Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talks B. Follow
Speaker 1: 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 debate of the now, the Layton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcast two hundred and seventy four for March five,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Ever heard of James Roguski? Maybe yes,
Speaker 2: maybe no? Now. I spoke with James Rogowski earlier in
Speaker 2: the year. He is an interesting character fighting a battle
Speaker 2: that he's passionate about. And more on Rogowski shortly. First,
Speaker 2: there is the story that's spoken this morning of Richard
Speaker 2: Prebble's resignation from the White Tangi Tribunal. I didn't even
Speaker 2: know that he was on the tribunal. He's only been
Speaker 2: there about, i'm told, four months. Nevertheless, having read the
Speaker 2: letter of resignation, I have to say, Richard Prebble has
Speaker 2: not let us down. It is a brilliant letter. It
Speaker 2: tells the truth about the situation, and if it doesn't
Speaker 2: make politicians in this country pull their socks up and
Speaker 2: actually get some guts, then this country may well be
Speaker 2: in an attempted to say terminal trouble, but certainly serious
Speaker 2: trouble if it's not already now. Leaving that aside, it'll
Speaker 2: be everywhere for the next few weeks, I would imagine,
Speaker 2: and it will cause some disruption, But let's deal with
Speaker 2: the small matter of the rest of the world. We
Speaker 2: went to bed last night with one story, we woke
Speaker 2: to another, all together different version of the lay of
Speaker 2: the land. Now, in the period since the oval office
Speaker 2: verbal battle that ended in total chaos, we've had commentary
Speaker 2: from all sundry, everybody, all over the world. Everybody has
Speaker 2: how to say about it. There have been arguments I've
Speaker 2: had to extract myself from some because people have different opinions,
Speaker 2: different versions, and different interpretations of what's happened, mostly based
Speaker 2: on their understanding of what this is all about in
Speaker 2: the first place, and variations on the theme it has
Speaker 2: become once again a social crisis. Very good friend and
Speaker 2: I agreed that we would not talk about it anymore
Speaker 2: on the basis that we couldn't come to we couldn't
Speaker 2: come to a mutual anything. My argument is and always
Speaker 2: has been that when there is a crisis like this,
Speaker 2: you cannot rush to judgment. My opinion is it always
Speaker 2: has been for as long as I can remember, is
Speaker 2: that when there is a crisis of this nature, and
Speaker 2: this is probably the worst one we've had for a
Speaker 2: long long time. But when there's the crisis of this nature,
Speaker 2: you cannot garner all the information at once. You have
Speaker 2: to wait for it to be revealed. You have to
Speaker 2: get different opinions. Doesn't matter what you thought before. Unless
Speaker 2: you're in receipt of all the detail, you can't really
Speaker 2: make a decision about how you feel. Oh, you could
Speaker 2: arrive at one, but you might be deceiving yourself. And
Speaker 2: let's not forget it's where you get your information from
Speaker 2: that is vitally important. Let me give you some examples
Speaker 2: of what's been published in the last few days. Europe
Speaker 2: is falling. Martin Armstrong warns, that's why they need war
Speaker 2: with Russia. Zelensky goes to town. If the President of
Speaker 2: Ukraine Zelensky were on my Christmas list, I think I
Speaker 2: might give him a copy of Through Sidade's History of
Speaker 2: the Peloponnesian War, Zelensky has finally and fatally misstepped. Seldom
Speaker 2: in modern times has the fate of a whole nation
Speaker 2: been so dependent on a single meeting and on a
Speaker 2: single relationship. When Zelensky entered the Oval Office on Friday,
Speaker 2: he had one job to repair a deep and catastrophic
Speaker 2: rift between him and Donald Trump, who the previous week
Speaker 2: had called the Ukrainian president a dictator. Zelensky held the
Speaker 2: future of US support for his country's defense against Russia
Speaker 2: in his hands. Cutting Zelensky down to size, President Trump
Speaker 2: and Vice President Vance's combative meeting with the Zelensky today
Speaker 2: was an important first step in preparing the American people
Speaker 2: for peace. It's a different sort of a different sort
Speaker 2: of article. It has a perspective Trump, Vance and the
Speaker 2: New World Order by Stephen Sukup. We had Stephen Sukop
Speaker 2: on the podcast a couple of years back on his
Speaker 2: book on Wokeism, and he was very good. This opening paragraph,
Speaker 2: least part of it, I think is essential. Quoting this
Speaker 2: past week, the venerable A. Mutton Wolf, chief economics commentator
Speaker 2: for The Financial Times, used his column to declare the
Speaker 2: Trump administration and by extension, the United States, the enemy
Speaker 2: of the West today. He wrote, autocracies are increasingly confident
Speaker 2: in the United States is moving to their side. According
Speaker 2: to the subhead on the column Washington has decided to
Speaker 2: abandon its post war role in the world. Meanwhile, Wolf
Speaker 2: cites the in his estimation August Franklin Roosevelt as he
Speaker 2: complains that the United States has decided instead to become
Speaker 2: just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short
Speaker 2: term interests, to which Sukup starts his response. The ironies here,
Speaker 2: as well as the historical ignorance abound, And having read it,
Speaker 2: I can tell you that Sukip's right. And I've never
Speaker 2: had much regard for Martin Wolf, and there are many
Speaker 2: many others that I could quote you. Now let me
Speaker 2: cut to the quick disaster in the Oval Office. DEM's
Speaker 2: lead Zelensky and Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to
Speaker 2: reject mineral deal. Written by Michael Goodwin, a senior journalist
Speaker 2: with the New York Post. Now this is worthy of
Speaker 2: some quoting. A common criticism of Zelensky's disastrous Friday performance
Speaker 2: in the Oval Office is that he failed to read
Speaker 2: the room. Actually, the Ukrainian president did read a room,
Speaker 2: but it was the wrong room. Before we go any further,
Speaker 2: let me just say that the war of words between
Speaker 2: opinion makers has largely been based on who caused this
Speaker 2: ruction to kick off and the left scribblers have gone
Speaker 2: straight for the jugular with the president the Vice President
Speaker 2: of America. Listen to what Michael Goodwin has to say.
Speaker 2: Before meeting President Trump, Zelensky met with anti Trump Democrats
Speaker 2: who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral
Speaker 2: deal that the President was offering. According to Senator Chris Murphy,
Speaker 2: Democrat Connecticut, quote, just finished a meeting with President Zelenski
Speaker 2: here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will
Speaker 2: not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything
Speaker 2: he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He posts that on x at eleven to fifteen am
Speaker 2: on Friday, which a picture of Zelensky at a conference
Speaker 2: table with Murphy seated on the opposite side. Forty minutes later,
Speaker 2: Zelenski arrived at the White House, where Trump met his car, smiled,
Speaker 2: shook his hand, and walked him to the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: The meeting, as the world now knows, quickly went off
Speaker 2: rails and ended with Trump angrily rejecting the arrogant ingrate
Speaker 2: from the White House. The earlier meeting with Dems. The
Speaker 2: Democrats undercuts wild claims that Trump and Vice President J. D.
Speaker 2: Vance staged, staged in ambush. In fact, it was Zelensky
Speaker 2: who came with an ulterior motive, And the piece goes
Speaker 2: on and gives much more detail. Now there is a
Speaker 2: second from the New York Post from I say our
Speaker 2: very own Miranda Devine. She is astray and of course
Speaker 2: we had her on the podcast a few years ago,
Speaker 2: and shortly after she moved to New York and has
Speaker 2: stayed there ever since. Zelensky was the true instigator of
Speaker 2: the Oval Office fracas, not the ambush from Trump. Anyone
Speaker 2: who watched the entire Oval Office meeting between Trump and
Speaker 2: Ukraine President Zelensky would know that it was not an
Speaker 2: ambush or a set up by Trump, as characterized by
Speaker 2: Democrats and malign media entities. It was the opposite. If
Speaker 2: anyone came to that meeting in bad faith, it was
Speaker 2: clearly a Zelenski whose body language and attitude was negative
Speaker 2: from the start. Trump could not have been more cordial,
Speaker 2: having steered the complex negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to
Speaker 2: a first step where he believed peace was a real possibility.
Speaker 2: But Zelensky had other ideas. He contradicted, interrupted and insulted
Speaker 2: Trump even before Vice President J. D. Vant said a word.
Speaker 2: Now there's plenty more like I say, Miranda Divine and
Speaker 2: Michael Goodwin from the New York Post you can find
Speaker 2: them online. But there is one opinion piece that I
Speaker 2: want to emphasize that the only Trump, not Zelensky, can
Speaker 2: say Ukraine. I have known Vladimir A. Zelensky very well
Speaker 2: for years as a senior official personally appointed by Zelensky.
Speaker 2: I spoke to him many times a day and observed
Speaker 2: him closely, both in public and privately. We parted on
Speaker 2: good terms and without rancor. I have no personal act
Speaker 2: to grind, but today I cannot This was written by
Speaker 2: the way On, published on February twenty five, which was
Speaker 2: before before the Overloffice blow up. But today I cannot
Speaker 2: remain silent about how Zelensky is weakening Ukraine under the
Speaker 2: guise of war. As a result of this new climate
Speaker 2: of fear, I must write these words under the veil
Speaker 2: of anonymity, a necessary precaution against retaliation from the very
Speaker 2: regime I once served. It pains me to admit that
Speaker 2: at least some of what Donald Trump said about Zelensky
Speaker 2: is true. While Western politicians have rushed to condemn Trump
Speaker 2: and his vice president's remarks, a quiet ripple of approval
Speaker 2: ran through large parts of Ukrainian society. Ukraine has become
Speaker 2: a paradox, a nation fighting for its sovereignty while dismantling
Speaker 2: its own democratic foundations. Four years, the West has indulged
Speaker 2: in the illusion of Zelensky as the faiths of democracy.
Speaker 2: In reality, he has undermined our democracy, institutions and economy,
Speaker 2: making Ukraine much weaker in the face of an existential threat,
Speaker 2: and in the process destroying our nation's motivation to fight
Speaker 2: the Russian aggressor. Now one two, three and a half pages,
Speaker 2: so I'm not going to quote at all, but let
Speaker 2: me choose some segments. His first presidential term ended in
Speaker 2: May twenty twenty four, but with the war ongoing, no
Speaker 2: elections were held. Zelensky who prolongs martial law every three
Speaker 2: months and has never sought about easing it. As European
Speaker 2: politicians are suggesting claims that the people don't want elections.
Speaker 2: The recent Ukrainian survey confirms this, with sixty five percent
Speaker 2: of Ukrainians not wanting to have elections throughout the war,
Speaker 2: but over half of Ukrainians want to see the end
Speaker 2: of the conflict as soon as possible. According to the
Speaker 2: Gallop polling last year, that percentage might be higher now. Moreover,
Speaker 2: I often doubt we can trust current polls from Ukraine Today.
Speaker 2: Fear rules over a country where elections are indefinitely postponed,
Speaker 2: human rights are systematically eroded, and fear dictates daily life.
Speaker 2: As Zelensky's authoritarian instincts were already becoming clear even before
Speaker 2: Putin's invasion. As early as twenty nineteen, I listened as
Speaker 2: he demanded propaganda from his subordinates to flood the media
Speaker 2: with praise when his policies failed. Today he's achieved that,
Speaker 2: a vast army of voices branding him the face of
Speaker 2: democracy and the very embodiments of Ukraine itself. War has
Speaker 2: provided Zelensky with unchecked power, enabling his security forces to
Speaker 2: act with impunity in at least eight front line regions.
Speaker 2: Martial law has given rise to police and military excesses
Speaker 2: under the pretext of hunting down collaborators. State forces raid homes,
Speaker 2: search phones and laptops, and detain civilians arbitrarily. In such areas,
Speaker 2: people and people will never reveal their true thoughts to
Speaker 2: a journalist or a poster, they will parrot the state's
Speaker 2: approved rhetoric. Zelensky is a hero, Ukraine is unbreakable, and
Speaker 2: then in private they will say what they really think,
Speaker 2: that they want him gone. The war has given Zelenski
Speaker 2: everything he ever wanted, absolute power, control over billions in
Speaker 2: foreign aid and standing ovations from the world. From his
Speaker 2: very first day in office, which I witnessed first hand,
Speaker 2: he was fixated on securing a second term. Publicly, he
Speaker 2: dismissed any talk of reelection, insisting it was too early.
Speaker 2: Privately he never stopped preparing. Zelensky is obsessed with his
Speaker 2: approval ratings. Even now he is laying the groundwork for
Speaker 2: his campaign. Since September of twenty four, his administration has
Speaker 2: been funneling extra payments to those who promote his image online,
Speaker 2: flooding social media with thousands of carefully curated videos showing
Speaker 2: him as the charming actor turned wartime leader clad in
Speaker 2: his signature khaki T shirt. But his more decisive strategy
Speaker 2: has been the systematic elimination of political opponents, and the
Speaker 2: author goes on, shall I conclude with the final paragraph,
Speaker 2: Ukrainians are not cowards but they don't want to die
Speaker 2: for Zelensky's government drowning in corruption scandals day after day.
Speaker 2: Only ending the war and restoring democracy and the economy
Speaker 2: can preserve Ukraine. Continued war will not lead to victory,
Speaker 2: but to the collapse of our nation. Power must change hands,
Speaker 2: and if Donald Trump does not make that happen, then
Speaker 2: Ukraine has no hope. Now, just to wrap this up today,
Speaker 2: of course, this morning's news was that Zelensky is full
Speaker 2: of apologies, desperate to go back to Washington sort this
Speaker 2: out and get the benefits that Trump was offering. So
Speaker 2: if you look at all this in order of how
Speaker 2: it happened, particularly the discovery that Zelensky went and negotiated
Speaker 2: or talked or got coached or however you want to
Speaker 2: interpret it by some undesirable democrats as opposed to more
Speaker 2: desirable democrats. Murphy is one of those, a less desirable democrat,
Speaker 2: then when you can see that things need a different
Speaker 2: interpretation to the one that they were banging on about
Speaker 2: on MSNBC and CNN and other places. Now you can
Speaker 2: find that article only Trump, not Zelensky, can save Ukraine
Speaker 2: on the Spectator dot com, not the Australian Spectator the
Speaker 2: Spectator dot com. If you want to find any of
Speaker 2: those other articles, you want any more information than write
Speaker 2: to me and I'll happily provide them. You could argue
Speaker 2: that because it's anonymous, it's not reliable, and I agree
Speaker 2: that there is a sceric of that. However, I however,
Speaker 2: as you know, I have great respect for the Spectator,
Speaker 2: and I don't believe for a moment they would be
Speaker 2: printing something if they didn't know what the source was.
Speaker 2: And I might just note that the Australian Spectator this
Speaker 2: week is printing opposing viewpoints. It's interesting to note the
Speaker 2: war of words that has developed between some shall we say,
Speaker 2: highly respected high flyers in the world of academia and
Speaker 2: business over this whole issue. Interesting to see it. I
Speaker 2: sort of feel sad that it's happening. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: I think it's great that there is actually full fledged
Speaker 2: and articulate disagreements being publicly discussed, which, in the manner
Speaker 2: of free speech, is highly desirable now. James Raguski is
Speaker 2: a researcher, an author, a natural health proponent and an
Speaker 2: activist who believes that the old systems are rightfully crumbling,
Speaker 2: so we must build their replacements quickly. In March of
Speaker 2: twenty two, he uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the
Speaker 2: International Health Regulations and was instrumental in raising awareness about them,
Speaker 2: which resulted in the amendments being rejected. James is now
Speaker 2: doing everything possible to expose the World Health Organization's hidden
Speaker 2: the gender behind their proposed pandemic treaty, as well as
Speaker 2: the who's ongoing attempt to amend the International Health Regulations.
Speaker 2: His vision for the future can be summarized by the
Speaker 2: phrase out of the WHO and in with the New
Speaker 2: Now at the book title, Your doctor is a liar.
Speaker 2: He is undoubtedly controversial, and he will upset some people
Speaker 2: probably and attract others. But nevertheless, I thought and think
Speaker 2: that his opinions are worthy of airing. We shall talk
Speaker 2: with mister Rauguski next. James Ragaski is a researcher and author,
Speaker 2: a natural health proponent, and an activist who believes that
Speaker 2: the old systems are rightfully crumbling, so that we must
Speaker 2: build their replacements quickly. In March of twenty two, James
Speaker 2: uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations
Speaker 2: and was instrumental in raising awareness about them, which resulted
Speaker 2: in the amendments being rejected. James is now doing everything
Speaker 2: possible to expose the World Health Organization, the who's hidden
Speaker 2: the gender behind their proposed pandemic treaty, as well as
Speaker 2: the who's ongoing attempts to amend the international health regulations.
Speaker 2: His vision for the future can be summarized by the
Speaker 2: phrase out of the WHO and in with the New.
Speaker 2: James is very good to have you on the Latensmith
Speaker 2: podcast and I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you well, thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of issues to discuss going on in
Speaker 3: the world. I think most people are on overload. Where
Speaker 3: would you like to start.
Speaker 2: I'd like to start with me sitting up in bed
Speaker 2: yesterday morning actually and opening up my laptop as is usual,
Speaker 2: and reading a piece about you, a short piece information
Speaker 2: piece about you and what you wrote, what your latest
Speaker 2: activity is. And you've opened up a something that I
Speaker 2: would call an asset to the many people who care
Speaker 2: about the sort of things that the DURAN don't involved
Speaker 2: with the sort of things that we discuss constantly, and
Speaker 2: that is the World Health Organization, matters, COVID and all
Speaker 2: related to it. Now you've set up this new website,
Speaker 2: just give us a brief.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, your use of the word asset makes
Speaker 3: me feel very good that that was the first thought
Speaker 3: or word that you use for this. The phrase I
Speaker 3: use is a resource center, but I think those two
Speaker 3: phrases are very very similar. It's called not safe and
Speaker 3: not Effective dot com and it actually is just a
Speaker 3: domain name that points to a series of twenty six
Speaker 3: and potentially more articles that I've written on my substack account,
Speaker 3: and not safe and not Effective dot com is a
Speaker 3: direct pushback against the claims that many people have heard,
Speaker 3: mostly relating to the COVID nineteen injections. I refuse to
Speaker 3: call them vaccines, where everyone keeps saying, oh, they're safe
Speaker 3: and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective, Well they're not.
Speaker 3: They're not safe, they're not effective. And what I've been
Speaker 3: doing for the last months, because I've been publishing these
Speaker 3: one per day, is just essentially collecting the evidence that
Speaker 3: anyone could use to buttress their well founded belief that
Speaker 3: these products are not vaccines. They are not beneficial, they
Speaker 3: are dangerous, and quite frankly, if you look at it,
Speaker 3: very clearly, they are really biological weapons designed to harm you. Now,
Speaker 3: if that shocks you, I encourage you to dig into
Speaker 3: the information because I don't say anything unless I can
Speaker 3: back it up with documentations. This is evidence, not speculation.
Speaker 2: When did you begin this journey?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, if you want to get spiritual about it,
Speaker 3: you know, I was born in nineteen sixty. I was
Speaker 3: born with club feet, and I spent a lot of
Speaker 3: time in you know, orthopedic surgeon offices as a child
Speaker 3: wearing casts and braces. If anybody has watched the movie
Speaker 3: Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump was running with braces on his legs,
Speaker 3: and you know I grew up with those, So I can,
Speaker 3: you know, give testament to the fact that wonderful things
Speaker 3: can be done to help, you know, people improve their lives.
Speaker 3: As far as I'm concerned, you know, I overcame that problem.
Speaker 3: I don't have any issues with my feet or legs
Speaker 3: or whatever. But after the age of nineteen, so approximately
Speaker 3: forty five years ago, I'm sixty four going on sixty five.
Speaker 3: Since the age of nineteen, I have not set foot
Speaker 3: in a doctor's office. You could not pain me to
Speaker 3: go to a medical doctor or take a pharmaceutical drug
Speaker 3: you couldn't pay me to take an aspirin or a
Speaker 3: time and all because I know too much. I've studied
Speaker 3: natural ways of healing, and there are things out there
Speaker 3: that your doctor will never tell you because it's just
Speaker 3: simply not part of their business model. And so to
Speaker 3: fast forward to you know, current times, when all of
Speaker 3: this craziness started happening in twenty twenty, you know, I
Speaker 3: had a lifetime of learning to understand that we were
Speaker 3: being lied to, but unfortunately many people fall for the propaganda.
Speaker 3: The last article that I published is really all about
Speaker 3: how people fall for, you know, sweet sounding lies that
Speaker 3: you know both give you the idea that someone is
Speaker 3: there to try to help you while making you scared
Speaker 3: of an invisible boogeyman. You know that you have to,
Speaker 3: you know, do something to your body to try to
Speaker 3: prevent a problem that you don't actually have. It's marvelous
Speaker 3: how people's minds have been manipulated by what I call
Speaker 3: the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex pH EIC. And the
Speaker 3: reason why I use that phrase is it ties in
Speaker 3: to the other PHEIC from the who they have the
Speaker 3: authority under the International Health Regulations to declare a public
Speaker 3: health emergency of international concern or fake. So when you
Speaker 3: fall for one fake and then you go to the
Speaker 3: pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex and fall for another fake,
Speaker 3: thinking that swallowing or injecting poison into your body is
Speaker 3: the pathway to health. If you don't wake up to
Speaker 3: that reality that they profit from your ill health, that
Speaker 3: is the problem that we face. And the who is just,
Speaker 3: quite frankly, a tiny little piece of that complicated puzzle.
Speaker 2: You write a book a few years ago with regard
Speaker 2: to doctors and the cholesterol.
Speaker 3: I did. I was managing a small herb nutrition, homeopathic
Speaker 3: aromatherapy store here in California and had many many conversations
Speaker 3: with you know, the customers who would come in, and
Speaker 3: one too many of them said, oh, Jim, you ought
Speaker 3: to write a book, okay, And so that was about
Speaker 3: nineteen years ago. I've always given it away. You can
Speaker 3: download the PDF for free. It's entitled and you can
Speaker 3: go to the website by the same name. Your doctor
Speaker 3: is a liar dot com And so cholesterol is just
Speaker 3: a flat out lie, and it's older than I am.
Speaker 3: The lie began in the nineteen fifties, and so that's
Speaker 3: a rabbit hole that. You know, we could go down
Speaker 3: if you want to, but I think there's more current
Speaker 3: problematic things. But it does together because when you look
Speaker 3: at the people who died and their deaths were I
Speaker 3: think inaccurately inappropriately attributed to COVID. You've probably heard the
Speaker 3: phrase co morbidity. Well, morbidity means disease, and so you
Speaker 3: know what percentage of people, let's just say, in the
Speaker 3: United States are diagnosed as having high cholesterol or high
Speaker 3: blood pressure or high blood sugar, diabetes or whatever, and
Speaker 3: what that really means. You know, the people who died
Speaker 3: and their deaths were attributed to COVID, but they had
Speaker 3: all these co morbidities. What is really going on there
Speaker 3: is because they were told they had a problem that
Speaker 3: wasn't really a problem, and the solution that they were
Speaker 3: given wasn't really a solution. These people were being poisoned
Speaker 3: in multiple ways with a cholesterol lowering medication, a stat
Speaker 3: or a high blood pressure medication, or some sort of
Speaker 3: sugar you know, blood sugar management poison and they were suffering,
Speaker 3: you know, liver damage and kidney damage from the poisons
Speaker 3: that they were being given. And when whatever happened to
Speaker 3: them and then they were treated inaccurately and appropriately with
Speaker 3: ventilators and high concentrations of oxygen or rem decivir or whatever.
Speaker 3: They were murdered by the pharmaceutical industry under the guise
Speaker 3: of you know, oh well, this is the approved therapy,
Speaker 3: the approved treatment, the standard protocol. And the problem is
Speaker 3: those standard protocols do not address the cause of the problem.
Speaker 3: And when you know, your doctor or healthcare practitioner puts
Speaker 3: youth through their system, which it starts with, oh, you know,
Speaker 3: you have to get a yearly check up. Okay, they're
Speaker 3: bringing you in to get tested to find some number
Speaker 3: on a test on your blood test or whatever, some
Speaker 3: sort of screening to take healthy people to get them
Speaker 3: to believe that they have a problem that can be
Speaker 3: fixed with a drug or a JAB. And so I
Speaker 3: called those things the screenings, the testing, the drugs and
Speaker 3: all that, and certainly the vaccinations, which I use that
Speaker 3: term loosing. Those are customer acquisition tools in the business
Speaker 3: model of the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex. Now, if
Speaker 3: you look at COVID, how many completely healthy people were
Speaker 3: forced to get a PCR. I don't want to call
Speaker 3: it a test because it's not a diagnostic test. Even
Speaker 3: Carrie mallis the event or said it's not completely healthy.
Speaker 3: People were told because of a quote unquote test fraudulent tests.
Speaker 3: Anybody can go to pcrfraud dot com and learn how
Speaker 3: that came to be. They were told that they were
Speaker 3: asymptomatic cases with COVID nineteen. Well, asymptomatic means you don't
Speaker 3: have any problem, which you know, disease. How can you
Speaker 3: have no symptoms but yet have a disease. It's amazing,
Speaker 3: But people fell for that, and they continue to fall
Speaker 3: for it. And you know, if a person is not
Speaker 3: allowed to go to work, or go to school, or
Speaker 3: go to wherever. I still have friends who their children
Speaker 3: will not allow their grandparents to see their grandchildren unless
Speaker 3: they've been jabbed and tested. And I know of people
Speaker 3: who had the swabs stuck up their nose and it
Speaker 3: punctured the lining you know, between your upper sonuses because
Speaker 3: it was done improperly, and they had a leak of
Speaker 3: the fluid that protects your brain and had all kinds
Speaker 3: of health problems from a test that isn't even remotely
Speaker 3: capable of diagnosing disease. So what we're really dealing with
Speaker 3: on a big level is propaganda and lives designed to
Speaker 3: turn healthy people into lifelong patients and or customers, if
Speaker 3: you will.
Speaker 2: That's an extremely effective summary of the situation I have.
Speaker 2: I've interviewed a large number over the last four years
Speaker 2: of people medical people in the main who have given
Speaker 2: us some pretty good insight into what's well. They've opened
Speaker 2: up the doors to what's available information wise, and really
Speaker 2: this is the way that I see it, that nothing
Speaker 2: should be mandated. It should all be a matter of
Speaker 2: option and choice based on the best information that we
Speaker 2: can that we can have. What happened, of course in
Speaker 2: this country, was that we had a government that wasn't
Speaker 2: interested in any other approach to this other than what
Speaker 2: turned out to be falsehoods on the part of many companies,
Speaker 2: many individuals, and many highly qualified so called highly qualified medicos.
Speaker 2: And that's left a bit of taste in the mouth
Speaker 2: of a lot of people. But since then it has
Speaker 2: given people the opportunity to expand their interests into other
Speaker 2: areas where they needed more information to cover off things
Speaker 2: like well cholesterol and statens and what have you.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, government politicians and or public health officials
Speaker 3: who try to force people to do things for their
Speaker 3: own good. I'll bring it around in a different way
Speaker 3: to try to address what you just said. I am
Speaker 3: of the belief that I was born with a terminal illness. Okay,
Speaker 3: it's known as James Rogusky syndrome, and I've been dealing
Speaker 3: with it all my life. Eventually, it's probably going to
Speaker 3: get me at some point. I think that maybe decades
Speaker 3: away from now. But if I were to go to
Speaker 3: a medical practitioner and they were to try to give
Speaker 3: me some sort of help for any health issue that
Speaker 3: might crop up as part of my unique situation, They're
Speaker 3: not going to find an ICD ten code and International
Speaker 3: Classification of Disease code from the WHO that says James
Speaker 3: Ruguski syndrome on it. They're going to have to buy definition,
Speaker 3: miscategorize me and say, well, you've got you know, mister
Speaker 3: Elzheimer's disease, or mister Parkinson's disease, or mister Luke Grigg's disease.
Speaker 3: Now I've got James Rogusky syndrome. I've been managing it
Speaker 3: all by myself pretty well for the last sixty four years.
Speaker 3: And the moment a person gets die agnosed the Latin
Speaker 3: means two people do not know what's going on. That
Speaker 3: is when the problems begin. When a person is diagnosed
Speaker 3: and categorized by some disease classification, the thinking at that point,
Speaker 3: the examination and the investigation stops. They don't look back
Speaker 3: and say, well, I wonder what it is you're doing
Speaker 3: or you're not doing. What is it that you're experiencing?
Speaker 3: What is going on with you as a unique person
Speaker 3: man or woman or child. Boom that stops. And there
Speaker 3: was a protocol to follow. Once you've been it's been determined,
Speaker 3: Oh you're a diabetic, or you're a heart patient, or
Speaker 3: you're a cancer patient, or you're this, that or the other.
Speaker 3: That is the problem, and almost everybody falls for it.
Speaker 3: If I may, let me give you a couple of
Speaker 3: good examples please. A good friend of mine whose mom
Speaker 3: has since passed, like a decade ago, but a couple
Speaker 3: of decades ago, her mom was injured. She was one
Speaker 3: of the actual original dancers in the Broadway musical West
Speaker 3: Side Story, and a couple of decades ago, she bashed
Speaker 3: her knee on a coffee table. Its swelled up and
Speaker 3: they ended up going to the medical doctor who manipulated
Speaker 3: it actually made it worse. Ultimately, she was given a
Speaker 3: diagnosis of arthritis. And so my friend called me up
Speaker 3: and said, you know, Jim, arthritis is like, you know,
Speaker 3: a long term degradation. She didn't have any problems. How
Speaker 3: could that be? I said, well, this is the perfect
Speaker 3: example of how the trickery begins. It begins with the diagnosis.
Speaker 3: And I said, well, hold on a moment. You went
Speaker 3: in and your mom's got a knee. It's swollen and
Speaker 3: just a problem. Well, the doctor just translated swollen knee
Speaker 3: into Latin. Ours means joint and itis means inflamed. Doctors
Speaker 3: just repeat back to you in a language that you
Speaker 3: don't understand the very thing that you told them, so
Speaker 3: that they can fit you into the cubbyhole of whatever
Speaker 3: diagnostic protocols they can make money off of. Use the
Speaker 3: idea of fibro mio alja fiber muscle pain. Person goes
Speaker 3: to the doctor, Oh, manuel ache all over, it hurts,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm sore all of the time. They're told
Speaker 3: that they have fibromyo alga fiber muscle pain. Well, that
Speaker 3: doesn't do anything other than confuse the person. They thought
Speaker 3: they had muscle pain, and now they go home going oh,
Speaker 3: my god, I've got fibromano alga. Right, it's linguistic trickery.
Speaker 3: They should have said, well, what are you eating? What
Speaker 3: are you doing? You know, when does it get worse?
Speaker 3: If you go to a homeopathic practitioner, they'll ask you
Speaker 3: five hundred questions about your life and they'll give you
Speaker 3: an appropriate treatment for you. If you go to a
Speaker 3: medical doctor, they want to misclassify you. And let me
Speaker 3: tell you, they understand, and I've spoken with people who
Speaker 3: they know that in their doctor system, all of the
Speaker 3: files are color coded because some diagnose diagnoses are way
Speaker 3: more profitable than others. You might have a headache because
Speaker 3: you're constipated and you really just need to go to
Speaker 3: the bathroom and it will subside. Or they might convince
Speaker 3: you that you might have a brain tumor and you've
Speaker 3: got to go, you know, get an MR or or
Speaker 3: I or cat scan or whatever it may be. And
Speaker 3: that is enormously more profitable than take to ask for
Speaker 3: and call me in the morning. Okay, Well, the point
Speaker 3: behind all of this is that we are easily fooled
Speaker 3: by experts who claim to know us better than we
Speaker 3: should know ourselves, should.
Speaker 2: And should be should be the operative word should be
Speaker 2: the operative word.
Speaker 3: And so with you know, trying to bring this back
Speaker 3: around to COVID and the who and what's going on
Speaker 3: in New Zealand and what people can do and why
Speaker 3: we're having this conversation. How many of your listeners who
Speaker 3: I would trust, are you know, higher up in their
Speaker 3: learning and awareness of what is going on? How many
Speaker 3: of them know everything?
Speaker 2: If that's a question? None, okay.
Speaker 3: So if we start with there's always something to learn,
Speaker 3: it starts with, well, where are you going to get
Speaker 3: that information? So about two and a half months ago,
Speaker 3: I was looking through some lawsuits that had been filed
Speaker 3: by various you know, attorneys general and people individuals or
Speaker 3: law firms and so forth, and I asked myself a
Speaker 3: rhetorical question. I said, you know, if I was going
Speaker 3: to bring a lawsuit to protect myself against this, what
Speaker 3: evidence would I submit? And I went looking. I was like, well,
Speaker 3: you know, has anybody you know really scanned you know,
Speaker 3: the world of what's been going on for the last
Speaker 3: five years to collect all of not conspiracy, theory or
Speaker 3: speculation or opinion, but evidence? Okay? And then I asked
Speaker 3: myself a second rhetorical question, and I said, well, you know,
Speaker 3: if a friend of mine came up to me and said, Jim,
Speaker 3: I get it. You know, I understand the COVID nineteen
Speaker 3: injections really don't help, you know, they're problematic. I understand that,
Speaker 3: But I don't really know these things. You know, how
Speaker 3: could I learn more? So I went and I looked
Speaker 3: at what was out there in the world, and I
Speaker 3: realized that nobody had kind of brought it all together
Speaker 3: under one roof. So on one level, anybody who goes
Speaker 3: to not Safe and Not Effective dot com will have
Speaker 3: a library available to them of concrete evidence, published papers
Speaker 3: that are in peer reviewed journals, available through PubMed here
Speaker 3: in the United States. You know, data from the studies
Speaker 3: that were done, you know, government documents, bear's reports, all
Speaker 3: all these many things. You know, information specifically about New
Speaker 3: Zealand the details there. I'm actually going to be publishing
Speaker 3: a page tomorrow, I believe in maybe the next day Saturday.
Speaker 3: I'm different for New Zealand because of the time it changes.
Speaker 3: I'm in California that talks about you know, the massive
Speaker 3: numbers of deaths that were reported, you know through American
Speaker 3: veyers of people who died in New Zealand and all
Speaker 3: around the world. That really should be seen as undeniable evidence.
Speaker 3: But if you're ignorant, and I pronounced that word differently,
Speaker 3: if you're ignorant of the facts, and if you want
Speaker 3: to just continue on in your belief whatever your beliefs
Speaker 3: may be, you're going to have a difficult time going
Speaker 3: forward in life because the facts don't match the claims
Speaker 3: that have been made by companies and public health officials
Speaker 3: and so forth. And their only answer to it is
Speaker 3: to ignore. They are ignorant of the facts. They don't
Speaker 3: want to face the facts. It's not that they're stupid.
Speaker 3: It's worse than that. You know, if you're unaware of something,
Speaker 3: you know that's forgivable. None of us know everything. But
Speaker 3: once you know and you choose to look the other way,
Speaker 3: you are ignorant. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Speaker 3: Ignorance of these facts is not a valid excuse. And
Speaker 3: all I've done really is put my personal filing cabinet,
Speaker 3: if you will, I broke it down into twenty six chapters,
Speaker 3: and so anybody who goes to not Safe and Noneffective
Speaker 3: dot com can have access to the research that I've
Speaker 3: done I claim no copyright on it. You know, I
Speaker 3: encourage people copy it, print it, you know, mirror it.
Speaker 3: If you have any type of online presence, please use
Speaker 3: it however you want. I claim no ownership over any
Speaker 3: of it. It's meant to be an asset. As you said,
Speaker 3: I refer to it as a resource center. Go learn
Speaker 3: and go share that information with people who want to learn.
Speaker 3: People who don't want to learn that they won't even
Speaker 3: be able to look at it. They don't want to know.
Speaker 3: But there are people who do want to know. And
Speaker 3: let me tell you, in the process of researching this
Speaker 3: over the past years, but certainly in the last couple
Speaker 3: of months, very intensely, there's a lot of things that
Speaker 3: I learned that are just, you know, mind boggling. Like
Speaker 3: you know, Pfizer lied in the studies. They hid deaths
Speaker 3: due to the or that were associated with the treatment
Speaker 3: group in their vaccine trials, and they made it look
Speaker 3: like they were saving lives when in fact more people
Speaker 3: who got the job died than got the placebo. Now,
Speaker 3: they hid that data and they wanted to continue hiding
Speaker 3: it for seventy five years. But it's been exposed in
Speaker 3: the United States. It's very confusing, but at the moment,
Speaker 3: six months old children, according to the CDC schedule should
Speaker 3: receive three jabs of the COVID injections, not because they
Speaker 3: aren't approved, but they're still under emergency use authorization. And
Speaker 3: if those children are deemed to be immunocompromised, they should
Speaker 3: get another job every two months, or they could get
Speaker 3: another job based on their doctor's recommendation every two months. Ongoing. Now,
Speaker 3: when you look at the studies for pregnant women, there
Speaker 3: are well over a one thousand reports and theirs. On
Speaker 3: the same day that a woman got the COVID nineteen vaccine,
Speaker 3: over a thousand reports that they had a miscarriage and
Speaker 3: lost their unborn child. This is of such epic horror proportions.
Speaker 3: It boggles the mind that anybody who sees this information
Speaker 3: can continue to be ignorant of it. But the problem
Speaker 3: is most people don't know. They just don't know the
Speaker 3: extent of the horror because the media has been hiding
Speaker 3: it and misrepresenting it in a disinformation campaign that they
Speaker 3: were paid billions of dollars to participate in by the
Speaker 3: government who's working on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies because
Speaker 3: in the United States, the FDA receives more than half
Speaker 3: of its income from the pharmaceutical companies. What we're dealing
Speaker 3: with is classic fascism, where government and corporations are working together,
Speaker 3: along with the media and all kinds of foundations and
Speaker 3: non government organizations to lie to people to degrade your
Speaker 3: health so that you become even better customers of the
Speaker 3: pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex.
Speaker 2: A lot of people who are listening to this who
Speaker 2: have not yet taken some of it on board, likely
Speaker 2: to think why would a company, a huge company what
Speaker 2: to follow this path that not just you, but many
Speaker 2: many medical people and people with qualifications hither thither and yon,
Speaker 2: including economists, have pointed out the falsehoods, the fakeries, and
Speaker 2: the corruption that many of us accept has taken place.
Speaker 2: And the place you'd start, from my perspective, if you
Speaker 2: wanted to establish that firmly, would be with one Fauci.
Speaker 2: He is a leading life in all of the above. Now,
Speaker 2: if you are uneducated in any of this area, and
Speaker 2: you are either used to going to your doctor for whatever,
Speaker 2: or even if you go for the very first time
Speaker 2: in your life understanding any alternative other than the authority
Speaker 2: of these people and of that that's conveyed by the
Speaker 2: media is something you just have to accept because you
Speaker 2: don't know any better, and you've been told that if
Speaker 2: you don't do this, this is going to happen, or
Speaker 2: that might happen. You've got no choice, really, have you
Speaker 2: at that particular point of time.
Speaker 3: Oh well, I will disagree. I thought you mindly with.
Speaker 3: You know, everyone always has a choice, but there are
Speaker 3: consequences of those choices. And so while fauci is you know, certainly, uh,
Speaker 3: I'll just say he has been or he had been
Speaker 3: doing his you know, pseudo retired at the moment you
Speaker 3: go back forty years to see the evil that he's
Speaker 3: been involved in. He actually was not in the structure
Speaker 3: you know that authorized these horrors. You know, he was
Speaker 3: involved with what he did. But one of the problems
Speaker 3: is that people need to push back at the appropriate point,
Speaker 3: in the appropriate way, with the appropriate tools. And so
Speaker 3: if the person that you have chosen to take health
Speaker 3: advice from, and you know, it's totally valid to admit
Speaker 3: that you don't know everything and it's good to get
Speaker 3: advice from someone, if that person refuses to look at
Speaker 3: the evidence that is readily available on Not Safe and
Speaker 3: Not Effective dot com in regards to the COVID nineteen injections.
Speaker 3: If they refuse to look at I kid you not
Speaker 3: literally thousands of peer reviewed published papers that are are
Speaker 3: case studies of the harm that has been caused, and
Speaker 3: you know, scientific research into the simple concept that is
Speaker 3: easily easily seen in just one histopathology slide from an
Speaker 3: autopsy where if you've ever looked at a anatomy book,
Speaker 3: you may have seen a microscopic photo of muscle tissue. Okay,
Speaker 3: you might think of the elongated cells that enable your
Speaker 3: muscles to contract and relaxed and so forth. Well, when
Speaker 3: you see the slide of the tissue from a person
Speaker 3: who died and the pathologists who who did the autopsy
Speaker 3: determined that it was due to the COVID nineteen vaccine,
Speaker 3: and you see the results by design, okay, the jabs
Speaker 3: are designed. Two they call it lipofection. Okay. They take
Speaker 3: the mRNA that is the blueprint for the spike protein.
Speaker 3: Now it's not the identical spike protein. It has been manipulated,
Speaker 3: it's not ever occurred in nature, and it's very very different,
Speaker 3: and they wrap it up in a essentially a bubble
Speaker 3: of man made fats that in and of themselves have
Speaker 3: not been studied for carcinogenesy and toxicity, but it lipoffects,
Speaker 3: meaning the one bubble of fat that they've injected into
Speaker 3: a person merges with the fat layer that makes up
Speaker 3: the membrane of cells throughout the body, so that the
Speaker 3: cell can start making this toxic, toxic protein, so that
Speaker 3: the immune system identifies it and destroys it. You can
Speaker 3: see in the slides where the muscle tissue, whether it's
Speaker 3: in your arm, or in the heart or somewhere else,
Speaker 3: has just been liquefied. It's just been blown to smithereens.
Speaker 3: Think of what photographs you may have seen of Gauza
Speaker 3: or any other horrifically war torn area where it's just devastation.
Speaker 3: What we're talking about is microscopic devastation of tissue throughout
Speaker 3: the body muscle, heart, lung, brain, liver, kidney, wherever these
Speaker 3: nanoparticles may have LiPo affected a cell throughout your body,
Speaker 3: you know, through your arterial structure, your capillaries, your veins,
Speaker 3: your arteries, your aorda, your heart, and it's just been
Speaker 3: liquefied by your immune system who destroyed it because it
Speaker 3: identified that those cells were infected and were manufacturing proteins
Speaker 3: that were not part of you, were not supposed to
Speaker 3: be there. And then if the person survives that, it
Speaker 3: gets laid over with a fibrous mesh, which essentially is
Speaker 3: scar tissue. So the design of these products is to
Speaker 3: go everywhere in the person's body, destroy it on a
Speaker 3: microscopic level, or actually I should say encourage it to
Speaker 3: destroy itself by LiPo affecting it with you know, something
Speaker 3: that will make it create a toxic proteins. It needs
Speaker 3: to be destroyed and then scarred over. And then when
Speaker 3: the body is making antibodies to these proteins and it
Speaker 3: subsides a little bit, they tell you to go get
Speaker 3: a booster and go do it all over again. Go
Speaker 3: kill yourself with another billion more cuts. I truly believe
Speaker 3: that the vast majority of people around the world cannot
Speaker 3: visualize in their mind what these jabs are designed to do.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: I don't know if I've painted a good enough picture, okay,
Speaker 3: but if you could imagine a little tiny bubble of
Speaker 3: fat being injected into somebody's arm and it floats into
Speaker 3: their brain or their heart or their lungs, or their liver,
Speaker 3: or wherever bone marrow, you know, every place you can
Speaker 3: imagine ovaries, testes, and so forth, causes a cell to
Speaker 3: start making a toxic protein, so that the immune system
Speaker 3: is then you know, its job is to then destroy
Speaker 3: that aberant cell. You're dealing with warfare on a microscopic level,
Speaker 3: where the destruction could result in any ailment possible, and
Speaker 3: sometimes it happens very rapidly, So people put two and
Speaker 3: two together. But what it's really designed to do is
Speaker 3: to turn the person into a customer. What is that
Speaker 3: person going to do when you know, part of their brain,
Speaker 3: or their liver, or their thyroid, or their kidneys or
Speaker 3: spleen or anything else start to malfunction, They're going to
Speaker 3: go right back into the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex
Speaker 3: and seek help from the people who caused the problem.
Speaker 3: Do you think any doctor who pushed their patient to
Speaker 3: get the JAB is going to allow themselves mentally to
Speaker 3: recognize that they caused this problem? You know, that could
Speaker 3: be anything out of seventy five thousand ICD ten codes. Now,
Speaker 3: let me ask a rhetorical question. I know it's not
Speaker 3: a fair question. I would be shocked if you, if
Speaker 3: you knew the answer. Does anybody know the ICD ten
Speaker 3: code for harm caused by a COVID nineteen vaccine? There
Speaker 3: is such a code. The CDC actually published it before
Speaker 3: the WHO did. It's you, it's you twelve point nine.
Speaker 3: Do you think your doctor is intimately familiar with ICD
Speaker 3: ten code you twelve point nine?
Speaker 2: That's you. You, you the letter, not the word you.
Speaker 3: The letter twelve point nine. That is what the WHO
Speaker 3: has put into the International Classification of Disease coding structure
Speaker 3: for billing and record keeping and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: This showed up in German data where after the jobs
Speaker 3: were rolled out on insurance, information was revealed and hundreds
Speaker 3: of thousands of people were treated and the code that
Speaker 3: was given was UCD twelve point nine, which was correct
Speaker 3: and appropriate. These people were treated for, you know, adverse
Speaker 3: events of the job because you know, at least in
Speaker 3: this situation, they were properly described as having suffering from
Speaker 3: side effects of the job. It was that obvious. But
Speaker 3: you know, I would venture to guess that if anybody
Speaker 3: on this call, when they talked to a healthcare professional,
Speaker 3: or they talked to their friends and family, or they
Speaker 3: talked to any government health related anybody and ask them,
Speaker 3: do you know the ICD ten code that should be
Speaker 3: put on a person's medical records if they were harmed
Speaker 3: from the COVID nineteen injections. If they don't know that
Speaker 3: that's the code, then they get to not use it,
Speaker 3: and then the data never shows that there's any problem
Speaker 3: because everybody is being misdiagnosed. And so the problem is
Speaker 3: one of data manipulation out of information that people don't
Speaker 3: want to let out. And if your doctor doesn't even
Speaker 3: know that there's a category when you go and say, hey,
Speaker 3: I think this was because of the jabber or somebody
Speaker 3: else does, they don't even know how to classify it,
Speaker 3: and they're never going to classify it because they were
Speaker 3: the ones who caused it. And so the issue starts
Speaker 3: with knowledge. The vast majority of people don't know what
Speaker 3: they don't know, and I certainly do not know everything.
Speaker 3: I try to learn something new every day, and if
Speaker 3: anybody ever tells me that I'm wrong about something, that's
Speaker 3: a blessed day. You know, if you can show me
Speaker 3: that I'm wrong about something, you're my best buddy. But
Speaker 3: the problem is the people in authority believe that they
Speaker 3: know everything, and they refuse to actually look at the
Speaker 3: evidence to the contrary, and that is at the root.
Speaker 2: Of the problem, and that's at the root of many problems,
Speaker 2: including climate change and other matters. There's a couple of
Speaker 2: other things I want to query you on. I want
Speaker 2: your opinion on gene technology. The New Zealand government at
Speaker 2: the moment is looking to pass the Gene Technology Bill,
Speaker 2: and you understand what that means. If you think it's
Speaker 2: necessary to describe what it means, then go for it.
Speaker 2: But what I'm interested to know is what your reaction
Speaker 2: to the passing of that bill, what it might mean
Speaker 2: as an outcome.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I will tie this in to what
Speaker 3: I can speak very clearly about in regards to the WHO,
Speaker 3: and tied into that. On June first, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: even when people were celebrating a false victory, the WHO
Speaker 3: and all of the member nations adopted amendment to the
Speaker 3: International Health Regulations. And part of what's in that is
Speaker 3: they defined what would now be known if these are
Speaker 3: allowed to go into effect, because they can still be rejected.
Speaker 3: There's a period of time that every nation can reject
Speaker 3: the amendments that were adopted in June first of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, and New Zealand was one of only four
Speaker 3: countries that rejected the amendments that were adopted in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty two. So good on you go, do it can, Okay.
Speaker 3: What they put in place was that pandemic related products
Speaker 3: were defined in the International Health Regulations and it was clearly,
Speaker 3: you know, only pharmaceutical products, including gene and cell based therapies.
Speaker 3: It did not include vitamins and minerals and herbs and
Speaker 3: homeopathic remedies or any such thing. So by agreement, if
Speaker 3: it's allowed to stand now, please understand that every nation
Speaker 3: can reject those amendments. We have until July to make
Speaker 3: that happen. But I would like to promote a referendum
Speaker 3: that petition signatures are currently being sought. If anybody goes
Speaker 3: to who knows meaning who knows dot co dot NZ
Speaker 3: as you might say, and Z who knows dot co
Speaker 3: dot NZ get involved with exiting the WHO, because those
Speaker 3: international regulations make it so that the only response that
Speaker 3: is recognized by the WHO includes cell and gene based therapies. Now,
Speaker 3: the jabs that have been injected into billions of people
Speaker 3: around the world. In my opinion my analysis, and I
Speaker 3: think I have evidence to back it up, were clearly
Speaker 3: not vaccines. They were genetic techniques, if you will, and
Speaker 3: they've turned into what I think is an immuno imbalancing therapy.
Speaker 3: They are not like people think of vaccine should be,
Speaker 3: which is you get a little bit of the problem
Speaker 3: that you might run into in the future to alert
Speaker 3: your body to some pathogen, and then your body has
Speaker 3: seen it once, so if it ever sees it again,
Speaker 3: it deals with it better. Well, the way they design
Speaker 3: these actually destroys your full bodied immune response. You only
Speaker 3: see a made up protein that's not ever found in nature,
Speaker 3: and it actually triggers your immune system to respond inappropriately.
Speaker 3: I mean, the insanity behind the design of this can
Speaker 3: only be described as evil. And so what people are
Speaker 3: finding is that if they get injected, their immune system
Speaker 3: gets imbalanced. They're actually more likely to have the very
Speaker 3: problem that they were told the injection would help prevent.
Speaker 3: And so this is a wide open field that they
Speaker 3: are trying to craft into to legislation. And you know,
Speaker 3: very much like the guidelines that New Zealand published almost
Speaker 3: a year ago now for their pandemic response plan. People
Speaker 3: need to pay attention, and so I would encourage everybody
Speaker 3: to go to who knows, dot co, dot NZ because
Speaker 3: the answer as far as the WHO is concerned, is
Speaker 3: to put them in the rearview mirror and have the
Speaker 3: leadership realize that what the WHO really is is not
Speaker 3: an organization that is designed to help improve your health.
Speaker 3: They are the marketing and promotion arm for big pharma,
Speaker 3: and what they're trying to do with these negotiations is
Speaker 3: not prevent the next pandemic. They want billions of dollars
Speaker 3: to flow through the WHO, and they want to be
Speaker 3: in charge of the distribution and logistics network for unlimited
Speaker 3: injections because they believe in their mind that these products
Speaker 3: work to your benefit, but they actually work to your detriment.
Speaker 3: And you know, this isn't a set of negotiations to
Speaker 3: improve your health. It's a set of negotiations, if you
Speaker 3: really read them, to redistribute wealth away from you towards
Speaker 3: them and their cronies in the industry. And so you know,
Speaker 3: I can't even begin to say how I feel that
Speaker 3: everybody needs to get much more clear on the evidence
Speaker 3: of what is really happening. We are victimized by misinformation
Speaker 3: that comes from our own side, and we are victimized
Speaker 3: by people in positions of perceived authority who refuse to
Speaker 3: look at the evidence that would actually implicate them in
Speaker 3: massive crimes against humanity. So it starts with knowledge, It
Speaker 3: starts with an awareness, and all I try to do
Speaker 3: is condense that information as much as possible so that
Speaker 3: the average person can look at this and go, this
Speaker 3: is this is insane. This has to stop. Why are
Speaker 3: we sticking three injections into six month old babies for
Speaker 3: an ailment that they would never have, It would not
Speaker 3: cause them any problems? Who is responsible for this kind
Speaker 3: of thing? They need to be held accountable and this
Speaker 3: has to stop, and it has to stop now.
Speaker 2: It's easy to say, not so easy to fulfill.
Speaker 3: Understood. Understood, it starts, It starts with, you know, one
Speaker 3: step of collecting the evidence, not a opinion. You asked
Speaker 3: me for my opinion, and I certainly have them, but
Speaker 3: I generally try to answer that type of question with
Speaker 3: it's not my opinion, here's the evidence. And so anybody
Speaker 3: who goes, you know, to not say for non effective
Speaker 3: dot com, you'll find thousands of peer reviewed published papers
Speaker 3: that are evidence that your doctor and your public health
Speaker 3: official are choosing to be ignorant of and you have
Speaker 3: to take forth and put the effort into saying, look,
Speaker 3: this is not my opinion, and your opinion doesn't count.
Speaker 3: And in the hierarchy of evidence, in terms of scientific validity,
Speaker 3: opinions don't mean a darn thing. And you know, faced
Speaker 3: with the ample evidence that they refuse to consider, you
Speaker 3: have to look in the mirror and ask yourself, why
Speaker 3: in the world would you ever trust anybody in that system.
Speaker 3: You need to get out of that system. You need
Speaker 3: to stop going to medical doctors to receive poisonous pills
Speaker 3: and injections, and you know, find how it's more appropriate
Speaker 3: to treat yourself as unique man, woman, or child, because
Speaker 3: that's not what they do. They diagnose you and put
Speaker 3: you in a cubby hole and follow a protocol that's
Speaker 3: designed to turn healthy people into lifelong patients.
Speaker 2: The who is no Longer Fit for Purpose title of
Speaker 2: an article written by relish the curve. You agree or disagree?
Speaker 3: Oh? Absolutely? I mean what is their purpose? They have
Speaker 3: been functioning for the last twenty years, as you know,
Speaker 3: the mouthpiece for vaccines, and when you understand where their
Speaker 3: money comes from and how it is directed through the
Speaker 3: organization they are basically you know, this is one way
Speaker 3: of looking at it. They're just hired help. They're just
Speaker 3: contracted to do a job. If the billing and the
Speaker 3: Gates Foundation donates, you know, half a billion dollars and
Speaker 3: they say, well, we want you to you know, uh,
Speaker 3: put these vaccines in children all throughout Africa. That's what
Speaker 3: the who works on doesn't really mean that they're trying
Speaker 3: to improve the health of people. And all of their
Speaker 3: statistics show that the health of the people that they're
Speaker 3: supposedly helping is you know, being degraded. But their money
Speaker 3: comes with strings attached, and so you know that alone
Speaker 3: is you know, evidence of corruption and you know fit
Speaker 3: for purpose. You know, if the purpose is to improve
Speaker 3: the health of the world's population, they're failing miserably, and
Speaker 3: their own data shows exactly that.
Speaker 2: The interesting thing, I suppose, well, it's not interesting, it's
Speaker 2: just obvious. The obvious thing is that there are so
Speaker 2: many people now of good qualification, but more importantly, good intent,
Speaker 2: who are lining up behind that statement. I don't mean
Speaker 2: literally that statement literally, but with that approach, and would
Speaker 2: you this gives me the chance, right at the end
Speaker 2: here to ask a question, because you just raised them
Speaker 2: Bill Gates. If I were to say that Bill Gates
Speaker 2: is evil, you'd say.
Speaker 3: I am certainly not going to stand in his defense. Okay,
Speaker 3: But Bill Gates is so well protected and so distant
Speaker 3: from you how this all actually works. What I encourage
Speaker 3: people to do is do what you can with the
Speaker 3: people who are going to actually directly impact your life.
Speaker 3: Bill Gates is not going to convince your child to
Speaker 3: get a vaccine or other treatments. Okay, your local doctor,
Speaker 3: your local police officer, your local you know, businessman, merchant, friends, family, whatever.
Speaker 3: The rubber hits the road. Not because Bill Gates knocks
Speaker 3: on your door and has some goon who wants to
Speaker 3: inject you. Is because it's your local officials who listen
Speaker 3: to authority that has an agenda that is not for
Speaker 3: your benefit. So I generally stay away from discussions of
Speaker 3: people like Fauci and Bill Gates, because what really is
Speaker 3: the issue is your relationship with your family, your friends,
Speaker 3: your neighbors, people you work with, people you may go
Speaker 3: to school with, or or you know anyone at whatever church,
Speaker 3: or you know faith you have. We all can help
Speaker 3: educate everyone around us, because it's the people closest to
Speaker 3: you that just violated you over the last five years.
Speaker 3: And they do it because they, you know, say, oh,
Speaker 3: well this authority or that authority said so. And if
Speaker 3: they're going to continue to blindly obey lies, the problem
Speaker 3: is going to continue. My job is to try to
Speaker 3: put evidence and make it available to people so that
Speaker 3: they can then learn enough to have a discussion with somebody,
Speaker 3: and not try to convince them. Find the people who
Speaker 3: want to learn and help them learn. The people who
Speaker 3: don't want to know, You have to watch out for
Speaker 3: them in every way, shape or form, whether they're a doctor,
Speaker 3: a lawyer, a politician, or your spouse or your children
Speaker 3: or your neighbor. People who are unwilling to learn are
Speaker 3: the problem.
Speaker 2: So I have whenever I say this is the final question,
Speaker 2: I invariably come up with tools read more. So I've
Speaker 2: got I've got two final questions. If you had a
Speaker 2: heart attack today, what would you do.
Speaker 3: I don't plan on having a heart attack. I don't
Speaker 3: entertain the notion. You know, if there are many things
Speaker 3: I don't get into describing health treatments. Okay, when you
Speaker 3: understand that the term heart attack is not as properly
Speaker 3: defined as you might think it is, and that the
Speaker 3: statistics around all of that are so broken. Obviously, you
Speaker 3: know when it's a person's time to it's their time
Speaker 3: to die, and so I have written extensively on quite
Speaker 3: a lot of things. The issue really is to understand
Speaker 3: that if that is your concern, if you have a
Speaker 3: problem that you're concerned about, you better learn about it
Speaker 3: in advance. And so, yes, anybody can have an accident,
Speaker 3: anybody can have a health issue. That's an explanation that
Speaker 3: requires not an hour long program or a quick one
Speaker 3: word answer. What would you do? You have to change
Speaker 3: how you think about the entire thing so that you
Speaker 3: avoid the problems, not just with drugs or chemicals or
Speaker 3: herbs or vitamins or minerals, but in the manner in
Speaker 3: which you understand the holistic nature that gets you there
Speaker 3: in the first place. Now, I know some people may say, oh,
Speaker 3: you know, he's avoiding the Well, the question is what
Speaker 3: is it that you're doing on a daily basis to
Speaker 3: improve your health optimize your health so that something like
Speaker 3: those types of problems is such a remote, distant possibility
Speaker 3: you don't even entertain the idea The problem is we're
Speaker 3: taught oh this happened to you randomly, you know, out
Speaker 3: of thin air, nothing you could do about it. What
Speaker 3: drug are you going to take or what orb are
Speaker 3: you going to apply that idea? The question is the
Speaker 3: wrong question. The right question is how do we build
Speaker 3: a structure to teach people how to optimize their health
Speaker 3: so that they're living vibrantly. And that's a you know,
Speaker 3: happy to talk to you for days about that one.
Speaker 2: Very good. So the final question is this. We had
Speaker 2: this discussion before we rolled, and I asked you this question, Joel,
Speaker 2: now asking ask you again, albeit that I know the answer.
Speaker 2: What are your qualifications? Oh?
Speaker 3: I have absolutely none. I went to school back in
Speaker 3: the late seventies and early eighties. I studied computer science
Speaker 3: before people had computers. I dropped out of an Ivy
Speaker 3: League school because I realized I was being lied to.
Speaker 3: I spent fifteen years working as a carpenter of renovating
Speaker 3: old homes in New England. Moved out to California, I
Speaker 3: think about twenty eight years ago now, and managed a
Speaker 3: couple of mom and pop urb and nutrition stores for
Speaker 3: about fifteen years. Wrote a couple of books related to that,
Speaker 3: but I learned that the types of things that people
Speaker 3: can do to heal and heal themselves if they get
Speaker 3: out of balance or maintained on so that they don't
Speaker 3: become ill, are so vast. It's astonishing that anybody would
Speaker 3: ever have their first response, Oh, I got to ask
Speaker 3: my doctor. Okay, I got to go to the pharmacy
Speaker 3: and take a drug or get a surgery or whatever.
Speaker 3: I have seen miracles happen under my own hands and
Speaker 3: done by other people as well. It makes your medical
Speaker 3: professional look like a butcher when you understand, you know,
Speaker 3: the Star Trek level technology that's out there that you're
Speaker 3: not being told exists. I should have said it a
Speaker 3: minute ago. I have another domain that people can go
Speaker 3: to to get additional information. If you go to the
Speaker 3: Complete Guide to Health dot com The Complete Guide to
Speaker 3: Health dot Com, you'll get deeper insight into what we're
Speaker 3: talking about here. Going to a doctor to get a poison,
Speaker 3: either to swallow or be injected, maybe in certain circumstances
Speaker 3: when you are so far out of balance, having a
Speaker 3: poison to distract your body from the problem at hand
Speaker 3: might be helpful. But if you've allowed yourself to get there,
Speaker 3: you've already made so many mistakes.
Speaker 2: It's mind log way ed. It's been fascinating talking with you.
Speaker 3: I have to say, well, thank you, thank you for
Speaker 3: having me, and look forward to doing it again. One
Speaker 3: last thing that I always do is I give everyone
Speaker 3: my phone number. I'm in California, so you may have
Speaker 3: to use you know, appropriate country code, or you can
Speaker 3: connect with me on signal or telegram or WhatsApp or
Speaker 3: text message or whatever. But here in the United States,
Speaker 3: in California, my phone number is three one zero six
Speaker 3: one nine three zero five to five. If you have
Speaker 3: any questions, if I can help in any way, and
Speaker 3: even better, if you think I'm wrong and you want
Speaker 3: to help me learn something new, you mean to call
Speaker 3: anytime three one zero six one nine three zero five five.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: So it's plus one three one zero six one nine
Speaker 2: three zero double five, Thank you very much. Leverrix is
Speaker 2: an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverrix
Speaker 2: relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's
Speaker 2: a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action.
Speaker 2: It's fast acting for fast relief, and it works in
Speaker 2: under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: Lebrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals
Speaker 2: with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an antihistamine
Speaker 2: made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time
Speaker 2: you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
Speaker 2: pharmacy and ask for Leverrix v Rix Levericks and always
Speaker 2: read the label. Take us directed, and if symptoms persist,
Speaker 2: see your health professional. Farmer broker Auckland. Layton Smith now
Speaker 2: the male room for podcast two hundred and seventy four,
Speaker 2: and this is producer has just arrived. You're looking good, Layton.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Ready to go.
Speaker 2: The very strong rumor going around though that you're tired.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know where that room has come from.
Speaker 4: I'm perky, is anything.
Speaker 2: I think it's a tribal thing. Anyway, if you're so perky,
Speaker 2: go for your life.
Speaker 4: Everybody's tired at the moment. Leydon Paul says. George Friedman
Speaker 4: has consistently risen above the noise of legacy media sensationalism
Speaker 4: in his forecasting business. He and the excellent team at
Speaker 4: Geopolitical futures and his past creation of stratfor have provided
Speaker 4: me with the best analysis of the geopol called Big
Speaker 4: Picture bar none for many years. Why do I regularly
Speaker 4: parrot this point in my communications with you? My simple
Speaker 4: answer is that George and co. Have been correct almost always.
Speaker 4: Thanks again Layton for introducing me to him. Another worthy
Speaker 4: commentator who regularly appears on the podcast as Murial Newman.
Speaker 4: She has a deep understanding of threats to democracy that
Speaker 4: are entrenched in New Zealand's domestic political machinations. If you
Speaker 4: have a child attending a university in New Zealand, I
Speaker 4: encourage you to direct said child to listen to podcast
Speaker 4: to seventy two. Good luck with that, says I from experience,
Speaker 4: and that was from Paul Later.
Speaker 2: Well appreciate it greatly. Thank you. This one is slightly dated.
Speaker 2: It's sort of out of place now, but I am
Speaker 2: going to read it for a reason. Steve. Steve wrote,
Speaker 2: I'm hoping you can't wait to get back on air
Speaker 2: and give us your two cents worth. Hard to believe
Speaker 2: this is written on five for February. Hard to believe
Speaker 2: that so much good in Brackets has happened over the
Speaker 2: last two or three weeks unbelievable talk about a new broom.
Speaker 2: It's more like a pioneer approach, slash and burn and replant.
Speaker 2: I am sure that most of your audience is waiting
Speaker 2: breathlessly for the latent take, mainly because I suspect that
Speaker 2: you're as breathless as the rest of us. Happy New
Speaker 2: Year and cheers. I afflicted him a note at the time,
Speaker 2: and I said, I think you'll be pretty pleased with
Speaker 2: the interview in the first which was a couple of
Speaker 2: days after this, after he wrote this with mister Jones,
Speaker 2: I haven't had a reply. I have no idea whether
Speaker 2: RE enjoyed it or not.
Speaker 4: Leydon pat says, I would like to say how much
Speaker 4: I enjoyed your talk with Dr Muriel Newman. Enjoyed may
Speaker 4: not be the right adjective, as her content is frightening.
Speaker 4: I subscribed to her weekly emails, but to hear her
Speaker 4: explaining everything as she did on your show was even
Speaker 4: more enlightening. What is wrong with our government that they
Speaker 4: don't stand up to the Supreme Court judges on such
Speaker 4: critical matters. I agree Luxon has been weak, and it's
Speaker 4: mainly the likes of Peters and Shane Jones that show responsibility. Incidentally,
Speaker 4: I enjoyed your podcast with Shane Jones. His command of
Speaker 4: English is outstanding and his desire to dig in mine
Speaker 4: would help us get the country out of the mess
Speaker 4: we're in. As Dr Muriel said, Lord help us of
Speaker 4: the other mob get him keep up the good work.
Speaker 4: And that's from Patrick.
Speaker 2: Now from John, he says, I'm glad you're back. But
Speaker 2: what a couple of contrasts. Shane Jones full of hype
Speaker 2: and great ideas, then Muriel Newman, sounding as jolly as
Speaker 2: an undertaker. Now I mention of why we can the
Speaker 2: Privy Council. It started when Margaret Wilson appeared there for
Speaker 2: the Crown. It was a mary Land's case. One of
Speaker 2: their lordships questioned the Mary Claimant Parties Council something like this,
Speaker 2: So if you think that you're a Mary, you can
Speaker 2: be a Mary, Yes, your lordship. And if you are
Speaker 2: a Mary, you can claim any land that could belong
Speaker 2: to Mary. Yes, your Lordship, then I'm a Mariy was
Speaker 2: the best and most ominous response, to which Margaret Wilson
Speaker 2: sat stony faced, with no input into the humor around her.
Speaker 2: That case was understandably lost by the claimants immediately on
Speaker 2: her return, steps were taken to commence the process to
Speaker 2: deprive us of the greatest legal minds in the world.
Speaker 2: And there you have it. Regards John John, I didn't
Speaker 2: I was completely unaware of what you tell us with
Speaker 2: regard to the interchange, and I'd love to know your source.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, I have to stand uncommitted as to
Speaker 2: its accuracy, not because I don't believe you, but because
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any evidence. So if you can source me,
Speaker 2: I'd be very appreciative of it. In fact, I'd like
Speaker 2: to read more about it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Laden Alan writes to you and lets you know that
Speaker 4: two of his books are back on Amazon, and I
Speaker 4: guess you will have read that, And then he goes
Speaker 4: on to say, as the US have now removed itself
Speaker 4: from the Paris Accord, rendering sixty plus percent of all
Speaker 4: greenhouse gas mitten nations for instance China, Russia, India, and
Speaker 4: now the USA canceled from that original arrangement. I think
Speaker 4: it might be relevant for you to remind your listeners
Speaker 4: of this reality and that they can get understandable information
Speaker 4: of just why that void with the Paris Accord has occurred.
Speaker 4: For instance, Earth's atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gases, so
Speaker 4: nothing is achieved by the emissions targets set by that
Speaker 4: international accord for twenty thirty five and twenty fifty.
Speaker 5: And Alan goes on to you a bit more personal stuff.
Speaker 5: So that's from.
Speaker 2: Allan Trotter, one of the three authors of a couple
Speaker 2: of very good books. I received this from Chris from Canberra.
Speaker 2: I enjoy getting mailed from Canberra. I spent two years
Speaker 2: of my life there, felt like ten, but I believe
Speaker 2: it's much better than now. In fact, we must go
Speaker 2: visit Canberra sometime, must we? Well, I could show you
Speaker 2: were about my first house or something along fascinating. Further
Speaker 2: to my email on the twenty seventh of February, I
Speaker 2: suggest you read Chris Alman's article in the Weekend Australian
Speaker 2: for a far bleaker picture of Australia's defense pasture than
Speaker 2: the one I presented in my email. Chris has got
Speaker 2: a bit of inside the information. I actually responded to
Speaker 2: him and said, thanks Chris, I read it this morning,
Speaker 2: so this was Saturday. I read it this morning. Dire
Speaker 2: Straits wasn't just a band cute the two countries are
Speaker 2: running a parallel. When you take it into account the
Speaker 2: size in the population et tetra, the two countries are
Speaker 2: running pretty much a parallel. In taking a dive.
Speaker 4: Layton Jin says, I watched the heated exchange between Trump
Speaker 4: and Zelensky in the Oval Office, which was surprisingly entertaining,
Speaker 4: to say the least. As the news and online chatter
Speaker 4: lit up on the Internet, I began to realize that
Speaker 4: first world Western audiences tend to misunderstand both Trump and
Speaker 4: Zolensky because they both shatter our expectations of them two
Speaker 4: understand them. We need to stop seeing these two as
Speaker 4: typical politicians and start looking at them as willing actors
Speaker 4: arising from the brokenness of the people that they govern.
Speaker 4: George Friedman's analysis that Trump has a very high IQ
Speaker 4: and a damaged personality is equally applicable to Zelensky. You
Speaker 4: don't get through Hollywood without some form of deranged personality. Surprisingly,
Speaker 4: Trump and Zelensky are more alike than most people.
Speaker 2: Would like to admit.
Speaker 4: Firstly, both of them were successful actors. Trump owned his
Speaker 4: acting skills as The Boss and his hit TV show
Speaker 4: The Apprentice, while Zelensky acted as the Ukrainian Prime minister
Speaker 4: in the hit Ukrainian TV series Servants of the People. Secondly,
Speaker 4: both of them are cunning negotiators. Trump shrewdly negotiated billion
Speaker 4: dollar deals for his building empire, while Zolensky charmed billions
Speaker 4: off the clueless Biden administration. Thirdly, they both achieved results
Speaker 4: through unpredictability, Trump's highly Trump's highly publicized clash with Zelenski
Speaker 4: achieved his greater goal of saving American dollars by getting
Speaker 4: the Europeans to pay for their own and Ukraine's military defenses.
Speaker 4: Zelensky used his very same clash with Trump to achieve
Speaker 4: his greater goal of obtaining billions from Europe. We are
Speaker 4: not watching two politicians duking it out. We are watching
Speaker 4: two actors attempting to outperform each other. My worry that
Speaker 4: countries like China, North Korea and Iraq handing out the
Speaker 4: popcorn while we remain distracted.
Speaker 2: That's from Jim and following that very soon after, just
Speaker 2: after I sent my email to you, which features the
Speaker 2: well articulated contrarian view of James Allen on the Russia
Speaker 2: Ukraine War. I feel that we can't believe most things
Speaker 2: we read or here nowadays, so a lot of mainstream
Speaker 2: media are spreading lies, rumors, and opinions rather than facts. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I have this very long letter that was left over
Speaker 2: from last week because I couldn't read it, and I
Speaker 2: now have it in readable form, and so I'm going
Speaker 2: to pass it on. This is about the state of
Speaker 2: New Zealand. It's interesting. Make sure you listen. Coming up next,
Speaker 2: missus producer, will see you next week.
Speaker 5: Thanks lady.
Speaker 2: Now, this is the letter that I didn't read last
Speaker 2: week because I couldn't. I can't describe to you what
Speaker 2: the page looked like when I printed it. It's a
Speaker 2: long letter, and he apologizes for it. But the reason
Speaker 2: I want to read it is because I'm always interested
Speaker 2: in other people's opinions, other people specifically who have never
Speaker 2: lived here all their life like I haven't, people who
Speaker 2: have come from other places, or have been out of
Speaker 2: the country a long time, or different experiences, and their
Speaker 2: reaction to New Zealand today. And that's exactly what this
Speaker 2: letter provides. In redoing it into a legible presentation, because
Speaker 2: the first one I couldn't read. He's done a very
Speaker 2: good job, double spaced a different type and starts this way, oh,
Speaker 2: and requests that I don't mention his name. I don't
Speaker 2: know why, but I'll honor the request. Sorry, this is
Speaker 2: a bit long, and I'm not very good at writing,
Speaker 2: so it may seem like a bit of a ramble.
Speaker 2: I enjoy listening to you every week, and even though
Speaker 2: sometimes I feel more depressed about our situation than before,
Speaker 2: depending who you are talking to. On the face of it,
Speaker 2: New Zealand has a lot going for it. It has
Speaker 2: a good climate on the whole. People are friendly. The
Speaker 2: population is small and spread out, meaning it's easy to
Speaker 2: get away from it all. We have beaches and mountains
Speaker 2: and national parks that people come from all over the
Speaker 2: world to see. It's a place where you can almost
Speaker 2: take yourself back in time for a slower pace of life,
Speaker 2: with all the same modern convenience as the rest of
Speaker 2: the world has at a slower pace. What's not to like?
Speaker 2: I came to New Zealand in nineteen ninety five, age sixteen,
Speaker 2: from the UK when my family moved out here. At
Speaker 2: that age, I was starting to see the world around
Speaker 2: me and could tell the differences between the two places.
Speaker 2: After being here a few months, it started to become
Speaker 2: clear to me that New Zealand had a big problem.
Speaker 2: It's a country with the population of a medium sized
Speaker 2: city that acts like it has ten times the population.
Speaker 2: Our politicians continue to play on this, with grand plans
Speaker 2: being touted constantly but never coming to fruition. The short
Speaker 2: election cycle, whilst meaning we can get rid of a
Speaker 2: bad government after three years, seems fine in theory, but
Speaker 2: it also means that in a three year term there
Speaker 2: is really only one year to make anything happen. The
Speaker 2: first year is spent getting a handle on the issues
Speaker 2: as they see it once they get hold of the books.
Speaker 2: The second year is when things can actually be done,
Speaker 2: but the third year everything goes into election mode. In reality,
Speaker 2: nothing meaningful can get off the ground in one year,
Speaker 2: meaning that most of the time they're just playing around
Speaker 2: at the edges and nothing meaningful ever gets done. The
Speaker 2: majority of what has been done over the last thirty
Speaker 2: years has been social engineering and over spending, particularly by
Speaker 2: labor led governments. There is a reluctance, especially from national
Speaker 2: led governments, to wind back any of the social engineering programs.
Speaker 2: The population gets used to having a government that throws
Speaker 2: money around. Taking money from people is not a vote winner,
Speaker 2: particularly when it's marketed as free. Working for families and other.
Speaker 2: Tax credits are the perfect example of this. Instead of
Speaker 2: giving people their tax money back, how about not taking
Speaker 2: it off them in the first place. These schemes increase
Speaker 2: permanent Wellington, our deep state. The system is designed intentionally
Speaker 2: to grow like a cancer. Every scheme needs more administration,
Speaker 2: more people, and more money. We continue to pour money
Speaker 2: into Wellington with nothing to show for it. The priority
Speaker 2: of our government, regardless of which party leads it should
Speaker 2: be the taxpayer. We continue pouring money into social life
Speaker 2: and environmental issues at the behest of the un which
Speaker 2: we really cannot afford. This money goes offshore and does
Speaker 2: not benefit the population of New Zealand. A lot of
Speaker 2: the population are not educated enough to see that they
Speaker 2: are being sucked dry by the system. Now this boils
Speaker 2: down to education and media. At school and university, people
Speaker 2: are told what to think, not how to think, and
Speaker 2: our legacy media reinforces this twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 2: seven days a week. It's hard to turn this around.
Speaker 2: It has taken forty or fifty years to get to
Speaker 2: this point. It'll take at least that for the population
Speaker 2: to develop another point of view, our population is spread out,
Speaker 2: meaning that we need more hospitals, schools, roads, power lines,
Speaker 2: water pipes, etc. Per person than other places. As a
Speaker 2: result of this, we've ended up with very high rates
Speaker 2: of taxation to pay for our infrastructure, yet our infrastructure
Speaker 2: is still years behind. There was next to no pre
Speaker 2: planning done to extend our infrastructure, and as the population increased,
Speaker 2: the land for infrastructure had houses built of it. Any
Speaker 2: infrastructure we now need to build becomes expensive and time consuming.
Speaker 2: Nobody wants to give up their house or have things
Speaker 2: built in their backyard, and the process gets held up
Speaker 2: for years. And the process gets held up for years
Speaker 2: in consenting and litigation, increasing the costs exponentially. The cheapest
Speaker 2: time to build is now, always has been, always will be.
Speaker 2: Any delay adds costs. This is before we get to
Speaker 2: the wastage of consultants and communications for projects that ultimately
Speaker 2: never go ahead. We have a lack of skilled people
Speaker 2: to build and manage our infrastructure, which is a failure
Speaker 2: of our education system, so we import people to do
Speaker 2: these jobs. These people add to the population and put
Speaker 2: more pressure on our infrastructure. The answer for this should
Speaker 2: be to fix our system to produce our own people,
Speaker 2: but instead we just import them because it's easier and
Speaker 2: get further behind with our infrastructure. We're sitting on plenty
Speaker 2: of natural resources, but we're not getting them out of
Speaker 2: the ground. We don't even need to do this ourselves.
Speaker 2: The rights to these can be sold off for a royalty,
Speaker 2: giving us access to the resource and money. Importing oil,
Speaker 2: gas and coal when we have plenty of it is lunacy.
Speaker 2: We should be able to generate enough powder to never
Speaker 2: have to worry, but I can't record a new power
Speaker 2: station coming online for the past thirty years. We all
Speaker 2: know that another drain on our taxpayers is the Mari issue.
Speaker 2: This has been talked about at length since forever. Everyone
Speaker 2: knows the issues and there's no point dredging them up.
Speaker 2: But needless to say, the tap needs to be turned
Speaker 2: off before we end up in the same state South
Speaker 2: Africa finds itself in. Of course, there is more, but
Speaker 2: all of this leads to one thing, a constantly increasing
Speaker 2: cost of living. We're always hearing about having a low
Speaker 2: wage economy and comparing us to Australia, but it's more
Speaker 2: complicated than that. We rely heavily on imported goods, through
Speaker 2: our modern lifestyle. Due to our location and small market,
Speaker 2: shipping costs make up a larger percentage of the product
Speaker 2: value than they would in Australia. Goods that we manufacturer
Speaker 2: are expensive due to labor and energy costs. Materials for
Speaker 2: goods we manufacturer are also imported and more expensive than
Speaker 2: they would be else elsewhere. The more we pay people
Speaker 2: to produce products locally, the more expensive they'll be, and
Speaker 2: the end user is the one that pays, increasing the
Speaker 2: cost of living and perpetuating the cycle. This leads to
Speaker 2: the final question, is there a way out of this?
Speaker 2: To me? Says the author, There is no political will
Speaker 2: to change the status grow. The politicians and bureaucrats around
Speaker 2: them are doing just fine and have no reason to
Speaker 2: push for change. There is no alternative politician, Alah Donald
Speaker 2: Trump who can shake up our system. Is there any hope?
Speaker 2: Maybe the tide is turning in the USA, but it'll
Speaker 2: take more than four years of Trump. The biggest hope
Speaker 2: I have for the Trump administration is that JD. Vance
Speaker 2: will become the forty eighth president and continue for another
Speaker 2: eight years. Then maybe some changes will stick. Whatever happens
Speaker 2: in America will ultimately happen in the rest of the West.
Speaker 2: The upcoming elections in Germany and Canada will be interesting
Speaker 2: and will point to where the world is headed. As ever,
Speaker 2: it will probably take another ten to twenty years before
Speaker 2: things reach New Zealand. The only thing that will speed
Speaker 2: it up will be Australia turning. That's if there is
Speaker 2: any one productive left in New Zealand by then. Well,
Speaker 2: although it was where reading and I'd be interested in
Speaker 2: your opinion on things that were said in that letter,
Speaker 2: but that will take us out for podcast number two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy four. If you'd like to correspond with
Speaker 2: us Latent at newstalksib dot co dot nz or Carolyn
Speaker 2: at newstalksib dot co dot nz. As always, we love
Speaker 2: getting your getting email, so I will leave you in
Speaker 2: a world of some turmoil at the moment. Watch this
Speaker 2: space carefully. We'll be back with two seventy five in
Speaker 2: a few days of course. Until then, as always, thank
Speaker 2: you for listening and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from newstalksed B listen live on
Speaker 1: air or online and keep our shows with you wherever
Speaker 1: you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio