full
Episode 461 - Is there an Antisemitism Problem in Australia?
The episode offers an in-depth analysis of the recent geopolitical developments surrounding Donald Trump and his purported negotiations with Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. Additionally, the speakers address the rise of antisemitism in Australia, spurred by sensationalist media coverage and public incidents, such as the controversy surrounding the Cairo Takeaway restaurant. They question the veracity of claims regarding a surge in antisemitic behaviour, exploring whether such narratives are being manufactured for political gain. By providing context and examining the underlying motives, the speakers encourage listeners to assess the information presented to them critically and to consider the broader implications of these societal issues.
To financially support the Podcast you can make:
- a per-episode donation via Patreon or
- one-off donation via credit card; or
- one-off or regular donations via Paypal or
- if you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis.
We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm 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 links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week. After the fiasco mentioned in episode 454 I can't use Mailchimp anymore so for the moment, send me an email and I'll add you to a temporary list until something more automated is arranged.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe
Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.
Transcript
We need to talk about ideas, good ones and bad ones.
Speaker A:We need to learn stuff about the world.
Speaker A:We need an honest, intelligent, thought provoking and entertaining review of what the hell.
Speaker B:Happened on this planet in the last seven days.
Speaker A:We need to sit back and listen to the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.
Speaker A:Yes, the last seven days, what happened?
Speaker A:Certainly some stuff happened with Donald Trump and Ukraine and a potential peace deal, which I'm keen to discuss.
Speaker A:And it seems, according to the Murdoch Press, a spate of anti Semitism rolling through Australia.
Speaker A:And the question is, is that correct or not?
Speaker A:Plus a bunch of other things.
Speaker A:I'm Trevor, AKA the Iron Fist, up there in regional Queensland.
Speaker A:Scott the Velvet Glove, back again as a regular.
Speaker A:Hiya, Scott.
Speaker C:Good.
Speaker C:Thanks, Trevor.
Speaker C:G'day, Trevor.
Speaker C:G'day, Joe.
Speaker C:G'day, listeners.
Speaker C:I hope everyone's doing well.
Speaker A:Joe is doing as well as a man with chronic Crohn's disease can do, but he's got a special treatment.
Speaker A:I don't know if you want to tell the people, Joe, or you want to keep that private or.
Speaker B:I was going to keep it offline.
Speaker A:Okay, we'll keep it offline.
Speaker A:Anyway, Joe's as well as can be expected.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:Well, we've got a podcast to do, talk about stuff.
Speaker A:Let me just see what is actually on the agenda.
Speaker A:So a new Patreon I'll mention up front.
Speaker A:Thanks, Melinda.
Speaker A:Melinda's actually an old patron who I think is resigned under a new name.
Speaker A:She might have dropped off and come back on, so thank you.
Speaker A:Much appreciated.
Speaker A:It's been a long time since we've had a new patron, so even a revitalized old patron will do.
Speaker A:Yes, we're going to talk about anti Semitism in Australia and the Cairo takeaway incident and just a bunch of other anti Semitic incidents that have been highlighted and whether that really is a spate or something else.
Speaker A:And of course, Ukraine and the deal that Donald Trump seems to have agreed with or being ready to agree with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker A:I am very interested, gentlemen, in your takes on that one, as to what you think about that.
Speaker A:I trust you've been reading up about that one.
Speaker C:I've been reading up, but not as.
Speaker C:Not as heavily as you have been.
Speaker C:It's just I think to myself that he can't actually negotiate without Ukraine being in the room.
Speaker A:He's going to.
Speaker A:He's going to do it without the EU as well.
Speaker C:I know.
Speaker C:Which is utterly ridiculous.
Speaker A:Well, it's his war.
Speaker A:If there are any doubts about this being an American proxy war, they're dispelled.
Speaker A:Now by the fact that Ukraine and EU are not even invited to the peace talks.
Speaker A:But we'll get onto that.
Speaker A:Let's get a couple of other things out of the road.
Speaker A:First of all, just a quick one.
Speaker A:Australia census question.
Speaker A:I just saw something on Facebook, gentlemen, that the religious question will be unchanged for the next one, so.
Speaker C:Oh, really?
Speaker B:You might recall just people were crying into their beers about that.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:So we were hoping for a New Zealand style question which was do you.
Speaker A:Are you religious?
Speaker A:If so, please tell us which religion, as opposed to the current one, which is which religion are you?
Speaker A:And the first one being no religion, and then other options appearing.
Speaker A:So it's going to stick to what it was last time.
Speaker A:Would have been nice to go the extra mile, but that hasn't happened, so.
Speaker A:So, yeah, that's a quick one on that score.
Speaker A:And so, gentlemen, Cairo Takeaway, which is an Egyptian style restaurant in Newtown.
Speaker A:I think I might have actually been to it because my daughter is based in Newtown or thereabouts, and I think we might have went to this particular restaurant once or twice before.
Speaker A:So not sure if you're familiar with the sort of sting that was attempted, but essentially the Daily Telegraph was caught trying to orchestrate public hysteria about anti Semitism.
Speaker A:So a man wearing a Star of David hat and video glasses went round targeting Muslim and Arab businesses, trying to instigate hostility from staff members.
Speaker A:So it's basically trying to bait people into being anti Semitic and that that would then be recorded and used as evidence of a spate of antisemitism.
Speaker A:So I've got a video here which kind of explains the whole story.
Speaker A:So let's play this one, see how we go.
Speaker D:Tuesday afternoon and Cairo Takeaway Cafe is buzzing when a man wearing a Star of David cap walks in and orders a hibiscus tea.
Speaker D:He moves to the back of the cafe wearing glasses with a camera.
Speaker D:He turns them on and he leaves, following the female staff member who served him.
Speaker D:They're at the door when the man in the cap speaks up, the alleged conversation relayed to the cafe chef.
Speaker A:Am I upsetting you being here?
Speaker A:She said, no, I'm just asking you, what do you want?
Speaker A:He says, because I'm Jewish.
Speaker D:Seconds later, a senior journalist from the Daily Telegraph enters with her photographer and allegedly asks the same female server, have you got a problem with the man with the white cap?
Speaker D:She says, why would I have a problem?
Speaker D:Eventually they leave the cafe worker not far behind and she's now the one with the camera that is out and out intimidation.
Speaker A:Who comes into A restaurant and asked.
Speaker C:Me a question about this gentleman who.
Speaker D:I don't even know.
Speaker E:Do you think it's not intimidation that.
Speaker B:You found it appalling that he came into the shop?
Speaker D:Show me that you're from the Daily Telegraph.
Speaker A:Easy.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:I think something's upsetting.
Speaker D:It was all part of a stunt planned by the Daily Telegraph, allegedly called undercover operation.
Speaker D:A leaked planning document reads, meet Gussie at Holt street, call on arrival.
Speaker A:Ah, the story goes on, but you get the general picture.
Speaker A:Thoughts, gentlemen?
Speaker C:That's a lot of.
Speaker B:If there isn't a story, make one up.
Speaker C:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker A:And, you know, create one like they've been delivered by baiting people.
Speaker C:You know, they went in.
Speaker C:They went into a Islamic area, I would imagine, and they went in there and they deliberately wearing the Star of David and everything on the cap.
Speaker C:And then the guy actually had to ask the server, he said, well, you know, do you have a problem with me?
Speaker C:And he says, why would I have a problem with you?
Speaker C:You know?
Speaker A:Yep.
Speaker B:So wasn't there a Canadian YouTuber a couple of years back that was deliberately going into Muslim areas of Sydney and baiting people and then saying, you know, freedom of speech and they were kicked out on grounds of acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace?
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:Lauren something or other, I think her name was.
Speaker B:Yeah, sounds familiar.
Speaker A:Along those lines.
Speaker A:So this is the problem, isn't it?
Speaker A:Is is the baiting of people to get a reaction from them and as a means of drumming up the idea that there's a spate of anti Semitism.
Speaker A:So other incidents that fall into this category would be these nurses.
Speaker A:So you've heard about the two Arab Australian nurses who were also baited by an Israeli influencer into saying on a website that they would kill Israelis if they came into their hospital.
Speaker A:So, you know, that's bad.
Speaker A:Like, we don't want our nurses openly saying that they're going to kill people who come into their hospitals.
Speaker A:But in the context of.
Speaker A:If you watch the extended footage of the exchange, it's clear the influencer went out of his way to inform them that he served in the Israeli military and killed Palestinians.
Speaker A:And one of the nurses has reportedly lost 70 family members to Israeli atrocities in Palestine.
Speaker A:So still you don't want your nurses doing it, but it gives it a context that you have to say to people, how would you react if 70 of your relatives were killed by Israeli military and you're talking to a man who's boasting about being Israeli military and having killed Palestinians, it would be hard to control your anger and emotion in that situation.
Speaker A: ct with a Nazi soldier in the: Speaker A:So not good on behalf of the nurses.
Speaker A:But a clear baiting by this Jewish influencer in a situation where somebody's lost 70 relatives to Israeli soldiers and the guy's boasting that he's an Israeli soldier who's killed Palestinians.
Speaker A:So in that context, is it, you know, add to the anti Semitism that's apparently rife in Australia, or is this more of like the Cairo takeaway where in order to gain sympathy and to get stronger laws, some people are trying to create a problem that doesn't exist.
Speaker B:Yeah, certainly that as I read the headlines, they were saying that they kill any Jew that came into their hospital.
Speaker A:Not good.
Speaker B:No, but, and, and if what you're saying is correct, they were threatening to kill members of the idf.
Speaker B:Well, that's probably more justified.
Speaker B:I mean a nurse shouldn't be killing anybody and possibly they should be reporting them to the International Criminal Court.
Speaker A:But, yeah, but, so you can't excuse it.
Speaker A:But in terms of the, this, you know, the evidence of anti Semitism in Australia, you can see that influences going into, into websites like this and deliberately provoking people is going to fan flames that maybe if they weren't there would have not happened.
Speaker A:So I mean it's if, if you.
Speaker B:Want antisemitism, I'm sure if you recorded enough mosque, what they call them preachers at the imams with their service, I'm sure that there is very much some anti Jewish speech in, in the sermons from the imams.
Speaker B:But this, this doesn't sound anything like, you know, it's storming the teacup, isn't it?
Speaker A:So the other sort of incidents of anti Semitism that's going on was the, the caravan.
Speaker A:You guys were familiar with the Dural Caravan.
Speaker A:And so we've now learned from the Sydney Morning Herald that that caravan laden with explosive materials, apparently the explosives were like 40 year old and there was no detonator.
Speaker A:But it seems, according to this article, it's involved in a scheme by underworld crime gangs to help negotiate reduced sentences with law enforcement.
Speaker A:So there's a thing where crime gangs say to the police, we'll tell you about a truckload of explosives if you can give time off to some of our friends.
Speaker A:This is what the Sydney Morning Herald is saying is the story.
Speaker A:And you might recall that the police were saying that there was no ideological basis for the people involved in the caravan incident, that they weren't ideologically driven at all.
Speaker A:So that was another sort of thing thrown up as an example of the spate of antisemitism in Australia, but in the cold light of day doesn't stack up as having anything to do with antisemitism at all.
Speaker A:So it's really easy when these things come into the news at first blush to go, isn't that a terrible example of anti Semitism?
Speaker A:But when the context is put around, it can be quite different.
Speaker A:Another example, Bondi eggs.
Speaker A:There were headlines about an anti Semitic attack at Bondi beach involving eggs being thrown at a group of young women a few days later.
Speaker A:Turns out had nothing to do with anyone hating Jews.
Speaker A:It was just teenagers getting up to teenage mischief.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So just example of.
Speaker A:Of some incidents where it's.
Speaker A:It's beaten up as if there's a spate of anti Semitism in Australia, but when you look at in some cases the provocation or in other cases, just the facts, not the case at all.
Speaker A:And meanwhile we're developing laws supposedly strengthening anti free speech, which are a response to the initial reaction and not properly considered, taking everything into account.
Speaker A:Looks like a lot of comments shall be reading any of them.
Speaker A:Anything, Any there?
Speaker B:Only just.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:They're pointing out that, yes, this is a common thing, that clickbait exists.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:Yep.
Speaker A:So you know, the whole idea of just propaganda warfare is people just need to be conscious of, I guess.
Speaker A:Any other thoughts on that issue before you move on, gentlemen?
Speaker C:So the guy that that caravan was registered to was in prison, wasn't he?
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:Don't know that detail, Scott.
Speaker A:Meanwhile, we've got an essential poll.
Speaker A:So this is to what extent you think the government is doing enough to combat anti Semitism in Australia?
Speaker A:And you'll see three lines there.
Speaker A:Young people, 18 to 34, middle aged, 35 to 54 and 55 plus.
Speaker A:And what you notice is it's the old people, 55 plus, who are saying 56% of them, the government's not doing enough.
Speaker B:So you mean the wrong people who are reading the old people who are reading Murdoch rags and watching Sky News after dark.
Speaker A:You know, young people are really attuned to sort of racism and social issues and social injustice.
Speaker A:Like these are not issues that they ignore.
Speaker A:But young people are saying, in comparison, only 28% are saying the government's not doing enough.
Speaker A:40% are saying the government's doing enough.
Speaker A:Contrast with old people who are saying 56% are saying the government's not doing enough.
Speaker A:And only 23% think the government's doing enough.
Speaker A:Why is it that old people think that way and young people don't?
Speaker C:Well, I think Joe's hit the nail right on the head because they're reading Murdoch rags and listening to Sky News.
Speaker B:Yeah, but, but do you also think that young people are more likely to see Israel as an oppressor and therefore they're not as attuned to anti.
Speaker B:If, if there is antisemitism that they think it's justified?
Speaker A:Possibly.
Speaker A:But then why are they thinking that and old people aren't?
Speaker B:Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker B:There's a skew in where people get their news from.
Speaker A:It has to be, well, we should.
Speaker B:Ban TikTok and then they'll be forced to get their media, their news from.
Speaker A:Exactly right, exactly right.
Speaker A:That was the reason for banning TikTok was not because of where the data was stored, it was because it was interfering with the Israeli narrative that they were wanting to promote.
Speaker A:So it's just amazing that in this country that there's such a disparity of opinion between old fogies 55 plus and young people 18 to 34.
Speaker A:And on an issue like this.
Speaker A:So very telling, I think, as to where people are getting their news from.
Speaker A:In a nutshell, I think the day we can just get rid of this Murdoch propaganda indoctrination mess that we're consigned to the better.
Speaker A:But I just can't see it happening in the near future.
Speaker C:Like, well, we've got to wait till Rooker's dead because the trust hasn't been locked away from the other kids or anything like that.
Speaker C:And apparently the other kids are a lot more moderate than Lock one is.
Speaker C:So if they can get Lachlan out of Sky News and Fox News and everywhere else, then maybe you might be able to do something with it.
Speaker A:Yeah, so.
Speaker A:So, yeah, that's that one.
Speaker A:What else have I got here?
Speaker A:Just a quick update.
Speaker A:We spoke about the ABC and Antoinette Latuf, the journalist who was fired because of her Twitter page or posts that were basically just backing up what the International Criminal Court was saying.
Speaker A:And ABC had been saying, well, she's just not allowed to have controversial views.
Speaker A:And during the court case, the counsel for Antoinette Latif was cross examining the.
Speaker A:Some of the ABC management And said, well, you've got this other ABC employee, Patricia Cavallis.
Speaker A:Look at her Twitter feed.
Speaker A:It's full of opinions about the Uluru Statement, Federal icac, Brittany Higgins, all opinions on controversial issues which she was allowed to have, but Antoinette Latuf was not allowed to have an opinion about, about Palestine, Israel.
Speaker A:So I think the ABC surely should be facing a bitter defeat in that court case.
Speaker A:Do you guys watch anything on ABC anymore?
Speaker C:No, I just watch it on Iview if there's something.
Speaker C:If something of interest turns up or watching on Ivy.
Speaker A:Anything in particular?
Speaker B:TV and years.
Speaker A:Yeah, I just find it so lightweight and pathetic.
Speaker A:I just, yeah, I've stopped even reading the ABC online news.
Speaker A:It's so pathetically childish that I just get nothing from it.
Speaker A:So I often just go days without even skimming it for articles for this podcast because I just never get anything from it.
Speaker A:So yeah.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Let's see.
Speaker A:Okay, gentlemen, Ukraine.
Speaker A:So let's play some clips and then we'll talk about different stuff.
Speaker A:So first of all, who's going to be at the negotiating table?
Speaker A:Let's see.
Speaker C:Russia and the usa.
Speaker E:You also heard loud and clear that the Europeans need to be at the table and that Ukrainians need to be at the table.
Speaker E:And you described a parallel structure.
Speaker E:You have a Russia file talking to the Russians and you're talking to the Ukrainians.
Speaker E:Isn't this cutting the Ukrainians out of the real negotiations?
Speaker E:The fulcrum seems to be the Trump administration.
Speaker E:With these two things going in parallel, can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?
Speaker A:Oh, well, you just changed the whole dynamic.
Speaker A:Ferguson or Victor, thanks for having us today.
Speaker A:I appreciate it.
Speaker A:The answer to that last question, just as you framed it, the answer is no.
Speaker E:So the Europeans who have provided as much or more support than the Americans in this process, you don't think should be at the table directly.
Speaker E:You think it should be two protagonists?
Speaker A:I don't.
Speaker A:I said I'm a school of realism.
Speaker A:I think that's not going to happen.
Speaker A:But I said that's one of the reasons I'm here talking to people.
Speaker C:Who is that guy?
Speaker C:Is that Hegseth?
Speaker A:No, that one there I think was Kiss.
Speaker B:He's sorry too sober.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker A:That was Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker B:Okay, so that was Yalta on in the background.
Speaker B:Were they in Yalta?
Speaker A:There might have been a reference to it being a Yalta type, post war type of.
Speaker B:That's on the Crimean peninsula.
Speaker B:So it's just around the corner from Sevastopol.
Speaker A:If it was, it's sort of Yalta like in that it's right, okay, war's over or coming to a close.
Speaker A:How are we settling all these schools?
Speaker B:How are we diving up Europe between the two powers?
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker B:Through any other countries that might have a say in it.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:And if you thought he was speaking out of turn about Ukraine not being part of it, of the peace deal negotiations, here's Trump himself.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker A:Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process.
Speaker A:It's an interesting question.
Speaker A:I think they have to make peace.
Speaker A:Their people are being killed and I think they have to make peace.
Speaker A:I said that was not a good war.
Speaker A:Sort of cuts out at my end there that he was asked whether Ukraine's going to be part of the deal.
Speaker A:Nope.
Speaker A:The answer there and.
Speaker B:To them is what he said.
Speaker C:He said it was not a war for the.
Speaker C:It was not a good war for them to go into.
Speaker C:So apparently they provoked the Russians to invade them.
Speaker A:Sorry.
Speaker C:Well, apparently, if, you know, if.
Speaker A:Well, he actually said, I wanted to join NATO.
Speaker C:Yes, they did.
Speaker C:Jesus Christ.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker C:The Ukrainian thing.
Speaker C:They were never going to be part of NATO.
Speaker C:They might have tried, but they couldn't actually get in.
Speaker A:What?
Speaker A:They were never going to be part.
Speaker C:No, they were never going to be part of it.
Speaker C:And especially after the, after the Russians had invaded them.
Speaker A:Because then why didn't, why didn't they say, well, we won't be part of.
Speaker A:Why did they say that they were going to be part of it?
Speaker B:They wanted to be part.
Speaker A:Yes, but.
Speaker B:But they needed to have fixed various things that were quite a long way off.
Speaker B:So they weren't going to be in NATO anytime in the near future.
Speaker A:I'll tell you on.
Speaker A:Do you guys know Mark Root, R U T T E Dutch politician, served as the 14th Secretary General of NATO in October 24.
Speaker A:Said Ukraine's path to membership is irreversible.
Speaker A:The day will come that Ukraine is a full member of NATO.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A: The day in: Speaker A:Maybe you're saying they were never going to be a member and he's saying Ukraine's path to membership is irreversible.
Speaker A:The day will come.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker C:The day will come which wasn't specified when it was going to come or anything else.
Speaker C:It's just, I think that Putin shot his mouth off far too early.
Speaker A:A matter of four months later, Trump said, I don't think it's practical to have Ukraine join NATO.
Speaker A:And on the same day, Mark Root Said Ukraine was never promised NATO membership.
Speaker A:Well, they've played pause Ukraine as complete.
Speaker B:Suckers has one of the American TV hosts said Trump has always been Putin's holster.
Speaker B:He was always going to bend over to Putin.
Speaker A:I'm going to get shafted by the West.
Speaker A:Fight this war for us that you'll never win.
Speaker A:Lose all these men and when it's all a complete mess, we'll just leave you.
Speaker B:We'll just hand it over to Russia anyway.
Speaker A:Yeah, we'll leave you in your mess.
Speaker A:Well, so we've talked about whether who's going to be at the negotiating table.
Speaker A:The question is, will Ukraine ever be part of NATO as part of this deal?
Speaker A:What's the story?
Speaker A:Because that was the demand by Putin when it came to peace talks.
Speaker A:He said the key part of any peace deal is we keep Crimea and you don't join NATO and you never will join NATO.
Speaker A:And that was unacceptable to the Ukrainians into the West.
Speaker A:And that was why a peace deal could never be settled.
Speaker A:And here's what they're saying now.
Speaker F:The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.
Speaker F:Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non European troops.
Speaker F:If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non NATO mission and they should not be covered under Article 5.
Speaker F:There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact.
Speaker F:To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S.
Speaker F:troops.
Speaker A:Okay, and just to finish off with clips before we then talk without interruption, just on what about the border?
Speaker A:What's going to be part of the deal with the border?
Speaker A:Where will, what will happen with the land that's been taken by Russia?
Speaker A:Etc, Here we go.
Speaker F:We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine.
Speaker F: hat returning to Ukraine's pre: Speaker F:The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiation.
Speaker A:So he just repeats the same thing there.
Speaker A:So it seems the deal that will be negotiated between the US and Russia at a table, whether it will not be the EU or the Ukraine will be that Ukraine will never ever be part of NATO and that the borders will be more or less where the borderline is now.
Speaker A:And you guys must think that's a terrible deal that should just not happen and the war should continue, is that right?
Speaker C: at Crimea was lost to them in: Speaker C:I think they've got to walk away from Crimea.
Speaker C:However, the Donbass and everything else that was part of his latest raid, I don't think he should be rewarded with any more Ukrainian territory.
Speaker A:So this peace deal as it's framed should not go ahead and the war should continue.
Speaker C:Not without the return of the Donbass.
Speaker A:Joe, are you the same opinion from.
Speaker B:What I've read of the.
Speaker B:The history?
Speaker B:Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker B: It seems like basically: Speaker B:And I think that very quickly, as soon as Russia was seen to be interfering, solidified because the Ukrainians want to be Ukrainian, even if they're Russian speaking.
Speaker B:They wanted to be Ukrainian and there was a small number who wanted to ally join with Russia, but most of them wanted to be Russian speaking Ukrainians.
Speaker B:And so there wasn't.
Speaker B:Apparently most Ukrainians speak both languages and will speak will just switch between them with the assumption that everybody is completely bilingual.
Speaker B:So this idea that the Russian speakers were being persecuted is bullshit spread around by Putin to justify his interference with the regions that were majority Russian speaking.
Speaker A:So the bombing of the Donbass region by the Ukrainian forces wasn't a persecution of the.
Speaker B:You mean after the separatists that were.
Speaker A:Funded as part of a Minsk agreement that never really was.
Speaker B:Was this the agreement where Russia agreed that the borders would stay the same if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weap weapons?
Speaker A:No.
Speaker A:But was that bombing not a persecution?
Speaker B:Didn't they.
Speaker A:Was, was that bombing not a persecution.
Speaker B:Speaking after an armed insurrection, after an armed separatist group started?
Speaker A:Right, so that wasn't a person.
Speaker A:I mean, they told them, you can't speak Russian, you're gonna have to speak Russian.
Speaker A:They didn't.
Speaker A:No, that's not the story I heard.
Speaker A:But there was no persecution of the Donbass region by the Ukrainian forces as part of the whole Minsk Agreement.
Speaker A:That's the whole point of the Minsk agreement was to stop the fighting that was occurring between the main Ukrainian forces.
Speaker A:And you call them rebels.
Speaker A:Yeah, one man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter, isn't it?
Speaker B:Well, but I mean, the question is how much of a freedom fighter are they and how much are they armed and funded by outside forces?
Speaker A:Which is what you also say about the Ukrainian government when you say they were a government that had been overthrown in a coup by the American.
Speaker B:Putin is very happy that you have secessionists in Donbas, but as soon as the Chechens talk about Wanting their own region.
Speaker B:He crushes them ruthlessly.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But you know, you could say, well.
Speaker B:He'S basically asking for, can we just.
Speaker A:Narrow it down without dragging in all these other ones.
Speaker A:You know, you're saying that they're just paid, rebellious, you know, infiltrated by Russians to be a rebel group.
Speaker A:But the other argument is also applicable that the Ukrainian government had been, had been basically a color revolution had taken place orchestrated by the Americans.
Speaker A:So they were not, you know, you could argue they were not legitimate either.
Speaker B:Well, I know that Putin has argued that.
Speaker B:I'm not sure that the evidence backs it up.
Speaker A:And lots of other people have anyway.
Speaker B:That, you know, there were.
Speaker B:The majority of Ukrainians wanted nothing to do.
Speaker B:Sorry.
Speaker B:They saw Russians as their brothers, but they didn't want to be part of Russia and they didn't want.
Speaker B:They wanted closer ties with Europe and they wanted trading partnerships with Europe.
Speaker A:It's really hard to say that because you could look at somewhere like Crimea where there's been polls done by Westerners that say that the Crimeans were happy to be re embraced by the Russians.
Speaker A:Now you could also say, well, they were bombarded with propaganda, so of course they'd think that.
Speaker A:Or people who don't like the idea of Russia had already left the Crimea.
Speaker A:Like, there's always sort of counter arguments, but you can't make.
Speaker B:During Ukrainian independence, the, the Crimean peninsula were the lowest percentage of people who wanted independence from Russia, but they still wanted independence.
Speaker B:And a lot of people who wanted to be.
Speaker B:They didn't want to be part of Russia, they wanted to be part of the Soviet Union.
Speaker A:No, we've done an episode where there were polls done by Westerners that confirmed that the opinion in the Crimea was they wanted to be aligned with Russia.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And it's possible that the Crimea was a lost cause.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So, you know, you can't make blanket statements about.
Speaker A:But, but what the people of Ukraine wanted because there's lots of different factions wanting different things.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker A:Anyway, your opinion, and then Scott as well, would be that this peace deal is not a good idea.
Speaker B:They're probably going to be sold down the river by Trump.
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker A:So they shouldn't agree to these peace deal and keep fighting, even if it's organized by somebody like the US and the Ukraine don't even get a choice.
Speaker A:It's just a bad deal for Ukraine and they should keep fighting.
Speaker B:It's a bad deal for the Ukraine and it's down to them to decide whether they want to keep fighting or not.
Speaker A:All right, that's A good spirited discussion like those.
Speaker A:So what else have we got here?
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:You guys want to say anything else about Ukraine?
Speaker B:Well, I'm still fighting my way through the book, which book called Putin's Revenge, which is from a journalist who lived in Moscow and then spent quite a bit of time in Ukraine covering the background and talking to people on the ground and getting a feel for what the average person in the street thought and talking about going to Crimea when the little green men appeared.
Speaker B:So he was actually there when the invasion happened and saying that the average person on the street were not happy that they, they wanted, they wanted to be a self governing part of Ukraine.
Speaker B:They were pushing very heavily for what they called federation.
Speaker A:Do you remember us doing an episode on Poles in Ukraine to find that for next, next week?
Speaker A:But you know, okay, it's, it's difficult though for one man wandering around Ukraine to, yes, get a good feel for what all Ukrainians want and that might shift as well as things happen.
Speaker C:So, yeah, I think they're all, I think they're exhausted and they're buggered.
Speaker C:They're buggered.
Speaker C:They're sick of the war.
Speaker C:I think that's true.
Speaker C:But I think Joe is right.
Speaker C:I think that they should keep fighting.
Speaker A:To the last Ukrainian.
Speaker C:No, not to the last Ukrainian.
Speaker C:You're just being foolish now, Trevor.
Speaker C:I just think that they've, I just think they've got to actually, they've got to actually say to Vladimir Putin that this is supposed to be wrapped up in two weeks.
Speaker C:It's now gone on for three years.
Speaker C:You're not going to win the way you wanted to.
Speaker C:And I think they've actually got to tell him that the war is virtually over now.
Speaker C:So we are accepting peace terms, but we're not going to accept peace terms.
Speaker C:That means that you walk away with the Donbas.
Speaker A:Well, he'll just keep fighting.
Speaker A:He's winning.
Speaker A:He's not winning.
Speaker C:He's not winning.
Speaker A:Yes, he is.
Speaker A:He's taken the, a large proportion.
Speaker A:He's taking a large portion.
Speaker B:Second most powerful army in the world.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:That was beaten up by a bunch of third rate reservists.
Speaker A:This is how Russia fights.
Speaker A:What, slow nutrition?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:Well, yeah, and that's, that's how Russia fights.
Speaker B:Putin's plan was that the west would lose focus, the west would give up and he could just as long as he kept on plowing in his resources, the west would get bored and would walk away.
Speaker A:He's dead.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker B:And he's won.
Speaker A:Yes, he's winning and he's won.
Speaker B:But so I think, I mean, apparently Trump is already talking about reducing sanctions against Russia.
Speaker A:Yeah, wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Speaker A:Hey, the other thing in all this was Trump is saying to the Ukraine this is being a costly exercise.
Speaker A:We now want all of your rare earth minerals.
Speaker C:Thank you very much.
Speaker C:That was fucking criminal, wasn't it?
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker A:Well, do you know what, People like Taiwan look at this and go, should we be bowing and scraping for US support?
Speaker A:Will we end up as another Ukraine?
Speaker A:Will we be shat upon and end up like a Ukraine?
Speaker A:We need to find another solution.
Speaker A:That's what's, that's what Taiwan, if they've got any sense, we cannot trust these Americans and these Westerners.
Speaker A:Well, no, we get into an armed conflict, we'll all be killed and they'll drop us at the end once the last.
Speaker B:Until Trump.
Speaker B:Yes, they could trust the west to support them.
Speaker B:I think Trump is the outlier.
Speaker B:He's shut down US Aid, which is America's soft power weapon.
Speaker B:And you know, there are, I was reading a report about Ugandans who are reliant on U.S.
Speaker B:aid for their AIDS treatment, their HIV treatment.
Speaker B:And you know what's going to happen?
Speaker B:China will come in and supply that medication and we'll provide the, the aid.
Speaker A:And probably a hospital as well.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:And that's all Chinese are going to go in there and.
Speaker A:Well, no, I mean do it properly.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, exactly.
Speaker B:All of the investment the US has put into these countries, it's going to be forgotten.
Speaker C:Yeah, it's what I, I actually said at the time, I said they're just leaving the way open for China to go in and take the Pacific and everywhere else.
Speaker A:But you know, you're saying it was Trump because Trump's come in, that's why the Ukraine war is going to be finished.
Speaker B:Trump is the vigorhead of a bunch of right wing lunatics.
Speaker A:Often it takes just a new president to come in who is not got any sort of responsibility for what has happened previously to say don't like the look and smell of this war we're in, I'm stopping it.
Speaker A:Like, you know, any new president potentially was going to stop the war on these terms, not just Trump.
Speaker A:Like this isn't particularly, I don't think because Americans don't leave other countries high and dry like this, Is that what you're saying?
Speaker B:Not in the same way.
Speaker B:I mean the, the Ukrainians were seen as European and therefore not dark skinned and therefore we couldn't abandon them.
Speaker A:No, I think seen as fighting Russia and they Wanted to cause Russia to bleed.
Speaker A:So they told the Ukrainians, I think.
Speaker B:There was a lot more solidarity with Ukraine than there were with other countries, because I was just reading about a loophole that was allowing Ukrainians in, or maybe this was the uk I can't remember.
Speaker B:Basically a refugee thing that allowed Ukrainians in and some other nationality had come in and they weren't the right sort of refugees and therefore the.
Speaker B:The government was desperately trying to overturn this.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:They were the wrong skin color, basically.
Speaker A:All right.
Speaker A:Probably a bit like those Russian soldiers who looked suspiciously North Korean because of their Mongol features.
Speaker A:Could have been.
Speaker A:Shout out to John there.
Speaker A:Ah, well, it's going to be interesting to see how it all pans out just while still on Trump.
Speaker A:Were you guys aware that bill has been put to Congress to the House, and it's now going to committee for discussion.
Speaker A: HR: Speaker A:You know what that's about?
Speaker C:No.
Speaker A:You know that place called Greenland?
Speaker B:Oh, yes.
Speaker A:This is a bill to authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as Red, White and Blue Land.
Speaker C:For God's sake.
Speaker A:I kid you not.
Speaker A:Red, White and Blue Land.
Speaker B:It doesn't surprise me.
Speaker B:After they named the Gulf of America Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker B:And have you noticed, by the way, I don't know if you've looked at Google Maps or Apple Maps, even over here it says Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker B:Brackets, Gulf of America.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:I think if you're in Mexico, it would probably say still Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker B:Yeah, yeah, but the US it says Gulf of America.
Speaker A:Yes, yeah, but, but Red, White and Blue Land.
Speaker B:I.
Speaker B:I saw something mentioning that they were changing the name by law, but I didn't see to where.
Speaker B:So.
Speaker B:Okay, that makes a lot more sense now.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So this is a bill that is before the House and is now going to some sort of committee for discussion.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A: d, White and Blue land act of: Speaker A:Section two, the President authorized to enter into negotiations with the government of Denmark to purchase or otherwise acquire Greenland.
Speaker A:Oh, I didn't notice those words before.
Speaker A:To purchase or otherwise acquire Greenland and.
Speaker A:And renaming Greenland shall be known as Red, White and Blue Land.
Speaker A:For God's sake.
Speaker A:This is just.
Speaker C:They're just children.
Speaker A:This is Night Stage imperialism.
Speaker A:He's gonna.
Speaker A:He's gonna put a horse in the Senate next.
Speaker B:Did you see that article I sent you?
Speaker A:Yes, I did.
Speaker A:Which One was that one the right.
Speaker B:Wing op ed who said, yeah, if, if this had been Biden doing half of these things, we wouldn't have stood for it.
Speaker B:Why the hell are we standing for it?
Speaker B:Just because he's a Republican.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Which I was quite impressed by.
Speaker A:But why didn't he think about that years ago before voting for him?
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:That's what I didn't understand.
Speaker B:They like to pretend that they hadn't realized he was going to be quite this crazy this time around, despite him telling everyone he was going to do.
Speaker A:Exactly this, exactly that.
Speaker B:And yeah, there's been an awful lot of why didn't the Democrats tell me he was going to do this?
Speaker B:And everyone's saying but they did.
Speaker B:Why didn't they tell me more?
Speaker B:Why didn't they shout louder?
Speaker A:And.
Speaker B:The same with the whole Elon.
Speaker B:Have you seen the, the nice articles showing exactly which departments, US Departments he's gutted and how many of those were investigating one of Elon's companies?
Speaker A:Most of them probably basically right.
Speaker B:I think there were 13 pending cases that have just been stopped in their tracks by him gutting various government departments.
Speaker A:Well, you sent me that link to the Bernie Sanders video which was Bernie Sanders by saying this richest man in the world spent $260 million on the Trump campaign and now is the most powerful unelected bureaucrat person in America and just an example of money buying power.
Speaker A:And it is just an oligarchy, plain and simple.
Speaker B:Yeah, I would agree.
Speaker A:That's where it had.
Speaker A:I'd much rather a Chinese communist system than an Elon Musk dominated oligarchic.
Speaker B:I wonder exactly what it takes before we get the Gillethenes out.
Speaker B:I, I honestly can see a French revolution occurring in the U.S.
Speaker B:in the U.S.
Speaker B:i, I think even, even the Republicans, they are hurting and they are going to end up hurting more.
Speaker B:And I can see them going, doing a Luigi, just going for the top, chopping their heads off.
Speaker A:It's a long way off.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:What else we got here?
Speaker A:Still on Trump.
Speaker A:His, his, his cryptocurrency called, called Strump with the S being a dollar sign that he launched on January 17.
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker A:Was a shameless cash grab that netted nearly 100 million in trading fees to his family and partners so far on.
Speaker B:A loss of 2 billion to his supporters.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:According to an analysis by the New York Times made it a fitting sequel to his overpriced made in China Trump bibles and his $900 Trump watches predictably the crypto coin and Melania's equally tone deaf Melania coin plummeted in value, leaving loyal supporters who bought the meme coins holding the bag with yes, losses totaling $2 billion.
Speaker A:It's the kind of thing you'd expect from a talentless influencer, not from a sitting president.
Speaker B:So, sorry, what was the difference?
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, that's Trump.
Speaker A:And just briefly, in Australia, Scott, you've been following this electoral funding law reforms.
Speaker C:Yeah, I have done.
Speaker A:So it seems that Parliament passed on Thursday.
Speaker A:Anytime labor and Liberals get together and agree on something, you're going to be worried.
Speaker A:That's right.
Speaker A:To cap campaign expenditure to $800,000 per.
Speaker C:Electorate, which sounds quite reasonable until you realise that the Teals basically had to spend more than a million bucks each to take the seats that they had got.
Speaker A:Yes, and there's an exception to this.
Speaker A:There's a cap of 800,000 per electorate.
Speaker A:But registered political parties can access $90 million war chest for general advertising.
Speaker A:So any particular, say, Liberal candidate can spend 800,000 in their electorate, but then the head office can be accessing a $90 million war chest, which will obviously help in those electorates and for the independents.
Speaker A:So the explanatory memorandum for the federal law says that a registered political party may have only one nominated entity registered, and a nominated entity may only be registered to one party.
Speaker A:So the sort of limited $90 million slush fund, you can have one entity per party that holds that $90 million war chest and spends it, you know, generally for that party.
Speaker A:But a body like Climate 200, it couldn't register as the nominated entity for a range of different independent candidates.
Speaker A:It could only register for one party or one candidate.
Speaker A:So it is the.
Speaker A:The labor and the coalition getting together and completely shafting the deals the Independents and the Teals through.
Speaker A:Through supposedly a cap on each electorate.
Speaker A:But this slush fund structuring it such that Teals and independence are at an extreme disadvantage.
Speaker C:Did you see Zoe's Diggle tearing a new one on the minister?
Speaker C:What was his name?
Speaker C:Don Farrell.
Speaker A:I didn't see it.
Speaker C:Yeah, but it was really quite good.
Speaker A:Right, but he would have stood there smiling and saying, I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker A:It's all completely.
Speaker C:Exactly.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A:So everyone thought Albanese was a good guy.
Speaker A:Have you been looking at the poll, Scott?
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:It's looking like your prediction of a Dutton prime ministership could be right.
Speaker C:And it's all Albanese's fault.
Speaker C:He has up very badly.
Speaker C:And I bet the Labor Party is probably ruined the day that they decided to Put him in the office.
Speaker C:And I think that they would have been better off under tenure.
Speaker C:Clip a sec.
Speaker A:Anyway, anybody who was prepared to do anything.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker A:It could have gone to the electorate and said, we've done a bunch of really good things here.
Speaker A:Or we've tried to at least.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker A:So I.
Speaker A:I just.
Speaker B:I think I'll be volunteering for whatever get up type organization.
Speaker B:Because he can't be Prime Minister if he's not a Member of Parliament.
Speaker A:Yes, yes, that's true.
Speaker A:But would the Liberals without Dutton be any better?
Speaker C:No, because they've been taken over by the Christians.
Speaker A:And just who's the shadow?
Speaker A:Like who's the likely.
Speaker A:If Dutton lost his seat, who's the likely leader?
Speaker A:Is it that.
Speaker A:Who's the Shadow treasurer who's completely hopeless?
Speaker C:Oh, he's a National Party man.
Speaker C:So that's okay, is it?
Speaker A:Yeah, no, no, Liberal.
Speaker A:But the shadow treasurer is the guy who did the chunky deals on water.
Speaker A:Angus.
Speaker C:Angus Taylor.
Speaker A:Isn't he Liberal?
Speaker C:I'm about to find out.
Speaker A:See if you can get there before the chat room.
Speaker B:Well, of course we've also got the shadow Minister of Government Efficiency.
Speaker A:Who was that?
Speaker B:That's.
Speaker C:Yeah, you're quite right.
Speaker C:He's a Liberal.
Speaker C:He is a Liberal.
Speaker B:Some of the price.
Speaker A:Right, okay, so.
Speaker A:So that idiot.
Speaker A:Wouldn't I say quotes his name.
Speaker A:I've got it already.
Speaker B:Angus.
Speaker C:Angus Taylor.
Speaker A:Complete numbskull.
Speaker A:You know, he's no better than.
Speaker A:Than Dutton anyway.
Speaker A:Like if Dutton doesn't get in.
Speaker C:But if Dutton doesn't get in, then that'll be good because he.
Speaker C:I don't think.
Speaker C:I don't think Taylor's as big a nut job as what Dutton is.
Speaker C:Dutton is a complete fool.
Speaker C:I think Taylor's just an economic nitwit, but I don't think he's a complete fascist like Dutton is.
Speaker A:Maybe he doesn't have the fascism going, but he's a.
Speaker A:He's a com.
Speaker C:He's a complete.
Speaker A:Very dim and not very bright.
Speaker C:No, he's not bright at all.
Speaker A:Not across his portfolio at all.
Speaker A:So he'll be the leader.
Speaker B:See, we need Barnaby back.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker C:No, you don't want Barnaby back.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:So, yeah, what are we saying in the chat room, Chris?
Speaker A:Should we vote independent or nothing?
Speaker A:I think you should vote an independ or a Green myself, depending on what you've got in your particular electorate.
Speaker A:That's all right.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker C:I think you should vote for an independent.
Speaker A:Let me see what else is in the chat here.
Speaker A:Let me just bring this up.
Speaker A:Oh, Watley, you've got to watch your language there.
Speaker A: actually happening by Project: Speaker A: got, how far he's got on his: Speaker A:Stuff hard to keep track of.
Speaker A:And John says it doesn't matter if the US or China do the aid sl soft power.
Speaker A:The US is making a mistake but backing out of US aid.
Speaker A:So I'd like to see at some point somebody reputable to demonstrate what percentage of funds in USAID were for helping people genuinely with food and vaccinations and health outcomes and how much was on propaganda and journalists and media outlets.
Speaker A:So I'd like to know what the breakdown is of.
Speaker A:Of good work done versus evil regime change propaganda.
Speaker B:I know that there's an awful lot of farmers in the Midwest who are suffering because US aid was buying their crops and I don't think they were buying their crops to print newspaper articles with.
Speaker A:Yep.
Speaker A:And this is genuinely.
Speaker A:Some of the money was going for genuine aid, for sure.
Speaker A:It's just how much of it is the what I'd be keen to know.
Speaker C:A hell of a lot more than what is going there now because they've just scattered it.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:And apparently it was less than 1% of their national budget.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:So, and one question here.
Speaker A:Do you guys have a comment about the oil slash gas Christmas dinner from Friendly Geordie's?
Speaker A:Don't know anything about that one, Chris.
Speaker A:Yeah, don't know.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Right, well, that's eight.
Speaker A:29 just gets us through to avoiding the shark tank.
Speaker A:Landon, hard bottom.
Speaker A:Good on you in the chat room for joining in.
Speaker A:Is there anything quickly that needed to be discussed?
Speaker A:Crypto Gaza usa.
Speaker A:That's about.
Speaker A:I think that's the main things.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:So, yeah, thanks for tuning in.
Speaker A:If you're listening.
Speaker A:Thank you.
Speaker A:Thank you to the new patron.
Speaker A:And Melinda, if you're listening and you're not a patron, feel free to sign up, look at the show notes, there'll be a link there and talk to you next week.
Speaker A:Bye for now.
Speaker C:And it's a good night from me.
Speaker B:And it's a good night from him.
Speaker C:Good night.
