change was how much further the right had moved.

Speaker:

Ronald Reagan had opened the political floodgates to corporate and Wall Street

Speaker:

money, bankrolling right wing candidates and messages that decried big government.

Speaker:

I agree with him 100 percent there.

Speaker:

There's a big cultural shift occurred in the world with Ronald Reagan and

Speaker:

Margaret Thatcher at the same time, with this sort of decrying of big government.

Speaker:

He goes on, Bill Clinton sought to lead from the centre, but by then the

Speaker:

centre had moved so far right that Clinton gutted public assistance,

Speaker:

enacted tough on crime policies that unjustly burdened the poor and people of

Speaker:

colour, and he deregulated Wall Street.

Speaker:

All of which put me further to the left of centre, even though my

Speaker:

political views had barely changed.

Speaker:

Today, the spectrum from left to right is the longest it's been in

Speaker:

my 50 years in and around politics.

Speaker:

The left hasn't moved much at all.

Speaker:

We're still against the war machine, still pushing for civil and voting

Speaker:

rights, still fighting the power of big corporations, but the right

Speaker:

has moved far, far rightward.

Speaker:

Donald Trump brought America about as close as we'll ever come,

Speaker:

or we've ever come, to fascism.

Speaker:

He incited an attempted coup against the United States.

Speaker:

He and most of the Republican Party continue to deny that

Speaker:

he lost the 2020 election.

Speaker:

They're getting ready to suppress votes and disregard election

Speaker:

outcomes they disagree with.

Speaker:

So don't believe the fear mongering that today's left is radical.

Speaker:

What's really radical is the right's move towards fascism.

Speaker:

So that rings a bell with you, Joe?

Speaker:

Yeah, I have seen articles that have argued that Barry Goldwater,

Speaker:

who was basically the father of the House for the Republicans,

Speaker:

would now be considered Democratic.

Speaker:

Because the right, yeah, the right wing of the party has moved so far right.

Speaker:

That, you know, what was, what was a right wing view 30 years ago, 40 years

Speaker:

ago when he was father of the house, um, is now considered a left wing.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

It's, yeah.

Speaker:

And it's not that much different here.

Speaker:

Morrison came out and said, oh, an Albanese government, they're

Speaker:

the most left wing, um, potential government we've seen since Whitlam.

Speaker:

What?

Speaker:

Honestly, look at the policies.

Speaker:

There's not a piece of paper between them.

Speaker:

Almost, it seems.

Speaker:

I can't They haven't promised anything.

Speaker:

Let alone anything left wing.

Speaker:

Like, they're just agreeing on everything.

Speaker:

It's hard to You know, it's only through faith and just the The name

Speaker:

Labor Party that you have a suspicion that perhaps they might favour the

Speaker:

left in some views if they actually get elected, but just based on their

Speaker:

promises, there's not a lot to go with.

Speaker:

And you know, Morrison's claiming that, you know, they're socialists

Speaker:

and they're the most left wing Labor Party since Whitlam.

Speaker:

What a joke!

Speaker:

It's just, they're incredibly right wing, they haven't

Speaker:

targeted taxation of the rich.

Speaker:

Redistribution in any way.

Speaker:

So, um, anyway, or even re nationalisation of formerly, um, state owned assets.

Speaker:

Yeah, nothing of a classic Labor sort of bent, uh, left bent at all

Speaker:

in this current Albanese model.

Speaker:

They're incredibly right wing.

Speaker:

So, um.

Speaker:

Maybe the social housing has any promise in housing?

Speaker:

I don't know, I haven't heard of any particular promise, so I don't know,

Speaker:

um, so yeah, so yeah, I agree with Robert Wright that, uh, the right has

Speaker:

moved right and I would argue the left has moved to the right, um, and, yeah.

Speaker:

So he's done a couple of documentaries, one of which is up on Netflix.

Speaker:

Right, and good.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah, um, interesting discussion, um, uh, basically, uh, talking socialism

Speaker:

as in social democracy, uh, and talking to some, um, entrepreneur who

Speaker:

said, yeah, um, so I own ten times as much as, oh yeah, an average worker.

Speaker:

But I'm not spending 10 times as much, you know, that, that money going to the

Speaker:

workers would go back into the economy, coming to me, it is adding zero value to

Speaker:

the economy and was basically arguing for higher taxation on the rich and feeding

Speaker:

it back into the economy via putting it in the pockets of people less well off

Speaker:

because they don't save it, they spend it.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Okay, um, I haven't in a long time thanked the Patrons, and I had

Speaker:

a couple new ones lately, so I'm gonna run through the Patrons.

Speaker:

Dear listener, if you'd like to become a Patron, go on to ironfistvelvetglove.

Speaker:

com.

Speaker:

au And all of our old episodes are there, and there's also a link

Speaker:

to donate, so you can do that.

Speaker:

There's also a Speakpipe link, if you want to leave an audio

Speaker:

message, you can do that as well.

Speaker:

And starting from the most recent, Mark Clavell, Cy Gladman, Tom Stubbings, Rico,

Speaker:

Greg P, Shannon Legg, Liam Healy, Don Tovey, Daniel Flanagan, Matt Dwyer, Sue

Speaker:

Cripp, James Leigh, Yarn, Leanne James Lean, um, is that in the chat room?

Speaker:

James, you're right there.

Speaker:

Is it Lean, El or Leoni or Lean?

Speaker:

Um, Branwin.

Speaker:

Wayne, David Hamby, Virgil Craig, ball Shane Ingram Ya.

Speaker:

Blue Zabar.

Speaker:

David Copeley.

Speaker:

Graham Hagan yet another Pinker fan.

Speaker:

Uh, John in Dire Straits, Donnie Darko, Camille, Tom Doolin, um, Paul Waper,

Speaker:

Alexander Allen, Matthew, Craig S, Glenn Bell, Professor Doctor Dentist, Adam

Speaker:

Priest, Murray Waper, Andy Dowling, Captain Doomsday, Peter Gillespie,

Speaker:

Gavin S, Daniel Curtin, Liam McMahon, Happy Birthday Liam for the other day,

Speaker:

Dominic Damasi, Matic Man, Pallet, Bronwyn, of course, who's in the chat

Speaker:

room, Kane, Tony Wall, um, sorry I didn't get down there to Sydney, Tony,

Speaker:

uh, two weeks time I'll be down there, boy I'm glad I didn't go looking at

Speaker:

that rain today, Steve Shinners, Alison, Ayame, Waino, Craig Glasby and Janelle.

Speaker:

And, people who don't like to use Patreon, but who give donations

Speaker:

through PayPal, would be Mr.

Speaker:

Anderson, Matt Mann, Mr.

Speaker:

T, Paul Evans, Wayne Seaman, Obrad, Puskarica, Darren Giddens, Greg

Speaker:

Clark, Dave S from Cairns, um, Noel Hamilton's come on board recently,

Speaker:

Savvas Louise, good on you, thank you very much, if you would like to donate.

Speaker:

Yeah, go to the website and you'll see the links and it's much appreciated

Speaker:

because there are quite a few expenses with hosting of all of this stuff,

Speaker:

the restream that we're using for the chat, and the different subscriptions.

Speaker:

Roughly adds up to about 80 per episode, so.

Speaker:

If I don't do an episode every week, I start to lose money.

Speaker:

That's how tight it is.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

Um, Where are we up to?

Speaker:

8.

Speaker:

37.

Speaker:

Let's talk.

Speaker:

Remember I asked last week, I said, if you want to argue with me about something,

Speaker:

then get on and ring us up and argue with me, and nobody did at the time.

Speaker:

Nobody really did except Um, your friend Joe called in and Dom, and he, he didn't

Speaker:

want to argue, he just wanted to agree.

Speaker:

And, uh, anyway, on Twitter, um, so I was spending more time on Twitter, I

Speaker:

haven't actually been posting anything, I've just sort of been watching stuff.

Speaker:

So it's at IFVG underscore podcast, if you'd like to follow and

Speaker:

eventually we'll start posting things.

Speaker:

But, got some feedback from At Skeptical Aussie, um, who is the inventor of

Speaker:

the Bullshit Detector, according to their Twitter profile here, and,

Speaker:

um, She writes, I've been listening to your podcast where you asked a

Speaker:

caller if he disagreed with anything.

Speaker:

One thing I disagree with is, I think your discussion on China is too polarised.

Speaker:

John, question mark, was too hard on them.

Speaker:

I think she is, um, referring to Paul from the old days there.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And Trevor is too naïve.

Speaker:

Ouch!

Speaker:

Ouch!

Speaker:

So we'll say Paul was too hard on them and Trevor is too naïve.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

It is also not true to say that the relationship This is China and Australia.

Speaker:

Took a dive because of Morrison's comments about SARS CoV 2.

Speaker:

China became quite authoritarian towards us when Gillard cooperated

Speaker:

with the US over their presence here.

Speaker:

Later, Turnbull took a hard line against China over Huawei,

Speaker:

and they were quite angry.

Speaker:

There is quite a bit of evidence of Chinese interference

Speaker:

in Australian politics.

Speaker:

And evidence of intimidation in Australia in places such as universities.

Speaker:

So we can trade, but let's not be naive, eh?

Speaker:

So, um, maybe I shouldn't ask for feedback, because I got really

Speaker:

annoyed by this one, I have to say.

Speaker:

Skeptical Aussie.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Inventor of the bullshit detector.

Speaker:

Like, if you just said I disagree and, and then made your

Speaker:

argument, I could handle that.

Speaker:

But calling me naïve, ouch.

Speaker:

So, look, of course I'm on the record on this podcast talking about China

Speaker:

a lot, but I think what you find is, what I'm saying is, I'm showing

Speaker:

the other side's point of view.

Speaker:

I'm saying you have to look at this from the Chinese point of view.

Speaker:

Now that doesn't mean I think that China is a bastion of freedom and goodness, it's

Speaker:

just that you've got to look at it from their point of view and when assessing

Speaker:

their actions, um, put yourself in their shoes and ask whether what they're doing

Speaker:

is, is expected for a major power in their position, from their point of view.

Speaker:

That's what you've got to look at.

Speaker:

And compare it for consistency with other major powers.

Speaker:

And if you give a green light to the USA to behave in a certain way But

Speaker:

you don't give the same green light to the Chinese to act in the same

Speaker:

way, then you're being hypocritical.

Speaker:

Like, that's essentially what I'm always banging on about, I would

Speaker:

have thought, when it comes to China.

Speaker:

So, I mean, I don't want to live under a Chinese government, but I don't want

Speaker:

to live under a USA government either.

Speaker:

So, um, it's the same when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, which I'll

Speaker:

get to later on and we have done before.

Speaker:

It's like, Russia has a point in all of this.

Speaker:

That doesn't mean they should invade the Ukraine, but they've

Speaker:

got some legitimate points.

Speaker:

Um, China's got points, but they shouldn't invade Taiwan either.

Speaker:

So, um, and China is a superpower.

Speaker:

It'll do what superpowers do.

Speaker:

It'll throw its weight around whenever it perceives it should

Speaker:

in its own self interest.

Speaker:

And China has some legitimate complaints about how Australia has treated it.

Speaker:

And a lot of the time with what China has done, if I was in charge of

Speaker:

China, I'd be doing the same thing.

Speaker:

So, anyway, um, so I've argued that, um, when the Morrison government was

Speaker:

talking about, um, COVID cropping up in China, and the Morrison government

Speaker:

essentially said, we should be sending people into China with weapons inspector

Speaker:

like powers to find out what goes on.

Speaker:

And, um, essentially Maris Payne, um, and Scott Morrison ran that line.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

I've said that's important and, uh, Skeptical Aussie, Inventor of the Bullshit

Speaker:

Detector, says, um, It is also not true to say the relationship took a dive because

Speaker:

of Morrison's comments about SARS CoV 2.

Speaker:

Well, um, Nikki Sava, political journalist, like, she's written books.

Speaker:

She wrote the biography of Morrison.

Speaker:

She seems to me to be a smart operator, um, I would have thought

Speaker:

she knows what she's talking about.

Speaker:

She wrote, The tipping point is acknowledged by many experts to

Speaker:

be the day in April when Foreign Minister Maris Payne, without warning

Speaker:

or the cover of supportive allies, Announced Australia would take the

Speaker:

lead in pushing for an international inquiry into the origins of COVID 19.

Speaker:

It was popular domestically.

Speaker:

People whose lives and jobs had been disrupted were rightly furious with China.

Speaker:

A few old China watchers vented at the time, believing there was too

Speaker:

much politics and too little strategic thinking behind the government's push.

Speaker:

They saw it as the latest in a series of actions, some warranted,

Speaker:

others gratuitous, that would certainly invite retaliation.

Speaker:

So, that was Nikki Savva, I think I mentioned that in episode 282,

Speaker:

and um, there's a timeline here.

Speaker:

Huawei was banned in August 2018.

Speaker:

The weapons inspector comments were made in April 2020.

Speaker:

The tariffs were imposed less than one month later, in May 2020.

Speaker:

So if you wanna, you know, all these things add up in terms of the

Speaker:

relationship, but, Essentially, the tariffs were imposed less than four

Speaker:

weeks after, or about four weeks after, the weapons inspector comment was made.

Speaker:

So, I think you can quite rightly say, um, as Nikki Sarvadis does, that it was, um,

Speaker:

a significant factor and a tipping point.

Speaker:

Okay, just in relation to Gillard, she says here, um, skeptical Aussie, that

Speaker:

China became quite authoritarian towards us when Gillard cooperated with the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

over their presence here.

Speaker:

I wasn't sort of aware of anything like that, so quick Google search and

Speaker:

one of the first sites I found said, Well done Julia Gillard, you won't hear

Speaker:

these words very often in the run up to this year's Australian elections, but

Speaker:

Julia Gillard deserves credit for her successful visit to China this month.

Speaker:

The signing of a strategic partnership between China and

Speaker:

Australia was the linchpin of Gillard's successful trip to China.

Speaker:

This deal includes provisions for an annual leaders dialogue.

Speaker:

This is welcome news, signalling a bolstered political link in what

Speaker:

is already China's, Australia's largest trade relationship, worth

Speaker:

almost 130 billion annually.

Speaker:

The deal was hailed by politicians and policy commentators on both sides of the

Speaker:

aisle in Australia, winning support from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser

Speaker:

and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Speaker:

On military to military dialogue, Gillard hinted that there will also

Speaker:

be policy level dialogue, which will happen between our military.

Speaker:

So this is all about building trust and confidence and transparency

Speaker:

for the future, blah, blah, blah.

Speaker:

So, I hardly think that that adds up to, um, China becoming quite

Speaker:

authoritarian towards us when Gillard cooperated with the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

over their presence here.

Speaker:

Um, The other part was Turnbull took a hard line against China over Huawei and

Speaker:

they were quite angry and that is true.

Speaker:

And um, as I said, that was the correct decision.

Speaker:

Like Australia had to say to China, um, look, we can't have you controlling

Speaker:

our telecommunications system.

Speaker:

How are we going to keep a secret from you?

Speaker:

But we didn't have to boast about it and to tell other countries to do the same.

Speaker:

We could have politely said, sorry guys, love your stuff, but we just can't do it.

Speaker:

But what did we do?

Speaker:

We said, we can't do it because we don't trust you, and by the way,

Speaker:

we're going to run around the world telling everybody else not to as well.

Speaker:

Like, that's the point about Huawei.

Speaker:

Barely sure it was one of the other five I's that told us not to.

Speaker:

Yeah, you think America told, I think, I thought the rest of the world was a

Speaker:

little bit surprised when we did it.

Speaker:

But, um.

Speaker:

Um, in any event, we did way too much boasting over that, and we should have

Speaker:

just laid low and ducked for cover when dealing with the superpower.

Speaker:

That's what you do when you're a small nothing country.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

So talking of such things, have you heard about what's going on

Speaker:

with all the Ukrainian programmed, um, devices in Russia now?

Speaker:

Ah, Ukrainian programmed devices in Russia, no?

Speaker:

So they're failing now, are they?

Speaker:

Well apparently, um, electric car charging ports.

Speaker:

Had a backdoor maintenance access, and they now say fuck you Putin or something.

Speaker:

Oh, is that right?

Speaker:

So you go to plug in your car, and of course it's only the rich and

Speaker:

powerful who have electric cars.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So as they go to plug in and charge their car, the little LCD screen, um, comes

Speaker:

up with fuck you Putin on the screen as they plug in their cars to charge it.

Speaker:

But I did see where Mastercard and Visa and PayPal have effectively disconnected

Speaker:

Russia from their systems, and so one, that affects ordinary Russians.

Speaker:

It was Apple Pay and Google Pay and the queues at the metro where people

Speaker:

can't swipe on and swipe off anymore.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

I'm going to talk about it later, but it's really important because, you know,

Speaker:

I talked about de dollarisation around the world, and this is just pushing.

Speaker:

Russia and China to move to a system where they're, um, able to

Speaker:

operate separate to the dollar and to American financial institutions.

Speaker:

But we'll get back to that.

Speaker:

Still going on with, uh, this, um, feedback.

Speaker:

Um, so yes, there is Chinese influence in Australian universities.

Speaker:

Don't deny that, but in a whole episode Episode 227 about the Four Corners

Speaker:

report titled Red Flags, and essentially, if you had swallowed the entire Four

Speaker:

Corners report, where they had a conga line of security experts come along, I

Speaker:

sat in front of it and I was watching this and I was going, who are these

Speaker:

people who are these commentators?

Speaker:

Google their names, and nine times out of ten, they work for some arms manufacturer,

Speaker:

or they're some colonists for a right wing think tank, like the Four Corners report

Speaker:

on Red Flags, which was about Chinese involvement in Australian universities,

Speaker:

was just shocker with right wingers.

Speaker:

So, you know, the naïve approach would have been to swallow that, the

Speaker:

um, what's the opposite of naïve?

Speaker:

The sophisticated approach would be to Actually go and look up

Speaker:

every name that appeared in there and investigate who they were.

Speaker:

So, um, So, yeah, um, so I think I spent a lot of time, we've

Speaker:

talked about the history of China.

Speaker:

It's a hundred year embarrassment at being occupied by foreign

Speaker:

powers following the Opium Wars.

Speaker:

And it's resolved to never allow that to happen again.

Speaker:

And it's legitimate concern of being invaded by Western powers.

Speaker:

And the hypocrisy of the West in the double standards it applies.

Speaker:

And Australia's fawning obsequiousness to the USA.

Speaker:

So, I've pretty much, I reckon, parroted the views of former

Speaker:

diplomats in the John Menendew blog.

Speaker:

So the John Menendew blog, go and look at it.

Speaker:

Under the heading of China, and there are so many former diplomats,

Speaker:

people with real world experience, and I don't think I've said anything

Speaker:

that would be in disagreement with what those guys have all said.

Speaker:

Because they're all pretty much unanimous about What a shitty

Speaker:

diplomatic job we've done, now we've caused this problem ourself.

Speaker:

And, you know, if you're going to call me naive, call Paul Keating naive.

Speaker:

Like, he went into the press club and basically said the same

Speaker:

thing, even more forcefully.

Speaker:

Um, sorry Joe, you want to chip in?

Speaker:

I was going to say the Many Do blog recently has been very,

Speaker:

very apologetic for Putin.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Even putting up after He'd invaded an article saying, Oh no, no,

Speaker:

Putin's never going to invade.

Speaker:

He's, he's just, um, sabre rattling.

Speaker:

He just wants some, um, uh, do you, yeah, some, some justice.

Speaker:

Right, yes, yes.

Speaker:

And I'm thinking it was an incredibly naive view.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

They seem to be pushing a strangely pro Putin line.

Speaker:

Right, um.

Speaker:

It struck me as very naive.

Speaker:

Yeah, a lot on the left actually, uh, in relation to the build up to the, um, to

Speaker:

the invasion, had been so suspicious of US intelligence, because we've seen it

Speaker:

all before in that it's been bullshit, and that they basically said, There's

Speaker:

no way that Putin's going to invade, because the US intelligence is telling

Speaker:

us that it is, and they're always wrong.

Speaker:

Where really, they should have been more circumspect, and have gone, Well, we can

Speaker:

never trust these guys to get this right.

Speaker:

To the left, it looked like a beat up, and, uh, in the end

Speaker:

they were proved wrong, because Putin, of course, crossed over.

Speaker:

So, uh, a number on the left did jump the gun and were too,

Speaker:

too cavalier in declaring Putin would never do what he did.

Speaker:

Um, based on the fact that they didn't want to agree with U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

intelligence, I think.

Speaker:

So, anyway, just getting back to my present argument with Skeptical Aussie.

Speaker:

So, um, um, so, you know, the points you've raised, I think, are wrong.

Speaker:

Uh, in relation to, what did you raise there?

Speaker:

In relation to, um, um, weapons inspector stuff.

Speaker:

In relation to Gillard.

Speaker:

And, um Huawei was the way that we did it, not the fact that we did it.

Speaker:

Um, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with the John Menendee

Speaker:

blog list of, um, diplomats.

Speaker:

And I've pretty much parroted what they've said, as well as Paul Keating.

Speaker:

So, um, might be wrong, but I hardly think it's naive, so.

Speaker:

I think you need to adjust your bullshit detector, or perhaps

Speaker:

point it at yourself, I think.

Speaker:

So, anyway, that was that one, and then there was another feedback,

Speaker:

which this one was from Paul.

Speaker:

Paul's been on the podcast before, and, um, so, um, So at least Paul

Speaker:

didn't call me naive, and um, Don't you think her, like, I just think

Speaker:

her point was, is that somehow along the lines of you just explaining or

Speaker:

critically analysing the situation, she thinks you're somehow condoning it.

Speaker:

Yeah, that is part of the problem, is that, if just because you're giving

Speaker:

the other But then There's only three podcasters I know, apart from you, who

Speaker:

have been brave enough to try to explain the other perspective, and I think the,

Speaker:

um, clap back or slap back has been, yeah.

Speaker:

Pretty, pretty negative.

Speaker:

Yeah, so I don't want everybody going the same way.

Speaker:

We don't want to be discussing this or Yeah Considering that

Speaker:

it's interesting, isn't it?

Speaker:

Yeah, just because you're giving the other side doesn't mean you agree with it.

Speaker:

You're just saying Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, it's possible for both sides to be wrong.

Speaker:

And, um That's right.

Speaker:

It's, it's contributing factors.

Speaker:

There's context to everything, so it's not just all good guy, bad guy.

Speaker:

I mean, that's the naive view, I would have thought.

Speaker:

That's right!

Speaker:

Uh, okay.

Speaker:

So, Paul said, um, uh, I would have come onto the podcast to challenge your view

Speaker:

of making media partisan, to agree with you on alternative sources of information,

Speaker:

and hopefully to contribute some thoughts.

Speaker:

So, we were talking about looking at different sources of information.

Speaker:

And I was talking about what sources I thought were good, mentioning John

Speaker:

Menjublog and Crikey and a few others.

Speaker:

And I mentioned that, you know, if you can't find a middle ground and you

Speaker:

can only find a right wing version, then look for the left wing version.

Speaker:

Um, um, So I was trying to encourage people to look for the independent.

Speaker:

Media organisations who, and, and people are independent because their income is

Speaker:

not reliant on the answers they give, and that's not many, like newspapers

Speaker:

are going and media, mainstream media has to satisfy either the Advertisers

Speaker:

or the owners or both and therefore these are rich and powerful people

Speaker:

generally so they're not going to advocate policies that are contrary to

Speaker:

the interests of the rich and powerful.

Speaker:

So if somebody is in a position where they can say something and they're not

Speaker:

going to be financially disadvantaged because of it then they're likely to

Speaker:

be honest and Someone like Sam Harris, I was referring to, with his own sort

Speaker:

of Patreon thing, basically had enough happening that he could speak fearlessly.

Speaker:

Mind you, there's also audience capture, where if you find your audience is

Speaker:

largely right wing and they're the big payers, you can be tempted to do more

Speaker:

and more right wing positive commentary, hoping to get a right wing audience

Speaker:

and make more money, a la Dave Rubin.

Speaker:

So There's all these nuanced factors to take into account, so Paul

Speaker:

writes, I would absolutely have come on to the podcast to challenge

Speaker:

your view of making media partisan.

Speaker:

Well, fuck Paul, I didn't suggest making media partisan.

Speaker:

I wrote to Paul because we email and he has lunch and he's one of

Speaker:

our beer sponsors and I like Paul.

Speaker:

I said, sure, but I wasn't saying we should make media

Speaker:

partisan, just that it often is.

Speaker:

It's often lazily repeats the accepted narrative.

Speaker:

If you can find neutral sources, then try and get a bit of both.

Speaker:

If you can't find neutral sources, then try and get a bit of both sides.

Speaker:

And you said, okay, but you seem to me to be suggesting that journalists

Speaker:

actually ignore what the Prime Minister does or says if it doesn't form some

Speaker:

critique of him or if it's not news.

Speaker:

To me, that seems partisan in that it means the journalists already have a

Speaker:

constructive narrative and if the PM doesn't fit into that, they ignore him.

Speaker:

And Paul, what I'm talking about there was when the Prime Minister turns up at

Speaker:

a hairdressing salon and starts washing somebody's hair, you as a journalist

Speaker:

are supposed to make a decision.

Speaker:

That that's not news, and that's not being partisan.

Speaker:

That's just being, I'm not going to be part of your public relations exercise,

Speaker:

so I'm not going to report this.

Speaker:

But when you start talking, then that's news.

Speaker:

So um, um.

Speaker:

Yeah, so we had a bit of to ing and fro ing over email there, so um, so yeah,

Speaker:

in terms of feedback, I was accused of being naive and um, and then Paul

Speaker:

sort of misinterpreted what I said, so I do want feedback, but just keep

Speaker:

it coming, and um, but you don't put words into my mouth, like I wasn't

Speaker:

saying the media should be partisan.

Speaker:

Clearly it is in many respects.

Speaker:

Try and find media that isn't, and from the media's point of view,

Speaker:

don't do a hair washing segment.

Speaker:

It's just not news, and it's not, you're not being partisan by ignoring it.

Speaker:

So, there we go.

Speaker:

Right, um, what have we got in the chat room here?

Speaker:

Um, we're up to, we're up to an hour and a half, and I've got, um,

Speaker:

I've got a huge bit on Ukraine.

Speaker:

Which most people are probably sick of by now, but the true

Speaker:

believers might like to hear.

Speaker:

And I think what I'm going to do is probably finish the podcast now, the

Speaker:

live stream, and say our farewells, and then I think I'm going to record.

Speaker:

Um, an extra hour or so on Ukraine, because I've got lots of clips and

Speaker:

things, um, essentially looking at, um, the whole sort of NATO, um, encroachment

Speaker:

up to Russia, and the number of people, distinguished people, who a long time ago

Speaker:

said, this is going to cause a problem.

Speaker:

And so, I think I need to get all that out of the way and done and dusted,

Speaker:

so I think I'll do that as a added.

Speaker:

I'll tack it on to the end of this podcast.

Speaker:

So if you're watching the live stream, make sure you download the

Speaker:

actual podcast and skip forward an hour and a half and, um You know

Speaker:

what, James says let's hear it.

Speaker:

You know what, James, I might come on live in about 20 minutes and do it.

Speaker:

Once I've, um, I might do that.

Speaker:

I might come on live and just go solo rant on Ukraine to add to it.

Speaker:

I'm not sure.

Speaker:

Keep a look out.

Speaker:

I might be there if you, if you're keen.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

But it will go for a while and I'm conscious of Joe and Shea's

Speaker:

time and that it'll just be me ranting in a one way stream.

Speaker:

So, um, so yeah, so let's finish off this podcast and I'll tack it on if

Speaker:

you, if you bail out now, make sure you listen to the, uh, audio version

Speaker:

and, uh, You never know, I might come on in 20 minutes and just do it anyway.

Speaker:

So we'll see.

Speaker:

Alrighty.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Thanks Shea.

Speaker:

International Women's Day.

Speaker:

Done and dusted.

Speaker:

Thank you.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Thanks Joe.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Thanks Joe.

Speaker:

Good night.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

We'll talk to you next week.

Speaker:

Bye.

Speaker:

Oh, dear listener, here we go.

Speaker:

This is something unusual.

Speaker:

Episode 330, Part B.

Speaker:

So, if you're out there and you've hung around, let me know.

Speaker:

Joe will probably join in, um, in a moment, so Yeah, so episode 330 did

Speaker:

all the other stuff on International Women's Day and I figured that not

Speaker:

everybody wanted to hang around for the Ukrainian stuff and I put it at the end.

Speaker:

So I'm going to run through now my thoughts on the latest on Ukraine and

Speaker:

the things that I've found as I've been reading and give the update.

Speaker:

So here we go.

Speaker:

If you're in the chat room, let me know and because I'm a bit worried

Speaker:

whether it's actually working or not.

Speaker:

So, okay.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, at this stage, so we're recording now, 8th of March, 2022, and

Speaker:

the question is, what is Russia demanding?

Speaker:

And I saw an article from Reuters.

Speaker:

Uh, this is the 7th of March and essentially Russia has told

Speaker:

Ukraine it's ready to halt military operations, quote, in a moment if

Speaker:

Kiev meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

Speaker:

So Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change

Speaker:

its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory.

Speaker:

And recognise the, um, the Donbass region as independent states.

Speaker:

So it was the most explicit Russian statement so far in

Speaker:

terms of what it wants to impose.

Speaker:

And Peskov told Reuters in a telephone call that Ukraine was aware of the

Speaker:

conditions and they were told that this can be stopped in a moment.

Speaker:

So there's no reaction from the Ukrainian side as yet.

Speaker:

On the issue of neutrality, Peskov said they should make amendments to the

Speaker:

constitution according to which Ukraine would reject any claims to enter any bloc.

Speaker:

And he said, we have also spoken about how they should recognise

Speaker:

that Crimea is Russian territory.

Speaker:

So essentially, here's what Russia wants.

Speaker:

If the Ukraine says that we'll never be part of NATO, and if they

Speaker:

agree that Crimea, which has already been annexed, stays with Russia.

Speaker:

And if they agree to give up the Donbass region, then it's all over.

Speaker:

And I would have thought Ukraine should agree to that.

Speaker:

I mean, for all of the death and carnage that's going to occur in that

Speaker:

country, um, agree you're not going to join NATO, agree that you've given

Speaker:

up on Crimea, and agree that you now give up on the Donbass, I would have

Speaker:

thought as a deal you should strike.

Speaker:

So, I mean, uh, there's nothing wrong with compromise.

Speaker:

When there was the, um, the Cuban crisis, there was a, there was

Speaker:

a, there was a compromise there.

Speaker:

I mean the Russians agreed not to put the missiles on Cuba and in return Kennedy

Speaker:

agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey.

Speaker:

Now that last piece was kept secret for a while, didn't come out to save face

Speaker:

for Kennedy, but it was essentially.

Speaker:

Kennedy agreed to pull the missiles out of Turkey in return for, um, the

Speaker:

Russians agreeing to stay out of Cuba.

Speaker:

So, um, I would have thought, from the Crimean point of view, in terms of

Speaker:

lives lost and the situation they're in, that, um, if it's simply a matter

Speaker:

of agreeing they'll not be part of NATO, giving up on Crimea and Donbass,

Speaker:

and they can have their country back, that's what they should do.

Speaker:

Anyone disagree in the chat room?

Speaker:

Um, so, if you've just joined, you haven't missed much.

Speaker:

Um, John, just the, the demands from Russia, which I'll just explain.

Speaker:

Okay, what has, uh, Trump been saying lately, just before I

Speaker:

get into the meatier topics?

Speaker:

Um, so, um, he's continuing his reactionary nostalgia tour, and you get I.

Speaker:

V.

Speaker:

I.

Speaker:

84 minute address to 250 Republican Party's biggest donors at the

Speaker:

Four Seasons in New Orleans.

Speaker:

Presumably that was the Four Seasons Hotel and not the Four

Speaker:

Seasons Landscaping in New Orleans.

Speaker:

Hopefully they got that right this time.

Speaker:

Anyway, the most striking, uh, was his suggestion.

Speaker:

This is the former president and the wannabe president in

Speaker:

the next election, Donald Trump.

Speaker:

He said the US should put Chinese flags on its F 22 aircraft and bomb the shit out

Speaker:

of Russia and then we say China did it.

Speaker:

We didn't do it, China did.

Speaker:

And then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.

Speaker:

I mean, this is, this is, um, what the former president is saying.

Speaker:

I mean, you can't even joke about that, can you?

Speaker:

I mean, if he's, you can't even joke about it.

Speaker:

In the chatroom, Martin Featherston says, Moving missiles is a bit different

Speaker:

to letting a belligerent neighbor slice off pieces of your country at a whim.

Speaker:

It is, but do the calculation, Martin.

Speaker:

Like, if you were in charge of Ukraine and you could stop the fighting and the

Speaker:

killing, That's going to happen over the next weeks and months, in return

Speaker:

for that, would you do it or not?

Speaker:

That's, that's the question.

Speaker:

So, um, anyway, um, so, um, So looking at the history and the context

Speaker:

leading up to this whole crisis with Ukraine is quite interesting.

Speaker:

And, oh, you know, it's interesting, isn't it?

Speaker:

Like, you're a humble podcaster, you don't know anything about

Speaker:

Ukraine, and then, you know.

Speaker:

A month later, you think you know everything about it, um, and it's a

Speaker:

bit of a risk that it's a bit like the COVID people who think they, uh, COVID

Speaker:

experts, um, and ivermectin experts.

Speaker:

And, um, really, you know, when it came to COVID and technical expertise of

Speaker:

vaccines and the competing drugs, et cetera, my approach to that was, who

Speaker:

are the most authoritative experts in this field and what are they saying?

Speaker:

And the people who are coming out with what seems to be crazy

Speaker:

non conformist ideas, do they really have any qualifications?

Speaker:

And the studies that they're talking about, do they, do they have any?

Speaker:

On the face of it, legitimacy.

Speaker:

And that's how I kind of weighed up what was the truth

Speaker:

in terms of COVID vaccinations.

Speaker:

And my approach with this Ukrainian issue and the lead up to it is a little

Speaker:

bit the same, is that when talking about, um, the encroachment by NATO

Speaker:

and the effect that that had on Russian Western relations, who's talking about

Speaker:

it and what are their qualifications?

Speaker:

Are they just a Republican politician?

Speaker:

Or are they a mouthpiece for, um, the military industrial complex?

Speaker:

Or are they an expert who's been involved in, um, Russia Western relations

Speaker:

for most of their life at university level or in diplomatic circles?

Speaker:

And, you know, you give them far more weight to that later category than you

Speaker:

do to, you know, current Republicans.

Speaker:

So, um So that's what, um, my approach is when looking at this

Speaker:

is, who's saying this stuff?

Speaker:

Does it, on the face of it, make sense?

Speaker:

If there's a competing argument that also makes sense, well, what's

Speaker:

the credibility, the expertise of the people making the statements?

Speaker:

So, um, so, um, Tom the Warehouse Guy, in what circumstance

Speaker:

would the US nuke Russia?

Speaker:

Russia can invade any non NATO country it likes.

Speaker:

Um, uh, we'll come back to that.

Speaker:

Um, and there's a little bit of a danger here because, for example, when we talk

Speaker:

about what's happened with the Ukraine, um, and we compare it to, say, the Cuban

Speaker:

Missile Crisis, or we compare it to um, other sort of similar situations, there's

Speaker:

a there's an argument of whataboutism.

Speaker:

Oh, you're just, you're just using Whataboutism, but, um, Whataboutism

Speaker:

isn't necessarily, um, bad.

Speaker:

So, those who use Whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or

Speaker:

cynical deflection of responsibility.

Speaker:

Whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions,

Speaker:

double standards, and hypocrisy.

Speaker:

So there's a line of thought that the left should not implicate

Speaker:

the USA in the Ukraine disaster.

Speaker:

That it's just an evil Putin and an evil Russia and blaming the

Speaker:

USA as being a Putin apologist.

Speaker:

But I like the John Pilger line in response to this and he says, The invasion

Speaker:

of a sovereign state is lawless and wrong.

Speaker:

A failure to understand the cynical forces that provoked the invasion of Ukraine.

Speaker:

insults the victims.

Speaker:

So I think it's definitely worthwhile to look at the forces that led up

Speaker:

to this and, um, and understand them because otherwise it can happen again.

Speaker:

So, um, so I've got a number of clips to show and some of them are

Speaker:

a bit lengthy, but hey, we're on a bonus, uh, couple of hours here.

Speaker:

We've got all the time in the world.

Speaker:

If you're flooded in Sydney, you've got nothing else to do, maybe.

Speaker:

Is it Netflix?

Speaker:

Um, so, um, I'm going to play you now a clip from Vladimir Pozner about how the

Speaker:

United States created Vladimir Putin.

Speaker:

This actually link came to me from one of our new patrons, whose

Speaker:

name escapes me at the moment, but thank you very much for the link.

Speaker:

You know who you are.

Speaker:

And the first question is, well, who the hell is Vladimir Pozner?

Speaker:

And, um Um, um, he's a French born, Russian American journalist and

Speaker:

presenter, so he's best known in the West for his television appearances

Speaker:

representing and explaining the views of the Soviet Union during the Cold

Speaker:

War, so he was memorable as a spokesman for the Soviets, in part because he

Speaker:

grew up in the United States and speaks fluent English, Russian, and French.

Speaker:

And he himself describes his role at that time as propaganda, so he

Speaker:

was a propaganda person for Russia.

Speaker:

After the Cold War, Posner moved to the United States to work with Phil Donahue

Speaker:

before returning to Moscow to continue working as a television journalist.

Speaker:

Since 2008, he has hosted the eponymous show Posner on Russia's Channel One

Speaker:

where he interviews public figures.

Speaker:

So he's clearly in the thick of Russia.

Speaker:

He's previously worked as a Russian propagandist.

Speaker:

But take all that in mind as you listen to him.

Speaker:

There'll be other people who have a more neutral, um, background to them if you

Speaker:

like, um, but let's just, um, find that clip because it's a good Um, it's a good

Speaker:

start up before we get into the other clips and look, it probably goes for

Speaker:

about six minutes or so, but there was like a 90 minute talk that he was giving.

Speaker:

Um, so this comes from, it's on YouTube, he was speaking here in

Speaker:

2018, so four years ago and he was speaking at Yale's program in Russia.

Speaker:

Um, East European and Eurasian Studies, so he's speaking at Yale University,

Speaker:

and um, um, this, um, so yeah, from four years ago, and it was like a 90

Speaker:

minute episode, and I've found the best sort of six to eight minutes of it,

Speaker:

so here we go, let's play this, and I'll be back at the end of this bit.

Speaker:

That's where it all began, because the Russian reaction, and specifically

Speaker:

this is 1998, so uh, this is Yeltsin.

Speaker:

Late Yeltsin, was, you promised not to do this, so how do we

Speaker:

trust you if you make a promise?

Speaker:

I would also like you to perhaps try to, um, solve a little problem, it's

Speaker:

kind of a math, not, not mathematical.

Speaker:

Take the time from when Gorbachev came to power, March 1985, To

Speaker:

2007 when Putin has been in power for seven years, that's 22 years.

Speaker:

I ask you to find a single thing in foreign or domestic policies done

Speaker:

by the Soviet Union whilst that existed, and then Russia proper.

Speaker:

That might in any way, anger, irk, disappoint.

Speaker:

The United States.

Speaker:

Let me answer that for you.

Speaker:

Nothing.

Speaker:

Not one thing during that period.

Speaker:

Now what did Russia get as a result of that?

Speaker:

First, the enlargement of NATO.

Speaker:

So that was number one.

Speaker:

Then the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Speaker:

That was done by NATO, and NATO is, after all, dependent mostly on the

Speaker:

United States, let's face it, right?

Speaker:

Uh, the UN did not condone this.

Speaker:

So the bombing of Yugoslavia, that's, uh, from March 24th, 99 to June 10th, 99.

Speaker:

Then, uh, Kosovo, and recognition of Kosovo, although it had been

Speaker:

part of Serbia for centuries.

Speaker:

And there were people in Russia who said, You're letting the gin out of the bottle.

Speaker:

Because if you do this, then there are other countries that will do the same.

Speaker:

And Russia did the same.

Speaker:

Visa Diapresia, to begin with.

Speaker:

Okay?

Speaker:

Uh, Yeltsin was very angry.

Speaker:

He made a speech, he said, and of course this is very Yeltsin

Speaker:

like, he said, We're not Haiti!

Speaker:

You can't treat us like Haiti.

Speaker:

We're a great country.

Speaker:

We have a great past, and Russia will come back.

Speaker:

Russia will come back.

Speaker:

He was really, really angered.

Speaker:

Didn't say the politically correct thing, but he spoke his mind.

Speaker:

Then finally, 2000, the year 2000, Mr.

Speaker:

Putin.

Speaker:

is not elected, although elected, um, to the presidency.

Speaker:

And one of the first things he does is to ask for Russia to become a member of NATO.

Speaker:

Why not be a member of NATO?

Speaker:

NATO was created to defend Europe, and perhaps not only

Speaker:

Europe, from Soviet aggression.

Speaker:

From a country that you couldn't predict.

Speaker:

There is no more Soviet Union, and there is no more Warsaw Pact.

Speaker:

Why can't we create an organization where we're part of it, said Mr.

Speaker:

Putin, and act together to protect from some kind of aggression?

Speaker:

He was told, go take a walk, basically.

Speaker:

What about some kind of Partnership, we're becoming part of the European Union.

Speaker:

Again, and this is all documented.

Speaker:

Everything I say, except when I say my opinion, is documented.

Speaker:

You can look it up.

Speaker:

And he said, no, you know, you're too big.

Speaker:

Your country's too big.

Speaker:

You can't.

Speaker:

Uh, and all the while, Russia was being reminded that It's no longer

Speaker:

really that important a country.

Speaker:

Now, one of the things you must keep in mind is that much like the Americans, the

Speaker:

Russians believe that they have a mission.

Speaker:

That their country was selected by destiny.

Speaker:

Now, you know, my being French, I laugh at that.

Speaker:

I laugh both at you and at them, because we French know that we're the

Speaker:

best, and we have no, no, we have no mission, you know, we're the, that's it.

Speaker:

But, seriously speaking, that's a fact.

Speaker:

And, so the sense of losing this, this, this um, aura of greatness, of

Speaker:

being told, we don't care about you.

Speaker:

The, uh, the reaction of the average Russian to that was one

Speaker:

of, you're, you're insulting me, you're not, you don't respect me.

Speaker:

And so the anger, gradually, and the anger focused on Gorbachev.

Speaker:

Many, many Russians figured you sold the country.

Speaker:

You don't stand up to these men, to these, to the United States.

Speaker:

And then the same thing for Yeltsin.

Speaker:

You'd be surprised how unpopular Gorbachev and Yeltsin are today in Russian.

Speaker:

Maybe 5 percent support them.

Speaker:

Precisely for that reason.

Speaker:

Well, there are some others as well that have to do with

Speaker:

economic things, but nonetheless.

Speaker:

So now here we have Putin, who as you know, as soon as 9

Speaker:

11 happens, calls up Bush Jr.

Speaker:

W.

Speaker:

And offers his help.

Speaker:

And yes, and does help in Afghanistan.

Speaker:

And if you want to have your soldiers, your military people in, in Central

Speaker:

Asia, right on our borders, be my guest.

Speaker:

And in Georgia, absolutely.

Speaker:

So it's not just words.

Speaker:

You know, we, we want to fight terrorism together.

Speaker:

And, uh, gets nothing in, in, in exchange.

Speaker:

So finally In 2007, in Munich, um, speaking to the 20, the group

Speaker:

of 20 in Munich, Putin says this.

Speaker:

This is February 10th.

Speaker:

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the

Speaker:

modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe.

Speaker:

On the contrary.

Speaker:

It represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.

Speaker:

And we have the right to ask, against whom is this expansion intended?

Speaker:

And what happened to the assurance of our Western partners made after

Speaker:

the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?

Speaker:

Where are those declarations today?

Speaker:

No one even remembers them.

Speaker:

But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said.

Speaker:

I would like to quote the speech of General Secretary Mr.

Speaker:

Boerner of Brussels on May 17th, 1990.

Speaker:

He said at the time, quote, The fact that we are not ready to place a NATO army

Speaker:

outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.

Speaker:

Where are these guarantees?

Speaker:

And do you know what the answer was?

Speaker:

The answer was, yes, but that was guarantees given to the

Speaker:

Soviet Union, and you're Russia.

Speaker:

Well, what kind of a reaction would you expect?

Speaker:

Um, last year, I think it was, making a foreign policy speech, Putin said,

Speaker:

our mistake was that we trusted you too much, and your mistake was that

Speaker:

you tried to take advantage of that.

Speaker:

That is the situation today.

Speaker:

Now, it may seem to you that I'm blaming the United States.

Speaker:

I don't want the word blame used.

Speaker:

It was a mistaken political decision.

Speaker:

It was not the Russians.

Speaker:

It was this decision that finally led to this change in Putin's attitude towards

Speaker:

the West and in particular towards the United States, which is why I say how U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

policy created.

Speaker:

Putin, the way he is today.

Speaker:

And the really, if you will, um, um, dangerous thing is that Russian

Speaker:

leadership, I should be more precise and say Vladimir Putin, does not trust

Speaker:

the West, does not trust the United States, which makes it very difficult

Speaker:

to move away from where we are today.

Speaker:

There you going.

Speaker:

So that was, um, four years ago.

Speaker:

So it's really interesting.

Speaker:

Some of the clips I'm gonna show you are from people speaking a long time ago, uh,

Speaker:

relatively compared to what's going on now and how, how prescient their words are.

Speaker:

So, you know, the theme of what he was talking about

Speaker:

was the encroachment by nato.

Speaker:

Um, and, um.

Speaker:

Essentially, you know, one of the things here is, what Russia is asking for in

Speaker:

relation to NATO is not that unreasonable America would have to agree, because

Speaker:

if America was right about the Cuban Missile Crisis, then Russia is right

Speaker:

about not wanting Ukraine to join NATO.

Speaker:

So, you can't, you can't say the USA was right in Cuba.

Speaker:

And, um, uh, Russia is wrong about wanting NATO to stay out of the Ukraine.

Speaker:

It's being inconsistent.

Speaker:

So, this is the whole, the whole point is that Russia has a point.

Speaker:

And, now, you know, according to international law, was Cuba able,

Speaker:

legally, to put missiles on its country?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Is, you know, is Ukraine By international law, legally able

Speaker:

to put NATO weapons on its soil?

Speaker:

Yes, but at least the USA has to acknowledge by its own actions that it

Speaker:

knows that there should be a border zone of neutrality between warring parties.

Speaker:

Otherwise, it's uneasy.

Speaker:

Imagine how they'd be if there were missiles on the Mexican border

Speaker:

at Juarez, somewhere like that.

Speaker:

Pointing at the US.

Speaker:

They'd be apoplectic.

Speaker:

They would not allow it to happen.

Speaker:

So, that's what this podcast pointing out the double standard.

Speaker:

This doesn't mean that it's right for Russia to go and invade Ukraine,

Speaker:

but you have to view it from the Ukrainian point of view as well.

Speaker:

Okay, so, um, And, you know, the interesting thing to come out of that was

Speaker:

his argument that essentially Putin was Um, Russia essentially, he said, between

Speaker:

1985 and 2007, 22 years, did nothing that the West could complain about, in terms

Speaker:

of its actions on the, on the world stage.

Speaker:

So, now, is Vladimir Pozner biased?

Speaker:

You know, maybe, but in his speech he was saying, look, I'm telling you the

Speaker:

facts, and when I'm giving you my opinion, I say it's my opinion, but if I don't

Speaker:

say it's my opinion, then it's a fact.

Speaker:

So, you know, somebody tell me if he's wrong.

Speaker:

Was there something done by Russia between 1985 and 2007 that would have

Speaker:

given, um, the Western powers, uh, a reason to complain, or did they keep a

Speaker:

pretty squeaky clean role in the world?

Speaker:

So, it's an interesting, uh, question.

Speaker:

Idea, isn't it?

Speaker:

That's a long time and at the end of which Russia says we want to

Speaker:

join the EU We want to join NATO.

Speaker:

We want to be part of Europe and the West says no, you can't And we're just

Speaker:

gonna build up more weapons against you.

Speaker:

Put yourself in the Russians shoes.

Speaker:

Okay, so So that was Vladimir Pozner and

Speaker:

Just sideline, you know, think about our relationship with China

Speaker:

and, you know, what have they done other than not buying our stuff.

Speaker:

Is not buying our stuff an act of aggression?

Speaker:

Anyway, there's an article by Caitlin Johnston.

Speaker:

So Caitlin's one of the ones I think on the left who fell into

Speaker:

a bit of a trap where she was basically saying, oh, I don't want

Speaker:

to put words into her mouth, but.

Speaker:

Pooh poohing the idea that Putin would invade Ukraine because she was so anti

Speaker:

the US intelligence and I think she probably went too hard on the fact that

Speaker:

Putin would never invade because she just didn't want to believe US intelligence.

Speaker:

Anyway, um, I think she's made some mistakes in that department, but

Speaker:

she gets a lot of things right.

Speaker:

And she wrote an article that is really looking at this idea of

Speaker:

Did it really matter to Russia whether NATO was encroaching or not?

Speaker:

And um, she says that, well first of all, she quotes Chris Hedges, who

Speaker:

I think I quoted last week, or last time I spoke about Soviet Union, or

Speaker:

Ukraine, um, yeah Chris Hedges was the guy who was a former New York Times,

Speaker:

um, reporter in the Middle East for Decade or so, like, highly respected.

Speaker:

He had said, After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was near universal

Speaker:

understanding among political leaders that NATO expansion would be a

Speaker:

foolish provocation against Russia.

Speaker:

How naive we were to think the military industrial complex would

Speaker:

allow such sanity to prevail.

Speaker:

So, Caitlin Johnston argues that, um, what she calls the imperial narrative

Speaker:

managers, um, meaning, you know.

Speaker:

The mainstream Western dialogue or narrative at the moment has been falling

Speaker:

over themselves, working to dismiss and discredit the abundant evidence

Speaker:

that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was due largely to Moscow's fear of NATO

Speaker:

expansion and the refusal of Washington and Kiev to solidify a policy that Ukraine

Speaker:

would not be added to the alliance.

Speaker:

So she lists a few of them here.

Speaker:

So there's Michael MacFarlane.

Speaker:

Um, mass media's go to pundit on all things Russia, and he says, Putin's

Speaker:

horrific invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion.

Speaker:

Stop.

Speaker:

Please.

Speaker:

Yeah, or there's New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski who

Speaker:

says, The mask is totally off Putin.

Speaker:

In case anyone has any doubts, this has nothing to do with NATO expansion.

Speaker:

It has everything to do with his belief that Ukraine has no right to exist.

Speaker:

The very idea of Ukraine is offensive to him.

Speaker:

What?

Speaker:

There is the security editor, or the editor of Just Security called Ryan

Speaker:

Goodman, who writes, If you think the Russian invasion has much to do with

Speaker:

NATO enlargement, this analysis provides many fact based reasons to think again.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

And she says that, um,

Speaker:

they're working hard to present a narrative that the invasion has

Speaker:

nothing to do with NATO at all.

Speaker:

It occurred solely because Putin is an evil madman who hates freedom

Speaker:

and wants to destroy democracy.

Speaker:

And most Western analysis goes no deeper than this.

Speaker:

But she says the problem with this propaganda effort, that NATO has nothing

Speaker:

to do with the Reasons for Putin invading.

Speaker:

The problem with that argument is, how come so many Western experts have

Speaker:

spent years warning that NATO expansion will lead to an attack on the Ukraine?

Speaker:

So, I'm going to run through a bunch of characters here who have all been

Speaker:

predicting this in one way or another.

Speaker:

And the first one is John Mearsheimer.

Speaker:

So, I'm going to be playing a clip from 2015, seven years ago, and

Speaker:

now, he's an American political scientist, an international relations

Speaker:

scholar, he belongs to the realist school of thought, he is the R.

Speaker:

Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.

Speaker:

So that's John Mearsheimer, let's find, uh, uh, that clip, okay, here we go.

Speaker:

But I actually think that what's going on here Is that the West is leading Ukraine

Speaker:

down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.

Speaker:

And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralizing Ukraine

Speaker:

and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition

Speaker:

between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side, is the best thing

Speaker:

that could happen to the Ukrainians.

Speaker:

What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play

Speaker:

tough with the Russians.

Speaker:

We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of

Speaker:

the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin and we will ultimately get our way.

Speaker:

Time is on our side.

Speaker:

And of course the Ukrainians are playing along with this.

Speaker:

The Ukrainians are almost completely unwilling to compromise with

Speaker:

the Russians and instead want to pursue a hardline policy.

Speaker:

As I said to you before, if they do that, the end result is that their

Speaker:

country is going to be wrecked.

Speaker:

And what we're doing is in effect encouraging.

Speaker:

That outcome.

Speaker:

I think it would make much more sense for us to neutral, to work

Speaker:

to create a neutral Ukraine.

Speaker:

It would be in our interest to bury this crisis as quickly as possible.

Speaker:

It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so.

Speaker:

And most importantly, it would be in Ukraine's interest to

Speaker:

put an end to the crisis.

Speaker:

Thank you.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

That was 2015, seven years ago.

Speaker:

Next one coming up is Stephen F.

Speaker:

Cohen.

Speaker:

This one will be from 2010, going back 12 years.

Speaker:

Who's Stephen F.

Speaker:

Cohen?

Speaker:

His academic work concentrated on modern Russian history since the

Speaker:

Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's relationship with the United States.

Speaker:

After completing his PhD in Government and Russian Studies at Columbia

Speaker:

University in 1968, he became a Professor of Politics at Princeton University.

Speaker:

Later that year and remained on its faculty until 1998 when he became

Speaker:

Professor of Politics Emeritus.

Speaker:

He then taught at New York University until his retirement in 2011

Speaker:

when he became Professor Emeritus of Russian and Slavic Studies.

Speaker:

So, Stephen F.

Speaker:

Cohen, and this is what he's got to say.

Speaker:

So NATO represents on the part of Russia a lack of trust.

Speaker:

You break your words to us.

Speaker:

What can, to what extent can we trust you?

Speaker:

Secondly, it represents military encirclement.

Speaker:

If you look, if you sit in the Kremlin and you look out at where NATO is and

Speaker:

where they want to go, it's everywhere.

Speaker:

It's everywhere on Russia's borders.

Speaker:

But there's something even more profound.

Speaker:

That's a taboo in the United States.

Speaker:

NATO expansion represents for the Russians American hypocrisy and a dual standard

Speaker:

and they see it this way and I can't think of any way to deny their argument.

Speaker:

The expansion of NATO is the expansion of the American sphere of influence.

Speaker:

Plain and simple.

Speaker:

Where NATO goes, our military force goes.

Speaker:

Where NATO goes, uh, our arms munitions go, because they

Speaker:

have to buy American weapons.

Speaker:

Where NATO goes, Western soldiers go who date their women.

Speaker:

Uh, they bring along their habits and all the other things.

Speaker:

It's clearly Undebatably, indisputably, an expansion of

Speaker:

America's sphere of influence.

Speaker:

So there has been a tremendous expansion of America's sphere of

Speaker:

influence since the mid 1990s, right plunk on Russia's borders.

Speaker:

All the while, every administration, American administration, saying

Speaker:

to Russia, including the Obama administration, you cannot have a sphere

Speaker:

of influence because that's old thinking.

Speaker:

Well, I mean, the Russians may be cruel, but they're not stupid.

Speaker:

In other words, what they say is, we can now have the biggest sphere of influence

Speaker:

the world's ever seen, and you don't get any, not even on your own border.

Speaker:

In fact, we're taking what used to be your traditional sphere of influence,

Speaker:

along with the energy and all the rest.

Speaker:

It's ours now.

Speaker:

Again, this idea of a winner take all policy.

Speaker:

This is the enormous, uh, resentment in Russia.

Speaker:

The relationship will never become a stable cooperative relationship

Speaker:

until we deal with this problem.

Speaker:

Alrighty, and another one here, this isn't a clip, this is a Stephen M.

Speaker:

Walt, columnist at Foreign Policy, and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor

Speaker:

of International Relations at Harvard University, writing in 2015, said, The

Speaker:

solution to this crisis for the United States and its allies, the solution for

Speaker:

this crisis is for the United States and its allies to abandon the dangerous

Speaker:

and unnecessary goal of endless NATO expansion and do whatever it takes to

Speaker:

convince Russia that we want Ukraine to be a neutral buffer state in perpetuity.

Speaker:

We should then work with Russia, the EU and the IMF to develop an

Speaker:

economic program that puts that unfortunate country back on its feet.

Speaker:

That was back in 2015.

Speaker:

There's another interesting character in this, uh, George Kennan,

Speaker:

some of you might have heard of.

Speaker:

Um, he was an American diplomat and historian.

Speaker:

Uh, lived from 1904 to 2005.

Speaker:

So 101 years he lasted.

Speaker:

So he was best known as an advocate of policy of containment of Soviet

Speaker:

expansion during the Cold War.

Speaker:

He lectured widely and he wrote scholarly histories on the relations

Speaker:

between the USSR and the United States.

Speaker:

So during his, uh, during the 1940s, uh, his writings inspired the Truman

Speaker:

Doctrine and the US foreign policy of containing the Soviet Union.

Speaker:

He wrote, uh, the Long Telegram from Moscow during 1946.

Speaker:

And a subsequent article, The Sources of Soviet Conduct.

Speaker:

And he argued that the Soviet regime was inherently expansionist,

Speaker:

and that its influence had to be contained in areas of vital strategic

Speaker:

importance to the United States.

Speaker:

And those, uh, writings of his provided the justification for the Truman

Speaker:

Administration's new anti Soviet policy.

Speaker:

So Kennan played a major role in the development of the definitive

Speaker:

Cold War programs and institutions.

Speaker:

Notably, the Marshall Plan.

Speaker:

Soon after his concepts had become US policy, Kennan began

Speaker:

to criticise the foreign policies that he'd helped articulate.

Speaker:

And by 1948, Kennan became confident that positive dialogue could

Speaker:

commence with the Soviet government.

Speaker:

His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and

Speaker:

Kennan's influence was marginalised.

Speaker:

And in 1950, he left the State Department except for a brief

Speaker:

ambassadorial, he was briefly the ambassador in Moscow for the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

and he was a longer stay as ambassador for the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

in Yugoslavia and became a critic of U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

foreign policy.

Speaker:

So, um, in 1998, um, so we're going back now, 24 years.

Speaker:

Right after the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

Senate approved NATO expansion, and he said at that time, I think it

Speaker:

is the beginning of a new Cold War.

Speaker:

I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it

Speaker:

will affect their policies.

Speaker:

I think it is a tragic mistake.

Speaker:

There was no reason for this whatsoever.

Speaker:

No one was threatening anybody else.

Speaker:

This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country

Speaker:

turn over in their graves.

Speaker:

Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia.

Speaker:

And then, the NATO expanders will say, that we always told

Speaker:

you that is how the Russians are.

Speaker:

But this is just wrong.

Speaker:

So, um, that was George Kennan, um.

Speaker:

I just wanted to go back to, I forgot to say, in relation to Vladimir Pozner.

Speaker:

He was the guy who was previously a propaganda guy for the Russians.

Speaker:

And there was a bit in his, um, speech where this Ukrainian guy asks a question.

Speaker:

And to me it was sort of the question that Ed might have asked.

Speaker:

Remember Ed, our Russian, um, commentator in the last episode.

Speaker:

And I think it's worth hearing.

Speaker:

Um, that as well.

Speaker:

So let me just, um, find, um, this one.

Speaker:

So, back to Posner and the, uh, Yale lecture that he was giving

Speaker:

and a question from the floor from somebody from a Ukrainian.

Speaker:

I've been following you for many years, your work, um, going back to telebridges,

Speaker:

uh, with Phil Donahue and, uh, uh, certainly, uh, some of us remember, uh,

Speaker:

those days, uh, back in the Soviet Union.

Speaker:

Um, I'm from Ukraine, uh, just for the record.

Speaker:

Um, so, uh, I, uh, certainly shared your view about a lot

Speaker:

of things that you speak about.

Speaker:

Uh, today, however, I'm struggling a little bit, um, to accept your point

Speaker:

of view, um, and I can't get rid of a feeling that, um, it's almost like a

Speaker:

legal defense, uh, that is trying to Uh, explain the bad behavior of a person,

Speaker:

uh, by the external circumstances.

Speaker:

Um, I'm certainly not naive, uh, or idealistic about the policymaking in any

Speaker:

country, including the United States.

Speaker:

Um, and certainly I do agree that mistakes were made.

Speaker:

Um, not being an expert in this field, it's difficult for me to really know

Speaker:

the exact chronological sequence of the events, so it's difficult to argue what

Speaker:

was the cause and what was the effect.

Speaker:

Uh, of what you're describing.

Speaker:

Uh, however, in your presentation today, uh, I think you, uh,

Speaker:

certainly presented, uh, Mr.

Speaker:

Putin as a positive, peace loving person.

Speaker:

And I'm not sure that I agree with that assessment.

Speaker:

Um, I made a point of up to 2007.

Speaker:

And up to 2007, Putin did nothing internationally.

Speaker:

That would speak of an aggression.

Speaker:

Nothing at all.

Speaker:

It all happened after 2007.

Speaker:

It happened in 2008, with Georgia, with the war.

Speaker:

Officially it wasn't Putin, it was Medvedev, but you know,

Speaker:

so, uh, no big difference.

Speaker:

And then all the other things that you're talking about.

Speaker:

But up until 2007, until that Munich speech, when he said, Enough is enough.

Speaker:

You have to respect us.

Speaker:

You have to take into consideration.

Speaker:

Our interest, the world is not unipolar, it is multipolar, and

Speaker:

you will have to keep that in mind.

Speaker:

Incidentally, that's why he's so popular in Russia.

Speaker:

Not because, um, he contributed to people's living much better, although they

Speaker:

did, but he was lucky because the price of oil was high and so that certainly helped.

Speaker:

But because people saw him as someone who stood up.

Speaker:

to the American bully, and told him off.

Speaker:

Alright, so, um, so yeah, so that's Vladimir Pozner, we've done John,

Speaker:

um, and he was a journalist slash propagandist, who admits he was a

Speaker:

propagandist, but we've dealt with Mearsheimer, Cullen, Walt, George

Speaker:

Kennan, all sort of very academic, also within the, um, foreign policy world.

Speaker:

Here's another one, William Burns, um, he's now CIA director, um, he

Speaker:

was the CIA director and he wrote a 2008 memo, 14 years ago, to the then

Speaker:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Speaker:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for

Speaker:

the Russian elite, not just Putin.

Speaker:

In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players,

Speaker:

from knuckle draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin, to Putin's

Speaker:

sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in

Speaker:

NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Speaker:

There's also this one, John Matlock, served as US Ambassador.

Speaker:

to the USSR from 1987 to 1991.

Speaker:

Um, and he wrote, uh, just last month, 14th of February, 2022, about

Speaker:

the Ukraine conflict, calling it, quote, an avoidable crisis that was

Speaker:

predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved

Speaker:

by the application of common sense.

Speaker:

Um, let me just see this bit here.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

And he goes on to say, In 1997, when the question of adding more members to

Speaker:

the NATO, I was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Speaker:

In my introductory remarks, I made the following statement, quote,

Speaker:

I consider the administration's recommendation to take new members

Speaker:

into NATO at this time misguided.

Speaker:

If it should be approved by the United States Senate, It may well

Speaker:

go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made

Speaker:

since the end of the Cold War.

Speaker:

Far from improving the security of the United States, its allies, and

Speaker:

the nations that wish to enter the alliance, it could well encourage a

Speaker:

chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this

Speaker:

nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Speaker:

That was in 1997.

Speaker:

So, Katelyn Johnson in her article continues, So many people who've worked

Speaker:

hard to gain an understanding of the Russian government have been warning

Speaker:

for years that NATO expansionism would lead to a disastrous conflict, strongly

Speaker:

emphasising Ukraine as a powder keg where that conflict could Ignite.

Speaker:

Yet, we're being asked to believe that what we're seeing in Ukraine has nothing

Speaker:

whatsoever to do with NATO expansion and is due rather to Vladimir Putin simply

Speaker:

being evil and wanting to ruin everything.

Speaker:

So, I don't know.

Speaker:

If experts have been warning for many years that NATO expansion would provoke an

Speaker:

attack, And the guy launching the attack is specifically citing NATO expansion

Speaker:

as a driving motive for his actions.

Speaker:

It seems like maybe it's sorta kinda got something to do with NATO expansion.

Speaker:

Which would be great news, because it would mean the US and its allies

Speaker:

Actually have a lot more power to end this war than they've been letting on.

Speaker:

And no good reason not to do so immediately.

Speaker:

So they were all sort of links and um, mostly from, uh, Kaitlyn Johnston.

Speaker:

So Mia Shimer, Cohen, Walt, Kennan, Burns, Matlock, I got from her.

Speaker:

Stumbled across, um, a clip from Joe Biden.

Speaker:

In 1997.

Speaker:

This is an interesting one.

Speaker:

Um, when you look at him here, his face, he looks different.

Speaker:

And, so Joe Biden, 25 years ago, talking about Ukraine.

Speaker:

I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused

Speaker:

in the short term, for admission.

Speaker:

Having nothing to do with the merit and preparedness of the country to

Speaker:

come in, would be to admit the Baltic States now in terms of NATO Russian, U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

Russian relations.

Speaker:

And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance were it

Speaker:

to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction, I don't mean

Speaker:

military, in Russia, it would be that.

Speaker:

So the way I look at the calculus here, Joe Biden, a younger version,

Speaker:

and in the same time he had this to say about, um, Russia.

Speaker:

If they needed help from China.

Speaker:

Our conversation was a gone off, was repeated with Leavitt.

Speaker:

They talked about they don't want this NATO expansion, they know it's

Speaker:

not in their security interest and on and on and said, well, and if you do

Speaker:

that, we may have to look to China.

Speaker:

And I couldn't help using the colloquial expression from my

Speaker:

state by saying, To Zaconoff, lots of luck in your senior year.

Speaker:

Um, you know, uh, good luck.

Speaker:

And if that doesn't work, try a rant.

Speaker:

Um, and uh, I'm serious.

Speaker:

I said that to them, and these were, uh, and, and, and they know,

Speaker:

I knew, they knew, everybody knows.

Speaker:

That that is not an option.

Speaker:

And everybody knows, every one of those leaders acknowledges

Speaker:

and needs, and they resent it.

Speaker:

But they need.

Speaker:

They need to look West, and the question is whether this is designed to completely

Speaker:

shut them out, but not entirely.

Speaker:

There you go, Joe Biden saying to Russia, you won't be able to turn to China.

Speaker:

Of all the clips I've played where people were very prescient and almost like

Speaker:

fortune tellers with good credentials, he was way off the mark there.

Speaker:

So, um, so that was a younger version of, um, of, uh, Joe Biden getting it

Speaker:

right in saying that admitting the Baltic states was a risk and getting

Speaker:

it wrong when, uh, the Russians suggested they might turn to China.

Speaker:

And he suggested good luck with that.

Speaker:

It'll never happen.

Speaker:

Um, well, it's happening now.

Speaker:

Um, we'll talk about that in a little bit.

Speaker:

Um, look, uh, it's just, I came across one other clip.

Speaker:

This one was from Nelson Mandela.

Speaker:

Um It's kind of relevant.

Speaker:

I'll throw it in now.

Speaker:

And if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the

Speaker:

world, it is the United States of America.

Speaker:

They don't care.

Speaker:

They don't care for the human, for human beings.

Speaker:

57 years ago, when Japan was retreating on all fronts, They decided to drop the

Speaker:

atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Speaker:

Killed a lot of innocent people who are still suffering from

Speaker:

the effects of those bombs.

Speaker:

Those bombs were not aimed against the Japanese.

Speaker:

They were aimed against the Soviet Union.

Speaker:

To say, look This is the power that we have.

Speaker:

If you dare oppose what we do, this is what is going to happen to you.

Speaker:

Because they are so arrogant, they decided to kill innocent people in

Speaker:

Japan, who are still suffering from that.

Speaker:

Who are they now to pretend that the police may not work?

Speaker:

Okay, now, uh, we mentioned earlier in the podcast just briefly that Apple Pay

Speaker:

and Google Pay are no longer working on the Moscow Metro system, leading to long

Speaker:

queues as people fumble about for cash.

Speaker:

So this, uh, tweet that said, I like how we are meant to see this as a,

Speaker:

as an own against Russia instead of the terrifying realisation.

Speaker:

That a group of unelected tech oligarchs increasingly control most

Speaker:

country's entire infrastructure.

Speaker:

There is something to that.

Speaker:

If you look at that and you're saying, isn't that fantastic, Apple

Speaker:

and Google are playing their part.

Speaker:

It is a worry that an unelected group.

Speaker:

of oligarchs, tech oligarchs, have more power than sovereign governments

Speaker:

and can wield pressure like this to achieve potential political aims.

Speaker:

It is a worry and, um, you know, people wondered why China created

Speaker:

its own internet companies.

Speaker:

Um, they're, they're big enough and smart enough and they've learnt enough from

Speaker:

what's happened around the world to, to actively consider the alternatives.

Speaker:

When this sort of thing happens, so that they're not beholden to

Speaker:

American multinational companies.

Speaker:

Um, Sanctions.

Speaker:

Let's briefly talk, continue with sanctions then, because Apple and,

Speaker:

Apple Pay and Google Pay are sort of imposing a sanction, if you like.

Speaker:

Um, bear this in mind.

Speaker:

Sanctions and Malcolm Fraser.

Speaker:

Um, this was from a very old article in Crikey.

Speaker:

Um, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Malcolm Fraser

Speaker:

was savage in his condemnation.

Speaker:

Um, And he unsuccessfully demanded Australian athletes

Speaker:

boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Speaker:

But when it came to blocking wool exports to the Soviets, including

Speaker:

from his own property, Fraser was far less enthusiastic, and he refused to

Speaker:

follow the Carter's administration's block on wheat exports to the USSR.

Speaker:

I didn't know that.

Speaker:

I remember him actively campaigning to stop athletes from participating, and I

Speaker:

think swimmers like Tracy Wickham were torn, I don't think she actually went

Speaker:

in the end, but, you know, athletes were told, don't go and, um, we're

Speaker:

going to boycott the Soviet Union.

Speaker:

Meanwhile, he's still happy to sell his wheat to them.

Speaker:

I did not know that until now.

Speaker:

Ah, um, also, um, just thinking about Caldwell and China, um, this

Speaker:

speech was made in 1965 by Caldwell.

Speaker:

The government justifies its action on the ground of Chinese expansionist

Speaker:

aggression, and yet the same government is willing to continue and expand trade

Speaker:

in strategic materials with China.

Speaker:

We are selling wheat, wool, and steel to China.

Speaker:

The wheat is used to feed the armies of China.

Speaker:

The wool is used to clothe the armies of China.

Speaker:

The steel is used to equip the armies of China.

Speaker:

Yet the government, which is willing to encourage this trade, is the

Speaker:

same government which now sends Australian troops, and in the words

Speaker:

of the Prime Minister, to prevent the downward thrust of China.

Speaker:

The government may be able to square its conscience of this matter, but it

Speaker:

is logically and morally impossible.

Speaker:

So, again, we have the same stuff happening with our current government.

Speaker:

Where they are banging on endlessly about the threat of China, yet are

Speaker:

happy for us to sell iron ore to China.

Speaker:

Gee, I just have this feeling that iron ore might be a valuable thing

Speaker:

for a government to have if it was looking to wage war against us in

Speaker:

the future, if you were genuinely thinking that they were a threat.

Speaker:

How, you know, why would you still be sending iron off to China?

Speaker:

So, it's the sort of whole pig iron bob type thing again, isn't it?

Speaker:

Doesn't get mentioned much.

Speaker:

Um, right.

Speaker:

You might remember I did a, um, a review of Super Imperialism, which was by

Speaker:

Michael Hudson a few weeks ago, which was looking at currency and how The U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

government is getting a free ride because the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

dollar is the world's default currency and essentially, they

Speaker:

print as much as they like.

Speaker:

They lend it at low interest to their companies who go overseas

Speaker:

and buy assets of other countries.

Speaker:

Those other countries, in order to protect their own currency, are forced to buy U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

bonds and recycle the money back to the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

So, um, that's what that episode was about, and, and he's been talking

Speaker:

about, at some point, um, uh, China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, these countries

Speaker:

that are, uh, sort of ostracized from the system, may create their own Uh,

Speaker:

Currency Exchange, which bypasses the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

dollar, and when that happens, and if it catches on, um, dark days ahead for the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

who will lose a significant advantage that they've been enjoying.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, he wrote an article which said, America defeats Germany

Speaker:

for the third time in a century.

Speaker:

So, um, let me just go on here, uh, he's saying that there's basically

Speaker:

The US government is controlled by three ranches of oligarchies.

Speaker:

You've got the military industrial complex, so the people making

Speaker:

weapons and arms and fighter jets and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

Incidentally they're very clever those groups, they put factories, um, in all

Speaker:

sorts of strategically placed electorates.

Speaker:

So that's one group, military industrial.

Speaker:

There's the oil and gas group.

Speaker:

And then there's the banking and real estate groups.

Speaker:

So, they're the ones who the politicians are worried about pleasing when

Speaker:

they're making their decisions, and um, so the military industrial

Speaker:

group are obviously quite happy with what's happening with Ukraine.

Speaker:

Their shares are booming, they expect to sell more stuff.

Speaker:

Um, and the price of oil is also going to go up, so they will be happy, um, in

Speaker:

the oil, um, and gas and mining sector.

Speaker:

Yeah, um Let me just scroll through here, um,

Speaker:

just looking at, um, the oil and gas.

Speaker:

So Biden has been demanding for over a year that Germany prevent the Nord Stream

Speaker:

2 pipeline from supplying its industry and housing with low price gas from Russia and

Speaker:

turn to much higher priced US supplies.

Speaker:

U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

officials first tried to stop construction of the pipeline from being completed.

Speaker:

Firms aiding in its construction were sanctioned, but finally, Russia

Speaker:

itself completed the pipeline.

Speaker:

U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

pressure then turned on the traditionally pliant German politicians, claiming that

Speaker:

Germany and the rest of Europe faced a national security threat from Russia

Speaker:

turning off the gas, presumably to extract some political or economic concessions.

Speaker:

Germany refused to authorise Nord Stream 2 from officially going into operation.

Speaker:

A major aim of today's Cold War is to monopolise the market for US

Speaker:

shipments of liquefied natural gas.

Speaker:

Already under Donald Trump's administration, Angela Merkel was bullied

Speaker:

into promising to spend 1 billion.

Speaker:

Building new port facilities for U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

tanker ships to unload natural gas for German use.

Speaker:

The Democratic election victory in November 2020, followed by Ms.

Speaker:

Merkel's retirement, led to cancellation of this port investment.

Speaker:

This left Germany without much alternative to importing Russian gas.

Speaker:

So the most pressing strategic aim of NATO confrontation with Russia

Speaker:

is soaring oil and gas prices.

Speaker:

Above all, to the detriment of Germany, so it creates stock market gains for U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

oil companies and the higher energy prices will take the

Speaker:

steam out of the German economy.

Speaker:

Let me just scroll through.

Speaker:

The long term dream of U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

nuke old warriors is to break up Russia, or at least restore it to its Yeltsin

Speaker:

Harvard poised magic kleptocracy.

Speaker:

So you gotta remember when the Soviet Union broke up, Yeltsin was in charge.

Speaker:

U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

companies went in and made hay and bought up lots of stuff, so they

Speaker:

wouldn't want to return to that.

Speaker:

Um, um, I just want to get to the bit about currency.

Speaker:

Here we go.

Speaker:

The U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

confiscation of Russian monetary reserves following the recent theft of

Speaker:

Afghanistan's reserves So, you aware of that, dear listener, like, the US

Speaker:

just took the Afghanistan government's central bank reserves and said, I think

Speaker:

it was like 7 billion, and said, well we're going to take half of that and

Speaker:

give it to the survivors of the victims of the World Trade Center bombing.

Speaker:

Just unilaterally decided to take it and use it as they please.

Speaker:

It's money belonging to the Afghanistan people.

Speaker:

Anyway, so they've confiscated Russian monetary reserves, um,

Speaker:

Afghanistan reserves, um, not sure how the confiscation of the Russian

Speaker:

monetary reserves happened, but anyway, um, there's also previously

Speaker:

been Bank of England's seizure of Venezuelan gold stocks held in London.

Speaker:

Um, this is going to accelerate the international de dollarisation process.

Speaker:

Which has already been started by Russia and China.

Speaker:

So in trade between Russia and China, they've been not buying and selling

Speaker:

things in Russian, in US dollars.

Speaker:

They've been using a mixture of their own currencies and gold.

Speaker:

So, over the long term, Russia is likely to join China in forming an alternative

Speaker:

to the US dominated IMF and World Bank.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

The most enormous, unintended consequence of U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

foreign policy has been to drive Russia and China together, along with

Speaker:

Iran, Central Asia and other countries along the Belt and Road Initiative.

Speaker:

So, so I see this as very interesting, actually, that, um, that those

Speaker:

countries will look at systems of trade that don't involve the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

dollar, and other countries Eventually might follow suit and

Speaker:

that will be a problem for the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

dollar, um, um,

Speaker:

okay, um, the only, oh, and just personally, I'm just wondering,

Speaker:

uh, whether buying gold would be a good investment in that case.

Speaker:

Don't rely on this podcast for financial advice, but, uh, have a think about it.

Speaker:

I am.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

Right, what else have I got in the clips here before I nearly finish up?

Speaker:

Uh, I've got that, I've done that one, um, just no fly zones.

Speaker:

So there's been a bit of a talk about, about putting a no fly zone

Speaker:

over the Ukraine, and People just don't understand what that means.

Speaker:

I mean, there's been demonstrations where people are marching

Speaker:

and saying, close the sky.

Speaker:

I'll just play part of a demonstration.

Speaker:

Night.

Speaker:

Night.

Speaker:

Knight.

Speaker:

Knight, Knight.

Speaker:

Night Close night, close night, close night.

Speaker:

Well, if you're going to have a no fly zone over the Ukraine, that means you're

Speaker:

going to shoot down Russian planes.

Speaker:

Um, so if NATO or the US, or a combination, are going to start shooting

Speaker:

down Russian planes, enforcing a no fly zone, then we really are heading to World

Speaker:

War III, and that's not a good idea.

Speaker:

So, you know, I don't blame the Ukrainian leader for, um, Asking for

Speaker:

all these things, um, he's got his own self interest to try and look

Speaker:

after, but that's not a good idea.

Speaker:

So all right, in the chat, um, um, yeah, John says no fly

Speaker:

zones, uh, for after you have air dominance, otherwise it's just war.

Speaker:

That's true.

Speaker:

So, um, let's see, um,

Speaker:

Oh, you guys have been going on, which is good, but I don't think I can really

Speaker:

go through it and keep it entertaining.

Speaker:

So, thank you for your comments, especially Tom the Warehouse Guy.

Speaker:

Maybe, Tom, we should have a private coffee at some stage and thrash all

Speaker:

these ideas out, because I feel like you Disagree with me to some extent.

Speaker:

But anyway, um, alright, well there you go.

Speaker:

The whole point of that was basically to give you the context and the

Speaker:

history of the lead up to this.

Speaker:

It's not to say, um, Putin's a good guy and of course he

Speaker:

should have invaded the Ukraine.

Speaker:

And it's, it's not to say that we've gone over this before, it's

Speaker:

to say, um, the events that, uh, the Western powers or the things that

Speaker:

Western Powers did helped create.

Speaker:

The environment that we're currently in that, uh, invariably a Putin

Speaker:

character would come along and say, we're going to do this because of this.

Speaker:

So, it's context and it's important to understand and, you know, if we are

Speaker:

at some point with China in a similar position where we start lining up missiles

Speaker:

ever closer to their border, maybe.

Speaker:

We step back and we say, hey, that didn't actually pan out so

Speaker:

well with Russia and Ukraine.

Speaker:

Maybe we can learn a lesson and recognise that we shouldn't do

Speaker:

that somewhere else and repeat it.

Speaker:

So, um, so let's bear that in mind.

Speaker:

Okay, I've been talking for a few hours and my voice, I think,

Speaker:

has just about given up on me.

Speaker:

Um, thanks for tuning in for the second part and, uh Catch

Speaker:

you next week with something.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Bye.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Next Episode All Episodes Previous Episode

About the Podcast

Show artwork for The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
News, political events, culture, ethics and the transformations taking place in our society.

Listen for free

One Off Tips

If you don't like Patreon, Paypal or Bitcoin then here is another donation option. The currency is US dollars.
Donate via credit card.
C
Colin J Ely $10
Keep up the good work