The West wants to maintain the "Rules Based Order' because "International Law" can sometimes be inconvenient.

Plus Douglas Murray defends Western Civilisation and Trevor argues Murray's sweet accent distracts from what is mostly straw-manning of the Left.

Mentioned in this episode:

Website

Now

we're back.

Dear listener.

I don't know what time it is for you.

Well, what day the Joe and I, it's still the 25th of July.

If anything really important happened in the world.

Since then, we're not going to talk about it, cause this was prerecorded.

And last time we spoke basically outlining what's going on in

the world and in the sense of.

We talked about inflation and interest rates and basically the working class

being screwed with, by just being frozen while profits have been skyrocketing.

No talk about attacking profits.

It's all about wages and still hitching our wagon to the U S empire.

Despite the fact that they're a bunch of bastards and.

That they're in decline and they're going to get us into more trouble

than they're going to save us from, but we're still doing it anyway.

And so, yeah, that was last week in a nutshell.

And what took about now a bit more still on foreign relations and stuff like that.

And there's still a lot of rhetoric about China, those nasty

Chinese bloody communists, no way.

I can't say that.

Can you joke?

I mean, the bastards went and created a market economy.

It makes it really difficult to talk about them as communist,

but it's a command economy or control economy or it's dictated from the

top.

Isn't it?

Oh, it's of it is bits of it are like, you know, the banking system is

still controlled by the government.

But, how many I was going to say loaves of bread, but really how many

bowls of rice abide in, in a major city, it's all based on the market.

It's a market economy, but with government influence in sectors where it thinks it

should influence the sector, but lots of things are still open to the market.

It's difficult to mind time.

The argument of being a communist country when it's yeah.

When it's running the way it is, and this is the problem for people wanting

to create a cold war environment in same as bloody Chinese communists.

So what the rhetoric rhetoric is important when it comes to China, like

you've got to read between the lines and the words that are being used

when talking about China, because.

The Chinese are quite clever in keeping themselves clean in many

cases and not open to criticism.

So the west tester struggle a bit defined wise of accusing them, of being bad guys.

So rather than saying communists, now, you'll see a lot of

talk about authoritarian.

Governments is the new word.

So you'll hear them far more likely that bloody Chinese they're so authoritarian

rather than they're so communist.

So

what were any of the economies though?

Come in.

I mean, under the Soviet union was really communist again, it

was a essentially controlled

oligarchy.

Yes.

Probably in the early days, you know?

Then almost telling people what to produce the thought.

Yay.

Cause I think I remember a story about some ration being

in London, slight surprise that there was bread on the shelves.

And how do you guys calculate how much bread you're gonna need?

And it's like, well, the market does it automatically.

So certainly certainly that's one word you're gonna look, when

you're reading stuff about China, particularly when it's being criticized.

I reckon you're going to see more of the word authoritarian or authoritarian

regime, then you will communist that.

Here's the other words that you're going to see is you're going to

talk, you're going to hear a lot of talk about the rules based order and

Morrison was big about this, and it's a phrase that's being used more and

more about how the west is concerned with maintaining the rules based on.

And I'm going to really examine that over this next 20 minutes or so.

So it's nuanced and it's interesting.

So by way of background a few weeks, so this is from the John Menergy blog.

Albanese joy, nighttime leaders in Madrid for what was billed as the

most important summit in generation.

The first time in its history, it was attended by leaders of four key us allies

in the Asia Pacific region, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea,

where a NATO meeting, the message was clear there, the summit would direct

most of its venom against Russia.

China would not be spared and there was a declaration issued by members.

Explicitly excused accused China of challenging night I's interests,

security, and values, and it accused China of seeking to quote, undermine

the rules-based international order.

The denunciation of China assumed vitriolic proportions in the much heralded

nighttime strategic concept, which is a wording that was adopted at the summit.

Here's what I said about.

So here's what nighttime Australia, New Zealand, Japan

and South Korea said about China.

The people's Republic of China's malicious hybrid and cyber operations

in its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation targets, allies

and harms Alliance security.

The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial

sectors, critical infrastructure and strategic materials and supply chain.

What's wrong with my head.

I think the people's Republic of China seeks to control

technological and industrial sectors.

Critical infrastructure is strategic materials and supply chains.

That's what countries do if they can, like, it's not evil to do that.

Since he, it uses its economic, I'll make leverage to create strategic

dependencies and enhance its influence.

Its drives to subvert the rules based international.

Including the spice saw the in marathon to mines the deepening strategic

partnership between the people's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

And they're mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international

order run counter to our values or run counter to our values and interest.

And in this article and the John managee blog, it says comments made by

Albanese before and during the summit left little doubt that he concurred

with the letter and the spirit of these admonitions, I guess, I think that was

all written by the NATO members and the people who were visiting Australia,

New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea.

Couldn't probably sign it.

I'd say to dispel any doubts, Albanese launched a diatribe against China for its

failure to condemn Russian aggression.

And he drew a parallel between Ukraine and Taiwan and invited China to learn

from Russia's strategic failure.

So I have to do it right when they do it.

Yeah, that's right.

Now there's really good art.

So you heard all those references there to the rules based or.

And a lot of this article, cause I was thinking about this and

then came across an article that helped explain it all for me.

So in the John managey blog, a guy called Mike scrap often

was writing official documents.

Speeches, rarely define what is meant by rules, biased, international

order as if it's widely recognized.

If there are rules other than the international law.

City out in tradies what are they who sets them?

What is the obligation to comply?

He says in the early two thousands, there was some academic papers that started

to use his terminology in America.

And he sort of makes a case that the Americans started using this terminology.

And Australia started following in relation to Australia.

It's not a wise man.

The case that the key strategic objective of Australian governments was to secure

something called the rules based order.

And a shift can be seen in the, my gesture TD policy documents

and in rhetoric since about 2010, when references to international

law gave why two rules biased.

So prior to 2009 defense strategic documents came,

contain no references to this.

But in 2009, there was a white Piper, which might 11 references

to rules based order and only two references to international law.

By 2016, the Y paver, we find a 59 mentions of rules based global order.

And international law is referred to only nine times.

So we've got this shift from expecting governments to comply with international

law, to expecting governments, to comply with rules based order and This

shift is a rational wine on America's part because the sovereign equality of

states is a key principle underlying international law, which denies America's

exceptionalism in theory, international law is politically neutral, so it applies

equally between autocracies and democracy.

Well, America has regularly said it's not subject to international

law because it refuses to be subject to the international criminal court.

And it's not subject to the still hasn't signed the treaty on the international

law of the sea, right America.

So all this talk about sales JCC.

Yeah.

Well, this is the point.

If we talking about, has China breached international law.

You've got to argue legality and you've got you've got, you know,

they'll say, oh, China, isn't you know, it's operations in the south.

China sea have breached international treaty on on the sea.

Well America hasn't even saw.

It's really tricky for America.

If it's going to be arguing that China is in breach of international

law, because by and large, it doesn't breach international law.

So it's a, it's an invention of this term called the rules based order,

which is doing things the way we've always done them in a way that suits

us kind of what it seems to vary.

So restricting its are restricting its well from America's point of

view, restricting American foreign policy activities within international

law, doesn't sit well with it.

So they've had to invent this imaginary rules based order and as power shifts

occur and non-Western states seek decline.

The neutrality and sovereignty international law offers the U S has to

Klug its activities under a new disguise.

And in this article, it says it's unclear with our Australian ministers or their

visors, understand the distinction between international law versus

rules based order or perceive that for America, the latter incorporates

the formal when, and only when it suits American strategic interests.

Diane said dear listener when you're reading about attacks on China,

but typically, in this field first out, you're going to see more bad

authoritarian regimes as the objection, and you don't see this rules based order

rather than reaching international law.

And when you say rules based order now, Yelling at bullshit it's international

law that matters not this nebulous concept of rules-based order cause

rules-based order leads to situations where America continues to try it with

Saudi America, because we always have that's part of the rules based order.

Talking of international law.

You remember the whole Australian SAS war crimes

scandal?

Yes.

It turns out that there's now allegations that UK SAS were similarly involved.

Ah,

really in their own independent.

Yeah.

It would be a culture night out.

Yeah, so I'm waiting to see the U S get accused of

that.

Yeah.

Yeah, the special forces would add a similar culture and these guys

are thrown into an environment, but that's almost guaranteed to happen.

Unfortunately so yeah, there was an image that came out with Joe Biden this bumping

the Saudi leader actually, before I do that, I'll have to get this other one out.

So hang on.

There was a John Bolton.

Let me get that one.

That was explaining last week.

Yeah.

There's all this criticism of this aggressive China without any recognition

of the cous and government, either trials conducted by the U S and.

John Bolton was a national security advisor to Donald Trump, the

Donald Trump from 2018 and 2019.

And he worked in important roles for Republican administration in the

U S dating back to the Reagan era.

And he's now admitted that he helped plan cous on behalf of America.

So here's a little snippet of what he had to say.

I don't know that I agree with you though, to be, to be, uh,

fair with all due respect.

Uh, one doesn't have.

Brilliant to attempt to CU, uh, I disagree with that as somebody who has

helped plan coup d'etat not here, but you know, other places, uh, it takes a

lot of work and that's not what he did.

It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.

Ultimately he did unleashed the writers at the Capitol as to that.

There's no doubt to this man is an expert on cous Joe.

Cause he's done a few coups and he's time.

It's not easy.

Don't underestimate.

How hard it is to pull off a coup

well, yeah.

To pull off the cube, to attend to CU, even Donald Trump could manage that.

That's right.

He was basically criticizing Trump, this guy doesn't they had to do a

coup that wasn't a coup not like we did coups in the old days.

It's not like they hide it.

It was successful.

It was an

attempted coup yeah.

But gee, let's hit your wagon to this guy, to these guys because heaven forbid.

Well, there's other guys might do so.

Yeah.

But you know, let's hit, you are lagging, you know, and it's, and then

there's an image of of journal notes.

It's not Bandar Bush.

No, it's not.

And I'll meet friend.

Is that correct?

Is that what they had done?

Something like that.

Yeah.

I think that's what it meant.

Yeah.

He was so close to the, was it the bin?

Levin's.

So all, all jets on the day after September the 11th.

So September the 12th, we're grounded in the U S except for a private jet taking

however many, 15 members of the south.

A, sorry, they've been lauded and family out of the

states.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yep.

Before the FBI could

interrogate

them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, we've got this picture of this is the hypocrisy.

Yeah, you'll get this a lot with my arguments deal.

Listener is I can, except people can have a different point of view

on something, but you've got to be able to mind time consistency.

So if you're saying that you prefer to deal with the U S Ivonne

China, for example, then your reasons have to be consistent.

And if you're saying, well, the Chinese are.

Authoritarian monsters then.

Well, in the first case we've already exposed him endlessly.

Our, the U S has been authoritarian monsters around the planet, but

then the company they came, like, what, why is it okay, why do

the Saudis not get criticized?

Why is it that the endless lines that are written.

Objecting to the Chinese and what authoritarian, monsters and

human rights abusers they are and nothing to be at the Saudis.

no, cause the Saudis would never chop up somebody in their embassy.

Oh wait.

No, that's right.

Yes.

If you w it's gotta be consistent, if you can do this sort of stuff.

So Caitlin Johnson was writing about that fist bump between.

Between Biden and and the Saudi leader.

So I quite liked it.

I'll read it to baffle leaders, mid beneath the hot Jetta sand to discuss

oil and killing and friendship.

One of the leaders rules or tyrannical regime, which funds terrorists

murders, journalists suppresses civil rights and commits war crimes.

The.

The crown prince of Saudi Arabia is no better

come on.

They haven't killed Julian Assange's yet,

but greeted not with the traditional handshake nor with a stern finger

wag from the American, for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi,

that with the most epic fist bump in the history of civilization, since

the invention of the fist bump, there have been none so pure, so effective.

So expressive of perfect union and harmony observers saying

they thought heard angels singing

but were they Muslim angel Christian angels?

This is the question.

Were there two fists connected?

This cells merged the eyes, locked with an intimacy poets and lovers of

the spent their whole lives, trying to capture their Dick chakras burned

with the intensity of a thousand steps.

No comment there, Joe,

somebody who's been reading way too much fanfare.

I think

this is who we are.

The fist pump rod to the heavens.

This is who we have always been our sacred bond presides over an empire

that is fueled by oil and blood.

And we rule as one in holy communion with the great Kings of old,

nothing shall ever come between us.

Not burning soar nor mass.

No strange lip service to human rights values on the presidential

campaign trial timeframe.

As the two joined fizz in genocidal, matrimony flashing colli greens at

each other upon a mountain of Yemeni corpses in the tortured vines of Syria,

their faces turned to skulls doves with red Stein, the feathers fill the

sky and the Marxists of the world.

So.

If only we could one day capture that kind of class solidarity and

the wives of the world say if only he would one day, look at me like that.

And the arms manufacturers the world say, yeah, buddy, boy,

this is going to be great.

Let's go snot.

Some Coke offer Tomahawk, miss arm, and the hidden science say something's

got to give here and the world rotates on the access of those two joined.

Into eco side and atrocity in Google, Hollywood, Mick dystopia, and the

Imperial juggle marches on and the earth spins off into the blackness.

And we all hold hands and look to Providence as we planned into

an increasingly strange, unknown.

Good evocative writing.

Good on your Caitlin.

I liked that one.

The Dick checker is known with intensity and stars,

eat crime,

never heard of it.

Where is that?

White people who look like us, Joe.

So when they that's trend, we pay attention.

Mind you, they all husbands stealing.

Yes.

Or did you not hear about that?

And what was that

story?

I was the UK couple opened up their home to a Ukrainian refugee,

and then the husband decided that he preferred the refugee over

his wife and moved on with her.

Oh, that was a UK headlines for a few days.

No, no, I didn't see that one.

Missed that one.

Okay.

Got some Ukrainian quotes here.

This one's from John builder.

I spent my career working in the mindstream and I've covered

probably 7, 8, 9 shooting wars.

I've never seen coverage.

So utterly consumed by a tsunami of jingoism and of manipulative jingoism

as this one is one from nine Chomsky.

It's quite interesting that in American discourse, it is almost

obligatory to refer to the invasion as the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

Look it up on Google.

You'll find hundreds of thousands of hits.

Of course it was provoked.

Otherwise they wouldn't refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion.

Chris hedges says at nighttime and cleaning the Cuban missile crisis.

Have we stood closer to the precipice of nuclear war?

Jerry, you got any thoughts?

Nuclear.

Do you think it looks at you crying and going?

There's a chance?

Not to the same extent as the Cuban missile crisis.

I can see who's in doing badly deciding to use tactical nukes.

I think that there are.

Cooler voices, couple voices inside his forces that might balk at that.

And of course, there's the whole, what we've discovered in this is Russia's

military stockpiles have not been looked after and whilst on paper,

they have huge amounts of forces.

What we've found is that they've been poorly maintained and therefore.

They may deploy nukes.

There's no guarantees that those nukes will go off.

Right.

So I'm not so not as pessimistic, but yeah, I can fully see him

trying to deploy limited nukes.

I don't think it'll turn into a shooting war though.

So you reckon if he deployed limited nukes, the west wouldn't retaliate.

So the Ukraine is not part of NATO.

And to retaliate would effectively be to start a nuclear war.

So I could see them retaliating in other ways, but not with nuclear strikes.

Right.

So if he dropped one on key of Westwood, just sit back and watch.

I think that they would have no other option.

They might increase military funding.

But I can't see them getting involved in dropping news on Russia.

So hard to know what goes on in these institutions, what real controls are.

They're very difficult.

Denied.

Did you ever read that book?

By Eric slot

is the one where there were all these nuclear accidents that it

followed and how we came so close to.

Nuclear bombs go off at different times.

I've not seen the whole narrow, I'll find it later.

Talk about Chris hedges says, you know, you're in trouble when Henry

Kissinger, who was called for you crying to cede territory, to Russia,

and to open negotiations with Moscow in the next two months before it

creates upheavals and tensions, that will not be easily overcome.

He's a voice of sanity.

It's interesting.

When Henry Kissinger is telling me you crying, you need to seed

territory and open negotiations.

One of the most hawkish guys around, I,

I don't know that them seeding any territory is going to be enough.

Oh, I think it will be.

If they, if well, Russia already said, give us the Donbass, give up on me.

And promise you wine and tonight, and we will leave.

Mike I've already said that,

but they've also said that Ukraine is not a real country.

It's part of Russia and always was part of Russia,

but they've said we'll

stop.

So they've already demanded Crimea and they've already demanded the dumb bass.

So they might stop for now, but that doesn't mean that in five

years time, they won't be, well, you

know what?

What's gonna well, for starters, if you are a fighter in Ukraine, huddle

day in some basement, somewhere living on starvation rations, trying to fight

these guys, you'd be quite happy to hear about that cease fire or betcha.

And meanwhile, Over five years.

Of course.

What is the west going to do?

But piling in an enormous amount of military, if

started, allowed to join NATO.

Now, it doesn't mean they can't give them stuff.

It just says you are not part of the Alliance, the

triggers all in one in all in.

So I

just, the whole, The Scandinavian countries looking at joining NATO

now, particularly Finland, I'm going to look at the history of Finland.

It's a quirk of fate that they are a separate country, right?

Yeah.

They were granted autonomy after the Russian revolution because the communists

in Finland had fought alongside the.

Right.

And we're granted autonomy.

And the second world war, the Soviet Finnish war was all about, oh yes,

we just want a bit of territory.

But everyone said, had they gone onto that?

The Russians still wouldn't have stopped.

So they are very concerned and yeah the politics states.

But if you say, ah, well, Russia could in five years time do it again.

Well, that would mean you can't ever have a negotiation about anything though.

Like you could always say that about any negotiated settlement or in five years

time, these guys might tear it all up and do something contrary to the agreement.

Not that they might, that they will never be satisfied until the

whole of Ukraine is part of Russia.

Again.

Because it is the heart of the Slavic empire.

Oh, okay.

This part of the, is the heart of this love again, but there's

yeah, it's, it's like Israel coming to negotiated settlement

with the Arab nations around it.

When their reign, when their stated aim is to wipe the country off

the face of the map, no negotiated settlement is ever going to be in a.

Best it's a temporary respired.

And therefore, is it better to have a temporary roof spite or

is it better to fight the war?

Well, they've lost the ground.

They've lost this area.

Let me get it back.

Even Henry Kissinger says, given

and Henry Kissinger says, given.

I would've thought.

And there's guys been up for a fight on plenty of occasions.

I would've thought

that's great generally when it's served us interests.

Yeah.

Yep.

This is the thing the S normally is able to bully people, so not

able to disguise or right out.

And of course still in Ukraine.

Well, George Orwell wrote in 1994, war is not meant to be won.

It's meant to be continued.

Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.

This new version is the past and no different paths can ever have

existed in principle the war.

If it is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation,

the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects.

And its object is not victory over either Uriah or east Asia, but to keep

the very structure of society intact.

I mean, if you're a cynical.

Person Joe or you thinks, well, there are arms manufacturers in America who

just want to sell more arms from their point of view and negotiated settlement.

Giving up the Donbass in Crimea would be a disaster.

Maybe cause arms might slow down.

So it's in their interest is to keep it going.

It's in America's interest.

America's not losing any American boys in.

And in fact they're selling arms.

So I guess they're getting a lie.

Some of it in some form or lines, I don't know how it's being structured, but the

oil companies are doing quite nicely out of it.

Yeah.

So lots of people would be arguing, oh, we can't possibly give him because

meanwhile they're doing really well at it.

You've got groups in America, like the squad It was supposed to be these

left-wingers which would be Alexandria, Ocasio, Cortez, Ilhan, Omar, Ayanna

Pressley, Rashida that lab, Cori Bush, others who are supposedly

this left wing band of Democrats.

But.

Th it just like everybody else, Valium favorable lease these

appropriation bills to provide these weapons say then it stop any of it

all.

But one of those seem to have Muslim names.

Yeah.

Eleanor Omar car care, the council of American Islamic, something or others.

I have no idea.

that name before?

So the U S house of rep, sorry.

I was just wondering if there was any Muslim interest in keeping that ward.

I don't know,

how are they?

Are they Muslim republics on the edge of that region that

this is taking pressure off?

Or

it's just Americans it's in their blood.

I just, I just had this.

That's what we do.

We go and fund more's.

The us has ever presented as faded 368 to 57 to spend $40 billion on

a world threatening proxy war while ordinary naira can struggle to

feed themselves and their children all 57, no votes were Republicans.

Every member of the squad voted yet.

The massive proxy war bill then went to the Senate was stalled with

scrutiny, not from Bernie Sanders, but from Republican ran Paul.

This is because this is again, I Katelyn Johnson.

This is because the left wing Democrat is a myth like the good

billionaire or the happy open marriage.

It's not a real thing.

It's the pleasant fairytale.

People tell themselves, so they don't have to go through the psychological turmoil.

I acknowledging that their entire worldview is built on

lies.

Object to that.

I think there are such things as happy open marriages.

Yes.

And a good billionaires.

Yeah.

That less sober.

I'm sure he could find some.

Yeah, maybe.

Yeah.

That was you crying.

I think I've ranted on enough about that.

We to get closer to home and a bunch of other things now, slightly

less depressing indigenous affairs.

Sydney Harbor has got this place called goat island.

Yeah, the Sydney Harbor bridge, the tiny little,

I think I might have

seen

it on the map.

Yeah.

If you're like a little Bailey fairy or something, he would have seen it

probably, I guess it's about to be handed over to the wrong Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal said come from Western new south Wales and I have no

cultural connection to the.

Say the descendants of the harbors original inhabitants.

And it would be culturally offensive for goat island to be awarded to the

metropolitan local Aboriginal land council because it's controlled by

foreigners said, Ash Walker, a member of a different Aboriginal community.

The article goes on.

This is part of the problem.

It's not just about indigenous ownership.

It's then within the various tribes and memberships of those tribes.

So that's one of the tricky parts of indigenous political rights.

And there was an article we talked before about the voice to parliament

and how I'm against it for the reasons.

endless link.

While leashes, his hair much will be revealed in this

referendum and indigenous leader.

Marcia Langton has worn.

There are risks in going to a referendum on a constitutionally enshrined voice

to parliament without a fully formed model describing how the body would work.

So we seem to be in a position where people are saying.

Let's have a referendum where we acknowledge that there

should be a voice to Powerment

and full-stop, and then other people saying, and there could be a

voice to parliament, like this one, which we've described in this other

document, which looks like this.

So we'll see how that then ends up.

I think they need to put some flesh on the bones if they want to get people to vote.

Well,

it's not the same as the Republic.

Hmm.

Yeah.

In principle, a lot of people agree, but until I know the model that's being

proposed, they want to hold their vote.

Yes.

Yep.

And they're trying to get around that again by saying, well, let's just have

a vote where we agree on a Republic and the only well with that, it's kind of

almost simpler because you really sign.

We all agree on a w we want you to agree on a Republic and the difficulty

will be that the president will be elected by the parliament, or will

it be elected by a by popular vote.

It's almost simpler than how our independent voice to palmate is gonna

operate because you really sign.

At least whoever this person is, is going to have this sign.

Job description as the current governor general, it's just, how do we elect them?

Well,

but that's one of the models that's not the only model.

And some people may say I would vote.

Yes.

But only for this particular model.

And I don't want to give a blanket.

Yes.

Until I know which particular model we're going for.

Yes.

Given a lead thinking, it's hard to imagine the India.

Issue getting up at a referendum without something very specific

what's involved migraine.

I think I also mentioned in my discussion with all wiper about indigenous

representation in the parliament in saying, well, it's already higher

than in the general population.

So the current Paolo.

Is a record number of first nations persons.

So there's eight indigenous senators and three indigenous MPS in the house rips.

So that's 4.8% of the parliament and the actual indigenous

Australian population is 3.3%.

Did you see the article about the rise in the number of people identifying as.

I think when I was talking to Paul, I was talking about an article like that.

There was

a comment from, and I can't remember some Aboriginal leader saying the

problem is these people have done a DNA test and discolored some great, great

ancient relative that was Aboriginal and saying, this is effectively.

Skewing the data set because these people are now ticking.

Yes.

To Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander heritage.

And yet they are, as far as demographics go the same as any other white Australian.

And so when you look at incarceration rates, health outcomes, suddenly you

have this influx of people who are not.

The people living in remote communities and suddenly going, Hey, this is great.

We've now reduced our or we've increased our Aboriginal

life expectancy by 10 years.

And all we've done is included more people who are only nominally

Aboriginal in these counts.

Yeah.

Also government funding from the federal government to the states as a complainant.

Paid more money for a higher indigenous population.

And so now money is going to state because of their higher indigenous representation

and away from the Northern territory.

So that's causing an issue there as well.

Yeah.

Back to the Australian parliament 23% of Australians claim.

Non-European ancestry, but just 6.6% of the men peas have

overseas non-European backgrounds.

He's an important one, only 4.4% of MPS in the palmar have Asian

heritage compared with 18% of the Australian population that lives.

So Australian population at large 18% Asian heritage, only

4.4% in the Powerment data.

We need an Asian voice to parliament to properly get across the Asian perspective

of how our laws should be passed.

Because of under massive under representation.

If you were to be consistent,

I was going to say Asia Asian is an even larger area than Australia

with probably even more disparate

views.

So I it's the same as, you know, how do you get an accurate representation?

Even, yeah, even amongst aboriginals to the aboriginals of w I think

the same as those of, yeah.

Tasmania,

do they have a shared heritage?

Just because they all were descendants from the same people 40,000 years ago.

Well, the Western Sydney, indigenous people are quite different to the gut

Ireland, indigenous people, apparently.

So these are all the issues, the listener that makes this sort of

thinking divisive rather than inclusive.

Are you a member of the rational Saudi Jain?

I'm not right.

I have a magazine called I

follow them, but.

They've got a mesh, a magazine called the rationale has articles in it.

In fact, you wrote a letter.

I write an article for the rationale.

Yup.

And so I saw on Facebook or something, just sort of an intro for one of the

articles that's recently been written and this one was about Douglas Murray in.

And a recent book that he's written.

And and I was reading this review and I thought, come on rational

society in rationale, you can do better than this seriously.

It's Douglas Murray, the bell curve.

He was the guy, the strange death of Europe or something like that.

And yeah.

S so

let me read the review then I think I should do it that way.

Bits of it.

Douglas Murray is a wonderfully free spirit who lucidly tackles the mania

of political correctness with erudition pinash and limpid reasoning at 43 years of

age is a conservative or paraphrase here.

Mary writes without fear or Fiverr or for start, you've just

acknowledged as the concern.

If you're going to say he rides with the funeral Fiverr, I think you'll find that

he rides in favor of conservative values.

Like let's just get that the stars, he calls himself a conservative yet.

In many ways, he is a John Stuart mill Carter liberal it's the radical

nihilism of the left that makes this look like a conservative position.

Meaning the lift is so far lift.

That it makes him look conservative.

He himself exhibits impressive erudition and aesthetic sophistication.

One might almost evoke in his case, the remark attributed to Bloomsbury

S theat, an essayist Litton stretchy when he was challenged by an upper

class lady at the height of the great war as to why he was not at the

front defending Western civilization.

Madame, I am Western civilization.

You could say that about Douglas Merry.

Apparently in his new book, he asked that we draw the line at the wholesale

denunciation of Western civilization.

It attempts to discredit and even demolish its cultural and philosophical

traditions in the name of post-colonialism anti-racism and egalitarian radicalism.

Stopped announcing Western liberal civilization.

He writes in spite of all the unimaginable abuses perpetrated in our time, but

the communist party of China, almost nobody speaks of China with an iota

of the rage and disgust orient daily against the west from inside the west.

Really.

Douglas, like nobody speaks badly about China.

What are you reading?

You're not reading what I'm reading in spite of the unimaginable abuses

perpetrated in our time by the communist party of China, almost nobody speaks

of China with an iota of the rage and disgust audio daily against the west.

From inside the west.

That's just plainly wrong.

People are raging against China all the time.

Mary says, oh, this article says, how did this happen?

He asked it didn't happen by chance.

It was brought about by radical movements in the name of emancipation.

Mary writes with reference to the fury that arose over the George Floyd

over the killing of George Floyd by Derek Shelvin, much of the venom

and fury that existed down in there.

Okay.

And in the west as a whole, now it comes down to this one specific problem.

People have been shown a version of the letter.

That is exaggerated at best and wildly off at worst.

I'm going to get back to this, but the whole shtick of Douglas Murray is he shows

a version of society exaggerating, crazy left wing, woke ism as being rampant and.

Strongman's it.

And then presents is cultured conservative view in contrast to

that, to make it appear mind strain.

So that was the article.

Like I haven't read this book, but I've read enough of Douglas

Murray and heard enough of Douglas Murray to say the guy is.

Occasionally right on things like, apparently in this book, he goes

to town on 10 HESI coats seeking reparations for black people in America.

And when can they be right about certain things.

But his stick is to find some crazy left-wing idea that somebody

might have raised in some American university or something, and then

promoted as happening everywhere.

And things are totally out of control, left wing situation.

And and it just character choose in stroll.

Man's a position that he then knocks down that's his stick and does.

And you don't find

that the reverse is also true

that people are caricaturing the rods and.

I'm painting a few.

Admittedly the crazy rights are generally more

violent.

But the left is tarring the whole of the Republicans with the same crazy steak

look, I reckon that people have acknowledged that there is say.

I have a whelming layer.

It seems that people have acknowledged that within the Republican party,

there are the Trump loyalists and the non Trump loyalists.

Like people have said these guys like MTG are all in with

Trump still completely crazy.

There are some like Dick Chinese daughter who are standing up to

this man and are not so crazy.

So I think there are, and even your friend, Robert Reich was saying that

she might actually make a good president in these times, Mike it's Robert rocks,

the guy that you've sort of read it off.

And, and he was saying they had two Chinese Republican daughter that, you

know, in favorable terms as a potential president, sorry, you know, it's possible

to say our look it's happens on both sides, but There's a good argument to

say that there actually is a lot of extremes on the right, but if you're

going to paint a guy as a as writing, without fear or favor, then I don't think

he can say this guy is as impartial as that statement would present itself.

And.

It's and apply a little bit here.

Now this is podcast, dear listener that you really need to subscribe to,

which is called decoding the gurus.

So episode nine does a great job on Douglas Murray, where they ask

can indulgent dinner conversations, Soviet civilization, and they really.

Douglas Mary's in the podcast talking to some other guy.

And and in talking about this stuff, I'm going to play a little bit of

what Marie was saying on that podcast.

Near the beginning of this whole thing started in the UK.

I think in America, to some extent we had this thing of, we

must protect the health service.

You know, we must protect the hospitals by non being ill and going through.

Uh, of course, I mean, I, and others said at the time, uh, actually the

health service exists to protect us, not the other way round.

Uh, it isn't that we form a ring of steel around it, but that it's meant to fall the

ring of steel around just plain stupid.

Like the whole point was we lowered a barrier health serves as being

either run with too many patients.

And that's just a stupid comment by this guy.

And it's done with this harsh tophi Etonian English accent,

and it's quite often just crap and it's this apply another, I've

got another clip here somewhere.

Hang on a second.

Let me find this one.

Let me just quickly fall on this rug.

Oh yeah.

Let me just.

I just one, well, in what I'm talking about is things like, oh,

I didn't know, you're in a bar.

You need to squeeze through a space and somebody touches you on the ass as you do.

It's not the end of the world.

You know, you didn't ask for it, but you're in a highly sexualized place.

And so what.

It's quite flattering.

You don't always want it if you really didn't want it, you know?

Uh, but you're in that game, you're in the, in the sort of sex like,

so for context, he's a gay man and therefore possibly is more used to being

touched on the ass by strangers in bars.

Not impugning gay people, but they tend to be of all, uh, demographics, I would

say most likely to appreciate that.

And for gay guys, bars are highly sexualized places.

Depends on the bar.

ISU.

Yeah.

You know,

exhibits, impressive erudition and aesthetic sophistication.

Madame, I am Western civilization just.

If you're listening to Douglas Murray or you're reading it, just ask yourself

when he's describing crazy leftish work ism or he's describing a situation.

Is he exaggerating?

Is he really describing a situation that happens frequently is a genuine

problem or is he caricaturing something that will then, uh, I, his argument

that the west has lost its way.

Yeah, marvelous.

Civilization has been unfairly criticized.

The guy is not a, an intellectual powerhouse by any means and take

everything he says with a grain of salt.

And

I was like, Lord

Monckton

Lord, please.

Lord.

Most.

Oh, he's a climate denier climate change.

Denier is he?

Oh yeah, he's very famous, but he is, he is a Lord.

He's a peer of the realm.

So he stands up with his upper class English accent and holds

forth about absolute bullshit.

Yep.

Hey, we're coming up to an hour on this and for technical reasons, we

need to keep this under an hour.

And ah, what else did I want to say?

Oh, we got this stuff on Albanese and I on Morrison census data.

you know what, uh, just briefly J while we're still under the one and a half,

do you see the thing about Australian of the year in disability advocate as

shocked fans after video emerged of him using a sex toy and his partner at.

Did you see that?

No, I didn't.

No.

I'm surprised you didn't see that one.

No good on him, but that's it.

That's the spirit.

It has a story on their partner in a restaurant,

as long as this is

discreet.

Yeah.

Well, I think he published it on Instagram.

If that is that still discreet?

There's a camp.

I don't know how much the other dinosaur.

I don't know exactly.

That's the point?

I think, I don't think they have a dinosaur in much.

I don't know people on Instagram that are enough.

I mean, if you, if you dragging other people into your sex life without

their consent, that's a bit rude.

Yeah, that's right.

It's under the table and nobody sees anything.

There you go.

Hey, we better finish this up.

Otherwise it'll cause me a technical issue.

59 cent, six seconds.

All right, Joe.

Thanks for your company.