I saw this article today on news.com.au titled, “‘Disgrace’ is everything wrong with Australia. The Spencer Leniu NRL racism storm highlights how wrong Australia has got its priorities.” It’s written by a lady by the name of Maddi Brennan-Mills. This is her Instagram page where she states: “Living on Dharawal country” (modern day Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay and so on). I think that one statement pretty much sums up her position on the issue. Her Instagram “link” links to the very article that I showed you before. It should be noted that the article is labelled “Opinion”, so of course, we should keep that in mind. She states, “A young Torres Strait Islander man, Mam, who dedicates himself to his community, had to endure a racial slur”. He was called a monkey on the rugby field as I talked about in my previous video. She then states: “This situation is a stark reminder that racism remains deeply embedded in our society, a burden First Nations people carry every single day.” But what got me, was what she said regarding Australian soccer captain Sam Kerr. She said, “Sam Kerr called a London police officer a ‘stupid, white bastard’ which by definition is not racism at all.” I’d just like to call BS on that, and I hope many of you would agree with me. I know what she’s getting at. Many academics of late are stating that people of colour face systemic exclusion and marginalisation based on historically rooted power imbalances and racial hierarchies that put white people at the top, and therefore, white people cannot experience racism. It’s BS, but they keep repeating it. She continues, “While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice, not racism – reverse racism is a myth.” Actually, I agree with her that reverse racism is a myth, because the whole idea of “reverse racism” is nonsensical in my opinion. Reverse racism is racism, and should be called as such. Saying that only white people can’t experience racism is in itself racist in my opinion. It’s saying that only certain people of certain colours can experience racism. If you look at the Oxford dictionary definition of racism, it states: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised.” Noting they use the word “typically”. Not exclusively or specifically to only a certain group. Racism is racism, and it either applies to all people, or it doesn’t apply at all. But of course, they’d probably claim that the Oxford dictionary is run by white people. The problem is, the definition for racism has now become debatable. Because the activists don’t want it to apply to white people, they’re trying to modify the definition. For any other fact, there is no debate. A cloud is a visible mass of miniature liquid droplets. That’s just what it is. There’s no debate. That’s scientific fact. But racism, it seems to be a bit wishy-washy. The fact that people can’t agree on it, means it’s not a clear thing. And this BS about white people being at the top of the hierarchy. You can just look around and see that it’s verifiably not true. I went to the doctor just recently, and every doctor in the local medical centre is of Indian, or Sir Lankan, or Bangladeshi descent – people from the Indian subcontinent – and that’s fine. They obviously worked hard at medical school or wherever, and became doctors in Australia. Most of their patients, because it’s a bulk-billed clinic, are poor white people. The doctors are obviously getting paid a lot more than their patients. In Australia, they’ve done very well for themselves. Do they face systemic exclusion and marginalisation because of their ethnicity? Obviously not. To say they they’re being systemically treated unfairly, is a lie. I saw this video from Spanian, he’s a YouTuber who travels to all these ‘hoods’ around the world. He recently went to Melton on the outskirts of Melbourne. Statistically, it is one of the most disadvantaged cities in Australia. Many of its residents are affected by drug addiction, criminality, violence and so on, and by and large, most of them were Caucasian. Is this an example of a country where white people are at the top of the hierarchy? Head over to Box Hill in Melbourne and you’ll find many middle class or wealthy Asian families. Are they suffering at the hands of the evil white people who sit at the top of the racial hierarchy? This whole thing is just BS to keep us divided. I’m not buying it anymore. I’m going to keep calling them out, and I hope that you do too. ‘DISGRACE’ IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH AUSTRALIA https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/people-condemning-latrell-mitchell-are-whats-wrong-with-australia/news-story/3f09f91fee668ebd7822df12b42e8dcc MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoGg5NgMU0E

A couple of weeks ago, Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton called for a boycott of Woolworths supermarkets after they made the call to not stock Australia Day merchandise. Soon after, YouGov conducted a survey to see how Aussies felt about this (I’ll talk about these results soon). But the headlines were pretty much all the same, “Only 20% of Australians back Dutton’s call to boycott Woolworths”. On the YouGov website, they wrote, “YouGov’s public data poll has found that only 20% of Australian voters back opposition leader, Peter Dutton’s call to boycott Woolworths and Big W.” At best, this is a very misleading statement. YouGov should know better. They’re a professional market research and data analytics company after all, which leads me to believe they’re intentionally misleading people here. Looking at the survey results, they asked recipients to “Please select the statement that most applies to you.” So let’s be clear, they didn’t ask, “Do you support Peter Dutton’s call for a boycott?” The options were, “I support the decision of Woolworths and Big W management (14%)”, “I support Mr Dutton’s call and will be boycotting Woolworths and Big W (20%)”, and, “My main concern with supermarkets now is excessive price rises rather than this issue (66%)”. Logically, is it not possible that both this statement and this statement could be true? That is, one could both think that supermarkets are overpriced, but also intend on boycotting Woolworths. It’s just that price rises are more important, and the survey doesn’t allow you to select both. To conclude that “Only 20% of Australians back Dutton’s call to boycott Woolworths” is misleading. They’ve just constructed the survey in such a way to sway the result. It would be like if I asked people, “Please select the statement that most applies to you”, and the options were, “Australia must transition to net zero as soon as possible (14%)”, “Nuclear power should be considered for Australia’s base load capacity (20%)”, and, “My main concern is high electricity prices (66%)”. And then concluding that, “Only 20% of Australians Support Nuclear Power”. No, the survey was worded in such a way that people were more likely to select the third option during a cost-of-living crisis. The first rule of surveys is that the response options must be mutually exclusive. If you have overlaps like this, then the results will be skewed and should be considered invalid. Anyway, who am I to tell YouGov how to run their polls? Also, it should be noted that not all the people who stated they will boycott Woolworths actually will. How you answer a poll question, and what you do in real life are two completely different things. Personally, I don’t care if people boycott Woolworths or not. I don’t particularly like what Woolworths have been doing regarding their divisive support for these political and social issues such as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, or their snub of Australia Day. Personally, I think they should stay the hell out of politics and stick to groceries. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll boycott them, but I certainly will only go to Woolworths as a last resort if I can’t find what I need elsewhere. YOUGOV POLL RESULTS – WOOLWORTHS BOYCOTT https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/48416-only-1-in-5-australians-back-duttons-call-to-boycott-woolworths MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yEewbvMu9E

The Australian Government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration website states: “Some therapeutic goods, including prescription and certain pharmacist-only medicines, as well as biologicals (things such as vaccines, for example), are prohibited from being advertised directly to the public.” They’re very clear on that. It makes sense, right? When we feel sick, we can go see a doctor and they can prescribe a medication to us if they deem it necessary. It’s not a perfect system, but certainly, if advertisers had free rein, knowing that these giant pharmaceutical companies have very deep pockets, we’d end up with ads for tetanus injections and heart medications. So that’s why I found it unusual, but perhaps unsurprising, that there’s an exception to the rule, and I think you might be able to guess what for. TGA Communicating about COVID-19 vaccines https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/resource/guidance/communicating-about-covid-19-vaccines Advertising COVID-19 vaccines. “The advertising of prescription medicines (including vaccines) to consumers is generally prohibited in Australia. However, the use of specific promotional materials to advertise COVID-19 vaccines has been authorised to support the roll-out of the vaccines across Australia.” We’ll be looking at this page: “Advertising COVID-19 vaccines to the Australian public”. Communicating about COVID-19 vaccines, noting this was updated on 20 December 2022. Scrolling down to the section “Self-developed materials”, it says: “The TGA has issued subsequent legal permissions (the 2022 permission) that allows advertisers to develop their own materials to communicate publicly about COVID-19 vaccines subject to the conditions below.” There are a whole bunch of conditions, but the main ones are: “The content does not contain any reference to trade names, or active ingredients, or any reference to the name of the sponsor or manufacturer”, so you can’t say “Pfeezer” or “AstraZonica”; “The content does not contain any statement, or implication comparing different COVID-19 vaccines (or comparing vaccines with treatments such as medicines)”, so you can’t say “Pfeezer is better than AstraZonica”; You can’t include “statements to the effect that COVID-19 vaccines cannot cause harm or have no side effects”, so it’s apparently illegal to say “Pfeezer is 100% safe”; And of course, you can’t include “any statement regarding COVID-19 vaccines that is false or misleading”, “Pfeezer can help you find a girlfriend” [clears throat]. But the most unusual rule I found, which perhaps you don’t find very surprising, is that you can legally be offered a reward! “Under the 2022 permission, any party can offer valuable consideration (cash or other rewards) to people who have been partly or fully vaccinated”. There are a few conditions, for example, “rewards must not include tobacco or medicines”; “the offer must only refer to COVID-19 vaccines generically”, that is, you can’t only give people a reward who take “the mRNA vaccine”; And perhaps most surprisingly (or not), “an offer of alcohol must not encourage excessive or rapid consumption of alcohol, have a strong or evident appeal to minors and must be served consistent with the Responsible Service of Alcohol arrangements”. So yes, you can reward people with alcohol! (But not evil tobacco!). The TGA have provided some compliant examples: “Fly Away offers a 10% discount on flights to all 'Fly Away Club' members who have either been partly or fully vaccinated under the Government's national COVID-19 vaccination program”; “Dramatic Days theatre company publicly offers a chance to win a years' worth of free theatre tickets to anyone who is partly or fully vaccinated”; “The Reds Soccer Club offers free tickets to a game for anyone who is partly vaccinated”, if you’re fully vaccinated, p**s off! And just one more: “Uptown Medical Centre and Pharmacy publishes a Facebook post offering a free health check to anyone who has been partly or fully vaccinated” – Uptown funk you up! And in other news, new NSW Premier Chris Minns said that vaccination is the best way to protect yourself from the harmful effects of flu, and not only that, it’s free! So what did we learn from this video? Well, in Australia, you can offer people cash to take a COVID-19 vaccine. You can give them discounts. You can even legally offer them alcohol! But tobacco’s a big no-no, and you can’t say – and this is an exact quote so I cannot get in trouble, “statements to the effect that COVID-19 vaccines cannot cause harm or have no side effects”. Is it just me, or are these TGA rules really bizarre? COVID-19 vaccine advertising and import compliance https://www.tga.gov.au/products/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-advertising-and-import-compliance TGA Advertising: Getting started https://www.tga.gov.au/how-we-regulate/advertising/how-advertise/advertising-getting-started MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22X9DSLSNCI

If you didn’t already know, there’s a federal election being held on Saturday, 18 May 2019. If you’re an Australian citizen aged 18 years or older, you must be correctly enrolled by 8pm local time Thursday, 18 April 2019. That’s like tomorrow if you’re listening to this the day I released this video. Please enrol if you wish to participate in the wonder that is Australian democracy! With regard to the most important voter issues, the Australian ABC is currently conducting a survey called Vote Compass which tracks respondents’ views to a whole range of issues. The data used in this video was based on 119,516 respondents to Vote Compass between April 10 and April 14, 2019. First, let’s take a look at the top five issues for each party in alphabetical order. Australian Greens’ voters unsurprising have the environment on their mind. 63% indicated the environment as their number one issue. Immigration and refugees came in second at 7%. Poverty and inequality was next at 6%, and the economy and energy both came in at 5%. Australian Labor Party supporters also saw the environment as a major issue at 40%, not quite as high as the Greens. The economy came in next at 11%, followed by healthcare, 11%, superannuation and pensions, 9%, and employment at 8%. So I guess both these parties you could call the left-leaning side of politics in Australia. The Greens are obviously further left than the centre-left ALP. Now onto the right-side of politics. Supporters for the centre-right party, the Liberal-National Coalition, saw the economy as the major issue at 44%. The environment came in second at 10%. Superannuation and pensions, 10%. Healthcare, 7%, and in fifth place, government accountability at 6% Voters for the right-wing populist party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, saw that Immigration and refugees was the number one issue at 32%. The economy came in second at 16%. Superannuation and pensions, 10%. Security, 7%, and housing and cost of living came in fifth at 6%. So overall in 2019, these are the top issues: environment, economy, healthcare, superannuation and pensions, employment, immigration and refugees, government accountability, education, poverty and inequality, and housing and cost of living. Comparing this with the last election in 2016, we can see that the environment has become a major concern for many Australians. It’s increased from 9% to 29%. Concern for the economy is around the same at 25% in 2016 to 23% now. Concern for healthcare has lowered, as has superannuation and pensions. One issue that does stand out is education. It’s decreased from 12% in 2016 to 5% this year. Now let’s look at the top four voter issues by age category. Young people (aged 18-34) understandably saw the environment as the number one issue ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTl9LECD3HI