Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talks at B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of this now the Layton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by News Talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Podcasts two hundred and forty eight for July
Speaker 2: twenty four, twenty twenty four. Ramish the Curve is a
Speaker 2: familiar name on this podcast. His history is pretty well known.
Speaker 2: Professor at Otago for a lengthy period, then Australian National University, Canberra,
Speaker 2: time at the United Nations, including as Assistant Secretary General
Speaker 2: and a profound author, and there's many more accolades. At
Speaker 2: the beginning of the discussion that we have we worked
Speaker 2: our way through so much of relevance, beginning with the latest,
Speaker 2: well almost the latest in US politics, hard to keep
Speaker 2: up other world matters, including dangers of a centralized digitized world,
Speaker 2: cash and cbdc's free speech wokeness. We called time at
Speaker 2: eighty minutes, and I've chosen to split the discussion over
Speaker 2: two weeks. Over two weeks podcast so two forty eight
Speaker 2: is part one. Now, I have no doubt it falls
Speaker 2: into the category of one of the best. After the
Speaker 2: mail Room, I've included what is a lengthy piece, an
Speaker 2: article that's highly relevant to believers in democracy, freedom, independence.
Speaker 2: Actually it's actually it's relevant to everyone. Really, one man's
Speaker 2: battle with a suppression will cover it for the moment.
Speaker 2: It also has a connection with Oliver Hartwitch's column on
Speaker 2: the New Zealand Initiative website. Europe is now on its
Speaker 2: own a connection because both involve Europe, specifically Germany. Now,
Speaker 2: a couple of things in passing just before we get
Speaker 2: into Ramesh the Kur there is an individual who's causing
Speaker 2: a great deal of shall we say, agitation with practically
Speaker 2: all the population, well those who are aware of it.
Speaker 2: This individual is a member of Parliament and shouldn't be.
Speaker 2: This individual is sitting on the back seat and collecting
Speaker 2: full salary, which she apparently is entitled to as long
Speaker 2: as she stays there for the next two and a
Speaker 2: half years. Now there are people who are blaming other
Speaker 2: people and trying to trying to decide who's responsible for
Speaker 2: this situation. And the answer is there's one thing that's
Speaker 2: responsible for it, and it's called MMP. And MMP has
Speaker 2: wrought all sorts of issues over the years. It's something
Speaker 2: that we should dump yesterday. But it won't happen, of course,
Speaker 2: because it's too difficult, and I suppose we have to
Speaker 2: live with it. But it's failings showed themselves occasionally, and
Speaker 2: this is one of them and one of the worst.
Speaker 2: There are all sorts of adjectives I could use to
Speaker 2: describe this person, but I'll leave that for you to
Speaker 2: fill in some spare time with the other one is
Speaker 2: the other one I want to mention is something that
Speaker 2: is relevant elsewhere but also of interest to us. The
Speaker 2: chances are very high that you've never heard of this
Speaker 2: individual whose name is Tina Peters.
Speaker 3: Who was Tina Peters?
Speaker 2: Well, she was the election clerk at Mesa or Mesa,
Speaker 2: whichever you want, Mesa County of Colorado at the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty election. And she's looking at twenty years in jail.
Speaker 2: Why because in the election that mattered, she decided that
Speaker 2: she would retain records of voting. Now, I have no
Speaker 2: idea of any further details except that this story broke
Speaker 2: just a few minutes ago while I was recording, and
Speaker 2: it came up on my phone. So I had a
Speaker 2: quick look at it, and I thought I'll throw this
Speaker 2: in for good measure because we have experienced, all of
Speaker 2: us have experienced this trauma that came out of the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election and the twenty two election as well,
Speaker 2: but with voting machines and all sorts of claims and
Speaker 2: counterclaims and megabucks being paid out in lawsuits, etc. It
Speaker 2: gained an awful lot of attention. And the question still
Speaker 2: hangs in the air. Was the twenty twenty election corrupt?
Speaker 2: I know that it was, but was it corrupt enough
Speaker 2: to swing the result? It's something we don't know. I
Speaker 2: don't know, nobody knows, but you can have a guess. Anyway,
Speaker 2: this story just broke and I thought I'd throw it
Speaker 2: in because if it's true, and I have no idea
Speaker 2: as to its truthfulness, came up on X then there
Speaker 2: could be all sorts of repercussions. And I just find
Speaker 2: that interesting or a tacit your way now in just
Speaker 2: a moment, rameshtheku. There are essential fat nutrients that we
Speaker 2: need in our diets as the body can't manufacture them.
Speaker 2: These are Omega three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equisine
Speaker 2: is a combination of fish oil, and virgin evening primrose oil,
Speaker 2: a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three
Speaker 2: and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios.
Speaker 2: The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega
Speaker 2: three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a
Speaker 2: high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
Speaker 2: that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the
Speaker 2: deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty
Speaker 2: acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Speaker 2: Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
Speaker 2: to be sold. Equism supports cells to be flexible, so
Speaker 2: important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Speaker 2: Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus
Speaker 2: in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
Speaker 2: brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equasin
Speaker 2: is a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil
Speaker 2: to be taken in addition to a healthy diet and
Speaker 2: is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read
Speaker 2: the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist, seeing
Speaker 2: your healthcare professional, farmer broker Auckland. Rameshtha Kur is emeritus
Speaker 2: Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the
Speaker 2: Australian National University. He's a Fellow of the Australian Institute
Speaker 2: of International Affairs and Brownstone Institute's Senior Scholar. He's doing
Speaker 2: brilliant work with Brownstone. He was a Senior Vice rector
Speaker 2: at the United Nations University and Assistant Secretary General of
Speaker 2: the United Nations. Educated in India and Canada, he was
Speaker 2: a professor of International Relations at the University of Otago,
Speaker 2: a professor and head of the Peace Research Center the
Speaker 2: Australian National University, and Foundation director of the Balsilly School
Speaker 2: of International Affairs at Waterloo, Ontario. He's also served as
Speaker 2: a consultant advisor to the Australian, New Zealand and Norwegian
Speaker 2: governments on arms, controlled, disarmament and international security issues. And
Speaker 2: he was commissioner and one of the principal authors of
Speaker 2: the Responsibility to Protect in two thousand one, and Senior
Speaker 2: Advisor on Reforms and principal writer of the United Nations
Speaker 2: Secretary General KOFE. NaN's Second Reform Report in two thousand
Speaker 2: and two he's been on this podcast on more than
Speaker 2: two occasions, and it's a great pleasure to welcome me back.
Speaker 3: Ramsha. I hope you're good. Good, Thank you. Laden.
Speaker 2: I noticed that we hadn't spoken this year at all,
Speaker 2: and that disturbed me, and it was it was even
Speaker 2: it was about nine months ago. I think that we
Speaker 2: that we actually did our last interview. And I can't
Speaker 2: understand that except that this year.
Speaker 3: Has been a little bit. Time flies.
Speaker 2: This year has been a little different to a lot
Speaker 2: of a lot of others. Are you yes, you've just
Speaker 2: come back from Japan too? Was what was the cause?
Speaker 2: I was in Hiroshima. Every year since twenty thirteen, the
Speaker 2: Governor of Hiroshima, which is an elected position, has convened
Speaker 2: a small group of international experts on a team called
Speaker 2: the Hiroshima Around Table. We look at the year that
Speaker 2: has gone by and look forward to the year that's
Speaker 2: coming with respect to the threats and attempts.
Speaker 3: To reduce the threats from nuclear weapons. And we've done
Speaker 3: it every year except for two years when we couldn't
Speaker 3: because of the travel restrictions in relation to COVID. Is
Speaker 3: it what you announced? This? Sorry? Just one last thing, Well,
Speaker 3: I'm on that subject. I announced to the group this
Speaker 3: year that this will be my last meeting. Excuse me,
Speaker 3: I'm getting a bit too old to engage in law
Speaker 3: distance travel. Your body rebuilt. I'll keep going to New
Speaker 3: Zealand and to family in India, and beyond that that's unlikely.
Speaker 2: Well, there are people, it is really important or interesting.
Speaker 2: There are people in New Zealand who will see you
Speaker 2: as often as you like. Now, you've also published a
Speaker 2: book last year, our enemy, the government. I want to
Speaker 2: talk to you about the book, and I thought it
Speaker 2: appropriate to rate it at the beginning. But before we
Speaker 2: do the book, I want to ask you about your
Speaker 2: thoughts on American politics at this moment, with the last
Speaker 2: couple of weeks in mind, because there has been well
Speaker 2: what can I say, there has been an earthquake. Politically
Speaker 2: of course.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, Well it's in a sense part of the
Speaker 3: ongoing sense of in Churchill's words, the gathering storm once
Speaker 3: again internationally. But of course the United States has a
Speaker 3: uniquely important influence in shaping the contours of world affairs
Speaker 3: and geopolitics as well. So what's happening that is important
Speaker 3: for all of us, particularly all of us in the
Speaker 3: Western democratic world, if you like. And we began the
Speaker 3: year with the thought that surely the United States can
Speaker 3: do better than presenting us with the same two choices.
Speaker 3: But in fact there has been remarkable developments with respect
Speaker 3: to both of them within the past two to three weeks,
Speaker 3: including today as we speak, or overnight as we speak,
Speaker 3: with respect to President Biden finally bowing to reality, the
Speaker 3: political reality which is caused by his increasingly obvious health reality.
Speaker 3: So yes, there's all sorts of convulsions is probably the
Speaker 3: best word. In the meantime with the attempted assassination on Trump,
Speaker 3: there's another whole slew of questions and reflections in relation
Speaker 3: to that. I mean, I think we're all going to
Speaker 3: be watching that particular photo endlessly from not in November,
Speaker 3: and I suspect periodically after that. I'm not sure what
Speaker 3: photos you can compare that to. Its certainly visually very
Speaker 3: reminiscent of the famous photograph on Yuojima as the Americans
Speaker 3: raised the American flag, except that was obviously more consequential
Speaker 3: in terms of the Pacific War theater of the Second
Speaker 3: World War, but it was whereas the Trump thing was
Speaker 3: lived reality in technical for everyone who was watching it
Speaker 3: live or unless they've been hiding themselves under rock, watched
Speaker 3: the news since then, and it recreates a myth of
Speaker 3: Trump which is in a sense sharper than and different
Speaker 3: from his previous perceived for sooner. So that's one side
Speaker 3: of it. And that followed the disastrous debate performance by
Speaker 3: Joe Biden, which performed the reality that he's mentally aged
Speaker 3: a lot, even in the past four years, almost on
Speaker 3: a monthly basis, and essentially, to be blunt about it,
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party and the press by and large have
Speaker 3: light to the public about just how bad he's been
Speaker 3: and until it became just too obvious and they had
Speaker 3: to backtrack. And now he's had to leave. Where does
Speaker 3: that leave us? We don't know, but the fact remains,
Speaker 3: but the election in November will be exceptionally consequential for
Speaker 3: the United States and for the world. And there's a
Speaker 3: number of teams that call us around that. So as
Speaker 3: on how much you want to unpack, but you know,
Speaker 3: the just political stupidity, but the worrying implications for democracy
Speaker 3: of the way in which they have weaponized lawfare against Trump,
Speaker 3: adding to the way they made it impossible for him
Speaker 3: to govern in his first term. How much of that
Speaker 3: has he learned from? Will he from the first day onwards,
Speaker 3: to use his phrase, try to drain the swamp, except
Speaker 3: with more efficiency and determination, perhaps more success this time.
Speaker 3: Because that erosion of democratic freedom, civil liberties, election integrity,
Speaker 3: the institutions, the slide from democratic self governing republics and
Speaker 3: monarchies for that matter, to the administrative administrative state where
Speaker 3: the technocratic elites are in charge, aligned with international elites,
Speaker 3: technocratic elits and organizations, and in collision with the big media,
Speaker 3: big tech, etc. The transformation of democratic politics as we've
Speaker 3: known it in terms of political partisanship and social cievage,
Speaker 3: in the sense that democrats in the US, labor parties
Speaker 3: on the UK, Australia and New Zealand have changed from
Speaker 3: have evolved and changed qua dramatically from their roots and
Speaker 3: workers and working class people into representing the elites. And
Speaker 3: it's the conservative parties now that are increasingly aligning with
Speaker 3: the workers. You see that vigaide defense. You know, if
Speaker 3: you look, well, Kamala Harris another likely to be the
Speaker 3: new presidential candidate. But if you look at these two together,
Speaker 3: it's a good conjunction because between them. Vance is the
Speaker 3: one who has white trash origins, if I may use
Speaker 3: that phrase in this context, from Middletown, Ohio and overcame
Speaker 3: that complete dysfunction, completely dysfunctional family, poor boy, come good,
Speaker 3: worked on self discipline, used education, joined the Marines, then
Speaker 3: used the gi bill, leveraged that background to enroll in
Speaker 3: Ohio State University, graduated, went Yale Law School, graduated from there,
Speaker 3: became a venture capitalist of businessman, entrepreneur, and then entered politics.
Speaker 3: And his book, I assuming you've read it, Hillbilly Elergy.
Speaker 3: I read it some years ago now when it came out.
Speaker 3: It's quite a gripping account of this heart scrabble backstory
Speaker 3: that he has. And he represents one, shall we say,
Speaker 3: leg of the great dream of overcoming your origins, working
Speaker 3: hard and achieving success and financial rewards. But just as importantly,
Speaker 3: and I think at this point has to be made
Speaker 3: as well, his wife, Usha Chili Huri Evans. Now she
Speaker 3: is from middle class, comfortable background for immigrant parents, and
Speaker 3: represents the dream that immigrants have when they come to
Speaker 3: the West of working hard, being rewarded for it, and
Speaker 3: a belief in the rule of law where no one
Speaker 3: is either above the law or below the law. In
Speaker 3: other words, they are subject to the law and bound
Speaker 3: by it, but they also are protected by the law
Speaker 3: against excesses and arbitrary excess as a power. So all
Speaker 3: those things are just being complete that in one sentiday.
Speaker 3: On the other side, surprisingly, by contrast, Kamla Harris is
Speaker 3: the child of privilege and as an adult, the beneficiary
Speaker 3: of political patrileage. And yet in terms of racial avent
Speaker 3: do you think it should be the other around? So
Speaker 3: it's a strange world, but it's a world in transformation.
Speaker 2: In the middle of chaos, with hope it's creative rather
Speaker 2: than destructive.
Speaker 3: Girls.
Speaker 2: Well, I'd very much like to think that you're that
Speaker 2: you're right when you when you said something about the
Speaker 2: two of them, were you talking about about JD and
Speaker 2: his wife or were you referring to him alone?
Speaker 3: When I started off as referring to j Evans comparison
Speaker 3: to Kamala Harris, well, then of course I did segive
Speaker 3: into the two of them in terms of the Vans
Speaker 3: and Vans.
Speaker 2: So what about the combination of Trump and Vance? How
Speaker 2: does that sit with you?
Speaker 3: It's an interesting choice. I was very pleased with that. Uh,
Speaker 3: and we don't will. I guess we might find out
Speaker 3: in due course if his choice might have been different. Oh,
Speaker 3: he was leaning in a different way before the attempt
Speaker 3: on his life. But what happens after that is very
Speaker 3: interesting if you think you threw from his point of view. Firstly,
Speaker 3: I suspect it confirms in his mind that he's going
Speaker 3: to win this year. That attempt and his survival and
Speaker 3: the way he reacted in a sense, is the deed.
Speaker 3: If that's the case, he doesn't need to worry so
Speaker 3: much about a running mate who brings other states or
Speaker 3: other votes to the elected College to add to his.
Speaker 3: He now takes that for granted and thinks, okay, if
Speaker 3: I win, I want my revolution to be institutionalized within
Speaker 3: the party, and I want someone who will carry on
Speaker 3: my legacy. Now, if you think of his first administration
Speaker 3: and the chaos and his senior appointments and the Turner
Speaker 3: were in the senior appointments, the vice president is the
Speaker 3: one person he can't sack elected on the ticket. All
Speaker 3: the other cabinet appointees he can sack. So he needs
Speaker 3: someone that he thinks believes in his vision and in
Speaker 3: and in what he's trying to do. And secondly has
Speaker 3: the strength of character to withstand the attacks that will
Speaker 3: come his way as well. So if you're going to
Speaker 3: embed your legacy, none of the other potential choices would
Speaker 3: have matched what Vance has to offer, whereas some of
Speaker 3: the others would have been better in terms of winning
Speaker 3: State A or State B as well. So there's that consideration.
Speaker 3: Vance is trump Ism without the Trump character flaws. He's articulate,
Speaker 3: he's personable, he's accomplished, he has a stable family. He
Speaker 3: is clearly a devoted a husband and father, and he
Speaker 3: seems to give higher priority to that than to anything else,
Speaker 3: which is understanda will give in his own background. Then
Speaker 3: at the convention he introduces his mother, and I certainly
Speaker 3: hadn't realized since reading the book that the mother has
Speaker 3: been on the mend and has been clean and sober,
Speaker 3: as you put it, for more than nine years, almost
Speaker 3: ten years or ten years will be completed in January.
Speaker 3: So it's quite a compelling story. And I thought he
Speaker 3: spoke very well, and his wife did a good job
Speaker 3: introducing him as well, and I think that will build
Speaker 3: and the two of them together should make an effective
Speaker 3: set of campaigners. So for those reasons, I was actually
Speaker 3: quite pleased with the choice. I think in terms of
Speaker 3: what he's trying to do. You know, Rance is not
Speaker 3: going to have the crude vulgarity that is an inevitable
Speaker 3: part of the baggage of the package that comes with Trump.
Speaker 3: But I think and also both of them are more
Speaker 3: pragmatic conservatives rather than ideological conservatives, and so I think
Speaker 3: they may balance out quite nicely. Vance is supposed to
Speaker 3: be an excellent debater as well, and we've seen glimpses
Speaker 3: of that. So it will be interesting. Now the course
Speaker 3: of focus will turn to who's going to be Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris's running mate, and of course on the final products.
Speaker 3: And now, as someone who's Indian, you've got a bit
Speaker 3: of Indian as a presidential candidate now and one half
Speaker 3: of the advanced package as an Indian background as well.
Speaker 3: So it's spearing to see us in my community doing well.
Speaker 3: The Indians are coming Indians, I hear me, Well, don't mind.
Speaker 3: I don't think soon like did very well as Prime
Speaker 3: Minister in the UK, but Attlea at least you know
Speaker 3: the good about the UK. If if I'm against Sichtra
Speaker 3: is that Indian he was just as he should have
Speaker 3: been all alone on his performance, not on the color
Speaker 3: of his skin. And it's to his everlasting credit that
Speaker 3: he has not blamed any of the results on racial
Speaker 3: discrimination or presidente and the same with Chili Kuri. It's
Speaker 3: a family that relied on hard work and application. No
Speaker 3: one came to favoritism. So I think if you look
Speaker 3: at the Indian overseas Indian community, including in New Zealand,
Speaker 3: they seem to reflect the thing that I argued in
Speaker 3: relation to the voice to be here, and that is
Speaker 3: that I do not seek any privilege or rights is
Speaker 3: not available to every other Australian, but I do want
Speaker 3: to claim rights all the rights that are available to
Speaker 3: any other Australian, So just as on our merits and work,
Speaker 3: not on our inherited characteristics. And that's I'm pleased to
Speaker 3: see that that's a more widespread phenomena as far as
Speaker 3: the overseas Indian community is concerned.
Speaker 2: Now you may mention of the Democrat Party edits Hinchman
Speaker 2: and in the same breath the media and how they
Speaker 2: have deceived, which.
Speaker 3: Deceived, dessembled protected Democrats tried to undermine the Trump first
Speaker 3: administration and his candidacy since then so yes, issues for
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: Yes, So the question, the question becomes, is that rectifiable
Speaker 2: or is it? I mean, they're already back into the game.
Speaker 2: And I'm talking I'm talking specifically the media. Now, I
Speaker 2: mean they have switched sides on two or three occasions,
Speaker 2: the media that we're talking about, the so called legacy media,
Speaker 2: And it's only it's only taken a word from somebody
Speaker 2: like a Bama or to to encourage that and effect
Speaker 2: that switch, so that you know, within a twenty four
Speaker 2: hour period, they're they're they're backing, they're backing Biden. Then
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, they're not backing Biden. And then
Speaker 2: then they were again, at least some of them were.
Speaker 2: And so the inconsistency wall, now that's the wrong thing
Speaker 2: to say, because they're very consistent in their in their approach,
Speaker 2: even though even though there's a large slice of the
Speaker 2: population here as well that realizes that they are dishonest
Speaker 2: and even criminal in some quarters. But it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: to penetrate the bulk of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: No, but it has affected the reputation of the media
Speaker 3: and reach. If again, the polls have documented in the
Speaker 3: country after country declining trust in pretty much all the
Speaker 3: major institutions, and in most places the reputation of the
Speaker 3: media is almost the same as that of governments now,
Speaker 3: in other words, very low. This is the legacy media,
Speaker 3: and so more and more people are getting the information
Speaker 3: from other sources. Now. Having said that, I do have
Speaker 3: some sympathy for the legacy media in that clearly they
Speaker 3: have been under great pressure and stress, even from the
Speaker 3: revolutions in technology that has troy the old model of
Speaker 3: if not a generous profitability, at least viable profitability. And
Speaker 3: they're losing money and you saw that. I forget the
Speaker 3: huge amount that the Washington Post has been losing, for example,
Speaker 3: and the owner came and said, you know, you're losing
Speaker 3: this much per day. The people are not interested in
Speaker 3: reading what you're writing. So that message will sooner or
Speaker 3: later I have to either get through or the leading
Speaker 3: examplars of legacy media will die whither are on the vine,
Speaker 3: and the next to come under stress will be the
Speaker 3: publicly funded broadcasters. I don't think those models are viable either.
Speaker 3: I just I think they'll go to subscription model and
Speaker 3: will have to be forced to survive. And of course
Speaker 3: it's not true that it's not necessarily the case that
Speaker 3: the case for publicly funded broadcasting is as valid today
Speaker 3: as it was when they were first set up.
Speaker 2: Well, there's plenty of discussion about it from time to time,
Speaker 2: when when a crisis arises and you find that the
Speaker 2: investment that the population is putting into into the government
Speaker 2: owned benures simply isn't isn't going anywhere and not achieving
Speaker 2: anything now, and and so we we should we should
Speaker 2: move on. I was going to ask you anyway, We've
Speaker 2: we've already discussed a fair bit of politics, but the
Speaker 2: state of the world in general. You with your experience,
Speaker 2: and we've emphasized that on numerous occasions, but your your
Speaker 2: United Nations experience and what came from it. What is
Speaker 2: your interpretation of where the world is at at the
Speaker 2: moment out leaving America aside.
Speaker 3: Well, there's several things. On the one hand, there's little
Speaker 3: well different theaters of the gathering storm and thenations that
Speaker 3: seem to keep ratcheting up. Ukraine is still a problem
Speaker 3: in Europe. The Middle East is getting worse rather than better,
Speaker 3: and it certainly looks as though with the Gaza situation
Speaker 3: under control by Israel, from Israel's point of view, the
Speaker 3: tension might be ratting up on the northern border with
Speaker 3: regard to his vola in Lebanon. So there's that, and
Speaker 3: then of course the unresolved issue with Iran. We keep.
Speaker 3: There's no reason to feel any less worried about what's
Speaker 3: happening in East Asia around the South China Sea and
Speaker 3: Taiwan issue Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's any worse,
Speaker 3: but it's not got any easier either. I think the
Speaker 3: subcontinent at the moment, with the exception of what's volatility
Speaker 3: domestic volatility in Bangladesh, at least in international politics of continent,
Speaker 3: is perhaps a bit less fertile. And I was actually
Speaker 3: pleased with the outcome of the election in India in
Speaker 3: terms of putting a check on the authority intendencies of
Speaker 3: the government without necessarily throwing them out to plunge in
Speaker 3: thea into instability. And I think across the Western world
Speaker 3: in the meantime, the thing that vories me in terms
Speaker 3: of the centralization of power, firstly in the central government
Speaker 3: and then in the office of the Prime Minister, and
Speaker 3: the growth of the power of the state at the
Speaker 3: expense of the freedoms and liberties of citizens. That remains
Speaker 3: of concern, certainly in the UK. I think their indication
Speaker 3: that the Starmer government is going in for a massive emputy,
Speaker 3: rapid expansion of the techno bureaucratic pombocratic if there is
Speaker 3: such a word state as well rather than and that
Speaker 3: will have the inevitable effect of producing freedom. And I
Speaker 3: think the international trends again reflect the centralization of power
Speaker 3: and influence in the global alliance of the technocratic elite.
Speaker 3: So I think at some stage this disconnect between what
Speaker 3: the people are prepared to tolerate. You see the pushback in Europe,
Speaker 3: and I think it's going to come here as well.
Speaker 3: And I don't mind not about New Zealand now, but
Speaker 3: the pushback as the individual costs of the net zero
Speaker 3: green agenda become obvious, people are saying, no, we're not
Speaker 3: going to we are not prepared to pay that price.
Speaker 3: And we don't see that, you know, but if you
Speaker 3: look at the health infrastructure, for example, we don't see
Speaker 3: why you should prioritize the health of the planet against
Speaker 3: the alleged threat of global warming over the needs of
Speaker 3: our health today. And yet you've got the wh or
Speaker 3: expanding sentacles to embrace climate change as a health threat.
Speaker 3: You've got medical counsels in various places doing the same thing.
Speaker 3: So those things are on top of the geopolitical tensions,
Speaker 3: and you just get the same sense that at some
Speaker 3: point some thing's got to give, which was in a
Speaker 3: sense in a strange way, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: I think that was also the case with the assassination
Speaker 3: attempt from Trump. The qualification, the abuse was getting to
Speaker 3: extreme youth against sense that something had to give, and
Speaker 3: that happened. So there's some release point of pressure, some
Speaker 3: valve that will release the pressure that's going to Europe
Speaker 3: somewhere or other, is my sense. So the existing institutions
Speaker 3: of golobal governors meant to manage all this peaceably smoothly,
Speaker 3: there proving less and less fit for purpose, and that
Speaker 3: gap between the institutions of governance, both nationally and internationally
Speaker 3: and the people's needs and desires and expectations, that gap
Speaker 3: is putting stress both on national government systems and global
Speaker 3: government systems which are more Which is a more abstract
Speaker 3: way of making the same argument.
Speaker 2: There's so many tangents we could spike off on from
Speaker 2: from what you've just said. But I'm intrigued with your
Speaker 2: one word of thought. This goes against the grain of
Speaker 2: your your background in the United Nations, especially as a
Speaker 2: as a sorry, what's the word, Assistant Secretary general.
Speaker 3: As sex general.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, let me let me just let me spit
Speaker 2: this out. I'm see you and I travel. I've discovered
Speaker 2: in the same boat on numerous issues, and climbing climate
Speaker 2: change is one of them. But I'm looking at a
Speaker 2: headline and I can't even tell you where I got
Speaker 2: it from because I printed it and it's got no
Speaker 2: reference to it. But the headline is climate change and
Speaker 2: man made co to the biggest con in history. I
Speaker 2: know that it's from a legitimate site, but I can't
Speaker 2: can't recall which one because I've had it for a while.
Speaker 2: But at the very last paragraph, humans attempting to eliminate
Speaker 2: CO two from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil
Speaker 2: fictional plant demon attending to eliminate attempting to eliminate oxygen
Speaker 2: from the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire
Speaker 2: human race. Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans,
Speaker 2: eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants. Now, do you
Speaker 2: get the feeling that this is starting to make progress
Speaker 2: and sink through some rather thick brains.
Speaker 3: I think so. And it's through the governments as well,
Speaker 3: not certainly not in Australia at the moment, but you know,
Speaker 3: this year the Opposition party has at least committed to
Speaker 3: reopening the domestic nuclear energy debate. So there is that progress,
Speaker 3: and they're I think of reading the room in the
Speaker 3: global level and the States and in Europe. And you
Speaker 3: had the commitment from I think on this board Van Vat,
Speaker 3: who let's say, said are the like more likely winners
Speaker 3: at this stage in November, they are committed to reversing
Speaker 3: the green agenda completely and very urgently. In fact, Trump
Speaker 3: and his acceptance speech went back to his drill, Baby drill,
Speaker 3: and Vance made a reference to that as well. So
Speaker 3: so I think that is getting through. But the problem
Speaker 3: is there's been so much indoctrination and brainwashing that I'd
Speaker 3: be surprised if a majority of young people realize that
Speaker 3: carbon dioxide is absolutely essential to plant life. And I
Speaker 3: don't think most of them would know or would even
Speaker 3: believe you if you told them that there has been
Speaker 3: actually a greening of the world with increased warmth, nor
Speaker 3: would they know that the evidence, all the available research
Speaker 3: shows that in relation to extreme weather conditions, ten times
Speaker 3: as many people in the world die from extreme cold
Speaker 3: as from extreme heat. When has there been a time
Speaker 3: when climate has not changed? And in relation to what
Speaker 3: you're thinking about the United Nations, I don't think it
Speaker 3: helps anyone for the Second General to start using the
Speaker 3: hyperbolic language of we have moved on from climate from
Speaker 3: globe warming to global boiling. When that that's just irresponsible,
Speaker 3: extremist language.
Speaker 2: We're all interested, I think, to know from your perspective
Speaker 2: when the un changed. Can I say as dramatically as
Speaker 2: it seems to have over over over a period of time,
Speaker 2: but it when when did it start?
Speaker 3: It's been well, it's it's been gradual, I suppose, And
Speaker 3: I think you'd have to tie to what I was
Speaker 3: saying earlier as the functions that the core functions of
Speaker 3: government are delegated from the legislature and the executive to
Speaker 3: the administrative state and the technocrats. That has become reflected
Speaker 3: in the international organizations as well, because it's the same
Speaker 3: technocratic elite that moves society base back and forth. And
Speaker 3: so if we were to read take the agenda and
Speaker 3: vest the real powers of the functioning of government back
Speaker 3: in the parliament and back in the executive and take
Speaker 3: it away from the bureaucracy and the judiciary, then I
Speaker 3: think you see that reflected in the United Nations as well.
Speaker 3: The United Nations is not an independent actor. It is
Speaker 3: still subject to control and ownership by governments, and so
Speaker 3: if the politicians took charge of it more, then I
Speaker 3: think you see that transferred across to the United Nations
Speaker 3: as well. So I think we have to be careful
Speaker 3: not to blame the United Nations directly as such, it
Speaker 3: does what member states want. Policy is set by the
Speaker 3: member states, not by the International Secretariat. Even the Secretary
Speaker 3: General and call for things, but he doesn't get to
Speaker 3: vote on these issues.
Speaker 2: What about the influence that the shall we say, the
Speaker 2: darker nations have and I don't mean color, I mean
Speaker 2: in outlook on things. And I'm and I'm thinking of
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of the dictatorial countries specifically.
Speaker 3: Why is why they don't they don't they don't have
Speaker 3: so much power in the human system. It's it's mainly
Speaker 3: in the Security Council. It is the Western powers in
Speaker 3: the General Assembly that there's they don't have a such
Speaker 3: a huge block. It's on Israel, for example. The agenda
Speaker 3: is driven by the Middle East and Islamic countries, not
Speaker 3: not by the digitarial countries so much or not similarly
Speaker 3: on other issues is different coalitions. And there are some
Speaker 3: countries that are influential swing states, and that includes India.
Speaker 3: It used to include Sweden, for example, Canada used to be,
Speaker 3: but it's not at the moment of the five permanent
Speaker 3: members Western, Democratic, UK, France, USA. I think we need
Speaker 3: to remember that the most of the UN agenda is
Speaker 3: still under the West control and the worker then that
Speaker 3: comes from the West and is driven by the West.
Speaker 2: Okay, you mentioned Israel momentarily, what to quote you? As
Speaker 2: the liberal international order fades, institutions that were created as
Speaker 2: part of the euphoria of liberal internationalism are becoming unmoored
Speaker 2: from foundational values as rather than in contact of the ICC.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as relative power is ceded to newly powerful but
Speaker 2: illiberal countries. Western powers that designed, created and provided stewardship
Speaker 2: stewardship in the post forty five order losing their controlling
Speaker 2: grip of the institutions of that order speaking of Israel,
Speaker 2: and this you wrote this, of course, of the opening
Speaker 2: paragraph of the ICC's legitimacy and integrity, the important word deficits.
Speaker 2: So what is your take then on Israel's performance to
Speaker 2: date in the wars?
Speaker 3: Firstly, that general argument that I was making there is
Speaker 3: a continuation of the argument that I've been making since
Speaker 3: my book on the UN and back in two thousand
Speaker 3: and six, So it's not actually new, but the trend
Speaker 3: has continued and has intensified. And I was raising these
Speaker 3: issues then already, and I remember writing, for example, in
Speaker 3: relation to the death penalty, by what technocratic grace or
Speaker 3: by what legitimacy does the United Nations claim a state
Speaker 3: of grace above and beyond that of its member states
Speaker 3: when it comes to the death penalty. So it's those
Speaker 3: the general questions. And I was raising the same issue
Speaker 3: in relation to the piece efforts in these teamor and
Speaker 3: you know that when they were deciding that they would
Speaker 3: disband the or not pursue criminal justice against the previous
Speaker 3: regime in relation to each timor and the new government
Speaker 3: and Indonesia's and that agreement of predcision, that these are
Speaker 3: issues that were raised in relation to trying to and
Speaker 3: conflicts in Africa. So all that was there, but it
Speaker 3: has intensified. The difficulty is now since then, the rise
Speaker 3: of China has become more obvious, and inevitably the major
Speaker 3: powers of the era will seek and will gain commensurate
Speaker 3: influence in the institutions of governance of the time. And
Speaker 3: the fact that for the first time in history, we're
Speaker 3: going to have a global hedgemon that's not English speaking,
Speaker 3: that's not liberal, that's not democratic, that's not capitalist, and
Speaker 3: doesn't engage in international diplomacy in the English language. All
Speaker 3: that's creating a lot of discomfort for us, as it
Speaker 3: as bound to and as it should. So that's a
Speaker 3: different issue now. In relation to Israel and the United
Speaker 3: Nations and ICJ, the World Court and the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 3: you've got a peculiar situation where different parts of the
Speaker 3: UN system either defer excessively to Israel or focus excessively
Speaker 3: on it and condemn it excessively disproportionately to compare to others.
Speaker 3: So the Human Rights Council, for example, puts Israel in
Speaker 3: the talk more than any other country, and that clearly
Speaker 3: cannot be justified on any objective basis. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: in the Security Council, Israel has got away with defiance
Speaker 3: of United Nations or resolutions more than any other single country.
Speaker 3: The World Court has ruled on the legality of Israeli
Speaker 3: occupation in terms of international law. I think the World
Speaker 3: Court is right. At the International Criminal Court, the prosecutor
Speaker 3: has sought a restaurance, but the judges have not yet
Speaker 3: granted that. I hope they don't give it. If they do,
Speaker 3: it creates a different set of difficulties. But now you
Speaker 3: relate that to what my basic argument has been for
Speaker 3: two to three decades now in relation to these issues,
Speaker 3: and that is the international level, you have a development
Speaker 3: of legal institutions and criminal justice institutions the stand by
Speaker 3: themselves without the supporting infrastructure of a legislature, a bureaucracy,
Speaker 3: an executive, and that reverses the historical trend. Domestically, a
Speaker 3: functioning legal system apart from the legislature and the executive
Speaker 3: comes at the end of establishment of institutions of governmance,
Speaker 3: not at the very start. They don't, for example, have
Speaker 3: enforcement capabilities themselves. And it's when the basic first auto
Speaker 3: political question are settled and the purpose of the state
Speaker 3: is reflected in our constitutional constitution arrangement of government parts,
Speaker 3: whether in written constitution or by convention, then you can
Speaker 3: start having separation of judiciary from the others. But at
Speaker 3: the moment we don't have that internationally. And should the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister of Israel be welcome in Australia or New Zealand,
Speaker 3: or the UK or India. Should the President of Suddam
Speaker 3: be welcome in South Africa or in India. These at
Speaker 3: the moment are not principally legal questions to be addressed,
Speaker 3: announcewered with the legal analysis and passing of what things are.
Speaker 3: They are primarily political questions and for us they are
Speaker 3: foreign policy questions. And I don't think it works to
Speaker 3: subordinate every other calculation to the determination of the law
Speaker 3: and the criminal law as judged by deucocrats sitting in
Speaker 3: the Hague. And that was a mistake that was made,
Speaker 3: and it's coming home the implications of that. How can
Speaker 3: you reconcile the fact that the United States and Russia
Speaker 3: and China are not members of the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 3: have not subjected themselves to the discipline and authority of
Speaker 3: the Criminal Court, have not signed the wrong statute and
Speaker 3: yet have a vote in the Security Council on matters
Speaker 3: that come up in relation to the Criminal Court. India
Speaker 3: has not signed the NPT, doesn't get a vote on it.
Speaker 3: United States has not signed the Convention of the Law
Speaker 3: of the Sea, doesn't have a vote on it or
Speaker 3: any role in it. So there are all these compromises
Speaker 3: that we thought, well, we'll just keep quite about it
Speaker 3: because we want progress on this. But the result is
Speaker 3: it's creating political difficulties and I think it was a
Speaker 3: British Prime Minister Rishisu Nakhu said in relationship to the
Speaker 3: ICC request for the rest worried by the prosecutor. This
Speaker 3: doesn't advance any of the political agendas. It doesn't help
Speaker 3: to seek relief of the hostages. In fact, it delete it.
Speaker 3: They delays it. It will impede and obstruct at negotiating
Speaker 3: a compromise, and it doesn't help in a relation to
Speaker 3: the two test to state solution as an ultimate objective
Speaker 3: of these negotiations either And here's right on the practical side,
Speaker 3: all the three parts agender were obstructed rather than facilitated
Speaker 3: by that. But of course the legal answer to that
Speaker 3: is well, that's not our concerned you're only looking at
Speaker 3: the law, and that's what I'm saying. The separation from
Speaker 3: law of law from politics doesn't work on the existing
Speaker 3: international conditions we wanted domestically, and we see the consequences
Speaker 3: of not having it with the weaponization of lawfare against Trump.
Speaker 3: But again, the political impact has been it has backfired
Speaker 3: on the Democrats. I'm glad you made it. You don't think, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm glad.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you mentioned Trump again, just momentarily, because I
Speaker 2: was going to go back there off the off the
Speaker 2: back of what you've been saying, Can you give me
Speaker 2: a good reason why there are, as far as I know,
Speaker 2: three Trump X advisors or staff members who are in
Speaker 2: jail at the moment for declining to accept a subpoena
Speaker 2: to appear before a House.
Speaker 3: Committee, and it's just been released. I think, who has
Speaker 3: one of them? Has that's been released to served his term? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, but but he served his term. And at the
Speaker 2: same time, the present Attorney General also declined to accept
Speaker 2: his invitations to appear before before the House committee, just
Speaker 2: refused basic basically stuck his nose in the air and
Speaker 2: told him what they could do with it. Now, where's
Speaker 2: the jail tour for him. That's this is only one,
Speaker 2: one single example of so many of similar situations. But
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering your thoughts.
Speaker 3: Well, it goes back to the thing which is the
Speaker 3: enforcement arm, is the Department of Justice. So for that
Speaker 3: to happen, you need a change of administration, and that
Speaker 3: becomes a problem that I think it is. It is,
Speaker 3: It is an inconsistency, but it's not as bad really
Speaker 3: as as a prosecutor who campaigns on getting Trump and
Speaker 3: then bends and twists the law into a complete pretzel
Speaker 3: to pursue Trump. And that whole thing is just absolutely ridiculous,
Speaker 3: and I think it is a backside big time.
Speaker 2: Got a little while to wait to see that, but
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to you being right.
Speaker 3: I don't think Trump would have had an easy ride
Speaker 3: to nomination of the Department Party if they had not
Speaker 3: pursued him so recklessly and so relentlessly. And they have
Speaker 3: proven his assertion that they're coming after him with everything
Speaker 3: they've got. They vilified him, they slandered him, they made
Speaker 3: it impossible for him to govern as a duly elected president,
Speaker 3: and the shootspath saying he doesn't accept election results. You
Speaker 3: have intelligence officers lied to the American public after before
Speaker 3: the last election, the fifty one intelligence officers senior intellience
Speaker 3: offices in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Then
Speaker 3: they have tried to bankrupt him, they have tried to
Speaker 3: imprison him, and in the recent times they even had
Speaker 3: a shot at him. I mean, I'm using day in
Speaker 3: the general sense there because we don't know what because
Speaker 3: motivation was, but all that progressively, a lot of independents
Speaker 3: who would have found Trump too distasteful to vote for
Speaker 3: him have been angered enough and incensed enough at this
Speaker 3: overt politicization and weaponization of the justice system. Did they
Speaker 3: see that as a greater threat to democracy than Trump is?
Speaker 3: And there's lots of poor evidence to back that up.
Speaker 2: Yes, there is Laighton Smith. So that is part one
Speaker 2: of our discussion with Ramesh Thicker. We will have part
Speaker 2: two in podcasts two forty nine. We get into Julian
Speaker 2: the Sanane and have a little discussion. We agreed this,
Speaker 2: we disagreed slightly. And reliance on technology, cash and the
Speaker 2: importance of it, and Western society's bent on feeding fuel
Speaker 2: into the fire that is consuming them and DEI they're
Speaker 2: just some of the Things A Podcast two forty nine.
Speaker 2: Over to the podcast for number two hundred and forty eight,
Speaker 2: missus producer.
Speaker 3: You're looking very well, lighton. I'm great.
Speaker 4: Got rid of the pesky cold after the plane flight,
Speaker 4: Well mostly I've got rid of it.
Speaker 3: Yes, feeling one hundred percent excellent and the sun is shining,
Speaker 3: albeit that it's still chilly.
Speaker 2: Could you want I want to get in a plane
Speaker 2: cold or no cold on planes and go somewhere warm.
Speaker 3: That'll be good. Yes, all right, why don't you lead?
Speaker 4: Layton Vincent says in the same week that the Reserve
Speaker 4: Bank has media releases about the brilliance and safety of
Speaker 4: its desired CBDCs to be rolled out across the country.
Speaker 4: We have what's been described as the largest IT disaster
Speaker 4: in history, grinding much of the world to a halt.
Speaker 4: All it took was a simple software update gone a
Speaker 4: right to shut down civilization and stop everybody.
Speaker 3: In their tracks.
Speaker 4: I'm thankful that we have about three hundred dollars in
Speaker 4: cash sitting in a drawer at home for such moments
Speaker 4: as these, so we can pop to the shops with
Speaker 4: some milk without queuing up with others who have bemused
Speaker 4: and frustrated at what's going on. Of course, my three
Speaker 4: hundred dollars won't last long, but this whole episode does
Speaker 4: highlight the fragility of unmodern world and that cash truly
Speaker 4: is king and always will be if given a chance.
Speaker 4: Cheers to the businesses who've been turning their noses up
Speaker 4: at the folding stuff. How's that working out for you?
Speaker 4: Still loving the podcast of more than five years later,
Speaker 4: and we really appreciate your hard work team, and long
Speaker 4: may these continue as long as you're keening.
Speaker 2: Vincent, Vincent, that's very inspiring, Vincent. Who knows what it
Speaker 2: might have done, what it might have created? And I
Speaker 2: think that what you had to say was pretty correct now,
Speaker 2: David writes underneath the address for a video he has included.
Speaker 2: This video goes through the audio sequence of gunshots of
Speaker 2: fired at the Trump rally. Mike Adams, who made this video,
Speaker 2: is open to critique on his methodology, but believes that
Speaker 2: there were three shooters firing at t based on the
Speaker 2: audio files. Mike Adams also provides an update at the
Speaker 2: end of the video which suggests that one of the
Speaker 2: shooter positions was from the water tower, which gels with
Speaker 2: the previous video that I sent you that was produced
Speaker 2: by Clayton Morris at redacted. It's in your podcast. Your
Speaker 2: treatment stated that he found it hard to believe that
Speaker 2: there was a conspiracy to assassinate Trump. I would suggest
Speaker 2: that evidence is mounting daily from sources that this was
Speaker 2: indeed a conspiracy. From what has been discovered so far,
Speaker 2: mainly by independent media, it's become clear or becoming clear,
Speaker 2: that the twenty year old crooks did not act alone.
Speaker 2: Of course, the public will never get the full story
Speaker 2: as long as the corrupt FBI is involved in the investigation.
Speaker 2: They cannot even provide an update photo of crooks to
Speaker 2: the media. Yet we are told that a police officer
Speaker 2: took a photo of him when he was seen acting
Speaker 2: suspiciously prior to the start of the rally. Well, let's
Speaker 2: just say at this point that that doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: that the picture that the guy took the cop took
Speaker 2: was one of detail.
Speaker 3: Or even on his face or whatever. We don't know.
Speaker 2: As for George Treatman's comments regarding the Secret Service, it
Speaker 2: would appear that a large number of Trump's security detail
Speaker 2: were not actually Secret Service members. The DEI hires that
Speaker 2: were seen bumbling along the limo as Trump was taken
Speaker 2: away and did not inspire public confidence. It was like
Speaker 2: watching an old Keystone Cops movie starring Laurel and Hardy.
Speaker 2: I don't know, did that Laurel Hardy did Keystone Cops?
Speaker 2: Or you're too young to know, David, thank you. There's
Speaker 2: some there's a bit of a bit of an anticipation
Speaker 2: in your in your letter that I think we'd all
Speaker 2: be wise to just hang out a bit longer. And wait,
Speaker 2: I mean it is it is today, earlier today that
Speaker 2: whatever name is forgotten was before the House Committee, and
Speaker 2: she wouldn't answer any questions. We don't really know any
Speaker 2: more than what we did, do we And there's a
Speaker 2: lot of supposition that's going on. I'm just being cautious,
Speaker 2: that's all I mean. I I love the sound of
Speaker 2: a good conspiracy, to be honest, but I also like
Speaker 2: destroying them even more.
Speaker 4: Leighton Claire says, I totally disagree with George's take on
Speaker 4: how fit the women and the Secret Service are. Maybe
Speaker 4: they have past tests in the field, but they are
Speaker 4: not fit for purpose. How can a person of any
Speaker 4: sex who has head and shoulders shorter than their protect
Speaker 4: tea possibly be seen as a good fit. The short
Speaker 4: person can't shield the protect tea and couldn't possibly get
Speaker 4: the much taller and heavier protect tea into safety. I
Speaker 4: heard on several occasions that when Reagan was shot, a
Speaker 4: Secret Service agent picked him up like a rag doll
Speaker 4: and got him into the waiting vehicle. A short person
Speaker 4: couldn't have possibly done that.
Speaker 3: With Trump.
Speaker 4: I don't usually talk politics, and my friends are apolitical,
Speaker 4: but they know where I stand. Twice in the past
Speaker 4: two weeks, when pushed with stupid comments about Trump by acquaintances,
Speaker 4: I've point blank told the speaker I was going to
Speaker 4: vote for him, and why they were dumbfounded. And that's
Speaker 4: from Claire, who I presume is in the States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, well, who knows what effect what you're saying
Speaker 2: to them might have. I mean, they're not being fed,
Speaker 2: they're not being fed or they're not receiving shall we say,
Speaker 2: proper information, And that's widely known now and it's just
Speaker 2: very frustrating. Late and I heard you discussing the female
Speaker 2: security personnel protecting Trump the other day. You should google
Speaker 2: and listen to the very entertaining the Late debate on
Speaker 2: Sky News Australia on fifteen July. What the panel discusses
Speaker 2: is so correct and obvious that you must agree that
Speaker 2: females are not suited to that role.
Speaker 3: I'm female.
Speaker 2: By the way, listen to the audio without subscribing to
Speaker 2: the visual show. The one on seventeen July is also
Speaker 2: worth listening to. I'm sure you'll get a giggle out
Speaker 2: of them. There are commentaries going all which way at
Speaker 2: the moment. I'll look, I'm the first to say that
Speaker 2: neither of the two main women that we're talking about
Speaker 2: in the service inspired confidence in anybody.
Speaker 3: I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't know how they could with what was required,
Speaker 2: albeit that they were doing the best that they could.
Speaker 2: I know there's a letter here somewhere though, as a
Speaker 2: producer that somebody has a different.
Speaker 3: Opinion to that. Have you got?
Speaker 4: I must say I initially thought when I saw those
Speaker 4: pictures that the I know, look, granted, she was smaller
Speaker 4: than Trump, wasn't she can't deny that. But the one
Speaker 4: in the middle of those pictures I thought was incredibly brave,
Speaker 4: as the men were as well.
Speaker 2: But I just mind add that there are so many
Speaker 2: There are so many versions and commentaries of various kinds
Speaker 2: over this that you've got people, unquestionably, you've got people
Speaker 2: seeing or hearing things that didn't happen, or they didn't
Speaker 2: really see, they just convinced themselves that they did.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that's anybody that's written to us today.
Speaker 3: It's just that.
Speaker 2: It's patently obvious that until there is a proper inquiry,
Speaker 2: a proper inquiry and a neutral one, then we need
Speaker 2: more information. And then I say to myself quietly, will
Speaker 2: we ever get to know the real deal? I think
Speaker 2: it's just as unlikely as tomorrow's weather forecast.
Speaker 4: Leighton Paul says Podcast two four seven was as good
Speaker 4: as ever. I enjoyed Jordan William's pragmatic view of tax
Speaker 4: The big highlight for me was George Friedman's consistent analysis
Speaker 4: of the American political system and the reasoning he provides
Speaker 4: for the current chaos. All in all, it is one
Speaker 4: of the best podcasts I've had the pleasure of listening to.
Speaker 4: George's input prompted me to reread The Geopolitical Future's special
Speaker 4: report The Geopolitics of the American President. That was well
Speaker 4: worth my effort as well. Thanks again, and I'm looking
Speaker 4: forward to the next podcast, says.
Speaker 3: Paul, I might see if I can find that.
Speaker 2: I will see if I can find that and quote it.
Speaker 2: If so, they're Latin and Carolyn missus producer.
Speaker 3: If you don't mind, Carolyn's fine, thank you.
Speaker 2: Following the events of the past two weeks, people must
Speaker 2: surely begin to either believe in the existence of conspiracy
Speaker 2: theories or the existence of God. Trump was being assassinated
Speaker 2: on live TV, and all he lost was part of
Speaker 2: his right here in a pretty small part by the
Speaker 2: look of it now, and he gained a political turnaround
Speaker 2: of epic proportions. Biden swore that he would remain in
Speaker 2: the presidential race, only to be taken by COVID and
Speaker 2: had his political campaign assassinated by the Democrats. It's a
Speaker 2: good way to put it, actually. Of course, the American
Speaker 2: leftist mainstream media tried to play down the inevitable MAGA
Speaker 2: tsunami coming their way. While Jordan Williams rightly lamented the
Speaker 2: lack of conservative media representing the population they serve, America
Speaker 2: does have media like the New New York Post, which
Speaker 2: reported that Secret Service officials repeatedly rejected Donald Trump's request
Speaker 2: for additional security in the two years before his assassination attempt,
Speaker 2: or before the assassination attempt. I hope America is reaching
Speaker 2: the good end of George Freeman's fifty year cyclical history,
Speaker 2: because America is severely broken, and the American political landscape
Speaker 2: is indeed a swamp. Will God save America or abandon her?
Speaker 2: We shall see in November later.
Speaker 4: This is from Robin, who was referenced seeing the comments
Speaker 4: she made a week or so ago about petrol and cars.
Speaker 3: Do you remember.
Speaker 2: That that I was just contemplating my money saving Ah?
Speaker 4: Yes, you were too well, Robin says, no, don't, especially
Speaker 4: in a European car. In a previous life, I was
Speaker 4: a motor mechanic. I still mess about with cars. My
Speaker 4: three V six lagooner has been on ninety one ever
Speaker 4: since I got it.
Speaker 3: Not you. At one point when it.
Speaker 4: Was low on gas, I had some fresh ninety eight
Speaker 4: left over from racing.
Speaker 3: Why wasted?
Speaker 4: I thought, after all, the computer will adjust it wrong,
Speaker 4: not in this car anyway. It became virtually undriveable. Fortunately
Speaker 4: it was my wife driving, not me. She was not
Speaker 4: best pleased, thought she would get stranded. It was almost
Speaker 4: worse than limp home mode. When I got to it,
Speaker 4: I wondered how she'd managed to drive it. It was
Speaker 4: a mission to reset the computer as I had no
Speaker 4: scan tool to reset, so battery disconnected, et cetera to
Speaker 4: clear the computer. Then about three adaption runs later and
Speaker 4: it was back to operating close to right. I moved
Speaker 4: it onto ninety five. We don't have ninety eight where
Speaker 4: I am, and I will never change the rating again.
Speaker 4: Some will say it doesn't matter, but in my experience
Speaker 4: it does. And I'm just coming home from a walk
Speaker 4: along the beach to the spit in Malulabar. HIVEH twenty
Speaker 4: one predicted today. That's from Robin time.
Speaker 3: Time to go.
Speaker 2: Finally from Ian Laydon, what a tumultuous week in US politics.
Speaker 2: We have the cardboard cutout that is Joe Biden finally
Speaker 2: exposing what we all knew at a photo of Donald
Speaker 2: Trump defiantly raising his fist in front of an American
Speaker 2: flag after being shot in the ear. I have to
Speaker 2: say that the photo reminded me of the one in
Speaker 2: Iwajima during World War II. One thing is for sure,
Speaker 2: Trump is now heading for a landslide victory. I can
Speaker 2: only imagine the chaos that would have followed in the
Speaker 2: US had the shooter succeeded. Even now, who knows what
Speaker 2: might follow the upcoming election. It will be better than
Speaker 2: the best movie Ian the landslide victory. You know, I
Speaker 2: was almost alone on the radio when I predicted that
Speaker 2: Trump would win in twenty sixteen, and I wasn't surprised
Speaker 2: at all, And everybody's stunned. And what I did to
Speaker 2: know how I knew. I'm not so convinced that it's
Speaker 2: going to be a landslide victory. Part of the reason
Speaker 2: is the same as well, going back to twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: You don't know what they're going to do. You don't
Speaker 2: know how they might do it. You just don't know,
Speaker 2: don't know, don't know. It's been interesting because a producer
Speaker 2: that a lot of people have been taught about. I
Speaker 2: saw a headline, Let's put it this way. I saw
Speaker 2: a headline how far will they go? Referring to the
Speaker 2: Democrats to stop him? And that surprised me for a
Speaker 2: particular reason. But I quickly worked out why. Patently, the
Speaker 2: author of that headline and the article that was under
Speaker 2: it wasn't availing themselves over the lengthy period of time
Speaker 2: that Trump was in office and since as to how
Speaker 2: he was dealt with by the media, and the media
Speaker 2: was less than honest. The media have been corrupt and
Speaker 2: liars from beginning to end. When I say the media,
Speaker 2: not everybody in the media, but the mainstream or legacy
Speaker 2: media as we were referring to it. It's an unknown
Speaker 2: at this point, and this could be. This could be
Speaker 2: even more tumultuous and disruptive to America and the world
Speaker 2: and what we've already seen. I'm not predicting anything. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying, keep the possibilities open mind. Thank you, business producer,
Speaker 2: Thanks later, see you next week.
Speaker 4: Lectures over.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: In the introduction, I mentioned that there was a piece
Speaker 2: by Oliver Hardwitch in the New Zealand Initiative, which I
Speaker 2: recommend you read. Europe is now on its own. But
Speaker 2: I have chosen a piece that is written by somebody else,
Speaker 2: C J. Hopkins, And all will be explained at a
Speaker 2: moment C. J. Hopkins, The People's Court of New Normal Germany,
Speaker 2: and I think it will become evident why I have
Speaker 2: chosen this lengthy as it is, every bit of it
Speaker 2: is worthy of our attention. Just when I thought things
Speaker 2: could not possibly get more shocked, kingly totalitarian in New
Speaker 2: normal Germany will or will be explained where I am
Speaker 2: being prosecuted in a criminal court for the second time
Speaker 2: for tweeting. The German authorities have gone and surprised me again. No,
Speaker 2: they haven't established an actual Nazi style people's court yet,
Speaker 2: And of course, there is absolutely no similarity between the
Speaker 2: current German justice system, which is totally fair and democratic
Speaker 2: and a paragon of impartial justice and the rule of law,
Speaker 2: and the People's Court of Berlin during the Nazi era.
Speaker 2: Nor is there any similarity between Nazi Germany and new
Speaker 2: normal Germany, that is modern day Germany. And I would
Speaker 2: never ever suggest that there was, as that would be
Speaker 2: intellectually lazy and tasteless and completely inaccurate and illegal. And well,
Speaker 2: let me fill you in on the latest. The Berlin
Speaker 2: Superior Court has set a date for my next sought
Speaker 2: crime trial. As regular readers will probably recall, my first
Speaker 2: thought crime trial was in January and ended with my acquittal.
Speaker 2: So the German authorities are putting me on trial again. Yes,
Speaker 2: they can do that in Germany. But wait, that's not
Speaker 2: the best part. The best part is at my new
Speaker 2: sought crime trial, this time in Berlin's Superior Court. Full
Speaker 2: scale anti terrorism security protocols will be affected in the courtroom.
Speaker 2: Everyone will be subjected to TSA style scanning and screening
Speaker 2: and will have to surrender all their personal possessions and
Speaker 2: hats and coats and head coverings to the security staff
Speaker 2: and completely empty their pockets of all items before entering
Speaker 2: the courtroom. No computers, phones, smart watches or any other
Speaker 2: potential recording devices will be allowed in the courtroom. Pencils
Speaker 2: and sheets of paper will purportedly be provided to members
Speaker 2: of the press by security staff. Members of the press
Speaker 2: and public will be limited to thirty five and after
Speaker 2: they have successfully passed their security screening that be cordoned
Speaker 2: off in the last five rows of the gallery in
Speaker 2: the very bank of the court room for security reasons
Speaker 2: and monitored by armed security staff. Now at a benefit
Speaker 2: of any new readers unfamiliar with me and my case, asaid,
Speaker 2: everything would be explained. I am not a terrorist. I
Speaker 2: am an award winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist.
Speaker 2: Have lived here in Berlin for twenty years. The German
Speaker 2: authorities have been investigating and prosecuting me since August of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two. My case has been covered by the Atlantic,
Speaker 2: Racket News, a Multi polar and many other outbits, so
Speaker 2: I won't reiterate every little detail here.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 2: Basically, I'm being prosecuted for spreading pro Nazi propaganda because
Speaker 2: I criticize the COVID mask mandates and tweeted the cover
Speaker 2: artwork of one of my books, The Rise of the
Speaker 2: New Normal Rank here's the cover artwork of that book,
Speaker 2: and he shows it on screen online. The other two
Speaker 2: images are the recent covers of Despiegel and Stern, two
Speaker 2: well known mainstream German magazines, which are not being prosecuted
Speaker 2: for spreading pro Nazi propaganda. As anyone even the German
Speaker 2: authorities can see, the Spiegel cover artwork uses exactly the
Speaker 2: same concept as the cover artwork of my book. The
Speaker 2: only difference is the Spiegel schwastiger is covered by the
Speaker 2: German flag, whereas the schwashticker on my book is covered
Speaker 2: by a medical mask. Both artworks are obviously intended as
Speaker 2: warnings of the rise of a new form of totalitarianism.
Speaker 2: Despiegel was warning about the alternative for Deutschland Party, the AfD,
Speaker 2: as was Stern with its Swashstiger floating in a Champagne
Speaker 2: class I was warning about what I dubbed the new
Speaker 2: normal Reich, the new nascent form of totalitarianism that emerged
Speaker 2: during twenty twenty to twenty twenty three, which is still
Speaker 2: very much on the rise, and which is thoroughly documented
Speaker 2: and analyzed in my book, which book was banned by
Speaker 2: Amazon in Germany. At the same time, the German authorities
Speaker 2: launched a criminal investigation of me and instructed Twitter to
Speaker 2: censor my tweets, which Twitter did. Would be interesting to
Speaker 2: see how the current owner of what is now x
Speaker 2: would respond to that. The pretext the court is citing
Speaker 2: for ordering these anti terrorism security protocols at my trial
Speaker 2: is ridiculous and infuriating. The court claims that the court
Speaker 2: room in which my trial is to take place is
Speaker 2: occasionally used for a certain high security trial. Therefore, according
Speaker 2: to the court, my trial must also be subjected to
Speaker 2: anti terrorism security protocols. Seriously, the court sent my attorney
Speaker 2: a fact setting forth this explanation, which is of course
Speaker 2: a load of horse droppings. The Berlin Superior Court is
Speaker 2: a huge building containing multiple court rooms, one or two
Speaker 2: of which are probably not subject to such anti terrorism
Speaker 2: security protocols. When high security trials are not taking place
Speaker 2: in them. No, the imposition of these anti terrorism security
Speaker 2: protocols is clearly a cynical ploy, intended a to suppress
Speaker 2: coverage of the trial, b to discourage the press and
Speaker 2: public from attending, and c to intimidate and harass me
Speaker 2: and my legal counsel at any members of the press
Speaker 2: and public who nevertheless attend the trial in spite of
Speaker 2: these security procedures, that they will be subjected to this
Speaker 2: cynical tactic, which is not an official press blackout, because
Speaker 2: journalists can still attend and attempt scribbled notes on their
Speaker 2: knees with the pencils and sheets of paper provided by
Speaker 2: the security staff. Comes as no real surprise. As I
Speaker 2: mentioned above, my case and my first trial got a
Speaker 2: fair amount of attention from the international press, enough to
Speaker 2: put the court on notice that my prosecution was being watched,
Speaker 2: as though it's no mystery why the German authorities would
Speaker 2: want to discourage any reporting on my do over trial
Speaker 2: in Superior Court. Also, the gallery was filled to capacity
Speaker 2: at my original trial in January, where I delivered a
Speaker 2: rather unusual closing statement to the court, which was then
Speaker 2: published and disseminated widely.
Speaker 3: In Germany.
Speaker 2: So again it is no real mystery why the Superior
Speaker 2: Court wants to discourage members of the public from attending
Speaker 2: this new trial by threatening to subject them to these
Speaker 2: humiliating security protocols, and why it has limited the gallery
Speaker 2: size to only thirty five seats. I assume the German authorities,
Speaker 2: and by authorities I mean the Berlin District Prosecutor's office,
Speaker 2: the Berlin District Court and whatever other authorities are intent
Speaker 2: on punishing me and making an example of me for
Speaker 2: daring to criticize the government's edicts during twenty twenty to
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, that is suspension of the constitutional rights,
Speaker 2: mask mandates, segregation, the banning of protests, etc. I assume
Speaker 2: these authorities are particularly motivated to prevent the press from
Speaker 2: covering this second trial in Superior Court, because, from what
Speaker 2: I understand of the German legal system, they are going
Speaker 2: to do me. Do comes in qrites do me, that is,
Speaker 2: convict me this time. The way the German legal system
Speaker 2: works if they want to do you is one, you
Speaker 2: are acquitted in the lower criminal court too, the district
Speaker 2: prosecutor appeals the verdict to the Superior Court. Three, the
Speaker 2: Superior Court overturns your acquittal, and then four the prosecution
Speaker 2: court goes back to the original criminal court, which stages
Speaker 2: a new trial at which you'll be found guilty, because
Speaker 2: once the superior court has overruled your acquittal, the criminal
Speaker 2: court will convict you based on the superior court's ruling.
Speaker 2: There's almost parallel, certainly a sample of what Trump's been
Speaker 2: going through in the States. At which point you will
Speaker 2: appeal and on and on and on. It will go
Speaker 2: until you're broke, or until you give up fighting because
Speaker 2: you're just so effing exhausted. I'm not making this up.
Speaker 2: This is how the People's Court of New Normal Germany,
Speaker 2: that is, the post COVID German justice system, which again
Speaker 2: bears no resemblance whatsoever to the People's Court of Berlin
Speaker 2: Nazi Germany, or to the courts in the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: during the Stalin era, or any other totalitarian justice system.
Speaker 2: Close brackets. This is how it works in New Normal Germany.
Speaker 2: If you are a critic of the authorities and refuse
Speaker 2: to meekly accept whatever punishment they want to summarily dish
Speaker 2: out for whatever they deem to be your thought crimes.
Speaker 2: Ai fabler I hope you're listening to this, but hey,
Speaker 2: at least they're not going to take me out and
Speaker 2: put me up against a wall and shoot me like
Speaker 2: they did with political criminals in Nazi Germany and the USSR.
Speaker 2: So I suppose I should be grateful. I have to
Speaker 2: work on that. If you think my case is an aberration,
Speaker 2: it isn't. There are many many other people critics of
Speaker 2: the government's COVID measures during the twenty twenty to twenty
Speaker 2: three period who are being persecuted and made examples of.
Speaker 2: Most of these people do not have the financial resources
Speaker 2: to pay law is to fight these prosecutions, so they
Speaker 2: plead guilty to the charges and pay the fines, which
Speaker 2: are typically much less than what they would face in
Speaker 2: attorney's fees. Being somewhat of a public figure, I thought
Speaker 2: it was my responsibility not to do that. I'm extremely
Speaker 2: grateful to everyone who has donated to my legal defense fund,
Speaker 2: which is how I've been able to cover my legal expenses.
Speaker 2: There's enough left in that fund to cover this next
Speaker 2: trial in Superior Court, so I'm okay for now. Financially.
Speaker 2: I mentioned that because people are already asking how they
Speaker 2: can send me money, what people can do if they
Speaker 2: want to do something helpful is make as much noise
Speaker 2: as possible about what's happening, not just in Germany but
Speaker 2: throughout all the West. Because what is happening is well
Speaker 2: what I tried to capture and analyze in my book.
Speaker 2: The powers that be are going totalitarian on us. They
Speaker 2: are gradually and not so gradually, phasing out the so
Speaker 2: called liberal or democratic rights and principles that it was
Speaker 2: necessary to plicate the Western masses with during the Covid
Speaker 2: War era, which it is no longer necessary to do
Speaker 2: beyond a certain superficial point. I have published three books
Speaker 2: of essays documenting this transition to a new global capitalist
Speaker 2: form of totalitarianism. So I'm not going to go on
Speaker 2: and on about it here, but that's what all the
Speaker 2: censorship is about. That's what all the manufactured hysteria, fermented hatred, fanaticism,
Speaker 2: the permanent state of emergency and crisis and culture wars,
Speaker 2: the cults of personality, the bombardment of our minds with
Speaker 2: absolutely meaningless nonsense, the naked displays of force, the blatant
Speaker 2: instrumentalization of the justice system to punish political dissonance, not
Speaker 2: just here in Germany but throughout the democratic West, democratic
Speaker 2: being again in quotes, that is what all this is about.
Speaker 2: So I'll keep my readers posted on the details of
Speaker 2: my upcoming trial in Berlin Superior Court. My attorney is
Speaker 2: objecting to these security protocols. Of course, we'll see how
Speaker 2: that goes. In the meantime. Instead of sending me money
Speaker 2: this time, maybe try to step back from all the
Speaker 2: mass hysteria and hatred that we're being inundated with and
Speaker 2: see the big picture. It isn't pretty. Help spread the
Speaker 2: word about the new totalitarianism, about the phasing out of
Speaker 2: our democratic rights. I don't care which side of whatever
Speaker 2: you're on Trump, Biden, Palestine, Israel, the culture wars, the
Speaker 2: cancel campaigns, covid elon musk Russia, whatever, and neither do
Speaker 2: the powers that be. Take a step back and try
Speaker 2: to see the bigger picture, the forest instead of just
Speaker 2: the trees, and then make us much noise about it
Speaker 2: as you can. We are heading somewhere, very ugly, somewhere
Speaker 2: most of us can't imagine. Some of us will get
Speaker 2: there first, but all of us will be there together eventually.
Speaker 2: My story is just one example of what it'll be
Speaker 2: like there in that ugly place. It isn't really a
Speaker 2: story about Germany. It's a story about the end of
Speaker 2: the myth of democracy and the rule of law and
Speaker 2: all that good stuff. As Frank Zapper once so eloquently explained,
Speaker 2: the illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's
Speaker 2: profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the
Speaker 2: illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take
Speaker 2: down the scenery. They'll pull back the curtains, they'll move
Speaker 2: the tables and chairs out of the way, and you
Speaker 2: will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
Speaker 2: It's something to be hold. That brick wall is especially
Speaker 2: up close and personal. You'll see when you get there.
Speaker 2: I'll save you a seat. Now, I know that was lengthy,
Speaker 2: but I would have run sixteen odd minutes. But the
Speaker 2: point being that there is a message there that I
Speaker 2: believe needs to be respected. You can say only time
Speaker 2: will tell, and I'd go with that. But nevertheless, here, there,
Speaker 2: and everywhere there are things taking place that, unless they're stymied,
Speaker 2: unless they're terminated at this point, will pick up a pace.
Speaker 2: Don't just ask me our CJ. Hopkins, and ask lots
Speaker 2: of other people. Ask the people in the in the
Speaker 2: Free Sweets Union, just what they're confronted with, and you'd think,
Speaker 2: why would it ever happen here? The answer is simply,
Speaker 2: in the end, it can. And that is where we
Speaker 2: shall depart, probably, thank goodness from podcast number two hundred
Speaker 2: and forty eight. Don't forget if you'd like to correspond.
Speaker 2: I love your correspondents on anything and everything today on
Speaker 2: this podcast, I should say probably. The mail is latent
Speaker 2: at Newstalk SIB dot co dot Nz, Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB
Speaker 2: dot co dot Nz.
Speaker 3: Love your correspondence.
Speaker 2: All some good stuff in podcasts two four eight, So
Speaker 2: we shall rejoin you very shortly, and don't forget part
Speaker 2: two of Ramesh the Kur in two forty nine. And
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to two fifty for more than one reason,
Speaker 2: but we'll reveal that at the time. So all that
Speaker 2: is left to say is thank you so much for listening,
Speaker 2: and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from Newstalk sed B. Listen live
Speaker 1: on air or online, and keep our shows with you
Speaker 1: wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio