In this episode we discuss:

(00:00) Intro

(04:50) Echidna Strategy

(17:44) Brics

(21:52) Newspoll

(28:38) Property Stuff Again

(35:22) Media and Propaganda

(49:23) Ukraine Update

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

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

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

You can sign up for our newsletter, which 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.

We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

We need to talk about ideas, good ones and bad ones.

We need to learn stuff about the world.

We need an honest, intelligent, thought provoking, and entertaining

review of what the hell happened on this planet in the last seven days.

We need to sit back and listen to the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Yes, welcome back to you listener, episode 398, closing in on that 400 number.

Holy hell.

Yeah, I'm, goodness me.

Yes, I'm Trevor.

A k a.

The Iron Fist with me as always these days.

Scott, the Velvet, Glove.

Good day, Trevor.

Good day listeners.

I'm gonna wonder what the hell I've done with my life over

the last six or seven years.

Well, some of it you went walkabout Scott, but that's okay.

You came back.

Yeah, I did go walkabout.

You know?

Yeah.

So if you're in the chat room, say hello.

Don's already in the chat room saying hello.

Good on you, Don.

This is a bit like old times and there's no Joe tonight.

He's got a function that he's at.

So it's just, just you and me, Scott.

It's just like back in the very, very early days.

Yeah.

In the very, very early days, we used to record everything and send

it over to you to update and that type

of thing.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

I remember

you once saved me from getting sued.

Yes.

Yep.

Delete stuff.

It might be defamatory.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

Hey I was at a function of Father's Day function and my daughter had given

me a Father's Day present, which was a black t-shirt with white writing.

And the writing on it was ask me about my podcast.

And so, so I had to wear that at this Father's Day function.

And of course people asked me about my podcast.

I met a guy called Mark, he's in the building down the cooling gutter there.

And and he, I think I started listening to the podcast.

And anyway, he said, well, why the name The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove?

And I guess we haven't said that for a while as to why it's that name.

So I was, I came up with

that, I think it was.

Yeah, I know.

But I also said at first though, when there was, there was a criticism

or something like that, that was going around the secular party.

And I said, you know, might I suggest that Trevor wraps his

Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove?

Did you?

Okay.

I don't remember that, but yeah.

But I, I can remember a review of Penfolds Grange wine, red Wine, which

is notorious as being a very, very strong, full blooded, a full bodied

wine described by one of the wine connoisseurs as an Iron Fist in a

Velvet Glove, meaning it was incredibly powerful, strong flavor, but with a

softness coating it around the edges.

And, and so I'd like to think that I'm the Iron Fist with

the hard, powerful opinions.

And you, Scott, come in, sit on the fence with your Velvet

Glove and just smooth things over and go, yeah, maybe, maybe not.

Yeah, not so sure about that.

Just little, yeah.

Softening, softening the edges a little bit.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to disagree with

you on the United States.

Right?

Yep.

You know, it's one of those things like, you know, that it's in notes and

that sort of stuff you've sent through that is very much in my wheelhouse

where I've said numerous times that the Americans have had some very

disastrous foreign policy blunders.

Mm-hmm.

And this was their record of their, of their foreign policy blunders, you know?

Yeah.

I'm

a little bit worried.

And that was, sorry, did you wanna go on?

Sorry.

No, go on.

Oh, just the, this guy Mark I met, he, he's an American as well.

And so, so he is a new listener.

I'm thinking.

Whoops.

I'm sorry, mark, if I, there's gonna probably be a fair, I mean, every podcast,

every episode has a fair amount of anti-American sentiment in it these days.

'cause let's face it, America's up to a lot of mischief.

So I apologize if you are.

I didn't apologize.

It's just, just prepare yourself for some anti-American stuff,

is what I'm probably saying.

James is in the chat room.

He's saying hello as well.

So what are we gonna talk about?

We're gonna talk about the Iki a strategy, which was a, a book

that's come out by a right wing commentator about orcas, essentially.

We're going to be talking about bricks expansion and a little bit more about

property and Sydney property and intergenerational issues, bit about the

media and propaganda, maybe an update or another view on the Ukraine, just to clear

up whether it was provoked or unprovoked.

See how we end up.

So, so yeah, we'll get started.

And Scott, there's a book come out by a guy called Sam Rodine,

r o double g e v double e n.

Or the, and I have already ordered it.

Have you?

Right.

I ordered that

because I heard about it on the, one of the podcasts I listen to every day.

Mm-hmm.

I couldn't remember if it was the A, B, C, or 7:00 AM who was doing it.

Mm-hmm.

And I thought to myself, that sounds very interesting.

Mm-hmm.

Now you, so

I, I thought I would read that.

I read a review by Gareth Evans, former cabinet minister during the Hawke

Keating Governments, I think he might've been foreign affairs at that time.

I think he might've been.

So he's reviewed the book.

So the thing about Sam INE is this guy's from the right wing camp.

He's a member of the Lowey Institute.

Can't get, that's a good solid right wing credential, credentials right there.

Mm-hmm.

Lemme just see if there's something else about this guy's background.

So.

He he's no hardcore lefty.

He's a senior officer of national assessments, intelligence analyst.

He was a senior office of National Assessments Intelligence

analyst before joining the Lowe Institute 15 years ago ago.

And he described himself entirely plausibly as a liberal conservative.

So he's from the right and he's taken a shot at the whole arrangement with

America in terms of our defense.

And so that's the, the sort of the main thing to come out of the talk

about his book and what he's done is he's done a meticulous analysis

of the factors in issue here for the United States, China, and Australia.

And he's basically saying that, At the, by the way, dear listener, Scott's got

a frog just outside his window, which you'll probably hear in the background.

We're not recording this in a park, but in the, in the recorded audio, I'm

gonna try and get rid of that frog, but I'm starting to wonder whether

I'll be able to be able to, yeah.

Anyway, there is a frog outside his window.

Anyway, back to this book.

What he's saying is that the u s A would not enter a fight with China

because it's not in its interest that it would cut and run because why spend

money and people on this part of the planet when you can just retreat back

over the Pacific and be quite safe.

So he's essentially saying, Australia, don't rely on America for help, because

if push comes to shove, They won't necessarily back out, it would be

quite likely that they'll back out.

The second part that he makes, the point that he makes is that's okay that we

should operate on the basis that we won't get assistance from America because it's

really difficult for China to attack and invade Australia because guess what?

We're a long way away and there's a lot of water between China and Australia and it's

just, there's plenty difficult, there's

plenty of opportunity to sink in arm Marta that's on its way south.

Yeah.

So, well you might be, you might be able to sink every ship, but you're

gonna get a hell of a lot of them.

Yeah.

I think in his book he quotes that London is closer to China than Australia.

Yeah.

In Sydney is to Beijing.

Sydney, yeah.

So, we just don't sort of think of it that way, but it's a useful point.

And basically the Adina strategy is that we should be defensive like an a kidner

that an a kidner isn't really capable of taking territory or attacking other,

other sort of animals, but it can set up a defense so that it's not attacked and

that we should do this close to home.

We shouldn't be sailing around in the, in the South China Sea, away from home.

We should set up our defense here.

And and that's sort of the essence of what he's saying.

And it's coming from a right winger, which makes it the story and, and just, he's

making the point that we can actually stop China if we put our minds to it.

And Scott, do you remember?

For listeners of this podcast who have been with us for a long

time, if you've been with us since this is Old News, February, 2018.

Dear listener, I had Han two on this podcast who's a mate

of mine and Exair Force, ex lecturer in defense in Indonesia.

And he basically gave the argument about how hard it is to conduct a mari, a

maritime invasion of another country, particularly a country like Australia

that's got a few weapons up at sleeve.

And that that we'd have a very good chance of repelling China if they tried to do it.

And so that's not news to listeners of this podcast who've been with us five

and a half years ago, but it might be news for other people who've just

read comments about Roger Be's book.

We go

now, Landon, yes, the Japanese did get close.

Mm-hmm.

But they were also rampaging through a very unbel, undeveloped

part of the world at the time.

Mm-hmm.

Whereas these days, for them to make it down, for them to make it for

the Chinese, to make it down near, they'd have to get through Vietnam.

They'd have to get through Taiwan.

They'd have to get through all these other modern countries

before they got too close to us.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

And maybe this time we wouldn't ascend all of our troops off over

into Europe or something like that.

Kidding.

Exactly.

You know, that, that is the whole point.

Like, you know, we are not going to be off if there is gonna be

a war in this part of the world.

It's gonna be very much concentrated in this part of the world.

Mm-hmm.

I don't believe that Russia or anything like that is gonna pull off anything.

Well, they've already, they've bitten off more Ukraine than they can chew.

Mm-hmm.

So, you know, I don't think that they're gonna actually.

Poke the NATO bear too hard.

It's one of those things.

I think that if there is gonna be a, if there is gonna be a

conflict in our neck of the woods, it's going to be contained Mm.

To

Taiwan.

Mm-hmm.

As to whether or not the Yanks actually do put up a fight over

that, I don't know.

Mm-hmm.

I don't think, honestly, China's best move will just be to, to take over the

industries that Taiwan is good at, chips and stuff, and basically force Taiwan into

a situation where for economic survival, they'll wanna be part of China 'cause

their economy's being crushed by China.

That, that would be the smart one.

Yeah.

For China to do it.

That would be the smart way to do it.

But it's one of those things, I just don't see that the Republic of China

and the People's Republic of China are ever gonna be the same again.

Mm-hmm.

You know, they're just, Well, it's just one of those things, the history

of it is, is so divergent and the type of thing that I just don't think

they're ever gonna be able to mm-hmm.

Be the same

country again.

Mm-hmm.

Anyway, there was a review of Roger vin's book in the Rationale by Paul Monk.

I had an issue with Paul Monk before when he wrote a review

of who's that pompous author.

British guy often talks Douglas Murray, and he was waxing lyrical

about wonderful Douglas Murray.

He's just a prick.

And so I had a bit of a, a sort of a review of the review being

quite critical on that one.

So, Paul Monk's done a review of Roger v's book, you know, positive, but it's

kinda laced with anti-China sentiment.

I think there's an example of the subtle propaganda that we're subjected to.

Did you hear?

Lord Mayor Tate on the Gold Coast, he wants the Commonwealth Games on

the Gold Coast, and he said one of his reasons was it'll be a good sign

of faith for our Pacific neighbors so that they will be friendly with

us and won't move over to the evil Chinese in terms of friendship stakes.

So his, his rationale for having the, the, the Commonwealth gains

on the Gold Coast was as an, as a, so he wants a move against Chinese

sentiment in Pacific Island countries.

He wants to, he, he wants to basically reuse those Commonwealth

game stuff that was set up last

time.

Was it?

Probably, I mean, they've got, who knows?

It could be quite a legitimate argument to say, we've got all

the stuff here, let's run it.

We can do it for low cost and it'll be worthwhile, but not because.

It will carry favor with Pacific Island nations who might otherwise swap their

allegiance to China, for God's sake, this is just said with a straight face on

the Gold Coast News Bulletin, as if that was a perfectly legitimate thing to say.

Mm-hmm.

But, you know, in in the review of the article here he says, this is Paul Monk.

I've known Roger ve for 25 years and have, and have observed his

career in the intelligence world and at Lowey since it started.

He's quietly thoughtful, whereas many of those who have dissented from

orcas come across as Rankly, left winging anti-American, and even pro.

None of these things can be said of him.

He says, as if it's a bad thing to be Rankly, left winging

anti-American and perhaps pro Beijing.

It's kind of.

Anti China sentiment that just, it's thrown around everywhere.

You know, you might have very good reasons as a rational person to be rancorous

rancorous, meaning a rancorous argument or person is full of bitterness and anger.

You might be left wing and you might be anti-American, but there's

a perfectly rational decision.

He says it as if it's sort of a bad thing.

And there was an article again in John Manitou blog by Dr.

Mike Gilligan.

He's worked for 20 years in defense policy and evaluating military proposals

for development, including time in the Pentagon, on military balances in Asia.

And he says, like Paul Keating, Australians should be angry.

Australia's security is at risk.

No other nation is so foolish.

So self delusional, so divorced from the basics of statecraft nor so

feckless with its citizen security in pursuit of America's objectives.

Shouldn't we be white hot with rage at this government's

abdication of sovereignty?

Good point.

That's the only thing I don't understand with this is the

abdication of sovereignty part.

I understood exactly what he is saying there, but not the abdication

of sovereignty be because I don't see how that you would end up

abdicating your sovereignty if you, if you take up this August

deal, we are relying on the Americans to supply submarines when

every indication is they won't be able to supply and we're also gonna be relying on

them to operate and maintain them and to teach us how to, and until the submarines

are built and ready for us, they're supposed to lend a some, which they.

Plenty of Americans have indicated may not do, we don't have spare

submarines because guess what?

Most of them are in a dock somewhere being maintained.

'cause they invariably break down.

So the Americans have said, we don't have spare submarines to give these

Aussies in the interim or at any time, and we'll be lucky to make enough

for ourselves, let alone Australia.

And even if we deliver some to Australia, it'll be the Youngs

who'll be helping us maintain them.

That's the abdication of sovereignty.

We will not be guaranteed possession of submarines that we own in the

short term that we can control ourselves, that we would if we were

buying off the shelf Japanese or German subs or something like that.

That's, that's the, the abdication of sovereignty that he's.

There we go.

Hence the title of this episode.

We should be angry.

If you're not angry, you are not paying attention.

Hmm.

Right.

Ricks Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

It's been going for a while.

They had a meeting recently in South Africa.

Putin had to log in via Zoom because he can't risk international.

More criminal.

Yeah.

He can't risk international travel.

And they agreed to admit to the Brix Alliance, Argentina, Egypt,

Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have been invited

to join, and there's a whole bunch of others who want to join this block.

Dear listener, this is one of the most significant moves in foreign

relations in a long, long time.

I.

When you see Russia, Iran, United, Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

What do you think, Scott?

Well, they are traditionally American, sort of, well, not the Iranian

so much, but the u a e and Saudi Arabia are traditionally on the American side.

Mm-hmm.

So they've clearly decided to raise their middle finger to the

United States.

Mm-hmm.

I think oil.

Mm.

I don't know what percentage of the world all supply those

guys control, but it's a lot.

Well, that they'd have the most of it.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

And that is the

big, and besides the Yanks, have the, the Yanks have already moved

into oil, self-sufficiency that they produce by shale oil and that sort

of thing, so they no longer need to rely on the Saudis as much as they

used to.

Yep.

But the whole point is, so these countries are going to be dealing

in oil and not in US dollars.

It's exactly.

And that will disconnect the US dollar from the oil, which will

basically cause its value to decline.

Because at the moment, every country that doesn't have its own oil supply

has to buy oil using US dollars.

Dollars.

They have to therefore get them from somewhere.

It creates a demand for US dollars that is artificial, that

artificially supports the US dollar.

It's been a huge advantage for the US since they moved

away from the gold standard.

And the other part about this, Scott, is kudos to China and the other operators

there, forgetting Iran and Saudi Arabia to join something together.

Mm-hmm.

And the same sort of thing.

Yeah.

'cause these guys are sworn enemies.

Shia.

Mm-hmm.

Shia and.

Sunni, Shiia, Shi and Shia?

No.

Isn't Saudi Arabia Sunni and Iran?

Yeah, sorry.

Shia.

Shia.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So to get those two together into a group quite amazing.

Really quite amazing.

Can't be understated.

So there's a whole bunch of countries lining up to join.

And as these transactions for all between these countries, they'll more

and more do transactions in their own currencies, not using US dollars.

And and it will, I thought

they were saying that they were gonna be using the Chinese Uran, weren't

they?

From Austral ions?

Not necessarily transactions.

Some For some transactions, yes, but for others, no.

Okay.

So it just depends on the country, so.

Mm-hmm.

A lot of that hasn't quite been worked out how they're gonna do it, but that's

definitely where they're heading.

So that's a big one.

And that will be crucial for The demise of the American financial hemon in the

world because I think something like over 80%, maybe 85 to 90% of international

transactions are conducted in US dollars.

These are transactions between, you know, Costa Rica and the Netherlands.

Nothing to do with America.

So much is done in US dollars and of course the US because it's in US

dollars believes it has the power to impose shanks, sanctions, and other

penalties wherever a US dollar is used.

So, big move, right?

The voice news poll support for the constitutional change has

fallen to 38% while backing for the no vote has risen to 53%.

Scott, I.

It's very unlikely.

I think it's,

I think it's, it's highly unlikely it's gonna win.

Mm-hmm.

You know, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's

going to be defeated.

Mm-hmm.

You listener, I did an interview with Paul from Canberra today.

It went for an hour and a half and my god damn Zoom recorder for some strange

reason only kept the first 30 minutes.

So I'm gonna release that as a little bonus during the week on the voice.

And then next week, I think Liam, who debated you, Scott, on the

Greens, he's a yes voter and he wants to debate me on the voice.

So I think next week we'll probably have Liam join us to talk about the voice.

So, dear listener, if you're out there and you think that there's a

concept in the voice that has not been discussed, and you wanna join

the conversation, let me know during the week and you can join in as well.

Email Trevor at Iron Fist Velvet Glove dot com au and we will make an arrangement.

So, right, that's on the cards.

Also polling so that support for the coalition has reached

its title Highest level since the federal election last year.

The opposition now leading Labor 37 to 35 on primary votes, but labor's still

leading on two party preferred 53 to 47.

I reckon, Scott, it's gonna be tricky for labor at the next federal election

despite how hopeless Dutton and Co are.

Yeah, I know that.

But you know, it's, I would've thought that sort of support.

Is not uniform across the whole country.

I would've thought that that support is in places where I live and that type of

thing, that you're gonna have a, you're gonna have an increased coalition vote up

here than what you'd have den in Brisbane.

Mm-hmm.

Now, Brisbane, you know, I don't believe those three green seats are going

to be permanently held in Brisbane.

Right.

But I don't believe that they're just going to switch

back to the coalition either.

You know, I reckon if somebody voted green the last

election, nothing has happened that would make them wanna vote labor.

Yeah.

I know that because you're a green, but name, if you, if, think about it.

If somebody had actually voted green at the last election, what, what

possibly has labor done that would sway them to vote labor instead?

The next time I.

Possibly

not a hell of a lot.

But what I'm saying is that they're not gonna just switch back to the coalition.

No, they're not gonna do that.

But, but they were really former labor voters who became green voters.

Yeah.

I don't think there's any doubt about that.

So it's not a, it's not really a question of switching back to the liberals.

No, but they got that seat out in the western suburbs that's name escaped

me.

That was a liberal seat.

Ryan.

Ryan.

Yeah.

That's where I am.

They got that.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

They got that seat.

Now that is, I honestly believe that had you have had a decent teal candidate

and that sort of thing running in that seat, they would've picked that seat up.

Mm-hmm.

Because I honestly believe the people, you know, it's one of those things, like we

are already living through the, through the effects of climate change right now.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it's getting bloody hot and it's getting get hotter and this, this

summer is gonna be a disaster for us.

You know, they're already, they're already putting out bushfire warnings

for Brisbane and that type of thing.

And I just think to myself that that is why people voted green

last time because they thought to themselves, we've gotta get something

done, so we're gonna vote green.

Do I actually honestly believe that they're gonna go back to the coalition?

No, not in the first couple of terms.

But is there enough to make them vote later?

Well, possibly not.

I don't see

anything, I don't think.

Yeah,

see, it's one of the, at least they have, at least they have

legislated that there's gonna be a 43% reduction in all that type of

thing in our carbon dioxide outputs.

I think when the stage three cut tax cuts just keep rolling through.

Yeah.

And, and, and with, and that all actually hurt them with August and just the,

and, and basically with interest rates crunching people and people feeling

economically worse off and, and also you know, Albanese is gonna own this

recession, whether he likes it or not, by the time of the next election, he won't be

able to say, oh, it's all liberal's fault.

And there'll be a lot of people experiencing a lot of pain with

higher interest rates who are gonna go well after three years of labor.

I'm a lot worse off.

Yeah.

But

I honestly don't believe they can actually blame the labor

government for raising interest rates.

No.

But

people will, will blame labor for their discomfort.

I say, well, you guys are in charge and you've been there for three years, and

I'm feeling really sore in the pocket.

So I just think he's, I just think they've thought they were gonna cruise

to a second victory and they're gonna end up having to do a negotiating.

Well, they're not gonna

cruise to a second victory because they haven't,

you know, they haven't actually.

I, I think that they still will win next time, but it's one of

those things, I don't believe that they're going to actually turn

the Senate or anything like that.

I think the Senate will probably get another tinge of green to it.

Mm-hmm.

And what am I trying to say?

It's just that they haven't actually taken the bull by the horns.

They haven't actually attacked the TA stage three tax cuts, and they

didn't actually walk away from orus, all of which they could have done.

Mm-hmm.

They could have actually said, look, we can't afford the stage three tax cuts

and orus, so we're gonna can both of them and we've also gotta get our debt

under control, and that type of thing.

And then they would've already got a hell of a lot more voters

behind them if they did that.

There'd be a lot of pissed off labor voters.

A lot of, I think there are a lot of former members and that's why there's

Yeah, I know like yourself.

Mm-hmm.

And that, that's one of those things.

It's just One of the reasons, dear listener, why I've actually been

advocating a vote for the Greens this time is not to actually permanently do it.

Just do it for the next couple of terms.

Yep.

Just to put the fear of God into the, into the

hands of the Labor Party.

Very good.

Just wanna return to property and this was an article from The Guardian.

So a household earning the median income of 105,000.

So that's the median household income.

Dear listener, 105,000 can now only comfortably afford 13% of

homes on the market according to property data company prop track.

Now, that's on the basis that they say, They assume that a house is affordable

if a median household does not need to spend more than 25% on mortgage payments

after putting down a 20% deposit.

So that's the sort of definition.

But even if you don't look at that, even if you don't like that particular

definition, just look at the comparison.

So at the moment, median income 105 comfortably afford

13% of homes on the market.

They say that three years ago, using the same formulas, a median income household

could afford almost 40% of homes.

It's gone from 40 down to 13%.

Mm.

Mm-hmm.

And those 30% of homes would be very, for, would be very hotly

contested.

Mm-hmm.

So, so that was that.

And.

Last was it last week or the week before where I went through that history of

tax changes by Hawke keening negative gearing changes to capital gain tax?

Yeah.

And there was a section in there that I, I forgot to talk about.

I'll quickly mention it now.

It's from that same academic paper.

And and what it said was that in 2015, 2016, the proportion of overall

mortgage credit going to landlord investors stood at 35% Australia wide.

So back in 2015, mortgage credit to landlord investors, that was 35% of,

of, of the overall mortgage credit.

65% must have been residential mortgage.

So that 35% was.

Three times higher than the u Ss a UK and Canada.

And in Sydney it was actually 50% of the Sydney market was landlord investors.

So if 35% was already three times, that means that the uk

Canada, u s a normal landlord investors is somewhere around 12%.

And in Sydney, landlord investors as a percentage of, of the mortgage

market, 50%, almost five, four times.

Yes.

Four, four times high.

Yeah.

Of all apartments in Sydney, 49.6% are owned by investors.

Holy smokes.

That's apartments.

There's your, there's your property problem right there.

Dear listener.

Ah.

An intergenerational report came out from the Treasury.

Yes.

And that was

quite

depressing reading, wasn't it?

It

was.

And what they're saying is that Beby boomers, guess what?

It's all good at the moment.

No pressure on the pension system.

Looking down the track.

Gen X has got a problem.

Well, yep.

Or even the generation next after that who don't own property because Mm.

Here's a, an example at the moment, the, so lots of people still get at

least a full or part age pension, even with super at the moment.

The full age pension for a single person is 27,600 per year.

For a couple, it's 42,000 rent assistance.

Might add a further 4,500 per year at best.

According to CoreLogic, median rent across the country is

about $30,000 in annual rent.

So we are saying in the pension system, well you get 27,000 for a single 42,000

for a couple, we'll give you four and a half thousand if you need rent assistance.

Meanwhile, median rents are around 30,000 thousand dollars.

Yeah.

So the system at the moment basically assumes that most people own their

own home and are relying on, and are not relying on the pension to

pay for their mortgage or rent.

Mm-hmm.

Which would be the case in all, in most cases.

So, So as the population who can't afford to buy a home ages and enters retirement,

they're gonna be really screwed because the amount of rent assistance that's

traditionally available, in addition to the pension is a piddly amount

that's nowhere near what you need.

I don't know how people survive at the moment, Scott, who, who

I don't know that those numbers really frightened

me.

You are retired, you know, now

I've, I've got a place and all that sort of stuff, which I own, but

you know, I couldn't understand how anyone could retire and just rent,

you know?

Mm-hmm.

You'd have to be out whoop, whoop in the cheapest accommodation possible.

And they'd be so far away from hospitals and everything

else.

Mm-hmm.

So see, decades of neglect are all going to come home to roost.

Probably, probably when the last Boomer dies.

I, I mm-hmm.

Is my tip.

Where are we up to?

8 0 8.

Be I, we've gotta try and get more positive on this podcast,

but it's hard to Scott, it's, it's hard to, well, the intergenerational

report was quite depressing.

I haven't read the whole report.

I've only read snippets and that sort of stuff.

Yeah.

But you know, when you actually look at it, it's getting really very ugly.

Mm-hmm.

Middle ground mistakes.

So I have been recommending decoding the gurus and both Liam, listener

Liam who debated you on the Greens.

He's a bit of a fan of decoding the gurus, but he and I were both a bit disappointed

with their approach to Noam Chomsky when they get into sort of politics.

They, Matt particularly likes to say that they're in the center on

a lot of issues, or maybe slightly center left, but in the center.

And Caitlyn Johnston makes the point that one of the worst mistakes you can

make when formulating your understanding of the world is to begin with the

assumption that the truest and most accurate position must lie somewhere near

the center of the two major political perspectives you see laid out around you.

And in short, she's saying that really the left and right wing parties, whether

they're republican, democrat, liberal labor, are way over to the right.

And there's a limited Overton window there of accepted discourse.

And if you think you're in the middle of that is a good place to be.

You are ignoring the propaganda and the A system that has driven the discourse

so far to the right that the center of both of the parties is a very right

wing position, is what she's saying.

And she says the majority of people have been duped by propaganda into espousing

mainstream political perspectives.

Those with an accurate read on things will necessarily be a small fringe

minority until the dynamic changes.

So you'll have to get comfortable rejecting mainstream orthodoxies,

dismissing mainstream media and shunning mainstream politics because those things

are inseparably interwoven with the matrix of deceit by which our rulers have pulled

the blindfold over the civilization.

There we go.

So that was her talking about holding a centrist middle of the

road position is not necessarily where you should be, Scott.

You think you are becoming more to the left middle.

What do you think of her comment?

What do you think of her comment that the, the left and the right

labor, liberal, democrat, Republican, are way over to the right?

What do you think of that as a constant?

No, I think that's accurate.

Mm.

I think it's accurate for sure.

Yeah.

I've only, I look at the British Labor Party, it's no longer a, a, a patch

on what it was.

Mm-hmm.

You know, and you've only gotta look at our Labor party with the

stage three tax cuts, which is not a patch, what it's, yeah.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

She also really goes to town on America a lot in her writing.

And yeah, she

does,

but she's really making a correct point.

Yeah, I know.

She is.

It, it's one of those things, it's it's like I've said many, many, many times

before, the Americans have been res, historically responsible for some absolute

disastrous foreign policy blunders.

Mm-hmm.

And you know, she's highlighted

them there.

Yeah.

I'll just read some of her highlights.

Whenever I say the US is the most tyrannical regime on earth, I get a lot

of objections from people, and these are always people who simply haven't

thought very hard about the horrific realities of the US foreign policy.

Sure, you can name some governments who are more brutal and oppressive

towards their own citizenry than Washington, but you can't name any who

are more brutal and oppressive overall.

When you zoom out and look at the big picture, the United States is

currently circling the planet with hundreds of military bases and waging

wars, which have killed millions and displaced tens of millions

just since the turn of the century.

Its sanctions and blockades are starving people to death

and on mass every single day.

It works to destroy any nation, which disobeys its dictates by toppling their

governments via c i a coups proxy armies, partial and full scale invasions, and

the most egregious number of election interferences in the entire world.

I mean, this is all true, all documented, but we get a guy comes out with the

akina strategy and someone writes in the rationale full of just bullshit anti-China

sentiment without for a minute stopping to say anything about some anti-US sentiment.

Thank you very much.

It only comes from independent bloggers.

It's, it's like I, I watch the news, Scott sometimes like channel seven

news typically, and just the casual reference to the evil China that is

building up military in response to.

You know, and, and who knows what they're gonna do with it without,

for a minute, giving context of how they're being surrounded by US Army

bases in the Philippines career and any number of other places.

It just pisses me off the, we're in a, we are living in a McCarthy

McCarthys era, McCarthy era.

Dear listener, was when in the u s A, you know, the communist scare and, you

know, reds under the bed everywhere and, and you know, you'd lived in fear

of being deemed to be a communist.

It's that sort of level of propaganda when it, when it's so well documented, what

the shit that that country's been up to.

It's frustrating.

Don't

you think that The US though is relying on those old, old laws

where, not laws, but you had a written unwritten sort of agreement back in the

old Soviet days and that sort of stuff.

Provided they stayed on their side of the den, provided we stayed on our

side of the venue and then in China, provided they stayed on their side

of the 38th to parallel the provided, we stayed on our side of the 38th to

parallel, there wouldn't be a problem.

But China's never, China

has, the USA has never stuck with that.

There so many military bases around the world.

Yeah, I know.

But those, those

military bases are basically still where the old lines of demarcation were.

But the Philippines has always been a host to American military bases.

Japan has always been a host to American military bases.

South Korea has always been a host to American military bases.

Vietnam hasn't.

Indonesia hasn't.

China

was on the outside in the war and they set up military places.

Yeah, I know they were, because they were like, well, they're the next enemy.

We'll just start getting ready for 'em.

Sorry.

They just decided they're gonna be the next enemy.

We'll just get ready for them.

'cause they're communist.

I think that was, they're communists was in.

Okay.

But I think that was in response to China getting involved in

the, in the Korean conflict.

And America wasn't involved in it.

Yeah, I know they were.

I've got no doubt about that.

But you know, the Yanks, the Yanks could actually look at it and then say, well,

the North actually invaded the south.

We're here to prop up south.

So that would've been the end of it.

Yeah.

But when you said the old system of, we'll stay behind this line and you

stay behind that line, there was no line that America decided to stay behind.

The entire planet was theirs to roam over.

Well, I don't think the Yanks have got, I don't think

Yanks have got bases in Africa.

They've got bases in Western Europe.

They've got bases in dotted throughout the Pacific.

They've got bases here in Australia.

They've got their own bases over there in the years.

The Americas.

They've got bases everywhere, all over the planet

that are nowhere near America.

Do they have doing, what are they doing in, what are they doing in Philippines?

What's the point

in the Philippines?

You know, the're Philippines, it's so far

away from mainland America.

They've got, I know no right to be, there's what they're doing in Europe.

Well, they're there because they're part of nato

and they're so far away from their own territory.

But my point is they feel they can roam anywhere on the planet.

Is fair going for them?

Yeah.

I don't, haven't been hiding behind any, haven't been hiding behind any line.

Some gentleman's agreement.

We'll stay behind this line.

You stay behind that line.

That has not been Well, I think that

a strategy, I think they have actually, I think they

have actually followed that strategy of the 38th parallel.

They haven't actually crossed

that line.

Okay.

In in Korea?

Yeah, in Korea.

Okay.

There's one line, one tiny little line.

Yeah, because they can't Okay then, because they can't, I mean, they

tried to.

Yeah, I know.

Because they would, what do you mean they tried to provoke a war?

They, they, sorry.

They, they tried to, they operated a war trying to cross that line.

Well, they did, but that was also a mistake of MacArthur, that sort of stuff,

who wanted to prosecute the war and he wanted to actually bring China into it.

Now how do you, how do you actually rang up the president and said, now what you

gotta do is get on the phone to P King right now and tell them that we're only

going as far north as their border, and then after that we're gonna stop.

But you know, China saw it panicked and got involved, and that's

why the whole bloody thing broke down into nothing more than a.

A blood bath.

Yeah.

So

around

the 38th parallel.

So, Caitlyn Johnson is exaggerating in a critique of American foreign policy.

Is that, no, she's not

exaggerating.

You know, she's not exaggerating.

You know, she's not exaggerating because those, those election

claims are, are accurate, you know?

Mm-hmm.

They, they did actually get involved in South America and

they did fuck it up very badly.

Mm-hmm.

I had you know, I honestly believe they're gonna screw up Iraq too.

Mm.

Anyway had lunch with Cam Riley just yesterday.

It was great.

We were both a couple of old men bemoaning the world.

He was just commenting of how it's impossible to get anything meat

or worthwhile on a, b, C anymore.

I.

It's just, it's just cat stuck up a tree stories on the A, b,

C these days, or really shallow, really shallow opinion pieces.

It's really deteriorated.

Can't get anything outta them of, of interest I don't think.

I, I Bernard Keen writing in Crikey talked about Westcott.

She was the business council of Australia's spokesperson and she was

on seven 30 report and she was allowed to repeat, unchallenged the claim

that company tax cuts would increase investment productivity and wages.

And, and Sarah Ferguson is normally like a rat up a drain pipe with

all sorts of other people that she dislikes just let it sail through.

It didn't stop and say, well, hang on a minute.

There's any number of studies that have shown that in fact, company tax cut

down doesn't do not increase investment productivity and wages, and it's just

pocketed by the shareholders, but it was just allowed to sail through.

She's super aggressive to some people, but just let this business

council woman westcott sail through.

And then of course, other journalists pick up on it and in the following

days are questioning the treasurer and saying, oh, well, the business

council says you should be lowering taxes because of you know, to increase

investment productivity and wages.

Are you gonna do it without any analysis of what a shitty suggestion it was?

And it's now an issue that supposedly charmers has to deal

with just because some lobbyist spinning the line for her group.

It comes up with the same shit they've come up with for the last 10 years.

Repeats a, an idea that's rubbish and it gets a life of its own

that people have to deal with.

That's just a failure of this media class to turn around on Wester

Cott and say, hold on a minute.

You've been saying that crap for 10 years.

We know that that is not the case.

Got anything new to say?

So he concludes Bernard Keen saying This is the theater of the observed stuff.

A pack of profiteers and gouges simply repeats the same.

DRL has been uttering for at least a decade, slaps a different

name on it, has it covered.

Straight-faced by journalists who pretend they've never heard it before,

leading to other journalists to quiz politicians about it as though it's

a legitimate matter of public debate, prompting, chin stroking commentary.

About the terrible state of politics.

It's entirely vapid at best and deeply disingenuous at worst, a reflection of how

shallow amnesiac and incapable of original thought and skepticism, mainstream media

journalism is that this circle jerk constitutes economic debate in Australia.

That's good.

That is good.

Bernard Ke That's the sort of colorful language.

Yeah.

Extra Crikey, doesn't it?

Yes.

That's the sort of colorful language we need.

Yeah.

This circle jerk constitutes economic debate in Australia.

Someone should make a t-shirt out of that

8 22 Ukraine.

What do the people of Ukraine want?

What did the people of Ukraine want from the John JE blog?

Allison's just arrived in the chat room.

No doubt.

Heather.

Allison, get out.

Bev.

Oh, Bev, sorry.

Who's listening as well?

James is still in the chat room.

James made the comment.

The Philippines and Japan were occupied in the us.

Never left.

Right.

Back to the John man.

Japan does have

a security agreement with the United States though.

Mm-hmm.

By choice anyway.

Yeah.

One would hope so, but it wouldn't surprise me that

they would lent on anyway.

Yep.

Graham Gill, who's he?

Professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney, a longtime student

of Soviet and Russian affairs.

He's the author of 25 books and over 100 articles, as well as

Soviet and Russian politics.

He has published on democratization and the origins and development of the state.

That sounds like a reasonable CV for someone to comment

on Ukraine, Russian Affairs.

He's currently working on a handbook on Russian politics and society and

a study of revolution and terror.

He's a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences Sciences in

Australia, and a former president of the International Committee for

Central and East European Studies.

He probably knows a little bit about Ukraine and Russia.

He was looking at articles that had been in the John JE blog.

One was by David Higgin bottom with his views on the crime area.

Arguing that there is widespread acceptance of Russian rule.

The other article was by John Richardson arguing that that was wrong, that any

pro-Russian majority in the Crimea is a result of the influx of ethnic Russians.

And and basically arguing that the original tartars should be the people

who decide what happens in Korea.

In Crimea, Graham Gill comes out on the side of David Higginbottom, which

is the one that there's widespread acceptance of the Russian rule in Crimea.

So interesting analysis of some polls here.

He says The question of the extent of support for unification

with Russia is quite vexed.

We're talking about the Crimee here, Richardson sites.

Kiev International Institute of Sociology Polls, which show

that in the years leading up to annexation, between 36 and 46% of the

population favored joining Russia.

Two things can be said about these figures.

First, any country that has over a third of its population wanting to join another

country has a serious political problem.

And in this case, that problem was created by successive governments in Kiev.

Secondly, other polls for this period showed significantly higher proportions of

people favoring unification with Russia.

In 2008, a Ukrainian Center for Economic and Political Studies poll showed

around 63% support for joining Russia.

A U N D P study in 2011 showed 66%.

In 2014, a German poll had the figure at almost 71%.

So, Certainly during this time, a u s A defunded poll set the figure

at only 23%, but this just goes to show how uncertain the whole area is.

But a bunch of polls showing in that period around 2008, 2011 2014

in the Crimea numbers like 63, 66, and 71% of the population of

Crimea wanting to be part of Russia.

So, factor that into your Ukrainian thoughts about

I think the Donbas is an entirely separate issue, isn't it?

Yeah, well, it would be, but let's just, we've got something on Crimea here.

We've just dealing with that got something on Crimea, which,

which I don't.

As much as it pains me to say this, I don't disagree with them there

because Crimea has well it was the only warm water port that the Soviet

Navy had and that type of thing.

And I think Mcha Gorbachev said before he died that Heath saw that

Crimea should be part of Russia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Mm-hmm.

So I think to myself, you've gotta take the last reasonable

bastard that was running the place.

And you've gotta, if, if he makes, if he makes a statement,

you should be listening to him.

Mm-hmm.

So I can actually agree with him taking Crimea, but I don't agree with

the Dom bass.

He also goes on to saying that, that after the Russian invasion, there

was a Russian sponsored referendum.

There are good grounds for you viewing this result with considerable

skepticism given the domestic situation.

I indeed, I do.

Yep.

Including the pressure applied.

However, a series of polls taken after the referendum by reputable polling

companies, Gallup, pew Center, and Lavata Center, all showed overwhelming

support for the decision to join Russia.

So that was posed to the Russian invasion.

Just some more polls.

So, just add all this into your thoughts about, about it.

What else does he say?

There was an unhappiness in the Crimea about the absence of affection,

effective regional autonomy.

It says, turning to the question of international law, it's clear

that the arm's seizure of a state's territory by another is illegal.

This applies as much to Crimea and Russia as it does to Kosovo

and NATO intervention in 1999.

But there is also a principle that populations should have the right to

decide their own forms of government, the right to self-determination.

And as in the Kosovo case, there was the view that the facilitation

of this by armed forces from without could be justified.

So it is just making the point that NATO actively conducted activities

in Kosovo because in their view, the local population wanted out from

the country that they were part of.

And that was a justification for NATO action.

If you apply the same principle then based on the polls that we've just heard

about, you would say that the Russian.

Intervention into Crimea was no different to the NATO intervention in Kofa.

So if you're gonna condemn one, you have to condemn the other.

Very interesting.

Yeah.

Joining in the chat room late, noisy Andrew, and dont I?

No.

Don's been there a while.

Noisy.

Andrews there.

Hello.

Noisy.

Right.

And was the war provoked?

This is an article written by Edward Laki.

He was born in Ukraine, studied in Russia, worked in America as

a laser fusion researcher and a professor of mathematics and physics.

He's got relatives and friends in all three countries, and for

the last 35 years, he's been trying to do his best to make them

friends, partners, and even allies.

Instead.

All three are now at war.

So he is seen as a Russian sympathizer, but here's what he has to say, which

is that so in May 93, we organized a trilateral meeting on Capitol Hill

with legislators from the US Congress, Russia's Duma Ukraine's rata, to discuss

what the US were prepared to do to help Russia and the Ukraine in their

transition from communism to democracy.

And Congressman Tom Lantos house Foreign Affairs Committee chaired the meeting and

said they had, Gorbachev told us in 1989, he was prepared to dissolve the U S S R

and had he requested a trillion dollars to do it, we would most likely have agreed

to give a hundred billion dollars annually for 10 years, however, As it turned out,

the Russians did it all by themselves.

So why spend us taxpayers money when the job was already being done?

You're on your own guys said Lantos and other seniors people, c I A

director, said the same thing.

You're on your own.

But it was a mis bit misleading because the US did not leave

Russia and route Ukraine alone.

Yankees didn't go home.

Billions of American tax dollars were poured into Ukraine.

Not to boost its economy, but to reform public opinion that at the time was

predominantly in favor of a neutral status and was against joining nato.

This is well documented.

This propaganda money was spent by America in the Ukraine.

It was Assistant Secretary of State European Affairs, Victoria

Newland, who admitted that we have invested over $5 billion.

To assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and

prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

In reality, the purpose of this money was to drive a wedge between the two Slavic

nations and push Ukraine into nato.

The money plus funding from Soros, Canada and other western countries

helped instigate the Orange color revolution in 2004 to bring a

pro NATO government into power.

They succeeded, but the anti NATO mood in the country remained strong.

Therefore, a second revolution was needed.

This time's name was Madan, and it was Victoria Newland who

coordinated it on location in Kiev while constantly reporting

and getting input from Joe Biden.

Needless to say, the new Ukrainian government that was selected by

Washington immediately declared its intention to join nato.

There is no doubt that if not for this coup, there would

be no war in Ukraine to die.

It's no surprise that the White House, a bipartisan majority in

Congress and think tanks that are funded by the military industrial

complex are blaming it all on Russia.

So there's another view of how this all came about.

Context.

You listener, ah, I'm gonna, I've

gotta go back and read that because that is, it puts the whole

Ukraine war in a very different light,

doesn't it?

Mm-hmm.

It's just not a poor democracy that was sitting there doing nothing that

suddenly was attacked by Russia.

There's a whole bunch of things going on in the leadup and

American fingers involved.

Yeah.

Dear listener, I am going to, during the week, as I mentioned before, I recorded

an interview with Paul from Canberra.

Unfortunately, only the first 30 minutes survive.

Did I mention that on air or did I mention that to you, Scott?

You did mention it, yeah.

Okay.

And I'm gonna tack onto it.

What was a summary of what was missed off?

And that's gonna include that's gonna include a little bit from

from Marcia Langton in 2013 and what she had to say about constitutional

recognition at that time.

And basically there was.

A expert panel on recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in the Constitution in 2012.

And the recommendation coming out of that was we should get rid of

references to race in the Constitution.

And last year, Langton argued really strongly as to why having race referred

to was dangerous and inappropriate.

They also argued for sort of a historical note about the

history of indigenous people in Australia and you know, settlement.

They didn't ask for a voice back in 2012.

If they'd just stuck to what was on offer or what was being contemplated in 2012.

I think they would've ended up with a, I.

Referendum proposal that would've been acceptable to a lot of Australians.

And it's the addition of the voice that I think that has really curled it.

And I think that's Noel Pearson.

Anyway, look out for that in your podcast app during the week 30 minutes.

Interview with Paul from Canberra.

And then at the end I'm gonna summarize what was cut and also talk about Marcia

Langton and her view at that time about why race shouldn't be part of

the Constitution and why that to me seems at odds with the current proposal

to put race in the Constitution.

So, look out for that one.

Well, Scott, we made it an now 37 without Joe, just like the

old days, just the two of us.

Yeah, it was just a little bit like going down memory line, wasn't it?

Yes.

So, right, dear listener.

If you've got something to say about the voice, you reckon there's

an argument that hasn't been dealt with, feel free to email me.

If you want to talk about it on air, you can.

If you just wanna write what it is, then contact me during the week Trevor

at Iron Fist Velvet Glove dot com au.

Looks like I think Liam might be with us next week to talk about

the voice and the arguments.

So he convinced you, Scott, that you should probably vote green.

Maybe he'll convince me that it should be a yes vote.

We'll wait and see.

I don't think he's gonna do that.

Well, you never know.

Open to the, open to the possibility, but I would be surprised.

But if he came up with an argument that I hadn't heard before, I would be surprised.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Alison asked, where's Joe?

He's at some function, Alison, so that's where he is.

And by the way, there's gonna be a secular conference, Scott, in

Victoria, in Sydney, isn't it?

I think it's in Melbourne.

Okay.

I think I thought it was Sydney.

A bunch of speakers.

All of the secular gurus in Australia from Luke Beck to Fiona Patton

to it's in Sydney, is it Sydney?

And our, and according to Alison, it's in Sydney.

And I'm gonna call her our very own Alison.

We'll also be there as one of the speakers at the so yeah, if you are

in Sydney or you feel like going to Sydney for a one day conference on

secularism and where it stands, then that's coming up where it used to stand.

Mm-hmm.

Anyway.

Anyway, that's going on, right?

I don't think there's anything else pressing Jo.

Joe Scott saying, alright, dear listener, we will talk to you next week.

Bye for now.

Okay.

Goodnight everyone.

Bye now.

Congratulations,

Trevor.

Congratulations on five years of fine podcasting.

Like a good communion wine.

Your podcasts get better with every year.

Dear listener, don't be seduced by Trevor's dult tones or

seemingly reasonable arguments.

When it comes to Trevor.

Remind yourself of the wise words of Brian's mother and he's not the Messiah.

He's just a very naughty boy.