i think we're already starting to see that a lot of medical professionals do hold the lancet in very high regard. and we've even seen already people asking to be removed from, you know, from their list taken off of their subscriptions. and i think this comes at a very unfortunate time because with the pandemic, we are increasingly seeing americans, especially very skeptical of the medical community, essentially putting politics before the science and the cdc, the f d. a we've seen flip flopping when it comes to code restrictions and regulations. and i think all this does is contribute to the narrative that medical professionals, scientists, in general, are not the objective stalwarts we may have once believed them to be. they like, anyone else are, are able to be almost subverted by political ideologies. and just finally, we're talking about language here. closing offensive language evolves continuously . is it time for us to just, you know, rip up the dictionary all most and sit down and come with a whole new set of words that will not offend anybody?

i don't think it's possible in 2021, sadly to not offend anybody. and although language very often does evolve naturally it's, it's constantly changing. what i think it's important to note is that historically, that's happened organically, from the ground up. a lot of these attempts to change language, whether it comes in the form of bodies with vagina or birth birthing persons. this is a concerted attempt by a select few to control the language of others. so it's something very different than slaying. naturally adapting or the vernacular, naturally changing over years in decades. this is a considered attempt to control language. and frankly, we've seen in the past even, you know, progressive activists arguing amongst themselves as to what is considered the most inclusive and accepting language. so i think at a certain point, we just have to accept that these people are going to be perpetually offended and there is no use trying to change the way we speak to appease them because they will never be appeased or pleasure to speak to appreciate your time i guess lauren chan, a podcast and right. thank you. and thank you to you guys to

stay with me. i hope for the last half an hour will return updates on our biggest stories in 30 minutes of to see them. ah, the many countries in the western world are grappling with such issues as illegal immigration in the energy insecurity. unremarkable if there is always a single root cause, a party to blame. and that is russia also. iraq stepped out on the world late to the big way ending its isolation, rather driven by a dreamer shaped by concur. those in

me dares think we dare to ask me. ah ah, the news i'm after it says here we're going underground. broadcasting the stories drowned

out by mainstream media noise coming up in the show. as the u. k. in the u. s. meant a deal with australia nuclear submarines at the expense of france. we ask the australian director of the nobel peace prize winning international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. if this could be the opening salvo of the war on china, and as suspicions rise about tax bailouts for ever granted. like black rock, we speak to one former managing director, fighting trickle down economics for the rights of many to pay more taxes or more coming up in today's going underground. at 1st, at the un general assembly, which finishes today in new york, us president joe biden said bombs and bullets can defend against coven 19 or future variance. but that hasn't stopped minting a new security packed with the u. k. to straightly to build a fleet of nuclear submarines while un secretary general antonio terrorist warns of a new cold war, what will be the true cost further western nuclear proliferation. joining me now from sidney is the australian director of the nobel peace prize winning

international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. jim ramos, thanks so much jim for coming on as the australian director. i'm going to ask you, 1st of all, what your reaction was when you 1st heard about the submarine deal. probably expressions a bit like president macro, but for different reasons. maybe. yeah, shocks and my be honest, complex, you know, doesn't really make sense. and you've been very great on attention it's not a real motivation behind it. and we are in election week in the next month. so, you know, we, i think that it's stage will continue to monitor and they won't come out the negotiating period to now the wrong deal,

specifically about the nuclear element. but away from the politics. there was a deal anyway with france is a concern that allegedly u. k u s. heidi in which uranium is 93 to 97 percent, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. yeah, that's right, and this is actually i'm creeping into or a country. sure. why nuclear for tell summary, when it doesn't have your weapons, we would be the only country to do. and if it's a serious concern for the not the fraction and by god frame because we'd be looking at probably in quoting us where you raise highlander. right in as you said, and that's, that's. d right material we would be exploiting other poli,

in the fraction treaty which hasn't happened before. and we said it's very much something that would provide other countries you might to get out summary as well. and of course, that re unraveling locally for nonproliferation regime and our content will know what it made for the future. we know that the prime minister currently he's not faking to develop a domestic and all that good that we want more than that. he's why don't we want to say that's really commit to do that, and that's the heart of another country. and we think the best way for them to do that is to ratify the treaty on the yeah, you have the treaty behind you there on the wall, but as you say, it's got morrison said we will continue to meet our nonproliferation treaty

obligations. so, i mean on the face of it and nothing in here and certainly that is what the bar is . johnson joe biden, the loan, scott morrison say is this has nothing to do with the n p t. yeah, well that's one of condition opposition has put on this deal with relists to make sure that it's compliant to be. but there are many expert and commentators that up already hand or a boss and i think will be interested well. and when there is great k, the amount of material uranium around in the world. increasing the number of how this is not in the re for what is my security risk in the port construction where it would be built to be harvested. it's also

increasing the risk that the baby in the event of a nuclear or conventional target are and that would may make disasters and radiological contamination or rediscover they take they work for it. yeah. slide from the threats of terror attacks you. you think that adelaide may be a big target? well, allied in firefox made it to be a city where they would be constructed. and then the question that any, any thought i would the common topic for conventional attack. and that's not something that the people i like happy about that come out of that. not something that the public has been about and done in crate out being that it's harder and the government has already

the level of debates. as you say, the opposition talking about details are not about the fundamental axiomatic idea of having weapons to attack china. why, i mean, they keep talking about the indo pacific. i presume you think this is about china? why would australia need even submarines, nuclear submarines without nuclear weapons on to patrol waters against australia is number one trading partner. yeah, this is a major issue here and they got a lot of politics. i'm not sure why that's really suffering in general. their government, which certainly, you know, read the french, went on years and costs and over time. and it's not a huge, huge cost already. now,

what if you 1000000000 on the fresh deal and going with my $2000000000.00 and propel submarine, do us could be at least all of that. are we going to have to question the utility and the meditation behind it? but we know it's not. it is in a very early stage, and they'll be an 18 month period. are looking at what, what the domain, what options are. so it's something that can be reversed and they should be way hearing nothing about it being reversed from johnson in london or, or biden in, in d. c. i have to say, and i mean could this could be optimistic version of the events in the past few days. i mean, it could it inspire detachment from maybe talking to china and other european union countries, realizing that they don't want military confrontation,

let alone conflict with the most powerful economic, the most powerful country in the world of the century. well, not to think of aligned and perhaps one, but it would be that it's really realizing that it needs to do more work in a region. now we keep pretending that we are basically a deputy sheriff of the united states and we're happy to do it's being especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, but you know, ready to live in the same. so father new zealand, your propeller submarines would not be able to answer it. what is the way here in the governments of malaysia and major that washer about big about about provocation and asked me to refrain from competition. this is before a contract, get fine on the piece, you know, right. and the fact that your country,

well i mean in taking and striking this deal earlier than that, utilizing your nuclear you know that in the u. k. then you have current government that wants to increase the cap on your own, you know, by 40 percent, which is in clear contravention of history. and then being united states has up of 6000 you are. this is not the direction they should be taking. this is not the kind of company that we should be keeping when it comes to me and taking it there. i think our military not going by for our region. obviously, the british government denies that it is in breach of the m p t with this upgrading of even trident nuclear weapons stationed in scotland. i know that new zealand is

already said. they don't want the submarines even coming through their waters. you know that again and again as opposition grows to this, we will be assured here in britain and the american population will be assured that nuclear weapons don't even fit on these submarines. i understand that when they're ordered by the australian government, they carry some sort of missile battery platform which can be upgraded in some way . and it would need that before nuclear weapons can be attached to the submarines. yeah, we would really need to ensure that there's no way that the submarine could be capable and who needs to be sure that i would not be assisting with your credit or use use of nuclear weapons where they are. and so we don't want to be contributing to the new fugit for them. sorry, i think stations aren't, have guarantees about things. and as i mentioned,

the best thing that really hurt to ensure that we become part of the nuclear lying mission, to very much what the public does not want in general, where the population. but the best way we can be shown that it is to join the treaty. i mean, you're a nobel peace prize winning organization. you no doubt try and lobby australian politicians. do you think organizations like yours just can't compete with the lobbyists of the military industrial complex? as regards your parliament as parliamentarians here let alone k street and washington? well, we don't, we don't have the budget that they have that we don't have access to palm interiors that they have. we do have a broad and growing campaign. it's made off of union parliamentarians, council lawyers make a professional fascination people and we know that

you know that we will join battery. this is something that will become law to the country and we have a position that needs to be in government. and we expect to say government, now they are a deal doesn't necessarily complain for joining new battery as long as they are capable of long as they are not a thing in a fighting capacity. sorry, i will have to say that i know there is reason yes. growing general, thank you. thank you very much. after the break, as you, as president joe biden, to fight his own party on taxing the rich, is there any chance the liberal politicians can make millionaires pay their fair

share of like, what matters you, director, is now fighting for the fact that all this is coming up about to going underground the the news welcome back is to be in 10 years since ok, by wall street spread around the world, fighting for a different economic system in the past few days, even conservative u. k prime minister bars johnson in new york for the un general assembly appeared to be questioning. asteroids millionaire jeff bezos is astronomical wealth. but for a much more radical perspective, i'm joined now from new york by a former managing director of black rock morris. poorly chance something called patriotic millionaires. thanks so much for us for coming on, you know, in the past few days of these famous attacks on a o c, that dresser, the $30000.00 ticket met gullah,

you could have maybe designed the dress. just tell us what patriotic media as is, we are a group of hundreds of wealthy business people and investors. and we understand that there's a growing inequality both here in our nation and in the kingdom and western europe is just unsustainable. it's not gonna work. people have learned that you can't continue to let the rich get richer and richer and richer, and everyone else not get ahead. it has to be changed, or our society is going to fall apart. so, you know, you are like, you are the class enemy actually before the for her, anyone thinks that what you're saying there is just a copy of nancy pelosi or a o. c in the squad. even that book you got the book front piece behind you. if anyone reads that or sees the things that you've been saying, you are more radical than the people on the hill way in some ways. yes,

we believe that rich investors should pay the same tax rates as people who work for a living. and that shouldn't be radical. currently, in our system, people like me who don't work. i just sit here and watch the numbers in my computer screen and see that i'm getting richer and richer every day. i pay tax rates far less than people who work in this building, running our elevators as a percentage of my income. and there's something wrong with that. and people are realizing that here in the york, you know, it was 100 meters right over there where she was wearing that white dress. and people are realizing that all over the world and we have to do something about it before it's too late. yeah. but obviously joe, by nancy pelosi, they're not members of your patriotic m millionaires that section and they go to sleep at night and their investment income goes up. why do you think historically

people have not seen investment income as something that should be tax the same as the person who's manning the lift? well, i think some of that we had did tax investment and some of the same as regular income some years ago. so it's not like we've never have but i think lately our politicians are lawmakers spend too much time talking to rich donors because they have to raise money all the time. and they don't have enough time to spend with the rest of their constituents may give them a different point of view. they know very well the problems of being rach. i mean, not that there are problems being rich, but such as there are and i don't think they have time to understand the problem, that one else i was in a cocktail party right over there in a penthouse. i'm park avenue where one of our united states senators some years ago

. so, oh, good thing. i'm not a self funder. like some of these other people are because the only the events like this, i get to meet regular people. and i thought to myself, this is so ridiculous that you think nowhere near your constituents that you're meeting regular people who pay thousands of dollars to have a glass of wine and a few minutes to talk to you. and it's sad because they, i think after many years they start to believe that that the people that they spend time with all the time the rich donors are the people. and of course there are people who don't want to pay taxes. and frankly, that's the keyless possession, but that is some people's possession, but we'll get to get to them in a 2nd. but the, the myths come from k street, the media obviously, which is also financed by big companies interested in limiting tax. i think you make the point that the great at 1900 fifty's

a years of growth for maybe not for people of color. arguably the tax rate was substantially higher than it is today. and americans theoretically, think of it as a golden era. yeah. ken lang, goen the guy who has his name on the big hospital, nice side, and the guy who helped start a huge business home depot, one of the largest businesses in our country, he paid a taxi of 70 percent. and he lived in new york when he started that business. and now he's where i'm complaining though. if i have to pay more than 20 something, percent civilization will end or something like that. it's just not right. as you said, we've done very well with people paying far higher tax rates than they're paying now. and we should, we should have the funding here in america to do the kinds of things that we need to do to make america what it is. now i don't only do this,

but the have to be that devil's advocate and say, you know, you're forgetting about the philanthropic law just of the rich who can personally choose where to put a 1000000000 here, a 1000000000 there. that's way better than you are. democratically accountable vision will look sure. if i want to build a new concert hall, i could easily raise a couple $100000000.00 from people who want their name on the new concert. but we also need other things. we also need a sewage treatment center way over there, 143rd street. we also need schools over there and the neighborhoods were poor people live. we also need our streets fixed. we need a lot of things that are not done with philanthropy. and we want to live in a democracy. we want to live in a society where people decide through their elected representatives, how to spend society's resources. i do not want to live in a country where a few rich people make all the decisions. and yes, well, plenty of concert halls,

but love a lot of people who you don't see because they live, you know, a little bit farther away. who don't have the resources they need to just buy every day. i mean, this kind of infrastructure spending, i mean, was advocated by bernie sanders. of course, we know from wiki leaks the way that the d, n. c. lots of dirty tricks by the clinton campaign, against, against bernie sanders was pursuing these kinds of policies. i mean, would you think that people just don't know that more than $40000000.00 people tonight will not be able be able to eat without the snap food stamp program, which is of course paid for by taxes? well, i think there are some people who just don't care. they've been told for 40 years since ronald reagan ran for president. that, oh, the government is not the solution. the government is the problem. they see the pictures of the ronald reagan right around is around chinese. fortunately. oh, that's how merican should be no help from the government. not taking into account

the fact that government provides all of the resources for the electricity and the water and everything else. you need and they just have this sort of ideally vision in their mind that the rich people put there. that government is bad. everyone should just do their own thing by themselves. and yeah, that works great if you happen to be a billionaire, but that doesn't work for almost anyone else. this country was founded by a bunch of people coming from the united kingdom, creating things called commonwealths, the commonwealth of virginia, the commonwealth of massachusetts and the commonwealth of pennsylvania were created because they knew we needed common wealth. they needed, they knew they need to put their money together to do things that none of them could do individually. and that's what they did. and that's what we still need to do. we need common wealth, we need americans putting their money together. and that's the we have a word for that. it's called taxes to do things that we can do individually and to

provide for the rest of americans who we actually need to help our selves get rich . i need middle class people who can afford to buy expensive shoes and expensive telephones and expensive ice cream and all those things in order for me to get rich by investing companies to make shoes and ice cream and telephones and things like that. i'm not purely altruistic. i'm looking out for what i think is the best interests of my self and my family and my society. and i think all american should do that. obviously a little native americans killed in that origin story. of course, you say you need this, but couldn't you just be selling things overseas and they have a private gated life where even infrastructure like water is bottled, where your risk private security guards there instead of the n y b, d, and live in the near future way that increasingly apparently is the,

is the way late capitalism works well. i suppose some people are doing that. i don't want to, well, that's not how most people want to live. i mean, i guess there are some people who do want to live that way, that most people don't. of course, there is a lot in the global south about in a quality during corona virus, as regards vaccines and health care. but do you think there's a possibility that the pandemic could have toward the american people that were only as strong as each other? i mean, i suppose it could have, i don't think that it did. i think we're making progress because i think we're seeing it just even more obviously how some of our people are doing so much worse. you know, a quarter of our people lost their jobs at some point during the corona virus thing . but yet the richest among us are getting richer and richer and richer. we've had the greatest increase in the value of the stock market in the history of our country during a pandemic. because some of our companies, like amazon,

has been doing so much better, that people have made billions and billions of dollars. and people are seeing inequality get worse. so i think one possible silver lining to this crazy pandemic, is that the, any quality, our country's becoming even more obvious and even more clear? and our government is finally doing something? well, amazon runs a very tax efficient system. jeff bezos made up with the u. k. probably the subarus johnson, i think it was quite impressed by him. very recently, i have to ask you, given that ever graham, the massive chinese companies in all the headlines, you are a black rock people talking about exposure to black rock. do you think it's possible that of a bailout, a massive bailout? again, we're still living the consequences in the western economic crisis, arguably of the full of lehman the tax pay has the poorest will need to be used to

bailout your old company, black rock, and who knows who else? no, no, i actually don't think so. even black rock is not a company that, that actually invested money in things black rock as company that, that earns fees by advising people and invest the chinese property company, but it's also opaque. we don't know a bit like we paid passively. we witnessed, it's difficult to read a yes. i mean, i don't know what's happening in china. i barely understand everything is happening here and here in the united states. so i'm going to concentrate on that. and just finally i go to us, why do you think the journalist to interview you? because you do appear in other channels in the us? if they seem to think that what you're saying is so revolutionary, or they also in this trickle down economics mindset. well, it is because so few people are speaking out and i go on fox news and they introduce news either, either some crazy personal entertain you for

a few minutes or some guy with some idea of so revolution. no one's ever even thought of it before. and both of those are fine, but everyone should be thinking this way and a lot of people are, but they just don't feel like speaking out. and so that's what we're trying to do is to get the americans who are being silent, to speak out and not have those few people who are frankly, greedy, taking up all of the bandwidth of our elected representatives. morris, paul, thank you. thank you for being a part of the show when we back home. when's is the president of russia in turkey? let me put in the rest of type one. we didn't so g, after you in general assembly meeting, which secretary general antonio, the chair has warned that humanity is on the edge of an abyss until then keep in touch with us through all that social media. and let us know if you think veritax is consulting and liberalism problems.