The Auron MacIntyre Show - Privatizing Popular Sovereignty ｜ Guest： Furius Pertinax

00:00:00.000 We hope you're enjoying your Air Canada flight.

00:00:02.320 Rocky's Vacation, here we come.

00:00:05.060 Whoa, is this economy?

00:00:07.180 Free beer, wine, and snacks.

00:00:09.620 Sweet!

00:00:10.720 Fast-free Wi-Fi means I can make dinner reservations before we land.

00:00:14.760 And with live TV, I'm not missing the game.

00:00:17.800 It's kind of like, I'm already on vacation.

00:00:20.980 Nice!

00:00:22.240 On behalf of Air Canada, nice travels.

00:00:25.260 Wi-Fi available to Airplane members on Equipped Flight.

00:00:27.200 Sponsored by Bell. Conditions apply.

00:00:28.720 CRCanada.com.

00:00:30.460 Hey everybody, how's it going?

00:00:32.220 Thanks for joining me this afternoon.

00:00:33.520 I've got a great stream with a great guest that I think you're really going to enjoy.

00:00:37.980 So, obviously on this show, we tend to stick mostly to American politics

00:00:43.260 for I think what are pretty obvious reasons.

00:00:45.620 However, it is sometimes very useful to look at what's happening in other nations,

00:00:51.040 especially when they can provide us a case study for a phenomenon

00:00:54.420 that is also occurring in our own country here in the United States.

00:00:58.940 Now, recently, Australia had a referendum on whether or not they should have official recognition

00:01:06.340 of their indigenous population as part of their government,

00:01:10.420 and they ended up rejecting that.

00:01:12.500 What was a pretty surprising vote, I think, for a lot of people outside of Australian politics wouldn't have expected it to go that way,

00:01:19.600 especially as Australia seems to have been drifting pretty hard leftward,

00:01:24.080 especially throughout the COVID years.

00:01:25.920 So, a surprising rejection for many of that kind of referendum.

00:01:30.240 But what is very interesting is while the voters rejected that referendum,

00:01:34.400 the media and the government and the corporations in Australia have kind of openly already begun to talk about how they're planning to subvert the will of the voters.

00:01:44.920 And that is something that, of course, we as Americans, those in Britain and other countries have seen a pretty regular basis.

00:01:51.760 So, I thought it would be very, very useful to look at this.

00:01:54.400 And joining me is an Australian native, Curious Pertinax.

00:01:57.640 Thanks for coming on, man.

00:01:59.860 Pleasure as always.

00:02:00.820 Thanks, Aaron.

00:02:01.480 I know this is quite last minute, and I apologize for my second-rate little setup here,

00:02:06.440 but thank you for being tolerant of that.

00:02:08.560 And a pleasure to be on your show once again.

00:02:10.300 So, hello to you and hello to all your wonderful guests.

00:02:13.000 No, absolutely.

00:02:14.160 Like I said, very glad to have, because I was just going to look at this,

00:02:16.860 but, of course, it's always much more valuable to have somebody who is, you know,

00:02:19.860 in the thick of things, who is familiar with what's going on and can give us some background.

00:02:24.300 So, I'm very glad that you were able to kind of join me at the last second there.

00:02:28.280 So, just to set the stage for a lot of people.

00:02:31.280 In the United States, of course, we have a long history, a storied history,

00:02:35.620 kind of with the native inhabitants of the Americas.

00:02:39.480 Because, you know, this kind of obsessed our media, the cowboy versus Indian,

00:02:44.540 is kind of a classic archetype for our entertainment, our media, those kind of things.

00:02:48.840 However, for Americans, this question is more or less settled.

00:02:53.520 Like, if you go to really, you know, left-wing areas,

00:02:56.380 they might do like a land acknowledgement of, you know,

00:02:58.980 a certain tribe used to own this land, that kind of thing.

00:03:01.720 And there are, of course, still, you know, interactions with the United States government

00:03:05.980 and the Indian population.

00:03:08.620 I'm going to call Indians Indians because they usually don't like Native American.

00:03:11.960 That's actually not the preferred nomenclature for most people who are of those tribes.

00:03:19.460 However, for the most part, Americans don't really think a lot about, you know,

00:03:25.380 kind of their indigenous population.

00:03:26.900 It's kind of brought up of, oh, all the terrible things that happened or, you know,

00:03:30.680 the colonization probably or something like that.

00:03:33.380 You know, they're taught to feel really bad about it in school.

00:03:35.880 But the day-to-day interactions with kind of the current descendants of those Native populations

00:03:41.800 just isn't really a big part of, I think, the American consciousness

00:03:45.360 in the way that it seems to be for many people in places like Canada and Australia.

00:03:50.900 So can you give, for people who are unfamiliar with the background,

00:03:54.520 kind of the lay of the land for the relationship between kind of the indigenous population

00:04:00.960 and Australia as it is today?

00:04:04.600 Well, I'll do my best to sort of provide something of a TLDR, shall I say.

00:04:09.720 Yeah, it's a big topic, I know, yeah.

00:04:11.420 I think in comparison to the American subject, and again, I would confess a degree of ignorance

00:04:18.360 to the American equivalent with your Native American, so I do apologise if I get some things

00:04:25.080 mistaken.

00:04:26.280 But I think comparatively there was probably less genuine animosity between Australian

00:04:33.340 Aboriginals and the British sort of, you know, colonist settler populations.

00:04:38.500 In so far that amongst the Australian Aboriginals, there was never, you know, like, there wasn't

00:04:45.360 ever sort of a great conflict between these two very different peoples.

00:04:51.320 I mean, there were sort of skirmishes and there was, you know, rifles and javelins and whatever

00:04:56.980 at one another, like skirmishes, you know, in places such as, you know, Victoria or Frontier

00:05:01.980 New South Wales or the early days of sort of settler Western Australia around the Swan River

00:05:08.060 colony.

00:05:10.280 But it was not to the same scale or intensity of, say, you know, if you look at, say, like,

00:05:15.780 in Tsukunsa and his role, say, with the, you know, the wars with the British in 1812 and

00:05:22.580 the westward expansion of the Americas and sort of obviously more famously, you know, or as

00:05:26.700 famously, you know, the whole, you know, wounded knee sort of situation.

00:05:30.720 We never had that kind of, I hate to use the word, but savagery and sort of it wasn't over

00:05:40.520 such a even a wide sort of territorial expanse.

00:05:45.220 And like we were sort of chatting that pre-show, you had these very distinct American Indian

00:05:50.920 groups.

00:05:51.300 For example, you had, you know, the Cherokee and the Sioux and the, you know, the Apache

00:05:55.300 Indians that very doggedly resisted in particular circumstances, the expansion of the American

00:06:02.640 nation westwards was that just wasn't quite so here.

00:06:06.800 And as a consequence, I think once the Australian, the colonies all mutually agreed to federation

00:06:16.860 in 1901, even though Aborigines would not be given the vote until or full enfranchisement

00:06:23.420 until the mid-60s, there was sort of always, well, not always, but certainly probably from

00:06:30.360 the World War periods and onwards, there was this idea whereby, yes, Aborigines are a part

00:06:35.380 of Australia writ large, but because there was such a obvious, you know, existential chasm

00:06:43.100 between European society and European development and what the Europeans had encountered when

00:06:51.140 they came here with the Aboriginals, which is again, probably even more of a gulf than

00:06:54.820 what the Native American Indians had with the American or the British descended pioneers in

00:07:00.660 the Americas. There was almost this sentiment of, well, we actually have to help these

00:07:06.380 people. There is actually such a large chasm between us and them that we sort of have this

00:07:11.300 role of custodianship of them. And there's a very, very famous interview. Sorry, if I knew

00:07:17.460 this trip was happening a couple of days ago, I would have actually sent you the link. I apologise,

00:07:20.220 but I do encourage people to look at this. There's a wonderful YouTube clip and it's from ABC as in the

00:07:29.220 Australian equivalent of BBC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, whereby they actually

00:07:34.060 ask and they interview very waspish Australians from the city, you know, what their attitudes were,

00:07:42.040 what their mindset regarding the question was. It's like, yes, we actually need to help our

00:07:46.440 Aboriginals. We need to help provide sustenance. We have to, you know, build them schools and build

00:07:50.520 them houses. So it was a very sort of, you might say, paternalistic mentality, which leftists would

00:07:55.760 obviously frown upon today. But I guess the point I'm trying to make was, is that once Australia was

00:08:01.840 federated and essentially once the Aboriginals were sort of incorporated into Australian society,

00:08:06.800 there wasn't a deep animus between those two culture groups, if you get what I mean.

00:08:12.400 I'm sorry if I've articulated that poorly, but no, no. So, so when it comes to kind of the,

00:08:21.040 the proposition itself, you were, you were explaining to this to me in more detail. So

00:08:26.400 obviously there's a referendum process, the process, you can do direct votes from the people,

00:08:33.000 kind of direct democracy. And what was on the table here seemed to be a, a, what was being

00:08:40.860 presented as an advisory body, uh, that, that the indigenous population would be able to have.

00:08:48.140 However, you said that the reason that there was so much pushback against this is that it was very

00:08:52.360 poorly defined and it seemed to, to many, like it would quickly get out of hand. There was, there was

00:08:57.260 no, uh, understanding what the limits of its power would be. And it might end up with all kinds of

00:09:02.320 different powers that were very poorly laid out in the referendum.

00:09:07.680 That's right. Cause I think, I think this analysis has some truth to it. You know,

00:09:13.080 we were talking pre-show about how there's this kind of like, and you often talk about, um, you know,

00:09:18.820 in videos associated with the subject, cause it's so true. There's sort of like the, the,

00:09:22.160 the pre-civil rights American constitution, the post civil rights constitution, like that sort of MLK is

00:09:28.060 sort of hinge point between those two things. And in some regards, yes, this is kind of a bit of an

00:09:33.960 Australian MLK movement in a sense, in that it can open the door to a complete reinterpretation of

00:09:41.940 constitutional law. But this particular referendum was like, as you just said, now it was more a case

00:09:50.120 of attaching what was described as an advisory body to our political system, but one that was

00:09:57.700 intentionally ill, ill-defined, very vague, extremely ambiguous as to its purpose and its function

00:10:05.080 and more, um, sort of more disconcertingly, what was the, well, in the end, I don't know if you've

00:10:15.240 seen the news articles about this. And I mean, perhaps we can bring it up before the show ends,

00:10:19.560 but there are a number of States who have basically said the referendum be damned. Um,

00:10:25.120 we're going to do a state based equivalent of this in terms of, you know, the very States of

00:10:30.560 Australia rather than as a, as a federal institution. Um, and actually this is already

00:10:34.640 present in South Australia if I'm, if I'm not mistaken as well. And so there's already that sort

00:10:40.060 of overriding of the will of the people anyway. And, and the second part of this, and again,

00:10:45.260 we talked about this pretty sure was that once the, the point of doing it by referendum was it was

00:10:50.880 basically would etch it and entrench it. And the only way it could ever be unpicked, which it

00:10:55.860 probably would never be unpicked anyway, but the only two methods of doing it would be to have a

00:11:02.380 super majority in both houses, the upper and lower house, uh, much like you guys, we have a, like a

00:11:07.840 house of representatives and a Senate. Um, and, or it would have to be another referendum. And in most

00:11:14.780 countries in the modern world, most things that ever get passed by referendum, which are difficult

00:11:19.460 anyway, ever rarely, if never then get rescinded by referendum as well. There's a degree of

00:11:26.380 permanency that exists in referenda that often don't tend to exist in other realms of politics.

00:11:32.180 So there's that factor to consider, but then I suppose to the actual tenor of this discussion

00:11:37.280 today. And, you know, I remember you first pointing this out was that because of this sort

00:11:44.160 of role that modern day, um, sort of corporates play in this sort of intersection between

00:11:49.220 corporations and academia and journalism and news media, et cetera. Again, the will of people

00:11:55.380 be damned, it will sort of be done by any and all other means anyway, irrespective of the

00:12:00.560 outcome. So there's that to consider.

00:12:04.540 Absolutely. Well, I want to go ahead and like you said, I've got two kind of news stories

00:12:10.000 here and I want to look at them because they'll frame the discussion we're having, uh, cause

00:12:15.080 I want to hit on both parts, like you're saying the referendum itself, and then the way that

00:12:18.980 basically the government and these corporations and media are colluding to basically subvert the

00:12:24.660 referendum vote. So we're going to hit both of those topics, but let's, let's start with

00:12:28.760 this one. Now, now both of these, uh, articles are from Reuters. I want people to remember,

00:12:34.440 that, um, most of the news that they see is not the, it's all, it's, it's mostly centralized

00:12:41.320 by a few organizations. You have a few wire organizations, you have places like Reuters,

00:12:46.320 you have places like the AP and most news organizations do not have individual reporters

00:12:54.180 in different places. They don't have the resources. You know, there, there used to be an understanding

00:13:00.200 that like all of these newspapers and all of these TV networks and all of these different

00:13:04.440 places needed to have their own war correspondence and foreign correspondence, and they needed to

00:13:09.620 have offices around the world so that that would allow them to, you know, to source their

00:13:14.220 own news and, and to bring break stories that are unique and those kinds of things. Like

00:13:18.240 that was part of the journalism business was, was having that ability to kind of send a force

00:13:24.100 out that would bring, you know, eyewitness news to your readers. That was, that was a big

00:13:29.880 selling point of those organizations, but almost nobody. Yes. Just to say as well,

00:13:35.220 each of these organizations, um, also expected to have their own internal checks and balances

00:13:39.060 as well. Like once upon a time, that was a part of journalistic integrity, which obviously

00:13:43.000 doesn't exist anymore. Yeah, no, they used to have, you're right. They had the walls of separation

00:13:47.480 between opinion and, and, you know, news editorial and, you know, all these things like there were,

00:13:52.240 there were checks on all of these different things. These were all supposed to be safeguards

00:13:55.880 against kind of what we see now, but today there's only a handful of organizations that

00:14:01.540 actually have any kind of correspondence, any kind of foreign bureaus. And for the most part,

00:14:07.480 you've really just got a couple of different organizations that write the news for everybody,

00:14:11.800 your local newspaper, all the way up to major news outlets that you think would have their own

00:14:17.760 correspondence or bureaus. They don't have those and they rely almost entirely on blurbs and, and,

00:14:23.420 and pieces written from these handful of news networks. So once someone's like, like Reuters or

00:14:28.700 AP or somebody writes a very biased article, the opinions of that are going to be just echoed through

00:14:36.440 all these different places because none of these organizations have their own, uh, ability to like

00:14:42.100 go to those places, have a bureau, have a war correspondent, have somebody to actually get real

00:14:46.780 reporting done. They're just going to take the information from the newswire or from the services or

00:14:52.460 one of the major papers, and they're just going to recut it. And they're just going to kind of add

00:14:56.540 their own words in, add their own spin in, and then send it back out with new ads. That that's kind

00:15:00.880 of the business model for most media outlets today. So when we see a piece as biased as this one in

00:15:07.120 Reuters, remember, it's not just going to be Reuters. It's going to be biased that their, their language,

00:15:12.340 their framing, their understanding is going to set the tone for literally thousands of other news

00:15:17.440 outlets from what we read right here. So let's jump into this real quick. And furious, you just jump

00:15:22.420 in, um, you know, kind of as we go, when you see something you want to talk about, but the, the

00:15:27.620 headline here is Australia reject rejects indigenous referendum in a setback for reconciliation. So from

00:15:34.120 the, from the headline here, we can already see incredible bias, right? And they don't even get

00:15:39.860 through the headline without saying, Oh, people voted the wrong way. And this is obviously bad.

00:15:45.420 So, cause they use the phrase setback, but let's talk about the phrase reconciliation real quick,

00:15:50.340 because in America, we're seeing this racial reckoning or reconciliation language use a lot.

00:15:56.120 And whenever they use this, they use this in a connection to something like BLM. And when they

00:16:01.260 say reconciliation, what they really mean is racial animus and punishment. We need to take from one

00:16:08.400 race that we see as the oppressor. We need to punish them. They need to be held down. We need to take

00:16:13.580 their money. We need to put them on a lower, uh, you know, socio, uh, social status. Uh, they need to

00:16:19.160 be less able to get jobs, less able to go to college. We need to focus on reducing and holding

00:16:24.680 down one group and then giving those things to another group that happens to politically benefit

00:16:30.100 the left. That's what they mean by reconciliation. But when they're using it in this terminology,

00:16:35.620 what's the context for the Australian use of reconciliation?

00:16:41.740 Well, uh, again, as we sort of chatted just before we, we, we went live, um, as I was saying

00:16:47.580 to you, this has been, and for anyone who was a, went to primary school or, you know, school sort

00:16:53.540 of by and large from the late eighties onwards, and certainly through the nineties, there was a major

00:16:59.700 push even in educational institutions back then to engage in things such as, you know, reconciliation

00:17:05.940 day, uh, NAIDOC week, which is kind of like this sort of national Australian indigenous sort of

00:17:12.520 cultural understanding kind of, you know, idea, you know, that, that was sort of conceived of back

00:17:20.800 then. Um, and then of course, even our, our television channels and our radio channels, like they,

00:17:27.880 they have, as a result of public largesse have been given essentially entire platforms and, um,

00:17:34.500 infrastructures to, to perform, you know, like they're there to, to tell their own news, to perform

00:17:40.100 their own, you know, arts and, and shows and to spread their own message on the back of other

00:17:46.600 people's, you know, blood, sweat, and tears, you know, in the end, that's ultimately what public

00:17:51.260 expenditure expenditure is when it comes from tax because, uh, for instance, our, um, ABC, like the

00:17:56.480 British BBC is entirely a public institution. Um, and as we know, all these institutions are

00:18:01.420 completely, um, overpopulated and overrun by the left in every possible, you know, imaginary way.

00:18:08.400 And, um, and the other thing is, I just want to touch on the, on the title, uh, as well is that

00:18:14.160 what's interesting about this and perhaps your audience wouldn't be aware of this, but

00:18:19.100 two of the, and this dynamic itself is kind of problematic in a way, but I just want to make

00:18:25.420 the point that two of the leading voices for the no, for the rejection of the referendum, for the

00:18:30.720 no case were, um, uh, uh, an Aboriginal politician by the name of, uh, Warren Mundine, who I actually

00:18:38.360 have, um, you know, I sort of know of, and he's actually quite a, a very good man and a very well

00:18:44.260 educated man about, um, quite erudite. And he, um, he was at the absolute forefront of that.

00:18:50.600 And there's a, a young sort of relatively, um, uh, well, say relatively young, uh, young

00:18:57.080 Aboriginal politician by the name of just, uh, Jacinta Price. Uh, she's got an indigenous name.

00:19:01.560 I don't want to mispronounce it. Um, and she's from the Northern territory and, um, you know,

00:19:06.040 she's lived with a lot of this, uh, systemic abuse and, and, um, you know, these, a lot of

00:19:12.100 these cultural problems that exist in the Aboriginal sphere. And I mean, I know on other, on other

00:19:15.700 channels and other shows we've spoken about, like, you know, the young Aboriginal kids and

00:19:19.440 the petrol sniffing or the, um, the, the massively high rates of, um, of sexual abuse of both

00:19:26.020 adults and minor girls. It's, it's quite a horrendous situation. It occurs in a lot of these

00:19:31.140 rural, um, towns and a lot of these Aboriginal missions. Uh, it's very, it's very much systemic

00:19:37.240 and, uh, and she comes out of that environment and she has become a politician sort of as

00:19:42.540 a consequence of that. And so her and, and, and, uh, Jacinta and Warren became two leading

00:19:49.360 voices of the no case and, uh, and the leftist media absolutely tore them to pieces in so far

00:19:56.320 that, oh, sorry for my crudeness of the way I frame this, but they're basically race traitors.

00:20:01.020 Like they're, they're, they're like, I suppose the, what do you call it in America? The uncle

00:20:06.220 Tom syndrome of, um, you know, like they don't know what's actually good for them. Like they're

00:20:09.880 actually sort of serving white supremacy because they don't want to be empowered by, you know,

00:20:15.200 this, this wonderful, um, you know, political idea that we've come up, come up with. And,

00:20:21.040 and the title itself of this article really reeks of, well, you didn't give us what, what we

00:20:25.100 wanted. So it makes you terrible people. And you've set it back because you're not have given

00:20:29.180 us what we wanted. And by saying, we, I don't even mean the Aboriginals as a, as a monolith.

00:20:33.840 I mean, the activist left who have created a political constituency of this issue, because

00:20:39.680 as we know, how the left had been successful in, um, in politics, in, in electoral politics

00:20:46.500 in, in, you know, this side of the second world war is by engaging like the permanent intellectual

00:20:51.480 rainbow coalition, um, of which in Australia, the Aboriginals are an important factor in that.

00:20:56.740 Um, and, uh, and yeah, I think, I think, uh, it's quite telling how they have been so, um, wounded

00:21:04.840 by this outcome. Um, so I mean, certainly as, as we've touched on, they'll buy both political

00:21:11.920 and cultural and media means they will circumvent this referendum one way or another, but the

00:21:17.380 result of the referendum itself has definitely bruised their ego.

00:21:20.020 Yeah. And it really, it really echoes the same outrage that we see again from elites in

00:21:27.120 places like America and the UK, because after the, you know, the initial Brexit vote, uh,

00:21:33.840 you know, the, the response from the media and the elites were, how could you possibly do

00:21:39.140 this? How could the people of Britain fail? Basically the elites, right? Like it's, it's the

00:21:44.260 road, it's, you know, to, to echo Christopher Lashley.

00:21:46.300 Listen, listen, Bruce, what are you doing?

00:21:48.320 Right. Yeah. We, we've told you guys, like we did the propaganda thing. You know how you're

00:21:53.440 supposed to vote. How could you do this? And it's the same, again, backlash. It's the same

00:21:58.040 furious backlash that we saw against Trump voters, right? Because a guy like Trump isn't,

00:22:03.500 but like Hillary Clinton was getting a coronation. Like, obviously Trump could never win. This is

00:22:08.360 insane. How could you ever let somebody like this come through? And the United States government

00:22:12.400 has now gotten to the point where they're literally just locking people up for supporting

00:22:16.560 Trump. Like, did you make a meme? Did you, you know, where, were you standing around outside

00:22:21.840 a building during a protest? Well, you're going to jail because, you know, sorry, sorry, Ricky

00:22:26.340 Vaughan, but your, your gallery was a bit too spicy for, for Congress's liking.

00:22:30.640 Exactly. And, and so, so that's where we are in the United States, land of the free home of

00:22:34.360 the brave, where we have active political prisoners. We throw people in jail for disagreeing with

00:22:39.060 Democrats. That, that, that is the reality of the United States right now. People can,

00:22:43.520 and him and Haw about the constitution all they want, but, you know, go ahead and tell Douglas

00:22:47.220 Mackey about it. He didn't get to see his child born because nobody seems to care about the first

00:22:51.320 amendment anymore. You know? And so, so this is a, this is again, echoes that theme. It's a, it's of

00:22:56.840 course a specific Australian issue, but the reason I wanted to, to bring you in and bring this issue in

00:23:02.060 is that it's so obviously echoes this sentiment of kind of elite revulsion to what they used to

00:23:09.720 pretend was the legitimating mechanism of their rule, right? Like we're, we are the voice of the

00:23:16.840 people. We have popular sovereignty. This is, this is what the people want. How could you possibly

00:23:21.340 work against people? The only reason they ever clung to that idea is they thought they had monolithic

00:23:26.700 control of the media. They had monolithic control of the narrative. They had complete control,

00:23:31.900 cultural control. And so they could always deliver the type of vote they wanted. And now that the

00:23:37.100 people are saying something different, they're incredibly angry. And moreover, they believe those

00:23:42.160 methods were bulletproof. And even though there has been minor fractures in that, you know, for

00:23:48.200 instance, I think we can say with the degree of confidence that the Brexit outcome is proof of that.

00:23:53.480 The Trump election has been proof of that. This referendum in Australia has been proof of that.

00:23:57.900 I mean, they're not, they're not major wins, you know, because in the end, they've been hamstrung

00:24:02.140 by every conceivable, by every conceivable way. But they are a demonstration that this isn't as

00:24:09.420 false, faultless as the powers that they would like it to be. They often do believe that it's without

00:24:15.200 fault. Their little apparatus will work without interruption. And sometimes it doesn't pan out that way.

00:24:20.920 When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard

00:24:26.580 potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's

00:24:31.500 nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that actually they will stay for dinner. Instacart has

00:24:36.940 all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes.

00:24:42.520 Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply.

00:24:48.080 Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver.

00:24:51.820 So right here at the top, I'll just go ahead and read this part right here.

00:24:55.640 Australia had to vote yes, no on the referendum, the first in almost a quarter of a century on the

00:25:00.420 question of whether to alter the constitution. So like you said, this isn't just some random law

00:25:05.100 being passed. This is etched into the constitution. This is an alteration of the constitution.

00:25:09.580 To recognize the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people through the creation of an

00:25:14.300 Indigenous advisory body, the voice to parliament. Now, again, when they say recognize these people,

00:25:21.620 the Indigenous population already has the right to vote. It already has the right to elect members.

00:25:27.460 There are already members in the parliament. In fact, you told me there's actually a disproportionate

00:25:31.440 number of Indigenous representation in the parliament. So this language is very particular

00:25:38.160 because they already know all this. They already know that the franchise is available to these people.

00:25:41.740 They have equal rights. They're actually overrepresented demographically inside the current elected

00:25:47.500 body. And so when they say be recognized and have representation, they're really completely

00:25:53.960 playing on the heartstrings. They're trying to twist the way people would understand the situation.

00:25:59.580 It casts it as if this is some group of people who have been thrown aside and they have no ability

00:26:05.080 to have a voice in the politics, that kind of thing. But instead, know that these are people who are

00:26:09.500 already fully integrated into the political system, already have representation, are already

00:26:13.220 overrepresented. Instead, this is a body that is brought from the outside. It's etched into the

00:26:18.060 constitution. It's not just a law. And it could fundamentally change the operation of the government.

00:26:24.000 Indeed. And just two quick points. One, it's kind of like, you know, it's a lurch at the same time as it

00:26:32.100 is kind of like an imposition. And, you know, if it had succeeded, like I mentioned before, it'd be a thing

00:26:40.140 that would be almost impossible to dislodge. And the second thing is, too, because, you know, I suppose in the

00:26:46.460 context of, you know, yourself being American and much you've already been American, there's obviously the

00:26:51.380 question of sort of civil rights. And you sort of have like a pre and a post civil rights constitution is that, you know,

00:26:57.440 once Aboriginals got the franchise in the early mid-60s, there has been no legal impediment to their

00:27:05.900 possibilities, shall I say, of becoming participants in the political apparatus, in the political sphere.

00:27:15.440 Indeed, there have been many successful Aboriginal journalists. For instance, the person who

00:27:23.220 created the legal precedent for what we call native title in Australia was a lawyer by the name of

00:27:30.540 Eddie Mabo. And the Mabo decision created the precedent in Australian law, common law, of the

00:27:37.760 ability of certain Aboriginal tribes to claim what we call native title over areas which they

00:27:44.100 considered to be tribalistically relevant to their respective sort of in-group. And also to,

00:27:52.240 you know, a bit like what you guys experienced with the Native Americans there is that there's also

00:27:57.520 this very, very generous wealth apparatus that sustains them. And that would not be true for a

00:28:06.080 disadvantaged group, or rather a group that is oppressed, if you get what I mean. In fact, it's

00:28:11.680 actually the reverse when the support for these minority groups is actually wildly inverse as to how

00:28:20.520 any other minority group is treated in the country. But the narrative completely betrays that fact.

00:28:26.600 Yeah. And of course, we mirror that in the United States as well. We literally have a regime of laws built

00:28:33.960 into the Civil Rights Act and in court decisions that enshrine, you know, bias in favor of minorities

00:28:41.240 that are supposed to be oppressed. We go out of our way in, you know, both in private and public

00:28:47.160 institutions to advantage particular groups. And then we continue to pretend that, you know, that there's just

00:28:55.320 this amazing amount of systemic bias against these groups. Interestingly, it says here that, of course,

00:29:03.400 the nationwide vote, or sorry, that the nationwide vote was 60% yes and 40% no. I guess you need four

00:29:11.160 of the six states of Australia to affirm, you know, this referendum. And it looks like it lost in pretty

00:29:18.600 much every state. So it's not like they lost this by a little bit. This isn't a squeaker where you say,

00:29:24.540 well, it's not a clear mandate. Maybe we do this again. Or maybe the these corporations or these states

00:29:29.580 might be justified in kind of, you know, circumventing this because it didn't really reflect, you know, a clear

00:29:36.320 decision. No, this was pretty overwhelmingly a vast gap. You know, this is a runaway election in pretty much any

00:29:43.700 political context. And not only was it a runaway percentage wise nationwide, it was basically a clean sweep for the

00:29:49.900 no vote on the, you know, on the individual state level. So this is just a devastating loss in every

00:29:55.560 area. And really interestingly, they also point out in this, in this article, that the, the no vote had the

00:30:03.740 vast, the vast amount of wealth behind it, it had the vast amount of political support corporations, you know,

00:30:11.360 the, the, the yes vote was, was highly funded. The no vote was basically a cultural, you know,

00:30:17.920 it was basically culturally toxic in a lot of ways. And yet, just like Brexit, even though they had all

00:30:23.680 the funding, it had all the push behind it, you know, the wrong side won. And this is what has

00:30:28.740 everyone varying.

00:30:31.180 Absolutely. It's almost been a case of sort of, you know, too many, too many cooks, you know,

00:30:37.140 too small a kitchen, kitchen, you know what I mean? Like it's a, too many cooks have spoiled the

00:30:41.740 broth, so to speak, to use the analogy. And, and also as well, I think when you get this

00:30:47.700 inverted pyramid, right, of all the intelligentsia, all the journalists, the vast majority of the

00:30:54.840 political elite, corporations, CEOs, athletes, everybody genuflecting and virtue signaling for

00:31:03.560 this cause, causes a revolt, to some degree, of the little people who just, at, you know,

00:31:10.300 at some points in time, you know, whether it's Britain, America, or Australia, get just too

00:31:18.260 fatigued of being the, the, of being, of having the finger wagged in their face, and being essentially

00:31:26.360 treated like a scolded child in a primary school, because this is the attitude that these elites

00:31:30.880 have with, with these topics, and we're dealing with the rubes, you know, to use an American term.

00:31:37.040 And, and I think the outcome of, of this in Australia was very demonstrative of that dynamic,

00:31:42.460 which, you know, and we all know what it's like, you know, they always paint the, the anti-progress

00:31:47.940 people as being the bigots, and the, the xenophobes, and the, you know, the, this and that,

00:31:52.540 that and the other, when people actually do have extremely lucid and well-reasoned views for not

00:31:57.260 going along with it. But of course, they'll never be sort of, you know, outside of our

00:32:01.640 circles, they never really express as they should be.

00:32:04.540 Yeah. And it's very interesting, like you said, that this is, this is a, a problem that

00:32:09.320 almost the global elite is having simultaneously, particularly in the West, is they just, they

00:32:15.740 really bought into this end of history narrative. They really bought into the idea, and I see Calhoun

00:32:20.260 already, already ahead of us here, but I'll go, so I'll go ahead and give him a tip of the

00:32:24.340 hat there. But that guided popular sovereignty, right? We've got everything locked down. We

00:32:29.880 control the media, we control academia, we control the corporations, we control the government

00:32:35.940 bureaucracy, as, you know, many people in, in kind of the, the, uh, near reactionary sphere

00:32:41.060 would call it, the cathedral is behind us. We control all these levers of power that manipulate,

00:32:46.660 that generate soft power, that, that are able to manufacture consensus. And so because

00:32:54.320 we have this complete narrative control, we can get really lazy. We can get really sloppy. We can,

00:32:58.900 we can, we don't need to give this back and forth anymore. We don't need to, uh, present both sides,

00:33:04.620 but with a little bit of our bent, we can just go full in on propaganda. We can just assume our

00:33:09.200 victories. We can put everything in this basket. We can get really heavy handed with the moral,

00:33:14.060 uh, you know, uh, just, uh, high handedness. And then when things go wrong, they have this absolute

00:33:21.500 freak out. They have this, this complete spurg out over like, how could you possibly,

00:33:25.880 you know, not vote our way? How could you ignorant masses? Uh, how, how could you not follow our

00:33:31.680 direction? We, we, we know what to do. We pull the strings, you guys dance. That's, that's the

00:33:36.580 relationship. And so, uh, it's just interesting that all of these different Western governments

00:33:41.800 seem to like simultaneously hit kind of this, this period where they overstep their bounds and they get

00:33:47.980 this kind of populist backlash in a very public and embarrassing way. Yeah, I think that's,

00:33:54.960 that's quite true. And I think there's sort of three prongs to this. And one is, I dare say there

00:34:01.620 was, and this sort of, I think plays into the Fukuyama mindset of the so-called end of history is

00:34:06.500 that I think progressivism, you might say since, oh, the 2010s, I think, um, I think once, for instance,

00:34:16.320 you know, the idea of say like the LGBT agenda being largely accepted, you know, for them

00:34:21.780 was a, a, a several decade project that eventually came to fruition, you know, really being carried

00:34:26.660 over the line by the millennials. And I think, um, you know, with the election of say Obama

00:34:31.360 and the idea of, you know, like the first non-white president of America, I think there was a few of

00:34:36.060 these, um, you might say sort of flash points in Western history, so to speak, where the left

00:34:42.840 actually became greedy, where the previous generation spent several decades building towards

00:34:48.080 a crescendo of success, you know, you got to think like even civil rights, you know, didn't

00:34:52.260 happen in an instant that took, you know, a fair amount of time for them to sort of execute

00:34:57.840 it properly. I think ever since the successes of the 2010s have played out, um, they've lost

00:35:05.600 their patience. And I think they've just assumed every victory will fall in their lap, which,

00:35:10.280 which I don't think, um, you know, it, politics just doesn't work that way. I don't think human

00:35:17.120 nature doesn't work that way. These things aren't instantaneous because, you know, progress

00:35:20.660 by definition, um, to use an analogy, which was uttered by, um, a former, uh, Labour Party

00:35:29.680 Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke, uh, he used the, the, the, the term, the inevitability

00:35:34.700 of gradualness. Now the inevitability of gradualness does not in any way, uh, suggest, you know,

00:35:40.560 rapid success or, or, um, or, you know, uh, the, these things happening, um, you know,

00:35:48.820 one thing after another, after another quick succession, they take time. And, uh, and another

00:35:53.300 thing is, uh, also, um, uh, there's another point I wanted to make. Um, that's okay. I've

00:36:03.300 actually, I've actually, I've actually started knocking on my door. Can I just actually go

00:36:07.900 mute and you just carry on? Sorry. Yeah, no problem, man. We'll jump into this. All right.

00:36:11.200 So while furious is taking care of that, let's go ahead and look at this article. Cause this

00:36:16.440 is really the meat of what I wanted to cover in the stream. So we know that they are turning

00:36:22.540 against the population. We know that the population did the wrong thing. They made the wrong vote.

00:36:27.700 We can give up lip service to the sacredness of democracy or whatever. But at the end of the day,

00:36:33.060 these people have no respect for that. The only, the only, when they say democracy, what they mean

00:36:36.500 is the public opinion we manufacture. Uh, the only thing that's sacred is the public opinion that we

00:36:41.380 manufacture. And you can either conform to that or you can deny it. So, uh, now that it's been denied,

00:36:47.280 uh, they are going to find another way to do this. And this is kind of where the name of the

00:36:52.000 stream comes from. They're just going to privatize popular sovereignty. So yeah, I mean, you guys

00:36:57.020 voted and yes, you went through a democratic process, but you chose the wrong thing. Now,

00:37:02.000 in some cases like they did in the UK, we'll just go ahead and keep, uh, you know, voting again and

00:37:06.940 again and again, right. You'll just keep voting over and over again until, uh, you get it right.

00:37:12.520 You're going to be punished. It's going to be punitive. Uh, however, in the United States,

00:37:16.900 they went another direction where obviously they went ahead and, uh, subverted the Trump

00:37:23.460 presidency. They lied, you know, they had this Russian collusion narrative. Uh, the deep state

00:37:27.660 got involved. They cut them off at every turn. They made sure that, you know, even the military

00:37:31.880 didn't follow his orders in certain areas. And so there's the subversion of the presidency through

00:37:36.860 this ability to have this conspiracy between corporations and, you know, bureaucracy and media

00:37:43.520 and these kinds of things. And it looks like we're going to see a similar thing here in Australia.

00:37:48.780 Now furious is back and he had already told us that this isn't just happening in corporations.

00:37:53.920 You said this has already been declared also by these different state governments who say,

00:37:58.280 Oh sure. You may have voted in a national referendum, but we're just going to ignore the spirit of that.

00:38:02.900 And we're going to deploy these, uh, different changes inside each one of these states.

00:38:08.020 Yeah, indeed. Um, sorry. I just, uh, I was going to tell why the concierge put me in my,

00:38:14.620 in the wrong room. So that's why they'll try to knock on my door. Anyway, I'll, uh, I'll deal

00:38:20.380 with that after the stream. Um, if I could just circle back, cause I did have a brain freeze on my

00:38:24.520 harangued. Um, what I actually thought of was that, you know, we often speak in our circles of the

00:38:30.520 idea of, um, you know, violinism. And I definitely think there's an aspect to this, right? That

00:38:36.400 as progressivism continues, right. And the talent of those who are the spear tip of progressivism

00:38:42.180 become, shall I say, less able, less talented, you know, we may dislike these people, but you know,

00:38:49.300 people of, of the ilk of Adorno and Marcuse were sort of actually quite intelligent in their own way,

00:38:55.600 if deranged, you know, someone like, um, you know, I, I despise, um, Gore Vidal, but Gore Vidal

00:39:01.840 had an intellectual vigor that 99.9% of the Democrat party or the labor party could dream

00:39:09.280 of having in their, you know, you know, in their entire party. And as the older revolutionaries

00:39:16.520 have died off, the next crop are rather less talented, rather less able and erudite and able

00:39:22.980 to prosecute these arguments in the same way that their predecessors did. So I think there's that

00:39:27.520 aspect that plays into this as well. I wanted to try and match that with the greed things. I think

00:39:32.760 those two things come hand in hand. The complacency has happened at the same time as the, as the

00:39:37.800 dilapidation of talent and the dilapidation of intellectual vigor. Right. And I think also too,

00:39:44.160 there's an inverse thing where people, not necessarily people like us, but you might say

00:39:49.380 people that we know who kind of just want to just get on with life and grill and they're not being

00:39:54.280 left alone to grill. They're being harangued through every perceivable vector of existence

00:39:59.200 is berating them and beating them to a pulp. And these backlashes happen as a result of that.

00:40:05.020 Um, but, but sorry to sort of march. No, no, no, that's, uh, just to, just to, uh, uh,

00:40:10.360 because I think you're right about that. So these people, you're, you're absolutely right to point

00:40:14.980 out there's this machine, right. That was manufactured by a far more capable generation. Uh, you know,

00:40:20.640 there's, there's the system of mind control more, you know, not to be too dramatic about it, but

00:40:24.860 that's essentially what it is. You have a propaganda machine, you have a captured bureaucracy, you have

00:40:30.580 an academic network that allows you to basically consistently manufacture consent and move the

00:40:36.040 population and reliably produce the kind of outcomes you're looking for. But if you're smart, you

00:40:41.040 understand that like, there's a, there's a, there's a back and forth pendulum that needs to at least

00:40:45.780 seem like it exists for people to believe in the democratic process, to believe in popular

00:40:50.760 sovereignty. And so, you know, that you can't relentlessly push all the time, which is why I've, you know,

00:40:56.080 explained multiple times that it was a ratchet, right? Like you're constantly advancing in the direction

00:41:00.420 of the left. You might take a break, you might stop, but you never go entirely back to the right. It's

00:41:06.820 always one direction, but they knew not to twist it too far to the left too quickly. They knew to give

00:41:11.660 those periods of rest, you know, the Reagan administration, those kinds of things where

00:41:15.180 they could lock in gains. But they, you know, they would not as advanced as far radically as they

00:41:21.200 might have under other presidents or other administrations. So this is a dynamic that the

00:41:27.060 more talented versions of these liberal elites understood. But like you're saying, there's been

00:41:32.360 a breakdown in quality. There's been a breakdown in impulse control. They've been selecting for,

00:41:36.520 you know, political loyalty or for race or for other things and not for competency.

00:41:41.660 And that's degraded the type of elites and they are no longer capable of exercising

00:41:46.180 the type of control you were talking about. And therefore we end up in these situations

00:41:51.660 where they get really sloppy. They get really messy. They have no, they have no patience for

00:41:57.360 kind of what happens. And that ends up continuously putting us in this situation where they, where

00:42:02.800 if they had just waited, if they had just slowed down, it would have been fine. But they're so

00:42:08.520 obsessed with more and more social engineering, that their, their goals are more and more radical.

00:42:13.600 They want to push their power further and further each time that there's just no ability for them

00:42:18.520 to slow down anymore. And they're breaking the machine in the process.

00:42:22.480 Correct. And, and just a small sort of addendum to that point as well, is that I think,

00:42:27.840 I think the, the, the fear that the left have of what, when I say like the, the right, I'm talking

00:42:36.480 like in a sort of perennial traditionalistic sense is that these orders can exist for a long

00:42:43.360 time and they can, they, they are, um, durable to forces of, of atrophy, at least to a point.

00:42:50.280 And they are resistant to, to fractures to a point. Um, whereas I think when you look

00:42:57.400 at the leftist worldview, the, the presuppositions that sort of a derivative of the ideals of

00:43:04.280 the French revolution, right? You think about the, the, the very watch words of the French

00:43:08.780 revolution, you know, egalite, liberty, fraternity, you know, it's liberty, brotherhood, um, you

00:43:15.480 know, and, and egalitarianism, um, those principles basically disallow hierarchy. And if you have

00:43:23.000 them have hierarchy, you can't have objective standards. If you don't have objective standards,

00:43:27.420 you can't cultivate future talent. And I think that is also a small part of this problem they

00:43:33.380 have is that you, like you said, that they're sort of bringing these people in based upon party

00:43:38.380 loyalty or upon the fierceness of the zealotry, not because they're talented at it. And I think you

00:43:44.580 have this, um, this, this fundamental problem within the left is can they advance the progress

00:43:49.860 fast enough before the machine collapses in their hands, which I think makes for a very

00:43:55.220 interesting dynamic to observe, frankly speaking. Absolutely. Let's go ahead and read just a little

00:44:00.460 bit of this article so we can get an idea of the framing that the media is using when they talk about

00:44:04.980 how corporations are going to subvert the will of the voters and why that's a good thing.

00:44:09.680 Uh, just before you start, Orrin, can I just offer a small anecdote on this point?

00:44:13.500 Um, now it, it, it, it, it doesn't actually involve the indigenous vote actually. It refers

00:44:19.660 to a previous, uh, thing here. And that's when we had the, um, the, we basically had a plebiscite

00:44:27.100 for, you know, the LGBT marriage, you know, the, the changing the marriage act here. Now I have

00:44:32.620 several friends of mine by virtue of being both a country boy and, um, you know, having gone to the

00:44:38.620 school in the city. I have a lot of my friends who work in, in technical fields, you know, they're,

00:44:43.100 they're, they're mechanics and boilermakers and, you know, they're, they're, you know,

00:44:46.860 industry type blokes. Right. And a number of them, most of them married, some not who via,

00:44:55.580 or sort of not as a part of their union, but amongst themselves, almost in, in contradiction to

00:45:01.900 their unions, um, opposed these sentiments and actually publicly spoke out about them.

00:45:08.380 For instance, they will use their, their social media. You know, I don't believe in this and,

00:45:12.620 or I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And, you know, my kids should have a mother and a

00:45:16.620 father, this sort of stuff. Now, a lot of these guys, or not a lot of them, but a few of them,

00:45:22.220 um, um, somewhere in the order of half a dozen worked for both of our national aircraft, um,

00:45:28.780 companies, which are Qantas and Jetstar in Australia, they had HR squeeze them to the point

00:45:37.340 where they were being told, remove these posts or lose your job. And that was over the previous

00:45:44.860 current thing. And this is how they exert pressure on their own workforce to comply. Now, this obviously

00:45:51.020 reached the, you know, hit the 11th degree during the coup and has definitely hit even another level

00:45:58.220 again with the indigenous question and this voice proposal, but they get, they, they sort of accrue

00:46:04.940 power within by drubbing their own, um, workforce into compliance. And then for anyone who interacts

00:46:13.180 with that corporation, whether it's again, by physical media, you know, uh, you know, television,

00:46:19.260 radio, whatever adverts, they're pulverized by the messaging as well. And it becomes just total

00:46:25.740 saturation. Um, and the corporations do with a lot of power in this sense. So, sorry, I'll leave you to

00:46:31.100 go on to that point, but I just want to offer the anecdote because it is a multifaceted power

00:46:34.460 structure. The corporations possess. Absolutely. I mean, if, I don't know if you remember this,

00:46:38.620 but you know, there were airlines getting shut down because airline pilots didn't want to take

00:46:43.500 the vaccine. They were doing, uh, the wildcat strikes and the left was actually decrying labor

00:46:48.940 because the labor union itself turned on its own members because the pilots were refusing to go to

00:46:56.460 work and, and because they didn't want to be forced into, uh, taking this. So, uh, you know,

00:47:01.340 we're, we see that all of these organizations that in theory are supposed to be for the defense of the

00:47:06.380 worker, uh, actually just comply with power immediately, even including the left and the unions,

00:47:11.820 uh, whenever labor, when the actual laborer just doesn't want to do something that's a leftist.

00:47:16.220 Right. Correct. All right. So our, our article here real quick.

00:47:21.500 Top Australian companies that backed the constitutional recognition of the indigenous

00:47:24.620 people said that they respected voters rejection of the change, but what would now take their own

00:47:29.820 steps to try to improve opportunities for the country's first inhabitants. So they don't respect

00:47:34.460 this change at all. Uh, Australia has overwhelmingly voted down a proposal to create a constitution

00:47:38.940 protected indigenous parliament advisory body known as the voice financial support and publicity from

00:47:44.380 big businesses for the referendum failed against a far less resource. No campaign,

00:47:48.540 which branded a corporate endorsement of the change as elitist and out of touch. So interestingly,

00:47:53.820 massive, uh, advantage for the yes campaign, but hilariously, because it was pushed so hard by

00:48:00.060 corporations, the no side had an effective counter argument making saying all of all these corporations

00:48:06.140 and these elitists are pushing it, it can't be good for us. Without a political solution,

00:48:10.140 it's now up to the companies themselves to pursue strategies to address entrenched disadvantages

00:48:14.380 in Australia's 3.8, uh, indigenous percentage, indigenous population, corporate leaders,

00:48:19.500 and political researchers said, well, the country resolves not to, to amend our constitution has

00:48:25.020 never been more awareness of the significant challenges facing our new indigenous population,

00:48:29.340 uh, coming from, uh, uh, from one of the, uh, Kmart and target, uh, department store chain owners,

00:48:36.060 uh, again, talking about how we're going to take this initiative. We're going to pick it up.

00:48:41.020 You see this coming from, uh, many of the different companies that they're, uh, they're mining companies,

00:48:47.180 uh, their airlines, uh, all talking about how they, they, you know, were let down by the population

00:48:53.580 and they're still going to go ahead and move forward with this. So the idea is basically,

00:48:58.700 like you said, uh, not just the, not just these private corporations, but the government as well,

00:49:03.180 we're going to put all these corporate initiatives into place. We're going to, uh, deploy all this

00:49:07.700 stuff, even if the voters say no. And of course, that's a huge part of it here in the United States.

00:49:12.240 Unfortunately, you know, there's already these really biased, these really, um, you know,

00:49:17.500 deeply entrenched legal, uh, requirements, um, huge, uh, cases like, uh, Duke power, uh,

00:49:26.000 and versus Greggs, which kind of force, uh, the, kind of this bias deeply into our system already,

00:49:32.500 but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if the corporations weren't themselves basically pushing

00:49:37.780 a far more radical agenda than what is even legally required in an attempt to kind of signal their,

00:49:44.280 uh, you know, their compliance and kind of their, their piousness to everyone around them.

00:49:51.360 Absolutely true. And there's a really interesting dynamic of play here. And it, it, what jogged my

00:49:56.640 memory is that I, um, is that I watched a Lotus Eaters episode, um, just actually today, um, you know,

00:50:04.340 while I was in my hotel room and it featured our friend, academic agent. And he sort of spoke about

00:50:08.840 this sort of private public partnership that's advocated by, you know, our very good friend,

00:50:13.220 the dark world himself has the idea that these mega corporations with huge profits can do things

00:50:19.260 that even governments could only dream of. But I guess where the, I guess where the real deal with

00:50:24.600 the devil comes in the sort of holy alliance between his entities is that if the government

00:50:29.280 is sympathetic to these views, but the corporations push it given that the, although I suppose,

00:50:35.920 ostensibly the judiciary is meant to be separate from the government, right? But if the judiciary and

00:50:40.880 the government agree with the general policy or the general attitudes being pushed, then who's going

00:50:46.820 to defend the little workers who rebel when the corporation presses this from every possible

00:50:53.440 direction, right? In the end, if the unions don't represent the worker, their stuff, if the judiciary

00:50:59.840 and the lawyers, legal fraternity don't support the workers' rights, they have no means of representation.

00:51:05.880 And if the governments won't enforce their own laws regarding the dynamic between worker and

00:51:12.540 corporation, then the little person has no means of self-defense in this regard. And all those,

00:51:20.400 all those sort of various domains of power can just collude with each other in an endless cycle.

00:51:27.580 And this is where I think, I mean, I'm of the opinion that I think we should celebrate wins when we get

00:51:33.240 them because I think demoralization is something we should resist at all costs. But this is also

00:51:38.180 where boomers and not as boomers, but people who become overly enthusiastic with success need to have

00:51:46.200 a reality check. It is actually this dire. And this is how, you know, how asymmetrical the two sides are.

00:51:54.660 And if we don't see it for what it is, we condemn ourselves to a very dark future. So I think we need

00:52:01.380 to be wise, but not too pessimistic, but we need to be really, really keenly aware of where we sit in

00:52:08.660 all this, because these are very, you know, essentially almost overwhelmingly powerful entities that

00:52:15.400 collude with each other actively and play their frame games and have their tricks and, and their

00:52:20.820 co-allegiances that make the imposition of these, uh, current year proposals just almost infinitely

00:52:27.060 successful. Yeah. It's kind of funny, you know, that now that you mentioned that it's great that

00:52:33.480 things are far better and simultaneously far worse than I think the average, you know, kind of opponent

00:52:39.480 of these regimes understands. The good news is that these people are really in that and that they're

00:52:46.620 kind of losing their ability to mastermind this stuff. Like you said, there is this

00:52:50.520 degradation. Yes. Incredibly greedy. They want to control everything, but they don't understand how

00:52:57.100 it works and they, they overstep constantly. So that's the good news. However, in some ways that's

00:53:02.620 the bad news too, because these people are also in charge of everything. So that means all your major

00:53:07.220 institutions are wildly inept and corrupt. And there's not really a place that you can go that like

00:53:12.380 holds power that will fight for you. So that's a terrifying thing because it's like all the power

00:53:17.880 is, is, is consolidated into hands of these institutions that are run by like the most

00:53:24.800 inept, corrupt and foolish people that are just going to blow things up. So the good news is this

00:53:30.400 can't go on forever because it's too, it's too deep into the system and the people doing it are too greedy.

00:53:36.480 They're too stupid. They will destroy themselves. The bad news is like your civilization is

00:53:42.320 in some ways glued together. You know, make this joke all the time, you know, academic agent,

00:53:48.020 you know, I think would be more comforted if we just had competent malevolent overlords. Like it's

00:53:53.420 okay if they're evil, just let them be competently evil, you know, as, but, but that's not the case.

00:53:58.780 Right. Like can Tony Blair just get the crime rate of London down, please? Like that would be nice.

00:54:04.420 Right. Right. Yeah. When you were for people who don't know when that inside joke, when you're

00:54:07.640 referring to the dark Lord, you're talking about Tony Blair, but yeah, it's, it's this,

00:54:11.420 it's this, it's this hope that like, even if they're as long, you know, it's the Joker from,

00:54:16.640 from the dark night, you know, as long as there's a plan, you know, everybody's fine as long as there's

00:54:20.480 a plan. And so as long as there, if, even if it was evil, if it was terrible, people would go along

00:54:25.120 with it just because it's a competent plan that that's what matters, but that's not where we're

00:54:29.040 at. We're at the incompetent, no plan stage of civilization. And while that good news is that

00:54:34.720 means that these people will lose. It's, it's scarier because like, that means there's just nobody at the

00:54:40.600 wheel in a lot of ways.

00:54:42.820 Exactly. I think that, I think that veneer or that phase of that, um, competent malevolence

00:54:48.800 was probably embodied by people such as, uh, such as Bill Clinton in the States, I think by Blair in

00:54:56.380 Britain. And I think to some degree, um, in Australia by, you know, the, the labor governments

00:55:02.420 that we had of the late 80s and late eighties and early nineties, and to some degree really just

00:55:06.760 carried over with our sort of our Tory government under John Howard, that continued in the, into

00:55:11.140 the two thousands is that, and I think also people like us, um, you know, I mean, our broad

00:55:17.260 sphere generally have really come to understand the power of the union party in that did things

00:55:22.520 really change when Bush got elected after Clinton? No, not really. And then sort of Obama more

00:55:27.420 or less carried the same policies thereafter. And even here, um, um, sorry, not when I say

00:55:32.620 here, I mean, sorry, like in, in, in Britain here, um, it just, cause we're talking about

00:55:37.140 Blair, uh, we go from Blair to Cameron to this, you know, and then there's like four Tory PMs

00:55:43.820 later. Has anything fundamentally changed? No, the same policies get rolled over. So I think,

00:55:48.280 um, I think we're starting to actually realize that it's, it's the, the unit part is as much

00:55:52.640 an opponent as trying to interpret as a left, right dichotomy. It's actually just a, a, a

00:56:00.360 malaise of the political structure writ large and the socio-political structure writ large.

00:56:06.420 Yep. And so I think, I think the takeaway for a lot of people with this is to understand that while

00:56:11.300 we're going to still see these, these kinds of manifestations, these revolts of the average

00:56:16.480 voter and the average person against the elites, we'll also continue to see this attempt at control,

00:56:22.260 this attempt at shutting down, you know, uh, again, privatizing the popular sovereignty,

00:56:28.120 uh, you know, pushing it back into the machine and, and trying to make the same change a different

00:56:33.180 way. But over time, that dynamic is eventually going to kind of break things down. It's going

00:56:37.900 to, it's going to bring things to a head. And that's something that you just need to be prepared

00:56:41.820 for. I think, I think, like I've said, you know, I don't know the Australian situation domestically,

00:56:48.240 but in the United States, I think the key thing is really people understanding that, you know,

00:56:53.120 regionalism that, that, you know, we, we have the advantage of federalism. We have the advantage

00:56:57.920 of having a good amount of power still vested in many of the apparatuses of the state's localities.

00:57:04.140 And there are things that you can do to kind of prepare for this, uh, in, you know, this competency

00:57:08.680 crisis, that's going to be incoming, uh, kind of, kind of the, the way your feckless elites are just

00:57:13.580 going to be unable to, uh, kind of actually, uh, effectuate anywhere real change. Like there,

00:57:18.880 there are things that you can do that are still meaningful, uh, but you just should not expect

00:57:24.680 like wide sweeping populist change to lock in just because you have some kind of referendum vote or

00:57:32.080 even get a president elected because the forces arrayed against them while, while deeply incompetent

00:57:37.240 are vast. And so that, that's something that's going to have to punch itself out. I think before

00:57:42.220 you see big changes come. Correct. Correct. Um, I'm content, I'm conscientious of the fact that

00:57:49.100 we're sort of coming up to an hour. So I just want to quickly touch on two points because, uh,

00:57:53.660 our, our very dear lady Charlotte is in the chat as always. And, uh, and it's just a point that you

00:57:58.620 touched on, uh, uh, a little while back now, but the idea that it will be the states that carry the

00:58:04.960 hand for this, that irrespective of the, of the quite, um, you know, emphatic no vote, and particularly

00:58:14.040 in some of the states such as Queensland and such as, uh, New South Wales and South Australia and

00:58:18.600 Western Australia, where the no vote was quite resounding, um, you know, the, the, the states are

00:58:23.360 going to wrangle this through their own, in their own way. And rather than having to either, um,

00:58:29.020 you know, bring in or dispense of a single federal domestic system, they will instead be this

00:58:36.220 entanglement of, you know, a dozen state-based systems. And then who has, um, you know,

00:58:42.840 jurisdiction over who, and, you know, to what end are these changes of recognition then federally

00:58:50.120 recognized? And is it on a state-to-state basis, like just creates this, you know, intentional

00:58:54.980 sort of political judicial quagmire, which only ever advantages power, really, if you get,

00:59:03.040 if you get what I mean by that. And, and the second point is, I think I mentioned to you about those

00:59:07.980 two advocates of the no vote, uh, and they were two Aboriginal people, that was, uh, Jacinta Price

00:59:13.780 and, uh, Warren Mundine. And this, there's sort of two point, very brief sub points I want to touch

00:59:21.960 on that. And the one is there, there always is this kind of idea that people of, shall I say,

00:59:29.880 of European descent are now extremely fearful of being able to advocate their own interests

00:59:35.080 as someone of European descent, that it's almost as if they have to bequeath that to someone who is

00:59:42.120 an intersectional member because they're afraid of being called a racist for having their opinion,

00:59:47.840 if you get what I mean. Like it would be refreshing if someone of a European background could actually

00:59:52.200 say, I, as a European person, someone of descent of say this Greco-Roman tradition, this Anglo-Celtic

00:59:59.380 tradition, this Britannic or Germanic tradition that is steeped in centuries. And in some regards,

01:00:05.900 even millennia of, of an intellectual philosophical, you know, train of thinking and belief can say that

01:00:13.380 in a full-throated fashion without batting an eyelid, they can't do it. And that in itself is,

01:00:18.600 um, is very damning in itself, right? And very telling of the lack of rigor, certainly amongst,

01:00:27.100 not so much the mainstream rights thought leaders, because they're sort of not our people anyway,

01:00:31.400 but the people who support them, if you get what I mean. And secondly, as a minor point from that,

01:00:37.220 a lot of people in that sphere make the mistake of always, and I mean, I'm going to say this is the

01:00:42.180 perpetual traditionalist. And, and we will touch on that dictator stream at some point, I promise you,

01:00:47.660 or we will get there. I just have to read some books. But, um, this idea that the West and this

01:00:56.020 assumption of democracy or this assumption of liberalism are one and the same. I mean,

01:01:02.300 are the West responsible for creating an interpretation of democracy? Yes. Is it responsible

01:01:07.220 for creating liberalism? Yes. But are they the same thing? No. The Occident Western civilization

01:01:13.920 has a very extensive history of imperium, has a very extensive, uh, um, history of monarchy,

01:01:20.560 of rules of kings and emperors, of systems that are very alien to what we are familiar with today.

01:01:26.440 In fact, what we experienced today is a very, very tiny aberration in the vast expanse of our

01:01:32.820 civilization, which goes back the better part of two and a half, 3000 years. And when a politician

01:01:40.140 or a political advocate says, oh, in our Western liberal democracy or our Western civilization based

01:01:48.440 on liberal values, that is a snake hole salesman. It's either person lying to you willfully or a person

01:01:55.260 who's too stupid to not know better. And I, I would pass that message on to people who have not

01:02:01.960 necessarily looked into dissonance fears, because that is honestly the way we have to view our

01:02:06.900 inheritance. Cause it isn't something that arrived on our doorstep five minutes ago.

01:02:10.500 It has a very, very long history and it's many of its facets have proven itself resilient,

01:02:16.160 but they've just been bastardized by a hostile elite. And we should be cognizant of that fact.

01:02:21.700 All right, curious. Let's go ahead and look. I think we got one question over here real quick.

01:02:26.280 Uh, Adam E for $5. I think the globalist play is to marginalize national sovereignty by casting

01:02:32.760 intellectual, by casting intellectually deficient leaders, Biden, Fetterman here, Aborigines there.

01:02:39.900 I mean, so there's, there's certainly, I think there's a really simple, I think there's a really

01:02:46.860 simple explanation for some of these, which is that these incompetent leaders, guys like Biden and

01:02:53.740 Fetterman who are obviously just kind of blank slates in many ways, uh, you know, literally

01:03:00.380 mentally diminished. They are easy to manipulate. They're easy to control. If you're an oligarchy,

01:03:05.580 you want someone who's basically formless, who you can shape entirely to your will. And you can look

01:03:10.940 at that from Biden. He takes positions that are entirely different. He has none of the positions

01:03:15.680 or not none of the positions, but many of his positions are radically different from ones he held

01:03:19.980 not that long ago, just because like, that's the current zeitgeist and somebody puts it in his

01:03:24.500 prompter. And I mean, he doesn't even know where he is. So he just spits it back out. And obviously,

01:03:28.980 you know, this is true of many different people. Incompetent leaders can be very valuable because

01:03:33.980 they're easy to manipulate. However, this is obviously like a losing strategy long-term because

01:03:39.040 like people can feel how terrible Biden is. Like, like, even if you're a leftist, you're looking at Biden

01:03:45.820 and you're like, okay, this guy doesn't inspire me to anything. He's not really leading me to

01:03:50.300 anything. He's just, you know, even I think most leftists understand that in some ways, a puppet

01:03:55.740 of, of kind of the shadow interests of their party. Maybe they agree with those shadow interests,

01:04:01.140 but it's not like something that really, you know, inspires confidence when you start talking about

01:04:05.200 going to war with Russia or something. And so, you know, there, there is a limitation to this

01:04:10.700 strategy. Now I, I, you could say maybe this is a larger globalist play to, to make each, you know,

01:04:16.700 nation weaker, but I think this one's actually a much easier thing to understand. We've just

01:04:21.940 transitioned to oligarchies, distributed oligarchies that want weak leaders so they can

01:04:25.820 just kind of impose their will on them. Absolutely. And the other thing is like a placeholder cannot

01:04:31.340 function as a fulcrum, you know, a placeholder is exactly that it's a paper dragon. And the other

01:04:36.840 thing is the higher up the chain that person is, I think this is where, for instance, you can draw

01:04:41.060 a distinction between Fetterman and Biden is that, I mean, Fetterman just sort of like a

01:04:45.560 functionary in a place whereby he can have papers put in front of him. He signs them off. Biden does

01:04:50.700 that as well, but we have to understand the implications of Biden being president is that

01:04:54.600 an entire narrative, an entire, um, shall I say like a basket of policies, an entire agenda

01:05:02.340 can be made to disappear with him because in the end with a leader goes their views with a leader

01:05:09.200 goes their decisions. And it's a very convenient sort of parachute for the Democrat party. And I

01:05:16.240 mean, I hate to use this analogy, but you know, the swamp, shall I say, you know, the Washington

01:05:19.680 quagmire that if, and when a time comes to gently nudge, you know, sleepy uncle Joe off the stage,

01:05:28.300 you know, KUF goes with him. Ukraine goes with him, you know, animosity towards Russia goes with

01:05:34.700 him. Um, you know, a lot of this other stuff, BLM goes with him. A lot of this stuff vanishes with

01:05:40.560 him and that consigns current year into yesteryear. And again, people who have short memories will

01:05:48.520 forget that and then we'll bring their attention to the new current thing and on the cycle goes.

01:05:52.700 No, that's, that's a great point. And this is why I hit this so often with conservatives who are just

01:05:57.960 like the Bidens it's the Bidens it's Biden, Joe Biden's corrupt Joe Biden's, uh, you know, uh, has

01:06:04.100 all these terrible Biden policies. It's like, guys, Joe Biden is not in charge. And it's very clear that

01:06:09.000 he's not the one dictating policy. You should be attacking whoever is. And if you don't know who it

01:06:14.400 is, you should be asking that question because somewhere behind him, there are the people who are

01:06:18.480 actually wielding power. And like you said, once they jettison Joe and they can just attach all

01:06:24.140 the most toxic parts of their failed policies to him. And then all you've done is bind all these

01:06:30.100 ideas to Joe Biden. He's easily jettisoned and the people who are really responsible, the people who

01:06:35.200 are really wielding power, who are really making decisions, they get to say, Oh no, that was all,

01:06:40.140 that was all this guy. He's gone. New, new rulers, new, new administration. We don't have to deal with

01:06:43.780 clean. Yep. And they're squeaky clean. Yeah, absolutely. Exactly. An excellent point. All

01:06:48.960 right, guys. Well, we're going to go ahead and wrap this up. I want to thank everybody for coming

01:06:54.160 by. Of course, great to have furious, be able to tag in here at the last minute. Really appreciate

01:06:59.020 you coming on, man. No, no, all good. Uh, despite my, uh, my jet lagged state and, uh, evidently

01:07:06.080 have been thrown in the wrong room in my hotel. It was a pleasure as always. Um, and of course,

01:07:11.580 you know, these discussions are important. I think, uh, you know, every so often, I mean,

01:07:16.380 in the end, I, I completely appreciate that obviously you're based in America and most

01:07:20.740 of your audience is American too. Although we have ladies shot with us today, which is

01:07:23.920 fantastic, but, um, you know, it is important that, you know, Australians pay attention to

01:07:28.760 what happens in America. To some degree, it's important that, you know, you guys pay attention

01:07:32.320 to what happens to us here. And if we pay attention to what happens in Britain or continental

01:07:35.660 Europe, because they're all, there's events and things which take place in a certain way

01:07:40.800 that, you know, if we observe each other, we might actually learn lessons that apply

01:07:45.140 to our own situation a little bit better. And I think it'd be to our detriment if we

01:07:49.680 didn't do that. So, um, you know, as it always is with our British and American compatriots,

01:07:54.420 I think it's fantastic. We can all talk amongst each other and, you know, discuss these more,

01:07:58.920 um, you know, uh, obscure events and obscure topics and, uh, and get to the number of it.

01:08:05.620 So thank you for that opportunity. Or, and I, I always love coming into your channel. It's a,

01:08:08.880 it's a great honor. It's a, it's a, it's a lot of fun. So thank you very much, sir.

01:08:12.280 Absolutely, man. Great having you. All right, guys, if you enjoyed this show, of course,

01:08:16.360 please go ahead and subscribe if you haven't subscribed to the channel yet. And if you'd like

01:08:19.780 to get these broadcasts as podcasts, so you can listen to my, you're mowing the lawn or working

01:08:24.200 out like I know you are, then you can go ahead and subscribe to or Mac entire show on your favorite

01:08:28.880 podcast platform. When you do that, please make sure that you go ahead and give it a review

01:08:33.620 or rating that really helps with the algorithm. Thank you everybody for stopping by. And as

01:08:37.740 always, I'll talk to you.

The Auron MacIntyre Show - October 20, 2023

Privatizing Popular Sovereignty ｜ Guest： Furius Pertinax ｜ 10⧸20⧸23

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript