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 the now, the Leighton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcast two hundred and ninety one for July second,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. The Guy Hatchard Report. Over the last
Speaker 2: couple of weeks published some interesting and I think important commentary.
Speaker 2: The earliest one published June thirteen, California Dreaming, which refers
Speaker 2: to matters concerning AI. Then on the eighteenth of June,
Speaker 2: how sick is New Zealand What should be done? Makes
Speaker 2: for interesting reading? And then on the twenty ninth of June,
Speaker 2: the desire to stay alive and the capacity to give
Speaker 2: birth are under threat. So let's look at that for
Speaker 2: a moment. After five and a half years examining pandemic evidence,
Speaker 2: it's clear who should be winning the argument, but it's
Speaker 2: also apparent that attitudes have even hardened. This week, Tanya
Speaker 2: Unkovich resigned as an MP. Up until now, she had
Speaker 2: been our advocate inside the government, urging caution about biotechnology deregulation.
Speaker 2: It seems probable that her unexpected resignation signals the determination
Speaker 2: on the part of the coalition, including New Zealand First,
Speaker 2: to ignore caution. There appears to be a growing determination
Speaker 2: to push ahead with the Gene Technology Bill, which will
Speaker 2: impose medical hegemony and genetic destruction on the whole population.
Speaker 2: There are overseas interests egging the government on. We are
Speaker 2: dealing with fanatics for whom evidence can be ignored with impunity.
Speaker 2: And then there's some other input into this discussion that
Speaker 2: has nothing to do whatsoever with Guy Hatchet and the
Speaker 2: Guy Hatchard report. For instance, I came across to site
Speaker 2: the I was totally unaware of Patriot Post and an
Speaker 2: article by Laura Hollis the political footprint of settled Science,
Speaker 2: which really gave rise to the podcast Interview Today. Now
Speaker 2: it's a case of one thing leads to another. This
Speaker 2: article by Hollis refers to will let me read it.
Speaker 2: Last week, science writer Christopher Plain published a story in
Speaker 2: the online magazine The Debrief. The Debrief, which describes its
Speaker 2: subject matter as science, tech, and defense for the rebelliously
Speaker 2: curious that interested me. It was about fossilized human footprints
Speaker 2: found in a desiccated lake bed in White Sands, New Mexico,
Speaker 2: and it has to do with the history of human
Speaker 2: beings and their arrival in the Americas. The discovery not
Speaker 2: only radically changed our perspective on the migration of ancient peoples,
Speaker 2: it provides yet another warning about undue reliance upon what
Speaker 2: has come to be called settled science, and Hollis continues
Speaker 2: on to a number of examples. It was settled science
Speaker 2: that COVID nineteen jumped species at of wu Hun markets,
Speaker 2: and that we were to pay no attention to the
Speaker 2: International Virology lab behind the curtain, or the gain of
Speaker 2: function research that we weren't funding except when we were.
Speaker 2: It was settled science that the mRNA shots for COVID
Speaker 2: nineteen were safe and effective, even though they didn't prevent
Speaker 2: contraction or transmission of the disease. And there have been
Speaker 2: thousands of cases, many fatal myocarditis and pericarditis in young people.
Speaker 2: Other potential adverse effects are now being studied as well.
Speaker 2: The party line is still that the shots are safe.
Speaker 2: We'll see. The science around climate change isn't settled either.
Speaker 2: The science around climate change isn't settled either. And I
Speaker 2: referred to another article that I printed on the twenty
Speaker 2: eighth of June nineteen hundred. That's one nine hundred scientists
Speaker 2: say climate change not caused by CO two the real
Speaker 2: environment movement was hijacked. Now that is written by a
Speaker 2: man with a science background, and we will get to that,
Speaker 2: I believe, on another occasion in the in the near future. Now,
Speaker 2: the discussion with Guy Hatchet that follows is a very
Speaker 2: interesting one in my opinion, and I value my opinion.
Speaker 2: Now at the back end of the podcast, after the
Speaker 2: mail room, there's a couple of very interesting matters that
Speaker 2: I'll share and I'll be very interested in your reaction
Speaker 2: to that also, So after a short break, Guy Hatchet,
Speaker 2: Laton Smith. Buckerlan is a natural oral vaccine in a
Speaker 2: tablet form called bacterial I say it'll boost your natural
Speaker 2: protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A
Speaker 2: three day course of seven bugel and tablets will help
Speaker 2: your body build up to three months of immunity against
Speaker 2: bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take
Speaker 2: buccolan well, the whole family From two years of age
Speaker 2: and upwards. A course of Buccolan tablets offers cost effective
Speaker 2: and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective
Speaker 2: a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for
Speaker 2: up to three months following the three day course. Buccolin
Speaker 2: can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or
Speaker 2: all the year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended
Speaker 2: as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used
Speaker 2: along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep
Speaker 2: in mind that millions of doses have been taken by
Speaker 2: Kiwis for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist.
Speaker 2: Always read the label and users directed, and see your
Speaker 2: doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker or Clum Layton Smith,
Speaker 2: Guy Hatchett's very good to have you back on the podcast.
Speaker 3: Thank you wonderful to be here.
Speaker 2: Earlier on in the podcast, I began with something from
Speaker 2: the political footprint of settled science. I want to pick
Speaker 2: it up from where I left it and move into
Speaker 2: what we're going to talk about this way. So let
Speaker 2: me quote that's the way real science works. Even the
Speaker 2: most established theories can be questioned, and while defenders of
Speaker 2: the status quo will demand a lot of evidence, what
Speaker 2: we know will change when new information proves the old
Speaker 2: ways of thinking false. But science becomes a very different process, rigid,
Speaker 2: intolerant of dissent, and dangerous when it gets yoked to politics.
Speaker 2: Questions are no longer permitted because now it's not just
Speaker 2: some obscure academics pet theory that's at stake. It's a
Speaker 2: platform of policy objectives that an entire political party is
Speaker 2: seeking to force down the public's throat or other parts
Speaker 2: of their bodies, as may be the I and others
Speaker 2: have written about this, says the author. In twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: I wrote What Margarine Can Teach Us About Climate Change,
Speaker 2: an article about doctor Paul Offitt's book Pandora's Lab. Seven
Speaker 2: Stories of Science Gone Wrong. The government chose to discourage
Speaker 2: consumption of dairy products in favor of seed oils on
Speaker 2: the basis of flawed and incomplete information, with deleterious health consequences.
Speaker 2: Two years later, I wrote another article that explained how
Speaker 2: governments around the world mandated sterilizations, coerced abortions, and promoted
Speaker 2: infanticide in response to fear mongering and false predictions about
Speaker 2: a population explosion. One dead giveaway that academic inquiry has
Speaker 2: been hijacked by politics is the term settled science, so
Speaker 2: we're told it's settled science. The childhood vaccines are safe
Speaker 2: until we learn that none have been the subject of
Speaker 2: long term tis against placebos, and some researchers are now
Speaker 2: investigating possible connections between vaccinations and sudden infant death syndrome.
Speaker 2: Those defending the current vaccination schedule insists that these new
Speaker 2: inquiries are nonsense. We'll see and I must include this.
Speaker 2: The science around climate change isn't settled either. That the
Speaker 2: climate changes is certain, the extent to which human activity
Speaker 2: changes it is not. When I was in high school,
Speaker 2: we were warned about the coming ice age. By the
Speaker 2: time I was in law school it was global warming.
Speaker 2: Predictions about the Ozone hole and Antarctica have been wrong.
Speaker 2: Science is a process, not a result. Now that was
Speaker 2: a long introduction, but I thought it was quite relevant.
Speaker 2: Written by Laura Hollis from the Patriot Post. There anything
Speaker 2: in there that you'd comment on?
Speaker 3: Well, I think the history of science and scientific ideas
Speaker 3: and papers at university, and whenever you get a big
Speaker 3: paradigm change, you enter a period of science where you
Speaker 3: have competing ideas and some people can change and some
Speaker 3: people can't. Change, and we're certainly into that era now.
Speaker 3: But as you, as the author said, the politicization of
Speaker 3: science is a huge mistake because, as we know, politicians
Speaker 3: are driven by ideas which are foreign to science. They
Speaker 3: have to do with economic and social ideas which are
Speaker 3: a long long way from scientific understanding in its most
Speaker 3: rigorous sense.
Speaker 2: You've been You've been writing a lot over the last
Speaker 2: few weeks. I think more than more than normal maybe.
Speaker 2: And the first one that the first article that took
Speaker 2: my attention. They all do, but seriously took my attention.
Speaker 2: If you know what I mean, how sick is New
Speaker 2: Zealand and what should be done? Where do you go
Speaker 2: with that?
Speaker 3: Well, this is something that should be absolutely dominating the
Speaker 3: air waves, but it's something that is completely forgotten. Southern
Speaker 3: Cross has come out with its annual report. That's a
Speaker 3: health insurer, and they report that thirty three percent of
Speaker 3: its members made a health claim in twenty nineteen. In
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, fifty percent, that's half claimed under their
Speaker 3: health insurance scheme, and that represents a whopping fifty percent
Speaker 3: increase in sickness. And that comes out at about one
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty eight thousand more sick Southern Cross Cross
Speaker 3: clients coming up since twenty nineteen, and if they only
Speaker 3: ensure twenty percent of the population, So if you scale
Speaker 3: that up, we've got seven one hundred and eighty eight
Speaker 3: thousand more sick kiwis in twenty twenty four compared to
Speaker 3: twenty nineteen. That's an extra fifteen percent of the population
Speaker 3: who are getting sick at this time. And that's staggering.
Speaker 3: And that joins a whole huge range of changes in
Speaker 3: our health problem profile. We have rates of disability, we
Speaker 3: have rates of chest pain, asthma, mental illness, kidney disease,
Speaker 3: heart attacks, strokes, ents for all difficulties, and birth rates, cancer,
Speaker 3: sick days or with off. The chart increases since the pandemic,
Speaker 3: and more particularly not the pandemic, so much has since
Speaker 3: twenty twenty one when the vaccination campaign began.
Speaker 2: I I asked the random question of a medico only
Speaker 2: recently that I was just having a discussion with or
Speaker 2: with whom I was just having a discussion, And I said,
Speaker 2: considering what we know now, what chance, for instance, that
Speaker 2: my issue, which was a heart attack in twenty two
Speaker 2: that was connected with the two opening shots that I
Speaker 2: got because I didn't get any more, put a stop
Speaker 2: to it. And the answer was along the lines of,
Speaker 2: well that's something The answer was, well, that's something that
Speaker 2: nobody knows the answer to.
Speaker 3: Well, we do know the answer to it, don't we.
Speaker 3: Because studies are being published, you know, definitive studies looking
Speaker 3: at a very wide range of illnesses, comparing the outcomes
Speaker 3: for vaccinated and unvaccinated. And here in New Zealand, it's
Speaker 3: become a political dogma to put your head in the
Speaker 3: sand and not say anything. One of the reasons is
Speaker 3: is that General Medical Council may jump on you and
Speaker 3: you might lose your job, or the government might sue you,
Speaker 3: sach you, sue you and imprison you even for going
Speaker 3: against the political dogma that vaccination was a wonderful thing,
Speaker 3: like the COVID vaccination.
Speaker 2: But the statistics and the detail that is now known
Speaker 2: doesn't let over right what the government was saying and
Speaker 2: might still be saying in some quarters.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean, we have to wake up, we have
Speaker 3: to wake up to the reality and we have to
Speaker 3: face the consequences. This is a yeah, what's happening is
Speaker 3: that the government is saying people are becoming workshy there
Speaker 3: you know, because the disability rates are up so high
Speaker 3: and the sick days are up so high, and therefore
Speaker 3: we have to sort of force people back to work.
Speaker 3: But the answer is really rather simple when you look
Speaker 3: at the stats is people are becoming more sick, and
Speaker 3: they're more sick with more serious illnesses. We're seeing now
Speaker 3: for the first time in fifty years that the rate
Speaker 3: of heart attacks is increasing and the rate of rate
Speaker 3: of deaths from heart disease is increasing. We're, as one
Speaker 3: person put it in the UK, this is we've set
Speaker 3: ourselves back fifteen years as far as cardiac illness and
Speaker 3: strokers concerned, diso for cancers, and the media needs to
Speaker 3: step up here. I mean, we've got a diet of
Speaker 3: headlines that say, you know, family tragedy, mother or father
Speaker 3: struck down with cancer, or yesterday I think we saw
Speaker 3: filmmaker went to sleep and didn't wake up and so on.
Speaker 3: We're sort of they're sensationalizing what's going on. But you
Speaker 3: look at the hard statistics and these the increases are enormous.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're they're frighteningly enormous, and we have to backtrack.
Speaker 3: And quite frankly, I don't care whether it's the vaccine
Speaker 3: or the COVID. I mean, the evidence, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: points very strongly to the vaccine, But whether it's the
Speaker 3: vaccine or COVID doesn't really matter. They both came out
Speaker 3: of a biotech lab and we've made a huge mistake
Speaker 3: going down a route that is affecting the capacity of
Speaker 3: the immune system to function. That's the end of it.
Speaker 3: That's the end of the story. And people it now,
Speaker 3: they're resisting it because they're deeply invested in this parrot,
Speaker 3: in this genetic paradigm that we can alter people's genetics
Speaker 3: and make them live longer and be more healthy. It
Speaker 3: just simply isn't true.
Speaker 2: How do you prove that?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's very simple. You know, from a
Speaker 3: mathematical point of view, from a statistical point of view,
Speaker 3: you have to use time series analysis. The key is
Speaker 3: when did something occurred? If you did A and B happens,
Speaker 3: then you're you know, you suspect. But if you do
Speaker 3: A again and B happens again, then you get a
Speaker 3: bit more sure, and with each step the certainty of
Speaker 3: your conclusion increases. This is what time series analysis does.
Speaker 3: A follow B or B follow A, and then you
Speaker 3: get to what's at the root of the causation here,
Speaker 3: and we're way past that in terms of the statistical analysis.
Speaker 3: It's just that governments have wanted to hide their tracks.
Speaker 3: And this is where you started out, the politicization of science.
Speaker 3: There are political reputations on the line now connected to
Speaker 3: a full scientific narrative. And I have to go back
Speaker 3: to Nazi Germany when you know, relativity was described as
Speaker 3: Jewish science and prescribed you couldn't believe in Einstein because
Speaker 3: he was Jewish. It's it's ridiculous situation that we find
Speaker 3: ourselves in, and there's a lot of money involved. There's
Speaker 3: an awful lot of money and government grants. People's standing
Speaker 3: in their profession is at risk, people's political standing, the
Speaker 3: capacity to attract investment, and that is if you look
Speaker 3: at the investment side of things that is changing. Biotech
Speaker 3: companies are now finding it very difficult to attract investment
Speaker 3: because one, most biotech companies, you're about eighty percent of
Speaker 3: biotech startups fail. But two, there has been an accumulation
Speaker 3: of evidence of deaths from gene therapies and so on,
Speaker 3: and investors, you know, they're taking decisions that the government,
Speaker 3: they're compelled to take decisions because they have to make
Speaker 3: good investments. The government doesn't care because they can waste
Speaker 3: money as much as they want.
Speaker 2: Quote from your article that I'm referring to, the massive
Speaker 2: global death toll, which should have been laid at the
Speaker 2: feet of biotechnology, amounts to tens of millions of lost
Speaker 2: souls whose fate is being ignored, a number still growing daily.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I mean that just look at the excess deaths.
Speaker 3: And again there are studies coming on.
Speaker 2: But there are no excess deaths.
Speaker 3: You know, you have to massage the data a lot,
Speaker 3: and the studies that study published the other day, really
Speaker 3: even the World Health Organization is starting to admit that
Speaker 3: it's rather strange that the highly vaccinated countries have the
Speaker 3: highest level of excess deaths. And we sort of we
Speaker 3: have dodged the bullet a little bit in the early
Speaker 3: days because we locked down our borders and we actually
Speaker 3: just didn't lock out COVID for twenty twenty and twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one, we locked out the flu as well by
Speaker 3: locking our borders down here. But actually death started to
Speaker 3: peak in twenty twenty one in New Zealand, and they went
Speaker 3: up in parallel with the vaccination program, we didn't have
Speaker 3: the flu. We still have the lockdowns and the border closures.
Speaker 3: But the death started to climb. And if you add up,
Speaker 3: if you accumulate the deaths that twenty twenty and the
Speaker 3: beginning of twenty twenty one, when we had that very
Speaker 3: low death rate, that kind of saved the figures. But
Speaker 3: as you go through the years, you get into twenty
Speaker 3: two and you get into twenty three, you see the
Speaker 3: excess death taking out and we still have access deaths.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty four was up four point seven percent on
Speaker 3: the historical average. Well that's one thousand and four.
Speaker 2: Death Sorry, sorry you dropped out momentarily, one thousand.
Speaker 3: One thousand, four hundred extra deaths in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: In New Zealand.
Speaker 3: In New Zealand. Yeah, and that's that's up to actually
Speaker 3: March twenty twenty five. We still have exces deaths here.
Speaker 3: More people are dying and that's not a small number.
Speaker 3: That's more than dies in road accidents. It's more than
Speaker 3: the number of people who died in Tehran.
Speaker 2: That's why I asked you to repeat it, because it's
Speaker 2: a very large number. I would have thought when it
Speaker 2: comes to an excess now how does that compare with
Speaker 2: other parts of the world. And I know that Written
Speaker 2: really has been at the forefront of releasing these figures
Speaker 2: over everybody else.
Speaker 3: Well, No, there's a lot of countries, you know, we
Speaker 3: just don't pay so much attention to other countries. South Korea,
Speaker 3: it releases a lot of data that can be publicly analyzed,
Speaker 3: and some of the Eastern European countries and even the
Speaker 3: Mids and Middle East countries as well. The excess deaths
Speaker 3: are up where the vaccination rates are high. And it's
Speaker 3: not just excess deaths, it's the level of illness. And
Speaker 3: that includes mental illness. Because our genes, the functioning pnetic
Speaker 3: system underpins our whole physiology, it underpins our whole mental
Speaker 3: health as well. We're discussing before that. You just go
Speaker 3: back in history and in eighteen ninety five Marie Curie
Speaker 3: discovered radioactivity, and then we had a whole era that
Speaker 3: went right through until the nineteen thirties where people thought
Speaker 3: that radioactivity was a miracle cure. You could buy little
Speaker 3: devices with radioactive material in them where you put water
Speaker 3: in it and then you overnight, and then you were
Speaker 3: supposed to drink six cups a day, and the American
Speaker 3: Medical Association even regulated the whole system, so they didn't
Speaker 3: like ones that weren't delivering really high doses of radioactivity.
Speaker 3: But it took thirty five years before people realized this
Speaker 3: was extremely dangerous and cancerous.
Speaker 2: Why does it take so long, because that's not a
Speaker 2: sole case. Why does it take so Why does it
Speaker 2: take so long for something that's been introduced, be it
Speaker 2: an approach, be it a product or whatever, a methodology
Speaker 2: that ends up being declared invalid or close to it,
Speaker 2: but it's taken a long time to get there.
Speaker 3: Well, you can go back to the Thomas Khon's work
Speaker 3: on structure of scientific revolutions. He talked about the so
Speaker 3: called anomalous card experiment where they're experimenting in this case,
Speaker 3: upon students and they're in a room and they've got
Speaker 3: a screen and they're presented with playing cards and asked
Speaker 3: to identify them. And they're quite fast and they readily
Speaker 3: identify playing cards. You know, that's the six of hearts,
Speaker 3: that's the nine of spades, and so on. But what
Speaker 3: the experimenter did was that he introduced anomalous cards, so
Speaker 3: you would have a red seven of spades, for example,
Speaker 3: which of course is a card that doesn't exist. Now,
Speaker 3: at a high pace, the students had no difficulty identifying them.
Speaker 3: So they would see that the red seven of spades
Speaker 3: and they would say, oh, that's the seven of hearts.
Speaker 3: So they would be getting it wrong. Now you slow
Speaker 3: the pace down the presentation of the cards, and a
Speaker 3: point was reached where the subject would start to get confused. Oh,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure about that one, and then something would twig.
Speaker 3: Oh wait a minute, that's not a card. But a
Speaker 3: significant proportion of the population, more than ten percent, can
Speaker 3: never make the switch. Doesn't matter how slowly you show
Speaker 3: them those cards. And these are students, remember they're intelligent people.
Speaker 3: Doesn't matter how slowly you show them those cards. They
Speaker 3: can't ever make the switch to the fact that there
Speaker 3: is such a thing as an anomalous card. And that
Speaker 3: is what we're at. We've come to the point where
Speaker 3: the whole idea that you can edit genes and get
Speaker 3: something better, which is turning out to be a false idea.
Speaker 3: We're getting something worse, we're getting health problems, and so on.
Speaker 3: There's a bus section of even these very intelligent people
Speaker 3: involved in biotechnology, so called intelligent anyway, they can't make
Speaker 3: the switch, they can't admit that they were wrong. We've
Speaker 3: got that in the field of politics, and we've got
Speaker 3: it in the field of science, people.
Speaker 2: And economics. Unless you want to include that one of
Speaker 2: the first two groups.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, we're in We're in deep trouble. We're in
Speaker 3: deep trouble because this technology is really unhealthy and it
Speaker 3: comes back to you know, millions of people. We're in
Speaker 3: a This like a war.
Speaker 2: That's a that's a very aggressive way of putting it.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a war. And this is what I'd like
Speaker 3: to say. It's a war on nature. It's it's the
Speaker 3: ultimate expression of destructive thinking. You know, we tend to
Speaker 3: feel that destructive thinking is limited to the military, but
Speaker 3: actually a lot of medical science is built on the
Speaker 3: idea of destroying the pathogen. And you know that's a
Speaker 3: lot of biotech techniques come from bacterial destructive bacterial properties.
Speaker 3: When you do genetic engineering, you get double strandber breaks
Speaker 3: in the DNA, you get essentially mutative events that take
Speaker 3: place that are destructive of the coherent functioning of the DNA.
Speaker 3: So in that sense, it's like a war. It's a
Speaker 3: war that's occurring in the on the micro organism level,
Speaker 3: sorry all of us.
Speaker 2: So you asked the question where are governments placing their
Speaker 2: trust and what are they investing in on our behalf.
Speaker 2: What's the answer.
Speaker 3: Well, they're going for gene technology, yes, but they're also
Speaker 3: going big time for things like artificial intelligence, which is
Speaker 3: a huge mistake. I mean, way back when you know
Speaker 3: calculators came in. Who would have sort of predicted in
Speaker 3: the beginning that people would no longer be able to
Speaker 3: do math. But that's the situation we've arrived in. By
Speaker 3: starting to stop using our minds and start delegating that
Speaker 3: to electronic devices, you gradually lose the capacity to think.
Speaker 3: And that has happened in maths and it's now happening
Speaker 3: with writing and reading. And AI is the kind of
Speaker 3: ultimate kind of development of that, because whilst a calculator
Speaker 3: at least gives you the right answer, AI gives you
Speaker 3: some really stupid answers, as probably many of your listeners
Speaker 3: know already. I cited the example of I want to
Speaker 3: just in the one of my articles I've just written,
Speaker 3: I wanted to know just to be sure? Was New
Speaker 3: Zealand one of the first to have a national health service,
Speaker 3: and so I asked Google, and Google AI, which now
Speaker 3: sort of headlines, you're the answer to your question. It
Speaker 3: came back and said, no, New Zealand wasn't one of
Speaker 3: the first, because it did it in nineteen thirty eight
Speaker 3: and the NHS in the UK was formed in nineteen
Speaker 3: forty eight. So New Zealand wasn't first. Well that's pretty stupid.
Speaker 2: Well when we could have made a printing era.
Speaker 3: Not no, no, no, no, no, it's it's it's actually
Speaker 3: become a big thing in the newspapers. Now if you
Speaker 3: read sort of a bit more serious discussion is AI,
Speaker 3: it turns out is you know, it's a little schizophrenic
Speaker 3: and imagines it hallucinates. They talk about hallucination and the
Speaker 3: latest iterations of AI are hallucinating, you know, big time.
Speaker 3: They're imagining because they don't do what we do. You see,
Speaker 3: thinking isn't done basically by a set of rules. When
Speaker 3: we think as human beings, we have the capacity to
Speaker 3: identify and categorize distinct objects, objectives, and relevant examples. We
Speaker 3: can entertain doubt, and we can apply steps of logic
Speaker 3: and reasoning, and we can also attack opposing views, and
Speaker 3: we can use argument dispute and ridicule even and we
Speaker 3: recognize fallacies, circular arguments, unproven premises, and we know that
Speaker 3: there are some things that have two meanings, and yeah,
Speaker 3: and so on. We can use metaphor and analogy. You know,
Speaker 3: the human mind, it sort of alternates between silence and dynamism.
Speaker 3: Is well, there's the way we can start to think
Speaker 3: about it. It sort of comes back to a ground
Speaker 3: state and then we project something new. We're creative in
Speaker 3: a very real sense, and we can experience. We can
Speaker 3: look around as well. Computers can't experience. They can't look around.
Speaker 3: What they can look at is just the past, what
Speaker 3: was written on the internet. They're very limited.
Speaker 2: Well, is it is it expected that if we accept
Speaker 2: what you've just said, it's it's accept it's accepted that
Speaker 2: over a period of time and the accumulation of so
Speaker 2: much knowledge and information, they will be able to transfer
Speaker 2: their attention to getting things right.
Speaker 3: I just.
Speaker 2: That was a question.
Speaker 3: That's a question circumstance, isn't it. You know, in certain circumstances,
Speaker 3: the right thing may be A and in other circumstances
Speaker 3: it may be B. Because it's a question of time
Speaker 3: and circumstances and the human mind is assessing all of
Speaker 3: this constantly. We're waiting, I mean, just bringing up a family,
Speaker 3: the kind of the level of it's not computation, but
Speaker 3: the level of understanding and empathy that is required to
Speaker 3: just bring up a family. You can't write a set
Speaker 3: of rules for that.
Speaker 2: Right you. So you've you've led me ahead.
Speaker 3: Well, it doesn't matter. I think. Look, the government is
Speaker 3: starting to use AI in its whole approach, and it's
Speaker 3: going to go incredible wrong. And we have to be
Speaker 3: really alert now because it's going out of it's going
Speaker 3: out of its elastic limit. What we're dealing with here.
Speaker 3: We have a government that should be realizing that biotechnology,
Speaker 3: the whole pandemic use of biotechnology, led to a national
Speaker 3: health crisis, and instead they're deregulating biotechnology and allowing people
Speaker 3: really in essence to experiment on us. And we really
Speaker 3: have to push back.
Speaker 2: The first article that you wrote that caught my attention
Speaker 2: was June thirteen, So we had June thirteen, we had
Speaker 2: June eighteen, I think in June twenty nine for the
Speaker 2: three that I'm referring to. Under California Dreaming, the New
Speaker 2: York Times is heralding a new company called Mechanize formed
Speaker 2: in San Francisco to produce software with the audacious Is
Speaker 2: that your word or theirs? Because it's in quotes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, it's it's their word. It's it's the I
Speaker 3: put question bogs.
Speaker 2: Aren't You did the audacious goal of replacing fifty percent
Speaker 2: of white collar jobs with AI within the next five years.
Speaker 2: Now this has got people scared. I realized it has
Speaker 2: a lot of them. They plan to fully automate all jobs,
Speaker 2: including doctors, lawyers, architects, and childcare otherwise known as mothers
Speaker 2: and parents. Then you cover off a devastating study commissioned
Speaker 2: by Apple Computers. What did they say, Well.
Speaker 3: The AI suffers a complete accuracy collapse in the face
Speaker 3: of complex problems. You see AI the way it's structured.
Speaker 2: So what I'm sorry, I'm what I was trying to
Speaker 2: draw out, and you're doing it, But I just want
Speaker 2: to say it. What I was trying to draw out
Speaker 2: was that you could beef that was your statement. You
Speaker 2: could be assaulted over it. But it's not your statement.
Speaker 2: It's a study done by Apple. Yeah, and they're the
Speaker 2: last people who want to eradicate the direction that things
Speaker 2: are going in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, they're they're they've obviously got some intelligent people
Speaker 3: somewhere in the tech community. You know, again, it's an
Speaker 3: article of faith, isn't it, that AI is the kind
Speaker 3: of future of anything. But it's basically it's, you know,
Speaker 3: what AI wants to do is you know, they've got
Speaker 3: a big problem, right, You ask them a complex question,
Speaker 3: and it wants to break it down into little bits,
Speaker 3: and then it starts to get lost in the bits,
Speaker 3: and that again is a kind of hallmark of what
Speaker 3: human thinking is. We are constantly endeavoring not to get
Speaker 3: lost in the detail. You know, at the back of
Speaker 3: our minder are the big picture, and when we do
Speaker 3: start to get lost in the detail, we kind of
Speaker 3: recalibrate and get back to our fundamental goals in life.
Speaker 3: AI apparently has not been able to do that. It can't,
Speaker 3: you know, it can't learn. It's what it's doing is
Speaker 3: looking back into the past, and the past is to
Speaker 3: information dense. Essentially, there's so much information that it gets lost.
Speaker 3: And the other thing that it does is it it
Speaker 3: tends to try. I don't know whether you've ever interacted
Speaker 3: with it in detail, but it wants it's programmed to
Speaker 3: keep you involved because they have to sell this technology
Speaker 3: that AI tends to become sycophantic. It tends to commiserate
Speaker 3: with your point of view, and people are actually going
Speaker 3: mad using it AI because if you've got some kind
Speaker 3: of wild idea, perhaps it has to do with aliens
Speaker 3: or some other conspiracy theory, then AI will start to
Speaker 3: play up to that, it will start to empathize with you,
Speaker 3: and it can really send you down a rabbit hole.
Speaker 3: I know there's all this talk about people going down
Speaker 3: the rabbit hole because they were concerned about COVID vaccination,
Speaker 3: but it was the other way round. It was this
Speaker 3: sort of tech driven ideas that were not real science
Speaker 3: that were driving people into rabbit holes.
Speaker 2: There is another sector of this discussion from Maryann de Massi.
Speaker 2: Marsi is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD.
Speaker 3: And I'm familiar with her.
Speaker 2: Rumatology, but I'm doing this for others who write for
Speaker 2: online media and top tiered medical journals for overt what.
Speaker 2: I've mentioned her before, and I approached her when she
Speaker 2: first when she first went into publishing on the net
Speaker 2: like this. We write to her and she gave us
Speaker 2: a very good explanation of why she wouldn't do an interview,
Speaker 2: and that was because she wanted to be quite separate
Speaker 2: from anything media so that she could never be sort
Speaker 2: of accused of things that she wasn't really guilty of anyway.
Speaker 2: Hundreds of drugs approved without proof they work. Now you
Speaker 2: agree with.
Speaker 3: That, yeah, absolutely. I mean, just what Robert Kennedy Junior
Speaker 3: is instituting and some of the people who he's appointed
Speaker 3: to two positions in in the Health and Human Services
Speaker 3: section in America, they are backtracking into demanding a level
Speaker 3: of proof for drugs. And this is very important because
Speaker 3: what we're finding is drugs are sold as miracle cures
Speaker 3: when the size their effect sizes are very, very small.
Speaker 3: And I point out in particular at one of the
Speaker 3: most commonly prescribed heart drugs in New Zealand, the Tiagra Law.
Speaker 3: Thiagra Law is a blood thinner, often given to people
Speaker 3: after they've had a cardiac event, and a study published
Speaker 3: last week in the BMJ brought the whole original trial
Speaker 3: of Tiagra Law into some scrutiny and disrepute because one
Speaker 3: third of the trial data results were discarded by the researchers,
Speaker 3: and if you include those discarded outcomes in the trial.
Speaker 3: Tiagra law can have a negative effect on recovery from
Speaker 3: a heart attack or more particularly, it was less effective
Speaker 3: than the drug it replaced, chloropelladol, and yet it's now
Speaker 3: the gold standard. So it was a fiddled trial. And
Speaker 3: when we look at the effect size that how effective
Speaker 3: it is, it runs about one point nine percent, that's
Speaker 3: two out of fifty. It had a tiny effect size,
Speaker 3: and yet it's the gold standard, whereas exercise diet have
Speaker 3: effect sizes of the order of thirty percent when it
Speaker 3: comes to heart problems. So why aren't our doctors that's
Speaker 3: thirty Why aren't our doctors concentrating on advising people about
Speaker 3: improvements in diet and exercise and meditation when it comes
Speaker 3: to heart problems. And we do have a massive problem
Speaker 3: that has accelerated since the pandemic with heart attacks and strokes.
Speaker 3: So if you're serious about dealing with the epidemic of
Speaker 3: heart attacks, exercise, diet, meditation can have a massive impact
Speaker 3: on your survival and getting back to full health. And
Speaker 3: yet here we are dealing with a drug whose original
Speaker 3: trial was apparently apparently started.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have to throw in here, I'm obliged to
Speaker 2: I feel that you have been criticized for some of
Speaker 2: the approaches that you have with regard to health, like
Speaker 2: meditation and the associated things. Is that still in play,
Speaker 2: that criticism, Yeah.
Speaker 3: If you do a research. I mean, it's very interesting
Speaker 3: again coming back to WHEREI actually because if you ask
Speaker 3: about Guy Hatchard, then you come back to one article
Speaker 3: written in Stuff magazine which was attacking me because I
Speaker 3: was interested in meditation. So if you want to know
Speaker 3: who I am and you ask Google, it's going to
Speaker 3: repare you to an article written in Stuff newspaper which
Speaker 3: was highly critical. It's not going to repare you to
Speaker 3: my rebuttal of that article. And there again I had
Speaker 3: a colleague of mind just sort of. They were waiting
Speaker 3: in the hospital for their partner who was hospitalized for
Speaker 3: a reason, so they were just doodling with AI and
Speaker 3: they were asking. They ended up asking about me, and
Speaker 3: they asked that is guy Hatchard opposed to biotechnology? And
Speaker 3: the answer from me I came back He said, no, no,
Speaker 3: he really quite likes technology. So we're living in a
Speaker 3: sea of disinformation. Actually, I mean, you talry about meditation.
Speaker 3: If you want to be able to trust something, the
Speaker 3: best place to start is to trust yourself to understand
Speaker 3: yourself more fully, and that's what meditation is all about.
Speaker 3: And yes, it has enormous health benefits. And there are
Speaker 3: some seven hundred published studies in the peer review journals
Speaker 3: of the effect. For example of what I do transcendental meditation,
Speaker 3: But there are different sorts of meditation which have been researched.
Speaker 3: Beneficial technology, and I'm very proud to be associated with
Speaker 3: it over a long period of time. There are lots
Speaker 3: of things. It's not a panacea for everything. It just
Speaker 3: has a very big effect size well.
Speaker 2: I've known plenty of people through life who have participated
Speaker 2: in it. I can't speak for the results. That's all
Speaker 2: the last the most recent article that you wrote it
Speaker 2: was June twenty nine, and we're recording this the day
Speaker 2: after the desire to stay alive and the capacity to
Speaker 2: give birth are under threat. After five and a half
Speaker 2: years examining pandemic evidence, it's clear who should be winning
Speaker 2: the argument, but it is also apparent that attitudes have
Speaker 2: even hardened about what do you speak.
Speaker 3: Well? Again, More studies are in the The UK Adult
Speaker 3: Psychiatric Morbidity Survey was published on the twenty sixth of
Speaker 3: June and it found one in four young people in
Speaker 3: England now have a mental health condition, rising by thirty
Speaker 3: seven percent between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty four and
Speaker 3: most worryingly serious conditions such as self harm and suicide
Speaker 3: suicidal thoughts have quadrupled. That's huge. This is affecting sixteen
Speaker 3: to twenty four year olds and these are self harm.
Speaker 3: It means that you know you're harming life, you're harming
Speaker 3: your own life, and you know you're going through moments
Speaker 3: where you don't wish to continue to live. And this
Speaker 3: parallels more exact studies of the effect of vaccination that
Speaker 3: we have reported on previously. South Korean Health System has
Speaker 3: looked at two million people and found that there are
Speaker 3: more psychiatric events following COVID vaccination than among the unvaccinated.
Speaker 2: I'm going to be doing something on this in a
Speaker 2: week or two or three. But assisted suicide do you
Speaker 2: have an opinion on it? Absolutely that you'd like that
Speaker 2: you'd like to It's so subject to abuse.
Speaker 3: You know, in countries where they've had it for a
Speaker 3: long time, like Canada, the number of people going through
Speaker 3: the system is increasing and you know it's I personally
Speaker 3: feel that it can be subject to abuse. And again
Speaker 3: I go back to the whole program of Euphnasia and
Speaker 3: in the nineteen thirties in Germany it was you know,
Speaker 3: the useless eater idea. And you can see in families
Speaker 3: already in the country, like in Canada, that families can
Speaker 3: start to put pressure on their elders. Oh you know,
Speaker 3: it's life really worth living, and so on so forth.
Speaker 3: I you know, I'm a religious person and I agree
Speaker 3: with Robert Frost. Something has to be left to God.
Speaker 3: And I've had some wonderful experiences around the process of
Speaker 3: passing from this life, and I know it's a sacred
Speaker 3: moment and leave it to God. I have a great
Speaker 3: faith in nature.
Speaker 2: Where does that leave things if you're not a believer.
Speaker 3: Well, there are the laws of nature. Whether you call
Speaker 3: them God's will or whether you just realize that there
Speaker 3: are laws of nature and they're ruling our life. They
Speaker 3: are you know, the sun rising every day has more
Speaker 3: effect than any government. It's life giving, the waters, the winds,
Speaker 3: the the gravity. You know, there's a there's a cosmic
Speaker 3: system there, and I think you know, you can understand
Speaker 3: that nature there's a cosmic level of organization involves, and
Speaker 3: whether one looks at that religiously or whether one looks
Speaker 3: at it scientifically, there's a level of orderliness there in
Speaker 3: life that is awesome, you know, described by people like
Speaker 3: Einstein and the others with a sense of deep ore
Speaker 3: and respect. There is something bigger going on in life.
Speaker 3: The other thing that I talked about in the article
Speaker 3: when we're talking about the desire to stay alive, was
Speaker 3: a study of in Czechoslovakia, a study of one three
Speaker 3: hundred thousand women ages eighteen to thirty nine. The rates
Speaker 3: of successful conception among the COVID vaccinated women were considerably
Speaker 3: lower than the unvaccinated And if you look at the
Speaker 3: graph I always reference the original If you look at
Speaker 3: the graph, the difference is huge.
Speaker 2: I'm looking not at the graph but at the article.
Speaker 3: If I put links in there in my articles back
Speaker 3: to the original studies, and if you go back to
Speaker 3: the original studies, then there was a very large difference.
Speaker 3: It was much harder to become pregnant. And that's reflected
Speaker 3: in the New Zealand data we've we had since COVID
Speaker 3: vaccination came in, we had we've had a massive four
Speaker 3: in fertility rates in the whole population, and you this
Speaker 3: is there can hardly be two things that are more
Speaker 3: relevant to the survival of the human race, the desire
Speaker 3: to stay alive in the capacity to give birth. And
Speaker 3: that's this is what we're seeing. I mean even today
Speaker 3: I wrote this article we're referring to yesterday, but even
Speaker 3: today in the UK twenty twenty four compared to twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three, there has been a forty five percent increase
Speaker 3: in visits to doctors for asthma in the UK.
Speaker 2: That I have to ask, even though you get to
Speaker 2: answer it, how come.
Speaker 3: It's you know, asthma has obviously is connected to quality
Speaker 3: of air and pollution like that so forth, but there
Speaker 3: hasn't been an increase of forty five percent pollution between
Speaker 3: twenty three and twenty four in the UK. It our response,
Speaker 3: our an asthmatic response is connected with an immune response.
Speaker 3: It's not an autoimmune condition. It's not the immune system
Speaker 3: attacking itself, but the body's capacity to manage it and
Speaker 3: to overcome an asthmatic attack is related to the capacity
Speaker 3: of our immune system. And what we have seen with
Speaker 3: these We have to remember that COVID vaccination is specifically
Speaker 3: a biotech intervention designed to change our genetic response to
Speaker 3: a pathogen. It changes our immune system, and that's the
Speaker 3: long term effect, in my opinion, irreversible. Well time is
Speaker 3: going to tell, isn't it. I it's certainly what the
Speaker 3: studies show is the more shots you have, the more
Speaker 3: chance that you had of serious illness.
Speaker 2: Do you believe with evidence that those at the top
Speaker 2: and I look to America first of all, but then
Speaker 2: you've got to look to no, I'll get to us
Speaker 2: in a minute, but to the top echelon of decision
Speaker 2: makers when it comes to this and feel that criminal
Speaker 2: charges are worthy.
Speaker 3: You know, when when when ninety percent of the population
Speaker 3: have done something, is it ever going to come criminal charges?
Speaker 3: It's sort of it's you know, I see it coming
Speaker 3: to a crisis. I look, I'm going to go back
Speaker 3: to Germany again. I'm sorry. I know it's not. It's
Speaker 3: not you know it criticize you, but you know, when
Speaker 3: you get mass acceptance of Nazism as you did, the
Speaker 3: only way it was going to change was was the
Speaker 3: whole thing coming to a massive crisis. And that is
Speaker 3: where we are at now. We have a massive health
Speaker 3: crisis and the change is not going to come out
Speaker 3: of the process of the judiciary. It's far more likely
Speaker 3: to come out of the results of a health crisis.
Speaker 3: And that's the Again, I come back to the experiment
Speaker 3: by Thomas Coombs sighted the anomalous card experiment. People go
Speaker 3: through a sort of crisis where they become worried. They're
Speaker 3: seeing these cards and they're not sure of this and
Speaker 3: what I'm not sure of that one. And then suddenly
Speaker 3: there's a change. And when there's a huge change like that,
Speaker 3: then you know, I can see massive social change rather
Speaker 3: than specific court cases or legal I think you know
Speaker 3: that what we're looking at here is the possibility of
Speaker 3: a big awakening, and we're seeing signs of it already.
Speaker 2: I think, I think you're right. Is Kennedy doing a
Speaker 2: good job?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well he's doing he's pushing pushing against the whole system,
Speaker 3: and he's yeah, he's getting a massive amount of criticism,
Speaker 3: but you know, he's pushing back and he's appointed some
Speaker 3: people who are very well respected.
Speaker 2: Doesn't does it? Does it occur? And or bother? You
Speaker 2: that if there is a change of if there's a
Speaker 2: change in the presidency at the next presidential election, to
Speaker 2: the other side, I say, God forbid but if there
Speaker 2: was that, all of this will very likely get reversed.
Speaker 3: We're not going back to where we were before. I'm
Speaker 3: seeing we may enter a crisis. I mean, we look
Speaker 3: at what we've just been through in the last two weeks.
Speaker 3: We we you know, we've we've seen a you know,
Speaker 3: we've seen the world on a knife edge and the
Speaker 3: kind of decision making that has had to go on
Speaker 3: in the last two weeks to avoid a global crisis.
Speaker 3: So I'm saying that, you know, if we lose that
Speaker 3: capacity to deal with this, then we're going to get
Speaker 3: a crisis, and change is going to be forced on
Speaker 3: us one way or another. It's it's I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: I can see running into the end of the decade,
Speaker 3: looking at the health data running towards the end of
Speaker 3: the decade, We're not just facing geopolitical crisis. We're facing
Speaker 3: a health crisis that you know, could well turn into
Speaker 3: something even worse than we're facing at the moment, and
Speaker 3: it might force change on people. But coming out of
Speaker 3: the other side of this, I'm kind of optimistic that
Speaker 3: we're going to get out of the other side one
Speaker 3: way or another, and we're going to have learned some
Speaker 3: important lessons in the process.
Speaker 2: And I can only hope, No, we can only hope
Speaker 2: that you're correct. Let me ask you this question in finality,
Speaker 2: out of what's on offer in the political world, is
Speaker 2: there a structured government that you would like to see?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Kind of million dollar question, isn't there? Who am
Speaker 3: I going to vote for in the next election? And
Speaker 3: I can't see anyone I'm keen to vote for. I
Speaker 3: feel that we're kind of entering a different age really
Speaker 3: where people have to be more responsible for themselves. And
Speaker 3: that's you know, that process of self awakening or self
Speaker 3: awareness is the threshold that we have, the political threshold
Speaker 3: that we have to cross. But that's that's a very
Speaker 3: abstract thing, isn't it.
Speaker 2: But that's that's unlikely to happen unless there is a
Speaker 2: crisis to trigger it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Probably. I mean, I'm realistic. How many people are
Speaker 3: really going to be interested in in such kind of
Speaker 3: abstract ideas. Look, we're changing with what we're facing is
Speaker 3: really you know, a long history Western civilization has a
Speaker 3: long history of war, conflict, distruction, and we've and the
Speaker 3: destructive means, the destructive technologies have become so frightening that
Speaker 3: we actually have to change and how that happens I
Speaker 3: can't quite describe. I'm not a seer or but I
Speaker 3: know that we have to change.
Speaker 2: Well, change is caused by something, events, by a discovery,
Speaker 2: by a necessity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well that's what you know. Harold McMillan, who was
Speaker 3: Prime Minister of the UK with us once what's important
Speaker 3: in politics? And he said, events, my dear boy. Events.
Speaker 3: So you've hit the nail on the head, Laden. I
Speaker 3: think there are a few events coming up, and I
Speaker 3: think most people are aware there are some events, some
Speaker 3: significant events that have yet to play out, and they're
Speaker 3: going to have a big effect on our future. And
Speaker 3: how we handle that is up to us. It's the
Speaker 3: time to be more awake than we've been in the past.
Speaker 2: Well, there's one one statement I'll make a finality, and
Speaker 2: that is that the one thing that must never happen
Speaker 2: is that we lose our personal sovereignty. Yeah, and there
Speaker 2: are forces of foot that want to do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they're not going to win, that's my opinion.
Speaker 2: What you mean, just did Sinda didn't get your guns?
Speaker 3: Well? Yeah, God to Cinder to Cinda's history, now, isn't she? Well?
Speaker 3: The book a book, the company Penguin that published a book,
Speaker 3: thought they would sell one hundred and forty thousand copies.
Speaker 3: It sold fourteen thousand copies.
Speaker 2: Well, there was the number one best selling book this
Speaker 2: week according to the Listener this week last week when
Speaker 2: whenever it was I'm on release, I'm.
Speaker 3: Going to be optimistic. I'm just going to be optimistic.
Speaker 3: If we tap into who we are as human beings,
Speaker 3: We're going to get through this. We're going and one
Speaker 3: way or another, whether it's a a crisis that forces
Speaker 3: it upon us, or whether we take our future into
Speaker 3: our own hands, and we may have to go through
Speaker 3: a lot. We may face things that we didn't expect
Speaker 3: were going to happen and may be difficult, but we're
Speaker 3: going to come out the other side.
Speaker 2: And on that note, I'll say one more thing actually
Speaker 2: that tack onto the personal sovereignty, the fact that the
Speaker 2: science has never settled, and anybody who tells you it's
Speaker 2: settled science is either ignorant or stupid or both.
Speaker 3: You know, there's a level of the level of the mind.
Speaker 3: You know it's truth itself. There's a level of the
Speaker 3: mind universal consciousness, which is truth, which people throughout the
Speaker 3: ages are recorded as experiencing self realization, if you like,
Speaker 3: and that has arrived through the subjective means of gaining knowledge.
Speaker 3: The world around us is constantly changing, and we're looking
Speaker 3: at that with science through the objective means of gaining knowledge.
Speaker 3: And so there's always going to be some doubt there
Speaker 3: and some you know, changing circumstances. But the most settled
Speaker 3: double of universal consciousness is non changing. It is truth itself.
Speaker 3: And so this is the age old injunction. It was,
Speaker 3: you know, the Kingdom of Heaven is within you or
Speaker 3: it's there, and the punishads or in almost every tradition
Speaker 3: of knowledge in the world that ultimately we have to
Speaker 3: know ourselves.
Speaker 2: That was my school one of my school's mottos, know thyself.
Speaker 2: I do want to add one more thing, Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: that's and it goes back to AI. I think AI
Speaker 2: has value at a certain level or to a certain level.
Speaker 2: It's an ounced what search engine? Would that be fair?
Speaker 3: Do you know? I'm going to take the opposite view
Speaker 3: here late and I just I just think it's a
Speaker 3: it's a dead end if you give up thinking, you know,
Speaker 3: after all, the whole thing is that is to let
Speaker 3: someone else do the thinking for you that's danger.
Speaker 2: But my wife used it only yesterday to because she's
Speaker 2: intrigued with it to find out where I can take
Speaker 2: my bootful of used print printer machinery to get rid
Speaker 2: of it, because you can't put it in the rubbish pins.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about printer, printer cartridges, et cetera. When they're dead.
Speaker 2: You can't put it. You can't put it in the
Speaker 2: rubbish bin. There used to be a place that I
Speaker 2: took it in on the North Shore and that got
Speaker 2: burnt down, hence the bootful. So she did a search,
Speaker 2: came up with four places on the shore or that
Speaker 2: I would never have even sort of, including a couple
Speaker 2: of retail outlets.
Speaker 3: That's a search engine function.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly my point.
Speaker 3: I think search engines I use all the time, and I,
Speaker 3: by the way, if I do a Google search, I
Speaker 3: put that the first two words, I put scholarly article,
Speaker 3: and then I put my question, and then it gives
Speaker 3: you scientific references in reputable journals, and that that saves
Speaker 3: me from a lot of rubbish.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Was that in a search engine or using AI.
Speaker 3: In a search engine? I don't use AI. I use
Speaker 3: search engines, but they're all AI driven. Now a search.
Speaker 3: They've changed, you know, it has changed recently. So you
Speaker 3: put that in scholarly article and then you get you
Speaker 3: instead of getting some potted summary which may or may
Speaker 3: not be true or right or accurate, you get referred
Speaker 3: back to the original peer reviewed study.
Speaker 2: Well, I've just written that down. So about a thousand
Speaker 2: other people, well maybe maybe forty thousand other people. Anyways,
Speaker 2: great helpful. Actually you've been very helpful. It's been a
Speaker 2: very very pleasant discussion and we've covered a fairly broad base.
Speaker 2: So once again, thank you, well, thank you late.
Speaker 3: It's always a pleasure to talk with you. It's you know,
Speaker 3: we can range over quite a big range of topics
Speaker 3: and put them together and I think that's, you know,
Speaker 3: something that's useful, very useful for everybody.
Speaker 2: So for the Hatchet Report, how do people access.
Speaker 3: It hatcheed Report dot com And you can subscribe there
Speaker 3: and subscribing just means that you'll get our articles when
Speaker 3: they come out directly to your inbox.
Speaker 2: And you don't charge, No, I don't.
Speaker 3: I mean we rely on donations, but there is no charge.
Speaker 2: Now, beautiful, very generous, and I again thank you, and
Speaker 2: undoubtedly we'll repeat the exercise somewhere down the track.
Speaker 3: Yeah, looking forward to it. Take care, Take care.
Speaker 2: Now, missus producer the mail Room for podcast number two
Speaker 2: hundred and ninety one, high lighton how are you. I'm
Speaker 2: very well, thank you.
Speaker 4: We were just saying this morning, how lovely it was
Speaker 4: to continually get such great mail. So please, folks, if
Speaker 4: you feel like contributing, please just let us know.
Speaker 3: We love it.
Speaker 2: Indeed, especially you.
Speaker 4: Well, you sit in a little studio for twenty four
Speaker 4: hours a day, seven days a week, so to know
Speaker 4: that somebody listening is rather lovely.
Speaker 2: Fake not fake news. It might be close, but it's
Speaker 2: not right from Adrian, who decided he was going to
Speaker 2: get it on the mailroom early, and this was posted
Speaker 2: the twenty seventh of June, which was probably the date
Speaker 2: of the last one accout. Quite recall getting in early
Speaker 2: on the mailroom, as I'm guessing you'll be covering this
Speaker 2: in the upcoming episode. I'm old enough to remember listening
Speaker 2: to your radio show, hearing your alarm when it looked
Speaker 2: like a fresh faced socialist bartender was going to tip
Speaker 2: out a long sitting New York congressman, And all these
Speaker 2: years later, Alexandria occasional Cortex is now arguably the front
Speaker 2: runner for the DNC twenty twenty eight presidential candidacy. What
Speaker 2: are your thoughts on the upcoming mayoral race for New
Speaker 2: York City and more importantly, how long until President Trump
Speaker 2: coins the term zoron the moron? Well, I think that
Speaker 2: might catch on, actually, So as to the last question
Speaker 2: or questions, I'll say that Trump likes to be original,
Speaker 2: So you've stolen zoron the moron, So we'll go somewhere
Speaker 2: somewhere else for it. But as for other things, one
Speaker 2: of my thoughts on the upcoming meroral race for New
Speaker 2: York City if the moron gets in. If he does,
Speaker 2: I just don't know how bad it can get, is
Speaker 2: the way I'll leave it at this point. But there's
Speaker 2: more coming up on that.
Speaker 4: Paul says, good A Layton. I always enjoy some ramesh
Speaker 4: the cur on your pod. I had my doubts about him,
Speaker 4: considering he was part of the UN and has worked
Speaker 4: in the disarmament area, but he speaks so much sense. Interestingly,
Speaker 4: I believe the disarmament program at the UN is funded
Speaker 4: by the Swiss, who steadfastly do not disarm. Clever Fellows
Speaker 4: to get everyone else to disarm. I believe we, like
Speaker 4: America and Switzerland, would be well served by a Second
Speaker 4: Amendment style law. Here we are too small economically, geographically
Speaker 4: and militarily to be defended by a modern land army.
Speaker 4: But we'd look less easy prey if folks were armed here.
Speaker 4: Next time you get a chance, can you ask Gramash
Speaker 4: about his thoughts on civilian and or government disarmament. I'm
Speaker 4: all for governments to disarm. They have done the vast
Speaker 4: bulk of the killing in history.
Speaker 2: Well we're together on that one pretty much. But you actually, well,
Speaker 2: Carolyn was reading that, I just quickly had a think
Speaker 2: out of all the interviews that I've done with a
Speaker 2: multitude of people over what is nearly seven years now,
Speaker 2: if I was going to draw up a list of
Speaker 2: the top ten, I'd struggle. I'd struggle because there's more
Speaker 2: than that. There's more than ten to be in the
Speaker 2: top ten, and i'd probably make it about twenty or
Speaker 2: something along those lines. If I was going to have
Speaker 2: to do it for whatever reason, Ramesh would be in
Speaker 2: the top three. So again from Mike, Ramesh was outstanding
Speaker 2: as usual in two ninety Just as a matter of interest,
Speaker 2: I wonder if you've heard of two CTV. Well, I
Speaker 2: haven't and I don't toc Tousi TV www dot twoc
Speaker 2: dot TV. Tuc is of Iranian descent and lives in London.
Speaker 2: His father is still in Tehran. Tuc is a genuine conservative.
Speaker 2: His TV channel on YouTube covers news, often within minutes
Speaker 2: of incidents occurring around the world. He has people on
Speaker 2: the ground in many countries who frequently provide short video
Speaker 2: clips of incidents which have just occurred. His coverage of
Speaker 2: the Israeli Iran conflict has been very good. Why I'm
Speaker 2: telling you this is that on auguston he will be
Speaker 2: launching his new TV channel in London. He's been frustrated
Speaker 2: but the conservative media doesn't have a united voice, so
Speaker 2: he has gathered a huge number of podcasters and qualified
Speaker 2: journalists all over the world who will be contributing with
Speaker 2: fact checked and first off the rank News. I'm really
Speaker 2: hoping that this will be a success, so we will
Speaker 2: have an alternative to the twisted and fake news from
Speaker 2: the legacy media. Nine August is going to be a
Speaker 2: big event. I believe that all the tickets for the
Speaker 2: opening conference have been sold out, so that's encouraging. Thank
Speaker 2: you for the incredible work which you do. Thy kind
Speaker 2: of you, Michael, and I appreciate it. Thank you. And
Speaker 2: here's the rub. I hadn't heard of him. I hadn't
Speaker 2: heard of his TV or any other aspect of it.
Speaker 2: You introduced me to it, so I shall chase it down.
Speaker 2: And as we're going to be in London on not
Speaker 2: on August nine, but on both sides, I mean eight
Speaker 2: and ten, I mean we're coming and going, I just
Speaker 2: might take a chance and see if I can contact
Speaker 2: this guy well.
Speaker 4: Of that leaden Jin says, it's fascinating to see how
Speaker 4: conflict in the Middle East has polarized past allies on
Speaker 4: the center right of the debate Candice Owens versus Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz versus Tucker Carlson, Douglas Murray versus Dave Smith.
Speaker 4: This healthy tension is a good sign that the center
Speaker 4: right is always prepared to think and debate ideas amongst themselves.
Speaker 4: On the other hand, literally all those on the left
Speaker 4: continue to blindly support Palestinian and Iranian regimes. In a
Speaker 4: recent podcast, Piers Morgan interviewed doctor Foward Izadi, professor of
Speaker 4: World politics at Tehran University, who said that he was
Speaker 4: proud of what hermas did on October the seventh, and
Speaker 4: yet just a few weeks ago I witnessed a Free
Speaker 4: Palestine protest march in Henderson supporting this kind of regime thankfully.
Speaker 4: In your recent podcast, Ramesh the Kur highlighted three MythBusters
Speaker 4: which brought a level of clarity that cuts through the
Speaker 4: crap of first world rhetoric and virtue signaling. Firstly, uranium
Speaker 4: and Richmond passed twenty percent, have passed literally all technical
Speaker 4: challenges to push it to weapons grade quality. Secondly, a
Speaker 4: two state solution is a fact denying approach, because you
Speaker 4: can't possibly live next door to somebody who voils to
Speaker 4: kill you. Thirdly, the seventh of October massacre is a
Speaker 4: milli holocaust, the Israeli equivalent of all American casualties suffered
Speaker 4: in one day. The UN Nuclear watchdog's chief warned that
Speaker 4: Iran was not far from possessing a nuclear bomb. The
Speaker 4: Times of David Horovitz reported that Israel had to therefore
Speaker 4: go to war to save itself. In his article, this
Speaker 4: was how close it came and how it saved itself,
Speaker 4: said David Horovitz. It's easy for those of us living
Speaker 4: in peace to a pine about whether Israel was right
Speaker 4: or wrong. But wouldn't we do the same if we
Speaker 4: live next to those who vowed to kill us every
Speaker 4: single day.
Speaker 2: It's very sad thinking going on over all of this,
Speaker 2: and sometimes it gets very vicious. That was a good,
Speaker 2: good letter. Let me go back to was it last week?
Speaker 2: I think? And I mentioned something to Allison who had
Speaker 2: who had written a letter, And I said, Allison, I
Speaker 2: have yet to consider it, and I'll see about next week. Well,
Speaker 2: this is next week, and here is your letter, Oh, Laton,
Speaker 2: What was all that about? George Friedman maintained more than
Speaker 2: once that the Palace that the president did not have
Speaker 2: a job. Really, Friedman said that all presidents just see
Speaker 2: reality and respond to it. How simplistic. And that is
Speaker 2: true on a basic level, just as it is a
Speaker 2: couple of toddlers in the paper. That is true on
Speaker 2: a basic l level, just as it is of a
Speaker 2: couple of toddlers in the playground. But what failed, but
Speaker 2: what he failed to point out, was how entirely different
Speaker 2: the results can be from one president to another. Now
Speaker 2: remember that part. Take Churchill and Stalin false aside, the
Speaker 2: outcome for their respective subjects was widely removed from the other.
Speaker 2: All presidents and prime ministers will not merely see reality
Speaker 2: and react to it, As Freeman says, they are not
Speaker 2: pre programmed robots. Whether one is Democrat or Republican. It's
Speaker 2: hard to imagine Biden, for example, doing any of the
Speaker 2: things which Trump is doing to meet the present reality
Speaker 2: at home or abroad. It is not the reality which
Speaker 2: makes a president do what we see him doing. It
Speaker 2: is a comprehension of issues at stake which makes him
Speaker 2: act as he does. Each man has a worldview or
Speaker 2: an ideology, and depended on what that is, and an
Speaker 2: entirely different outcome can eventually or eventuate from one leader
Speaker 2: to another. The Left is often not able to comprehend
Speaker 2: the actual reality of events and what they will lead to,
Speaker 2: so their leaders invert the facts, which is why we
Speaker 2: see some serious effects played out in some of the
Speaker 2: Democrat states. Plenty of examples. For instance, if a president
Speaker 2: believes that a man can in fact be a woman,
Speaker 2: which biology negates, and reality as he sees it, it
Speaker 2: will be warped and will fail to provide a foundation
Speaker 2: of truths in the real world, leading to injustices in
Speaker 2: daily life, which is exactly what we see happening in
Speaker 2: the Western world. In that case, their response to the
Speaker 2: reality before them will be different from that of a
Speaker 2: man of insight and understanding who can see reality as
Speaker 2: it is for though, for in the final analysis, truth
Speaker 2: is unbendable and immove and a leader must find the
Speaker 2: right way to negotiate the difficulties for the good of
Speaker 2: his people. It will not just happen because he is president,
Speaker 2: and there were other incongruities in his way of thinking too.
Speaker 2: This time it was a slightly odd interview to sit out,
Speaker 2: keep on asking the important questions and thank you again
Speaker 2: for your podcast. Look, Allison, I could sit here for
Speaker 2: the next ten minutes and relate to your conversations I've
Speaker 2: had with George over the years and how we disagree
Speaker 2: on things and what have you. I said, remember that
Speaker 2: the bottom of your first paragraph, what he failed to
Speaker 2: point out was how entirely different the result can be
Speaker 2: one president to another. I have see he has claimed
Speaker 2: all along and believes that the president, whoever the president is,
Speaker 2: doesn't have that much power, and he's right on that.
Speaker 2: My counter has always been almost along the lines of
Speaker 2: you of what you've said that it's the influence that
Speaker 2: a president has that comes from he's in a being,
Speaker 2: not in the not in the prescription for the job,
Speaker 2: but in his inner being. But what I'm what I'm
Speaker 2: actually trying to say is that one it's a matter
Speaker 2: of persuasion, and some people have the gift of it,
Speaker 2: like Trump, he is incredible, someone like Biden, someone like
Speaker 2: the guy before him who was going to be the
Speaker 2: greatest president in all time when he was when he
Speaker 2: was elected. Trump is out trumped a lot of them anyway.
Speaker 4: Leyton Paul says, as an avid follower of geopolitical events,
Speaker 4: a subscriber to Geopolitical Futures, and a devoted listener of
Speaker 4: your podcast, I thank you for the last three podcasts
Speaker 4: which covered off and added to my understanding of the
Speaker 4: current global turmoil. Every single podcast over the years has
Speaker 4: been of great interest to me. The last three were
Speaker 4: of immense interest. I would also like to express my
Speaker 4: huge admiration for Rameshtha Kur. He has an intense intellect.
Speaker 4: As usual, George is the best of all time, and
Speaker 4: Antonia has been helpful in pointing the realities of Europe.
Speaker 4: For many years, as I have followed her from the
Speaker 4: days of Stratford.
Speaker 2: That's from Paul Yea. Antonio covered the Romanian scene specifically,
Speaker 2: and she was very good. And I've had I've had
Speaker 2: more people stopping in the street and say how good
Speaker 2: that was than I had mail on it. This is
Speaker 2: from the same Paul, but it's dated eleven May, and
Speaker 2: I came across it during the week and I thought,
Speaker 2: I don't think I've read that on air. If I have,
Speaker 2: and you remember, don't tell me. I don't need to know. However,
Speaker 2: this is what he said high lighton This is one
Speaker 2: of the most critical speechies of my lifetime. After watching it,
Speaker 2: I sat and thought hard about where my motivation and
Speaker 2: passion for monitoring such events originated. For years and years,
Speaker 2: I've the planes flew into the buildings. I would never repeat,
Speaker 2: never miss a Layton Smith's talkback show or skip a
Speaker 2: Layton Smith podcast. The mindset that forms as a result
Speaker 2: of investing so much time and passion in monitoring your
Speaker 2: work is chiefly about freedom, and that is where a
Speaker 2: lot of my motivation came from. I attach a link
Speaker 2: to Stephen K. Bannon's speech to Hillsdale College thank you
Speaker 2: and missus producer for pointing out what matters if you
Speaker 2: have time, Bannon's speech is worth the effort. You guys
Speaker 2: are the best. Now I want to add to that,
Speaker 2: because missus producer, why don't you read the last one
Speaker 2: that you've got, and then I'll go into this little steel.
Speaker 4: This is from Penny. I know I haven't written for
Speaker 4: a while, but I've also never missed an episode of
Speaker 4: your wonderful podcasts, and my eldest son is following you
Speaker 4: now as well. I was prompted by your podcast featuring
Speaker 4: Antonia Colabassa and your mention of Charles King's marvelous book
Speaker 4: on Odessa, which I bought years ago upon your recommendation.
Speaker 4: I thought she was terrific, and as she spoke of
Speaker 4: the difficulties facing a country previously mired in corruption and,
Speaker 4: let's face it, evil, I remembered reading that Romania was
Speaker 4: solely responsible for the Holocaust in Odessa and was the
Speaker 4: only country during the Second World War besides Nazi Germany
Speaker 4: to administer a major Soviet city. Parts of that fabulous
Speaker 4: book make for a very hard read. Thank you, once again,
Speaker 4: Laden for continually bringing to our attention such important historical
Speaker 4: and current matters.
Speaker 3: And that's from Penny.
Speaker 2: Penny. I got to say that your letter is something
Speaker 2: that I treasure. Your style of letter is something that
Speaker 2: I treasure. Your interest in the same things I treasure.
Speaker 2: If I may, you may so, I could go on
Speaker 2: and build a treasure chest. But let me return to
Speaker 2: Let me return to Paul's letter. One of the most
Speaker 2: critical speeches of my lifetime. He was talking about Trump.
Speaker 2: Of course, the comment that you made about Stephen Bannon
Speaker 2: is intriguing in the light of what's been going down
Speaker 2: of late. There is great friction between different parts of
Speaker 2: the different quarters of the Republicans of Marga Maga, marga whatever,
Speaker 2: and they are at loggerheads, and they're ripping each other apart.
Speaker 2: Example one, and the only one I'll give is someone
Speaker 2: I've admired and have learned a hell of a lot from,
Speaker 2: particularly with regard to the Constitution, Mark Levin. He was
Speaker 2: shredding Stephen Bannon just last week, along with a bunch
Speaker 2: of others like Tucker Carlson. And I listened carefully, because
Speaker 2: he did more than once on more than one day,
Speaker 2: And I listened carefully, and I analyzed what he was
Speaker 2: saying and why he was saying it and whether it
Speaker 2: was true or not. And there was a certain amount
Speaker 2: of truth in it, but I still thought that he
Speaker 2: had misdirected his thoughts, which is something he doesn't do.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you something he doesn't do. But it
Speaker 2: was an example of the viciousness that exists at the moment.
Speaker 2: And if you get a chance and you can find
Speaker 2: it and go back and have a listen, this is producer,
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you later three weeks today, exciting it. Now,
Speaker 2: if this podcast isn't long enough, I'm about to extend
Speaker 2: this with a couple of a couple of articles, a
Speaker 2: couple of pieces that may spook you, and don't be
Speaker 2: surprised if they do. Picture a dystopian future where computers
Speaker 2: don't just mimic human thinking, they're powered by actual human
Speaker 2: brain cells. That future is taking shape in a Cambridge,
Speaker 2: England lab where a groundbreaking device called cl One is
Speaker 2: blending biology and technology in ways that could transform how
Speaker 2: we compute. Developed by austraight and start up Cortical Labs
Speaker 2: and UK based bit Bio, this shoe boxized machine houses
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand lab grown brain cells wired to silicon
Speaker 2: circuits creating a biological computer that's already turning heads. Unlike
Speaker 2: traditional computers, which guzzle energy, cl One operates with the
Speaker 2: efficiency of a human brain quote. Our brains process information
Speaker 2: using a fraction of the power that modern electronics need.
Speaker 2: According to Hon Wang Chong, CEO of Cortical Labs, and
Speaker 2: a communication with the Financial Times, this could open doors
Speaker 2: to smarter robots, stronger cybers security, and immersive virtual worlds.
Speaker 2: Understand oh Joy. Low energy computing has fueled a race
Speaker 2: to develop biological systems, with Cortical Labs leading alongside competitors
Speaker 2: like Final Spark in Switzerland and Biological black Box in
Speaker 2: the US. Cl One's brain cells, grown from human skin
Speaker 2: derived stem cells are carefully arranged in layers. One type
Speaker 2: spark's electrical activity while another keeps it in check quote again,
Speaker 2: It's like balancing a gas pedal and breaks. Chong explains.
Speaker 2: The result is a platform for testing how brain cells
Speaker 2: handle information, with early experiments already yielding insights for neuroscience
Speaker 2: and drug development.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: One of cl One's quirkiest feats playing the classic video
Speaker 2: game Pong. Its predecessor, Dishbrain, learned to move a virtual
Speaker 2: paddle by receiving electrical rewards for good moves and disruptive
Speaker 2: noise for mistakes. See all one has taken this further
Speaker 2: revealing how substances like alcohol impair performance, or how epilepsy
Speaker 2: drugs like carbo mazophin boost it. We're learning how to
Speaker 2: program these cells, Chong says, noting that his team is
Speaker 2: even teaching them to recognize numbers, like distinguishing a nine
Speaker 2: from before. This is the first device that can consistently
Speaker 2: measure what neurons can do, says Mark Cotter, a Cambridge
Speaker 2: professor and bit bio founder. Carl Fristen, a neuroscientist at
Speaker 2: University Cottage, London, sees it as a tool for groundbreaking experiments,
Speaker 2: while John Hopkins Thomas Hartung praises its use for games
Speaker 2: like Pong to benchmark biological computing. Chong recognizes the ethical challenges.
Speaker 2: I hope so, but it won't make any difference. Chong
Speaker 2: recognizes the ethical challenges that could emerge if biological computers
Speaker 2: and neuron cultures begin to show early signs of consciousness.
Speaker 2: These systems are sentient because they respond to stimuli and
Speaker 2: learn from them, but they are not conscious. We'll learn
Speaker 2: more about how the human brain works. But we will not.
Speaker 2: But we do not intend to create a brain in
Speaker 2: a vat. The cl one unit are slated to retail
Speaker 2: for around thirty five thousand dollars each and are expected
Speaker 2: to be broadly available by late twenty five. Now this
Speaker 2: shall we say denial if you want of not intending
Speaker 2: to create a brain in a vat will have a
Speaker 2: very short lived existence in my humble opinion. And by
Speaker 2: the way, the title of that was meet the dystopian
Speaker 2: startups making biological computers from human cells. Now that didn't
Speaker 2: it affect you in any well concerning way, Maybe this
Speaker 2: one will. Peter Teal we all know who. Peter Teel is, billionaire,
Speaker 2: multi billionaire. Wanted to live in New Zealand, remember in
Speaker 2: the South Island, wanted to do all sorts of things
Speaker 2: like burying a bomb shelter under sacred soil or something
Speaker 2: like that. Because he pulled out because he decided that
Speaker 2: New Zealand was far too difficult to deal with. At
Speaker 2: least you got something right now, Peter Teel warns in
Speaker 2: a wide ranging interview on the future and global existential risks.
Speaker 2: A billionaire technology investor, Peter Teel raised alarms not only
Speaker 2: about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence,
Speaker 2: but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger,
Speaker 2: the rise of a one world totalitarian state. Speaking to
Speaker 2: The New York Times, Ross Douhab, Teel argued that the
Speaker 2: default political response to global crises, centralized supranational governance, could
Speaker 2: plunge humanity into authoritarianism. Teel, whose co founder of PayPal
Speaker 2: and Palanteer, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci
Speaker 2: fi stories. There's a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons,
Speaker 2: and certain types of risks with AI, he explained, to
Speaker 2: suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution
Speaker 2: to these threats could culminate in a bad singularity, a
Speaker 2: one world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.
Speaker 2: Teel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for
Speaker 2: centralized control in times of peril. So far, I'm on
Speaker 2: the same team the defaulty goes on that a fault
Speaker 2: political solution people have for all these existential risks is
Speaker 2: one world governance, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United
Speaker 2: Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to
Speaker 2: regulate AI development, including measures to log every single keystroke
Speaker 2: to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk
Speaker 2: creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security
Speaker 2: while I'm still riding the same horse. Drawing on historical
Speaker 2: and philosophical analogies, Tel referenced the nineteen forties Federation of
Speaker 2: American Scientist film One World or Nune, which argued that
Speaker 2: only global governance could prevent nuclear annihilation. Teel juxtaposed this
Speaker 2: with a Christian theological framing Antichrist or armageddon. In both
Speaker 2: the billionaires said that he sees a binary choice between
Speaker 2: seisentralized control and catastrophic collapse. Yet Teel questioned the plausibility
Speaker 2: of a charismatic Antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic retric
Speaker 2: as depicted in apocalyptic literature. Instead, he offered a modern twist.
Speaker 2: The path to global control lies in relentless sphear mongering
Speaker 2: about existential risks. Quote. The way the Antichrist would take
Speaker 2: over the world is you talk about armageddon NonStop, Teel explained.
Speaker 2: The millionaire contrasted this with earlier visions of scientific progress,
Speaker 2: like those of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Baconian science,
Speaker 2: where the threat was an evil genius wilding technology. Presently,
Speaker 2: Teel argued, the greater political resonance lies in halting scientific
Speaker 2: advancement altogether. In our world, it's far more likely to
Speaker 2: be Greta Thunberg than Doctor Strangelove, he equipped, invoking the
Speaker 2: radical Swedish climate activist as a symbol of anti progress sentiment.
Speaker 2: On AI specifically, Teal struck a balanced note, tempering both
Speaker 2: utopian and apocalyptic predictions. One question we can frame is
Speaker 2: just how big a thing do I think AI is,
Speaker 2: he asked himself. My stupid answer is it's more than
Speaker 2: a nothing burger. Add its less than the total transformation
Speaker 2: of our society. Teal. Actually, I'm still on that same
Speaker 2: horse with him. Teal compared AI's potential impact to the
Speaker 2: Internet in the late nineteen nineties, suggesting it could create
Speaker 2: some great companies and add a few percentage points to GDP,
Speaker 2: perhaps boosting growth by one percent annually for a decade
Speaker 2: or more. However, the billionaire expressed skepticism that AI alone
Speaker 2: could end economic state, viewing it as a significant but
Speaker 2: not revolutionary force. Wild Teal expressed nuanced views on artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: His venture capital firm Founder's Fund is aggressively backing the technology. Namely,
Speaker 2: it recently led a six hundred million dollar investment in Cruiso,
Speaker 2: a vertically integrated AI infrastructure provider. The biggest risk with
Speaker 2: AI is that we don't go big enough. Cruso is
Speaker 2: here to liberate us from the island of limited ambition.
Speaker 2: Til said at the time, So that wasn't so bad.
Speaker 2: I managed to stay on that same ride with him
Speaker 2: all the way through the part that intrigued me the most.
Speaker 2: Whilst Teal juxtaposed this with a Christian theological framing Antichrist
Speaker 2: or armaginon in both the Billionaires said he sees a
Speaker 2: binary choice between crystallized control and the catastrophic collapse. And
Speaker 2: I repeat yet Teel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic
Speaker 2: antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic rhetoric as depicted in
Speaker 2: apocalyptic literature. Well, he was on the same target that
Speaker 2: I was when I made the mention of AI being
Speaker 2: overtaken by some alien force. And what I know is
Speaker 2: that that now brings us to the end of Podcast
Speaker 2: number two hundred and ninety one. Now don't forget. If
Speaker 2: you want to comment on any aspect of the podcast
Speaker 2: or anything else that's got your wik then Latin at
Speaker 2: NEWSTALGSB dot co dot nz, Latin at NEWSTALGSB dot coded
Speaker 2: and Zaid or Carolyn at newstalgzb dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2: We shall return with podcasts two ninety two very shortly
Speaker 2: in the meantime. As always, thank you for listening and
Speaker 2: we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from news Talks at 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