Visiting Professor at King’s College, London; Australian army intelligence officer; chairman of Griffin Law; founder of the charity Hear Their Cries (which campaigns to stop child rape and sexual abuse by aid workers: http://www.heartheircries.org/) – is possibly James’s most left wing guest so far and also one of the most intellectually brilliant

Nevertheless, in the course of a wide ranging discussion which takes in – the character of Australia; how to deal with immigration and ‘refugees’; Paul Kagame’s socio-economic miracle in Rwanda; will there be war with China?; is the UN really necessary – they find they have lots in common too.

Subscribe to The Delingpod in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 7 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    As an Aussie/American I didn’t find much to agree with. Professor MacLeod is a typical Victorian, not a typical Australian and his background with Labor left wing politics colors his every thought. His description of Australia makes it sound like a mess instead of a thriving capitalist economy. I believe that Australia will move away from China as a trading partner and that will be a good thing.

    • #1
    • October 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Henry Racette Contributor

    Though this is one of my favorite podcasts, I’ve never commented on it before.

    While this conservative probably disagrees with your guest on climate change and much else, and certainly disagrees about COVID, I want to applaud Mr. MacLeod’s efforts regarding reining in the horrific UN sexual abuse problem. I think his strategy is clever and very promising, and I hope he continues to develop it.

    One quibble: at 55:00 he argued that the U.S. let the virus exceed the capacity of our health care system. We didn’t. We successfully “flattened the curve” months ago, and I think we should have long ago ended all mandated lockdowns.

    But back to his humanitarian effort regarding the UN: I wish him all the best with it.

    Great show.

    • #2
    • October 26, 2020, at 3:24 PM PDT
    • 1 like
    • This comment has been edited.
  3. Nancy Spalding Thatcher

    the discussion of the UN is spot-on. I could not agree more. 

    • #3
    • October 27, 2020, at 2:21 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Architectus Coolidge

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Though this is one of my favorite podcasts, I’ve never commented on it before.

    While this conservative probably disagrees with your guest on climate change and much else, and certainly disagrees about COVID, I want to applaud Mr. MacLeod’s efforts regarding reining in the horrific UN sexual abuse problem. I think his strategy is clever and very promising, and I hope he continues to develop it.

    One quibble: at 55:00 he argued that the U.S. let the virus exceed the capacity of our health care system. We didn’t. We successfully “flattened the curve” months ago, and I think we should have long ago ended all mandated lockdowns.

    But back to his humanitarian effort regarding the UN: I wish him all the best with it.

    Great show.

    Agreed. As with ANY conversation with a Left/Statist, you take the elements of agreement where you can find them. In this case, the abuses of the UN have been well established for a very long time. Glad to hear of a creative way to combat this particular scandal. And if we can defund more of the worthless parts of the organization and allow it to die on the vine, all the better.

    • #4
    • October 27, 2020, at 6:07 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. mildlyo Member
    mildlyoJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    “Freedom of expression is reliant on responsibility of expression.”

    This is true, but. The great divide in our modern world is the question of whether this responsibility is internal or external. Character or Law enforcement.

    • #5
    • October 28, 2020, at 7:22 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Architectus Coolidge

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    “Freedom of expression is reliant on responsibility of expression.”

    This is true, but. The great divide in our modern world is the question of whether this responsibility is internal or external. Character or Law enforcement.

    Not sure I entirely agree with the phrase in quotation marks, but even if I did, the important question would be “Who decides?” Who decides what is responsible expression? The Left says that pointing out that there are two sexes is irresponsible. Dead end…

    • #6
    • October 30, 2020, at 8:04 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Henry Racette Contributor

    Architectus (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    “Freedom of expression is reliant on responsibility of expression.”

    This is true, but. The great divide in our modern world is the question of whether this responsibility is internal or external. Character or Law enforcement.

    Not sure I entirely agree with the phrase in quotation marks, but even if I did, the important question would be “Who decides?” Who decides what is responsible expression? The Left says that pointing out that there are two sexes is irresponsible. Dead end…

    I’m a free speech extremist, so I have to reconcile the right/responsibility thing and the limitations on speech that a civil society seems to require. A couple of thoughts:

    First, there’s the distinction between what is permitted and what is beneficial. The quoted phrase above doesn’t make that clear. Does it mean that freedom is permissible only when used responsibly? Or does it mean that the benefits of freedom will be realized only when that freedom is used responsibly?

    Secondly, there is obviously a line to be drawn somewhere, and that requires judgment and a degree of subjectivity. I think libertarians waste a lot of time trying to codify things that should ultimately depend on that subjective judgment, as if the need for courts were proof of our failure to adequately account for every possible contingency in our lawmaking. But life is complicated and messy, and responsible judgment guided by sound principles will always be necessary.

    We’ve allowed our principles to become so unsound and our judgment so shoddy that some now argue that the discussion of ideas is unacceptable simply because those ideas might be part of the intangible calculus that motivates some unspecified person to reach some unspecified conclusion and commit some unspecified act at some unspecified time against some unspecified victim. That’s dumb. It is, unfortunately, the status quo on an increasingly censorious left. I blame college professors for most of it.

    • #7
    • October 30, 2020, at 8:31 AM PDT
    • 1 like
    • This comment has been edited.