Jordan offers a sharp reality check by grounding the gas revenue debate in fiscal data and contractual constraints rather than populist rhetoric. His analysis effectively exposes the gap between think-tank narratives and the pragmatic complexities of Australian resource policy.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
hot airAdded:
Hey, did you hear beer drinkers pay more tax than gas companies do? How does that make you feel? Basically the same as when you drink beer. Pissed. What about this? Australia is still exporting gas in huge quantities. Oh, not on. Hi, Jordan from Friendly Jordies here. I just want you to think about those two articles and what your initial response to both were because today we're going to be talking about gas. Personally, I like to buy it in bulk so you can save money on reaching the next level of consciousness like my heroes Steo and Kanye West. CO2 canisters. That's for the more advanced user. I did it again once because we thought we were using nitro canisters. I remember thinking, "Fuck, I'm dying. Still pretty good buzz." Now, on making your purchasing decision, I want you to ignore the first half of that sentence and focus on just the last three words of it. Pretty good buzz. Oh, and one other thing that you can technically inhale as natural gas.
That's what we'll be talking about today. That's about 95% methane. So, if you breathe too much of that, no buzz, just a headache and you die. So, I'm not saying don't chase the dragon. I'm just saying if you survive it, you're [ __ ] St. George.
You can also use natural gas for lame things like heating your home, cooking food, killing people that don't have a sense of smell. If you ever played Sim City, you might recognize it as one of the power plants that you could build, but no one ever used it because the coal power station had a better cost to energy ratio for starting out. And if you were worried about pollution, you just went to wind turbines. I uh I forget the point I was trying to make here. Maybe if I do more of this, I'll remember.
>> OH, IT DID HELP. WE RUN THE EXPERIMENT.
THE RESULTS ARE IN. THINGS ARE GOOD FOR YOUR BRAIN.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF we have to blur this for YouTube, but I can assure you this is not a fire extinguisher. I found this on the street. One of many for use only.
Yeah, sure. It's very important to note the natural paradox that is natural gas.
It's a resource that Australia has in abundance. In fact, we're the seventh largest global producer of natural gas, which I do find very amusing that we're often competing for a place in the top 10 with Turkministan. The hell pit is our damn you Shelbyville. But gas is also bad for the environment. Now, I personally like that cuz if you melted the planet, imagine how many snowflakes would melt down with it. But that's Australia Sophie's choice. But because it's in Australia, it shall hereby be renamed Sophie Monk's choice. Australia can either become a gas giant like Qatar or be a climate responsible global citizen like the other mega rich micro state North Central Island. As explained here though, it's not just environmentally responsible for Australia to phase out gas. We will become far richer as a result. So no matter how you slice it, phasing out gas, much like inhaling gas, >> see you just think this is a call back.
It's not. It's just an excuse to have.
Over the last couple of years, Australia has been moving towards the Sim City play style of climate responsible citizen. They've made the repeated statement of intention of reducing domestic natural gas consumption as much as possible over the next 30 years.
While under the previous Liberal government, we were going with well, I don't know. It's hard to tell what if anything we were going with under the Liberals, you'd imagine gas, seeing as they appear to be imploding in on themselves now. But to bring it back to the Sim franchise, as we always do on this channel and have not done enough in this video so far, those are the options. You can either build a pro state or a green tech utopia. You can't have both. They're not exactly compatible, are they? If you're a serious government, you got to pick one.
You don't if you're a think tank. If you're a think tank like the Australia Institute, well, think tank. Then again, all think tanks are think tanks, aren't they? They really are just thinly veiled electioneering machines funded by billionaires to make propaganda for their business interests. And this particular think tank is funded by mining magnate Andrew Twiggy Forest. For years, I've been wondering why it's good for Andrew Twiggy's business model to pedal this schizophrenic [ __ ] of it get enough money for a gift. And then the next day chucking a tantrum about you're getting rich off gas. Yikes. Didn't you know there's a climate crisis? I mean, it's very easy to dispel the second claim. I can do it in a sentence. I need these glasses, though. You ready?
Climate is always changing. But that's only scratching the surface. There's many levels to this. It's made in a but mining related. So, THIS IS THE WHOLE YEAH. ESSENTIALLY, the Australia Institute of Arms Dealers. They're supplying both sides of winges with ammunition. They're doing the whole how dare you still produce gas. ironically for the biggest consumers of gas in the country, the name party over here. And they're doing the whole I pay more for my beer than gas companies paying tax.
What the [ __ ] That one's strangely for both Dinky Die Australia and the I'm an independent thinker crowd. The Australia Institute are the head of that snake.
They are the ones that want you to think about this and they want you to think about it in that very particular completely contradictory way. This is why they produce both research that matters and research that antimatters.
This contradiction alone completely discredits them. you might as well be citing the [ __ ] push me pull you as a source. And yet, this is without a doubt the primary go-to for all the winge merchants online endlessly claiming that the dirty majors are captured by the billionaires. A billionaire funded campaign tool. That's their source. If you're wondering what a winge merchant is, it's a term that we use to describe virtually every political content creator of the country. Really, old and new media. Pedlers of negativity. Their currency is grievance politics. They tap into a vibe, feed their audience that vibe rather than offer real tangible solutions. Popular weapon of winge merchants is to find ways to blame all of the world's problems on someone else, usually the government. And in Australia, they've got an ever replenishing arms dealer with this billionaire funded campaign tool. Keep in mind, we're only one layer deep. The next Maiden Abyss level down, much like the show, is when it starts to go weird.
And because Made in Abyss is the selected autistic media metaphor for this part of the video, it should be self-explanatory to about 7% of the audience what I'm getting at. And if that doesn't include you, I don't know how you've stuck around here all these years, but I salute you for your valiants. No, I won't be getting any better. Self-awareness is my crutch for not changing. You need to acclimatize to each level is what I'm getting at. If you don't acclimatize to each level of dishonesty, you'll end up looking like Spanion did when they helicoptered you into base camp 2 on Everest or wherever the [ __ ] it was. So, we're going to make this easier by cutting the push me pull you in half. We're separating the inherent contradiction at the heart of all their crap. We are just going to focus on the push me arguments first, which I think would be generally summarized by the start of this article.
Governments say the right things about becoming a renewable energy superpower and committing to net zero, but they keep approving new coal and gas projects as if the laws of physics don't apply to Australia. I mean, this really does just show that winge merchant audiences are just Zuma Murdoch readers, aren't they?
The same people that would share this article would be the first to pounce on any boomer who says, "Well, well, looks like China is opening up 43 new coal fired power stations. There goes your socalled green energy transition up in the smoke of the big red dragon sun caps." You just know they'd rightfully point out, "Yeah, China's opening up new coal plants, but it's already hit peak coal. It's already the biggest consumer of renewable energy on the planet. It builds more renewable energy than any other country by a mile. And every year, China blitzes not just its own target, but what the globe could reasonably expect of the world's factory. And yeah, in the meantime, China's opening up new coal plants, because that's what any serious energy transition program from China to the EU looks like. You build more and more of the new technology, and you build less and less of the old technology. You don't just flick it off.
This is one of the rare instances where reality doesn't perfectly line up with Sim City as a metaphor. You can't just because in the real world there is a century of infrastructure, industry, supply chains, and grids that need to be built to accompany the is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Winge merchants are fully capable of grasping it when it comes to China. But when it comes to their own country, to quote them, the laws of physics don't apply. They immediately pull the reverse uno card of this Super Murdoch [ __ ] but instead of it being presented with that classic Sky News shitty grid, it's presented with the Lissa Waters duck smirk. Labor says they want more renewable energy, but they're opening up more coal and gas. It's all I could ever think of each other look at the duck mascot. It's just incontrovertible proof that they have no sincere desire to engage with this issue or any issue for that matter. It is all virtue props to them. If you're unwilling to even accept the basic point of entry into reality that any credible energy transition, in fact, I'll go further. Any technological transition full stop from power stations to power messes. It all requires you to build more and more of the new technology and less and less of the old technology. I mean, this is how bad their research is. I am being reduced to explaining the definition of a transition. If your criticisms can't even sustain impact with the meaning of the word of the thing you purport to care about virtue prop. You don't actually care about it. You have a l cow position comparable to the doldrums of arvy Yemeny and whatever the [ __ ] the political opinions are of this blimp.
You know how many coal projects the previous liberal government approved?
Two coal projects for every one renewable. It was the wrong way around.
It was more and more of the old technology and less and less of the new technology. That a coalition's energy transition was a transition into more [ __ ] coal. You know how many coal projects Labor approved? One coal project for every 10 renewable projects they approved. I'll say that again. One coal project for every 10 renewable projects.
I'll say it again. What jokes?
I mean, even when you intentionally misrepresent the numbers, attempt to make them scary by saying, "Oh, look how much it's admitted." That's a huge lie.
It's like assuming this pure bread's going to have a litter of nine when it hasn't [ __ ] yet. As you can see from a wide array of examples, just because something has been approved does not mean it is ever going to get built. This is approval. This is built. They know this too. They tried to pull this same deceptive [ __ ] with Adani. They know full well it was a bus, but they're currently emitting 1.57 billion tons of carbon. These approvals right now. This is like that [ __ ] newspaper trick of, yeah, we printed 500,000 copies of the paper today. So 500,000 people read it. Oh no, actually they were all bought by nuclear family. So uh that's 2 million readers. Yeah, it was all just shared around in an incestuous reading orgy. See how slimy they are? This is the level of lying you have to get to to give off the vibe that ooh they're trying to hide this guys when the reality is they're trying to hide this from you. This is all a smoke screen to black out incredible stats like Labor getting renewables online so fast that every time I update you on this, I have to update the figures. And by the time this video is out, they're probably already outdated. Like, think about that. They're making the grid faster than I can make videos. Some of my videos are just cuts from streams.
Canada stalls on trade pact.
Okay, we're going to have to cut to a break. [ __ ] [ __ ] I forgot TO CUT TO STANDBY.
>> WE'VE REACHED 50%. For months at a time now, the grid is run on 50% renewable energy. You know what the coalition was aiming for? I mean, they obviously weren't, but they say they were. They were pretending to aim for 54% renewable energy by 2050. One more time for all the oxygen thieves that'll inevitably write in the comments. Coalition theoretically aiming for 54% renewable energy by 2050. Labor factually achieved basically the same amount a quarter of a century earlier. Labour compressed our projected energy transition from almost three decades into just 3 years. And yet what ideas are being implanted in your head by this billionaire funed think tank and leech minority parties like the Greens. It's not good enough. Ah how would you improved on these shitlight figures? Stalled it. Yeah. The same opportunists that endlessly say that real world results, no matter how impressive, are not good enough, will actively push for the Greens, a party whose only legislative accomplishment ever was to [ __ ] the energy transition up and delay it by a decade. Self- admittedly for votes, mind you, it's all here. Meanwhile, this supposed independent think tank that totally just barracks for ideas, guys, not parties, policy of a party, looks at Labour delivering an energy transition that's honestly more impressive than the EU's.
It is up there with China's a country that has the liberty to say you transition. No, up there with that. No, [ __ ] it. Let's lie about it. As soon as reality comes up for even a gasp of air among the sea of billionaire funded [ __ ] let's think of a way to heat more billionaire funded [ __ ] over the top to ensure that Labour's actual record never sees the light of day. And because we care so much about policy and not at all about parties, let's instead blow up utter trash like the leader of the Greens to spread their vacuous baseless talking points. Why? Because they're not interested in the energy transition.
They are interested in donations. These talking points aren't just for Redditors. They're speaking to an echo chamber of a specific type of welloff Australian. Your Guardian afficionados, the Sydney Morning Herald Cheese Board Brigade, whose only interest in politics really is to endlessly reaffirm to themselves that they're better and smarter than the average. That's why everything the Australia Institute produces is another backwards rationalization to get to this point.
[ __ ] the majors. What they're really saying is [ __ ] the commoners cuz I vote the way I buy my clothes boutique. And really, just like people who buy boutique clothes, you're paying for the marketing. You're paying for the vibe that you're smarter and more sophisticated than the average person if you wear this very sophisticated brand.
But by buying into that wankery, really all it shows is you're nothing but a boob. Like look at who they're specifically attacking in this article.
I'm actually a better person and care more about the energy transition than the premier of South Australia who's implementing the most successful energy transition in the world. Imagine the type of low functioning narcissist that needs to one up that guy in their own mind. And I'm betting that you're imagining someone who looks exactly like the author of this hunk of [ __ ] frankly. Now again, it's very easy to moralize over a party that is actually [ __ ] like the Liberals. I mean, I made a career out of it. But Labor, on the other hand, yeah, they're not perfect.
what the [ __ ] is that? But by the numbers, they are factually one of the most competent parties on earth. And so when they're in, it's hard to keep reaffirming in your mind that you're a better, more enlightened, competent person than Tanya [ __ ] PLC, a woman who factually accomplished what they themselves said as an impossible benchmark. So you had something that you thought that you could moralize over for years. Then when you couldn't, that's fine. We'll just move the goalposts. Now I'm better for this reason. That's your only motivation. Lame ego gratification over what? Public servants. Very cool to begin with, guys. If you're trying to convince yourself that you're better than a party that is outsprinting your concept of yourself in real life, what do you resort to? Tripping them up for years. What was their rallying cry? Stop new gas and call approval. A bunch of the approvals that they're endlessly honking about. Didn't have to happen.
Some of them did. A bunch were approved because of how the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was written. This is how energy projects are assessed. This is what the environment minister is bound by.
Because contrary to the constant framing of the Australia Institute in the Greens, the Environment Minister isn't some trees that can say net for net zero. They can only accept or reject fossil fuel projects based on the criteria outlined in that act. They're a glorified council worker that approved your mom's patio. The Australia Institute would absolutely be aware of that just like they're absolutely aware of the difference between thermal and metallurgical coal. They just pretend to have a sub50 IQ to continue making these fancy headlines, which now that you think about it from that context, that just makes what they're doing far more scummy and detestable. Frankly, like all nations problems, they stem from former Prime Minister John Howard. It's pretty much an ironclad law of politics. The EPBC was passed under his government, and as a result, you can only imagine how ineffective it was deliberately made. You may as well have been attempting to stop a chainsaw going through a tree with the act printed out as a shield. This is why Labour had been pushing for a complete rewrite of the EPZ for years. In fact, it followed a very similar pattern to Kevin Rudd's price on carbon that the Greens killed.
Everyone agreed these reforms were needed. Industry, environmental organizations, experts, everyone except these pricks. As usual, you had the Australia Institute out there fear-mongering that this would somehow weaken environmental protection laws of this country with attached email farming, of course. These lies were then echoed by the Greens, as is the winge machine's design. I could go down a 20-minute autism hole explaining why all their fearongering about the EPC was utter crap. Or you could just watch my previous videos on how the Greens line about the half and the ETSs because it follows the exact same pattern. Or save yourself 2 hours of gfueled neck beard autism and take the word of architect of these reforms Dr. Graeme Samuel that much like the half, much like the ETSs, he said it was very obvious from the critic's shallow childlike criticisms of the bill that they didn't even understand what the bill was. This is why the Green should have the balance of power in the Senate to hold the government to account. A party that can't even mentally grasp what it is they're holding. It's honestly like thinking that you should make this chicken the chief prosecutor of the state. And you might be confused. What?
The Australia Institute and the Greens are filled with people constantly virtue signaling about how Gath needs to be ended tomorrow. Surely they'd take the time to understand the single most pivotal piece of legislation in moving towards that goal instead of diverting the same mental energy into concocting lies about that very legislation.
Remember now, understanding things is for people who actually care about things. They don't. They care about positioning themselves as looking like they care about things. And you don't need to understand [ __ ] for that. In fact, it's better not to understand cuz heaven forbid, you might actually feel like a bit of a cuff for blocking things. Then, much like they have in the ETSs, the APC reforms were good legislation from the very beginning.
Could have been passed 5 years ago, according to Dr. Samuel. I don't think it ever would have seen the light of day under the Liberals. But that still means it could have been blocking coal and gas projects for years before it actually did. It wasn't controversial legislation at all. Parties like the Greens made controversy out of it for branding purposes. It's an old trick. You stake out a position. We're care more about the environment than like anyone else.
And that tracks, after all, their color is green. Green means environment. Yay.
Then Paul PR starts to reaffirm that brand. The easiest one in the world is blocking legislation and pretending it's not good enough. Their voters aren't going to look into it. They're just going to think, "I knew it. I knew it before I even knew what it was."
Confirmation bias or confirmation blast.
In marketing, it's called positioning.
In politics, it's known as, as Dr. Graeme Samuel also correctly identified, playing political games. After they could extract maximum media attention by delaying it, screaming about it in the press, they pulled the same trick. We got [ __ ] Chinese changes to the bill.
Now, it's good to reaffirm their other marketing position that we make labor better. Like seriously, you think these carpet baggers that don't even understand the EPC changes are the environment's last line of defense? Not the years of review and inquiry by experts that went into crafting these bills. No, it was the ones that obviously didn't read it. They made it good. Here's my review of the movie I didn't watch. It's the final word. The first time it went up for a vote, it was blocked by the oh so important crossbench that the snakes over at the Australia Institute perpetually pretend to like totally makes democracy better because it like totally stops the majors from delivering on the mining industry's agenda. You know who was specifically responsible for blocking it when it finally went up for a vote? Fatima Payman, a crossbencher. The irony, it's particularly thick in this instance as Fatima Payman is a labor rat. Contrary to the endless yammering that Labour's captured by the mining industry, if Fatima was still part of the Labor Party block, she would have been bound by the party to vote for the EPBC reforms. That would have been the deciding vote Labour needed to pass these reforms. Done. Most important piece of environmental legislation this century passed thanks to the party captured by the mining industry. Apparently, however, because Fatima scraped in on the Labour Senate ticket and didn't think that she'd get back in, she defected and now free to speak her mind on the crossbench, she decided to switch her vote, voted against the changes to the Environmental Protection Act. Conveniently, after meeting with the CEO of the Resources Lobby, that's on record. That's just a fact. Fatima payment on a Labor ticket, EPBC would have been passed. Fatima payment on the crossbench. EPBC not passed. This is what the crossbench actually is. that is in plain black and white matter of public record. And yet you have this progressive think tank endlessly pushing propaganda about how awesome the crossbench is to the point that they let that same woman that blocked the single most crucial piece of federal environmental legislation written this century to write puff pieces about herself on their platform specifically about how awesome the crossbench is. Never correcting the record once despite that being the record. They continue on with their dead [ __ ] lies. Crossbench makes flavor better. while also having the ghoul to complain about the Northwest Shelf being approved precisely because of that very [ __ ] legislation that she blocked.
Why? Because they don't care about the energy transition. They care about donations. I understand at this point you're probably thinking, can you shut up? Why are you going into such autistic detail? The reason I'm going into such autistic detail is to show you how the entire Wind Merchant Sausage is made. I want to ram this in.
The Greens, the Community Independence, the Australia Institute, the influencers that parrot their [ __ ] they never have a point. Every single one of their points will invariably contradict another one of their points because they are not points. They are formulas. To prove this, we're going to dissect their most famous formula. You should know it by heart. Insert X country has insert X thing. Therefore, Australia could like totally have insert X thing. The reason we don't have insert X thing equals Labour's corrupt every time. This is their Coke classic. Their most active ingredient by a mile. Norway. Yay. It's their meme argument. In other countries, take Norway for example. Norway taxes its fossil fuel industry heavily.
>> I'm sorry. I was just thinking about the shortest, most painless way to kill myself. We've done to death for political reasons. Australia cannot set up a resource revenue mechanism like Norway. I'm not going to go through the political reasons. We can't again just have the same dead shits after not understanding a single word regurgitate the same cringy comment that belongs in Earbud. So what you're saying is we just give up?
>> No, I'm saying you should give up on trying to comprehend anything more difficult than the plot of Airbud. For the sake of fun though, let's enter their fantasy football world. Yep.
Australia could just have Norway's gas revenue stream, Singapore's housing stream. Oh, it's all so simple, isn't it, guys? I don't know why Labour doesn't do this in real life. Must be because they're corrupt. Let's pretend it's politically possible to tax gas like Norway. The only reason we aren't is because Anthony Abenezy secretly became prime minister because it's his lifelong dream to be a Shell executive and he saw rising up the ranks of a barely elected party to become prime minister as a shortcut to that goal.
Even if it was possible to tax our gas like Norway, why the [ __ ] would we? The goal is to move away from gas. Remember, gas is bad. You should have learned that from the movie Thunderpants. I mean, the Australian Institute sure as [ __ ] hasn't decided if they want to move away from gas or not, but you probably have, so it's probably important to consider that Norway's revenue model didn't just suddenly pop up like fidget spinners. It was the result of over 50 years of policy planning. Should we be spending the next 50 years doing the same thing in the age of dangerous climate change?
I mean, the answer is actually quite simple if you're a One Nation voter.
Yeah. Let's use the Australia Institute's own numbers to show that they're knowingly being deceptive. As always, as they themselves pointed out in one of their viral hits, oil and gas is only like a couple of percentage points of the GDP or whatever and doesn't even employ like that many people and stuff. That's dumb. We'll get back to why, but for now, because we're not dealing with reality, sure, oil and gas is 2ish% of the GDP, therefore not important to the economy. Fine. What about if it was over 20% of the GDP like it is in Norway? What if, as you point out, oil and gas wasn't 3% of government revenue? It was instead 32% of government revenue. What if oil and gas were tied to our economy 10fold like it is in your North Pole utopia where everyone's a depressed heroin addict. Do you think that would make the energy transition harder or easier? Cuz if you answered harder that is incorrect. You are obviously just compromised by big gash. See, Norway has a problem. This is what's interesting about the grand scale of time. That what was your blessing one century becomes your curse in the next and what was the other's curse becomes their blessing. Pretty proud of that thought. Sounds like something an ancient Chinese wise man would have said or closer to what it actually is, which is a neb attempting to write a fantasy book that no one will ever read. You ever heard of Dutch disease? Bet anybody who's been to the red light district is currently figuring I've done more than heard of it. when you make a lot of money out of a commodity like oil or gas starts cannibalizing the rest of your economy. Now, because Norway is a developed nation that has made some very smart decisions with their resource revenue, they don't have full-blown Dutch AIDS like say Venezuela does, but they do have some symptoms. It's more like Dutch HIV. It can be treated with medication. The classic medication that both economists and wingers like ACT Senator David PCO love to bring up is, oh, Australia could put all its resource money into a sovereign wealth fund like Norway. But because our politicians are corrupt, we don't have one. That's true.
We don't have one. We have two. We have the future fund, which admittedly was set up by Howard, so it's far [ __ ] and smaller than Norway sovereign wealth fund. Still, it's one of the rare instances that I'll give Howard even a crumb of credit. It's a good thing. But the other one was set up by Paul Kadin.
You might have heard of it. It's called superanuation. This is another tell any that always gives mad props to Norway sovereign wealth fund, but shits on superanuation like the teals do. Snake.
Like I'm not saying Norway sovereign wealth fund is bad by any stretch of the imagination but it's like the fame of the Jonas brothers superanuation is clearly Nick sovereign wealth is Joe future fund is Kevin the main reason for that is there are over 100 superanuation funds in Norway there's one that's a lot writing on one [ __ ] fund especially one that is funded by oil and gas cuz here in Australia if you've got a brain for finance but you have a moral objection to pro dollars you can go work for a fund that doesn't invest in oil and gas if you want to try out some cool financial experiment experiment that you think will make a billion dollars, one super fund will give it a go. It's versatile. It's diverse. And after all, isn't that our greatest strength?
Norway's pension fund, on the other hand, is Uber Mench coded as [ __ ] The Sovereign Wealth Fund there is the only serious game in town, and therefore it is a sturdy oil tanker powered by oil and gas. It's hard to reroute. As a result, if you have a brain for finance in Norway, chances are you're using it to think about oil and gas, whether you like it or not. If you have a brain for engineering, chances are you're using it to build oil and gas supply chains. If you have a brain for economics, trading, politics, or corporate strategy, chances are you're using it to ensure the success of Norway's state-run oil and gas company, Ecuinor. Equinor to Norway is what Samsung is to South Korea. It is essentially the corporate equivalent of a [ __ ] sun god. Everything revolves around it. Do you see what wingers like David PCO's next inherent contradiction is? him claiming >> we be like Norway >> while also complaining all politicians are captured by lobbyists except me. Who told you to say that?
>> Lobbyist.
>> What do you think happens when you have all the brain power of a country focused on a pro company? It expands. Ecuador is right up there with the big boys like Chevron and Shell. It's got drilling operations all across the globe. You know what that means? The Norwegian equivalent of David PCO would not be campaigning on multinational pro conglomerate lobbyists are in the ears of politicians. Norway's politicians are multinational pro conglomerate lobbyists. Their parliament is a multinational pro conglomerate headquarters to one of the most successful multinational pro conglomerates in human history, otherwise known as the cuddly socialist utopia of Norway. In Norway, the call is coming from inside the house. So much so that while the rest of Europe is speeding up its transition away from fossil fuels because of the war in Ukraine, Norway is going the other way, increasing their dependence on fossil fuels. as if you're basically MadMax 2 but on Ice. So, the scorch of four of countries, why the [ __ ] wouldn't you?
It's all you know. This is the model we should be following according to the Greens and the big brains on the crossbench that like totally care about the environment. Now, I don't like this argument that the winge merchants use of, oh my god, the government treasury only emit like this much, but they don't count the emissions we export. Yeah, there's a good reason for that. They acknowledge the reason and then immediately moralize over it because moralizing is that pathological to them.
That is how you count emissions as agreed upon by multiple international agreements. If you import those emissions, those are yours. Every country is responsible for their own emissions and that's it. If we started doing what they're flipping out over, you'd be getting all sorts of double counting mishaps. Oh my god, global emissions went up 700 times this year.
No, it was going down coincidentally just before we started counting them this way. Too bad correlation isn't causation. Again, we're following their logic. Let's follow it to its end. You want to include exporting emissions?
Okay. These [ __ ] are complaining that a fifth of Australia's emissions come from exporting fossil fuels overseas. H They're also complaining that we don't have the same revenue stream as a country that emits not 1/if of its own emissions. Not even two- fifths. Not even double. 10 times its own domestic emissions. 10 times.
They're saying we should be like Norway.
They're also complaining that we export 150th of the proportion of their emissions. At least when One Nation voters winge about not getting enough revenue from gas, they're unintentionally consistent when they say more money from gas. Damn. What about climate change perpetuated by Muslim pedophiles? The true logical position.
But all the groovies of the Greens, Poke and Pocs, all using their hive mind of the Australia Institute to virtue signal that Norway shows how Australia can get a fair return from oil and gas while also complaining that a fifth of our emissions are exported from oil and gas.
No point. All marketing. They are playing off the vibe that Norwegians are these superior Nord beings that insane people claim visit them from outer space. I'm not. They actually did visit me and they probed me with a device that felt exactly like human flesh. The reality is, however, Norwegians are human beings. Human beings that have come down with a lick of the Dutch disease and thus plan to keep 95% of their energy production in fossil fuels.
They also plan to expand their production of fossil fuels. A somewhat predictable outcome when your entire country is a gas company. And these are the self-proclaimed concerned climate citizens ideas for a better Australia.
They are not better ideas. They are cons. It's all push me pull use within push me pull you all the way down this rectum of opportunism. Cons that are marketed to you like all cons are that it's just so simple guys. It's so simple. You ever noticed this about the wing merchants? Everything's just so simple. The reason we don't have all the good things in the world is because politicians are corrupt. Except the community independence our billionaire donors pay for. They're not corrupt.
That's why PCO and PCOX Angels voted to keep billionaire money in politics because they're totally not bought by billionaires. Guys, awfully sorry, but the most radical transformation society has seen since the industrial revolution condensing into a couple of decades instead of a couple of centuries is not simple. Sorry. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry they sell you this mythical land that is a pro green wonderland made of chocolate and whale meat located just west of Sanders Workshop, but it doesn't exist. What you'll find at that location is a pro state. Like I said, one or the other.
Pro State, Green Tech Utopia. You can't have both. The reason the Australia Institute pretend you can is because they're the political equivalent of the fire festival organizers with the luxury of never having their scam found out as it'll never actually get built. And it looks like no one's got to bother sifting through their [ __ ] and instead gas up the gas lies on Reddit.
Self-proclaimed critical thinkers that Redditors are. Now, remember those headlines at the beginning? How are they making you feel now? Little queasy, huh?
We're only halfway done. Enter the pool.
You warning this is about level four of Maiden Abyss. This is where the lies go from, oh, isn't this all weird and quirky to this is just disturbing. Like all good propaganda, there is undeniably a kernel of truth here. The idea that we get ripped off for gas, as Nobel laurate Joseph Stiglets put it, >> now in Australia, you have an extra thing, which is you're giving away your natural resources.
>> Yes, Australia does not get a good deal for its gas. That's true. Why the Australia Institute needs to exaggerate that like they're fishermanmen at the dock. I tell you, lads, $215 million in gas given away royaltyfree.
And then the next day, zero royalties charged and $111 billion in West Australian gas sales. Yeah, just so you know, this is another one of their shitty formats. It's just Mr. B swap farming. I got ripped off by $150 billion mixed with Mar's Chanel suit that she keeps mangling into different outfits. It's the same number manipulated in different ways. It's just, oh, this is how much it was specifically from WA. They put different parameters on the same number to give you the impression, oh [ __ ] we exported another 149 billion in gas, but we just exported 111 billion last week. Now, another shitty template they use all the time other than Margie's new suit is, but she's got a new hat. It's the same point, but with a different word. New Australia Institute study shows that nurses pay more in tax than gas. Beer pays more in tax than gas. Hex pays more in tax than gas. All of these comparisons are characteristically deceitful, but I'm really biting my tongue to stop myself going down yet another 20-minute autism hole discussing how particularly scummy the hex comparison is. The upshot is these [ __ ] claim to be economists. Essentially, their modeling is asking chat GPT, what's another specific tax that gets more than one specific tax payer? Yeah, track that one over to PCO. He's the Australia Institute's human teleprompter. I bet we could get him to more gum pays more than docks. No, cuz every sperm is a baby. said it's 400 million babies and every baby has the potential to be a high earning rugby union player. It's a crap factory that generates sensationalist headlines as they know that once it does the rounds on the socials, the Chinese whispers they initiated will naturally debase this already dishonest point to its inevitable meme end. We get no money for our gas. We just give it all away.
>> Really?
>> Yeah. It's all gone. I'd have a hot dog mobile made by Ferrari and I'd win the F1 in my hot dog Ferrari. But I can't cuz Anthony Alani hates me. Can you blame them for thinking this [ __ ] though? When you read in big text, many West Australians will be shocked to realize that a large portion of WA's gas is given away for free. Well, I am shocked, but I'm also not Western Australian. Oh, I wish I was. And I'd probably have skin cancer and be dead.
Yeah, I guess if you ignore company tax, payroll tax, the GST on the supply chain, port charges, stamp duty, and environmental levy. Sure, WA gas is given away. [ __ ] that word is doing a lot of heavy lifting for free. Now, again, I am not saying we get the best deal in the world when it comes to our gas. We clearly don't. But let's talk about what we actually do get for our gas because they sure as [ __ ] never will. According to one of their teal mouthpieces, 66 billion. You remember that because it's impossible in many ways. But for comparison's sake, as the resource lobby frequently complains about, it has to pay around 20 billion.
That's going up, by the way, bigly.
>> We'll get to why, but already it's not nothing, is it? Pog tries to dismiss this figure in an unbelievably dumb way.
We'll get to how utterly stupid his dismissal was in the next video. The Australia Institute seemingly dismisses this figure, I think, by mostly latching on to a single point the Treasury makes, which is that the Treasury distinguishes between the rent you pay for a resource owned by the country and all the other taxes that every other company pays like company tax. And that's fine. They are doing that because it's important for their purposes to distinguish between revenue streams. But the Australia Institute's purposes, they're not exactly the same as the Treasuries, are they? They're interested in generating Mr. Beast titles. Like Aussies pay more on beer than international gas companies pay on tens of billions of dollars WORTH OF GAS. WOO! They're deliberately trying to frame it like gas pays less than beer, which you can only do if you zoom in on one tax, which yay! Well done. You won the game by cheating. Why shouldn't overall tax be counted? What are you suggesting? That all company tax in the budget is mystery ghost money? If you compare it to taxes gas and beer actually pay, it quickly dwarfs beer.
And if you're discounting taxes like company tax, I get why Treasury is doing that, but you you can just replace it with another industry. Aussie shocked to learn that Michelle's peticery isn't paying any tax on the cake it sells.
IT'S DISTRACTING FROM the real con, which is that Michelle isn't French.
Like to put in perspective how much $20 billion is. That's the equivalent of all this nation's federal research and development and paid parental leave with a couple of billion left over. Yeah, it's not the best deal in the world. No one's saying that. But it's also very misleading to use every trick in the book to pretend it's nothing. It is however a very bad comparison when my next winch about the winches is when they say zero royalties charged on $111 billion in WA gas sales as they themselves include in their own dot points around 90% of gas produced in WA is exported as LNG mainly extracted from Commonwealth waters. Commonwealth waters. There you go. A very important piece of context that is deliberately pulled of its significance which really is the standard communication strategy of the Australia Institute. Just throw a children's puzzle at the public with missing pieces. There you go. That's enough of the picture. Royalties aren't paid in Commonwealth waters. Royalties are paid to the states. Commonwealth waters are federal. So saying 56% of gas is given away royalty-free is like exposing that the hotel mini bar doesn't have any teeny liquors and proving that by showing you're safe. If it's in Commonwealth waters, it's not in state boundaries. So no [ __ ] Royalties aren't being charged on $111 billion. What? Are you also pissed off that WA is not chipping in its fair share for Melbourne's airport rail, too? There's one specific exception that they constantly bring up, but that is an exception, and we'll get to why it is not the rule. What they are saying, while deliberately not trying to say it, though, is if gas is taxed onshore, it has to pay royalties. Royalties are attacked somewhere in the area of 10 to 12%. And you pay this tax just for the privilege of drilling the stuff. If it's drilled offshore in Commonwealth waters, you don't pay a tax just for the privilege of drilling it. You pay a tax after the gas project becomes profitable. It's known as the petroleum resource rent tax. You've definitely heard about it as they frequently ignorantly winge about this specific tax. But this is the context the Australian Institute is butchering when they say we give away $215 billion in cash. They're explaining that without the sensationalism. All they'd be saying is I think gas should be taxed before it turns a profit. That's it. Now that argument would have been fair 50 years ago, but the hawk government came up with the PRRT. And let's go into why.
The reason he decided to tax these projects after they turn a profit is because both Labor and Liberal are captured by big gas.
>> Man, their view of the world really is simple. Kids Pluto is more complicated.
Teal Pluto has one suspect and one weapon. The thing I want was killed by big gas using the weapon of corruption.
YAY, I WIN AGAIN. THERE'S ALWAYS THE other option, which is that the Hawk government had a perfectly defensible economic rationale. But as we all know, anytime a politician does something you personally don't like, they're captured.
>> Simple. Just for meaningless context though, the reason Hawk decided to go with a PRRT is if you're paying double the price for an offshore gas project than you are for an onshore gas project, you're lucky. Usually offshore gas is 4 to 10 times the cost. Onshore gas projects range from about a billion to 25 billion. Offshore gas ranges from about 12 billion to 50, well 54 billion.
But who's counting? Certainly not the Australia Institute. Offshore gas takes far longer to build, far longer to be profitable. Like to give you an idea, the Gorgon gas project was discovered in 1980.
It's expected to turn a profit in 2030.
50 [ __ ] years before it makes a sin.
I think the longest onshore project was weightier, which look about a fifth the time. 11 years. And look, it's expected to turn a profit a little over a year later, not 14 like Gorgon. Now, think about that from an 80s petroleum executive's perspective. You're probably thinking, "Yeah, I feel like doing a line already." You're about to convince the investors and the board of a project idea that you have. So, of course, before you do that, COME ON. YOU HAVE TO. YOU need a mountain of coke to climb that mountain.
You are asking them to sink decades into a project that is astronomically more expensive to develop, takes astronomically longer to set up. Then you have to convince them that oh no actually on top of that you also have to pay not royalties royalties of estate projects. This is misleading as [ __ ] You use the right autistic words. The ACTU does when they call for an export tax which we'll get to. But if you have to pay a tax as soon as you hit gas, that's an expense you have to add to an already prohibitively expensive project pushing back the timeline of hitting profit by years. There's not enough coke in the world that would make you confident enough for that pitch. Not that he's not going TO TRY.
What a better time when you could be a highpowered exec and be as high as the DRUMMER FROM FLEETWOOD MAC. It was especially unappealing back then because way more [ __ ] could have gone wrong. As I think it's fair to say that drill technology has somewhat progressed since the 80s see the closest activity available to what you're doing right now when the PRRT was introduced was this friendly George now by VHS mail. The point is, the more disincentives you put on these projects, the less appealing they become. Especially when gas isn't exactly like kangaroo nut sack purses.
It's not just made in Australia.
Remember, Turk Manistan literally has gas to burn. Cue the wingers retort.
This is neoliberal. Any economic argument I don't understand is neoliberalism.
You watch. They'll hop in their little imaginary jet. I'm bored cosplaying being a Norwegian. We're going to take off. We're in Qatar now. Yay! Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake it. They'll argue Qatar gets more money for its gas and produces more gas than any other country in the world. So, of course, they develop our gas field. You're just saying they wouldn't because you're a labor.
Yep. On my own conscious valition. Beats unconsciously shilling for mining magnate Andrew Forest's paid for propaganda like all of our Australia does while smuggly touting. I'm an independent. I'm a grain. I'm a socialist. Oh yeah, I'm sure Karl Marx would be very proud of your ability to see through the matrix. You illiterate cringey [ __ ] Same template as always.
Insert country has insert thing. The problem with insert country this time is that insert country is a Middle Eastern absolute monarchy. This is from the same soy cucks that can't even handle our constitutional monarchy. Mind you, they freak out when King Charles even [ __ ] waves at us. Again, we've already gone through the politics of whyQatar was able to get more for its resources, but long story short, you want Qatari gas prices, you pay the political price that goes with it. I mean, what's their simple view of the world again? The reason we get no money for our gas is because our polies are corrupt. Essentially implying that the reason Qatar Qatar the [ __ ] FIFA [ __ ] get more for their gas is because they're not corrupt. That's what they're implying. Oh, if only we had this upstanding Qatari elite, we too would all be shakes with ball of private zoos and all the Russian hookers we could ever possibly [ __ ] Few problems with that. The first is maths. You'll forgive me for being dubious of anything the Australia Institute says at this point, but let's assume their numbers are correct. And Qatar gets about five times as much for their gas as we do. I don't think five times the revenue in gas is going to go as far in a country that has 90 times the population of Qatar. It's probably not going to stretch to that pet cheetah you want. Qatar has about 300,000 citizens, a bit under the population of CRA, who probably richer than the average Qatari anyway. [ __ ] fat cat dogs. The other 2 million Qataris are like those Russian hookers, slaves. That's really what these self-described socialists feel pure enough to moralize over labor for. If the so-called workers party actually cared about workers like we do, then they'd replicate the slave car system in Red Rising. The reason they don't is because Labour's captured by big gut.
Unlike Qatar, which again, Dutch disease, seeing as Qatar is the closest thing on planet Earth to Jupiter, I would wager it's pretty [ __ ] captured by big gas. This is why insert country has insert thing is my most hated winge merchant argument template. It's not just because we're different countries.
It's also because we're literally different countries. It's far easier to extract gas in Qatar. Qatar's offshore extraction zones aren't as deep. They're not as far out. the seas bedrock that you're drilling into isn't as hard, let alone the fact that you don't have [ __ ] cyclones hurtling at you while you're attempting to do it. Australian offshore gas projects are some of the most difficult to set up and maintain in the world. Guitars are some of the easiest. As a result, to extract the same unit of gas and guitar cost roughly a third less what it does in Australia.
This isn't even including the savings on labor costs as slaves are a bit cheaper than spoiled deep [ __ ] Australians with their best salaries in the world. Thanks to the very party they're constantly [ __ ] on and complaining are ripping us off. THEY'RE [ __ ] RIPPING US OFF.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS even if we actually did put all of our gas money into the federal R&D budget, even if we focus all of that R&D into developing a time machine so that we could go back to the Middle Ages and ensure that the Muslim caliphate extended to Australia in order to make sure that we too became the winter's progressive paradise of a Muslim monarchy slave economy. We're still not getting the same amount of money as Qatar for our gas because it is far easier to extract gas in Qatar full stop. Therefore, even if you're paying Qatar five times more in government revenue than you are in Australia, it is still a far easier cell for the 80s Cokehead executive to pitch a Qatari project than it is an Australian project. As an Australian project is essentially setting up the [ __ ] Crusty Burger on the oil rig in the middle of I mean, don't get me wrong, these are profitable ventures, but there's a ton of profitable ventures that are so much less of a hassle. And so Hawk thought, nah, let's start taxing the venture after it actually turns a dollar so they get built in the first place as it's pretty hard to tax something that doesn't exist. I really hate how the wingers are constantly framing the petroleum resource rent tax as proof that Labour's captured by gas.
Labour fought [ __ ] hard for that. It really is one of the only significant victories the Australian government has ever had over the resource lobby. It wasn't like the petroleum industry was over the moon. Oh, yay. We're getting taxed 40% of our profits. The resource industry viciously campaigned against the PRRT. As we pointed out in this video, this is where the resource industry came up with their playbook of couping any government that tries to tax them further. Labour had two prime ministers couped over this very issue.
And yet in 2025, these billionaire funded puppets with obvious brain damage, heckled from the cheap seats of the crossbench, completely ignorant of the subject that they're laughing as scholarly experts on in insufferable wank festy interviews with commercial hipster bgeoa trash like junkie. Like yeah, there's fair criticisms of the PRRT. In fact, I will give credit to the Australia Institute for pointing out one of them, which is that seeing as it was set up in the age of VHS, oil was all the rage back then, and so oil was front of mind. This meant that the tax deductions you could claim on equipment and exploration searches were looser because the technology used to drill oil was VHS formatted. It is simple in comparison to DVD technology now with lasers.
>> Uh DVD is a gas in this analogy. I like the analogy. Oil is VHS. Gas is DVD. DVD harvesting is a much more complicated affair. And so there's a lot of [ __ ] that you can claim deductions on. And back then it wasn't that big of a deal because there was [ __ ] all interest in gas. But that started changing around the same era as DVDs started phasing out VHS, which was under the DVD prime minister. Yeah, this follows the ironclad law of Australian politics. If there's a problem, it's Howard's fault.
The first thing to keep in mind is that Howard severely weakened the PRRT. In fact, if you actually want a simple breakdown of the PRRT, ask the architect, Dr. Greg Emerson, he set it up. He said in the 2016 review, "The original deductions for exploration activities could be too generous."
That's him saying, "My bad." Not that I blamed him for it. It's like getting angry at Edmund Barton for not foreseeing the transportation clauses in the Australian Constitution should have included provisions for space rockets.
And concessions granted by the Howard government in the mid 2000s may have undermined the regime's integrity. I totally blame Howard for that. That wasn't I don't know this is going to be a thing. That was oh this is a thing.
Let's give it away. To give you one example of Crazy John's madness clearance sales and how ridiculously low the prices were. The area we're mostly talking about the Northwest Shelf. This is the Drew Pavlau of offshore gas. This is the big boy. Howard okayed a deal was over the moon when he did it too. Where the benefactor would only ever have to pay 2002 prices for gas forever. The price of gas has gone up quite a bit since that historical [ __ ] low. and yet they're still getting it for 2002 prices. We have to live with that. We were dumb enough to sign that contract and yes, we elected Howard, we have to live with the consequences. It is rule one of being an adult. Actions have consequences. Sorry. This is why whenever you explain the reason the housing prices are higher is because Howard have the capital gains tax or no we don't get as much as Norway does for gas or migration numbers are high and you explain how it's all Howard's fault and every single time you do the person that you're speaking to has some dumb [ __ ] boomer response of doesn't matter Labour's in there or Labour has like a majority so they can do whatever they want. Here's my Muslim moniker's fantasy. You ready? I wish we could ban anyone that says that from voting.
Statements like that are proof that the person that you are talking to is not mentally over the age of 18. If you cannot grasp that elections are not like shaking an etch sketch, that any current government is dealing with the legacy handed to them from previous governments, then I'm not even sure they're mentally too, let alone an adult. They are not displaying any ability for object permanence, especially when the voting block that propels these grassroots billionaire funded community independents to parliament. Who are they again? Oh, that's right. former Liberal voters who clearly can't admit that they were wrong. That's why everything always has to be marketed to them as both major parties suck. This is the same block that had no problems at all voting for Howard with glee that entire [ __ ] time that he was in. So, no, sorry. This is specifically your mess. You don't get to break international agreements that you were fine with at the time being signed because you saw a Tik Tok. to give you just one very good reason of how purile this entire notion of just slap a royalty on it, mate. Like international resource agreements are as inconsequential as you buming 20 bucks off your mom. You said you'd pay me back this week. NATHANIEL, I'M SAVING UP FOR A GUITAR, YOU [ __ ] WOW. He's ready for the Oh, Nathaniel.
>> This is seriously how they think global development works due to their arrested development. They cannot mentally grasp that if we, as they say, tax gas like Norway. If we did that, we would not be taxing gas like Norway. If we tax gas like Norway, we would be taxing gas like Chad. That's really what their tax gas like Norway bumper stickers should read.
Make the Chad move. And there's no argument here. Chad is Chad. It's hard to understand what the Wingers are actually asking for because I don't think that they themselves do understand what they're asking for. But I do finally understand their endless complaint. Anthony Aani is milk toast, nibbling around the dirt. They're comparing him to some guy that calls himself general butt naked. And yeah, in comparison to a cannibal, elbow is a [ __ ] but by that standard, so is John Gordon, who wanted to start up a stateowned mining company to compete with the resource giants. That was way more [ __ ] than what these brave keyboard warriors on Reddit are clamoring for. It's also far ballsier than what Goff Whittam attempted, which was setting up a fund that buy shares in these mining companies. He got couped for that. These were [ __ ] moves in comparison to what they're demanding of Elbow because they want elbow to have African jungle warlord level balls. They want him to storm the governor general's mansion. There's your new president.
Yeah. And change terms of agreement that have been in place for decades, spanning over multiple governments to whatever the [ __ ] you vaguely vibe is right at the time. I mean, he can do that. Just like you can get a crab to circumcise you with a pizza, but I wouldn't recommend it. After all, shellfish, very unJewish. I mean, Venezuela did it and they didn't get coo mates. Probably a worse idea for us in Venezuela. Oil is a third of Venezuela's GDP. Kind of worth a punch in changing the rules midway for that. But as the Australia Institute itself pointed out, oil and gas was what again? 2-ish% of the GDP. What about the other 98%.
What message does that send to all the nations companies and investors that invest in the other 98% of the Australian economy? I'll tell you what message it sends. [ __ ] that. This is yet another way you can tell that winge merchants aren't actually concerned with securing better policy outcomes for a better Australia. Nor are there any parliamentary mouthpieces who regurgitate the Australia Institute press releases word for word that are as if I was actually concerned with creating a better future for Australia.
You know what would be motivating me more than selling the juvenile fantasy that oh we could totally have a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund guys? Sovereign risk. What they're risking is not just another coup or another 10 years of coalition rule. They are risking our reputation. And I know this sounds lame but that's the most valuable commodity there is. It is though by the numbers. Australia is one of the few places in the world where despite the frequent government changes, investors know that if they sign an agreement with a previous government, it'll be held up and honored by the next government. That is rare on planet Earth. That's the reason Australia receives some of the highest levels of investment in the world. It's the reason we have around 800 billion American dollars parked here. It's because we can offer what very few other nations can trust. We're like a real life fantasy trope of some gay high. Our word is our bond.
Except when it comes to submarines.
That's a very good example of what happens when you do this [ __ ] By the way, when Scott Morrison rat [ __ ] the French in order to sign that sub deal with America, France withdrew their ambassador from Australia, which is another way of saying we're not doing deals with you anymore. And fair enough, we absolutely deserve that. You probably don't know any of this because our press is such pro liberal sims that they reported the liberals trashing our relationship with the EU as yeah nice one go mccron came out publicly and said trust is now broken between France and Australia that made tidal waves across the EU which means the EU no longer sees Australia as a reliable partner. Again, totally fair, completely justified.
Unfortunately, we're in the middle of negotiating a big trade deal with the EU. They stopped negotiating with us over that. You know what was on the line in that deal? $110 billion a year.
That's how much trade is worth between us and the EU. That substant pulled off by SKO delayed negotiations for years.
The EU only started renegotiating with us after Labour got in power. Labour's been fenceing that relationship ever since, but trust is broken. They'd be much more cautious every step of the way, and they have every right to be. I mean, what happens when the Liberals get back in? Or what happens if they reform as one nation with their stated policy of rip UP ALL THE TRADE DEALS? After all, it's just common sense. Now, I've been very critical of Orcus in the past, along with anyone who has a brain. But greater thinkers like Scott Morrison would argue that poisoning our relationship with the EU was worth it in order to extend our already overly generous simpy to the US because they're the world's superpower. Again, I'd like to reiterate, I don't think that, but who am I to argue with someone who was talented enough to hold five federal ministries at once? Multitasker extraordinaire that he is. Still, and I don't say this lightly, Scott Morrison is smarter than the Australia Institute.
Yeah, that's how rotten this supposed building of Australia's greatest thinkers are. They are worse for the country than a guy that set it on fire.
Cancelelling the subs deal, as consequential as it was, is far less consequential than the Australia Institute's Viva Gasolina la revolion.
As if you did that, you wouldn't just be pissing off the EU. You would be pissing off every developed nation on Earth, including the US. the country that just did this [ __ ] It would be different if they were arguing it for exclusively on future projects, but they're clearly not. So, let's deflate all the hot air used to pump up their disciples on socials or regurgitate stupid [ __ ] like we could totally be the richest country in the world, but we're only one of the richest corruption. We will be explaining this in further detail in another video as really all this will arguments have seedmented into basically one talking point which is let's put a 25% export tax on gas that'll generate >> $17 billion >> $17 billion >> $17 billion every year.
>> That's a lie. Their one talking point is an egregious lie. Cisco staging a comeback and generating 17 billion in tax revenue from a whirlwind stadium tour is more likely than us generating 17 billion a year from a gas export tax.
You know why? Cuz the vast majority of our gas is under contract. You know what happens when you break a contract? You get taken to court. When you go to court, not only are you told that you have to honor the contract, you also get fined a huge amount for attempting to breach the contract. Pakistan had to pay around $5 billion for a much smaller scale version of this [ __ ] Very interesting that the Australia Institute and its puppets like POC endlessly use other countries to fuel impossible fantasies about how much money we could be getting for our gas. But when it comes to their actual answers as to how their solutions will get that money, they never use other countries. Never.
Why would you? After all, this is literally false advertising. You don't say the truth in false advertising. That defeats the purpose of false advertising. When confronted with this reality, they'll very squirmly concede like it's the podcast version of fine print. And if you know it is decided that those contracts won't be uh affected by it, we could say all new contracts because a lot of the big contracts actually come up in a few years and you can say all contracts going forward are subject to a 25% gas export tax. There you go. In one long drawn out discussion, no one watches.
Even PCO himself will quickly concede that the $17 billion figure is a scam.
There is no chance in hell you're getting anything close to that figure.
And then it's right back to Tik Tok with >> $17 billion.
>> $17 billion.
>> $17 billion.
>> By the way, you know what David PCO means when he says these contracts will expire in just a few short years. These contracts will expire in the mid 2030s where we will not have the displeasure of getting 17 billion from our gases.
Our major exporters will have moved away from such dangerous fossil fuels altogether. And good. Their entire argument is [ __ ] And the [ __ ] goes deeper. Re- sovereign risk, a point that they pretend only the gas industry talks about when in reality Treasury, the Department of Industry, and the UN talk about it constantly. But if they mention that, then they wouldn't look like heroes. And then what's the point of the false advertising in addressing this massive issue that if you pull this African warlord [ __ ] of going back on your word cuz you reckon you can scrap a few extra guineies for your blood diamonds. Quote, this is from David PCO.
The gas industry has responded to the prospect of reform in the way it always responds with hyperbolic warnings of catastrophe. Investment will dry up.
Trade relationships will be ruptured.
Sovereign risk will be elevated. None of these claims withstand scrutiny. They absolutely do. We already went through why in this video. We will go into it in further detail in the very next video.
But right now, I want you to note that this is him in plain black and white claiming that taxation changes and their repercussions is just fearongering.
Unless you have dementia, you'll probably remember that the very first weekend after the government introduced the capital gains and negative gearing changes. What happened that weekend?
Property investors start to pull out of the market pre-auction. Good. Literally the best news I've ever heard. David's not a fan of the capital gains changes cuz he's the people's champion. He's fighting for you. Quote, "Independent politicians representing some of Australia's startup hotspots have raised alarm over the proposed increase to capital gains tax." Yep. They pulled this same trick when they wanted to block Labour's wages protections. They pretended, "No, I'm blocking it for small business. I'm doing it for the little guy." Here's the important part.
Warning that tax changes could see innovative companies and tech firms move overseas to chase higher rewards. Ah, the exact same argument that he was ridiculing bre the gas tax argument.
He's just uno reversed. Interesting. Get ready. These are his own words. The government needs to do the dead consultation required to get this policy right. So any changes don't drive investment offshore. We need to retain maximum sovereign innovative capability and retain economic benefit here in Australia. There you go. There you go.
As soon as the exact same principle is applied to David's own venture capital mates, all of a sudden, guys, we really have to be mindful of how tax policy affects modern investment. He flips cuz he's a puppet. The only reason you think he's awesome is because he has millions of dollars to spend on convincing you that he's awesome. And he has those millions of dollars because he's a puppet. He just has a set of donors that are mostly in the business of business acquisition. And that's why him and the Boost Juice Lady are on a unity ticket and bitching about businesses getting taxed at the back end when they try to turn their business into a business acquisition. That's all. Everyone's so Americarained now. They all think, "Here's all you need to know about our political system. Liberal is like the Republicans and Labor is like the Democrat." It's an inherently stupid comparison, but if you were going to make it, the Democrats are closer to what it would look like if Labour was forced to be in a permanent coalition with the Teals, which, hey, what a coincidence, is exactly what they're pushing for all the time with a strong crossbench. The Teals are the [ __ ] corporate Democrats that all the US commentators never stop complaining about. They're not ashamed of it. If you compared any teal to Hillary Clinton, they'd all gush, "Yes, I suppose I am a strong independent woman, aren't I?"
That caricature of people have in their heads that the two major parties here are just representatives of competing billionaires happy to fling [ __ ] at one another's donors while silent on their own. That is far closer to the truth of the United States. And here you have clear-cut evidence of that [ __ ] creeping into Australia under the abhorrent lie that some of the most compromised politicians in parliament are in fact independents. Here you have David PCO slagging off the representatives of one faction of billionaires and then pulling their exact same line when it comes to protecting his own faction of billionaires. And yet everyone sees him as this sort of bold Bernie Sanders figure when we've got a government in power that accomplished literally everything Bernie campaigns on in the [ __ ] 80s. Yeah, Americans that are viewing we're that dumb. We see our Hillary Clinton as our Bernie Sanders.
Never forget that he cares about sovereign risk when it affects his mates, he doesn't care about sovereign risk when it doesn't affect his mates.
But while the concept of sovereign risk is fresh on your mind, unless you feel like having a tug again, do you need some more Australia Institute pictures to go to? Yeah. Oh yeah. You know how recently we were pointing out that Adelaide is poised to be the greatest Australian city of the 21st century? I mean, who the [ __ ] would have ever guessed that in the 20th, eh? I told you the wheel always turns. Two reasons for that, though. First reason being that data centers and AI firms are opening up shop there and that is because it's safe. South Australia is basically as much of a one party state as China is and so business knows that if they sign a contract with the government there it will be honored. So if you want to break that contract, you got to take it up with the chairman and his six chief adviserss. The second reason Adelaide is set up to be Australia Singapore is because they're not as stupid as the rest of us. Because they are a one party Labor state. They were able to invest in all the technologies of the future while the rest of us squandered a decade voting for this [ __ ] That's why South Australia is making so much money that they don't even know what to do with it now. It's because they implemented a mini future made in Australia 10 years ago. Emphasis on mini. There is no way the winch merchants would ever be able to comprehend the real play here and that is the national hydrogen strategy. This actually does deliver the confused paradoxical turd the Australia Institute repeatedly polishes of yeah, you can totally be a clean guitar. You can totally get rich off of exporting gas and not export gas at the same time. The Australian Institute really should change its name to Australia Schroinger's box. While they're out there dangling gas in front of people like it's keys for a baby. If you weren't distracted by the jangling, you'd realize that we are currently living through the dying days of DVDs.
You know how much investment there was in gas over the last decade in a smidge?
400 billion. You know how much is expected to be invested this decade? Me either cuz I can't see into the future like Foxes Chris Angel. But I wouldn't be surprised it have even hit a quarter of that seeing as we're about halfway through this decade and it's barely picked a 10th. It's currently around 40 billion. You know how much has been invested in hydrogen alone? 200 billion.
And that was in 2024. You know when the first big hydrogen investment was 2021.
This 3-year-old toddler is already running laps around its 100-year-old granddaddy. You know what that says to me? Granddaddy's dying. See, the world has to replace gas with hydrogen regardless of the growing pains. If it doesn't, there is no world. That's quite the motivator. As such, it's happening at a crack pace at these county fair.
Morons are too slow to realize just past them while they're still in the rear view clucking and mooing about what is essentially whale oil at this point.
Right while we are about to enter the age of streaming. And unlike in the age of DVDs, in the age of streaming, we actually can be like guitar. That's because unlike our petroleum resources that are some of the hardest to access in the world, our renewable resources are some of the easiest. This is why before we even had the national hydrogen strategy, we had a fifth 20% of the world's hydrogen investments right here.
See, this is what a serious plan for the future looks like. as opposed to this incoherent [ __ ] bag of billionaire funded cons. 34 targeted measurable actions already being implemented by one of the most efficient bureaucracies in the world who have been empowered by a government willing to fight for future made in Australia. As understand this, hydrogen is just one part of Labour's future made in Australia policy. That's how much bigger Labour's thinking is on this than these piss ants. The wage merchants are looking at kids toothpaste and thinking, "Wow, the universe is so sparkly." This is actually the universe and that universe is a side project within the multiverse. Labour's playing around in that. And yet you have these endless slew of barely literate top brain Redditors squealing like the intellectual swine they are. No look at the toothpaste. Get in a bum fight over the children's toothpaste. Do you understand what I'm saying? [ __ ] getting in a bum fight with Turk Menistan for a position in the top 10. We could be number one. Numero uno Netflix in the age of streaming the world's largest exporter of hydrogen and other green energies. Why? That actually would make us clean guitar, wouldn't it? Do you understand? I don't think you do. I don't think you truly grasp how big this is. Just like when the world transitioned from VHS to DVDs, gas opened up economic possibilities and technological innovations that simply were not possible when the world was running on oil. Green energies like hydrogen will do that to the economy again on crack. the technological and economic possibilities that they open up not just for our core industries like steel, cement, fertilizers, and a bunch of other metals worthy of a video in themselves, but that doesn't even count the innovations that we don't even know are possible yet. And those possibilities pale in comparison to the possibilities that it opens up for our three biggest customers, which will be South Korea, Japan, and China. We cannot even begin to imagine how green energies are going to revolutionize their car manufacturing, electronics, and microchips industries. But I'll tell you one thing, revolutionize them, they will. And every time we've done a favor to those three, they've paid us back in kind. Yes, I count selling iron to the Japanese that they fashioned into bullets and shot us with World War II as a kind of payback. Now, I understand that it is hard to remember this in the day-to-day struggle. But you are living one of the best existences in all of human history. Even if you're on the dole, you have access to a level of wealth that King George the 6 would have been jealous of. He would have been stoked over. Well, you've got an air fryer bitching. I mean, yeah, we're not the boomers, but in many ways, they're not us. See, when you think about quality of life, you tend to think of things like Medicare and wages. That's part of it. But your furniture, laptops, clothes, cars, even if you don't have a car and you catch a bus, that's all access to a standard of living unavailable to any previous generation.
And that all comes down to two things.
One, Whitam opened up trade with East Asia. Two, Bob Hawk opened up our markets. Imagine how they are going to repay the country that powers the Asian century when they did that for us in their century of humiliation. They'll be kissing us on the lips like American presidents are forced to kiss the Saudis now. They'll have to because like Saudi Arabia was in the 20th century, we will be the engine of the 21st century's global economy. You like that future?
Does that sound nice? It's far from guaranteed. Snap. Back to reality. It is far from inevitable. Just like the wealth you currently enjoy, that also wasn't guaranteed. That was the result of deliberate decisions made by Bob Hawk and Paul Keading in the 80s having a consecutive decade and a half to implement this [ __ ] Tories wouldn't have done it. If the Tories were in charge in that decade, you know what your life would look like now? An Americans. Huh? I'd trade my life for that. Well, as a YouTuber, I would. 10 times the audience for saying over and over on Twitch, "Yo, Chad, you think I should manicure my balls?" My life actually would be better if I was an American. Yours wouldn't really. That's just a small glimpse into what is actually going on here, though.
Albanesey's out there trying to make us Netflix in the age of streaming. These piglets on the crossbench are squealing.
No, here's the big move. Waste all your political capital getting in a [ __ ] bite with the resource industry that you lose again this time when DVDs are on the air. How smart's that? That's right.
Here's the big galaxy brain move. Extend the lease on one of the last video easies. Get out the old overdue fees list. Get in a [ __ ] fight with that dwindling customer base over a couple of pennies. That's the big idea for the future. A petty argument based on the past. Like we're the [ __ ] Balkans arguing over Yugoslavia. I tell you, I spend a lot of time being utterly shocked at how stupid the winge merchants are. And yet, every time I do one of these in-depth videos thinking about their arguments, it I reach new levels of befuddlement. I mean, for starters, you know who one of those existing Video Easy customers is.
Remember that particularly egregious agreement Howard signed on the Northwest shelf? I deliberately left vague who the benefactor was for the purposes of a dramatic reveal. And no, this isn't even my big reveal that I've banked in my gas reservation, but it was China. China is the benefactor of the [ __ ] deal that Howard signed. They want us to act like Somali pirates to our biggest trading partner by a mile projected only to get bigger and bigger in the [ __ ] Asian century. I mean, it's not exactly pissing off France, is it? Especially when, don't worry, the liberals also damaged our relationship with China, too. Remember when Scott Morrison was unnecessarily being a dick to China and so they gave us even minor trade sanctions which again totally deserved.
You know how much those ended up affecting about 50 billion a year? 50 billion. That was the price of minor trade infringements. And you want to [ __ ] with their supply that they earned in a completely legitimate manner. We were stupid enough to sign that agreement. That is on us. But now that we've zoomed out just a tiny bit, do you see the torgery insignificant [ __ ] this billionaire funded nexus gets you to focus on? Parenting the Australian Institute's points really is no different to when you used to regurgitate as a 5-year-old. That one stat. Cocoa Pops has five essential vitamins and minerals. You have to get it, Mom. It's good for you. Oh, I'm sure there is. I'm also sure there's a bit more to the story than that one stat that Cocoa Pops wants you to focus on. I mean, we all did it. I did it, too. But after someone explains what is really going on here and you keep paring, I mean, it it really is like you being an adult and yelling, "I STILL WANT COCOA POPS FOR BREAKFAST, MOM." YOU'D HAVE TO be a bit of a special K, wouldn't you?
Like, let's put aside all the impossible fantasies the wingers dimly spin about us not getting as much for our gas asQatara and Norway. Let's put aside their ideas that they've offered that are completely unworkable. Let's focus on that one big idea that they get over $10 million a year to push. tens of millions of dollars worth of press, all focusing on that one idea that they could actually implement. Yes, this is the big reveal. When Labour put a 90% cap on the PRRT expense deductions, they whed that it should have been 60%.
That's it. That's all you're left with once you deflate all the lies. Keep in mind, this is the go-to source for the whole Labor just nibbles around the edges crowd. They think a huge truly generation definfining fight is slightly reforming one tax that's already been reformed. I mean, that's the definition of nibbling around the edges. How low IQ can you get? They want all of what we just went through jeopardized for that [ __ ] ass adjustment on one tax. One that will net us, drum roll again. This is according to the Australia Institute's own figures of little under $2 billion a year. 2 billion. This is what the Australia Institute are using their well-funded network of politicians and influencers to rile up [ __ ] on Reddit and Tik Tok over. Countless [ __ ] articles published in the press, demonizing Labour as they're trying to explain through the kaleidoscope that is our nation's extremely hostile, disinterested press what an actual grand vision of the future looks like to this Mad Max hellscape of a nation. Literally just a bunch of war boys in the desert obsessing with securing Cash Town. No, you pale [ __ ] This is the true Valhalla. Tens of trillions of dollars of clean economic activity that we could be responsible for globally. And all the while you have these billionaire funded low lives puncturing Labour's tires, pumping up that same billionaire funded presses [ __ ] and jangling [ __ ] baby keys in front of the public for $2 billion. It's evil, right? This is evil.
future generation robbing stuff. But seeing as the baby keys jangle is so deafening, let's zoom back from the multiverse back into the universe. Can we stop maybe at the solar system? No, even that's too big. The Australia Institute's idea of gas is a mobile model of a solar system that you hang over a baby's crib. And if you really care about those pennies that much in reality, there's really very few avenues available for getting any more revenue out of gas. And isn't it astonishing that all these billionaire funded simps want you to focus on one reform the PRRT over and over again? Labor already did reform the PRRT. And because those reforms didn't go so far as to create serious sovereign degradation, how do you think the winters took it? Well, let's turn the baby monitor on in the crib. And oh, it's a tantrum. Wow, who'd have guessed? The Green said. The government's proposed changes to the petroleum resources rent tax will see revenue go down, not up, and shows the Labour Party are being used as a tool of the Gash cartel. It's the Green's version of putting the generic dear sir/madam at the front of every leader head, isn't it? Labour's insert reform is worse than the status quo. Worse never explains how. There's a reason for that. They're lying. You know how you can tell? You know who voted for these reforms that were worse than nothing?
The Greens. As always, once they could extract maximum media exposure for labors captured by the gas industry, they voted for these captured by the gas industry reforms. Funny that same parliamentary games as always. Hold up legislation. Get media exposure for holding up legislation. Confirm in your voters's minds that you holding up progress because that makes you progressive somehow. Voters don't read profit. Thankfully, Reddit's favorite golden child, the bold Asian, former rugby union player crashing through with the hard trees. In the last parliament, Labour looked at the pay double latte.
They had a range of options and they went with the very weakest one and got that through with the grains. Oh yeah, I'm sure he actually read these reforms and isn't doing what his entire career is predicated off, which is regurgitating Australia Institute talking points on Senate committees.
After all, you've got a lot of free time for the gym if you get lobbyists to write your speeches about how lobbyists are bad. You tell me if this sounds like Labour went with the weakest option. The review came up with 11 recommendations.
Labour adopted eight. Labour also committed to implementing eight other recommendations that were accepted by the Liberals in a previous review, but I mean they snake China in the EU. It's not exactly out of the wheelhouse of the Liberals to snake the Australian public, is it? So, just off the bat, they accepted 16 out of 23 recommendations of two reviews. Does that sound like the weakest option? You know what all these adoptions included? Streamlining the process of qualifying what is and isn't taxable so gas companies pay tax quicker and save the Treasury admin costs.
Giving the tax commission the power to say, "No, no, very sneaky. You've got two operations running in one area. So, you're going to get taxed for both as opposed to what the gas companies could previously say, which was it's one operation. [ __ ] off. Strengthen the gas tax avoidance measures. Does that sound like the weakest option? I mean, [ __ ] me. Almost all the recommendations the Liberals didn't deliver on but Labour are about strengthening tax avoidance in the PRRT. Sure, PCO has his supporters.
Tax specialist Steven Hamilton, an assistant professor of economics at the George Washington University, said that the changes detailed by the treasurer Jim Charmers in the budget were mostly cosmetic. Tax specialist Steven Hamilton. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, that's right. Fat Hitler. I remember that fat little interimage. Fat Hitler's also not a fan of Labour closing the loopholes in superanuation taxes on billionaires, just like the Teals aren't. Hey, Fat Hitler also works for the Teal's favorite publication, the Finn Review. Wow. You hear endless yammering from the Australia Institute about how Labour only dared to double the amount of tax that we're getting from the PR. Doesn't mean that the tax went through two very measured parliamentary reviews. No, it means that they're captured by gas because they don't agree with David PCO's bold agenda of slightly reforming that tax a little bit more. You know what they don't spend a scent on highlighting though? Labor taxing every big business in the world.
I'd love to see how the wingers on Reddit will attempt to square Labour going after every industry in the world to somehow milk toast and nibbling around the edges while they, the truly enlightened dank ones, are actually very based for only wanting one industry properly taxed. Even when they've backed themselves into that small of a corner, though, they still don't have any reason to actually win. You know how much Labour's taxed the gas industry specifically in the same year that they're all shrieking about Labour not taxing the gas industry? 16.2 billion.
They tripled it over the estimates. The Australia Institute Nexus just decided that those taxes don't count because it's inconvenient to their framing of screeching about half of that amount.
It's incredible to me that even when you focus on the one [ __ ] baby model of the solar system that the Australia Institute get their crowd to focus on, Labour's killing them even on that. I mean, if you actually cared about the gas industry being taxed, which they very clearly don't, surely they point out to their Reddit rabble that the PRRT was part of a wider suite of reforms that included the Exis, the corporate tax crackdowns. No, they ignore that cuz they actually care about this issue, guys. Can we move out of the baby solar system now? Can we look at the galaxy?
This is better than Sky News stuck on flat earth. Corporate tax evasion is the biggest government revenue battle by a mile. Half a trillion in unpaid corporate taxes a year globally. Guess who's leading that global fight? Labor.
You know that pov countries like the Philippines and Cambodia now have the tools to actually track down how much tax is owed to them for the first time in history. That's because of Labor. To do that, they took on not just every major corporation in the world, but nearly every major country. Both Trump and the EU told Australia, "Back down."
Labor did not. But according to these to progressives, Labour's nibbling around the edges because they didn't get $2 billion of tax in the way they wanted.
Just so you know what they're keeping from you, let's compare what Labour's clawed back domestically going after corporate tax evasion versus them bitching and moaning about a single [ __ ] tax that's already been reformed. The Australia Institute reckons they could have got $7.8 billion over four years. Again, debatable, but as opposed to the rest of their outright forgery, this argument feels like it was said by Mr. Cannot tell a lie himself.
I'll even round it up for them to make it sporting. 2 billion a year. Let's give them that. Very early on in Labour's first term, they gave the ATO extra funding to crack down on tax avoidance. Couple of years in, the ATO claws back 6.4 billion in corporate tax evasion. First year, we're already nearly beating the Australia Institute's one big idea. Next year, 5.7 billion in corporate tax evasion. What are we on?
12 billion, nearly doubling what the Australia Institute pats itself on the back for, estimating it could get.
Labour gets it in the real world. Here's how much of a handicap we have. We don't even know what we're going to get in the last year because the numbers aren't even out. Don't need it because in the third year, the ATO secured 10 billion from cracking down on corporate tax evasion. Another 8.6 billion from getting them to comply properly in the first place. Tally 30.6 billion. In fact, the only reason I had to use last year's figures like that is because I couldn't find the specific number on corporate tax evasion. This figure is based on a myriad of ways that organized crime and corporations avoid tax. So, using those numbers, which you absolutely can, they've clawed back around $60 billion. With a spare year, $60 billion in the real world, in the same time these pricks are driving around the country in their big [ __ ] truck, pretending Labour's done nothing, and is using a completely madeup $68 billion figure to justify that.
Meanwhile, Labour claws back a very comparable amount. Crickets. Very odd that a think tank funded by billionaires and the so-called independent politicians that are also funded by billionaires all want you to focus on a couple of billion dollars that supposedly is not being paid by a single industry. Well, endlessly demonizing a party that is clawing back tens of billions in unpaid taxes to the point that Australia collected more tax than any other OECD nation. Yet another incredible accomplishment that they get no credit for. Just endless bitching that they're captured. Also not just leading the world in collecting more tax from every industry, gas captioned.
>> In fact, Labour has reclaimed the most tax money ever out of gas and fossil fuel corporations in all of Australia's history. And yet, this is all you see on the news. Odd. Odd the corporate media doesn't want you focusing on any of the stats that we just went through. Odd that the Australia Institute don't want you to focus on any of those stats either. In fact, that tax money doesn't count. No, only one specific tax does.
Not the one that all the corporations have to pay. Hm. Could it perhaps be that the donors of PCO and PCOX Angels get their money from industries other than gas and that those industries are getting slugged by Labour's crackdown on all corporate tax evasion and that's why they want to make gas a scapegoat as the only research this think tank does that actually does matter is polling. And they've discovered from their polling that zoomers and millennials are highly dubious of the billionaires. And so they've realized that if you want politicians that are paid by billionaires to get elected, you have to give off [ __ ] the billionaire vibes.
Once the politician has said that, they can continue doing the bidding of billionaires once they're in. As they've also discovered that millennials and zoomers can't pay attention to anything longer than a Tik Tok, it's easy to verify. It's an old loss art knowing as looking at their actions. While they consistently say on Tik Tok, "We need to get rid of billionaire influence in politics." The vibe, in reality, Labour offered some of the cleanest elections in the world, drastically reducing the influence of billionaires in elections.
and the we need billionaire influence out of politics community independents voted to keep billionaire money in politics. Coincidentally, they get vast amounts of money from billionaires. I'd say actions speak louder than words. But judging by the fact that David PCO, thanks to said billionaires, can afford marketers to make sick Instagram reels for him saying that he hates billionaires. They clearly don't. I don't think we'll ever know where the Australia Institute's near $11 million a year comes from. But I can tell you one thing, it ain't all coming from small-time donors. Not even close. This channel would have to be one of the largest small-time donor operations in the country. And I would kill for an operation budget that is even onetenth the size of the Australia Institutes. In fact, to get to where we are, someone [ __ ] did. I'm telling you now, in a country as small as Australia, you cannot get to 10 million a year even on corporate money. They couldn't even afford to pay Kyle Sanderlands that kind of cash, let alone this charismalous rotting peanut. Like to put in perspective what a ridiculous amount of money $11 million a year is for a country like Australia. They get more money in donations on average than Labor. Think about that. The party they relentlessly paint as a dirty compromised major. Even though the largest chunk of their funding comes from unions, a [ __ ] major party that has to campaign in 150 seats gets less than the Australia Institute does to make shitty little infographics. To put that money further in perspective, the Australia Institute are within striking distance of the Liberal Party. They get within the range of what the Liberals get in donations. There is only two ways in this country that you get that much money. You either get it through unions or you get it through billionaires. And I can guarantee you one thing. Liberals and the Australia Institute ain't getting that through the unions. You know what the dead giveaway is? The Australia Institute is not proud of where they are getting their money from.
Ever the height of hypocrisy that they are while claiming that they need more transparency and politics. They're ky as [ __ ] about who's writing these checks.
And honestly, what the [ __ ] is even their argument at this point? We need transparency in politics, but us being a political think tank isn't politics.
It's God's work. Reading how they talk about themselves, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they actually think. They're also a charity which gives them all sorts of tax exemptions.
While they never shut the [ __ ] up about rich men getting tax exemptions, I can guarantee you those tax exemptions that they exploit have made a few of their men very rich. This is all to say there is no chance in hell that this money is from the community. This is Twiggy money. Probably a few other nefarious big whale donors that are more adept at staying in the shadows, but I'll bet any money Twiggy is their patron saint. You can tell from the shameless singing this progressive think tank pumps out for a [ __ ] mining magdate. Oh my god, he's so carbon friendly. Guys, Twiggy hates the safeguard mechanism cuz it's like not good enough. I'll spare you another 20-minute autism hole. It's more good policy that the green shhat on and delayed for marketing purposes. But what they meant this time by it's not good enough is it's not good enough for Twiggy's business model. And so coincidentally, the wingers also hated the safeguard mechanism. Fancy that. Not blatant enough. How's this? Is our government less nature positive than a mining magnet? I mean, do I really need to add anything? That says it all, doesn't it? This is not a think tank.
This is a PR firm. It's a PR firm churning out propaganda about this supposed big secret that is being kept from you despite it being blared in the new media, old media, and politicians that supposedly do politics differently.
There's only one thing being done differently here, and that's doing politics for Twiggy instead of Gina. I guess also that the propaganda is being fed to the Sydney Morning Herald and Reddit Crown as opposed to the Sky News and Excroud. And can we just sit back in awe and truly appreciate what a beautiful piece of propaganda the we get no gas money is? You know what it is?
You want to know what the actual big dirty secret the mining industry doesn't want you to know really is. This is nothing but a faction of the mining industry waring with another faction of the mining industry. That's all the gas they're paying for this as a scop because they're in a civil war. They've had a pretty simple arrangement since federation. Get behind the anti- labor block. Keep labor out of government.
Extract nations resources. Profit simple. The problem is the politics are changing because the climate is changing. As such, the global economy is changing with it. Reinhardt's faction doesn't want it to change. They want to stick their heads in the WA sand and pretend that it's not happening. They're hopelessly exposed to the green tech future. Far too much of their wealth is bogged down in DVDs and not even VHS cassette. As such, as we showed in Gina's big Christmas bash, she wants her press monkeys and her parliamentary puppets. There they are. Good day, Barnaby. Merry Christmas, Pauline. They want to kill Labour's transition into the green tech future under the misguided, utterly purile fantasy that that will somehow freeze the rest of the world in the 20th century. It won't. The world will march on. And if we don't march with it, all that will happen is Australia will be left behind and become the 21st century Argentina, a hopelessly uncompetitive economy producing undesirable goods, which like Argentina's tiny elite, that serves that tiny elite just fine. But it doesn't serve the Twiggy faction. Twiggy's faction of the mining industry along with teal sugar daddies like Simon Holmes Accord and Pocco sugar daddy Mike Cannon Brooks they understand that the green tech revolution is coming whether we like it or not and therefore unlike Reinhardt's faction they don't want to kill the future no much like the billionaire in Chinatown Twiggy wants to own it that is why politics is being done differently that is why you are seeing this sudden swell of grassroots support for billionaire funded community independence it's because unfortunately for Twiggy's faction they've got to go along with their natural enemy, Labor.
This is because the original anti-Labor block, One Nation, the Coalition, they're all sewn up by Gina, who wants Labour's future made in Australia, killed. Twiggy's faction doesn't. They want to kill elements of future made in Australia that don't benefit them. They want a future tailored in Australia for them. This is why there's this sudden endless drone from the press about why a crossbench is so vital and important. I mean, just think about currently how omnipotent this single talking point is that you're getting ripped off by big dash. Have you ever stopped to think about why you're so animated by the idea of collecting more government revenue in a very specific industry and in a particularly specific way? Why is that more important to you than I don't know, wages? Like, forget about Labor collectively getting more government revenue from every industry overall, even Labour collecting more revenue from the very specific industry everyone claims to care about so much. But both of those points, apparently no one cares about them. Or by coincidence, they only care about one industry getting taxed in one way. Undeniable proof. They all claim that Labor is captured by billionaires and doing the bidding of billionaires. Because after two parliamentary inquiries that invited the console of a range of experts, Labour decided to collect more money in exactly the way you wanted. They increased the PRRT. because it's not as much money as the way that a billionaire funded think tank thinks it could be collected that is routinely and profoundly dishonest.
Nah, Labour's working for the billionaires. Not the think tank that factually is working for the billionaires. Labor. Why is it not even a mitigating factor that Labour spent a good chunk of the last term fighting the billionaires? That's right. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means they literally don't have $10 million a year to market what they did. Labour clawed back tens of billions of your stolen wages from billionaires. Let's be very clear about this. Labour's historic industrial relations reforms are worth far more than the Australia Institute's pissand adjustments to the PRRT. And bonus, all that money goes to you. Those are your stolen wages that they got back from billionaires. How did the [ __ ] the billionaires independents vote on Labour's IR reforms again? Oh, that's right. They voted against you getting the money that you were owed. They voted for billionaires continuing to literally rob you. At the very least, they frustrated watered down Labour's laws in the middle of a cost of living crisis, but they're fighting for you. You came to that conclusion yourself, did you?
You came to the conclusion that Labour's corrupt because they won't take money out of Gina's pockets and put it into Twiggy's pockets, even though they did.
Further, when they then took money out of Twiggy's pockets and put it into yours, while the self-anointed corruption watchdog independents wanted that money to stay in Twiggy's pockets, Labour's working for the billionaires while these billionaire funded community independents are working for you. You think that? Do you think you might have been manipulated? Do you think that the core voting block of the so-called community independents really give a [ __ ] about collecting revenue from resources? Remember what the community independents really are? They're Malcolm Turble Liberals. But she's got a new hat. These barely closeted liberals who act so high and mighty like they're so much better than the dirty majors. Used to be a core voting block of the Liberals who gleefully voted against Rudd when he was pushing for the super profits tax. Dancing in the street when he lost to Tony Abbott who couldn't wait to ax the super profits tax. Couldn't give a [ __ ] then, but now they care.
What? They had a road to Damascus moment in the last couple of years, did they?
Well, if that's the case, why didn't the entire win merchant nexus lend some of their ridiculous amounts of money and resources to supporting Steven Miles, who faced electoral oblivion for factually putting a super profits tax on coal? In the real world, Labour risked the Queensland government. These posers risked nothing by going on TikTok and saying, "Tax him more." While Stevens getting marched to the gallows, they couldn't even lend a single winge, a single shout out about someone achieving what they constantly virtue signal that they want. Virtue prop. Taxing gas like Norway is a fiction that they sell the public because it makes them sound good.
If you want to know what the real big dirty secret is, the one that the winge merchants are constantly actually hiding from you. There is something that terrifies the resource industry even more than tax. That's the thought of a mining industry that's unionized. The Australia Institute can come up with all the billionaire funded propaganda to make it look like labor's controlled by the billionaires. It doesn't change the fact that the real evil dark forces controlling Labor are unions. This is why there is that old saying that there is a Labour party and the rest of them.
It is as true now as it was 100 years ago. The blocks might change, but the game stays the same. Here's really all you need to know about current federal parliament. Reinhardt's faction wants the future to be brown. Twiggy's faction wants the future to be green. Labour's faction wants the future to be green and blue. Green money, blue collars. Labour sees the emerging green global economy as an opportunity to improve the material conditions of the working class, to make them more educated, to expand their earning power, to lift the worker standard of living and get a cut of the green money that they are nobly going to create. That's the part Twiggy's faction doesn't like. That's why he's funding this giant winge merchant machine to drown out what really is the most exciting, grandest vision of Australia since the Hawkeyeing era. I would argue it's far more optimistic as well. Big call seeing his hawk and Keading's vision was about transforming us from a sheep paddic to envy of the world. But this is about transforming us from envy of the world to energy superpower. The Saudi Arabia of the 21st century that will save the world instead of damning it to hell.
That's Labour's vision. Don't tell me they're nibbling around the edges while you whine about minally adjusting an already adjusted single tax. The real big dirty secret when it comes to gas is the gas industry isn't the only industry that profits off of hot air.
Related Videos
The #1 Reason Your Top People Keep Leaving (How to Fix It)
Entreleadership
470 views•2026-05-29
What Happens After A Motorcycle Dealership Shuts Down?
FastestWay.1
374 views•2026-05-29
The Evolution of DSP's Pokemon Unpack-ack-acking Grift
Toxicity_Unmasked
2K views•2026-05-29
Help re-structure my finances, I want to buy a house, save and invest
JennNxumalo
2K views•2026-05-29
Asian Paints Q4 Results: Revenue Beats Estimates, 5 Key Takeaways For Investors
NDTVProfitIndia
111 views•2026-05-29
Trying to Afford Vancouver on a Single Income | $2,550 Mortgage
chelseaspursuit
308 views•2026-05-28
Are you busy but still feeling broke?
TaraWagner
305 views•2026-06-01
7 Nigerian Stocks That Could Explode Because of Dangote Refinery IPO
femiakinwale9269
478 views•2026-05-29
