full

Episode 390 - Cluster Bombs and Cluster F#@ks

In this episode we discuss:

(00:43) Intro

(03:02) Robo Debt

(14:44) Cluster Bombs

(17:43) NATO in Asia

(26:33) Calvary Hospital

(28:57) More Polls

(31:36) Culture - Fixed or Evolving?

(36:47) Challenging the Indigenous Culture Industry

(43:49) Malik on Culture

(49:19) Ray Halpin

Chapters, images & show notes powered by vizzy.fm.

To financially support the Podcast you can make a per-episode donation via Patreon or donate through Paypal

We Livestream every Tuesday night at 7:30pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube, watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.

You can sign up for our newsletter which is basically links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and which may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week.

Transcript
Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia.

Speaker:

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

Speaker:

unique groups of homo sapiens.

Speaker:

But today we observe a small tribe akin to a group of meka 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:

Hello and welcome.

Speaker:

Yes, we're back again.

Speaker:

We're a day early.

Speaker:

It's Monday night and we're doing the podcast.

Speaker:

The reason is that my wife is turning 60 this week, so we're going away

Speaker:

with the kids and I'll be up somewhere near Montville tomorrow night.

Speaker:

Celebrating that.

Speaker:

And so we've pushed forward the podcast and here we are.

Speaker:

So if you've made it into the chat room to join us, congratulations.

Speaker:

We'll do our best to entertain you.

Speaker:

I'm Trevor a k a, the Iron.

Speaker:

Fist with me as always, Scott, the Velvet.

Speaker:

Glove.

Speaker:

Good day.

Speaker:

Trevor.

Speaker:

Good day.

Speaker:

Joe Goodday listeners.

Speaker:

I hope everyone's well.

Speaker:

And Joe the tech guy.

Speaker:

Evening all.

Speaker:

So, yeah, looks like we might have a problem with Facebook

Speaker:

with this live stream.

Speaker:

It was coming up with error signals, but we'll see what happens with that.

Speaker:

So on the agenda, look, there's not, is there a lot happening in

Speaker:

politics and news around the world?

Speaker:

robo debt, report came out from the Royal Commission, so we'll talk about that.

Speaker:

We've got the USA deciding that it's perfectly fine to send

Speaker:

cluster bombs to the Ukraine.

Speaker:

Talk about that.

Speaker:

NATO wants to expand into Asia cause.

Speaker:

It's perfectly normal for the North Atlantic Treaty

Speaker:

organization to be involved in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

our friend Paul Keening had something to say about that.

Speaker:

and oh, what Australians think of Americans was in a poll, depending how we

Speaker:

go, because those things may not take that long and it might force me to actually

Speaker:

start talking about some indigenous issues and we might end up talking about

Speaker:

culture and what culture is and how culture is mixed up in the idea of race.

Speaker:

And these are concepts that we need to understand if we're to talk

Speaker:

coherently about the whole debate over the voice and the yes and the no.

Speaker:

So I'm fearful, hopeful that I told Yes.

Speaker:

Culture is what your got HA has in Australia doesn't, right?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So that's where we're heading on this one.

Speaker:

See what ra rabbit holes we end up in.

Speaker:

If you're in the chat room and there's one person there right now,

Speaker:

you can make a comment, and we'll try and incorporate if we can.

Speaker:

Alright.

Speaker:

Ah, Scott, robo debt.

Speaker:

A fairly scathing report has come down about politicians and public servants.

Speaker:

What was your thoughts about the report?

Speaker:

I thought that, the winner of it goes to that, no, I can't even remember

Speaker:

which, which, publication it was.

Speaker:

But someone had actually come out and said that, if Peter Dutton, if Peter Dutton

Speaker:

doesn't get sick of his politics, Lark, he could go and become a comedian because

Speaker:

he was suggesting that it was wrong.

Speaker:

That Shorten and Albanese were trying to make politics outta the whole thing.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

You know, and I think that hit the nail right on the head because,

Speaker:

you know, it's got these, it's got their fingerprints all over it.

Speaker:

The Tories were completely involved in it.

Speaker:

They pushed it and they were behind it.

Speaker:

So I think everything that went wrong with it has to be sheeted home to them.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

They started it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

They're in control of it.

Speaker:

It is entirely their responsibility.

Speaker:

Now, they did lie and that type of thing to try and make out the Labor Party

Speaker:

started it, but clearly they didn't.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

It's, it was a bloody disgrace actually, you know?

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

I cannot believe that the public service has been so thoroughly

Speaker:

muted that they would, that no one actually stuck their hand up and said,

Speaker:

minister, you can't just do this.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

You know, because I'm on a very good wicket, but there was six

Speaker:

months where I had to claim the doll because I was unemployed.

Speaker:

Now had they have actually done an averaging on my income that I earned

Speaker:

in the second six months of that year.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Then they would've come back and said, well, you've clearly over, you've clearly

Speaker:

claimed when you shouldn't be claiming.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Now that is wrong.

Speaker:

And it's just one of those things that I cannot believe that no one

Speaker:

actually put their hand up and said, minister, you can't do this.

Speaker:

The sort of people, the sort of people who are victims of this

Speaker:

were the least equipped to mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Battle against it.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You could just imagine that they were the ones who were like, oh my God, you

Speaker:

know, their ability to go through their records and sort things out and deal with

Speaker:

the department and have the time to do that, they were the, the least equipped.

Speaker:

So see for bugger, if it had actually happened to me, I would've ignored it.

Speaker:

And I just would've said, look, if you want to come after her and sue

Speaker:

me, sue me, cuz I'll stand up in court and tell you where you're wrong.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

That's no problem at all.

Speaker:

You know, and I wouldn't have been intimidated, but.

Speaker:

I've got a fairly good head on my shoulders and that type of stuff.

Speaker:

I would know exactly what to say.

Speaker:

You were not a typical Dole recipient.

Speaker:

No, I wasn't.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

I wasn't.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

I got it for that six months when I got tapped on the shoulder up

Speaker:

here in Rockhampton, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's just, but the people that did actually, you know, I cannot believe

Speaker:

that they were that intimidated that they took their own lives.

Speaker:

Well, they clearly did.

Speaker:

I mean, it's not Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

I I think if you weren't in a good space to begin with and that's

Speaker:

why you were receiving government assistance, this could very well

Speaker:

be what tipped you over the edge.

Speaker:

Oh, exactly.

Speaker:

And, and it was all about punishing poor people.

Speaker:

It was seeing be, being seen to be tough whilst not actually caring about

Speaker:

the billions of dollars hidden in The Bahamas or wherever it was that,

Speaker:

Malcolm Turnbull had his dollars.

Speaker:

But, but you know, you can just feel that sort of, that Christian fingerprint

Speaker:

on all this where if you are poor, then there's this Christian judgment

Speaker:

that you are not favored by God and that godly people are hardworking, well

Speaker:

organized, and if you're not that then you are ungodly and, and a slacker.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And, and yeah, that was clearly in Morrison's head when he

Speaker:

kicked the whole thing off.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

As the whole thing was turning bad, the public servants were

Speaker:

cowed to their masters and didn't want to, stand up to them.

Speaker:

So they were, you know, properly for career advancement reasons, wanting to

Speaker:

try and achieve what their political masters wanted rather than what was

Speaker:

good and proper country control best.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, you know, I heard on the podcast this morning

Speaker:

that I was listening to, I think it was the, I can't remember, it's called

Speaker:

the ABC Daily News or whatever it is.

Speaker:

There was a, they went into it in depth and they had a sound bite from Morrison

Speaker:

and that sort of stuff, and he was beating his chest saying that, 80, you

Speaker:

know, however many million go out to work every day and that type of thing.

Speaker:

They expect that we're gonna have a tough cop on the beat over welfare recipients.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know, the whole language of it was really very sickening actually.

Speaker:

Meanwhile, they throw money at people like Barnaby Joyce for a non-existent report.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Pricewaterhouse Keepers and other consultancies for nothing.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

people running detention centers with Harvey.

Speaker:

Zero people in there, Harvey, like they'll throw money at the other end.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Willynilly.

Speaker:

And yet these people.

Speaker:

It is disgusting and well will things change?

Speaker:

You know, hopefully out of all this, it will depend a little bit on what

Speaker:

happens to some of the players in this down the track, whether they

Speaker:

end up, in jail or other things.

Speaker:

I was gonna say, I'm glad to see that criminal charges have been recommended.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So hopefully down the track in two or three years time or something.

Speaker:

When a minister is putting pressure on a public servant, the public servant

Speaker:

will think, well, I don't want to be.

Speaker:

who's this lady in this one?

Speaker:

Who's the main culprit?

Speaker:

Campbell.

Speaker:

Catherine Campbell, their names is, is I am not going to be

Speaker:

another Catherine Campbell.

Speaker:

And so no.

Speaker:

Mm Um, hopefully what happens to her is an example that scares a lot

Speaker:

of public servants over the next decades into doing the right thing.

Speaker:

That's how things will change, I think.

Speaker:

Change the culture.

Speaker:

we'll see.

Speaker:

So, yeah, Dutton you mentioned was sort of suggesting that labor was too gleeful

Speaker:

in the way it was talking about this issue and incredibly, James Campbell

Speaker:

of NewsCorp hard right wing NewsCorp guy basically blasted Dutton for

Speaker:

suggesting it, which was interesting.

Speaker:

And I think there's some elements of NewsCorp and the right which have given

Speaker:

up on Dutton, and I think that's right.

Speaker:

He, he may not survive Unelectable.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I think they're just doing the sums on the popularity and, and they're

Speaker:

thinking, well, there's no points just.

Speaker:

Loyally supporting this guy.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

You know, he, we'll drop bombs on him when we need to in order to get

Speaker:

another liberal leader and his position.

Speaker:

Fuck.

Speaker:

Who are they gonna put instead?

Speaker:

The caliber of stuff there is just horrendous.

Speaker:

Who are they gonna forget?

Speaker:

No, it's because of the success of the Teals and I don't begrudge them

Speaker:

their success because, you know, they did actually take out the

Speaker:

moderate wing of the liberal party.

Speaker:

You know, you had those, you had those moderate held seats and that type

Speaker:

of thing that were taken by them.

Speaker:

I don't begrudge them that, because I thought to myself, they had a very

Speaker:

good campaign line when they said, yes, of course you could vote for Josh,

Speaker:

but you're gonna end up with Barnaby.

Speaker:

You know, that is a very solid line for them to take.

Speaker:

They were actually, when they're actually talking to those people that had a

Speaker:

moderate voice, and they were saying to him, yes, you can vote for Josh, but

Speaker:

you're gonna end up voting for Barnaby.

Speaker:

And that is the, what's wrong with Barnaby Barnaby's an idiot.

Speaker:

He might become leader again.

Speaker:

Apparently they're not happy with Little Proud.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I know they're not happy with Little Proud, but you know, that that would be

Speaker:

suicide for them to go back to Barnaby Joyce, because Barnaby Joyce is an idiot.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

But an electable idiot electable in his own electorate.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

He his own electorate.

Speaker:

He's electable, but you know, he's, he actually said that

Speaker:

he takes no responsibility for what happens to the liberals.

Speaker:

But you know, they, they were actually mentioning him by name and that type

Speaker:

of thing in the, in the campaign.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know, he's a fucking tool.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Well, you know, in a democracy, if people aren't performing, then

Speaker:

the voters just vote 'em out.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Well, assuming that the voters realize that they're not performing, Yes.

Speaker:

And they get snowballed by, certain media interests.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So I would've thought the Labor Party's got probably at least three or four

Speaker:

terms left in them because the, the liberals haven't learnt anything.

Speaker:

They have just doubled down on their nonsense.

Speaker:

You've got, Dutton talking about nuclear power.

Speaker:

He's refusing to accept that the renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear power.

Speaker:

No, no, no.

Speaker:

But nuclear power is there for a reason, because all the time

Speaker:

we're talking about nuclear power.

Speaker:

We're not talking about renewables, and it allows us to burn coal for a bit longer.

Speaker:

That's why nuclear powers there.

Speaker:

It's a distraction.

Speaker:

Distraction.

Speaker:

It's perfect.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

I suppose anyway, it's just one of those things like, you know, but it, it, it

Speaker:

might well be a distraction, but people are actually gonna be just, they're just

Speaker:

gonna be saying, well, no, fuck him.

Speaker:

I'm just not interested.

Speaker:

So I just think to myself that, they're, they're sort of lemming le they're being

Speaker:

like lemmings and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

They're all just stepping off in, into the, into the wild blue yonder

Speaker:

and they're not keeping an eye on where they're actually stepping and

Speaker:

they're just gonna step into the abyss of their own self-destruction.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

The only thing that'll save them is a massive recession that

Speaker:

could be sheeted home to labor.

Speaker:

And, you know, if there is a really bad crushing recession, then that

Speaker:

might shorten them to only two terms rather than three or four.

Speaker:

Well, I suppose so, but no, it's.

Speaker:

If, if people start, there's a little secret here that, you know,

Speaker:

governments don't really get that well involved in the economy.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But it's about spinning the line that they are responsible.

Speaker:

So you're right, particularly in Australian government.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Is, is like a little ship tossed around in a big ocean.

Speaker:

There's lots of factors at play that they can't control, but, and

Speaker:

most of them are international.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But certainly you can, Catherine managed in the global recession, didn't he?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That spending stimulus did make a difference.

Speaker:

Yes, he did make a hell of a difference.

Speaker:

Now I was opposed to it at the time, but you know, looking

Speaker:

back on it, he was right.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know, he targeted the households.

Speaker:

He's, you know, he, what was it targeted the households early, wasn't it?

Speaker:

Or something like that.

Speaker:

It was the line basically put cash in the hands of people who

Speaker:

were gonna spend it, not say it.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I remember going to a trade show around that time when people

Speaker:

had just got their checks.

Speaker:

That was one of the greatest trade shows I've ever been to.

Speaker:

People were spending money like you wouldn't believe at that.

Speaker:

So it certainly boosted that economy.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

So anyway, we'll see what happens.

Speaker:

Along those lines, internationally, things are not going well for, Ukraine

Speaker:

and the United, I don't know about that.

Speaker:

Well, okay.

Speaker:

They are holding their own, you know, they haven't done, the

Speaker:

counter offensives gone nowhere.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

The counter Offensives gone.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

And, but Oh yeah.

Speaker:

The Allies, they could be waiting for a, the Allies in the

Speaker:

First World War went nowhere.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

Oh, D-Day landing got the first a hundred meters and then bogged down for a month.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And this is, this is what happens in wars.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Unfortunately, it takes time.

Speaker:

Sorry, I take it back.

Speaker:

I take it back, things are obviously going well for Ukraine ly.

Speaker:

Well, no, I mean, they're not obviously going well for Ukraine and it's

Speaker:

all Ukraine just gonna happen for them over the next, if they were up

Speaker:

against the second world's, the third largest military in the world and

Speaker:

everything else, and everyone thought it would be over in two or three days.

Speaker:

What are we, 16 months later?

Speaker:

They're still fighting

Speaker:

anyway, according to, reports.

Speaker:

Well, America's agreed from from rte.com Yes.

Speaker:

To supply.

Speaker:

America's agreed to supply cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

It has, yes.

Speaker:

To the Ukrainians, but the cluster bombs that were going outta date

Speaker:

anyway, and that had manufacturing tolerances that were fairly shit a and

Speaker:

have probably only got worse over time.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So they're not getting the shiny new cluster bombs.

Speaker:

They're getting the old ones, which will, half of which won't explode and will leave

Speaker:

unexploded ordinance all over the, yes.

Speaker:

The, the, the countryside until some kid decides to pick it up and play with it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Or a farmer runs a tractor over it or something like that.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, my goodness me, what be a decision the Soviet occupation by

Speaker:

then, anyway, won't it, Trevor?

Speaker:

Well, that's, if they think that, sure.

Speaker:

But they don't, they think they're gonna win and that they're going

Speaker:

to litter their own territory.

Speaker:

The Ukrainian territory with unexploded cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

What a terrible decision.

Speaker:

What a terrible decision.

Speaker:

And it just continues.

Speaker:

So, but it's all right because none of them are signatories to the

Speaker:

whatever it is, arm's convention that limits cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

America's not a signatory to that.

Speaker:

So they haven't breached an international treaty by supplying the cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Presumably.

Speaker:

Ukraine isn't either.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Ukraine isn't the US isn't.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Want miss that when you need St.

Speaker:

Diana to go and bang some heads together?

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

She was big on the, she was big on the cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

That's Ukraine.

Speaker:

NATO has been talking about setting up office, a branch

Speaker:

office in Tokyo, in Japan.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And the French, fortunately have been saying that's not a good idea.

Speaker:

And we, the French, when have the French.

Speaker:

Ever gonna get something that was suggested by another country?

Speaker:

Sometimes their recalcitrant works out well.

Speaker:

I think so.

Speaker:

So yeah.

Speaker:

I mean, it is the North Atlantic Treaty organization designed

Speaker:

to point missiles at Russia.

Speaker:

Hey, come on.

Speaker:

The French are only new members that don't count.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And they're talking about creating this shop in Japan.

Speaker:

What possible purpose could they have except mischief?

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

E exchange of, technologies.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

What do you think, Scott, is it legitimate for NATO to, to, join up

Speaker:

with Japan and other Asian countries?

Speaker:

I don't think it's, I don't think it's legitimate to have these.

Speaker:

You know, post-Soviet, alliances anymore.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know, because the, it was clearly a, it was clearly designed in the

Speaker:

forties and that type of thing as a, as a countermeasure to the Soviet Union.

Speaker:

So now that the Soviet Union no longer exists as, as a countermeasure

Speaker:

to Russian expansionism.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So you're saying it shouldn't be a NATO even in, in Europe?

Speaker:

Is that what you're saying it, Scott?

Speaker:

No, I don't think so.

Speaker:

Yeah, I don't think, I don't, I think it's outlived its purpose.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And having said that, though, the, the Russians are clearly expansionary

Speaker:

and that type of thing, so I think that, it's quite legitimate for the

Speaker:

Europeans to guard against that.

Speaker:

And Finland has joined up, and Sweden has too.

Speaker:

So you're saying it's legitimate to have a NATO then?

Speaker:

Yes, it is now, because, you know, you've got the, you've got.

Speaker:

Prior to this invasion, it had become irrelevant.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It had.

Speaker:

Now it's, it had become irrelevant regain Now, now it's become, now it's

Speaker:

become relevant again because the Russians clearly can't be trusted.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

we've diverted there just back to Asia.

Speaker:

so I don't think it's, I don't think it's right for them to set up anywhere in Asia

Speaker:

though, because it depends if they're trying to recruit countries, probably not.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

But what, what are they doing there is the question.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Well, well I would've thought that if, if you've got anything about, sharing

Speaker:

of technology and that type of thing, you could do that very easily over,

Speaker:

you know, you just gotta fly people and that sort of stuff and have,

Speaker:

have a meeting and, yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

Maybe we could look at what the NATO Secretary General Jens

Speaker:

Stoltenberg said about the matter.

Speaker:

He sounds go Norwegian or he, Dutch Dunno where he is from.

Speaker:

He said, we should not make the same mistake with China.

Speaker:

And other authoritarian regimes.

Speaker:

He said his comment is seen as drawing a link between the Ukraine and Taiwan.

Speaker:

Quote, what is happening in Europe today?

Speaker:

Could happen in Asia tomorrow.

Speaker:

He said, so the head of NATO wants to be there because they don't wanna

Speaker:

make the same mistake with China that they did with Russia, seemingly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

I can understand that.

Speaker:

But don't you think it would have more legitimacy if the, if the Chinese were

Speaker:

contained by a alliance between the United States, India, someone local, someone

Speaker:

local in the area like the Americans?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, we're really close.

Speaker:

You know, Americans pacification.

Speaker:

I know the Americans aren't local, but they are, they are the, they

Speaker:

are now the second superpower in the world and that type of thing.

Speaker:

So I think they've got to have some sort of presence.

Speaker:

and Japan and the Philippines are both American colonies.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

It's their back.

Speaker:

It's their backyard's, their backyard from America.

Speaker:

Well, is America's backyards because they have expanded, because

Speaker:

nowhere is not their backyard.

Speaker:

Deepest, darkest.

Speaker:

Africa is America's backyard.

Speaker:

As far as America's concerned.

Speaker:

Well, America's not really involved in Africa because

Speaker:

Africa won't have him there.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

anyway, the French president, Emmanuel Macron has put his foot down insisting

Speaker:

such geographical expansion would risk shifting the alliance remit too far

Speaker:

from its original North Atlantic focus.

Speaker:

He's not in favor of it.

Speaker:

and he reckons the Japanese authorities have told them that they're not

Speaker:

actually attached to it either.

Speaker:

So according to Macron, the Japanese don't want to, don't wanna be involved in it.

Speaker:

So see where that ends up.

Speaker:

I've got no problem with that.

Speaker:

I mean, it's just one of those things, you know, like I said, if they really

Speaker:

want to get involved, then they can have meetings and that type of thing

Speaker:

that, you know, we've got, Albanese is on his way over there now, isn't he?

Speaker:

Over there to NATO meeting?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Why is Al, why, why is Australia involved in a NATO meeting?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

Well, Australian New Zealand are part of five eyes.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Five eyes.

Speaker:

five eyes.

Speaker:

But as opposed report to NATO via the US and the uk.

Speaker:

In the uk Yeah.

Speaker:

Just cuz in the last few decades there was never a war that going on that

Speaker:

Australia didn't wanna get involved in.

Speaker:

So, How it seems.

Speaker:

Mm, trust if you want a straight shooter on foreign policy trust, Paul Keating.

Speaker:

He came out with a statement as he's seen, what's happening with NATO in

Speaker:

Japan and Albanese heading over there.

Speaker:

And, according to Paul Keating, ex Prime Minister, president Macron

Speaker:

of France is right to warn NATO away from any expansion into Asia.

Speaker:

He says, the Europeans have been fighting each other for the better

Speaker:

part of 300 years, including giving them the rest of us two world wars.

Speaker:

Exporting that malicious poison to Asia would be akin to Asia,

Speaker:

welcoming the plague upon itself.

Speaker:

And of all the people on the international stage, the supreme fool amongst them

Speaker:

is Jens Stoltenberg, head of nata.

Speaker:

Stoltenberg by instinct and by policy, is simply an accident on its way to happen.

Speaker:

And, according to heating, I, I think he's got a bit of a selective memory.

Speaker:

Heating has.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And it's like, you know, Japan didn't invade China and

Speaker:

the whole of Southeast Asia.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

No, nothing to do with Europe at all.

Speaker:

Yes, yes.

Speaker:

Good point.

Speaker:

Well, the second World War was a global war.

Speaker:

It started in Europe, but it ended up in, it ended up in the Pacific.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But, but Japan invaded China in the thirties, early thirties.

Speaker:

No, I know that, that, that was, I think they got kicked off in

Speaker:

the mid thirties, didn't they?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Something like that before the Second World War happened.

Speaker:

Anyway.

Speaker:

Committed a few atrocities along the way.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

No, the rape Apian King was in the thirties.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And it was, it was said at the time in Time Magazine that it was, it was

Speaker:

very hard to get excited about because it Yellow Man Killing Yellow Man.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, it's, Yeah.

Speaker:

Whereas with these Ukrainians, they're white guys like us.

Speaker:

Yes, exactly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Can't have that.

Speaker:

No, no, no.

Speaker:

They're not.

Speaker:

They're Russians.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Keating says about Stoltenberg in February, he was drawing parallels

Speaker:

between Russia's assault on Ukraine and China saying we should not

Speaker:

make the same mistake with China.

Speaker:

That is, that China should be superintendent by the West.

Speaker:

And strategically circumscribed, olberg in his jaundice view, view overlooks

Speaker:

the fact that China represents 20% of humanity and now possesses the

Speaker:

largest economy in the world and has no record of attacking other states.

Speaker:

Unlike the United States whose bidding Stoltenberg is happy to

Speaker:

do, Stoltenberg conducts himself as an American agent rather than

Speaker:

a leader for European security.

Speaker:

And Emmanuel Macron is doing the world a service.

Speaker:

Putting a spike into Stolbergs wheel is Paul Keating.

Speaker:

It doesn't hold back.

Speaker:

He's been no quoted by a number of people internationally.

Speaker:

You enjoyed that.

Speaker:

we talked about Calvary Hospital mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Last week and how the a c t government, how about the poor

Speaker:

Catholics were being pro persecuted?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yet again, meanwhile, the sisters who actually run the place, were

Speaker:

really looking to get out and get into sort of end of life hospice.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Which is what they're suited for, rather than running a multidisciplinary hospital

Speaker:

anyway, which had to provide, you know, abortion and also, reproductive services.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So crosses attached to the hospital were taken down, and the Goulburn

Speaker:

Archdiocese, Archbishop Christopher Pra was not happy and he said, The very

Speaker:

first thing a totalitarian government does when it seizes Christian assets,

Speaker:

the very first thing they all do, they take down the crucifix when the

Speaker:

religious cage is shaken by a wolf.

Speaker:

When the cross is taken down, we realize how important our

Speaker:

religion is when it's under attack.

Speaker:

And right now, today, over at the public hospital, today is Sunday of all days.

Speaker:

They picked is the Christian gathering time.

Speaker:

They're taking the very big blue cross from outside the

Speaker:

public hospital down today.

Speaker:

There was a collective wrenching going on, but there was a sense of

Speaker:

hope because they realized you can take down our physical CR of fixes,

Speaker:

but you'll never take away the cross.

Speaker:

Jesus's cross inside my heart.

Speaker:

All very dramatic except the a c t Health Minister said, taking

Speaker:

down the cross was entirely to the decision of the Calvary Healthcare.

Speaker:

We've been very clear about that whole time.

Speaker:

Any decision around those items, how and when they were removed

Speaker:

was entirely the dec decision of Calvary and Calvary admitted.

Speaker:

Yeah, it was our decision.

Speaker:

We just decided to take 'em down cuz we thought my moms mow well,

Speaker:

sounds like some Marion going on there, doesn't it?

Speaker:

Oh, that's right.

Speaker:

Love to be persecuted even when you're not.

Speaker:

Yes, they, they do love it, don't they?

Speaker:

Motivation complex is one from the early days.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

That's, maybe that's the last we'll hear of Calvary Hospital in Christians.

Speaker:

Maybe.

Speaker:

We'll see.

Speaker:

This is not gonna be the last pair of Christians.

Speaker:

No more polling.

Speaker:

this one, there were polls from, pew Research and from the Lowe Institute.

Speaker:

And Broman, our listener, Broman, brought it to my attention that

Speaker:

there was an article in Crikey.

Speaker:

And basically from these polls of particular interest is that Australian

Speaker:

skepticism is alive and well.

Speaker:

Australians are the only group in the Asian Pacific region that thinks

Speaker:

China is now the world's top power.

Speaker:

The others thought it was the US and Australia's attitudes to the US

Speaker:

have been strongly influenced, not in favor of the US by the Trump era.

Speaker:

So we think less of the US and we think China is more powerful

Speaker:

when some of our neighbors haven't yet come to that conclusion.

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

I looked at some of the results in these polls and some of

Speaker:

the stuff was still worrying.

Speaker:

looking at countries that have a positive opinion of the us, Australia was one of

Speaker:

those 52% favorable, 47% unfavorable.

Speaker:

Now be used towards the us.

Speaker:

one question was, asking whether USA interferes in the

Speaker:

affairs of other countries.

Speaker:

All countries basically thought that was the case in Australia, 79% of

Speaker:

people said yes, the US interferes in the affairs of other countries.

Speaker:

20% of Australians said, no, they don't.

Speaker:

I mean, what rock or cave are these people living under or in if you don't

Speaker:

think the US is involved in interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Speaker:

But my Murdoch's an American, so obviously yes.

Speaker:

And and then the question was that the US contributes to peace and

Speaker:

stability around the world and 61% of Australians think that and 38%.

Speaker:

disagree.

Speaker:

So, huh.

Speaker:

That was part of the polling of Hugh Research and the lower poll basically

Speaker:

showed, that people now are thinking in the ch in Australia, people thinking

Speaker:

China is more of a threat than a security than an economic partner.

Speaker:

But if, if there is a war involving Taiwan, they don't want

Speaker:

Australian troops sent there.

Speaker:

So, the majority of Australians don't.

Speaker:

So, so anyway, those are some more polls that came through on Crikey.

Speaker:

Nothing startling about that.

Speaker:

And where we're at, we're at 8 0 5 already.

Speaker:

25 minutes left.

Speaker:

Goodness me, I'm probably gonna have to talk about indigenous affairs and culture.

Speaker:

Racist.

Speaker:

Yeah, the loins.

Speaker:

Everybody.

Speaker:

I've been reading a book.

Speaker:

culture, the story of us from cave art to K-Pop by Martin Honer.

Speaker:

It's been a good one, and the more I think about the indigenous affairs,

Speaker:

the voice, and it's trying to work out culture and how culture fits into

Speaker:

things and how we think about culture.

Speaker:

So here's an idea.

Speaker:

You could look at culture in two different ways.

Speaker:

One culture belongs to the people born into it and must be defended

Speaker:

against outside interference.

Speaker:

Culture is a form of property that belongs to the people who live it.

Speaker:

That's one way of looking at culture, and I would suggest that's a view of

Speaker:

culture that's being encouraged for Australian indigenous communities.

Speaker:

The second way of looking at culture is that culture is made not only from

Speaker:

the resources of one community, but from encounters with other cultures.

Speaker:

Culture evolves through circulation and reading this book where he traces

Speaker:

the history of different cultural EV events throughout human history.

Speaker:

It's pretty clear that the second version is what actually happens.

Speaker:

That culture is not from one community.

Speaker:

It has encounters with other communities, other cultures, and

Speaker:

it evolves through circulation.

Speaker:

That's what actually happens.

Speaker:

And you get rare events where culture is frozen in a kind of a time capsule, and

Speaker:

that's when it is through certain events.

Speaker:

Frozen out from interaction with other cultures.

Speaker:

So, have you guys heard of the Sve cave in France?

Speaker:

It's one of the, of the oldest extent cave art.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So it's one of the oldest examples of cave art.

Speaker:

And it exists because, tens of thousands of years ago, the entrance to the

Speaker:

cave was blocked by a landslide.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And that stopped people going in and defacing it, defacing it, or

Speaker:

putting up their own drawings, their own drawings, or Yes.

Speaker:

You know, had that cave been open since that time, there's no way the

Speaker:

original cave art would've survived the influx of other cultures and

Speaker:

the influence of other people.

Speaker:

The other example would be, say, Pompeii.

Speaker:

With the ashes falling on Pompeii, effectively freezing that culture

Speaker:

in place and excavations now allow us to see what it was at that time.

Speaker:

And there was another example where the, parents of, Tutton Carmen, it

Speaker:

basically left the city that they were living in, created a almost

Speaker:

a new religion in a new city.

Speaker:

And when they passed away, that city was abandoned and, and covered.

Speaker:

And, and it wasn't like there was then a new population in there that,

Speaker:

that then adjusted everything and it sort of remained frozen in time.

Speaker:

So, so the sort of examples that we have of cultures that have survived intact,

Speaker:

untouched for a long period of time.

Speaker:

Come about because they haven't had contact with other cultures.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Because that's what happens.

Speaker:

Other cultures come in, build upon use, bits and pieces,

Speaker:

destroy, and change cultures.

Speaker:

They're not they don't stay fixed.

Speaker:

They don't remain the property of a group.

Speaker:

So in his book, this guy says, if we wanna talk properly about culture,

Speaker:

we need a different language from property and ownership, because

Speaker:

that's not how culture actually works.

Speaker:

And I think one of the issues that we have with indigenous people and their

Speaker:

plight and the way we think about things is, appears to me that there is an

Speaker:

insistence on maintaining cultural purity and trying to almost freeze in time and

Speaker:

take ownership of it for a select group and build a wall around it, if you like.

Speaker:

So well, if that's true, then they just all modern civilization.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But they'll take on bits and pieces, exactly when it suits.

Speaker:

But to the, to the dismay of the purists, I guess.

Speaker:

but I'm guessing even the purists are not animistic, they're probably

Speaker:

deepened faithful Christians.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That's the hypocrisy of it, right, Joe?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, here's one I, the more I look at it, the more I think of, indigenous call

Speaker:

for a voice and culture is, is there's a lot of similarities with religion.

Speaker:

And what if it was a religious group wanting special representation?

Speaker:

and what if they were saying, only we Christians know what Christians

Speaker:

need and we need a voice made up solely of Christians because we're the

Speaker:

experts on the needs of Christians.

Speaker:

That's what happens in the uk.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Many of us would suggest that the best thing for Christians would be to hear

Speaker:

from some friendly atheists to cause them to question their religious belief.

Speaker:

You know what, it'd be good for you lot.

Speaker:

Here's some information that calls into question your here ideology.

Speaker:

But there's no way that would be accepted in indigenous culture where

Speaker:

people are allowed to say, you know what, there's probably some parts of

Speaker:

indigenous culture that might probably be leading to some of the issues that

Speaker:

the indigenous people are facing.

Speaker:

And here's from a study, official Australian study of some sort.

Speaker:

I, I got a paragraph from it.

Speaker:

So, Family structure for indigenous Australians extends beyond the

Speaker:

nuclear family concept, commonly seen in non-indigenous contexts

Speaker:

to encompass extended family and community in a collective system of

Speaker:

resource sharing that is a testament to their rich cultural heritage.

Speaker:

this traditional practice underscores community resilience and unity, though

Speaker:

it does present challenges in balancing resources in the face of income disparity.

Speaker:

So basically family structure in indigenous Australians is more

Speaker:

than just the nuclear family.

Speaker:

And what you have is a collective system of resource sharing.

Speaker:

I and Heri Ali says the same about Somalis in her book.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Talking about the, the culture shock she felt Yes.

Speaker:

Coming into Western Europe a and where historically she would've gone to the

Speaker:

tribe to get resources if she was.

Speaker:

On hard times.

Speaker:

Hey, was the government giving her free money, right?

Speaker:

What idiot idiots they were, right?

Speaker:

So an article that was speaking about the Canadian experience from the

Speaker:

sky, I'll quote from where he goes.

Speaker:

I will not dwell too much in the space of the cruel, cynical, and utterly disastrous

Speaker:

government decisions that have led to the current state of affairs in indigenous

Speaker:

communities, Canadian indigenous communities, but perhaps the single

Speaker:

largest enduring difficulty originates in the fact that land on indigenous

Speaker:

reserves is not owned by residents in their capacity as individuals.

Speaker:

Rather, it is controlled collectively so no person or family can buy,

Speaker:

sell, lease, or mortgage their property in the normal manner that

Speaker:

the rest of us take for granted.

Speaker:

This has had a crushing effect on business formation and land improvement, and

Speaker:

is one of the reasons why the housing stock on reserves degrade so quickly.

Speaker:

Since no one owns their house in the normal way, there is little

Speaker:

financial incentive to invest in any even basic upkeep activities

Speaker:

such as mold eradication.

Speaker:

indigenous people are no less industrious or and ambitious than anyone else in

Speaker:

Canada, but they often must leave their reserve communities to find their fortune.

Speaker:

To remain on reserve is in many ways, to exist as a surf within a welfare state.

Speaker:

So, so the question of how to resolve this difficulty, he says,

Speaker:

obviously does not fall to me.

Speaker:

It's something that indigenous communities must determine themselves.

Speaker:

It's a wrenching issue because a capital style land ownership system

Speaker:

would allow non-indigenous outsiders to buy these communities out, thus

Speaker:

undermining the goal of preserving authentic indigenous culture.

Speaker:

In some cases, both economic and cultural goals can be achieved, but in other

Speaker:

communities, especially in remote areas, There will be wrenching choices to

Speaker:

be made pitting jobs against culture.

Speaker:

And that strikes me as one of the key problems for indigenous communities

Speaker:

is, this communal ownership problem.

Speaker:

And that makes sense to me.

Speaker:

And I can see that that is part of, inherited sort of cultural trait.

Speaker:

And my concern is, or my thinking is that the people who would be

Speaker:

on the voice, their business is the indigenous culture industry.

Speaker:

If there is a point where you should say, you know what, time to ditch a

Speaker:

couple of cultural features because it's not working in a modern.

Speaker:

21st century situation.

Speaker:

That might be something that has to be said and I think should be said, but the

Speaker:

very people likely to be in the voice are the least likely to admit to that need

Speaker:

to abandon parts of a culture because they're in the industry of possessing,

Speaker:

protecting, owning, fencing off culture.

Speaker:

The, the same has been said in the UK about the Muslim representative groups.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Who are very entrenched in the status quo.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And so the government consult with members of the community.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Who say, well, of course all Muslims don't want gay people in their area.

Speaker:

And the gay Muslims say, well, hang on, you haven't asked us.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

But the people in charge are the least likely to be liberal in the community.

Speaker:

They, they want to defend the status quo because that's what

Speaker:

gives them power and authority.

Speaker:

Yes, yes.

Speaker:

So that's what I see as, one of the problems of, of, of deciding that, a

Speaker:

purely indigenous based voice is going to solve all the problems when I think one

Speaker:

of the real major fundamental problems for indigenous people is something that

Speaker:

these people are least likely to address.

Speaker:

their motivations are for the opposite.

Speaker:

So, and it would need an outsider perhaps, to say that who will not

Speaker:

be allowed to be on the voice.

Speaker:

Found an old article by Kenon Mallick just talking about race and culture

Speaker:

and, and how essentially race has been abandoned as a concept and kind

Speaker:

of replaced by culture, which is a backdoor way of, of speaking racist race.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I can't really, like, we know that there's no difference between people.

Speaker:

Racially, we know scientifically that there's nothing in the dna.

Speaker:

We know people are people, so we can't rely on a racial difference argument.

Speaker:

But what's happened instead is people have gone, well, of course these people

Speaker:

have a different culture and that cultural difference is used in the

Speaker:

same way that race is used or used.

Speaker:

Race used to be used, so.

Speaker:

In this article he says, last week, Sandeep and Rina Mander were

Speaker:

denied the chance to adopt a child.

Speaker:

Amandas are of Indians seek heritage.

Speaker:

Though both born in Britain and the only children needing adoption were white.

Speaker:

So Indians seeks in Britain not allowed to adopt a white child.

Speaker:

That's bloody ridiculous.

Speaker:

And, it speaks to a broader confusion about the relationship

Speaker:

between race and culture.

Speaker:

A confusion that afflicts anti-racist as much as it does racists.

Speaker:

Few people these days claim that whites and Indians are racially incompatible,

Speaker:

but many argue that whites and Indians belong to distinct cultures and possess

Speaker:

and possess discreet identities.

Speaker:

Many argue too that especially for children, it's important

Speaker:

not to undermine their sense of identity or create confusion

Speaker:

about their cultural attachments.

Speaker:

Has anybody seen splitting airs?

Speaker:

The Eric Idle film?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

In idle film?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

He's, he's raised by an Indian family, and he claims proclaims very loudly that

Speaker:

he's a, he's an Indian, and he has these fantastic Bollywood dream sequences.

Speaker:

How long ago was this movie made?

Speaker:

Oh, in the 1980s, right?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

According to Maleek.

Speaker:

Just continuing with this story, it's plausible, the council imagines

Speaker:

that to be white is to belong to a particular culture, and that non-whites

Speaker:

belong to the other cultures.

Speaker:

A white child can only be brought up by white parents because otherwise he or

Speaker:

she would grow up in the wrong culture.

Speaker:

I mean, we have that here in Australia.

Speaker:

With indigenous children.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

so, let me just see,

Speaker:

talking about the right here.

Speaker:

So, traditionally a race was seen as a group of human beings linked by a set of

Speaker:

fundamental characteristics, unique to it, that was the traditional view of race.

Speaker:

In the post-war world, this concept of race disintegrated

Speaker:

racial categories were shown to possess little scientific validity.

Speaker:

and after the Holocaust, the idea of racial inferiority or

Speaker:

superiority, became a big no-no.

Speaker:

But if old fashioned racial science was buried, many of the racial thinking,

Speaker:

assumptions of racial thinking survived.

Speaker:

It's just that humanity could be divided into discreet groups.

Speaker:

Each of which possessed a set of unique characteristics

Speaker:

shaped an individual's identity.

Speaker:

These ideas came to be race, recast in the language, not of biology, but of culture.

Speaker:

Insured cultural differences replaced racial differences, and this was

Speaker:

done by both the left and the right.

Speaker:

So Marie Lappen in France would say on the right wing, we not only

Speaker:

have the right but the duty to defend our national personality and

Speaker:

have our right to our difference.

Speaker:

So defending the purity of the French culture and from the left,

Speaker:

different minority groups, are seen as possessing different cultures,

Speaker:

identities, and ways of thinking, and.

Speaker:

To confront racism and oppression.

Speaker:

Many argue on the left, requires a defense of each group's distinct

Speaker:

identities, which is really just repeating the Marie Lapin argument

Speaker:

and on both the right and the left.

Speaker:

Many now view cultures as fixed bounded entities, each the

Speaker:

property only of certain people.

Speaker:

Once culture was seen as providing the tools with which to open up and transform

Speaker:

the world today, many regard it more as a protective wall to shield its members

Speaker:

and to keep out unwanted visitors.

Speaker:

there we go, bear's some thoughts.

Speaker:

Think about when it comes to the indigenous question and how we

Speaker:

think about race and culture.

Speaker:

Ove.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Ah, have I got another story here?

Speaker:

I wonder if I'll tell the Ray Halton story.

Speaker:

I've told this one before.

Speaker:

ah, I'll tell this one.

Speaker:

So that story that I just read from, Ken and Malick was on his website

Speaker:

and in the comment section was a comment by a guy called, Ray Halpin,

Speaker:

who I actually reached out to.

Speaker:

And we, and then friends on Facebook, it's like, sort of six years ago now.

Speaker:

Interesting guy.

Speaker:

He sort of ended up on the streets in, in Ireland, like as

Speaker:

a, almost as a homeless type guy.

Speaker:

And I was saying to him, do you need some money?

Speaker:

And he was like, no, no, I'll be right.

Speaker:

And he interesting guy.

Speaker:

So in response to what Ken and Malik wrote, This is in the comments by Ray

Speaker:

Helpin and he said, I'm an unskilled manual laborer, living in Dublin, but

Speaker:

I spent the 1990s working in Outback Australia as a field operative in

Speaker:

the mining exploration industry.

Speaker:

During those years, I came to befriend many aboriginal Australians, and at one

Speaker:

stage even considered proposing to one.

Speaker:

The Mabo Lands rights decision was a watershed moment.

Speaker:

From that point on, the political consciousness of many ordinary

Speaker:

aboriginal Australians really flourished.

Speaker:

Although at the time, the significance was not grasped by

Speaker:

many of the indigenous friends in Mount Isa, they resented the idea.

Speaker:

This is his Aboriginal friends in Mount Isa resented the idea that Torres Strait

Speaker:

Islanders were getting a percentage of the funding set aside by Canberra for Atsic.

Speaker:

Aborigines were the real indigenous Australians, whereas

Speaker:

Islanders were something else.

Speaker:

I found this sort of rivalry to be depressing cause the, my excessively

Speaker:

idealized way of thinking at the time, it resembled a mild form of the

Speaker:

kind of racism pervasive throughout the white Australian community.

Speaker:

Abes should have been immune from that kind of thing, given their experiences.

Speaker:

They should have known better, but they didn't.

Speaker:

They were a stubbornly human as any other group.

Speaker:

he goes on the issue of exactly what it meant to be an Australian Aboriginal

Speaker:

came, became a frequent topic of discussion around the barbecue.

Speaker:

Some of my black friends refused to join the discussion

Speaker:

because politics irritated them.

Speaker:

Others dismissed the whole idea of aboriginality and preferred to

Speaker:

concentrate on the apparently less controversial idea of common humanity.

Speaker:

There was always one, usually the one who had an arts degree from the University

Speaker:

of Queensland who pursued a degree of exclusivity that would've impressed the

Speaker:

most fastidious phenologist he'd demand to be referred to by his tribal designation.

Speaker:

Even though he often didn't know it and accused his cousins of being yellow

Speaker:

rather than black, because some of their distant ancestors turned out

Speaker:

to be Afghan Cavaliers when their cousins retaliated pointing to the

Speaker:

extraordinary number of white fellas in their accusers pedigree, he'd blanche

Speaker:

and say he was proud of all of his ancestors, but you could tell he wasn't.

Speaker:

As far as I could tell, the absurdities of black identity were as comical

Speaker:

and as potentially dangerous and tragic and veno phenol as those

Speaker:

infecting the white identity.

Speaker:

I met Australian Aborigines who adapted, adopted an identity for

Speaker:

purely cynical reasons because there was funding to be had from it.

Speaker:

Its steady work and academic kudos and compensation from mining companies, ime

Speaker:

aboriginal Australians who were purists of the most intimidating kind, who condemned

Speaker:

all whites as genocidal murderers and assumed a right to kill them wherever and

Speaker:

whatever, and felt justified in doing so.

Speaker:

these experiences are many more liked them, forced me to reflect long and

Speaker:

hard on the pros and cons of identity and into view with growing detestation,

Speaker:

the emergence of an illiberal left winging variety of identity politics

Speaker:

that in effect deferred very little from its right wing counterpart.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Thoughts on indigenous issues.

Speaker:

All will be reexamined in a bumper indigenous episode.

Speaker:

Appear at some point.

Speaker:

Did you see Lydia Thorpe's comments?

Speaker:

I, I saw, this is 60 minutes.

Speaker:

Oh, I dunno.

Speaker:

I just saw some headlines.

Speaker:

Which comment was that, Joe?

Speaker:

Well, specifically, it, it's okay to be black and vote no.

Speaker:

and no, it doesn't make us racist.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

I, I refuse to be lumped into the same group.

Speaker:

you know, there are different reasons for voting no.

Speaker:

And you don't have to be a racist to vote.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Was effectively what she was saying, she classed herself as a progressive No.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Is how she described it as opposed to a racist.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And I would describe the theories that I'm trying to espouse as a rationalist.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

So you can have different reasons for I, I think so, no.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But I think we are just going to see a taring of a whole sway of the

Speaker:

country as racists, uneducated bigots.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That's what we're gonna see and this is what's gonna happen.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And yeah, I've been keeping a, clipping all sorts of stuff from social media from.

Speaker:

Different people who I normally agree with on the left, and they're just going

Speaker:

to town when they talk about the racists who are contemplating the no vote.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

one of the Facebook pages I follow was, if you're voting for no, then you

Speaker:

know it's as good as a vote for Daton.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And I just put up, what was it, your, your logical fallacy is

Speaker:

black and white thinking, right?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's, these are not two sides of the same coin.

Speaker:

You, you can vote no and not be for Mr.

Speaker:

Ton.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So it's a complicated topic because it, it's, it's, it's, it's

Speaker:

these issues of culture and, and.

Speaker:

There's almost a religious reverence for the purity of

Speaker:

the culture being maintained.

Speaker:

And there's, well, welcome to country has just become, sorry.

Speaker:

what's, what's, yeah, it is welcome to country has become the Lord's Prayer over.

Speaker:

It has, yes.

Speaker:

And a lot of atheist rationalists who would normally object to overtly

Speaker:

rich religious happenings are quite happy to wave through Indigenous.

Speaker:

Indigenous Oh.

Speaker:

Or even spiritual.

Speaker:

Yes, indeed.

Speaker:

And it's complicated because it is a mixture of feeling sorry for

Speaker:

what has happened to the plight of modern day indigenous people who

Speaker:

are suffering mixed in with a a, A feeling of compensation for stolen

Speaker:

land of what happened to, indigenous people, you know, two 50 years ago.

Speaker:

And it's, it's that mixture of those two things that justifies a position

Speaker:

that would otherwise be unjustifiable.

Speaker:

And it's just illogical at the end of the day.

Speaker:

So we'll get to all that and we'll upset a lot of people.

Speaker:

Sorry about that.

Speaker:

That's just the way it is.

Speaker:

I get a bumper episode to come.

Speaker:

Oh, I notes are just getting longer and longer on this.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Which is fine.

Speaker:

You'll have to send them to me well in advance because I've gotta get across it.

Speaker:

But, I'm still leaning towards a yes vote, just to protect it from

Speaker:

the Tories more than anything else.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

But I understand where you're coming from.

Speaker:

You know, it's one of those things, it's not as easy as

Speaker:

they are trying to make out.

Speaker:

I still don't understand why Albanese wants it as bad as he does.

Speaker:

I mean, I would've thought that he could actually take a look at the

Speaker:

polls and that sort of stuff and actually sit the people down and say

Speaker:

to them, if we put this up now, there's every likelihood we're going to lose.

Speaker:

So I don't think it's a good idea for us to go ahead with it.

Speaker:

Now, I don't think he's a particularly deep thinker.

Speaker:

I think he just, no, he just thinks there's a lot of disadvantaged indigenous

Speaker:

people living in terrible circumstances.

Speaker:

And, land was stolen and the grievance of that has been

Speaker:

transferred through the generations to present day indigenous people.

Speaker:

And that's the way a lot of people on the left think.

Speaker:

And that's the thinking that he would adopt without questioning.

Speaker:

Whether that's actually logically appropriate or not, so Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Have we heard anything from Keating over it?

Speaker:

he would be in favor of it, I would've thought, because I don't know.

Speaker:

his speech that he read Fern speech and all that, I would've thought.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

You know, Scott, we actually spoke about this way back in episode three.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Way back then.

Speaker:

Noel Pearson.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Because in episode three we referred to an article where Noel Pearson, was

Speaker:

proposing that he wanted a voice to parliament way back then, eight years ago.

Speaker:

So yeah, as I was, bloody hell, that was working my way through the notes and

Speaker:

finding every reference we've made to indigenous matters as part of the, 10 hour

Speaker:

episode that will appear at some stage.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Alright, that's enough.

Speaker:

I've gotta get ready for a 60th birthday gathering.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

I hope you enjoyed that one, and, we'll be with you next week.

Speaker:

Bye for now.

Speaker:

And it's a good night from me and that's a good night from him.

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.

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.
A
We haven’t had any Tips yet :( Maybe you could be the first!