Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News talks it B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates us now the Layton Smith
Speaker 1: podcast cow it by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two hundred and seventy five for March twelve,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Rodney Hyde, ex politician, is fighting a battle.
Speaker 2: It began a couple of years ago and it continues today.
Speaker 2: In fact, we spoke with him a couple of years
Speaker 2: back and he outlined the foundation of this. It involves
Speaker 2: the relationship and sexuality education curriculum being taught in his
Speaker 2: daughter's school, but not just there, It's being taught in
Speaker 2: all schools to different levels. Rodney is not the only
Speaker 2: parent unhappy about what's being taught, but he stands almost
Speaker 2: alone in trying to address it. It is a matter
Speaker 2: for him of principle. But we also discuss other matters,
Speaker 2: important ones like wocism, the rbn Z and Adrian Order,
Speaker 2: NATS and pm luxon economic growth and other things. And
Speaker 2: I learned something about mister Hyde of which I was unaware.
Speaker 2: But first if I may a word of warning to
Speaker 2: local pundits regarding Donald Trump. Many pundits are putting the
Speaker 2: boot into Trump whenever they get the chance. I'd like
Speaker 2: to read you a small paragraph of something that is
Speaker 2: yet to come. Trump's out of the deal is the
Speaker 2: most democratic thing we've seen since the experts told us
Speaker 2: to trust the science. Einstein reportedly said that one fact,
Speaker 2: rather than a hundred experts, could prove him wrong. Trump
Speaker 2: has done in less than two months what thousands of
Speaker 2: experts have failed to do in the years. And that's
Speaker 2: a fact. It occurs to me that those who are
Speaker 2: rushing at every opportunity to, like I say, put the
Speaker 2: boot in, might end up eating that boot. As I
Speaker 2: record this, there is a flash come up up on
Speaker 2: my phone from Greg Sheridan in The Australian. Could it
Speaker 2: be that Trump is actually going to produce a decent
Speaker 2: outcome in Ukraine? After all? And I say never underestimates
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, Speaking of whom, let me make reference to
Speaker 2: something else in the same stable. For years, American politics
Speaker 2: has been defined by the advance of an enemy variously
Speaker 2: labeled wocism, DEI, the civil rights regime, the deep state,
Speaker 2: and more. And the occasional, usually ineffective pushback of Republicans.
Speaker 2: I'm quoting this for a reason, not just to talk
Speaker 2: about American politics, but to talk about my reference to
Speaker 2: talk about New Zealand politics, because if you listen to
Speaker 2: what I'm about to quote, you can replace America and
Speaker 2: Republicans with New Zealand and Nationals. With the return of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump to the White House, that enemy seems, for
Speaker 2: the first time in living memory, to be genuinely in retreat.
Speaker 2: Daniel Horowitz observes that Republican leadership of failing or refusing
Speaker 2: to capitalize on Trump's momentum, and Horowitz warns that this
Speaker 2: will give the woke regime time and space to reorganize
Speaker 2: and prepare its next assault. We have, he says, an
Speaker 2: historic opportunity to deep six the woke regime, but that
Speaker 2: potential has not yet become kinetic. I love that word.
Speaker 2: If Republicans are not prevented from working their controlled opposition magic,
Speaker 2: the forces of wokeness will regroup, reload, and reconstitute under
Speaker 2: a different name. Remember when we killed common Core last decade,
Speaker 2: common Core education, It's simply reconstituted under a more subtle, subversive,
Speaker 2: and nameless construction. Democrats find themselves over extended politically on
Speaker 2: issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, racial politics, and gender ideology.
Speaker 2: An intrepid Republican Party would go in for the kill,
Speaker 2: end those policies and plow with salt over their graves. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: we're watching in real time as proposals in state legislatures
Speaker 2: to categorically ban illegal immigration, end all forms of affirmative action,
Speaker 2: and extirpate any reference to things like race, gender, and
Speaker 2: global warming in state policy are being defeated by the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. GOP legislators are pushing to only deport criminal aliens,
Speaker 2: to focus only on men in female sports and not
Speaker 2: on the core of transgender insanity, and to continue racial
Speaker 2: preferences at some level in state governments when Republicans are
Speaker 2: in power. When Republicans are in power, they refuse to
Speaker 2: wield it as Democrats do. This gives the woke regime
Speaker 2: time to retreat behind safe lines and reconstitute the same
Speaker 2: vision under slightly different policies, parlance, and presentation. They will
Speaker 2: return now. I think you get the gist that the
Speaker 2: conservative parties also called conservative parties, are full of verbiage
Speaker 2: that they don't necessarily apply to practicality, and I think
Speaker 2: we're experiencing some considerable bit of that in this country
Speaker 2: at the moment. Now speaking of moments, in just a moment,
Speaker 2: Rodney Hyde Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to
Speaker 2: the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies
Speaker 2: or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has
Speaker 2: a unique nasal decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief,
Speaker 2: and it works in under an hour and lasts for
Speaker 2: over twenty four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that
Speaker 2: unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing.
Speaker 2: Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Speaker 2: So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine,
Speaker 2: call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e
Speaker 2: v Rix Leverix and always read the label, takes directed
Speaker 2: and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland,
Speaker 2: I've known Roddy Hyde for about thirty years. I remember,
Speaker 2: first of all going to his house, which wasn't that
Speaker 2: far from where I was living at the time, and
Speaker 2: I went to visit him in his house. There was
Speaker 2: a reason for it, although that escapes me, and I'm
Speaker 2: sure that he won't remember, but that was the first
Speaker 2: occasion I believed that we met. But we've known each
Speaker 2: other for a long time, and I think I will
Speaker 2: credit myself with this and say that we have considerable
Speaker 2: respect each for the other. Would that be right, mister Hyde.
Speaker 3: Total late and total respect.
Speaker 4: That said, I have a great deal of respect for
Speaker 4: almost everyone. People that do a good job, are competent
Speaker 4: and have regard for others earn my respect. And so
Speaker 4: I have a great deal of respect for you because
Speaker 4: I always realized you were a very good broadcaster and
Speaker 4: people that are good at their job and pressed me.
Speaker 2: The reason for this conversation was triggered by something that
Speaker 2: you sent me with regard to relationship and sexuality education curriculum. Now,
Speaker 2: before we get onto that direct, tell us all, because
Speaker 2: plenty of us either will only have a touch of
Speaker 2: knowledge on it or at all, tell us how the
Speaker 2: boards of school school boards? What are they responsible for
Speaker 2: in their school?
Speaker 3: Oh? Wow, well, the running of the school.
Speaker 4: But one of the strange things is one of the
Speaker 4: particular functions are given, is they are given responsibility for
Speaker 4: reproduction and sex education, and they specifically have to consult
Speaker 4: with the parents the community of the school which is
Speaker 4: identified as the parents, on what that should be and
Speaker 4: then come up with it, and they have to consult
Speaker 4: every two years.
Speaker 3: Funny enough, none of the schools.
Speaker 2: Do, none of them, not that I know of, And.
Speaker 4: The boards are totally unaware of the sex education occurring
Speaker 4: in the school and my observation and experience, and it's
Speaker 4: been happening oftentimes without even the principles being particularly aware
Speaker 4: of it. It's the most extraordinary situation.
Speaker 2: The last time we spoke, which was twenty three, so
Speaker 2: a good two years ago, we discussed, amongst other things,
Speaker 2: an issue involving your daughter, Yes, and there was quite
Speaker 2: some reaction to it from my perspective. Now it has
Speaker 2: advanced since then. There are two videos that you've posted
Speaker 2: that people can can see, but we'll get to that
Speaker 2: a little later. But that's what you sent me, That's
Speaker 2: what I watched, and I was very keen to discuss
Speaker 2: it with you. But we will get onto some on
Speaker 2: a number of other topics. Before we finished this discussion,
Speaker 2: you did these two videos based on the fact that
Speaker 2: you decided that you wanted to address the school board
Speaker 2: on this subject, Relationship and Sexuality education otherwise known as RS.
Speaker 2: How did How did that go for you?
Speaker 3: And look great? It took me.
Speaker 4: My daughter goes to Wakatipo High School. It took me
Speaker 4: nine months to get before the board emailing them.
Speaker 3: I did get to meet the chair, you know, and all.
Speaker 4: Of these people I got to say, are lovely, and
Speaker 4: it's a great school, and it's a well run school.
Speaker 3: And this is actually happening in.
Speaker 4: Every high school, so it's not like Wakatippu is a typical.
Speaker 4: But the background is I got an email to say
Speaker 4: that my daughter would be engaged in this being taught
Speaker 4: this RC reproduction sex education, and the email implied that
Speaker 4: it was compulsory, and I knew that it wasn't.
Speaker 3: It's up to a parent to agree.
Speaker 4: And so I asked to see it because I thought
Speaker 4: I can't agree. U, Yes, I see it. To be fair,
Speaker 4: I had a fair inkling because of our earlier interview.
Speaker 4: My daughter was younger, I had become alarmed at what
Speaker 4: had happened, so I was well attuned to it. I
Speaker 4: also joined a great group called let kids be kids,
Speaker 4: and so we've been very active at trying to discover
Speaker 4: what's happening in the schools and also empowering parents. So anyway,
Speaker 4: I wrote to the head of physical education in the
Speaker 4: school and said, look, this is great. I'd like to
Speaker 4: see what you're going to be showing my daughter, because
Speaker 4: they said they had this curriculum, they had videos, and
Speaker 4: they had of course materials. This is the extraordinary. But
Speaker 4: the teacher came back. My daughter's thirteen. The teacher came
Speaker 4: back and said, you can't have it because it's intellectual
Speaker 4: property that we have developed, and also the booklets that
Speaker 4: we use are copyright so that I internally I didn't
Speaker 4: do anything, but I went off my head because I
Speaker 4: knew that I had to give consent to this. I
Speaker 4: had the opportunity to refuse, but I couldn't make an
Speaker 4: informed choice, and of course this triggered me over the
Speaker 4: whole COVID thing. I couldn't make an informed choice for
Speaker 4: my own daughter, and I wasn't allowed to see the
Speaker 4: material on the subject that she was to teach or
Speaker 4: was to be taught. I ended up buying it. Family Planning,
Speaker 4: who now have a long married name, produced it. And
Speaker 4: I bought for her, which was year nine. I bought
Speaker 4: that the manual, two hundred six pages, only cost five dollars.
Speaker 4: I bought it and I read it, and I have
Speaker 4: to say latent nothing prepared me for the horror of it.
Speaker 4: It was absolutely horrific. I could not believe it, and
Speaker 4: I wrote to the principle which you required to do
Speaker 4: and pulled my daughter out of the class, which is
Speaker 4: no drama. They were doing their rotation. She just did
Speaker 4: a rotation or something or other. But then I thought
Speaker 4: this is crazy because I couldn't see how any sensible
Speaker 4: person still can't could agree to teaching this to a
Speaker 4: thirteen year old girl or boy.
Speaker 2: Now stop there for a moment. Was she the only
Speaker 2: one who was taken out?
Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that. I suspect.
Speaker 2: So do you know any parents who are aware of
Speaker 2: what's in Wakatipu at the school? Do you know any
Speaker 2: parents who are concerned about it?
Speaker 3: I know of about two, and there two that I've
Speaker 3: spoken to.
Speaker 2: None the others aren't concerned because they don't know, or
Speaker 2: because they don't care, or they approve both both.
Speaker 4: It's always a touchy subject for parents with their children,
Speaker 4: and so they quite like ducking responsibility and saying, oh, well,
Speaker 4: the school can do all that.
Speaker 1: Bearah.
Speaker 4: We have spoken to parents. I have spoken to parents.
Speaker 4: Some are okay with it, and what you might call
Speaker 4: permissive parents who literally have the high school children having
Speaker 4: their boyfriend and girlfriends over to stay the night. They're
Speaker 4: comfortable with it. The older parents that I know aren't.
Speaker 4: I find it a very hard subject to bring up
Speaker 4: with parents, because you know, you've got to know someone
Speaker 4: pretty well to have the.
Speaker 3: Discussion we're about to have.
Speaker 4: So I actually don't know the layer of the land
Speaker 4: on it, because to me, any parent would be mortified
Speaker 4: by it and look to be fair later. And when
Speaker 4: I sit down with any parents and explain it to them,
Speaker 4: they are absolutely mortified, and they're firing a letter off
Speaker 4: to the principle to pull their child out. It's that bad.
Speaker 4: So but they don't know, and the board don't know.
Speaker 4: I met with the board chairman, lovely guy lawyer director,
Speaker 4: and he he's not down into the weeds of what's
Speaker 4: taught in the school. He's busy worrying about buildings and
Speaker 4: fundraising and employment and the big strategic issues of the school,
Speaker 4: like he should so he wasn't aware of what was
Speaker 4: being taught, and he's got children at the school what
Speaker 4: was being taught in sex education. But when I explained
Speaker 4: it to him, he didn't take it upon himself to
Speaker 4: do anything about it. So I resolved that the board
Speaker 4: was a representative of parents and that if I could
Speaker 4: have ten minutes in front of them.
Speaker 3: And highlight that a.
Speaker 4: This was something that they had to sign up to
Speaker 4: be that there was something they had to consult with
Speaker 4: parents over and see here's a little bit of the
Speaker 4: content that you have supposedly agreed to that I would
Speaker 4: get an instant reaction. The principal and the chair were
Speaker 4: very anxious that I not present to the board, and
Speaker 4: so it took me nine months to finally get ten minutes.
Speaker 2: Why do you think that they didn't want you to
Speaker 2: make a presentation.
Speaker 4: Because I believe the board would have said, we're what
Speaker 4: we're doing this?
Speaker 3: I think the board would be alarmed.
Speaker 2: Would you Is there a chance you might be surprised
Speaker 2: that they're not?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: I thought about that too, and that always perplexes me
Speaker 4: that we have gone so far down to destroying our
Speaker 4: children's innocence that a parent wouldn't care that a male
Speaker 4: young teacher is standing in front of a class of
Speaker 4: thirteen year old boys and girls and teaching them how
Speaker 4: to do anal sex and that's something you know, that's
Speaker 4: in the curriculum that's approved. The principle said to me
Speaker 4: that the particular teacher, mister King, wasn't showing that video,
Speaker 4: But that to me wasn't the point, because the board
Speaker 4: had approved that video to be shown.
Speaker 2: If the board itself had approved the video, then obviously
Speaker 2: they know what's going on.
Speaker 3: No, they have no clue.
Speaker 2: They have, But how would they have no clue if
Speaker 2: they if they know that that's what he You know, they.
Speaker 3: It's never been through the board.
Speaker 2: You mean to say they've ticked it off without without any.
Speaker 4: I would say they've never even ticked it. That's the
Speaker 4: extraordinary thing of what's happening in every score.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to the You you turned up
Speaker 2: to make this commentary, Yes to the board.
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: And what happened, Well, the way it went was Penny Marie,
Speaker 4: who's a lovely lady. A couple of years ago, she
Speaker 4: presented to her board on the same subject and she
Speaker 4: recorded herself and it went viral because literally parents said,
Speaker 4: oh my goodness, I had no idea and send it.
Speaker 3: Out of their friends on Facebook and stuff.
Speaker 4: And so I resolved that if I was going to
Speaker 4: get ten minutes in front of the board, I should
Speaker 4: record it because that would give me an opportunity to
Speaker 4: explain to parents this is what's happening, and doing it
Speaker 4: in front of the board would sort of give it
Speaker 4: that impture of authority. And so I wanted to likewise
Speaker 4: record my ten minute presentation. I knew I could because
Speaker 4: a school board is a meeting in public. It's not
Speaker 4: a public meeting called in a hall, but it's a
Speaker 4: meeting in public that anyone can attend. You don't get
Speaker 4: speaking rights, you have to seek those. But I had
Speaker 4: thought speaking rights and had them. And so literally five
Speaker 4: hundred parents could turn up to a board meeting, the
Speaker 4: media can turn up and record it because it's a
Speaker 4: meeting in public, that.
Speaker 3: It's a public enterprise.
Speaker 4: And to double check that I was on good ground,
Speaker 4: I emailed what is called the New Zealand school Board
Speaker 4: of Trustees Association, and they are an outfit that advised
Speaker 4: school boards on governance. So they are the experts of
Speaker 4: interpreting the legislation and the responsibilities of a school board.
Speaker 4: And they assured me that I had every right to
Speaker 4: record my presentation, but they said it would be a
Speaker 4: courtesy to.
Speaker 3: Let the school know.
Speaker 4: So I emailed the school the week before I was
Speaker 4: to turn up that I would be recording my presentation,
Speaker 4: and I told that to the principal and to the chair.
Speaker 4: On the day that I was to present, I got
Speaker 4: an email from the lovely principle saying that I wouldn't
Speaker 4: be recording it, and I emailed him back and said
Speaker 4: I would be, and that's.
Speaker 3: Where it sort of hung. Then I got an email.
Speaker 4: Just as I was leaving actually to go into the meeting,
Speaker 4: I got an email from the board cheer, citing a
Speaker 4: section of the Act that the board had board powers,
Speaker 4: saying that he was exercising these board powers to prevent
Speaker 4: me from recording it, and also that he was claiming
Speaker 4: that the board members had privacy rights and that my
Speaker 4: recording myself would interfere with their privacy. I quickly rang
Speaker 4: the school Board of Trustees and look, I don't want
Speaker 4: to get the guide into trouble. But he almost sell
Speaker 4: off his cheer laughing. Because it was this idea that
Speaker 4: you could use the legislation to prevent having a public meeting,
Speaker 4: and the idea that you are an officer on a
Speaker 4: crown entity, which is what a school is, and claimed privacy,
Speaker 4: so you in a meeting in public, you can't be
Speaker 4: said that you were there. So I knew I was
Speaker 4: absolutely right. So I turned up to the meeting. The
Speaker 4: principal came running out and he said that you're recording it.
Speaker 3: I said, of course I am. I told you I was.
Speaker 4: He said, well, it's against the tea hunger of the school,
Speaker 4: the tea hunger, and that was another triggering thing for
Speaker 4: me because I said, look, you can't just make out
Speaker 4: rules and I'm going to record it. So he scuttled
Speaker 4: back into the meeting, and then the chair came out
Speaker 4: and he was explaining to me that that had legal
Speaker 4: advice and I wasn't to record and they were in
Speaker 4: their rights, and I said, I'm going to record and
Speaker 4: i'll record you throwing me out if you want. Then
Speaker 4: they decided that the issue was he was a sixteen
Speaker 4: year old student representative on the board. They wouldn't want
Speaker 4: me to be discussing sex education in front of her.
Speaker 4: Of course, the irony that I was talking about what
Speaker 4: they were teaching a thirty year old. Anyway, they wouldn't
Speaker 4: let me record, and I said, well, I'd like to
Speaker 4: sit in on the meeting anyway, because I didn't want
Speaker 4: to go away with my tail between my legs. And
Speaker 4: so I went into the meeting and I sat there
Speaker 4: and it was literally just around a table.
Speaker 3: There was no room for members of the public.
Speaker 4: But I sat there for an hour and a half
Speaker 4: and listened to it, and halfway through they broke and
Speaker 4: had pizza, and I introduced myself as best I could
Speaker 4: to the board who were It was very awkward for
Speaker 4: me being there because they knew that I had been
Speaker 4: denied my opportunity to speak.
Speaker 3: And then I went outside and.
Speaker 4: Explained what had happened in the video, and then I
Speaker 4: gave my ten minute presentation to video.
Speaker 3: And I have to say, from my point.
Speaker 4: Of view, it's been an incredible success because it's gone
Speaker 4: around New Zealand at a great pace of knots. And
Speaker 4: I'm still astonished at how many parents are coming up
Speaker 4: to me at the school and saying they saw my
Speaker 4: video and how great it was and thanking me for it.
Speaker 2: But where does it go for them? Where does it
Speaker 2: go from there.
Speaker 4: I will stand for the board and stop this stuff
Speaker 4: being taught in our schools.
Speaker 2: Can one person do that? Of course, when is the
Speaker 2: next election?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I haven't checked that, but it's this year. But we
Speaker 4: can't stop on this. This is a hill that we
Speaker 4: all have to die on because we have a responsibility
Speaker 4: late and don't we.
Speaker 3: You and I know this to the next generation.
Speaker 4: And this is much deeper than just an appropriate messaging
Speaker 4: to kids to use the phrase that they might do.
Speaker 4: This is actually the destruction of a generation that's occurring.
Speaker 3: And I don't say that lightheartedly.
Speaker 4: This is a very great evil that is being inflicted
Speaker 4: on our children by, to all intents and purposes, very
Speaker 4: well meaning people in our schools. The ball is very
Speaker 4: well meaning. They do their best, They do a great job.
Speaker 4: The teachers are all very well meaning and do a
Speaker 4: great job. The school does a great job. But what
Speaker 4: is going on within our schools is they've been hijacked,
Speaker 4: and they've been hijacked in a number of areas, and
Speaker 4: one of them is sex education. And it's cutting right
Speaker 4: into what a child believes and their sense of self, and.
Speaker 2: It just expand on that sense of self aspect for us.
Speaker 4: Well, this is a funny one. There's a lovely lady
Speaker 4: called Elizabeth Cave who explained this to me, and she
Speaker 4: drew on the work of a practicing psychologist, Michael Stosney,
Speaker 4: and let me do it talking about you and me
Speaker 4: and what it was like when we grew up in school. Now,
Speaker 4: when we grew up in school, we had a great
Speaker 4: sense of who we were because we built on a pyramid.
Speaker 4: Didn't know this at the time, It just happened. And
Speaker 4: this is what Michael Stolsney explains. The bottom of the
Speaker 4: pyramid is a concept of humanity. So we grew up
Speaker 4: in a world where we were connected with every other
Speaker 4: human in the world. We had our humanity, we had
Speaker 4: our care for one another. We had on top of
Speaker 4: that our character. And when I look back at my
Speaker 4: upbringing and your upbringing, character was number one that was
Speaker 4: extraordinarily taught to us by scout masters, our parents, uncles,
Speaker 4: the rugby coach, the school, so much so that you
Speaker 4: wouldn't snitch because that was bad character. And this will
Speaker 4: horrify younger listeners. But if you were getting bullied, you
Speaker 4: would likely be told go and deal to the bully,
Speaker 4: stand up for yourself character. On top of that, we
Speaker 4: were given a sense of self with our beliefs and
Speaker 4: our ideology. And in my case, I wasn't a Christian
Speaker 4: then I didn't believe in the supernatural or the divine,
Speaker 4: but I respected christian a thought. But I lived in
Speaker 4: a Christian world, and so my beliefs were the universal values,
Speaker 4: which I thought were universal values of forgiveness, of grace,
Speaker 4: of loving your neighbor, of all those things, of a
Speaker 4: moral uprightness, of being prepared to lay down your life
Speaker 4: to protect a woman and a child, to be a knight,
Speaker 4: and shining armor, to open the door, to give your
Speaker 4: seat up, found your self sacrifice for others. That was
Speaker 4: what I believed. I had a great sense of history.
Speaker 4: It was instilled in me like all of us. We
Speaker 4: were member of the Commonwealth, and we had built this
Speaker 4: Westminster system, our Fourbears, where we had free speech, speech
Speaker 4: and rights. We had abolished slavery, we had abolished serfdom.
Speaker 3: Jack was every bit as good.
Speaker 4: As his master, and here in New Zealand we had
Speaker 4: perfected it.
Speaker 3: That's what we believed.
Speaker 4: On top of that, that's what we believed growing up,
Speaker 4: that we had we loved Western civilization, and here in
Speaker 4: New Zealand it was its pinnacle because we got we
Speaker 4: didn't have the class system. On top of that, we
Speaker 4: were taught talents and skills and we rated them. If
Speaker 4: you were talented and you were skillful, you were a
Speaker 4: good person. And if you applied them to the benefit
Speaker 4: of others, that was a good thing. And at the
Speaker 4: very top of that pyramid, hardly mattering at all was
Speaker 4: our race and ethnicity and our sex and what we
Speaker 4: now call gender. And they were insignificant to us.
Speaker 2: How could they be insignificant to you?
Speaker 4: Because we believed and were taught to believe in the
Speaker 4: ideal that you were to be blind to race, that
Speaker 4: you were to value another person first of all because
Speaker 4: they were another human being, but secondly by their character
Speaker 4: and their skill, their talents, and that applied to men
Speaker 4: and to women. Men and women were different, but they
Speaker 4: had value because they were human beings and a woman
Speaker 4: that was good at things would be admired just like
Speaker 4: a man would be. But we didn't value them by
Speaker 4: their sex, the agenda, or their race. That was irrelevant,
Speaker 4: totally irrelevant.
Speaker 2: So what age are we talking now? For you?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 4: Primary school, in high school, in the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 2: Wasn't long before that, for instance, that and I'm thinking
Speaker 2: of one case in particular that I'm very familiar with
Speaker 2: of a woman who grew up in London and was
Speaker 2: highly intelligent and set a couple of records for female students.
Speaker 2: But the best job they could get that I'm talking
Speaker 2: literally for women, the best job they could get was
Speaker 2: school teaching or working in an office as an assistant,
Speaker 2: something along those lines. And if they got pregnant, they
Speaker 2: had to stop working. So there wasn't there was plenty
Speaker 2: of room for improvement in the situation and the balance
Speaker 2: back then, don't you think.
Speaker 4: Of course, but we make a mistake if we see
Speaker 4: things that are wrong that we can put right versus
Speaker 4: condemning everything. And that was the mistake I made. So
Speaker 4: you see injustices and you see things that are troubling
Speaker 4: and you say, oh, that's so terrible, let's throw it out.
Speaker 4: For instance, you say, how terrible is it that this
Speaker 4: poor woman got pregnant and now it was poverty stricken,
Speaker 4: and you say, well, let's just you know, give me
Speaker 4: a financial support through the government fix that problem. You
Speaker 4: see a woman being beaten in an abusive relationship.
Speaker 3: And no easy way out of being married.
Speaker 4: And you say, well, let's make for no fault divorce
Speaker 4: and financial support. And what you don't realize is you're
Speaker 4: throwing them, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Speaker 4: So we literally got rid of marriage and the family
Speaker 4: because of those issues. We got rid of respectful woman
Speaker 4: because we didn't think it was right that a woman
Speaker 4: should be confined to particular jobs. Whereas what we could
Speaker 4: have done is through a generosity of spirit and through
Speaker 4: being better people ourselves, we could have helped those ladies,
Speaker 4: and many people did, and we could have in our
Speaker 4: own lives not discriminated against women. But the move was
Speaker 4: to take those instances and literally to destroy marriage, the family,
Speaker 4: and womanhood, and we did it extremely successfully. So I'm
Speaker 4: not going to defend the institutions that we've had for
Speaker 4: thousands of years against particular instances of injustice, because you can't.
Speaker 4: But what you can say about those individual instances and justice,
Speaker 4: I can do something myself to ameliorate that and to
Speaker 4: help that and to fix that, which is actually the
Speaker 4: Christian thing to do. But you'd make a terrible mistake
Speaker 4: to undermine thousands of years of tradition because of that.
Speaker 4: Funny enough, I think that's been always the argument of
Speaker 4: what you and I might call the progressive left, where
Speaker 4: they pick on a single, single instance and use that
Speaker 4: to turn everything over. You know, in fact it is
Speaker 4: it's the emodus operandi. So oh, we've got a terrible
Speaker 4: problem of child abuse, so let's get rid of smacking.
Speaker 4: And that's what happened, And so yes, I agree with you.
Speaker 4: It was terrible.
Speaker 3: It was particularly bad when young.
Speaker 4: Women couldn't go to university, or young women would go
Speaker 4: to university qualify as great astronomers but couldn't work in
Speaker 4: obsur tree even though they were far better than the mean.
Speaker 2: At times, it actually it actually makes you laugh in
Speaker 2: what regard to think about that you think about this
Speaker 2: is the effect that has on me. You just mentioned
Speaker 2: the woman who couldn't work in an observatory, and I
Speaker 2: don't know which case you're talking about, but I certainly
Speaker 2: I certainly recall one in particular, and the fact that
Speaker 2: a woman couldn't work in an environment like that, albeit
Speaker 2: that she was highly qualified, was insane. And if it's insane,
Speaker 2: then it's laughable. It's very risible, certainly. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: just ridiculous, is it?
Speaker 4: Yes, it's a funny thing, you know, because I'm not
Speaker 4: so sure you're right. Well, let me have another shot
Speaker 4: at it. It is ridiculous now, yes, yes, Now that
Speaker 4: that opens up the argument that you can't judge today
Speaker 4: on one hundred years ago. No, of course, and that's
Speaker 4: the way that it was then, and possibly in time
Speaker 4: to come, some of the stuff that goes down these
Speaker 4: days will be treated in exactly the same way. I
Speaker 4: find it interesting because part of I've realized that that
Speaker 4: we've lost respect for woman, so young men, not all
Speaker 4: and maybe not typically, but there's a disrespect of woman.
Speaker 3: And it's part of this failure to do.
Speaker 4: This identity because just to finish that in a sentence,
Speaker 4: whereas what was happening to us, our humanity, our character,
Speaker 4: our belief systems, and our talents and our skills were
Speaker 4: being worked on when you attend school. Now it's all
Speaker 4: about race and gender. That's what matters, and it's fluid,
Speaker 4: and so our kids aren't being taught character and humanity,
Speaker 4: and not particularly being talented or skilled.
Speaker 2: Let me refer you to something that is present in time,
Speaker 2: and I'm talking about wokeness, which led to all sorts
Speaker 2: of things, THEI being one. Yes, And it came out
Speaker 2: of America, and it's spread fairly rapidly through the world,
Speaker 2: or through the Western world anyway. Now it's changed, it's
Speaker 2: been made illegal certainly in government departments, et cetera. And
Speaker 2: it's spreading pretty much like wildfire through big organizations in
Speaker 2: the States. Now the question is, are we yet seeing
Speaker 2: it here the same as white nonsense spread around the
Speaker 2: world and came here settled. Does it mean that the
Speaker 2: follow on from the Trump action will do the same,
Speaker 2: and so it will spread and settle here and will
Speaker 2: be done with it? And I want to suggest to
Speaker 2: you that, well, let me refer you to two headlines.
Speaker 2: Understanding the backlash against corporate DEI and how to move
Speaker 2: forward is one, but these are two American pieces. Elite
Speaker 2: holdouts will keep wokeness alive. And I could quote you
Speaker 2: some of it, but I won't because I think they
Speaker 2: speak for themselves. And then you get a New Zealand
Speaker 2: headline Corporate New Zealand is doubling down on diversity, equity
Speaker 2: and inclusion. Global Women's new CEO says, I read that
Speaker 2: only this morning, and she justifies the whole thing and
Speaker 2: says that the companies that she deals with and her
Speaker 2: organization deals with, and she's talking about top companies from
Speaker 2: pricewaterhouse Coopers and down. Like I said, they're doubling down.
Speaker 2: And she anticipates that we will we will continue to
Speaker 2: stand independently in the world if necessary. But what do
Speaker 2: you say?
Speaker 4: I noticed it was a woman, and I mean this genuinely,
Speaker 4: And this goes back to distinct roles and differences because
Speaker 4: men would never stand for it. Men are inherently competitive
Speaker 4: and tough and are not knowing for their known for
Speaker 4: their emotions. But the men were gotten rid of early
Speaker 4: on and feminized and so in the corporates and in
Speaker 4: these leadership positions, it's woman and that the men you
Speaker 4: met aren't men like we knew as youngsters growing up,
Speaker 4: because the men that you and I growing up wouldn't
Speaker 4: stand for it.
Speaker 3: Will it end? I don't know.
Speaker 4: I have a great regret that I went on your
Speaker 4: show and you asked me about Trump. It might be
Speaker 4: not the last episode, but the one before that we did,
Speaker 4: and you pulled me up quite rightly because you asked
Speaker 4: me what I thought of Trump, and I said, well,
Speaker 4: I think I said he's not sort of someone that
Speaker 4: I'd particularly.
Speaker 3: Like to have dinner with.
Speaker 4: But you know, I support him, And you said, come on,
Speaker 4: it's either in or out, and I said, I'm totally in,
Speaker 4: but I had been socialized not to say I'm one
Speaker 4: hundred percent Trump when we went into the selection in
Speaker 4: the United States of America. I regard it Trump winning
Speaker 4: as Western civilization hanging in the balance. I regard his
Speaker 4: success of his agenda and as team of who I
Speaker 4: call pirates or revolutionaries that Western civilization depends upon them
Speaker 4: being successful. If they're successful, then it will sweep through
Speaker 4: New Zealand. Wokeness will die if they're not successful. I
Speaker 4: fear for the Western civilization because what is under attack
Speaker 4: here with wokeness is actually Western civilization. It's all the
Speaker 4: values and the moras and the traditions. And this actually
Speaker 4: relates to what we're discussing because DEI and Will Wokeness
Speaker 4: are far more corrosive than anyone appreciates.
Speaker 3: And let me pick on a New Zealand example.
Speaker 4: We had a navy ship run aground and it's captain
Speaker 4: happened to be Fema. You and I would both agree
Speaker 4: that there could well be a very capable a woman
Speaker 4: captain of a ship, and you and I would both
Speaker 4: agree that they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to compete
Speaker 4: for that role. Would you agree with that? I would
Speaker 4: you and I, I think would also agree that it's
Speaker 4: a great problem when you make a fan fear about
Speaker 4: a person getting the job because she is a woman
Speaker 4: or because she is Mary. And that's what happened here.
Speaker 4: Now you go online and they're arguing about was this
Speaker 4: diversity and inclusiveness that made this boat go on the
Speaker 4: water because you just had someone who was incompetent. And
Speaker 4: I say, that's not the point. Obviously she was incompetent
Speaker 4: because the ship that she was in command of ran aground.
Speaker 4: That's the very definition of being incompetent. But here is
Speaker 4: a more telling thing. An organization can only be about performance.
Speaker 4: If you're talking about the Navy, it's its ability to
Speaker 4: do the job of a navy. If from the very top,
Speaker 4: from the Minister of Defense to the Chief of Defense down,
Speaker 4: your virtue signaling, your wokeness, are saying, oh, look we've
Speaker 4: got a woman, we've got this, we've got.
Speaker 3: That, look at us, look at us.
Speaker 4: The morale and the performance right through their organization collapses.
Speaker 4: And that's what's happened an organization across New Zealand and
Speaker 4: across the world, and it is actually what is being signaled.
Speaker 4: We no longer say, oh, we've got the best navy
Speaker 4: because they achieved this. Now we've got the best navy
Speaker 4: because we have a woman captain. That is crazy. Later,
Speaker 4: the same thing has happened in corporate New Zealand. We
Speaker 4: used to evaluate companies by whether they survived.
Speaker 3: And made a profit.
Speaker 4: Now we're looking at companies and literally it's do they
Speaker 4: have the rainbow tick? Are they recycling? Do they have
Speaker 4: inclusive policies for staff and profit? And survivability are neither
Speaker 4: here nor there. The people running the companies love this
Speaker 4: because there's nothing better than having more than one objective
Speaker 4: to shoot for, because you can never fails. Our profits
Speaker 4: are down a bit this year, Sam oh, Yes, but
Speaker 4: I appointed three lesbians as managers, right, And these multiple.
Speaker 3: Goals have.
Speaker 4: Shielded the corporates from accountability. And of course at the
Speaker 4: same time, we have regulated these industries so much that
Speaker 4: there can't be a takeover. And of course it's the
Speaker 4: same thing in our instance of our navy and our
Speaker 4: air Force and our Army because I love it in
Speaker 4: Trump's America because the issue for their military now is lethality.
Speaker 4: How good are they killing? We don't evaluate our navy
Speaker 4: by how good they are blowing other ships out of
Speaker 4: the water.
Speaker 2: Well, do we have any ships that are capable of
Speaker 2: doing it?
Speaker 4: No, we can't. We don't have a ship that's capable
Speaker 4: of surveying a reef. And they attempted to survey a
Speaker 4: reef and they sunk it. And that's because put identity
Speaker 4: and irrelevancies over and above performance, and you know all
Speaker 4: of this matters. I take young kids to a cadets
Speaker 4: and one boy is desperate to be in the Air
Speaker 4: Force and he's fourteen.
Speaker 2: Great kid, What are his chances?
Speaker 4: He's worked out thy zero because he can't get a
Speaker 4: scholarship because you'd need to be a marry or woman.
Speaker 2: Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it. Are you
Speaker 2: telling us that he's this kid? This boy is not
Speaker 2: fit for purpose for applying for a scholarship. Correct, not
Speaker 2: that he could apply, but he knows he wouldn't get it.
Speaker 2: That he can't apply, He doesn't qualify for application.
Speaker 3: Is it? They're an unavailable to him?
Speaker 2: Well, based on what you've told us, I'm finding I'm
Speaker 2: finding a need to suppress anger.
Speaker 3: Oh it's very dark.
Speaker 4: And of course the thing of this is to get
Speaker 4: upstream of it, so not to be arguing down, you know,
Speaker 4: at the bottom of it all, which is what I've
Speaker 4: always done, but to get upstream to where the starts.
Speaker 4: And if you get upstream, I think you see that
Speaker 4: there are not one hundred problems or a thousand problems,
Speaker 4: or a million problems that are overwhelming.
Speaker 3: But there's one.
Speaker 2: I knew you were going to say that. Now, are
Speaker 2: you talking about an individual?
Speaker 4: I am, but you don't necessarily need to believe in
Speaker 4: the supernatural to see it. I am talking about Jesus,
Speaker 4: but talking also about the Juda Christian ethic, because I
Speaker 4: could see the Judeo Christian ethic and its value before
Speaker 4: I accepted the divine and the supernatural.
Speaker 3: So I knew that everything.
Speaker 4: That I enjoyed in society was a consequence of the
Speaker 4: Juja Christian ethic. That gave us science, It gave us freedom,
Speaker 4: it gave us civilization, it gave us rationality, It gave
Speaker 4: us democracy, and not easily. It had to be hard,
Speaker 4: for slavery didn't disappear when Jesus went to heaven. It
Speaker 4: took hundreds thousands of years, but we worked away in it,
Speaker 4: and so I do believe it's a basis of our
Speaker 4: Judeo Christian ethic. I don't know quite how you hold
Speaker 4: on to a Judaeo Christian ethic without a belief in Jesus.
Speaker 2: Well, let me, can I just point something out to
Speaker 2: you though, Yes, you see you're talking the deo Christian ethic. Yes,
Speaker 2: but Jesus didn't figure in the Judaeo part.
Speaker 3: Well, he did not as.
Speaker 2: Far as Judaism, and that's what what you're talking about
Speaker 2: Judaism is concerned.
Speaker 4: No, but the Old Testament recognized that the Messiah was coming.
Speaker 4: And what surprised everyone and confused them was they expected
Speaker 4: the Messire to be like King David and to rescue
Speaker 4: the Jews and defeat the Romans. And this Messiah turned
Speaker 4: out and he was the antithesis of what you would expect.
Speaker 4: Rather than being a great king raising an army and
Speaker 4: saying fight, he wrote into Jerusalem on a donkey and
Speaker 4: died alongside a common criminal or criminals. So yes, they
Speaker 4: didn't recognize them as the Messiah. Only Christians did and
Speaker 4: we do.
Speaker 2: Was there such a thing as Christians? Then no? So
Speaker 2: how do we then attach that to the approach you're taking.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not a theological expert later, but I'll do
Speaker 4: my best. I've been a Christian for only a year
Speaker 4: a little over, so it's very new to me. But
Speaker 4: it seems to me that with the disciples and the
Speaker 4: word being spread, and what an amazing word it was,
Speaker 4: because the word was these Christians are very strange. We
Speaker 4: throw our babies out to die when we don't want them,
Speaker 4: and these Christians pause, they are run around and gather
Speaker 4: them up and care for them. These Christians aren't impressed
Speaker 4: by power and don't fear death. That's amazing. And it
Speaker 4: spread to New Zealand. So missionaries on their own with
Speaker 4: married guides would travel from tribe to tribe, tuning up
Speaker 4: at a tribe, not knowing whether they would live or die,
Speaker 4: and they'd walk in there and preach the word and
Speaker 4: the slaves would be released. And these slaves would return
Speaker 4: to their tribe and they'd say, what happened to you?
Speaker 4: We thought you would gone, And they'd say, the strangest
Speaker 4: thing happened. And so Mary weren't colonized, they were Christianized,
Speaker 4: and so this was a very powerful message. And it's
Speaker 4: an amazing message because it means building on the Old Testament,
Speaker 4: which is the point that the Judeo point, the Judeo
Speaker 4: Christian point is that you and I later and are
Speaker 4: in the image of God. Were fallen, but we're in
Speaker 4: the image of God and have to be respected.
Speaker 3: Of such.
Speaker 4: You can't treat marriage badly. Even though they in those
Speaker 4: days they could be regarded as perimeter, they were still
Speaker 4: made in the image of God. What are amazing message
Speaker 4: that was to turn up to New Zealand with If
Speaker 4: the Romans had turned up they would have just wiped
Speaker 4: them out or taken them as Slavesians wouldn't do that,
Speaker 4: and so it was a very powerful message. Also, if
Speaker 4: you're a Christian again in the juj Christian heritage, the
Speaker 4: world is rational, there's an order to it because it's
Speaker 4: been made, and we have been with that passive God's
Speaker 4: breath in our bodies. We have been given a mind
Speaker 4: to uncover that order and to wonder at it. And
Speaker 4: so the scientists were always Christian. There were great scientists
Speaker 4: and other religions, of course, but nothing right Western science.
Speaker 2: If if we go back to the part where you
Speaker 2: started talking about Mari and preachers going to persuade them
Speaker 2: that their lifestyle wasn't the best. Yes, how do you
Speaker 2: think you'd go making a presentation like that to the
Speaker 2: Mari party.
Speaker 3: Fascinating, isn't it?
Speaker 4: Because you wouldn't succeed And you wouldn't have succeeded with
Speaker 4: me three years ago.
Speaker 2: Would that stop you if you had the opportunity.
Speaker 4: No, No, because we all always must try. And just
Speaker 4: because you've hit a head against a wall and it's
Speaker 4: never fallen over doesn't mean the next time you have.
Speaker 3: Your head on it won't. And so yes, you do.
Speaker 4: But what we have to understand is the value of
Speaker 4: freedom and where that comes from, and the limits of
Speaker 4: it and what it requires of us. And so the
Speaker 4: married party and the individuals and the married party, all
Speaker 4: of us, we have all benefited enormously through freedom, through democracy,
Speaker 4: through living in the civilized world, through the leaders of
Speaker 4: marriedom that realized the future that they could have for
Speaker 4: their people, and by the early missionaries and political leaders
Speaker 4: of New Zealand coming together and seeing beyond the egos
Speaker 4: and the rankles and the disputes of today to where
Speaker 4: we could be and in a funny way, when you
Speaker 4: look at a white tangy day, you and McQueen pointed.
Speaker 3: This out to me.
Speaker 4: He's written a wonderful book called One Son in the Sky. Yes,
Speaker 4: and he stood against me and epsom lovely, lovely man,
Speaker 4: and we were chatting about white tangy day and he said,
Speaker 4: there was an interesting moment in the morning when a
Speaker 4: young woman got up and spoke and said that she
Speaker 4: had been an alcoholic, a drug addict, homeless, used and
Speaker 4: abused by everyone, and then she'd found Jesus and realized
Speaker 4: he cared for her and that she had a friend.
Speaker 4: She was special, made in the image of God, and
Speaker 4: it saved her. And you and said you looked around
Speaker 4: the ground and there wasn't a dry eye. Members of
Speaker 4: the married party, we're tearing up. Members of the National Party,
Speaker 4: we're tearing up. Members of the audience were tearing up.
Speaker 4: And you realize with her speechs she's reaching into our
Speaker 4: common humanity and what brought us together originally as people,
Speaker 4: taking away this violent colonialist story to the story of love.
Speaker 4: And so when you speak to the married party, yes,
Speaker 4: I would try that. I don't think it would necessarily
Speaker 4: work first time, but I'd persevere if I had the
Speaker 4: opportunity to, if they would listen, They're not throw me
Speaker 4: out because it's the most important message of them all,
Speaker 4: and I think that's the message that will get us
Speaker 4: back our huge humanity.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you this, Just give me a brief
Speaker 2: answer to it. Since you and you've undoubtedly talked about
Speaker 2: this before in other places, I was unaware of the
Speaker 2: fact that you that you became a Christian a year ago.
Speaker 2: How much difference is it made to your daily life?
Speaker 2: Just a short answer.
Speaker 4: I don't recognize myself. Two things. One is before it's
Speaker 4: a Christian. My lovely children, who are loved and adored,
Speaker 4: were clever animals. My wife and I were bound by
Speaker 4: an agreement, not something sacred. I regard my children as
Speaker 4: now a gift of God to be cherished, and my
Speaker 4: marriage is sacred. I never saw that before. How big
Speaker 4: a changes that?
Speaker 2: So let's say you're living at at the moment your
Speaker 2: attitude is ten out of ten? What was it before?
Speaker 3: One?
Speaker 2: No, it couldn't be that low, surely, Yes, Okay, now this.
Speaker 3: Is the I mean that.
Speaker 4: I mean that very very because before you don't have
Speaker 4: meaning or purpose. I carried a lot of anger because
Speaker 4: I hadn't learned to forgive. I carried a lot of
Speaker 4: why didn't this happen to me? Rather than counting my blessings?
Speaker 4: But most importantly, I had never learned to forgive myself
Speaker 4: for my shortcomings. So when I look back and say
Speaker 4: I was a one, I guess I tend to go
Speaker 4: to the extremes.
Speaker 3: I'm never a five, right, it's one or ten.
Speaker 4: A little thing that we do, and we started early on,
Speaker 4: was to say grace at dinner. That transformed our family
Speaker 4: life because in modern times, how often do we stop
Speaker 4: to count our blessings? And our little kids stop and
Speaker 4: learned to count their blessings. It's not a thing we do,
Speaker 4: so yes, it's made a huge difference.
Speaker 2: Later, it's at this point. If this was radio, I'd
Speaker 2: say we need to take a break. Yeah, but I can't.
Speaker 2: Well I could, actually, I suppose, but it would be
Speaker 2: inserted at a later time. So let me go back
Speaker 2: to where we were talking about wocism and give me
Speaker 2: your thoughts on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and
Speaker 2: where it was at until a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2: And there's no guarantee that it's going to change all
Speaker 2: that much, but certainly it was struggling with some serious issues.
Speaker 2: In my humble opinion, it was.
Speaker 4: Terrible, and we went through a hard time with Don
Speaker 4: Bresci's governor Reserve Bank, because we worked out what a
Speaker 4: reserve bank was for. It was for maintaining the value
Speaker 4: of our currency and for overseeing the prudential administration of
Speaker 4: our banking system that their banks just didn't collect nelly,
Speaker 4: that our money was safe and that a dollar today
Speaker 4: would be worth a dollar tomorrow. And Don Grash achieved that.
Speaker 4: We went through a great deal of pain bringing inflation
Speaker 4: under control, and Adrian or came along with Grant Robertson
Speaker 4: and destroyed it. The Reserve Bank started worshiping marry spiritual gods.
Speaker 4: I'd be upset if they started worshiping God, because that's
Speaker 4: not the bank's role. That's the role of a church,
Speaker 4: and you go there yourself in your own time. But
Speaker 4: we had a public institution, all of them, every government
Speaker 4: department now was the same where they literally worship pagan gods.
Speaker 4: It's not even whether you agree or a believer in
Speaker 4: these pagan gods, like you can believe rall if you want,
Speaker 4: but it shouldn't be the basis of you working at
Speaker 4: the Reserve Bank. And how far off track has a
Speaker 4: bank become if it's worshiping pagan gods as part of
Speaker 4: its ethos?
Speaker 2: All right, so what does the Reserve Bank need to
Speaker 2: do to get this country to do it's bit to
Speaker 2: get this country back where it should be.
Speaker 4: Well, funnily enough, what I do is I know Don Brash,
Speaker 4: and he's still healthy and hardy. I'll actually i'd put
Speaker 4: Don Brash in charge as governor. I've never spoken to
Speaker 4: him about this, but I would.
Speaker 2: Funny enough, when you were just saying that a moment ago,
Speaker 2: I thought, I wonder if he would be interested.
Speaker 4: But well, I'm sure he would because he's a great patriot.
Speaker 4: But the thing is, nothing would signal more the change
Speaker 4: than putting him in charge, and anyone else coming in
Speaker 4: he won't be thinking, oh yeah, he'll try and reverse this.
Speaker 3: But with Don Bresh it would happen that moment. The
Speaker 3: signal would be clear.
Speaker 2: Are you suggesting there's a little Trump is in there? Yes?
Speaker 2: I don't know that this country could cope with that.
Speaker 4: No, I don't know if we could either, And I
Speaker 4: certainly do know that Chris Laxon in the National Party couldn't.
Speaker 4: But you asked me what the solution was, and it
Speaker 4: is actually that sort of signal, wasn't it.
Speaker 2: Is there anybody else that would fall into a similar
Speaker 2: category for you.
Speaker 3: As for Reserve Bank governor?
Speaker 4: Yeah, oh, I think Bill English someone like that, But
Speaker 4: you know, I think it would be a bit more middling,
Speaker 4: whereas I think Don Brash would be hardcore and he
Speaker 4: knows the ropes. I think he's he's a powerful symbol
Speaker 4: as not a ditz or a compromiser on this issue.
Speaker 4: Interesting and Bill English is a great man, but he's
Speaker 4: been a politician for a long time and has had
Speaker 4: to sort of have everything in the little balls and
Speaker 4: the balance, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Look, let's put let's put your let's put your political
Speaker 2: hat on or keep it on. Ah, And you mentioned
Speaker 2: the Nats and and the mister Luxeon. There's no question
Speaker 2: about it. There is a growing cry for his replacement. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I'm not I have no idea of numbers.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that everybody's in favor of that, but
Speaker 2: there is a growing movement to talk him out yes,
Speaker 2: would that be good or bad? And if it's good,
Speaker 2: tell me who there is who could do a better job.
Speaker 4: It's very important he leave because from the moment he
Speaker 4: assumed the leadership of the National Party, he displayed no
Speaker 4: backbone or principle and he actually start stands in mark
Speaker 4: contrast to build English in this respect, because Chris Lackson
Speaker 4: couldn't run further away from his Christian belief than he did.
Speaker 4: Funny enough, at that time, I wasn't a Christian, but
Speaker 4: it's still shocked because Bill.
Speaker 3: English was a Catholic.
Speaker 4: Is a Catholic, and he said he was a Catholic,
Speaker 4: and he stood by it, and he said this is
Speaker 4: how I'll vote. I'm a Catholic, my beliefs, So you
Speaker 4: knew he had bottom lines. He also said, I understand
Speaker 4: I'm in a caucus and I'm in a parliament and I.
Speaker 3: Don't get to dictate what happens.
Speaker 4: But I looked at Chris Luckson Christopher Luxon when he
Speaker 4: came and as leader, and he was absolutely nowhere men,
Speaker 4: and I thought, how can you possibly be a leader
Speaker 4: if you don't stand for anything. Well, he became Prime
Speaker 4: Minister and he still doesn't stand for anything wokeness, no
Speaker 4: getting back the national anthem?
Speaker 3: H does he stand for that?
Speaker 4: That's quite funny now that I get the joke's And
Speaker 4: in fact it's a little bit worse because he's gone
Speaker 4: out of his way to outwoke just into a turn.
Speaker 4: And so we have this remarkable situation.
Speaker 2: That yes, because because it's a it's a pretty big chore.
Speaker 4: I know. We had a example of a older teacher
Speaker 4: brought back into service teaching at a pre school and
Speaker 4: she writes off to the Prime Minister very alarmed. She said,
Speaker 4: I can't believe it. There are four and five year
Speaker 4: olds and one is youngest three and a half at
Speaker 4: this preschool questioning their sexuality and wanting to be described
Speaker 4: as who them's and they they thems.
Speaker 3: And she wrote that to Christopher Laxa.
Speaker 4: Now, if if Cinda Adurn had got that letter, she
Speaker 4: would think, whoa, this is a problem, and she'd write
Speaker 4: back and she'd say, I'm having my team from the
Speaker 4: Ministry of Education investigate this.
Speaker 3: Or Bilnish would get that.
Speaker 4: Email and he'd write back and say that's unacceptable.
Speaker 3: It'll stop. Christopher Luxon had.
Speaker 4: His senior Correspondence secretary right back explaining that she should
Speaker 4: understand that Christopher Luxon is one hundred celebrating and supporting
Speaker 4: our lgb t QTI plus community supports and celebrates it
Speaker 4: and celebrates diversity.
Speaker 3: End of email.
Speaker 4: That's in the face of three four and five year
Speaker 4: olds being confused by the appearance and presumably maybe their
Speaker 4: principal as to whether the boys or girls or something else.
Speaker 2: Did you see that letter? Yes, you saw the letter
Speaker 2: that the secretary wrote.
Speaker 3: Yes, I wrote a column on it.
Speaker 2: Where was that published?
Speaker 4: Bess at Brash and Hide And I.
Speaker 2: Said, are you still writing for them?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: I said, I'm embarrassed that I didn't know that.
Speaker 3: No, not at all.
Speaker 4: And I said, this is the end of his prime ministership,
Speaker 4: because no prime minister conservative otherwise.
Speaker 3: Can survive that.
Speaker 4: He's never repudiated it. You could say, oh, look that
Speaker 4: was a staff member, but you'd quickly repudiate and say
Speaker 4: it was a mistake.
Speaker 3: He has it because he doesn't want to upset quote
Speaker 3: the Rainbow community. Well, this is a great thing. This
Speaker 3: is the time. I'm going to interrupt you.
Speaker 2: Later. It's very rude of me, but I was interrupting you.
Speaker 2: But actually, first of all, it's.
Speaker 4: A very important point about this, and I love it
Speaker 4: and you and I know this that we need to
Speaker 4: remind ourselves wokersm eats itself and it can't stop eating
Speaker 4: itself because you can never be woke enough. And the
Speaker 4: reason that these organizations goes so off course because they
Speaker 4: allow a chink. You say, oh, we've got a gay
Speaker 4: guy who's got gay ideas.
Speaker 3: Oh well, you know, and he's saying, oh, we need
Speaker 3: to get a rainbow tick.
Speaker 4: You get a rainbow tick, and every year you'll be
Speaker 4: doing more and more rainbowing.
Speaker 3: It will never be enough.
Speaker 4: And the extremists can't be given in too, because when
Speaker 4: the extremists come along, they're fretting you with losing your
Speaker 4: rainbow tick and public shame. And so you see, these
Speaker 4: radical transactivists have turned off feminists, have turned off the
Speaker 4: gay community, the traditional gay community, and so they can't
Speaker 4: help but eat themselves because Christopher Laxin can't be woken
Speaker 4: enough of them. Even having transgenderism implemented in this preschool.
Speaker 3: Is not over the top for him. Don't you find
Speaker 3: that extraordinary?
Speaker 2: I'm speechless, to be honest, And this.
Speaker 4: Is why, this is why what I'm talking about with
Speaker 4: the school is so significant because it's easy to dismiss
Speaker 4: these things as oh, well, you know, it's a bit
Speaker 4: over the top, but no, this is a fund These
Speaker 4: are fundamental attacks on who we are, what sort of
Speaker 4: society we iran. But more importantly, the coming generation and
Speaker 4: the generations to come after that we have a supreme
Speaker 4: obligation to look after them and to nurture them, and
Speaker 4: to provide for them. And if they are running around
Speaker 4: a preschool confused about who they are, or having to
Speaker 4: give up this seat because he's a Mary got problems.
Speaker 2: I've got to read you. I've got to read you something, please,
Speaker 2: And it was not my intention to do it. I
Speaker 2: was considering either doing this some probably after this interview
Speaker 2: or discussion. I want to read this a couple of
Speaker 2: short paragraphs to you. The right should be cautious. The
Speaker 2: right should be cautious, though, as political and social battles
Speaker 2: are rarely, if ever won for all time. Liberalism and
Speaker 2: progressivism are two labels that required multiple rebrands across several
Speaker 2: generations due to failing fortunes with the public, and yet
Speaker 2: maintained enough elite support. I'm going to repeat that, and
Speaker 2: yet maintained enough elite support to return just as powerfully
Speaker 2: as before. Those of us on the right understand that
Speaker 2: what's now known as wokeness is not new or a
Speaker 2: heretical deviation. Rather, it is the necessary outgrowth of the
Speaker 2: left's assumptions and assertions about the world, inseparable from its
Speaker 2: conception of progress. Most ordinary Americans, though, are busy with
Speaker 2: their lives and haven't traced the left's radicalism as it
Speaker 2: lurched from college campuses in the nineteen seventies into the
Speaker 2: mainstream of elite sorry of elite consensus. Given enough time
Speaker 2: and distance, a period of revisionism always arrives and and
Speaker 2: the battle must be taken up. So history repeats itself,
Speaker 2: but it's directed to the commentary of courses as directed
Speaker 2: totally against what is currently being eliminated. And you've only
Speaker 2: got a look at Marxism really to get a good
Speaker 2: idea on that. Yes, I.
Speaker 4: Attribute Wokism to laziness because knowledge is very hard to acquire,
Speaker 4: and I was fortunate enough to study science and I
Speaker 4: found it extremely hard, and to pass an exam was
Speaker 4: quite something. Workism explains the whole world to you in
Speaker 4: an easy way, because he's just an oppressor and a
Speaker 4: victim and a power imbalance, and it appeals to soft minds,
Speaker 4: and of course you don't even have to debate or argue, because.
Speaker 3: There's no such thing as true just power.
Speaker 4: And so I think our university's got lazy, and you
Speaker 4: can see that by the nonsense that they write, and
Speaker 4: the students have got lazy, and the politicians have got lazy.
Speaker 3: In the media got lazy.
Speaker 4: I don't agree with the thesis that you read out
Speaker 4: because it's the idea that we have to continually have
Speaker 4: this battle. And that's not my makeup. My makeup is
Speaker 4: the elimination of it. It's total destruction of the ideas
Speaker 4: and the reason that's simple.
Speaker 2: But Rodney, that's really what this is about. Yes, the destruction,
Speaker 2: but it won't be destroyed. That's the point. It will
Speaker 2: still survive in enough quarters to make a comeback as
Speaker 2: the world turns.
Speaker 4: I wonder, I wonder if you, for example, imagine if
Speaker 4: there was no funding. This is what's going to be
Speaker 4: interesting Trump, because what we thought were organic protests were
Speaker 4: funded by taxpayers.
Speaker 3: The black lives matter to far.
Speaker 4: And if you look at wokism here in New Zealand,
Speaker 4: none of it's voluntary it's all being paid for by
Speaker 4: you and me and our listeners. Dry up the funding
Speaker 4: if you can, if you can't make money explaining why
Speaker 4: Marxism is a good idea or why Mary are oppressed.
Speaker 4: If you're if you're doing that at a university and
Speaker 4: you're funding drives up, what job do you do?
Speaker 3: Latent?
Speaker 4: Look across the world and realize that this is all
Speaker 4: being funded by poor taxpayers who have been our gold
Speaker 4: and to pay me money for healthcare and looking after
Speaker 4: the poor and the aged, and that money has been
Speaker 4: cleverly diverted by political interests in defunding the stuff. If
Speaker 4: it wasn't funded, they wouldn't exist because you're not going
Speaker 4: to go anywhere in life. You can't succeed in a
Speaker 4: market economy on grievance, and so we can eliminate it.
Speaker 4: But we actually have to be hard. And that's what
Speaker 4: I love about Trump. It's hard. He's being hard, Elon
Speaker 4: Musker being hard. What we love about World War two
Speaker 4: was they were hard and they eliminated Nazism still around, yes,
Speaker 4: but vestiges no power. I mean, so it is so
Speaker 4: it is so destroyed that you use it as a
Speaker 4: political epithet to describe Trump and his supporters people like
Speaker 4: you and me. Likewise, the racist outlook of Japan and
Speaker 4: its imperialism was destroyed. Now that is not destroying. That was,
Speaker 4: you know, physically destroying a country. Both countries were destroyed
Speaker 4: to eliminate an idea. I'm not suggesting that you know,
Speaker 4: we both violence is not an answer, but surely, to
Speaker 4: goodness latent, it's not beyond our wit to stop funding it.
Speaker 4: And of course we realize in our own little way
Speaker 4: this to party marry business that's government funded. Tax payer
Speaker 4: money has funded that through all these government grants, to
Speaker 4: the White period of trust and whatnot. One way or another,
Speaker 4: you don't even have to assert criminality. Just look at
Speaker 4: the money that's for Adam to this. Drive the money
Speaker 4: out and see how long you survive in a market
Speaker 4: economy protesting your grievance.
Speaker 2: I want to share something with you in conclusions, even
Speaker 2: though there's plenty more we could talk about. This is
Speaker 2: I quoted this headline earlier, understanding the backlash against corporate
Speaker 2: DEI and how to move forward real world examples of
Speaker 2: transformation because this is pro DEI. Consider the story of
Speaker 2: the Cawlan Robertson a former alt right filmmaker in the
Speaker 2: United Kingdom. For years, Robertson worked with extremist figures to
Speaker 2: produce anti immigrants and anti Muslim content that garnered millions
Speaker 2: of views online. Then, in twenty nineteen, Robinson saw media
Speaker 2: coverage of Mosque shootings where fifty one people were killed
Speaker 2: by a white supremacist. The tragedy rattled him. In Robertson's
Speaker 2: own words, the event forced him to confront his assumptions
Speaker 2: about white identity and how it can be involved in
Speaker 2: violence and extremism. What began as an overwhelming sense of
Speaker 2: disorientation turned into a period of deep reflection. Robertson eventually
Speaker 2: rejected his old beliefs, began speaking out against extremism, and
Speaker 2: co founded an organization to help others deradicalize. Similar learning
Speaker 2: occurs on smaller scales in workplaces every day. For example,
Speaker 2: a male manager who initially feels threatened by gendering equity
Speaker 2: policies might over time come to recognize the barriers women
Speaker 2: face at work and become an advocate for change. Or
Speaker 2: a white employee who feels uncomfortable during discussions about racism
Speaker 2: might come to see how privilege has shaped their experiences.
Speaker 2: I just want to stay with this guy, Robertson, and
Speaker 2: get your opinion about him, about him, because I've got
Speaker 2: one definitive answer to him. But what's your response.
Speaker 4: Well, he's a racist, and the other example was a sexist.
Speaker 4: So this guy was a racist, and he thought whites
Speaker 4: were better than non whites, and then he had the
Speaker 4: mosque shooting and he decided, wow, that was done by
Speaker 4: a white person. Maybe non white people aren't so bad.
Speaker 4: After all, we're also bad. The failure is the racism,
Speaker 4: the idea that you identify yourself and your views and
Speaker 4: your belief tribally skin color, And of course that's how
Speaker 4: the author of the article has framed it, whereas the
Speaker 4: true answer in both instances is that you're an individual.
Speaker 4: You're not white or brown first, or even second, or
Speaker 4: even third. You're an individual Jews, it's your behavior that
Speaker 4: we're going to judge, not your ethnicity, not your group.
Speaker 4: And yet this is so ingrained in us, in movies, books, schools, universities,
Speaker 4: political discourse, that everything's getting framed in terms of race,
Speaker 4: And that's his problem. Why couldn't he just stop being
Speaker 4: a racist and see individuals?
Speaker 3: That to me is the problem.
Speaker 2: Rat, that's the problem that's going to be difficult to solve.
Speaker 4: My point because it's been inconculted everywhere.
Speaker 2: My point was that there was no mention whatsoever of
Speaker 2: the violence from Islam all over the planet. Now all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, all of a sudden, that's irrelevant and
Speaker 2: white be damned.
Speaker 3: Yes, But the question is this does a Muslim per
Speaker 3: se bother you?
Speaker 2: It's an interesting question, and I could give you an
Speaker 2: answer of something an example sprang to mind immediately, but
Speaker 2: I'm not going to. I'm not going to utilize it.
Speaker 2: The answer is it depends on the individual.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And that's your point and my point.
Speaker 2: And I didn't say that because of what you said.
Speaker 2: It is the individual. If I see a mongrel mob
Speaker 2: member walking toward me, you could ask me the same question. Yes,
Speaker 2: it might be a mongrel mob member, but what else
Speaker 2: can I tell about him? Yes, that's fair enough.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, I totally concur Now, we always fall into the
Speaker 4: into it's not necessarily a trap because it can save
Speaker 4: our lives of pattern recognition. So if I was walking
Speaker 4: home on a dark night and I saw half a
Speaker 4: dozen choir boys walking towards me, I'd feel safe if
Speaker 4: I saw half a dozen Mongol My members walking towards me,
Speaker 4: I'd think, oh, I think I might just stuck around
Speaker 4: the corner here. And you'd say, well, that's a prejudice,
Speaker 4: and I'd say, no, it's a pattern recognition, and I
Speaker 4: would say, I'm not judging the individuals. I'm making a
Speaker 4: patent decision to just play it safe, and we all
Speaker 4: do that. Likewise, if I saw a young choir boy
Speaker 4: walking into a church with a musical instrument case, I
Speaker 4: would say, oh, yeah, he's going to play something for
Speaker 4: the church. If I saw a guy in Islamic garb
Speaker 4: walking in with a music case, I'd say, I need
Speaker 4: to see what's in there, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4: It's a complicated thing for people to realize that we
Speaker 4: have an instinct to recognize patterns, and we have a
Speaker 4: higher conscience to realize that we've also got to appreciate
Speaker 4: the individuals what decides. And there are Mongol Mob former
Speaker 4: Mongol Mob members who have proved exemplary and we should
Speaker 4: never give up on them.
Speaker 2: So we didn't touch on a few things that I
Speaker 2: wanted to. I want to ask you two or three questions.
Speaker 2: I want you to give me a sentence and answer, Okay,
Speaker 2: do your best anyway. Do you know who Antonio Guteris is?
Speaker 3: I do is the head of the UN?
Speaker 2: Do you think that New Zealand would be better off
Speaker 2: pulling out of the UN totally?
Speaker 4: The UN is a corrupt organization that promotes war and
Speaker 4: famine around the world and says no good purpose.
Speaker 2: So you think that we should pull out of the
Speaker 2: World Health Organization totally?
Speaker 4: The World Health Organization has proven itself unfit for purpose
Speaker 4: and almost revives on scaring people witness and coming up
Speaker 4: with a solution to justify its existence.
Speaker 3: We should get out of both organizations.
Speaker 2: I don't know whether you're familiar with the central bank
Speaker 2: digital currencies, but would you be in favor of the
Speaker 2: central Bank of the country eliminating cash and everything is
Speaker 2: done on a CBDC basis.
Speaker 4: No, because this will be a convenience sold to us
Speaker 4: as a convenience and it will very quickly become a
Speaker 4: method of control.
Speaker 2: Is it interesting that there are so many examples of
Speaker 2: the convenience cell and yet people still don't get it.
Speaker 4: Convenience and or safety. Yeah, this will keep this will
Speaker 4: keep you safe.
Speaker 2: Well, that's convenience too.
Speaker 4: Quite confused and everything every and I mean the left
Speaker 4: or those or tyrants are fantastic at the language. They
Speaker 4: don't have an argument, They've just got a great language.
Speaker 4: So everything is sold to us as a sound bite,
Speaker 4: endlessly repeated and literally there's been a few hundred sound
Speaker 4: bites that have brought Western civilization to its nees. And
Speaker 4: we on the right, by the way, or conservatives, always
Speaker 4: feel the need to concede.
Speaker 2: Why is that short answer?
Speaker 4: Social standing, and we don't want to lose the argument.
Speaker 3: And I now.
Speaker 4: Admire those who lost the amen that stood firm. I've
Speaker 4: got a great admiration now for Patricia Bartlett.
Speaker 3: Too late, yes, but I can still admire her.
Speaker 2: Can I tell you no? Of course I can. It's
Speaker 2: my podcast m I'll tell you a little story about
Speaker 2: Patricia Bartlett. I used to mock her in my Wellington days.
Speaker 2: When I ended up in Auckland. Years later, she wrote
Speaker 2: to me, and I had reached a point where I
Speaker 2: had realized that there was much more to Patricia Bartlett
Speaker 2: than a joke, and we wrote to each other electronically,
Speaker 2: although she did write letters. A few times. She wrote
Speaker 2: to me and I wrote back to her, and like you,
Speaker 2: I had developed by that stage a regard for her
Speaker 2: that had never entered my more juvenile mind.
Speaker 4: Quick story, and nine seventy five I turned up to
Speaker 4: the University of Canterbury. Peter Dunn was the president of
Speaker 4: the Canterbury Students Association, and in that first orientation week
Speaker 4: I went to everything and never attended another thing. Patricia
Speaker 4: Bartlett came along to the Niomass Theater and spoke, and
Speaker 4: she explained how men having playboys beside the bed were
Speaker 4: destroying their marriage and their family. The students hooted and
Speaker 4: yelled at her and was throwing condoms at her, and
Speaker 4: I sat there ashamed. I never agreed with her message
Speaker 4: because I was in favor of free speech and playboys.
Speaker 3: What's the big problem?
Speaker 4: I watched this frail lady stand there with her message
Speaker 4: against an audience that was one hundred percent against her
Speaker 4: and egging each other on to abuse her. She never flinched.
Speaker 4: At the time, I thought I'd disagree with her message.
Speaker 4: But that's the bravest woman I've ever seen. Now I
Speaker 4: agree with your message.
Speaker 2: You reckon, There would be room for acceptance for a
Speaker 2: posthumous award.
Speaker 3: Fascinating, isn't it?
Speaker 4: Apart from our listeners, and some of them will disagree
Speaker 4: with us. Very few New Zealanders would appreciate the need
Speaker 4: for guardrails or lines in the sand. We have primary
Speaker 4: school kids waiting for the school bus with their smartphones
Speaker 4: watching hardcore porn.
Speaker 2: I was going to raise that at one stage when
Speaker 2: you were talking about the situation of a Waker Tippoo
Speaker 2: High school earlier on that those thirteen year olds. I
Speaker 2: don't know about the girls. Certainly the boys are probably
Speaker 2: watching plenty of it. Yes, so the argument might be
Speaker 2: I shouldn't raise this now. But the argument might be, well,
Speaker 2: if they're watching it online, then what's the problem with
Speaker 2: teaching them the things that you were suggesting?
Speaker 4: Well, I do my utmost to keep it from my children.
Speaker 4: Second of all, I don't want to normalize it. When
Speaker 4: I was a little kid and we looked at a playboy,
Speaker 4: we thought it was extremely naughty and we didn't want
Speaker 4: the school teacher to find it, find us with it
Speaker 4: or appearance, because we knew we'd be beaten black and blue,
Speaker 4: because we knew it was wrong. When you start teaching
Speaker 4: this in school as though it's normal, you're normalizing it.
Speaker 4: So we're normalizing sexual experience for twelve and thirteen year olds.
Speaker 4: They're not emotionally ready for what sexual experience. It won't
Speaker 4: lead to a good outcome and it won't lead to
Speaker 4: a fulfilling marriage and a good family, and so that's
Speaker 4: what's wrong with it. It's terrible that the appearance of
Speaker 4: that their kids watch hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 4: that because they do. Mister King at the Walkertippo High
Speaker 4: School should be texting my daughter at thirteen how to
Speaker 4: lube and protect herself should she want to have anal sex.
Speaker 2: And on thatsavory note, I will say once again thank you.
Speaker 2: It's been two years. As we mentioned at the top,
Speaker 2: maybe we should maybe we should back up a little
Speaker 2: earlier than that.
Speaker 4: Well, lady, and I can't tell you how much I
Speaker 4: enjoy your interviews and being interviewed by you.
Speaker 3: You're a wonderful human being and a gentleman.
Speaker 2: You're too generous and some people would argue with you
Speaker 2: quite with some volatility, and I have great admiration for
Speaker 2: the stance that you take and that you continue to develop.
Speaker 4: So thank you and Rivadecci, thank you Lagen, thank you Leiden,
Speaker 4: and please put in a plug for lit.
Speaker 3: Kids be kids.
Speaker 2: You do it right now.
Speaker 4: Oh look, there's a community of parents and grandparents that
Speaker 4: are concerned about this. Google us lick kids be kids
Speaker 4: and sign up and get armed and get strong because
Speaker 4: we're building an army.
Speaker 2: Let kids be kids.
Speaker 3: Let kids be kids.
Speaker 2: Talk to you soon.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Laighton Smith, the Male.
Speaker 2: Room for Podcasts two hundred and seventy five, Business producer.
Speaker 2: You're well, aren't you?
Speaker 3: Late? Not great? How are you?
Speaker 2: I don't know why. I think put it on rote
Speaker 2: always good. I'll put it on rot good. Life is good, excellent.
Speaker 2: Why don't you? Because there's a mixture this week, and
Speaker 2: I've restricted the number because I've got two very long letters,
Speaker 2: but they both need they both need sharing.
Speaker 5: So and I've got some very long ones as well.
Speaker 6: And I'm sure these people will understand if we sort
Speaker 6: of shave them a tiny bit, because otherwise we'll still
Speaker 6: be here next week doing these letters.
Speaker 5: But thank you so.
Speaker 2: Much for your input.
Speaker 5: Input. Yes is the word, so Jin says.
Speaker 6: A few weeks ago, my doctor called me for the
Speaker 6: second time to encourage me to take my booster jab
Speaker 6: for tetanus. In normal circumstances, I would have willingly complied,
Speaker 6: but I don't live in normal circumstances. I'm living in
Speaker 6: twenty twenty five PC, that is twenty twenty five post COVID.
Speaker 6: After falling for the lies about the COVID vaccine, I
Speaker 6: now question the necessity of every single vaccine. And upon
Speaker 6: listening to your podcast with James, I am thinking of
Speaker 6: giving my tetanus boost a JAB A miss. Don't Jin
Speaker 6: have the tetanus tetanus jab and James isn't alone. Candice
Speaker 6: Owns ran a whole video series, A Shot in the Dark,
Speaker 6: which uncovered the ugly truths about vaccines, and doctor Robert
Speaker 6: Malone exposed the dangers of mr NA vaccines on vaccines
Speaker 6: on Joe Rogan's podcast, Jin, thank you for the rest
Speaker 6: of it, but I'll just end up by saying, the
Speaker 6: post COVID era is an era of mistrust. That is
Speaker 6: a belief that I have to I understand that, Jin.
Speaker 6: We don't trust the politicians, we don't trust the media,
Speaker 6: we don't trust the justice system, and now we sometimes
Speaker 6: don't even trust our own doctors. Perhaps it's time we
Speaker 6: started trusting our judgments. Perhaps it's time for the next
Speaker 6: age of enlightenment.
Speaker 2: From Yeah, and I would endorse the tetanus shot im
Speaker 2: mist I have I had them. I had one last year,
Speaker 2: and I think I have shown note real signs.
Speaker 5: As a resultness.
Speaker 2: That's the main thing now from mer Julian, once again
Speaker 2: a wonderful podcast, and just a comment on your initial
Speaker 2: discussion regarding Ukraine. I take it from your citing of
Speaker 2: various opinions that you're not a fan of Zelensky and
Speaker 2: his oval office performance. I spoke to a Ukrainian woman
Speaker 2: this morning who still has contacts in her country, and
Speaker 2: it confirmed my suspicion that Zelensky still holds majority support
Speaker 2: within Ukraine. The fact that the administration has suspended elections
Speaker 2: is often disingenuously used as proof of Zelensky's dictatorial nature,
Speaker 2: and even Trump has stated this, which I might add
Speaker 2: he recently dismissed wanting to move when questioned. I presume
Speaker 2: that if an election were to be held now, he
Speaker 2: would still hold power, but that's not to say that
Speaker 2: when the elections resume, he would suffer the same fate
Speaker 2: as Churchill after the war ends. In terms of the
Speaker 2: press conference, it was clear that although tense, it was
Speaker 2: only until forty two minutes so long when Vance chipped
Speaker 2: in that things changed for the worst, and Zelensky folded
Speaker 2: his arms and rest as history. Zelensky has a right
Speaker 2: to feel highly suspicious of Number one Putin, who has
Speaker 2: broken many agreements at America, Inc. For not following through
Speaker 2: on protection when Ukraine relinquished their nuclear weapons. I thank
Speaker 2: you in advance for allowing me to exercise my write
Speaker 2: at free speech PS. I am a Trump supporter, but
Speaker 2: not on this occasion.
Speaker 6: Layton Brett has written a very lengthy letter Brett, thank
Speaker 6: you so much. He gives to start with a couple
Speaker 6: of examples where pharmaceutical based medicines weren't used very appropriateriately
Speaker 6: and these people got better. I know you've read it,
Speaker 6: so you understand what he's talking about, but it's very long.
Speaker 6: So Bret goes on to say, there are so many
Speaker 6: stories I know of personally myself included, where health lay
Speaker 6: outside the pharmaceutical based medical profession. Our medical profession does
Speaker 6: have its place. There are some good people doing their best.
Speaker 6: However needs to be treated with all due caution. A
Speaker 6: lot of harm also occurs. The medical profession is said
Speaker 6: to be the biggest killer in the US. There is
Speaker 6: foundation for this and Brett goes on to say caution
Speaker 6: is advised no matter which health journey or avenue one
Speaker 6: might take. Finding the right path for yourself and right
Speaker 6: help is a challenge and is so much. There is
Speaker 6: so much to learn. There's good and bad whatever the
Speaker 6: field or walk of life, and the right fit for
Speaker 6: one may not be so for another. He says, it
Speaker 6: should also be noted that not all information is good information,
Speaker 6: which also presents its own challenges for each of us
Speaker 6: when dealing with health issues. Some solutions may in fact
Speaker 6: be very simple. Addressing the root cause of the imbalance
Speaker 6: in our biology then often allows biology to self correct.
Speaker 6: Your guest may have ruffled some feathers and some quarters.
Speaker 6: Each must take from it what is valid and useful
Speaker 6: for them, and that's from breaks.
Speaker 2: Thanks and then just passed me that if you would,
Speaker 2: because I want to quote that again in a moment
Speaker 2: at the end of this late and I'm a regular
Speaker 2: and long time listener to your podcasts. Podcast two seven
Speaker 2: four gave a very interesting perspective on Zelenski. I'm quite
Speaker 2: right wing by the way, add a big Trump supporter.
Speaker 2: Then followed the interview with James Ruguski, how could you
Speaker 2: be sucked in by this nutcase. I can't believe that
Speaker 2: you would ever give him airspace. I certainly didn't agree
Speaker 2: with his COVID vaccine restrictions, but this guy goes way
Speaker 2: beyond that. His views are dangerous, and his disregard of
Speaker 2: the medical profession is an insult. I've now lost faith
Speaker 2: in your judgment. Might not tune in again. I bet
Speaker 2: you're there listening to this now, and I have. I
Speaker 2: have a couple of responses for you. One is, I
Speaker 2: note your address. I live four doors down the road
Speaker 2: for three years. How about that. Here's the second one,
Speaker 2: and it's why I asked Carolyn to passby the letter
Speaker 2: from Brett, and it summarizes my feeling in regard to
Speaker 2: what you have said. It should also be noted, wrote Brett,
Speaker 2: that not all information is good information, which also prevents
Speaker 2: its own challenges for each of us when dealing with
Speaker 2: health issues. Some solutions may in fact be very simple.
Speaker 2: Addressing the root cause of the imbalance in our biology
Speaker 2: then often allows biology to self correct. Your recent guest
Speaker 2: may ruffle some feathers in some quarters. Each must take
Speaker 2: from it what is valid and useful to them, and
Speaker 2: that's the way that I feel about it because people
Speaker 2: have got different backgrounds, different ideas, all sorts of things,
Speaker 2: and I'm prepared to take a gamble on occasions and
Speaker 2: share stuff that I know will upset some people. But
Speaker 2: that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be heard and dealt
Speaker 2: with by us as individuals.
Speaker 6: Carolyn Layton, I have got something from Chris, he says
Speaker 6: regarding the long letter you read at the end of
Speaker 6: mail Room two seventy four. So much of what the
Speaker 6: correspondent said in his long letter could be applied to Australia.
Speaker 6: On another matter, by the way, if you do decide
Speaker 6: to visit Canberra, I would like to meet you. I
Speaker 6: have lived in Canberra for thirty three years now and
Speaker 6: has changed a lot. You wouldn't recognize it. Unfortunately, like
Speaker 6: a lot of cities these days, it's been overtaken by
Speaker 6: high rise apartment buildings instead of building houses on quarter
Speaker 6: acre lots as used to be the case. Even the
Speaker 6: freestanding houses that are being built are being built on
Speaker 6: much smaller lots, most of which are very small backyards. Unfortunately,
Speaker 6: we have a Radical label government, which until the October
Speaker 6: twenty twenty four election, had been a Labour Greens government
Speaker 6: for at least twelve years, if not more. This government
Speaker 6: has been and continues to be as radical as the
Speaker 6: Andrews government in Victoria, although during COVID it was not
Speaker 6: as trigger happy on lockdowns as the Andrews government.
Speaker 5: That's from Chris.
Speaker 2: Chris, appreciate the offer and I will take you up
Speaker 2: on it should the occasion occur. You are the only
Speaker 2: he is the only contact that I have with Canberra.
Speaker 5: Do you have nobody else who writes from Canberra that
Speaker 5: you know of?
Speaker 2: Not that I know of, But I mean after spending
Speaker 2: two years at a and you what I'm saying is
Speaker 2: and buying a house there. What I'm saying is that
Speaker 2: he's my only contact with an old stopping ground.
Speaker 5: It was a long time ago later, so it.
Speaker 2: Would be that I mentioned that my father, being an architect,
Speaker 2: designed the very first motel in Canberra. It's true I
Speaker 2: went there on a couple of occasions with him as
Speaker 2: a young person.
Speaker 6: You mentioned the circus that was the entire day up
Speaker 6: in the northern part of New South Wales in January
Speaker 6: where we went on a wild goose chase looking for
Speaker 6: something your father had built, but we never found it.
Speaker 2: Did we know there was a block of apartments on
Speaker 2: the seashore. The place had changed so much you couldn't recognize. Well,
Speaker 2: probably the aspect of.
Speaker 6: That block of land had probably been built on three
Speaker 6: times since then.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. It was a good solid block
Speaker 2: of apartments, not a huge one about three or four
Speaker 2: stories tall as all. Anyway, we couldn't find it, but
Speaker 2: we tried. Now this is this is a very important one,
Speaker 2: and I think and I think Bethie'll appreciate it too.
Speaker 2: From Linden, thank you for your latest guest, James Ruguski.
Speaker 2: I do enjoy listening to him. I don't agree with
Speaker 2: everything he says, but I loved the process of challenging
Speaker 2: my perspectives and in knowledge as a doctor. I concur
Speaker 2: that eighty percent of the so called facts about COVID
Speaker 2: are not correct, and he puts not in other case,
Speaker 2: I think, in other words, he's determined that's right. I
Speaker 2: think the World Health Organization should be disbanded and ignored,
Speaker 2: and it is not uncommon to find research challenging historical beliefs,
Speaker 2: and therefore we need to adjust current practice. This is medicine,
Speaker 2: This is science as an aside part of My role
Speaker 2: is to peer review research before publication. I'm used by
Speaker 2: a number of well acclaimed international journals. Don't worry latent.
Speaker 2: I am not an expert, and in brackets, I detest
Speaker 2: the word. But I am pretty good at looking through
Speaker 2: facts and figures, understanding statistics, spotting data manipulation and industry bias. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: I reject more than nine out of ten articles said
Speaker 2: to me as they don't fulfill the criteria of good science.
Speaker 2: Pretty high number. But I have to say that while
Speaker 2: any reasonable doctor knows that medicine does not have all
Speaker 2: the answers, I still get up every morning striving to
Speaker 2: care for my patients, expanding my knowledge and sacrificing time
Speaker 2: and energy so other people's lives will be better. I'm
Speaker 2: not in it for the money. I am, despite James's
Speaker 2: book title, most certainly not a liar. I think something
Speaker 2: else I forgot to mention from my perspective from James's
Speaker 2: book and his attitude, is that he is an American,
Speaker 2: and in America, as the saying goes, the medical field
Speaker 2: is responsible for the biggest number of deaths or something
Speaker 2: along those lines. It's said by responsible people anyway. But
Speaker 2: I have to say that while any reasonable doctor I
Speaker 2: did that, you should know that not everything James stated
Speaker 2: is true. Listening to him speak, it is clear he
Speaker 2: is very well read, but he also doesn't understand everything
Speaker 2: about how the human body works, and some of the
Speaker 2: physiology knowledge, and some of his physiology knowledge is inaccurate.
Speaker 2: If I may a quick example, James stated that I
Speaker 2: know a few people who have had nasal swab tests
Speaker 2: for COVID that went up and damaged the nasal cavity,
Speaker 2: so the fluid around the brain leaked out and gave
Speaker 2: them long term problems. Is he suggesting that a nasal
Speaker 2: swab went through the nose, managed to get past two
Speaker 2: large inferior and middle conture, ripped through the nasal mucosa,
Speaker 2: then rupture the periosteum. That might be a mispronunciation of
Speaker 2: the bone, smash through the thick ethmoid bone, then through
Speaker 2: another layer of perio steam staem, punch through a couple
Speaker 2: of layers of meninges to where it would encounter the
Speaker 2: CSF fluid that protects our brain.
Speaker 5: I think you should just that's source.
Speaker 2: You don't know.
Speaker 6: You don't know whether you're pronouncing any of that right.
Speaker 6: It's just nobod, It's why don't you just say a
Speaker 6: litany of tissue?
Speaker 2: See what I have to put up with? Christian, don't
Speaker 2: ever have a.
Speaker 6: Producers a litany of tissue? And then he goes on
Speaker 6: to James.
Speaker 2: James stated, I know a few people who had a
Speaker 2: naval swab test for COVID that went up and damaged
Speaker 2: the nasal cavity, so the fluid around the brain leaked
Speaker 2: out and gave them long term problems. Is he suggesting
Speaker 2: that a nasal swab went through the nose, managed to
Speaker 2: get past two large inferior and middle conture, ripped through
Speaker 2: the nasal mucosa, and on egos, mentioning a number of
Speaker 2: other things that the swab had to defeat to achieve
Speaker 2: what James was I'm not here to argue lately this
Speaker 2: can be achieved, but it can take a ten centimeter
Speaker 2: long drill on power and would take three or four
Speaker 2: seconds to drill through the bone. So what James said
Speaker 2: about this on your show, with all the confidence in
Speaker 2: the world, was a categorical lie. So while it's great
Speaker 2: to hear views from all sides, your listeners should be
Speaker 2: reminded when an articulate person states facts from all their
Speaker 2: extensive research. This does not mean that they are always
Speaker 2: telling the truth. Can I just say that maybe he
Speaker 2: believed what he was saying and wasn't lying, but was
Speaker 2: making a mistake. I'm just throwing that in another aside,
Speaker 2: if I made vaccines. As far as the COVID disease
Speaker 2: moderating drug not vaccine goes, it is not required by
Speaker 2: ninety five percent of the population. It does have side effects,
Speaker 2: but nothing as catastrophic as James suggests, but definitely enough
Speaker 2: to be cautious. As a doctor and a scientist who
Speaker 2: tries to get to know the facts as best he can,
Speaker 2: not an expert, I will never have it again, nor
Speaker 2: will my family. Hysteria aside, When I look at the
Speaker 2: risk benefit ratio for me, a slightly unfit, mostly healthy,
Speaker 2: forty eight year old, the risks outweigh the benefit. And
Speaker 2: here's my hysterical opinion. The commonest regime of forcing this
Speaker 2: drug into every person or excluding them from society should
Speaker 2: be put in jail. Very well balanced. Please, please, please,
Speaker 2: do not tarnish all vaccines with the same brush as
Speaker 2: the COVID vaccine. No, I don't do that. Most vaccines
Speaker 2: are incredible the polio vaccine is up there with one
Speaker 2: of the greatest scientific advancements for humankind in the world
Speaker 2: for health, extraordinarily safe, and the lives and morbidity it
Speaker 2: has prevented cannot even be calculated. It is so large.
Speaker 2: In my short career, I have amputated a baby's leg
Speaker 2: due to measles complications. I have two children under my
Speaker 2: care who have cerebral palsy and are fed through a peg,
Speaker 2: live in a wheelchair, and can't speak as a result
Speaker 2: of measles infection that spread to their brain. And I
Speaker 2: have also cared for a young child and watched her
Speaker 2: die of measles. If ninety five percent of New Zealanders
Speaker 2: immunized their children from measles, then measles would go the
Speaker 2: way of polio near eradication. But in the case of measles,
Speaker 2: hysterical mistruths have given people fear of the extremely safe
Speaker 2: measles vaccine completely unfounded, just like people still wearing masks
Speaker 2: outside on their own and just as misinformed. Now there
Speaker 2: is a little more than the included I also last
Speaker 2: year had a young man suffer tetanus ah admitted with
Speaker 2: a simple infection from a cut in his foot. His
Speaker 2: parents refused to vaccinate him on the grounds of all
Speaker 2: vaccines are evil and on admission, when offered the short
Speaker 2: term protection of immunoglobulin, which is good if unimmunized, they
Speaker 2: refuse this. Also, after six weeks in ICU dialysis machines
Speaker 2: and being incubated to keep him alive, he thankfully just
Speaker 2: managed to survive, but his life will never be the
Speaker 2: same at across the taxpayer. By the way, more than
Speaker 2: half a million dollars rees care. That's twenty people living
Speaker 2: in pain with arthritis who won't get their hip replacement
Speaker 2: this year. A safe tetanus vaccine costs fifty dollars. In short,
Speaker 2: not all vaccines are evil. In fact, most are excellent.
Speaker 2: I love your show, Layton. I enjoy hearing views from
Speaker 2: all angles. In the case of James Raguski, he makes
Speaker 2: some excellent points. The joy of science is that it
Speaker 2: is never concluded and we grow and learn. But please
Speaker 2: tell your listeners that not all doctors are evil. Most
Speaker 2: of us mistrust Big Farmer more than James. We work
Speaker 2: in science every day, and not everything that you hear
Speaker 2: on the radio is true, even if it is on
Speaker 2: the most excellent latent Smith podcast, keep up the great word,
Speaker 2: Lindon that I'm going to frame that. Every once in
Speaker 2: a while something comes along that I want to frame,
Speaker 2: and that's going in one thank you.
Speaker 6: It was a very good piece. So finally from me lighton,
Speaker 6: Brent says, great interview. James is a true freedom fighter,
Speaker 6: so well informed about the dangers of the WHO. Hence
Speaker 6: America's exit, as should New Zealand. And then Brent goes
Speaker 6: on to say, your next interview should be with Dr Bloomfield.
Speaker 2: Any one of us would emerge missus producer, Thank you
Speaker 2: for thanks later, see you next week and us some
Speaker 2: good mail today.
Speaker 7: It was thank you.
Speaker 2: I was going to say that I think that there's
Speaker 2: a great ruckus that is being perpetuated by the circumstances
Speaker 2: across the planet at the moment, I can't say that
Speaker 2: because it's not a great ruckus. It's a hugengus, a
Speaker 2: hugengous ruckus that has people arguing, people picking on people,
Speaker 2: and people not accepting what other people have to say, etc.
Speaker 2: And then there is the lying of the cheating, and
Speaker 2: that's been going on for a long time. There's a
Speaker 2: number of books, for instance, that expose a lot of
Speaker 2: it when it comes to science and the world of medicine. Well,
Speaker 2: medicine is part of the world of science, and it
Speaker 2: crosses the border such as it is. What about the
Speaker 2: quote from is regarding a book that has just been released.
Speaker 2: In fact, I think it hit the shelves today. That
Speaker 2: is the what are we the ninth and it's the
Speaker 2: crisis of unreliable science. A pharmacologist call for radical reform,
Speaker 2: and the author writes, each year biomedical scientists pump out
Speaker 2: about a million new papers, one million, but a troubling
Speaker 2: truth hides in plain sight. Much of this work cannot
Speaker 2: be replicated. Far from a small glitch, this is a
Speaker 2: colossal crisis, squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling
Speaker 2: genuine breakthroughs. In an interview with Chemical and Engineering News,
Speaker 2: pharmacologist Savo Sabo, a professor at the I look the
Speaker 2: name up for pronunciation spelled Csaba s z Abo. Saba
Speaker 2: Sabo a professor at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
Speaker 2: who confronts this chaos head on previewing his recently published
Speaker 2: book un Reliable. His verdict the scientific system is fractured
Speaker 2: beyond repair and band aid fixes will not cut it.
Speaker 2: Nothing short of a revolution will do the Sabo's journey
Speaker 2: into this quagmire began casually over Beer's in Fact, with
Speaker 2: colleagues in New York during a sabbatical. The question that
Speaker 2: kept surfacing was simple, yet halting. Why is it that
Speaker 2: nobody can reproduce anybody else's findings. It's a problem scientists
Speaker 2: have grumbled about for years, but Sabo decided to do
Speaker 2: something about it, and the result is unreliable. A deep
Speaker 2: dive into the causes of irreproducibility, ranging from hypercompetition and
Speaker 2: sloppy errors to statistical trickery at outright fraud, his conclusions
Speaker 2: are as sobering as they are provocative. Then, when it
Speaker 2: comes to the scale of the problem, Sabo's findings are
Speaker 2: jaw dropping. After sifting through the global scientific literature, not
Speaker 2: just the polished papers of PubMed but everything published anywhere,
Speaker 2: he estimates that ninety percent of it fails the reproducibility test.
Speaker 2: Even worse, he believes twenty to thirty percent is entirely fabricated.
Speaker 2: I didn't expect the numbers to be that high going in,
Speaker 2: he admits, it's just absurd. The financial tile is staggering
Speaker 2: paper mills, fraudulent outfits, the churn out fake research for
Speaker 2: profit rake in billions annually. This is not a cottage industry.
Speaker 2: It's an industrial scale scam. Now, what's more shocking is
Speaker 2: who's left to clean up the mess. It's not the
Speaker 2: grant agencies, the university's journals, or governments stepping up. Instead,
Speaker 2: it's a ragtag crew of private investigators working unpaid late
Speaker 2: into the night while dodging lawsuits from the very fraudsters
Speaker 2: they're exposing. What kind of system is this, he asks.
Speaker 2: Sabo doesn't mince words. The h lough measures tried so far, workshops,
Speaker 2: checklists of the light have flopped. The things that we've
Speaker 2: tried are not working, he says. I'm trying to suggest
Speaker 2: something different.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: His fix a top to bottom overhaul of how science
Speaker 2: is taught, how it's funded and published. It's an ecosystem,
Speaker 2: he argues, and you can't fix one part without tackling
Speaker 2: the whole. Now, on the subject of education, Zabo proposes
Speaker 2: splitting scientific training into two tracks, one for discovery and
Speaker 2: another for integrity. The latter would train a new breed
Speaker 2: of professionals in experimental design, statistical rigor data management, and
Speaker 2: independent review, especially essentially watchdogs embedded in the system. It's
Speaker 2: a bold idea, but it could professionalize the policing of science.
Speaker 2: Then he takes aim at the current grant lottery, where
Speaker 2: scientists spend endless hours writing proposals, only for the same
Speaker 2: big institutions to pocket the cash year after year. His
Speaker 2: radical suggestion give institutions lump sums tied to strict reproducibility
Speaker 2: and integrity benchmarks. Let them figure out how to spend it.
Speaker 2: The catch It demands visionary leadership, something in short supply. Still,
Speaker 2: it could free researchers from grant writing drudgery and focus
Speaker 2: them on actual science. On the publication front, Savo wants
Speaker 2: journals to demand replication supplements, independent labs verifying findings before
Speaker 2: papers go to print. It's a practical step that could
Speaker 2: boost confidence in high profile claims. But he doesn't stop there.
Speaker 2: He also floats shrinking the scientific workforce and installing cameras
Speaker 2: and keystroke monitors in labs. There are cameras in cockpits
Speaker 2: and behind the barista in Starbucks. He notes, with so
Speaker 2: much money and ultimately human lives at stake, why should
Speaker 2: labs be exempt?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: I'll leave it there. It goes on for double the
Speaker 2: length of that. The point of my dragging this out
Speaker 2: was a because it's brand new. B because the book
Speaker 2: is brand new, and by the way, I had to
Speaker 2: look at it online, and you can buy it instantly
Speaker 2: for a considerable amount of money. I think it's fifty
Speaker 2: two dollars. By downloading it from the website. You can
Speaker 2: buy a paperback for about another fifteen dollars, I believe,
Speaker 2: and that is what I'm going to be ordering, but
Speaker 2: it might get here for a little while, and then
Speaker 2: then comes the real surprise. The hardback copy is something
Speaker 2: like and this is from memory, something like two hundred
Speaker 2: and seventy four dollars, which is extraordinary. I love books,
Speaker 2: and I prefer hardback, but I think I'll stick with
Speaker 2: the paperback now. The point of drawing your attention to
Speaker 2: this book unreliable is because it's a fresh example. Because
Speaker 2: there's plenty of them from the past. There's many books,
Speaker 2: and this is a new book by a scientists to
Speaker 2: some considerable repute. I spotted it on What's Up with that?
Speaker 2: Dot com? Wawts up with that? Or one word dot com,
Speaker 2: which is a site that I visit regularly. It drops
Speaker 2: into my mailbox once or twice every day. They're very
Speaker 2: busy at what's up with that, and they provide very
Speaker 2: good material, and it's a reminder that the science is
Speaker 2: never settled. And we've had our own recent example of that,
Speaker 2: of course with COVID, where doctors got shredded. Some doctors
Speaker 2: got shredded because they wouldn't they wouldn't play horse with
Speaker 2: the authorities who thought they knew everything but knew nothing.
Speaker 2: And that makes me think of people walking away with
Speaker 2: honors when they don't deserve them. But that's another matter anyway.
Speaker 2: As I say, the point of it is that we're
Speaker 2: all adult and should have and I would like to
Speaker 2: think of the capacity to size people up from what
Speaker 2: they write, what they say where it fits, and make
Speaker 2: our own decisions and there we shall let things rest.
Speaker 2: That takes us out for podcasts number two hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy five. Now, if you are to write to us,
Speaker 2: please do Latent at Newstalks ab dot co dot mz
Speaker 2: or Carolyn at Newstalks ab dot co dot MZ. Love
Speaker 2: getting e mail say that every week, but it's true,
Speaker 2: and I don't walk at a bit of criticism unless
Speaker 2: it's stupid and that's another matter. And I am looking
Speaker 2: forward to some comment on Rodney Hyde. I think there's
Speaker 2: plenty that you can dissect or analyze and comment on.
Speaker 2: So we shall be back in a few days time
Speaker 2: with number two hundred and seventy six. Until then, as always,
Speaker 2: we thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 3: Thank you for more from Used Talk sed B.
Speaker 1: Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
Speaker 1: with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio