Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
What do you think is the easiest way to make $150 million in Australia? Start your own company, employ hundreds of people, and work yourself to the bone for decades to build a multimillion-dollar empire? Nah, that’s too hard.
What about winning the lotto? Back in 2024, the ABC reported on an Adelaide man claiming a $150 million Powerball jackpot. It’s certainly easy, but your chances of that happening are roughly 1 in 134 million.
But there is an even easier way: be an aggrieved Aboriginal Australian. As the BBC declared recently: “Indigenous Australians win record $150 million after billionaire mined without permission.” See? All you have to do is be the descendant of someone whose land was colonised more than 200 years ago, claim Native Title, and you too can be part of a multimillion-dollar windfall. Easy, quick, and all you had to do was… exist—with a bit of complaining and a few creative legal filings thrown in for good measure.
It’s the most exclusive club in the country. No matter how hard you work or how much tax you pay, if you don’t have the right DNA and a 200-year-old connection to that specific patch of dirt, you’re locked out of the vault.
According to news reports, since 2013, Andrew Forrest’s mining company, Fortescue, has generated billions of dollars in revenue by extracting iron ore from Yindjibarndi land in the mineral-rich Pilbara region of Western Australia.
But it wasn’t until 2017 that the Yindjibarndi people were actually granted native title. The headlines read: “Yindjibarndi celebrate rights win on country,” after the Yindjibarndi Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation was granted exclusive native title rights over a 2,700-square-kilometre area of the Pilbara.
So, $150 million. Not bad for a trip to the Federal Court. Well, a number of people aren’t happy with that figure. According to the BBC, the Yindjibarndi group had sought $1.8 billion in compensation—a figure representing a percentage of the production value of the mines to compensate them for the loss of around 250 cultural sites and their “cultural connection to the land.”
Acknowledging that the Yindjibarndi had a “deep and visceral connection” to their country which affected all aspects of their lives, Federal Court Justice Stephen Burley found Fortescue liable for economic loss valued at just $150,000, but cultural loss valued at $150 million.
But even that wasn’t enough. While the payout is almost three times the size of the next biggest court-mandated compensation in Australian history, some elders expressed disappointment. Yindjibarndi elder Wendy Hubert even described the $150 million windfall as “peanuts.”
I don’t know about you, but I’d happily accept a few bags of those peanuts. Apparently, in the world of high-stakes grievance, $150 million is just the appetiser.
I don’t know what else to say about this, really. Let’s see what the ABC had to say: “Record payout after billionaire built mine without traditional owners’ permission.” It’s interesting—if he hadn’t built the mine in the first place, would they be receiving anything right now?
In the article, they show plenty of photos of sombre-looking Aboriginal people who just won $150 million, noting: “The amount was well short of the $1.8 billion sought by traditional owners.” They even have a heading dedicated to the elder’s analogy: “Payout ‘peanuts’.”
The Aboriginal Corporation’s chief executive, Michael Woodley—who is pictured here looking like he’s just attended a funeral—said the Yindjibarndi have “not given up” after the verdict. He noted: “We'll fight it.”
So there you go. In a world where many Australians can barely afford a roof over their heads, a windfall payment of $150 million from a mining giant who rudely came in and commercialised your land is seen as not enough.
Although it is the biggest native title payout in Australian history, in the world of modern grievance and victimhood, sadly, it’s only seen as a big fat bag of salty peanuts. It’s a reminder that the most exclusive club in this country is the one that cannot be acquired by merit, purchase, or citizenship alone. You either have the 200-year-old connection to the dirt, or you’re just another person struggling to pay the rent.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
What do you think is the easiest way to make $150 million in Australia? Start your own company, employ hundreds of people, and work yourself to the bone for decades to build a multimillion-dollar empire? Nah, that’s too hard.
What about winning the lotto? Back in 2024, the ABC reported on an Adelaide man claiming a $150 million Powerball jackpot. It’s certainly easy, but your chances of that happening are roughly 1 in 134 million.
But there is an even easier way: be an aggrieved Aboriginal Australian. As the BBC declared recently: “Indigenous Australians win record $150 million after billionaire mined without permission.” See? All you have to do is be the descendant of someone whose land was colonised more than 200 years ago, claim Native Title, and you too can be part of a multimillion-dollar windfall. Easy, quick, and all you had to do was… exist—with a bit of complaining and a few creative legal filings thrown in for good measure.
It’s the most exclusive club in the country. No matter how hard you work or how much tax you pay, if you don’t have the right DNA and a 200-year-old connection to that specific patch of dirt, you’re locked out of the vault.
According to news reports, since 2013, Andrew Forrest’s mining company, Fortescue, has generated billions of dollars in revenue by extracting iron ore from Yindjibarndi land in the mineral-rich Pilbara region of Western Australia.
But it wasn’t until 2017 that the Yindjibarndi people were actually granted native title. The headlines read: “Yindjibarndi celebrate rights win on country,” after the Yindjibarndi Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation was granted exclusive native title rights over a 2,700-square-kilometre area of the Pilbara.
So, $150 million. Not bad for a trip to the Federal Court. Well, a number of people aren’t happy with that figure. According to the BBC, the Yindjibarndi group had sought $1.8 billion in compensation—a figure representing a percentage of the production value of the mines to compensate them for the loss of around 250 cultural sites and their “cultural connection to the land.”
Acknowledging that the Yindjibarndi had a “deep and visceral connection” to their country which affected all aspects of their lives, Federal Court Justice Stephen Burley found Fortescue liable for economic loss valued at just $150,000, but cultural loss valued at $150 million.
But even that wasn’t enough. While the payout is almost three times the size of the next biggest court-mandated compensation in Australian history, some elders expressed disappointment. Yindjibarndi elder Wendy Hubert even described the $150 million windfall as “peanuts.”
I don’t know about you, but I’d happily accept a few bags of those peanuts. Apparently, in the world of high-stakes grievance, $150 million is just the appetiser.
I don’t know what else to say about this, really. Let’s see what the ABC had to say: “Record payout after billionaire built mine without traditional owners’ permission.” It’s interesting—if he hadn’t built the mine in the first place, would they be receiving anything right now?
In the article, they show plenty of photos of sombre-looking Aboriginal people who just won $150 million, noting: “The amount was well short of the $1.8 billion sought by traditional owners.” They even have a heading dedicated to the elder’s analogy: “Payout ‘peanuts’.”
The Aboriginal Corporation’s chief executive, Michael Woodley—who is pictured here looking like he’s just attended a funeral—said the Yindjibarndi have “not given up” after the verdict. He noted: “We'll fight it.”
So there you go. In a world where many Australians can barely afford a roof over their heads, a windfall payment of $150 million from a mining giant who rudely came in and commercialised your land is seen as not enough.
Although it is the biggest native title payout in Australian history, in the world of modern grievance and victimhood, sadly, it’s only seen as a big fat bag of salty peanuts. It’s a reminder that the most exclusive club in this country is the one that cannot be acquired by merit, purchase, or citizenship alone. You either have the 200-year-old connection to the dirt, or you’re just another person struggling to pay the rent.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn


![Garbage Band, Garbage Behaviour: The Hypocrisy of Calling for Violence
Back in the ’90s, I used to listen to the American rock band Garbage. I vaguely remember enjoying their music. Fast forward 30 years, and they’ve been in the news recently. (Thank you to the viewer who sent this in.)
Actually, Scottish lead singer Shirley Manson has been in the news for using some pretty questionable language at a recent concert, Good Things 2025 in Melbourne. A guy in the audience was holding a beach ball, waving it around. Then she turned on him.
She said, “Big guy with your big f***ing beach ball! Ooh, I’m so scared of you, so thrilled by you! What a f***ing douchebag! F***ing dudes, wow. Oh my god, you’re so cool. It’s just so f***ing outrageously cool, I can’t get over it, wow. It’s disrespectful. And musicians have had enough. And we’re fed up of not getting f***ing paid properly and fed up of having to play for douchebags like you. You’re a f***ing middle-aged man in a f***ing ridiculous hat, and youre a f***ing f***face. And I want, literally, to ask people to f***ing punch you in the f***ing face. But you know what? I’m a lady, so I won’t. But truly, I would love to send my crew over to f***ing mess you up. But you know what? I won’t because I pity you because you’re a small man with a small [penis].” Or words to that effect.
Obviously, that language is completely inappropriate, particularly turning on her fans like that. According to the Good Things website, tickets cost around $270. So, this guy wasn’t just some random troublemaker; he was clearly a fan. Regarding the incident, I have a few comments:
Firstly, it’s not like the beach ball landed on stage. If it had hit the lead guitarist in the head or something, okay, maybe ask people nicely not to throw balls around. But this guy was only holding the ball.
Secondly, she called him middle-aged as some sort of insult, but she has to realise that a lot of her fans would be middle-aged by now.
Thirdly, she threatened violence: trying to get audience members to attack him, and also threatening to send her crew out. It turns out that, in a later interview, the guy admitted he was actually quite scared at the time. He said, “I felt hurt that one of my artists I’ve loved for over 25, 30 years had singled me out and made me feel very small and a bit afraid.”
Fourthly, she attacked him personally by commenting on the size of his genitalia.
Look, we all have bad days. We sometimes say something stupid. But quite frankly, the language she used was absolutely disgusting. It’s interesting that the likes of the ABC never picked up on this news. Imagine if the gender roles were reversed. Imagine if a male lead singer called out a female audience member and said:
“Little lady with your f***ing beach ball! Ooh, I’m so intimidated! You’re a f***ing middle-aged woman in a f***ing desperate outfit, and you’re a f***ing f***face! I want, literally, to ask people to f***ing drag you by the hair out of here! But you know what? I won’t because I pity you. You’re just a sad girl with small breasts.”
What a horrible thing to say, and that should be rightfully condemned. I’d imagine in this case, the ABC would be all over it:
“‘Drag you by the hair’: Lead singer promotes violence against women. In another example of public misogyny, lead singer Brock Savage of the band The Macho Axiom has exposed the toxic culture still pervasive in the music industry, sparking widespread condemnation for his violent and gendered attack.”
Tell me that’s not exactly how they’d report it. But yet, here we are with gender roles reversed: crickets. The ABC won’t even touch it. Hypocrites!
To be fair to Ms. Manson, she has allegedly apologised, although I’ll let you judge for yourself what kind of apology it was. Rolling Stone reported: “Garbage’s Shirley Manson Uses Beach Ball Apology to Raise Awareness of Palestine Humanitarian Crisis.”
The crowd in Brisbane had brought along a number of giant beach balls, perhaps as some sort of protest, or just typical Aussie larrikinism. She said, “I just have to address your glorious beach balls, they’re very impressive! And not only are they impressive, but they are very, very big. The only thing that kind of shocks me a little is there’s been more fuss made about me offending beach balls than there has about 20,000 Palestinian kids who are now f***ing under the dirt.”
To be fair, she didn’t offend beach balls; she abused a man in public who was holding a tiny little beach ball.
She continued: “Maybe a beach ball brings you joy and for that I apologise. If I upset you about your blessed beach balls, I humbly apologise. However, I would really like it if the governments of the day apologised for what the f*** is happening in Palestine.”
So obviously, on one hand, she doesn’t like violence against the Palestinian people, but on the other hand, she’s happy to publicly call for violence against one of her lifelong fans who doesn’t happen to be female. Hypocrite!
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn Garbage Band, Garbage Behaviour: The Hypocrisy of Calling for Violence](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ob69U9Eg24A/mqdefault.jpg)




![Disney Finally Solves Racism With Captain Durag
This is a new Disney cartoon by the name of Hey A.J.!—a music-filled family comedy about an imaginative young girl, A.J., and her stuffed bunny sidekick, Theo. It’s based on a book series created by former American footballer Martellus Bennett, who also voices A.J.’s father, Marty, in the series.
Now, this is a durag: a close-fitting cloth tied around the top of the head that is popular in African-American culture. It’s had a bit of a chequered history, with some major sporting leagues—such as the NFL and the NBA—banning the headwear. This was due, in part, to its association with crime and gang violence.
So, what do you think happens when you combine this head covering with the Hey A.J.! cartoon? You get Captain Durag, of course! A “grime fighter” in “Slime City” whose superpowers include picking up rubbish and folding clothes.
Yes, in the name of inclusivity, Disney thought it was a good idea to make a superhero based on a head covering. Essentially, he’s a walking-talking stereotype.
What’s next? Captain Burqa? She flies around the world enforcing a strictly modest dress code and lecturing people on Sharia law? Or what about Captain Poppadom and his sidekick Indian Elephant named Curry? He uses his magical poppadoms not only to feed the poor, but also as a kind of greasy, deep-fried ninja star to defeat his enemies.
And just one more, if I haven’t already caused enough offence: Captain Sombrero, who uses his magical wide-brimmed hat as a flying device to ferry undocumented workers across the southern border to a new life in the United States.
Yes, creating superhero stereotypes is easy.
But as Disney found out with Captain Durag, superhero stereotypes cause superhero levels of offence. Yahoo reported: “Disney’s New ‘Captain Durag’ Cartoon Character Ignites Backlash From the Black Community.”
As it turns out, being inclusive is a lot harder than just slapping a bit of headgear on a sanitation worker and calling it “culture.”
The irony of Disney trying to be “woke” but ending up with a character whose entire identity is wearing a head wrap and performing menial labour is not lost on me. Hmm, what does that remind me of… Captain Plantation?
I mean, if we’re assigning superpowers based on historical tropes of subservience, why stop at cleaning rubbish?
Captain Durag’s creator, Camille Corbett, has defended the character. On her X account, she has released multiple tweets defending the move. In one, she wrote: “I created the character Durag Man, now known as Captain Durag on the Disney Show, Hey AJ and I’m just finding out people are finding it problematic? I just wanted our culture to have a superhero of its own!”
In another tweet, she dressed up in a blue durag cape and wrote: “I love when art imitates life. Not all heroes wear capes, some wear durags.” She’s even released videos of herself pretending to be the character doing kung fu, writing: “Me, a Blaxploitation nerd and respectability politics hater, rushing to defend Captain Durag.”
Basically, she’s arguing that black people need not, nor should they, try to constantly conform to dominant white middle-class norms by avoiding “controversial” cultural markers. Essentially, she likes the idea of black heroes who fight back against the establishment without trying to fit in. Although, I’m not sure if Captain Durag picking up rubbish and folding laundry is quite the radical uprising against “white oppression” she thinks it is.
Corbett defended the character’s profession, noting that sanitation workers often “got the bag” (make good money). She tweeted, “It’s just one episode!!!… I don’t think we should be belittling jobs that make our society run. He is simply a [homage] to Blaxploitation films and a poke at respectability politics.”
Okay, fair enough. It sounds like she’s just having a bit of fun and trying to teach children it’s a good thing to clean up after themselves. But as I said, it’s a bit funny that we’ve gone from ‘I have a dream’ to ‘I have a bin liner’... and a tightly knotted head-wrap.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn Disney Finally Solves Racism With Captain Durag](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/q6Jayx4K-5U/mqdefault.jpg)


