Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of us now the Leighton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Podcast two hundred and fifty six for September eighteen,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. Now, for long time attendees of this podcast,
Speaker 2: the name Michael Recton World will be familiar. For those
Speaker 2: who are not so informed, you'll find his background most interesting.
Speaker 2: From two thousand and eight to twenty nineteen, he was
Speaker 2: professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, and he
Speaker 2: was a convicted Marxist communist. Then he saw the light
Speaker 2: and transitd to libertarianism. Now that was the end of
Speaker 2: his position at New York University. He was relieved of
Speaker 2: his post. He guested first on podcast one oh one
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty one, and that was in March twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one, and again for podcast one seventy three in
Speaker 2: September of twenty two. Kamala Harris, Democrat contender for the
Speaker 2: US presidency, has been acclaimed the most left wing Socialist
Speaker 2: member of the Senate as vice President. She is frequently
Speaker 2: tagged a Marxist. So what is she? That's a bone
Speaker 2: of contention rife among commentators of all political persuasions, Marxist
Speaker 2: or empty head, And that's a polite call. Who better
Speaker 2: to seek advice from than a past Marxist commonist professor
Speaker 2: Michael Rechtenwald. But first, once again on the podcast morning,
Speaker 2: I find that there is so much of interest that
Speaker 2: I simply can't cover it all, in fact, nowhere near it.
Speaker 2: But this is a common complaint on my part, I know,
Speaker 2: but it's true. There is so much. So I thought, well,
Speaker 2: actually I had a couple of ideas this morning that
Speaker 2: I'll share with you a little later, either in this
Speaker 2: podcast or next week. But there was something that caught
Speaker 2: my eye a couple of days ago, and it came
Speaker 2: from one of our more recent guests, Robert McCulloch from
Speaker 2: Auckland University, who was in podcast number two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty one. And I'm going to quote you. This is
Speaker 2: not very long, but I'm going to quote it because
Speaker 2: there is I disagree with him on this particular point,
Speaker 2: and I'll explain why shortly. Headed has This is from
Speaker 2: his blog site down to earth dot Kiwi. Down to
Speaker 2: earth dot Kiwi has former pm Adern become New Zealand's
Speaker 2: single biggest individual emitter of greenhouse gases, and it reads
Speaker 2: it's impossible to keep up with the former pm Adern's
Speaker 2: emissions of greenhouse gazes. Where she has traveled on carbon
Speaker 2: dumping into the atmosphere long haul flights this past year,
Speaker 2: to name a few. In November of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: she flew to Singapore to walk the Green Carpet and
Speaker 2: to give earthshot as including in the category of clean air.
Speaker 2: How ironic when you get homesick? How about around the
Speaker 2: world flight back to good old New Zealand to marry
Speaker 2: on location at a Vignard Yes, in January of twenty four,
Speaker 2: it was long haul to do the wedding in the
Speaker 2: Hawk's Bay. Then in March of twenty four she burnt
Speaker 2: those air miles to Italy to inaugurate the academic year
Speaker 2: at the University of Bologna. Oh, and don't forget the
Speaker 2: carbon dumping flight up to Chicago in August of twenty
Speaker 2: four to visit the Democratic Party Convention for a yarn
Speaker 2: And why go to well I didn't see anything on
Speaker 2: her performance in there, did you? But you could say
Speaker 2: that Carmela is benefiting from her from Durn's experience. Sounds
Speaker 2: like it than me. And why go to Italy once
Speaker 2: in a year when you can go there twice on
Speaker 2: a long haul jet to accept another award. This past week,
Speaker 2: she flew to Venice to whoop it up at an
Speaker 2: event coinciding with the Venice Film Festival. She preached there
Speaker 2: that we must demand from our leaders empathy and kindness.
Speaker 2: Competence would be a nice one to add, though always
Speaker 2: seems to be missing off her list. I don't think
Speaker 2: she could spell it anyhow. That's just a few flights
Speaker 2: that we know about. We've got no problem with their
Speaker 2: travel on this blog, provided carbon emissions are priced, though
Speaker 2: we note the US does not have an emissions trading
Speaker 2: scheme like New Zealand. Maybe that's a reason Adern is
Speaker 2: basing herself outside this country, since she would probably single
Speaker 2: handedly blow our reduction targets. Now, that's a critical column
Speaker 2: of the ex Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I
Speaker 2: choose to disagree with it on I think a very
Speaker 2: sound basis. Ex Prime Minister at Dern no longer believes
Speaker 2: obviously in man made global warming or man made climate change,
Speaker 2: Otherwise she would not do what she did and fire
Speaker 2: all those miles. Am I correct, Well, I have to
Speaker 2: be Is she really so hypocritical that she'd tell you
Speaker 2: can't do things, but she'd happily go and do it herself.
Speaker 2: I'm saying or suggesting at least it's worth consideration that
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister should be congratulated on waking up to
Speaker 2: the con that she was part of mind you, but
Speaker 2: waking up to the con that we have all suffered
Speaker 2: from and finally realizing the best way to do it
Speaker 2: is not to verbalize it, but to just act accordingly.
Speaker 2: And I think that we should follow her lead. Robert McCulloch,
Speaker 2: I'll see you at the airport. Michael Recton wat it's
Speaker 2: great to have you back on the podcast and I
Speaker 2: appreciate it very much much.
Speaker 3: Thank you thanks for having me, and it's great to
Speaker 3: be here.
Speaker 2: I was triggered to make contact with you because you
Speaker 2: were a Marxist for much of your life, if not
Speaker 2: most of it, and it was only in relatively recent
Speaker 2: times that you actually woke up and what you'renar are
Speaker 2: a libertarian basically, and even a conservative libertarian maybe like
Speaker 2: my claim. But you have the experience more than anybody
Speaker 2: I've known or have spoken with on Marxism and what
Speaker 2: is a Marxist and who was a Marxist, etc. So
Speaker 2: they say frequently you can read it in headlines all
Speaker 2: over in articles that Kamala Harris is a Marxist. And
Speaker 2: after all, her father was a Marxist professor, So why
Speaker 2: wouldn't she be or couldn't she be with your experience,
Speaker 2: would you call her a Marxist?
Speaker 3: Okay, that's a great question. I would say that Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris is at least an unconscious Marxist, perhaps a conscious Marxist,
Speaker 3: but I know that she's at least an unconscious Marxist
Speaker 3: who has absorbed probably through her family, her father. But
Speaker 3: you know, through the political zeitgeist itself the premises of
Speaker 3: Marxist thought, and that is this idea that there is
Speaker 3: this exploited class and that's the majority, and they are
Speaker 3: stolen from at work at the point of production, and
Speaker 3: therefore they need redistribution. There needs to be redistribution, and
Speaker 3: that has to be conducted by the state, and that's
Speaker 3: the state's role. And that's really where she comes down.
Speaker 3: And you know, it's a zero sum thinking. It assumes
Speaker 3: that anybody getting wealthy comes at the expense of somebody else,
Speaker 3: which is just fallacious. It's completely economic dribble. You know,
Speaker 3: her father was a Marxist economist, which is a contradiction
Speaker 3: in terms Marxism is not economics at all. It is
Speaker 3: completely you know, it's it's really metaphysical rambling and it
Speaker 3: has no real economic basis to it.
Speaker 2: What a new opinion qualifies somebody as a Marxist, Well, if.
Speaker 3: They were a conscious Marxist, they have to believe a
Speaker 3: couple of things. First of all, the history of all
Speaker 3: of all, you know, hitherto human relations is the history
Speaker 3: of class struggle, and that struggle is particularly undertaken in
Speaker 3: the current era in terms of the proletariat and the
Speaker 3: capitalist class. And the capitalist class, according to this theory,
Speaker 3: exploits the worker every single minute of the day, and
Speaker 3: they steal from them. It's a conspiracy theory. They steal
Speaker 3: from the worker all all day long. They exploit them.
Speaker 3: They siphon surplus value out of the labor process and
Speaker 3: retain exploited wealth, and it builds up over time and
Speaker 3: this creates a kind of impossible barrier for the worker,
Speaker 3: and the only resort is to conduct a revolution, a
Speaker 3: class revolution. And it all comes down to their belief
Speaker 3: and the labor theory of value, which I once believed in,
Speaker 3: which is the idea that labor is the source of
Speaker 3: all value and that therefore, in order for the capitalist
Speaker 3: to get any value extraction, he must exploit the worker
Speaker 3: on a regular day to day, minute by minute basis,
Speaker 3: paying them a fraction of what they really produce. Of course,
Speaker 3: this is all complete nonsense because there's so many factors
Speaker 3: that go into production, and the labor theory of value,
Speaker 3: once you knock that out, which is completely fallacious, that's
Speaker 3: not where value comes from. Value comes from the subjective
Speaker 3: wants of consumers, of people that buy products. That's where
Speaker 3: value comes from. It is not based on labor time.
Speaker 3: If that were the case, I could go out and
Speaker 3: dig a hole for sixteen hours and expect to be
Speaker 3: paid at some rate, you know, the hole that was
Speaker 3: useless to anybody, and then filled it back up and
Speaker 3: expect to get paid for both processes. It's absurd.
Speaker 2: Did you have got to the Soviet Union?
Speaker 3: No? I did not, had I gone to this. Had
Speaker 3: I gone, I might have, you know, during the Soviet period,
Speaker 3: I might have seen things differently. But to the Marxists,
Speaker 3: they obscure what happens is in the Marxist milieuse. What
Speaker 3: they do is obscure history and obscure the actual existing socialism,
Speaker 3: actually existing socialism as the dissidents came to refer to it.
Speaker 3: They obscure this from view and keep you focused on
Speaker 3: the theory and the ideas and how theoretically wonderful be
Speaker 3: and how just it is, you know. And having come
Speaker 3: full circle into becoming a libertarian, a free market, a
Speaker 3: believer in the free market and freedom, I now see
Speaker 3: that this is anything but the reverse. This is actually
Speaker 3: the reverse or the inverse of the truth that, in fact,
Speaker 3: there's no freedom under Marxism because the first thing you
Speaker 3: surrender is yourself. You are now property of the state.
Speaker 3: And when you have no possession of yourself, that's the
Speaker 3: first principle of libertarianism, as self ownership. Once that is surrendered,
Speaker 3: you're a slave, and so there's no freedom. And of course,
Speaker 3: if you look at the goolog system, there was forced labor, unpaid,
Speaker 3: there was slavery, literal slavery in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2: If Kavala was on the Marxist story, you weren't going
Speaker 2: to refer to her as as any kind of Marxist.
Speaker 2: What label would you put on her? I've got one
Speaker 2: in mind.
Speaker 3: Well, she is at least an unconscious Marxist, but I
Speaker 3: would say, in keeping with the Marxist idea, she's also
Speaker 3: a globalist and an internationalist, because one of the main
Speaker 3: things about Marxism is it had to be the socialist
Speaker 3: or communist system has to be international and likewise, her policies,
Speaker 3: for example, on immigration, where she wants unfettered immigration and
Speaker 3: also total social welfare inclusive of healthcare benefits for anybody
Speaker 3: that's in this country, anybody, no matter how they got
Speaker 3: here or how long they've been here. She wants to
Speaker 3: give them free healthcare. This is internationalist, globalist, and it's
Speaker 3: Marxists all at the same time, and those all fall together.
Speaker 3: But what was your term?
Speaker 2: Progressive?
Speaker 3: A progressive? Well, yeah, she's a progressive with a with
Speaker 3: a foot with a foot on the gas pedal. It's
Speaker 3: a highly accelerated progressivism. Okay, yeah, I mean she really
Speaker 3: wants to create equity as they call it, as quickly
Speaker 3: as possible, and that means redistribution. And she sees she's
Speaker 3: running on this campaign now to help the middle class,
Speaker 3: which is really quite ironic because if anything, her policies
Speaker 3: will utterly dissolve the middle class into a stagnant lower
Speaker 3: class pool that can never get out of it. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's really what it will come down to.
Speaker 2: Well, we had a Prime minister recently who claimed she
Speaker 2: was a progressive. That's why I that's why I chose
Speaker 2: that term. And you know about whom I speak. She
Speaker 2: gets one mentioned in a list of similar types in
Speaker 2: your book, The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty,
Speaker 2: which was released last year. And I could only say
Speaker 2: that most people, most people in this country don't realize
Speaker 2: how close to disaster we really came. Albeit that it
Speaker 2: was bad enough, but it could have been that it
Speaker 2: could have been a whole lot worse. Speaking of which,
Speaker 2: and let me divert just momentarily, the World Economic Forum,
Speaker 2: the WEF, which had had to do with just into
Speaker 2: redurance training. Are they still as active? Are they still
Speaker 2: as progressive as they were? And I used progressive in
Speaker 2: its in its proper sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the World Economics Forum, their main project
Speaker 3: really well, there's kind of multi pronged, but that's only
Speaker 3: because the main project that they support, which is Agenda
Speaker 3: twenty thirty. UN's Agenda twenty thirty is a multi pronged
Speaker 3: program and that their world, the World Economics form Great Reset,
Speaker 3: not a conspiracy, but in a bi open plan is
Speaker 3: about accelerating the arrival of the accomplishment of Agenda twenty thirty.
Speaker 3: That's really what it is in a nutshell. So to
Speaker 3: understand the Great Reset, all you have to do is
Speaker 3: study Agenda twenty thirty. I mean not only but because
Speaker 3: I did that in I think one or two chapters.
Speaker 3: But there's a lot more to it because the UN
Speaker 3: has a deep history as well. But Agenda twenty thirty
Speaker 3: is what they want to bring about, and that is
Speaker 3: a globalist plan to institute well to have the various
Speaker 3: nation states and local and regional governments adopt. These are
Speaker 3: the agenda items, and all of the agenda items refer
Speaker 3: to things like redistribution of wealth, control over waterways, control
Speaker 3: over land, control over individuals. These are the technologies, the
Speaker 3: digital identity, and the whole slew of other means of
Speaker 3: incorporating the subject, including in CBDCs. But the Bank of
Speaker 3: International Settlements has said many times that the CBDC depends
Speaker 3: on a digital identity, and that is exactly what they
Speaker 3: look for. They want to have every single subject under
Speaker 3: the UN's auspices as a digitally identified subject whom they
Speaker 3: know virtually everything vital about, inclusive of their finances, but furthermore,
Speaker 3: their political proclivities, their consumption and you name it. Basically
Speaker 3: everything that you do would be part of a database
Speaker 3: called which is the digital identity. It's not a mere
Speaker 3: means of identification. It's a database attached to every single person,
Speaker 3: replete with biometric surveillance data, so that they know exactly
Speaker 3: who you are and what you do and they can
Speaker 3: verify it through biometric data.
Speaker 2: Well, we're in that position. New Zealand's Reserve Bank is
Speaker 2: working toward a rather rapidly. I fear to order a CBDC.
Speaker 2: There are lots of people, plenty of people at this
Speaker 2: point of time who say, well, this would be a
Speaker 2: great way of handling the financial system, who don't see
Speaker 2: anything wrong with it. So what do you say when
Speaker 2: somebody challenges you on that.
Speaker 3: Well, I just point to the documents and what they
Speaker 3: actually say straight up. The Bank of International Settlements kind
Speaker 3: of the Central Bank Clearinghouse, if you will, says directly
Speaker 3: that there's no there is no anonymity with anything using
Speaker 3: a CBDC, So every purchase becomes completely transparent to the
Speaker 3: central banks, and perhaps to all the central banks simultaneously
Speaker 3: if they share data. So this data is now completely
Speaker 3: transparent to them. That means every purchase you make is
Speaker 3: known by the central bank. And since you know, in
Speaker 3: the case of the United States, it's the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 3: Of course, they're a private cartel. Nevertheless, they are also
Speaker 3: strangely and ambiguously an agency of the federal government. So likewise,
Speaker 3: the federal government effectively knows everything you buy, all the
Speaker 3: money you have, et cetera, et cetera. And also they
Speaker 3: can exact real time taxation on all income immediately. They
Speaker 3: could even impose negative interest rates on balances that were
Speaker 3: not spent at the proper rate. There's all kinds of
Speaker 3: things they can do. They can forbid particular types of
Speaker 3: transactions or perhaps give quotas on particular types of transactions.
Speaker 3: Say you've had your full complement of meat this month,
Speaker 3: you cannot buy any more meat, you know, so they
Speaker 3: do that here with food stamps, you know, which is
Speaker 3: now all electronic in the United States. They could do
Speaker 3: this easily with the CBDC. Everybody will be on food stamps,
Speaker 3: and everybody's spending will be capped at certain points on
Speaker 3: different items, including gasoline, because they certainly want to phase
Speaker 3: out the gasoline automobile and replace it, God knows why
Speaker 3: with the electron electric automobile, even though that is environmentally
Speaker 3: more damaging, damaging than the gas powered automobile, and it
Speaker 3: uses gas, it uses fossil fuels in order to charge it.
Speaker 3: It's absurd. I mean, the whole thing is absurd. I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't know how this charade has and pulled over
Speaker 3: the eyes of so many people for so long, but
Speaker 3: it has well.
Speaker 2: I would suggest that, like so many other metas, the
Speaker 2: media has a great deal to do with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's unbelievable. They represent things without getting giving any
Speaker 3: kinds of context or information or really they managed to
Speaker 3: pull kind of like a complete reversal of the truth
Speaker 3: when they represent different things like this, like the like
Speaker 3: the electric vehicle it has you know, there's no savings
Speaker 3: and fossil fuels on that basis. I don't believe at all.
Speaker 3: And in fact, it's in the United States. Much of
Speaker 3: it is driven by coal technology because that's where the
Speaker 3: power plants are. That's what the power plants are using,
Speaker 3: is largely coal, and likewise it's just as polluting, if
Speaker 3: not more than the gas power engine. So it's ridiculous
Speaker 3: And how they get away with this is just like
Speaker 3: you said, the media is very much of a shroud
Speaker 3: over reality. It serves as a kind of obscuration of
Speaker 3: facts and instead gives you this packaged view that's completely wrong,
Speaker 3: and that's very frustrating for those who are somewhat awake
Speaker 3: and aware of what's happening.
Speaker 2: Oh, you must be a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I make no apologies for that. In fact, in
Speaker 3: my books A Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty,
Speaker 3: I have a whole chapter on the epistemological status of
Speaker 3: conspiracy theory per se. And there's absolutely no there's no
Speaker 3: justification for dismissing any theory because it's a conspiracy theory
Speaker 3: on that basis, there's no justification at all. Because there
Speaker 3: are conspiracies and there are hidden agendas. This is a fact,
Speaker 3: and they're not so hidden all the time, and most
Speaker 3: of the time you just have to look under the
Speaker 3: hood and you'll find what's going on.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's part five of the book on page
Speaker 2: three hundred and thirty one. I'm just letting you know.
Speaker 2: I've got a copy then the and it's full of
Speaker 2: very interesting and intriguing information, I might add, So we
Speaker 2: have diverted just slightly. Let me retarget Kamala Harris at
Speaker 2: this point. What chance would you say that she has
Speaker 2: of pulling this off?
Speaker 3: Oh, unfortunately, it's very close to fifty fifty fifty one percent.
Speaker 3: I mean, she has a very good chance of pulling
Speaker 3: this off. It's alarming beyond words, but I think she
Speaker 3: has a very good chance.
Speaker 2: So on that basis, assuming that that is the result,
Speaker 2: what would a Kamala administration look like? Do you think?
Speaker 3: I think it'll be a sequel of the Biden and
Speaker 3: Obama administration, So I think you'd see a lot of
Speaker 3: recycling of the same people in the upper echelons in
Speaker 3: the directorships and heads of all the agencies would pretty
Speaker 3: much be the same, with some reshuffling I think to
Speaker 3: make it look different. But it's going to be the
Speaker 3: same cast of characters running the show, and they have
Speaker 3: the same foreign policy and the same domestic policy. I
Speaker 3: think you're going to see a sequel, but with acceleration.
Speaker 3: I think Kamala Harris is what is known in Marxist
Speaker 3: circles as an accelerationist. She wants to bring about these
Speaker 3: things quickly, even if it means driving chaos on the way,
Speaker 3: because there are those who say that you basically have
Speaker 3: to make things really bad in order to get the
Speaker 3: kind of change you want. And I think that's the
Speaker 3: kind of the kind of pretext to her political philosophy.
Speaker 3: If it makes things really bad quickly, then we're getting
Speaker 3: closer to the goal.
Speaker 2: Do you think that America as we have known it
Speaker 2: would and could survive one or two terms of Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris administration?
Speaker 3: Wow? Well, I think it would leave at best a
Speaker 3: remnant of political dissidents and communities that are now being formed,
Speaker 3: parallel communities that are being formed on the basis of
Speaker 3: what you and I value, which is freedom, free markets.
Speaker 3: But these are parallel communities that would survive somehow, like
Speaker 3: for example, the Amish in the United States, no matter
Speaker 3: what happens to the political establishment here or the whole
Speaker 3: economic system for the most part these people would survive.
Speaker 3: This is the kind of parallel economic and social bodies
Speaker 3: that I think are forming in advance of all of this.
Speaker 3: And they would survive. But how long it's hard to say.
Speaker 3: And how many of them there would be, and how
Speaker 3: many people they would have contain, very very hard to say.
Speaker 3: But the overall economic order of the United States could
Speaker 3: be plunged into a kind of post USSR disaster or
Speaker 3: you know, the kind of economics that the USSR had
Speaker 3: prior to their collapse, their total collapse. It would be
Speaker 3: hard to take down the United States. You know, you
Speaker 3: look around, you go to New York, you fly over
Speaker 3: these cities, you see the vastness of this landscape and
Speaker 3: the incredible resources that have been built up here. It
Speaker 3: takes a lot to tear it down. It takes a
Speaker 3: lot concerted effort, but it would be it would be hobbled,
Speaker 3: severely hobbled at best after four years, and after eight years,
Speaker 3: it'll be on its knees.
Speaker 2: I don't want to use the word challenge. We're I'm
Speaker 2: going to challenge you just slightly on some of that
Speaker 2: we've we've just we just discussed the CBDCs and the
Speaker 2: control that they would give the administration whatever form the
Speaker 2: administration was in. So on that basis and the fact
Speaker 2: that the Amish I mean to armies land by the way,
Speaker 2: and I was, I was, I couldn't believe. I was fascinated.
Speaker 2: But the armies have survived because they had the freedom
Speaker 2: to do what they wanted to do. When you when
Speaker 2: you don't have that freedom, when that's taken away from you,
Speaker 2: and let's say it it revolves around the administration of finance,
Speaker 2: then the things aren't going to be so easy.
Speaker 3: No, yeah, I think it would be very difficult. And
Speaker 3: the incursions of the overarching economic order into those places
Speaker 3: would be very hard to resist, and also the states
Speaker 3: impositions on them would be very difficult. I mean, we
Speaker 3: just saw that recently with a Mennonite here in Pennsylvania
Speaker 3: where I live. A Mennonite who just wants to farm
Speaker 3: and sell his products, milk and things like this, and
Speaker 3: they raided his establishment, took all the products, levied an
Speaker 3: enormous sign against him. I think it was five hundred
Speaker 3: thousand dollars, utterly destroying his business. So yes, as long
Speaker 3: as those people can do that, as long as the
Speaker 3: FDA here, the Federal and Drug Administration, Food and Drug Administration,
Speaker 3: as long as they can get to you. In fact,
Speaker 3: you could be destroyed even trying to keep yourself alive
Speaker 3: with food. But we would say that, and I'm going
Speaker 3: to be slightly provocative here, as these smaller communities would
Speaker 3: have to be like the Amish, only armed frankly for
Speaker 3: self protection, not for aggression.
Speaker 2: Of course, that's why the to bear arms exists. Essentially
Speaker 2: the state system. Of course, I have this throned me
Speaker 2: from time to time by a couple of people, in
Speaker 2: particular that Washington doesn't have that much power and the
Speaker 2: states can undermine it. What chance, in your opinion, with
Speaker 2: Texas and Florida and Tennessee, for instance, what chance would
Speaker 2: they have?
Speaker 3: Well, it would come down to standoffs, and I think
Speaker 3: they're going to be. There will be attempts to make
Speaker 3: the states more autonomous, and you could see possible if
Speaker 3: things get bad enough, secession, attempts at a secession and
Speaker 3: to insulate themselves from the overreach, the overreach and penetration
Speaker 3: of the federal hegemon that's running the show. And I
Speaker 3: think you're going to have to also have people in
Speaker 3: those states that are liberty minded, so they're not only
Speaker 3: working on people through direct force and coersion, but also propaganda,
Speaker 3: so that it's hard to even find leaders who understand
Speaker 3: what we're trying to save in the first place. And
Speaker 3: they're penetrating local governments too, using Agenda twenty thirty, rules
Speaker 3: and issues and so forth to create sort of fifteen
Speaker 3: minute type cities and all this nonsense. This stuff has
Speaker 3: penetrated local townships, and I know for a fact because
Speaker 3: I witnessed it in Colorado where these the administrators there,
Speaker 3: the local government was doing all these globalist things. So
Speaker 3: it requires an educated and resilient, recalcitrant remnant running the
Speaker 3: show in those various local places and resisting the federal
Speaker 3: incursions as much as possible. It's a very difficult proposition.
Speaker 3: In the United States, there's an organization. I'm bragging about
Speaker 3: it here because I'm involved with. It's called the Mesis
Speaker 3: Caucus of the Libertarian Party, and that is the plan
Speaker 3: of the Mesas Caucus now has been adopted by the
Speaker 3: Libertarian Party. It's called Project Decentralized Revolution. It's really only
Speaker 3: a revolution back to the kind of anti federalist, anti
Speaker 3: centralized government that the founders actually envisioned in the first place,
Speaker 3: and that the states would be autonomous except in matters
Speaker 3: relating to constitutional provisions that the federal government had authority over.
Speaker 3: In other words, only those things the federal government explicitly
Speaker 3: has authority over can be imposed on the states. Everything
Speaker 3: else can be nullified. It's difficult, but it can be done,
Speaker 3: and there are cases of nullification happening all over the place.
Speaker 3: And you know, one of the other movements that's really
Speaker 3: along these lines is called the Defend the Guard movement
Speaker 3: in the United States. It's a movement to preclude the
Speaker 3: use of national guards state national guardsmen in undeclared wars
Speaker 3: across the globe. This is another way of the states
Speaker 3: asserting their own autonomy and it's not allowed to you know.
Speaker 3: You know, technically the United States cannot fight fight wars
Speaker 3: without a declaration from Congress, but it's been going on
Speaker 3: without without really any hesitation otherwise. But at least they
Speaker 3: could reserve their own National Guard and keep them at
Speaker 3: bay and keep them from participating. So things like this,
Speaker 3: Defend the Guard, decentralized revolution, all of these things can
Speaker 3: be done, and they're already underway in some places. But
Speaker 3: it's very difficult. It's not going to be easy. Nobody
Speaker 3: said that this remnant will struggle against this kind of
Speaker 3: detlitarianism that we're up against.
Speaker 2: Right. This is a side by question, but it's related
Speaker 2: from this far away. I've watched the story of the
Speaker 2: Southern border unfold and if you go back, if you
Speaker 2: go back four or five years, where it was already
Speaker 2: a problem. Now it's more than a problem, but it
Speaker 2: was a state of well, chaos wouldn't be the wrong word,
Speaker 2: and the Southern border gradually, actually in a rush, became
Speaker 2: no Southern border. And what number do you do you
Speaker 2: use when you talk about the number of illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: who have come across that border in the last few years.
Speaker 3: I would say it's upwards of fifteen million, roughly upwards
Speaker 3: of fifteen million, because the reports are somewhere around ten
Speaker 3: or eleven, and I would say they're missing some people,
Speaker 3: of course, so I think it's upwards of fifteen million,
Speaker 3: and that's a lot of people.
Speaker 2: Well, you had the Texas governor take a stand on this,
Speaker 2: and the fence off some areas of the along the river,
Speaker 2: the name of which escapes me.
Speaker 3: I can't remember the name either right now.
Speaker 2: Anyway, anyway, they tried doing that, and then the White
Speaker 2: House sent down who was it that they sent which
Speaker 2: particular grouping of military did they send down to ord
Speaker 2: to try to put us up to it? And I'm
Speaker 2: not sure. I'm not sure how it ended.
Speaker 3: You know, that's a good question. That's a story that
Speaker 3: sort of disappeared, yep, and it needs to be examined.
Speaker 3: But I think the standoff was using or an attempt
Speaker 3: to use, the National Guard. But the National Guard are
Speaker 3: state based, so I don't think they were able to
Speaker 3: actually use any militia against this, against the fencing that
Speaker 3: took place, and you're right, the body of water escapes me.
Speaker 3: But they erected barbois fences and so forth to keep
Speaker 3: people from crossing into Texas, and that's perfectly legitimate in
Speaker 3: my mind. I think immigration should be handled at the
Speaker 3: local level as much as possible. But the main thing
Speaker 3: that's really going on here with this immigration is the
Speaker 3: incentivizing of it to the tune of billions tens of
Speaker 3: billions of dollars. The federal government is not directly funding it.
Speaker 3: What they're doing is a little ledger domain in which
Speaker 3: they use a middlemen, the NGOs, and they're handing out
Speaker 3: tens of billions of dollars to these charities so called
Speaker 3: these philanthropy and letting them distribute the money. And this
Speaker 3: is in the form of everything from debit cards to transportation,
Speaker 3: to housing, to healthcare to everything. This is being accommodated
Speaker 3: through these NGOs largely. And then the States then in
Speaker 3: the when this when the immigrants arrived, then they grant
Speaker 3: them housing and hotels and housing and who knows where
Speaker 3: else apartment buildings. In the case of Aurora, Hi, Aurora, Ohio,
Speaker 3: they actually took over at an apartment complex. Is driving
Speaker 3: people out of their plate homes and just basically a
Speaker 3: violent takeover of property. This is where we're at.
Speaker 2: Well, we've seen that. I don't know about local television,
Speaker 2: but it's been it's been seen on the cable from
Speaker 2: the States down here. I've seen it on more than
Speaker 2: one occasion, and it's just just plain ugly.
Speaker 3: It's I'm believable, it's very ugly. It's just utter theft
Speaker 3: of property and complete occupation of people's residences that they're
Speaker 3: literally throwing people out of their homes and taking their property,
Speaker 3: throwing it in the trash with if they don't want
Speaker 3: it and occupying their property with the complete apparent okay
Speaker 3: of the local authorities. They are doing nothing about it.
Speaker 3: They aren't doing anything to stop it, and they're not
Speaker 3: doing anything to reverse it when it happens. So in
Speaker 3: this case, what we're looking at, if Trump got in,
Speaker 3: hopefully he would have these places completely retaken. They have
Speaker 3: to have a counter insurgence to get these properties back,
Speaker 3: and that would be probably one of the first orders
Speaker 3: of business, I think, because if you're going to go after, oh,
Speaker 3: the illegals and deport them, I would think you might
Speaker 3: want to get the ones first who have actually taken
Speaker 3: over other people's homes. It's unbelievable, is can you believe
Speaker 3: we're even saying this.
Speaker 2: Well, let's not forget that. It didn't start in Ohio. Really,
Speaker 2: it started up in New York as far as I'm aware.
Speaker 2: Where you may have seen the woman on television who
Speaker 2: had been away, away somewhere, came back. The house had
Speaker 2: been occupied, and she called the police, and the police
Speaker 2: arrested her.
Speaker 3: Yes, the owner squatter's rights. Yes, based on squatters rights.
Speaker 3: Once you get ahold of a property, that's it. In
Speaker 3: New York, you are out it's unbelievable. So there's no
Speaker 3: sense of property rights. In many places now property rights
Speaker 3: are being completely abrogated. There is no sense that property
Speaker 3: is real and that people have a right to it.
Speaker 3: This has been one of the main reasons, I think
Speaker 3: for the whole Wok ideology, is to make people believe
Speaker 3: that they don't have any right to what they have,
Speaker 3: that in fact they should feel guilty and should abdicate
Speaker 3: it or or otherwise have been divested from it by
Speaker 3: the authorities. That that's it's just it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2: And you've got to wonder if the world's gone insane.
Speaker 2: The substackt that you write for under the name if
Speaker 2: my memory serves me correctly of and don't tell me
Speaker 2: m recton wald great at substack dot com that's correct,
Speaker 2: contains a large number of your offerings over the last
Speaker 2: over the last couple of years, and it's it's an
Speaker 2: extremely profitable place to spend a bit of time, in fact,
Speaker 2: more than a bit of time, because it's very educational.
Speaker 2: I just wonder every everybody these days and their uncle
Speaker 2: is writing substact stuff. I'm watching the increase of it
Speaker 2: just in our country, and it's turning out some extremely
Speaker 2: good commentary, such stuff that the mainstream media simply wouldn't
Speaker 2: wouldn't consider. And I suppose it's probably a long stretch
Speaker 2: to refer to it as a contemporary version of those
Speaker 2: pamphlets that were written back in the seventeen hundreds. I
Speaker 2: think in your country. But is that a good ground, Well,
Speaker 2: let's stay with you and yours. I would imagine you
Speaker 2: have good readership, but there are so many now that
Speaker 2: it's hard to know exactly where to spend your time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's very difficult to tell. I have a good
Speaker 3: subscriber base. I think it's upwards of twenty five subscribers.
Speaker 3: And I was very hesitant to move my work off
Speaker 3: of my own website, Michael rectinwall dot com and to
Speaker 3: put it first on substack. But I reach a much
Speaker 3: broader eye audience this way. It's incredible how it just
Speaker 3: traffics people between these various substack sites. And likewise, I've
Speaker 3: gained tremendous reach over this, and so I don't regret it.
Speaker 3: I do try to keep my other page up to date,
Speaker 3: but I let the substack lead the way now, and
Speaker 3: it's just very it's very good. It's a good way
Speaker 3: of reaching a lot of people. You might call it
Speaker 3: like a kind of pamphleteering, as in, you know in
Speaker 3: England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, you know when
Speaker 3: you had Addison and Steel and others writing for the
Speaker 3: public in these kind of public squares. It's the new
Speaker 3: public square for a long form, at least more than
Speaker 3: a tweet long content.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've got to refer to something as something else.
Speaker 2: The university prefaces have started the petition for academics already
Speaker 2: behind Donald Trump in the twenty twenty four presidential election.
Speaker 2: The petition's statement, a project of Professor Daniel Klein of
Speaker 2: George Mason University and Daniel Mahoney or that should be
Speaker 2: many probably, professor emeritus of Political Science at Assumption University,
Speaker 2: encourages scholars to support the Republican candidate. The article goes
Speaker 2: on with more detailed but this is how it finishes. However,
Speaker 2: he said, a Kamala Harris administration would be catastrophic. While
Speaker 2: President Trump can be thought of as a bad landlord,
Speaker 2: the Harris administration is a further step on the road
Speaker 2: to serfdom, a step toward totalitarianism. Censorship suppression law fare
Speaker 2: and attacks on the affluent middle class. The Democrats are
Speaker 2: a passionate, indoctrinated mob that cares little for freedom. Now,
Speaker 2: a lot of people, if they were reading that, i'd suggest,
Speaker 2: would think, oh, what an exaggeration. It's nowhere near anything
Speaker 2: as bad as that. Your response.
Speaker 3: I've been saying we were headed towards totalitarianism for approximately
Speaker 3: nine years now, and I think it's great that some
Speaker 3: people are catching up, and and it's amazing that you're
Speaker 3: seeing a profess certain segments of the Professoriat actually finally
Speaker 3: catching up to this. And yeah, I think he's correct.
Speaker 3: You know, you're going to see with with Harris, you
Speaker 3: would see a totalitarian regime, you know, in in if
Speaker 3: not in full force, in in accelerated motion. And so
Speaker 3: I think that is a very good development, and I
Speaker 3: hope more more academics. But I think that many of
Speaker 3: them will be cold and quailed, afraid to join because
Speaker 3: it could mean the end of their careers as they do.
Speaker 3: That's how bad it is.
Speaker 2: Well, we know that because you fell into that either
Speaker 2: that very category, but you had you had survived. But
Speaker 2: I'm guessing you'd say that it might be harder to
Speaker 2: survive now. Because the market that you've you've helped create
Speaker 2: is probably busy enough.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's not easy. As I had a virtual sinecure
Speaker 3: as a university professor. I mean I did teach. I
Speaker 3: taught two days a week if that was a full
Speaker 3: time job, nine months a year, and I gave it
Speaker 3: up because of my greater value, which is truth. And
Speaker 3: that's why I went into academy in the first place.
Speaker 3: So I wasn't going to sacrifice the truth for a sinecure.
Speaker 3: It's just a drive. That would be a sniveling and
Speaker 3: very obsequist thing to do, and I couldn't do it.
Speaker 2: Why do you think the ruling class see is democracy?
Speaker 3: Oh that's interesting because I've been writing about this question
Speaker 3: of our democracy as they call it here. The Democrat
Speaker 3: particularly use this phrase, and it's anything but democracy. What
Speaker 3: they mean by our democracy is something like our rule,
Speaker 3: a rule by our party or our uniparty, whatever you
Speaker 3: want to call it, and anything else is a threat
Speaker 3: to democracy. So what they mean by democracy is kind
Speaker 3: of like ruled by the administrative state with our puppets
Speaker 3: in place, carrying out the deep state or administrative states deciderata,
Speaker 3: and anything else is a threat or anti democratic or
Speaker 3: fascist or nazi or whatever else they want to call it.
Speaker 3: And it's just such an irony because they're anything but democratic.
Speaker 3: It's in fact the opposite of democratic. It's dictatorial. It's
Speaker 3: a dictatorship by a particular elite of subversive elites, and
Speaker 3: that's who's running the show. And they consider any threat
Speaker 3: to their single, solitary control of power to be anti democratic.
Speaker 3: That's what they call it. So they hate democracy because
Speaker 3: look at the people that would vote, and they want
Speaker 3: to discount these people. They want to discount the fact
Speaker 3: that you have at least half the country. I think
Speaker 3: it's more who favors Donald Trump here in the United
Speaker 3: States as opposed to the regime puppet that they want
Speaker 3: to prop up instead, and that's called anti democratic. So
Speaker 3: that's the people they want to shut out. They don't
Speaker 3: want them having a voice, they don't want them casting about,
Speaker 3: or if they do, they want to make sure they
Speaker 3: get enough additional ballots from god knows where, including immigrants,
Speaker 3: I believe, another chicanery. Really, they want to make sure
Speaker 3: that they get they keep power, and they're willing to
Speaker 3: subvert democracy in the name of our democracy.
Speaker 2: Such an irony well, I've heard if I've heard it once,
Speaker 2: I've heard it a million times that the Democrats will
Speaker 2: stop at nothing to retain power and win this election.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's absolutely correct. I think they'll stop it nothing.
Speaker 3: And I wouldn't even put it past them to precipitate
Speaker 3: a world war with Russia in advance of this, because
Speaker 3: then they'll be talking about the peaceful transfer of power
Speaker 3: and how we have to keep it in certain hands
Speaker 3: and we can't let Trump, who's a conciliator and a
Speaker 3: putent poppet, we can't let him in power because he'll
Speaker 3: he'll put us at existential risk. But likewise we must
Speaker 3: continue and we may have to suspend the election. I
Speaker 3: would not put that pass them, even.
Speaker 2: It has crossed my mind, speaking of which I haven't
Speaker 2: mentioned this on a podcast yet, but I'm going to
Speaker 2: not that. Not that we've had many podcasts since that,
Speaker 2: since that debate, but I said to my wife during
Speaker 2: that debate, which wasn't a debate at the face, but
Speaker 2: I said to her, she's had preconditioning with the questions,
Speaker 2: and my wife said, no, no, no, they wouldn't dare
Speaker 2: do that. She was look, she was responding, so immediately
Speaker 2: so consistently with ret with what could only be described
Speaker 2: as ready comments for every question. There was no hesitation.
Speaker 2: It's just banged straight into it. Whether it was right
Speaker 2: or wrong, or indifferent or whatever it was. It was
Speaker 2: straight into it like she'd had like she'd had the
Speaker 2: questions fed to her and been and been suare we say,
Speaker 2: coached in them. And for anybody who who might struggle
Speaker 2: to believe that, you've only got to look at the
Speaker 2: the the interview that she did in Pennsylvania two days
Speaker 2: later where she was asked where she was asked questions
Speaker 2: by a lift leaning interviewer and she went back to
Speaker 2: words Sellatville. Yeah, she gave disaster schounces.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you know she I was almost shocked
Speaker 3: at her cogency during this so called debate. But you know,
Speaker 3: there is a whistleblower now that alleges that she was
Speaker 3: given This is from an ABC whistleblower, that she was
Speaker 3: given the questions, or at least given the parameters of
Speaker 3: the questions where she was able to delimit the possible questions.
Speaker 3: I think everything she said was utterly memorized. That was
Speaker 3: a pretty impressive feat. I've done a lot of public
Speaker 3: speaking and it's very difficult to memorize that much material.
Speaker 3: But I believe it was memorized, and I think it
Speaker 3: was ready made, ready to spit out at on queue,
Speaker 3: and that's exactly what happened. I do believe she was
Speaker 3: given some sort of information, if not the direct questions,
Speaker 3: then the topics, and just had a ready answer for
Speaker 3: every topic and subtopic.
Speaker 2: I was aware of that whistleblower yesterday, and I decided
Speaker 2: that I wouldn't raise it because I really need more
Speaker 2: This is what I was thinking. I really, I really
Speaker 2: need more confirmation of it than is currently available. I
Speaker 2: saw that, I looked at I did a bit of research,
Speaker 2: and I saw that there were sort of hints in
Speaker 2: that direction from from elsewhere prior to that announcement yesterday.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons that I decided to hold was
Speaker 2: who was the guy who who worked for Trump who
Speaker 2: announced on X that there would be in the next
Speaker 2: couple of days, within a very short space of time,
Speaker 2: that this would be revealed.
Speaker 3: That could have been Steven Smith. Perhaps it wasn't him.
Speaker 3: I don't have that information at the top of my tongue.
Speaker 2: My tongue here it was somebody who'd been a bit
Speaker 2: controversial in the past. That's that's why I held back.
Speaker 2: But if that's true, you won't see it in the
Speaker 2: New York Times.
Speaker 3: I don't know even if it's true. You know, that's
Speaker 3: just it. I mean, they're curating reality. Google New York Times,
Speaker 3: the whole media plex that you know, they're curating information
Speaker 3: to such an extent that they're effectively curating reality. And
Speaker 3: it's very difficult to put pierce through it. And no
Speaker 3: matter what evidence you provide, they just say, oh, that's
Speaker 3: been debunked, and that's it for It's that's the end
Speaker 3: of it. It's supposed to be a conversation stopper. My
Speaker 3: assistant would know all this. This is Lori Price. She
Speaker 3: she works in compiling news and keeping track of everything,
Speaker 3: and she would she wouldn't know. But I don't have
Speaker 3: that on a tip of my tongue.
Speaker 2: This is a good spot, though, to raise something with
Speaker 2: you that I've been intrigued with. You actually ran for
Speaker 2: the presidency for the Libertarian Party. Correct?
Speaker 3: I did? Yes, I did. I ran as a presidential
Speaker 3: candidate and the Libertian Party.
Speaker 2: If you were an official candidate, but you must have
Speaker 2: known that you had no show of winning even if
Speaker 2: you became the candidate, but you didn't, you got you
Speaker 2: got defeated. But there's a story behind this. I know that,
Speaker 2: So why don't you just drop it on us?
Speaker 3: Sure? Okay? So I was the lead candidate for the
Speaker 3: whole campaign, and then during the nomination process there were
Speaker 3: they do what they call round voting, and therefore you
Speaker 3: have to get fifty percent of the vote to win,
Speaker 3: and so they eliminate people based on various you know
Speaker 3: you got under this? Not sure? You know? They eliminate
Speaker 3: the bottom first of all, the bottom candidate, and then
Speaker 3: anybody that fails to get X amount. I forget the
Speaker 3: exact criteria. Anyway, I won the first five rounds of voting,
Speaker 3: and I was very close to breaking through to fifty percent.
Speaker 3: And then there was a candidate that got eliminated in
Speaker 3: the fourth round. I'm sorry in the fifth round. And
Speaker 3: he had promised to if he was knocked out, although
Speaker 3: he was stingy to admit it could happen, if he
Speaker 3: was knocked out, he would definitely support me. He promised
Speaker 3: this three times, no less and one time no less
Speaker 3: than three seconds before he went up to announce that
Speaker 3: he was throwing his support to the other candidate. He
Speaker 3: even said it to my face three seconds before he
Speaker 3: made his announcement. I said, you're not going to endorse
Speaker 3: Chase Oliver, now, are you? And he said, oh no,
Speaker 3: and then stepped up to the microphone and did just
Speaker 3: that and became his vice presidential running mate. So then
Speaker 3: I lost. And then Chase Oliver couldn't win even in
Speaker 3: the next round because he didn't get fifty percent, so
Speaker 3: he had to run against nobody, and they call it noda,
Speaker 3: none of the above, and he barely won against nobody,
Speaker 3: but he did. And that's what happened and what we
Speaker 3: got in place of me, which is you were correct.
Speaker 3: I'm a conservative culturally conservative libertarian, yes, and this guy
Speaker 3: is actually for transing children and other things, you know.
Speaker 3: And I'm not bitter about this because, frankly, I would
Speaker 3: have been in a precarious position now had I won
Speaker 3: the nomination of having to deal with the fact that
Speaker 3: you have a presidential candidate who's been they've attempted to
Speaker 3: assassinate twice or somebody has attempted, and who could can't
Speaker 3: afford to lose any votes in the swing states. So
Speaker 3: I would have had the position I would have been
Speaker 3: in the very uncomfortable position of having either to take
Speaker 3: votes and maybe deprived of Trump of the election, or
Speaker 3: throw my support to Trump in those in those states,
Speaker 3: I would have gotten tremendous criticism and you know, vehemence
Speaker 3: either way, in one case from the libertarian people, the
Speaker 3: Libertarian Party people, and in the other case from the
Speaker 3: Trump people. Naturally, of course, I'm voting for Trump, and
Speaker 3: I'll make no mistake about that. I'm voting for Trump,
Speaker 3: and I might even have voted for him against myself
Speaker 3: because I am in the swing state Pennsylvania. Well, the.
Speaker 2: If you'd won, what what would that have meant to
Speaker 2: your life?
Speaker 3: It would have meant a lot of travel, a lot
Speaker 3: more travel. I'd already done a whole year of travel
Speaker 3: doing this, traveling to all the states, doing all the conventions, participating.
Speaker 3: We had twenty five thirty debates. I mean, it's nothing
Speaker 3: like the Republican or Democratic primary, so you know, there's
Speaker 3: twenty five or thirty debates. I would have continued to
Speaker 3: do that. I would have got a lot of press attention,
Speaker 3: probably a lot of negative attention, because what I was
Speaker 3: saying was get rid of the administrative state altogether. Get
Speaker 3: rid of the regulatory agencies, get rid of the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 3: Start gutting the federal government because we can't. We cannot
Speaker 3: survive under it. It is crushing us, and it is
Speaker 3: crushing the economy, and it's a it's crushed people's lives.
Speaker 3: They're not working for us, They're working on their own behalf.
Speaker 3: They don't care about the general welfare. They're you know,
Speaker 3: everybody is self interested, So why do you give certain
Speaker 3: people monopoly over power? You know, since everybody is self interested.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's quite frankly between you and me and
Speaker 3: your listeners. I was running as an anarcho capitalist, that is,
Speaker 3: free market, no state at all, and I thought that,
Speaker 3: you know, I was going to argue that the federal
Speaker 3: government should be dissolved. What do we needed for? And
Speaker 3: you know, that would have been interesting, not to say
Speaker 3: the least, it would have been perhaps the most radical
Speaker 3: presidential candidate in history.
Speaker 2: Well, that would have been a fascinating thing to watch. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I purposely lift out until the until the end, any
Speaker 2: any discussion of Trump and what's been going on that
Speaker 2: attempted assassination of the over the last weekend. Only a
Speaker 2: couple of days ago, now has shocked a lot of people,
Speaker 2: or is it now something that has been what's the word,
Speaker 2: I want softened? People have been softened by the first experience,
Speaker 2: now the second experience, So there's a third attempt, people
Speaker 2: might start yawning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's ridiculous. I mean, we've had assassination attempts, two
Speaker 3: assassination attempts on a presidential candidate, and the establishment media
Speaker 3: couldn't be less interested, really and dismissive and putting scare
Speaker 3: quotes on assassination attempt in every case they can, and
Speaker 3: blaming Trump for his rhetoric, effectively what they call blaming
Speaker 3: the victim. You know, NBC News has Lester Holt said,
Speaker 3: you know this, this assassination attempt is really coming on
Speaker 3: the heels of violent and incendiary rhetoric coming out of
Speaker 3: the Trump campaign. They blamed Trump for people shooting at
Speaker 3: him or attempting to shoot at him, or wanting to
Speaker 3: shoot at him. It's unbelievable. So I can't be I'm
Speaker 3: just amazed at how people have been habituated to this
Speaker 3: and can particularly just forget about it, you know, weeks
Speaker 3: or days after when we're having political violence here in
Speaker 3: the United States, not on an unprecedented scale. After all,
Speaker 3: we did witness the assassination of JFK and of course
Speaker 3: Robert Kennedy and also Martin Luther King. It's not alien
Speaker 3: to us. But here we have it right now, and
Speaker 3: it's the same person every time. And if this were
Speaker 3: the other if the shoe were on the other foot,
Speaker 3: you would believe there would be endless commentary on news,
Speaker 3: endless op eds in the papers to crying political violence,
Speaker 3: and also to crying Trump's role in it. They would
Speaker 3: have blamed them. They're blaming him in either case they
Speaker 3: shoot at them and they blame them, or if they
Speaker 3: shoot at somebody else, they would certainly blame them. So
Speaker 3: it's just unbelievable. We're living in a similacrum, if you will,
Speaker 3: a media similacrum in which they completely curtail and inquiry
Speaker 3: and shut off thinking and curate reality. It's a stunning
Speaker 3: it's a stunning development. It is.
Speaker 2: So I think my last question is going to be this,
Speaker 2: If the worst happened between now and the election and
Speaker 2: Trump was moving, what do you think the reaction from
Speaker 2: the population would be.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a real good one. There'll be there would
Speaker 3: be a lot of talk, at least talk of an uprising.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that the uprising would ever materialize, but
Speaker 3: there would be an enormous amount of rhetoric in that direction.
Speaker 3: I could see X, for example, the former Twitter blowing
Speaker 3: up with threat you know, with plans and rhetoric and demonstrations.
Speaker 3: I think there would definitely be demonstrations, big ones. You know,
Speaker 3: it wouldn't really be civil war because it would be
Speaker 3: the establishment versus this people, right, So interestingly, you know,
Speaker 3: they talk about predictive programming. There was there is a
Speaker 3: movie called Civil War and in which it's really the
Speaker 3: state against this dissidant community or these dissident people politically.
Speaker 3: So I mean that's that's either predictive programming or habituation
Speaker 3: to the possibility of what might happen. I don't know
Speaker 3: that the United States would see a mass armed uprising.
Speaker 3: I doubt it because people are still too comfortable, They
Speaker 3: still have things to protect, they still have things to lose.
Speaker 2: I think that is a brilliant way to put it.
Speaker 2: I might borrow it if you don't mind, not at all.
Speaker 2: I want to conclude though, with just saying that your
Speaker 2: your substack site m recton World r C. T. E.
Speaker 2: N w Ald Mrectonworld dot substack dot com is worthy
Speaker 2: of attacking. So if you go to that site, make
Speaker 2: sure you read the Grand Refusal by Michael. The Grand
Speaker 2: Refusal Agenda twenty thirty and the Great Reset Plan to
Speaker 2: bring it about is a multi tentacled, many headed hydra
Speaker 2: of mythical proportions. It's a very good piece and it
Speaker 2: contains something that stood out to me immediately, the nine
Speaker 2: point plan for stopping the Great Reset.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's kind of like a companion to the idea
Speaker 3: of a kind of decentralized revolution. But it doesn't mean
Speaker 3: you have to move necessarily. You have to create local networks,
Speaker 3: but also networks of like minded people who exchange goods,
Speaker 3: who use their own currency if necessary, and you know,
Speaker 3: they agree upon the currency, whether it's bitcoin, gold leafs,
Speaker 3: what have you. I'm not going to adjudicate that, but yeah,
Speaker 3: that plan is effectively a plan for resistance, and it's
Speaker 3: not necessarily like an overthrow because it's just it's just
Speaker 3: as many people that get involved in it, that's who
Speaker 3: it will serve. It won't necessarily serve everybody, because not
Speaker 3: everybody's going to get involved in it, but for those
Speaker 3: who want to elude this totalitarian, centralized system, that's what
Speaker 3: the plan's for.
Speaker 2: Very good. I just I've done to something else that
Speaker 2: I meant to include, so I will quickly The Expect
Speaker 2: Money Summit, yes, coming up on October seven through eleven.
Speaker 2: I thought when I when I first read about it,
Speaker 2: I thought that would be worth attending. The list of
Speaker 2: guests is great, but more importantly, it is all being
Speaker 2: done online. And am I correct in saying that it's free.
Speaker 3: It's free online except for us a few special programs,
Speaker 3: of which yours truly is one, and I am speaking there,
Speaker 3: but to see my talk you have to pay. But
Speaker 3: most of the talks are free, and largely the thing
Speaker 3: is free, with a few exceptions of some events. But yes,
Speaker 3: it's all online. It's Expat Money Summit, Expat Money one word,
Speaker 3: summit another one word. It's altogether dot com And that's
Speaker 3: an amazing event. And I am friends with the guy
Speaker 3: that runs it, and they have very good ideas for
Speaker 3: protecting your wealth and perhaps your life if it comes
Speaker 3: down to that. So that's how That's how I'll leave
Speaker 3: it there.
Speaker 2: So it says to reserve your complimentary ticket head to
Speaker 2: expect money summit. Do you do you need to register?
Speaker 3: Maybe? Yes, you will have to register, and if you
Speaker 3: register under my link you'll have to pay, but you
Speaker 3: can find the free links on their site from there.
Speaker 2: All right, well, I shall be in attendance. Michael.
Speaker 3: It's wonderful.
Speaker 2: It's been great. I thank you for your time. You've
Speaker 2: donated quite a bit of it, and canoni in by
Speaker 2: saying I look forward to the next one.
Speaker 3: So do I. And it's great talking to you. I
Speaker 3: always it's always a pleasure, and I appreciate your giving
Speaker 3: me a forum to the events, but to also get
Speaker 3: across the ideas that I think are vital for us.
Speaker 2: Terrific. Thanks Michael, thank you. There are essential fat nutrients
Speaker 2: that we need in our diets as the body cart
Speaker 2: manufacture them. These are omega three and Omega six fatty acids.
Speaker 2: Equisine is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening
Speaker 2: primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of
Speaker 2: Omega three and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally
Speaker 2: existing ratios. The omega six from evening primrose oil assists
Speaker 2: the Omega three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine
Speaker 2: is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening
Speaker 2: primrose oil that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source
Speaker 2: from the deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magrol provide essential Amiga
Speaker 2: three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal
Speaker 2: organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity
Speaker 2: before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to
Speaker 2: be flexible, so important to support healthy blood flow and
Speaker 2: overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood, balance and mental
Speaker 2: clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting
Speaker 2: stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and healthy eyes as
Speaker 2: we get older. Equason is a premium, high grade fish
Speaker 2: and evening primrose oil to be taken in addition to
Speaker 2: a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and
Speaker 2: health stores. Always read the label and users directed and
Speaker 2: if symptoms persist, seeing your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland
Speaker 2: Layton Smith. This is producer. Welcome to the mail room
Speaker 2: for podcasts two hundred and fifty.
Speaker 4: Six high lighton how are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing just fine? Thank you good, better than expected.
Speaker 2: I could even say, oh dear, So let me begin
Speaker 2: if I may from Eva Layton. Just finished listening to
Speaker 2: your podcast with Nicholas a'roni, and as always, it was
Speaker 2: incredibly engaging. Didn't ease my concern that we seem to
Speaker 2: be loosening laws while multaneously moving away from religious values
Speaker 2: and nurturing care for children. We're raising the next generation
Speaker 2: in daycares and behind screens, with parents so consumed by
Speaker 2: modern life that they aren't instilling strong character, as Nicholas discussed,
Speaker 2: a worrying combination at the end, from either look I would,
Speaker 2: this is what I say, this is how I look
Speaker 2: at it sometimes anyway, Yeah, there's a lot of kids
Speaker 2: who aren't being raised well at all. There are, on
Speaker 2: the other hand, there are, on the other hand, kids
Speaker 2: that are being raised in households where they are brought
Speaker 2: up magnificently, with both parents working, holding down jobs and
Speaker 2: just doing what they need to do.
Speaker 4: Laydon Scott says, it's been some years since I have
Speaker 4: written to you, laden your podcasts have been as staple
Speaker 4: for me since your days on news Talks. It'd be
Speaker 4: ended your interview with Robert McCulloch was the catalyst for
Speaker 4: me hitting the keyboard. Roberts suggested that the cream of
Speaker 4: our young talent was heading overseas at ever younger ages,
Speaker 4: and you seemed unconvinced by this. I immediately recalled the
Speaker 4: name Jamie Beaton, and I'm sure that this demographic was
Speaker 4: the target market for his company, Crimson Consulting, though I
Speaker 4: haven't heard much about them in recent times. And then
Speaker 4: Scott goes on to say, my own experience with our
Speaker 4: thirty three year old son, however, couldn't be more of
Speaker 4: a contradiction to Roberts theory. A fairly bright individual, but
Speaker 4: not exceptional. He graduated Auckland University with a b coom
Speaker 4: did his professional papers to attain his ca qualification recognized
Speaker 4: more widely, then set about developing a specialization field, which
Speaker 4: was financial analytics within accountancy, to make himself more employable.
Speaker 4: He has no desire to leave New Zealand, even though
Speaker 4: his parents at one point delicately suggested that they might
Speaker 4: head to Queensland and would he follow. He seems unconvinced
Speaker 4: that the grass is new, necessarily green or elsewhere, and
Speaker 4: although he has a large friend base overseas, is resolute
Speaker 4: that he will remain here in the medium term. Lucky you, Scott,
Speaker 4: rest of us have got children disappearing. And then Scott
Speaker 4: goes on to say, I think he also has a
Speaker 4: perception that the job market is perhaps easier here, as
Speaker 4: with the exodus from New Zealand. There are fewer people
Speaker 4: vying for the positions he wants. His corporate progression has
Speaker 4: been steady, and the companies he has found himself working
Speaker 4: for are usually domiciled off shore. Anyway, renumeration is on
Speaker 4: a par with what he would be making in Australia.
Speaker 4: He may be lucky in this regard, or his field
Speaker 4: might just be an outlier, but that negates that reason
Speaker 4: for leaving New Zealand. And then Scott goes on to
Speaker 4: talk to you about a trip that he and his
Speaker 4: son did in the States, and I'm sure you've read
Speaker 4: that late. Then he goes on to say, I express
Speaker 4: the same sentiment as many in hoping that you keep
Speaker 4: up with the podcasts for some time. Yet the broad
Speaker 4: array of subjects keeps me looking up for the next one,
Speaker 4: although you will no doubt be a where by this
Speaker 4: letter that I am currently running one month behind. That's
Speaker 4: from Scott Scott.
Speaker 2: Now, thank you for that. Yes, I did read the
Speaker 2: trip story and I don't disagree with you. They need
Speaker 2: just make a reference to one thing. He says here
Speaker 2: talks about him and he and his son san Antonio, Houston, Dallas.
Speaker 2: They were unsurprising Austin had a bit going on, and
Speaker 2: my boys just just come back from being in Austin
Speaker 2: and raving about it. And san Antonio was quite pretty
Speaker 2: culminating in lunch alongside the Mid Canal, the Mid City
Speaker 2: Canal at one of the vast array of eteries have
Speaker 2: eaten me. One of those vast array of eateries. Wouldn't
Speaker 2: be a coincidence if it was the same one. Then
Speaker 2: you get to New Orleans for a few days, and
Speaker 2: I'm envious with an overnight stop in a one horse
Speaker 2: town on the way wandered. Bourbon Street and the French Quarter, etc.
Speaker 2: All had a foreboding air of commercialism about it, as
Speaker 2: every last vestige of originality seemed to be squeezed out.
Speaker 2: I have advised a couple of people recently on New
Speaker 2: Orleans and Bourbon Street is a place to be clear of,
Speaker 2: I think come nighttime. So it seems I haven't been there.
Speaker 2: We haven't been there since twenty thirteen. Ton's it's eleven
Speaker 2: years so it's a long long time, and my claim
Speaker 2: to have gone there for thirteen or fourteen I can't
Speaker 2: remember now different trips is starting to wear a bit thin.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's time to update now From Joe, I have
Speaker 2: an interest in megalithic structures at ancient civilizations around the world,
Speaker 2: i e. Stonehenge, pyramids, et cetera. Researching this has led
Speaker 2: me to look at our own country and I'm astonished
Speaker 2: at what I found. Some examples of this would be Low.
Speaker 2: He goes through a number of different places like Silverdale, Bombay, Boulders,
Speaker 2: chin Hill, part of the above Isthmus alignments, places I've
Speaker 2: never heard of even little and know where they are.
Speaker 2: There's quite a few of them, involving megalithic structures, carvings,
Speaker 2: and a few other things. It appears that over the years,
Speaker 2: acknowledgment of these structures and people has been suppressed and
Speaker 2: kept from the New Zealand public. In some cases, a
Speaker 2: seventy five year embargo has been put in place. Other cases,
Speaker 2: caves and skeletons remains have been destroyed. Geologists and archaeologists
Speaker 2: around the world are finding more and more evidence of
Speaker 2: ancient civilizations due to satellite imaging and they're now finding
Speaker 2: pyramids around the globe in places never before known. The
Speaker 2: belief is that these may be all interlinked in some way. However,
Speaker 2: due to New Zealand's shutting this down, they are unable
Speaker 2: to study this part of the world where other countries
Speaker 2: embrace it. New Zealand suppresses Marie legend, even speak of
Speaker 2: feskinned people with red hair being here when they arrived.
Speaker 2: They also know of the structures around the country. It's
Speaker 2: also believed that a lot of married items were in
Speaker 2: fact copied from these pre Marie people. My question is
Speaker 2: why and what can be done to bring this incredible
Speaker 2: story in history back to the public of New Zealand.
Speaker 2: Has the government tried to keep this from the New
Speaker 2: Zealand public and rewrite history. I can see a great
Speaker 2: opportunity here for New Zealand. Imagine the extra tourist dollars
Speaker 2: that could come into the country. Any assistance would be appreciated. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know what I can do to assist, but
Speaker 2: there's all sorts of restrictions that have been placed on
Speaker 2: various parts of this country, some inspired by local Marie,
Speaker 2: others not. I don't know that what's there is going
Speaker 2: to albeit true, is going to be much of an
Speaker 2: attraction to the the vast majority of people who come here.
Speaker 2: But then I might be wrong.
Speaker 4: Lady Taran says, I've been listening to you on and
Speaker 4: off for almost thirty years in Brackets. I'm only forty three.
Speaker 4: My dad was always tuned to you on the radio,
Speaker 4: and I vividly remember listening to you as we painted
Speaker 4: our family beach house one summer in my early teens.
Speaker 4: Another excellent episode again this week, but I think it's
Speaker 4: time to get Jeffrey Tucker back on. We haven't heard
Speaker 4: from him since episode one three eight that was in
Speaker 4: November twenty one, and Taran goes on to say, here
Speaker 4: is a tweet of his from four days ago. You
Speaker 4: could have an entire interview with him just discussing this.
Speaker 4: So this apparently is Jeffrey Tucker's tweet. No event has
Speaker 4: traumatized me so much as watching nearly the whole of
Speaker 4: the professional media and academic class be entirely fine with
Speaker 4: the sudden imposition of totalitarian controls on association, movement, and speech,
Speaker 4: provided they could luxuriate at home believing there to be
Speaker 4: a killer virus and hang out on video chats as
Speaker 4: the workers and peasants kept society running and delivered groceries
Speaker 4: to their front doors. That same group was thrilled to
Speaker 4: receive trillions in payments for having done this. Again, nearly
Speaker 4: the whole of the top third of society was just
Speaker 4: fine with this and certainly raised no objection. Many within
Speaker 4: this group manufactured excuses for their deeply disgusting disdain for others.
Speaker 4: I doubt I can never recover the respect I once
Speaker 4: had for the wealthy, the educated, the credentialed, and the successful.
Speaker 4: In the COVID period, they deployed their privileges as a
Speaker 4: weapon against modern ideals and against all the people they
Speaker 4: secretly regarded as they lessers. This really happened, and it
Speaker 4: revealed everything. In the end, they were rewarded for their
Speaker 4: disgraceful attitudes and behaviors. This reality, again, more than anything
Speaker 4: I've ever personally witnessed, has shaped my views on nearly
Speaker 4: everything and fundamentally disrupted much of what I once believed.
Speaker 4: So that's Taran, You're writer. Later on delivering the quote from.
Speaker 2: Rom Jeffy Tucker, taren, I did Jeffrey Tucker twice, and
Speaker 2: the last time when he was launching the Brownstone Institute,
Speaker 2: although nobody knew knew about it at the time of
Speaker 2: that second interview. I knew something was going on because
Speaker 2: I had the second interview arranged for I believe from
Speaker 2: memory it was a Sunday night, and with fifteen minutes
Speaker 2: fifteen minutes before we were due to record, he communicated
Speaker 2: and said, could we postpone it to Monday night? And
Speaker 2: I found out why. One of the major sponsors of
Speaker 2: Brownstone Institute was coming for dinner and Jeffrey was cooking
Speaker 2: for him. And so I've sort of left him alone
Speaker 2: because he's had his hands full so much. I don't
Speaker 2: know whether he does some, you know, interviews on podcasts anymore.
Speaker 2: He writes a column for The Epic Times a couple
Speaker 2: of times a week. I think he writes for Brownstone
Speaker 2: Institute frequently, as he would probably be aware. I just
Speaker 2: reckon he's got his handsful, but I think he's one
Speaker 2: of the greatest. With that in mind, thank you for
Speaker 2: another great podcast, writes Cam this alliance, missus producer. With
Speaker 2: what you just read in a way intelligent and influential people.
Speaker 2: He's referring to another great podcast. You see intelligent and
Speaker 2: influential people. A couple would be better easy. Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 2: Douglas Murray, Elon Musk not so easy. Let me tell
Speaker 2: you I have considered. Look, people want me to ask
Speaker 2: me to do things, and I give it consideration. I
Speaker 2: set this up to do one on one long form
Speaker 2: interviews and discover things, particularly people, and I'm enjoying it. Still.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine trying to line Jordan Peterson, ed Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: or even Douglas Murray, because he's difficult enough aligning two
Speaker 2: of them up at any one time from different parts
Speaker 2: of the world. That doesn't work for me. But I
Speaker 2: appreciate your comments. Thank you, Layton.
Speaker 4: Paul says, through the talkback show and now the podcast,
Speaker 4: your broadcasting style has shaped how I interact with the
Speaker 4: vast ocean of information now available regarding world affairs.
Speaker 2: A bit worrying it is.
Speaker 4: The list of go to sources you've pointed out is extensive.
Speaker 4: Two of the very best are George Friedman and Jeffrey Tucker.
Speaker 4: My respect for George Friedman is immense. Now the gem
Speaker 4: of Jeffrey Tucker has provided another source of reading material
Speaker 4: that breeds understanding. I believe that a podcast with these
Speaker 4: two great thinkers would be spect tula.
Speaker 2: What's this an assault?
Speaker 4: Everybody's a producer this week? But thank you though, I
Speaker 4: have endeavored to attach a copy of Jeffrey's latest piece
Speaker 4: on the Brownstones website titled What Broke Libertarianism? It is
Speaker 4: a twenty seven minute read but well worthy effort, and
Speaker 4: Paul has sent you the brownstone dot org.
Speaker 2: Link he has. Okay, thank you. Mark has written answer
Speaker 2: to is Trump the closest thing America has had to Hitler?
Speaker 2: By John Smith Laton. Do you really believe that Trump
Speaker 2: is fit to be president when all the people who
Speaker 2: worked with him so strongly disagree? Signed Mark. So, Mike,
Speaker 2: I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going
Speaker 2: to in the next segment, which will be an additional one,
Speaker 2: and just for you at anybody else who wants to listen,
Speaker 2: but especially for you, I'll cover a couple of points
Speaker 2: that will take a few minutes, and just see if
Speaker 2: that makes any difference, missus producer. That means you can go.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 2: I don't want to hold you up because you're a
Speaker 2: very busy woman. So thank you. We shall see you
Speaker 2: see you next week. I was going to say, for dinner.
Speaker 5: See you next week.
Speaker 2: Now to Mark's comments, let me make a couple of points.
Speaker 2: The term all the people who worked with him being
Speaker 2: Trump is of course not true, and by any stretch
Speaker 2: of the imagination, it's not true. There are plenty who
Speaker 2: don't want him in the Oval offers because they know
Speaker 2: that he is likely and for that you can read,
Speaker 2: probably will release details of events that they once kept secret.
Speaker 2: Think of JFK's assassination, just for starters, and then think
Speaker 2: of the deep state the administrative date. There are lots
Speaker 2: and lots of secrets and plenty of corruption in Washington,
Speaker 2: and there are plenty of people who want to keep
Speaker 2: it under wraps. Secondly, the lessons learned in the first
Speaker 2: Trump administration would facilitate greater achievement in the second is
Speaker 2: a simple way to put it. Then there's something else
Speaker 2: that eventuated very recently. Ben Carson, doctor Ben Carson, neurosurgeon, retired,
Speaker 2: of course, a man who entered politics and what was
Speaker 2: He was Secretary of Housing at Urban Development in the
Speaker 2: first Trump administration. I had quite a bit to do
Speaker 2: with Carson on the two visits that he made to
Speaker 2: New Zealand back in the mid teens. He is a
Speaker 2: deeply religious man. He is a very honest man, and
Speaker 2: he has the very best intentions for his country and
Speaker 2: the people in it. He interviewed in the studio with
Speaker 2: me on two occasions, and we did an interview on
Speaker 2: stage before a large crowd, which actually was a lot
Speaker 2: of fun. So why do I bring him up. The
Speaker 2: answer is because there was an announcement made at the
Speaker 2: Republican Convention and Donald Trump made the following comment. Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris and the radical Left have waged war in America's
Speaker 2: faith community since the day they took office. His election
Speaker 2: of Governor Tim Walls as her vice president nominee solidifies
Speaker 2: their commitment to intensifying those efforts. Ben Carson is a
Speaker 2: man of unwavering faith, the perfect person to work with
Speaker 2: leaders of the faith community on behalf of the campaign
Speaker 2: to promote the protection of religious freedom and prosperity in
Speaker 2: our country. That's part of it. In his acceptance of
Speaker 2: this role, Ben Carson, amongst other comments, said, I'm honored
Speaker 2: to serve as his national Faith Chairman and will work
Speaker 2: diligently with the faith community to get him elected. There's
Speaker 2: only one candidate in this race that has defended religious
Speaker 2: liberty and supported Americans of faith. And that man is
Speaker 2: Donald J. Trump. So being a man of character, of
Speaker 2: having character, I have a great deal of faith in
Speaker 2: Ben Carter's opinion. Now I got to drag this out
Speaker 2: a little longer because I want to quote you an
Speaker 2: article written by Elise Stephanick. Elise Staphanick represents New York's
Speaker 2: twenty first congressional district chair, is the House Republican Conference
Speaker 2: Chair and the chair of Women for Trump. But this
Speaker 2: is don't worry about that. Just listen to the detail.
Speaker 2: Numbers don't lie. Women thrived under Trump, suffered under Harris.
Speaker 2: Of the countless lies about Karmala Harris perpetuated by Democrats
Speaker 2: and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream media, one of
Speaker 2: the most egregious is that Karmala Harris's presidency will deliver
Speaker 2: historic economic opportunity for working women. Unfortunately, for the desperate
Speaker 2: Democrats attempting to erase publicly available data, numbers tell the
Speaker 2: exact opposite story. Carmala Harris and Joe Biden saddled women
Speaker 2: with the largest pay cut, inflation crisis, tax hike, and
Speaker 2: economic crash so far this century. Whereas President Trump delivered
Speaker 2: the greatest economic boost for American women of any modern
Speaker 2: day president. The median income for women increased every year
Speaker 2: during the Trump administration, reaching the highest on record in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. Real average weekly earnings increased eight point two
Speaker 2: percent under Trump, yet decreased three point nine percent under
Speaker 2: Joe Biden and Carmla Harris. The unemployment rate for women overall,
Speaker 2: and for Black women in particular, reached a record low
Speaker 2: during President Trump's term. In twenty nineteen, the workforce participation
Speaker 2: gap between men and women shrank to the narrowest in history,
Speaker 2: and Trump's economy made history with the most women in
Speaker 2: the workforce ever. This was not by accident. Understanding that
Speaker 2: working women are also balancing families, President Trump delivered a
Speaker 2: pro family economic agenda that included doubling the child tax
Speaker 2: credit from one thousand to two thousand per child and
Speaker 2: expanding eligibility. Nearly forty million families received an average benefit
Speaker 2: of twenty two hundred under his leadership, totaling credits of
Speaker 2: approximately eighty eight billion dollars. He then created the first
Speaker 2: ever paid family leave tax credit for employees earning seventy
Speaker 2: two thousand or less and signed into law twelve weeks
Speaker 2: of paid parental leave for federal workers. He also signed
Speaker 2: the largest ever increase in Childcare and Development Block grants,
Speaker 2: expanding access to quality, affordable childcare and more than eight
Speaker 2: hundred thousand low income families. President Trump signed into law
Speaker 2: a provision that enabled new parents to withdraw up to
Speaker 2: five thousand dollars from their retirement accounts without penalty when
Speaker 2: they gave birth to or adopted a child. The oft
Speaker 2: to ask question about balancing work and family life is
Speaker 2: can women have it all? Under President Trump's leadership? The
Speaker 2: answer was a resounding yes. Under Joe Biden and Carmala
Speaker 2: Harris not so much. Biden and Harris's failed economic policies
Speaker 2: hurt every American, but hit women hardest of all. Women
Speaker 2: are bearing the brunt of Harris's tie breaking vote for
Speaker 2: Biden's comically named Inflation Reduction Act, which turbocharged inflation with
Speaker 2: a glut of ridiculous climate spending. Women are working longer
Speaker 2: hours and delaying retirement as a result. Talk to any
Speaker 2: woman in America and there is no question that inflation
Speaker 2: is a woman's issue. Since Carmala Harris was sworn in
Speaker 2: as Vice President, prices have risen by ninetyzero point four percent,
Speaker 2: making it increasingly difficult for women to provide for their families.
Speaker 2: Women are the majority of grocery shoppers and grocery bills
Speaker 2: of skyrocket at forcing many Americans to cut back on essentials.
Speaker 2: A single mother of two and Nevada had to sell
Speaker 2: a car to afford groceries. Under Biden, a mother of
Speaker 2: two in Michigan had to think about putting gasoline prices
Speaker 2: before buying my kid's clothes because of the Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: tie breaking vote for Biden's radical green energy agenda, Families
Speaker 2: now need an extra twelve thousand, five hundred and ninety
Speaker 2: dollars annually just to maintain the same standard of living
Speaker 2: that they enjoyed three years ago, according to Congress's Joint
Speaker 2: Economic Committee, and sixty seven percent of parents say inflation
Speaker 2: has impacted their ability to pay for their children's education,
Speaker 2: school supplies, and extra curricular activities this past school year.
Speaker 2: The cost of childcare has increased thirty two percent for
Speaker 2: the average family since twenty nineteen, and nearly two thirds
Speaker 2: are spending twenty percent or more of their annual income
Speaker 2: on childcare. The average price for a pack of disposable
Speaker 2: diapers has increased thirty two percent since twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 2: forty seven percent of families reports struggling to afford them.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty two, Joe Biden and Carmala Harris's incompetence
Speaker 2: created a baby formula shortage, causing the price to soar
Speaker 2: to an all time high. Some forty four million people
Speaker 2: were living in food insecure households in twenty two, a
Speaker 2: thirty one percent annual increase and the largest one year
Speaker 2: increase since two thousand eight. Women, she concludes, make up
Speaker 2: the majority of voters in America, so it's no wonder
Speaker 2: the Harris propaganda machine is in overdrive, attempting to gaslight
Speaker 2: them into thinking they've never had it better. But as
Speaker 2: much as Democrats may lie numbers, never do they show
Speaker 2: that President Trump not only cares deeply about women and
Speaker 2: all Americans, but also knows what it takes to stimulate
Speaker 2: the economy to create historic opportunities on our behalf. Carmala
Speaker 2: Harris meanwhile, sees women as a convenient voting block to pander,
Speaker 2: to deceive, and then abandon in favor of an economic poisonous,
Speaker 2: radically liberal agenda. To my fellow women voters. Don't be fooled.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I know that she's the chair for Women for Trump
Speaker 2: and holds a position in Congress, but the political aspect
Speaker 2: of that aside, and it's obvious these statistics are real.
Speaker 2: And as she says at the top, statistics don't lie,
Speaker 2: and I won't lie to you either. That takes us
Speaker 2: out for podcast number two hundred and fifty six. Now,
Speaker 2: if you'd like to comment on any of the above,
Speaker 2: go for it. Latent at newstalksb dot co dot NZ
Speaker 2: Well Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot com co dot m Z
Speaker 2: love getting your mail. There's been some very good stuff lately.
Speaker 2: See if you can match it for better. We shall
Speaker 2: return shortly. So there is only one thing to say,
Speaker 2: thank you again for listening, and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from us Talk zed B. Listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online, and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio