Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed 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.
Speaker 2: The sis, now.
Speaker 1: The Leighton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two seventy three for February twenty six,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. For those unfamiliar with George Friedman, albeit
Speaker 2: probably few in number, George has a doctorate and a
Speaker 2: professorship in his past. He has experience in areas involving defense,
Speaker 2: and he started two companies Stratford, followed by his present organization,
Speaker 2: Geopolitical Futures, and of course there are a number of books.
Speaker 2: My first meeting with him was in nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 2: and while we all may have differences of opinion, his
Speaker 2: is worth assessing. Now. We spent most of the first half,
Speaker 2: if not all of it, on China, New Zealand and
Speaker 2: the Cook Islands, after which we moved on to the
Speaker 2: Middle East, to Russia and Ukraine, and a couple of
Speaker 2: other matters, including on my dad, Donald Trump's IQ. But
Speaker 2: first there are major issues concerning most of the planet
Speaker 2: Some are local, others are regional, others are international. New
Speaker 2: Zealand is not in good shape on many fronts, not
Speaker 2: helped by political obfuscation. The adern failure speaks for itself.
Speaker 2: But there's still under present leadership issues being mishandled, including
Speaker 2: medical issues, climate absurdities, productivity restraints. And I could draw
Speaker 2: up quite a list. By the way, speaking of productivity,
Speaker 2: I have an example of that, a personal one in
Speaker 2: just a moment. Although it's not my intention today to
Speaker 2: turn climate change issues into a major I do want
Speaker 2: to cover off a couple of things. Want to quote
Speaker 2: you something from Roger Scrutin's Green Philosophy, How to Think
Speaker 2: Seriously About the Planet. In ninety sixty eight, Paul Erlick
Speaker 2: initiated a worldwide movement of anxiety with his book The
Speaker 2: Population Bomb, which predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive
Speaker 2: hamines as early as the seventies. Demographic studies showing that
Speaker 2: birth rate declines as wealth increases were largely ignored in
Speaker 2: the ensuing panic, and it only now that the truth
Speaker 2: is widely accepted that famines are, for the most part
Speaker 2: political phenomena, the result of military conflict of state control
Speaker 2: of the food economy, or, as in the Soviet Union,
Speaker 2: a policy of genocide. Again, in nineteen seventy two, a
Speaker 2: number of scientists began to predict a catastrophic cooling of
Speaker 2: the Earth, and in no time the prediction had become
Speaker 2: a widespread scare. Major cooling, widely considered to be inevitable.
Speaker 2: Was The New York Times headline and science digest of
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy three told its readers to brace themselves for
Speaker 2: another ice age. The Cooling by the American science writer
Speaker 2: Loull Ponti, published in nineteen seventy six, attempted to summarize
Speaker 2: the evidence and to prepare us for the worst, informing
Speaker 2: its readers that the cooling has already killed hundreds of
Speaker 2: thousands of people in poor nations, and in their entertaining
Speaker 2: book on mass Panics, Scared to Death, Christopher Booker and
Speaker 2: Richard North enjoy pointing out that many of those who
Speaker 2: had devoted their energies to warning the world against global
Speaker 2: cooling within a year or two spreading alarms about global
Speaker 2: warming instead. Such examples illustrates something that all wise people know,
Speaker 2: which is that the truth of a proposition is often
Speaker 2: the least important among the many motives for believing it.
Speaker 2: Panics arise where there is an interest in promoting them,
Speaker 2: and they pass from person to person with the irresistible
Speaker 2: force of a contagious disease. So let me turn to
Speaker 2: a couple of current headlines verse from the Epic Times.
Speaker 2: The world is not going to reach NED zero by
Speaker 2: twenty fifty. Vaklev Schmil is one of the leading thinkers
Speaker 2: on energy and environment. Last year, the Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Speaker 2: in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba
Speaker 2: pend an extensive report for the Fraser Institute, a libertarian
Speaker 2: conservative Canadian public policy think tank. In it, he outlined
Speaker 2: numerous reasons why NED zero by twenty fifty is highly unlikely,
Speaker 2: and he began with the glaring fact despite international agreements,
Speaker 2: government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel
Speaker 2: consumption surge by fifty five percent between nineteen ninety seven
Speaker 2: and twenty twenty three. A second headline, Trump policy will
Speaker 2: embolden developing world to reject climate agenda, which they're already
Speaker 2: doing anyway, It'll just give them more weight. And I'm
Speaker 2: talking countries like Nigeria, West of Africa probably, and the
Speaker 2: fact that China, India and other countries are ignoring totally
Speaker 2: and building coal fired power plants by the dozen. And
Speaker 2: yet here in New Zealand we have a government and
Speaker 2: a Minister for climate change who was introduced an approach
Speaker 2: that is even worse than the adern administration had put
Speaker 2: in place. How idiotic is that? And then there's the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister who says that anybody in the twenty first
Speaker 2: century who doesn't believe that climate change is man made
Speaker 2: is an idiot. I think we should turn the pointer
Speaker 2: around one hundred and eighty degrees. And as for any
Speaker 2: comment that goes along the lines of we have to
Speaker 2: do our little bit for the world, I cannot think
Speaker 2: of a more insane comment to be making at this
Speaker 2: particular moment. Now, as for my example of productivity failure,
Speaker 2: it goes like this. On the nineteenth of the month February,
Speaker 2: I ordered a book. Now, I'd search the internet to
Speaker 2: find out how quickly I could get my hands on it,
Speaker 2: because I wanted it fairly urgently, And I looked at
Speaker 2: Amazon Australia. Then We're going to take a week or so,
Speaker 2: a couple of other places, and I ended up with
Speaker 2: Mighty Ape and Mighty Ape were going to get it
Speaker 2: to me by this was the nineteenth. Mighty eight was
Speaker 2: going to get it to me by the twenty first,
Speaker 2: So it was a case of forty eight hours or
Speaker 2: even less, depending on what time had got here. However,
Speaker 2: come the day, which was the twenty first of February,
Speaker 2: it didn't turn up. So I went and checked, and
Speaker 2: I found the movements the book had made, and it
Speaker 2: had gone from the Apernall's shore to East Tammocke, for
Speaker 2: goodness sake, the Apernalls Shore to East Tammockee on the
Speaker 2: other side of the city by some considerable margin, and
Speaker 2: there it stayed from the nineteenth to the twenty fifth
Speaker 2: when it was delivered. So for something that should have
Speaker 2: taken two days, it took six days or five if
Speaker 2: you want, I don't mind which.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I don't blame Mighty Ape for it, but I certainly
Speaker 2: hold the New Zealand Post to account for taking six
Speaker 2: days to get something that was due to get here
Speaker 2: in two And if that's not a productivity failure, then
Speaker 2: I don't know what is. Now. Having got that off
Speaker 2: my chest and I'll say no more about it. We
Speaker 2: will talk about far More Important Things with George Friedman
Speaker 2: in Just a Moment Layton Smith. Leverrix is an antihistamine
Speaker 2: made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
Speaker 2: fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
Speaker 2: action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongested action. It's
Speaker 2: fast acting for fast relief, and it works in under
Speaker 2: an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix
Speaker 2: is a tiny tablet that unblocks the no deals with
Speaker 2: itchy eyes and stops sneezing. Levericks is an antihistamine made
Speaker 2: in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're
Speaker 2: in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
Speaker 2: and ask for Leverix lv Rix Leverrix and always read
Speaker 2: the label. Take as directed and if symptoms persist, see
Speaker 2: your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. George Redman is the
Speaker 2: author of two major books. He's written more, but these
Speaker 2: are the two majors. The Next one hundred Years, that
Speaker 2: was released in two thousand and nine, was a massive
Speaker 2: seller worldwide. The second book, The Storm Before the cam
Speaker 2: America's Discord, The Coming crisis of the twenty twenties and
Speaker 2: the Triumph Beyond was not a failure, but it sold slowly.
Speaker 2: The interesting thing is the interest in that book is
Speaker 2: now picking up a pace, as will be revealed sometime
Speaker 2: in the near future. But nevertheless, the book was as
Speaker 2: I've said many times on the podcast when it's come up,
Speaker 2: the book was released the same day that COVID broke,
Speaker 2: and all American networks wanted to know was about COVID,
Speaker 2: and so George had a series of major interviews with
Speaker 2: television and other media canceled simply because it got replaced
Speaker 2: with COVID, and we all know the damage that COVID did,
Speaker 2: So with that in mind, from geopolitical futures, George Treatment,
Speaker 2: it's great to have you back. I wanted you. I
Speaker 2: wanted you on, particularly because of what's going on in
Speaker 2: this part of the world. But we shall transfer our attention.
Speaker 2: After dealing with the South Pacific to the rest of
Speaker 2: the world and some major issues. The Crook Islands strike
Speaker 2: a deal with China on seabed minerals is a headline.
Speaker 2: Struck a five agreement with China to cooperate in exploring
Speaker 2: and researching the Pacific nations seabed mineral riches. A copy
Speaker 2: of the deal, which is likely to work. Close partner
Speaker 2: and former colonial ruler New Zealand showed it covers working
Speaker 2: together in the exploration and research of seabed mineral resources.
Speaker 2: Now the rest of the detail doesn't matter because it's
Speaker 2: been fully publicized. But for about ten days I think
Speaker 2: maybe even a couple of weeks, we were a bit
Speaker 2: short on information. Now we have most of it. You've
Speaker 2: seen the reports. What is your interpretation of China's entry
Speaker 2: into the South Pacific.
Speaker 3: Well, firstly, remember the global geopolitical situation. The Russians and
Speaker 3: the Americans we'll talk about later are believing much closer.
Speaker 3: Russia is China's enemy. They fought war as being Khrushchev
Speaker 3: and Mao. In fact, when Kissinger went to China, the
Speaker 3: Russians attacked at the Yusiri River on the border. So
Speaker 3: these are not too friendly countries. Communism is an ideology
Speaker 3: sort of bound them together. So now they're looking at
Speaker 3: their western frontier and wondering what in God's name the
Speaker 3: Russians are doing. They're looking at their internal economic problems.
Speaker 3: They just basically the amounts of the private sector was
Speaker 3: going to be the major for striving the economy. But
Speaker 3: it's more important to understand that from their point of view,
Speaker 3: their threat to them comes through the Pacific, and Australia
Speaker 3: is becoming a significant naval power, so they have to
Speaker 3: show their strength. It was really a little, tiny, little
Speaker 3: intervention by two frigate, a destroyer and a support ship.
Speaker 3: This was not even a major approach, and at the
Speaker 3: same time they sent them five fighters down in return
Speaker 3: for them. They either did or didn't notify the New
Speaker 3: Zealand government I don't know, but they didn't have to
Speaker 3: or in international orders they did issue mat Tom's But
Speaker 3: they're coming down there primarily to remind New Zealand that
Speaker 3: New Zealand allowing Australia to place forces there or something
Speaker 3: like that would not be a good idea. I think
Speaker 3: it's a clumsy move, but they're in a difficult position.
Speaker 3: They have to show that they're a major power, that
Speaker 3: they can operate a distance. They didn't show that the
Speaker 3: big boys any of that today. But they're also looking
Speaker 3: down at Australia and the submarines they're receiving and everything
Speaker 3: and are worrying great deal about it. So this was
Speaker 3: a low cost, reversible event. New Zealand got all excited
Speaker 3: and that's what they wanted.
Speaker 2: Well, New Zealand hasn't got as excited as Australia apparently,
Speaker 2: so you're.
Speaker 3: Not excited, you're just frightened. I don't want to use
Speaker 3: the word frightened. It was nothing. Australia is not going
Speaker 3: to be intimidated. But the Chinese are running out of
Speaker 3: options of how to play the international game, and so
Speaker 3: this was a move in that direction, a minor one.
Speaker 3: We're certainly going others coast Chinee. I'd says all the time.
Speaker 3: You haven't been used to it.
Speaker 2: Quite, but you left out the Cook Islands in that description.
Speaker 2: It's not that the Cook Islands are any danger to anybody.
Speaker 2: But elsewhere I've seen a suggestion that the Chinese are
Speaker 2: going to be spending money, some substantial amounts of money
Speaker 2: in the Cook Islands to build ports and other things
Speaker 2: as part of this steal. Now, if that is true,
Speaker 2: and I'm leaving room for maneuvering there. If it's true,
Speaker 2: then surely the visitation of the three ships is a
Speaker 2: warning that the Chinese are involved now with the Cook Islands.
Speaker 2: They are no longer our territory because they're moving in.
Speaker 2: And this is just a little statement of facts, I
Speaker 2: mean to be blunt. To be blunt, the three ship
Speaker 2: Little Crusade is bigger than our navy.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a problem for New Zealand. But you don't
Speaker 3: conduct an assault that the country as large as New Zealand,
Speaker 3: with Australia to your north, you have to pass them,
Speaker 3: and the US seventh Fleet, which is also an Atlantic
Speaker 3: has to come through. So I don't think there's a
Speaker 3: threat to New Zealand security. What it is, however, is
Speaker 3: there's a worldwide search for rare earths. The Ukrainian War
Speaker 3: is now a little about rare earths. If the Cook
Speaker 3: Islands have rare earths, the Chinese wanted to get him first.
Speaker 3: They needed that, so there's an economic reason to be there.
Speaker 3: I don't see a major military reason. They didn't really
Speaker 3: mind shaking up New Zealand a bit to show the
Speaker 3: Americans they have some long range military naval capabilities, which
Speaker 3: is unknown whether they really have it or not. I
Speaker 3: don't think they do. This served a number of purposes, psychological, economic,
Speaker 3: and it showed three ships how to say, a long
Speaker 3: distance from.
Speaker 2: The Australian newspaper. I'm looking at a headline China accused
Speaker 2: US Australia of hyping up live fire drills in the
Speaker 2: South China Sea. But moving on a bit ex Australian
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Tony Abbott over the weekend suggested Australia, the UK,
Speaker 2: Canada and New Zealand should quote become much better at
Speaker 2: offering the US help rather than rail against the only
Speaker 2: leader of the free world currently has following China's posturing.
Speaker 2: Of course, he went on, there is an alternative to
Speaker 2: renewing alliances built on a shared history and valued cherished values,
Speaker 2: cherished in common. And he was talking by the way
Speaker 2: to the Danube Institute Forum in London. Australia caught opt
Speaker 2: to become an economic colony of China. But in that event,
Speaker 2: our paymasters in Beijing would hardly allow us a freedom
Speaker 2: that their own people lack. As last week's life fire
Speaker 2: exercise off our coast shows, Beijing's expectation is that its
Speaker 2: clients tremble and obey. Soon enough, we would find that
Speaker 2: without strength, neither peace nor freedom lasts very long. Now
Speaker 2: is there anything worthy of night in that?
Speaker 3: Well? The Chinese want to desperately show that they have
Speaker 3: not been nerved by what's happening in the rest of
Speaker 3: the world, with their lives or potential lives moving the directions.
Speaker 3: They also want to demonstrate that they have capabilities, and
Speaker 3: they also will take the risk of New Zealand pulling
Speaker 3: closer to the United States, which it should. There's an interest.
Speaker 3: But remember the United States military has a problem with
Speaker 3: New Zealand the expulsion of our naval vessels because they
Speaker 3: might have nuclear weapons on board. Years back, rankles deeply,
Speaker 3: and that will be overcome. That's not an issue. I
Speaker 3: remember then we still mumble about it drinking beer. So
Speaker 3: New Zealand. Australia is one thing in our mind. Now
Speaker 3: New Zealand is another thing. You have this psychological problem.
Speaker 3: It'll be overcome. But certainly New Zealand it has one
Speaker 3: far out gegraphic advantage. If the Chinese managed to occupy
Speaker 3: New Zealand, they could threaten Australia from the north and south.
Speaker 3: But how did the Chinese provide supplies in New Zealand,
Speaker 3: How do they get there, how did they maintain their force?
Speaker 3: So that's why I say it's a wild theory. So
Speaker 3: they may have somebody who has a dream. But I
Speaker 3: think one thing we know New Zealand, with current technologies
Speaker 3: and realities and wealth, cannot pretend that they're the little
Speaker 3: child who is never there. Okay, everybody knows they're there.
Speaker 3: Life is unpredictable. New Zealand's had a luxurious time since
Speaker 3: World War Two. At some point it's going to realize
Speaker 3: that it might be an asset to someone. I don't
Speaker 3: think this is the time, but it will.
Speaker 2: So in the interim. Is there any advantage to the
Speaker 2: Chinese locating themselves in the Cook Islands. Let us just
Speaker 2: suppose that it came to that, and that was not
Speaker 2: part of the deal, but it came as a result
Speaker 2: of it that they were able to that they were
Speaker 2: able to establish a solid base in the Cook Islands.
Speaker 2: Would that be the question is would that be any
Speaker 2: real advantage to them?
Speaker 3: It would be liability because they're far away from the
Speaker 3: Cook Islands. The US Navy can interdict any major operation
Speaker 3: to support Cook Island in the war, and Cook Islands
Speaker 3: wore place and missiles in Guam and other places could
Speaker 3: have operated, so it's a highly vulnerable position. I would
Speaker 3: not base a fleet in there. Plus, building ports is
Speaker 3: quite a job and it takes a long time. The
Speaker 3: Chinese don't have much of a workforce. I would assume
Speaker 3: I don't know Cookland very well, so they would have
Speaker 3: to take workers and send in there. It's too complex
Speaker 3: for a military purpose. Okay, that's not a good place
Speaker 3: to have a port. That's not a good place to
Speaker 3: have an airbase. It's too easily taken out by the
Speaker 3: Australians and Americans.
Speaker 2: One more attempt. The Solomon Islands have done something with
Speaker 2: the Chinese. The Fijians have done something with the Chinese.
Speaker 2: What we could be talking about is is a series
Speaker 2: of island links that would be serviceable, not as many,
Speaker 2: but as one.
Speaker 3: Well. This was the Americans that did the Chinese. They
Speaker 3: have Taiwan. They reversed Philippines relationship with China and hostility
Speaker 3: to the United States, and now have four bases in
Speaker 3: the Philippines, Australia to Papua New Guinea, on a line
Speaker 3: from Anchorage, Alaska to Australia. Every strait that would allow
Speaker 3: Chinese ships to enter the Pacific is practically under the
Speaker 3: control of Australian United States. Remember, ships are very very
Speaker 3: vulnerable to air strikes, missile strikes. It's no longer a
Speaker 3: surface combat, and any Chinese war in that area as
Speaker 3: a naval war, their army is not going to swim.
Speaker 3: So what we did, and this was a couple of
Speaker 3: years ago under Biden, we got the Philippines to flip.
Speaker 3: You got Papu in New Guinea. Now that Chinese would
Speaker 3: love to form another line behind that, all right, and
Speaker 3: now that's the stake. The problem is they're forming a
Speaker 3: line behind our line and putting a lot over our line.
Speaker 3: And you know, this gets real complicated. How deep was
Speaker 3: the Chinese going to put resources into this when it
Speaker 3: could be so completely isolated. We can afford the isolation
Speaker 3: of our force if they put it in, and it
Speaker 3: would be a problem for us. But I think that's
Speaker 3: what the Chinese are trying to do.
Speaker 2: Okay, in associated matters our government is talking now about
Speaker 2: putting I think the term was a substantial increase into defense.
Speaker 2: Now substantial is a relative word, because our defense forces are,
Speaker 2: shall we say, slim at best. Whether or not the
Speaker 2: money that's spent is going to be worthwhile is for
Speaker 2: the future to tell, but it's undoubtedly necessary. Going back
Speaker 2: to the old approach, and that is that you mightn't
Speaker 2: be the biggest team in the force. But you've got
Speaker 2: to you've got to show your flag, and New Zealand
Speaker 2: has been failing and doing that recent times.
Speaker 3: To show your part of the team. That's where New
Speaker 3: Jill has been failing at.
Speaker 2: Yes, didn't I say Didn't I say that differently?
Speaker 3: You said it somewhat differently, but I said it better.
Speaker 3: Don't worry. Okay, Look, the United States has no quarrel
Speaker 3: really with New Zealand, just some old soldiers like me
Speaker 3: that could be prepared. New Zealand should increase its defense budget,
Speaker 3: but it cannot build it enough to take care of
Speaker 3: all the potential threats it faces. It has to be
Speaker 3: part of an alliance because no one is bound to
Speaker 3: come to New Zealand's help. It would come to help,
Speaker 3: but New Zealand must now join into the reality that
Speaker 3: it's a prize. It's a very difficult prize to take
Speaker 3: and New Zealand probably can't simply defend itself against the
Speaker 3: power strong enough to come down there. So it needs
Speaker 3: to come back into a relationship with the United States.
Speaker 3: It needs to come into a relationship with Australia in
Speaker 3: military relationship. I'll say something that the New Zealanders don't
Speaker 3: want to hear Australia and New Zealand have a coordinated military.
Speaker 3: Now they are, they're dominating their areas together. New Zealand
Speaker 3: has to join that. It's in five eyes, which will
Speaker 3: tell them when they're going to get hit. But they
Speaker 3: must be in a position where the only force that
Speaker 3: can come to truly defend them in the case of trouble,
Speaker 3: which I don't see coming, but I may be wrong.
Speaker 3: You must enter into liances. You're not strong enough to
Speaker 3: do it yourself.
Speaker 2: I think we've always known that, but of more recent
Speaker 2: times things of things have changed, in some cases quite substantially.
Speaker 2: The other aspect to it is trade, of course, and
Speaker 2: the biggest the biggest threat I believe is rather than military,
Speaker 2: is trading routes, because as has been pointed out before
Speaker 2: by you by yourself, in fact, they're very easily disrupted
Speaker 2: some distance from our shore.
Speaker 3: Well. World War two, in both the I think in
Speaker 3: the Pacific, were naval wars. If the United States had
Speaker 3: lost control of the Atlantic, the Germans would have won
Speaker 3: if Thejapanese which tried to take control of the Pacific one.
Speaker 3: So these are naval battles jumping from island to island
Speaker 3: was to build air bases and some ports, but the
Speaker 3: real battle was naval and this is the thing that
Speaker 3: the Chinese understand that are trying to catch up with.
Speaker 3: They have a strong army, but who We're not going
Speaker 3: to swim with an army over there. So your problem
Speaker 3: is you're in the ocean. Wars are going to be
Speaker 3: fought in the oceans, and in some evolution, not the
Speaker 3: current one, it may be a prize. So the contingency
Speaker 3: for New Zealand is to plan for the improbable. And
Speaker 3: that's also always politically painful because you have to spend
Speaker 3: a lot of money building assets for an improbable event
Speaker 3: and getting yourself involved with the alliances that will ask
Speaker 3: you for separate agreements send your forces here or there.
Speaker 3: So probably the lions for New Zealand is that they
Speaker 3: have obligations to it. Right now, New Zealand doesn't have obligations,
Speaker 3: really has friends who are got are do something anyway,
Speaker 3: and is in a beautiful geographic position. The Chinese now
Speaker 3: want to tell you you're not you're not we can
Speaker 3: come and get you. Well that's not true, but it's
Speaker 3: a good move and the Chinese don't have many good
Speaker 3: moves at this point.
Speaker 2: So the belief is by many that the Chinese have
Speaker 2: now exceeded the American's capacity in naval force.
Speaker 3: Is that correct, Well, I'll use an unkind word preposters.
Speaker 3: The Chinese problem is they're ports. They're all on the
Speaker 3: eastern shore of China, and those ports are carefully watched
Speaker 3: by American satellites and American submarines are out there, so
Speaker 3: the fleet can't flom in taiw War, which is the
Speaker 3: first battle we'll start when the Chinese move out of
Speaker 3: their ports. The reason they didn't invade Taiwan is they can't.
Speaker 3: It takes ten to twelve hours for a landing craft
Speaker 3: to go from China to Taiwan, a longer time to
Speaker 3: build up the force. Our satellites will see them. US
Speaker 3: submarines are in a position and missiles in Guam to
Speaker 3: take out that force militarily, they don't have the power.
Speaker 3: So when you talk about the power of navies or anything,
Speaker 3: you have to think about the geography they exist in.
Speaker 3: The Chinese naval geography, its sports are terribly vulnerable positions.
Speaker 3: They can be closed very easily, just closed over the
Speaker 3: mines and make it very difficult to get let them
Speaker 3: get out. So when they should take Taiwan in their mind,
Speaker 3: but they can't risk it. So you don't count ships.
Speaker 3: You count the capabilities of the ships, the experience of
Speaker 3: the fleet, and the geography, in this case, the homeland
Speaker 3: geography in which they live. The Chinese are strategically we
Speaker 3: physician and this is one of the points I'd like
Speaker 3: to make for New Zealand. You can build a force,
Speaker 3: but you have to have a national strategy and it
Speaker 3: really has to think through not just as political strategy,
Speaker 3: not just how to train this force, but what its
Speaker 3: mission is. And this is what I think is going
Speaker 3: to be the problem. So in dealing with the Chinese,
Speaker 3: it's not simply a defensive force, but it has to
Speaker 3: have linkages into alliances. But when you speak of naval power,
Speaker 3: things like port security capability, interdiction, intelligence capability, these are
Speaker 3: extremely important things. The navies at this point on any
Speaker 3: continental basis are the key and the Chinese I am
Speaker 3: trying very hard to do this. They would love to
Speaker 3: have ports somewhere else, but the problem is how do
Speaker 3: you supply the ports with what they need? So the
Speaker 3: US has the advantage of inddiction of the seas. And
Speaker 3: even if they had a larger navy than we have,
Speaker 3: which they don't. They have ships, but that's not necessarily
Speaker 3: a navy. Even if they had it, they would be
Speaker 3: attacked by missiles, not fleets. Naval warfare now is missile
Speaker 3: warfare against ships, not ships against ships.
Speaker 2: I was waiting patiently for you to pause before I
Speaker 2: mentioned that precise thing which would give would it not
Speaker 2: the Chinese maneuvering room via space to take care of
Speaker 2: any issues that they wanted to deal with in anywhere
Speaker 2: in the world.
Speaker 3: Well, as a matter of fact, I'm just writing a
Speaker 3: book on that subject. Yes, very much, it's that. And
Speaker 3: we have a program called Artibus that will land has
Speaker 3: already landed on the Moon, but will probably set up
Speaker 3: by the end of this decade a colony on the Moon.
Speaker 3: Now we are very interested in science, certainly, but when
Speaker 3: you think about what the oceans meant, this is what
Speaker 3: space means. Space is an ocean and is the high ground.
Speaker 3: So the Chinese certainly want to go to space. They
Speaker 3: have a space program. They're hoping to land on the
Speaker 3: Moon at the end of the decade without leaving humans there.
Speaker 3: But they're way behind. The Russians don't have the resources
Speaker 3: to really do it. One of their rockets to the
Speaker 3: moon last week, I think it was month certainly blew up.
Speaker 3: It didn't work. So China building a fleet, building a
Speaker 3: space force, bartying is order against Russia. Even vast China
Speaker 3: has this hands full. And we are in a nice
Speaker 3: position because we're breaking out of our alliances, out of
Speaker 3: some of our commitments. We have command of the sea,
Speaker 3: and we are surging into space.
Speaker 2: Looking at the world as a whole. Is the world
Speaker 2: going to be able to afford all of this space maneuvering.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly where Columbus tried to convince Queen Isabella.
Speaker 3: We have the money to go to North America, the
Speaker 3: Western hemisphere. Western Hemisphere is there. Europe has spent vast
Speaker 3: amounts of money on navies. The British almost bankrupted themselves,
Speaker 3: and so on, but they knew that to be rich,
Speaker 3: to hold India, to hold North America for a while,
Speaker 3: and so on, navies are essential. So navies, interesting enough,
Speaker 3: are investment that produces the possibility of trade and so on,
Speaker 3: and our essential element space will be the same.
Speaker 2: But you know what I'm driving it the cost to
Speaker 2: individual countries of following through with space programs is ginormous
Speaker 2: and will only get bigger, and one by one they've
Speaker 2: got to eliminate themselves from well, I see what you mean, Yes,
Speaker 2: take take themselves out of play, because they simply can't
Speaker 2: afford to maintain and what they have done in the
Speaker 2: past on Earth, having spent so much or spending so
Speaker 2: much in the clouds.
Speaker 3: Well, in some way we're saying the same thing, they
Speaker 3: can't afford it, and what they can afford they must
Speaker 3: devote to earthside military capabilities. It's interesting that in a
Speaker 3: Musk is now sort of running the country in a way, right,
Speaker 3: but he is the one who's has in its own
Speaker 3: space program. So we have multiple private space programs plus NASA,
Speaker 3: and we have the money to go to space and
Speaker 3: all those workers laid off public paper musks rockets.
Speaker 2: George, tell me this then, an extended question with the debt,
Speaker 2: that America now has so many trillions and no seeming
Speaker 2: way to eliminate it or even drive it down because
Speaker 2: it keeps expanding. How on Earth can how on Earth
Speaker 2: can America at the same time keep expanding its.
Speaker 3: Spending because it has a vast industrial base. Its products
Speaker 3: are sold all over the world and wanted because our
Speaker 3: technology is extraordinary. I mean, when you take a look
Speaker 3: at debt and a company you own, look at your
Speaker 3: probability of paying for it by looking at your assets.
Speaker 3: And we talk about this, but as many economists, it's
Speaker 3: a very good political issue to intimidate. But the point
Speaker 3: of fact, the economy still moves be to one point another,
Speaker 3: not risking starvation, not risking the normal things. So the
Speaker 3: fact is that the numbers are one sided, as if
Speaker 3: you looked at your debts without your assets, well, that's
Speaker 3: how do we pay for it? And the fact is
Speaker 3: we're paying for it. And there's nothing to indicate that
Speaker 3: the US is going to fail of his debt payments.
Speaker 2: What's the biggest expandit you're in the budget.
Speaker 3: The biggest single one, I would guess is a defense.
Speaker 2: What's second?
Speaker 3: And I'm not really sure. I'm not really certain. I
Speaker 3: would social costs.
Speaker 2: Can I help you sure? It's just become the interest
Speaker 2: on the debt.
Speaker 3: We pay it. I have mods look, you have to
Speaker 3: take a look again at the flow of money into
Speaker 3: the government that Trump is trying to cut back on,
Speaker 3: along with expenditures. But it was not a crisis in
Speaker 3: the United States. Many Poles showed that it was inflation
Speaker 3: that went on to office. It was culture wars. It
Speaker 3: was the hyper egalitarianism of the Democrats that have got
Speaker 3: nuts and the company became sick of it. But there
Speaker 3: are other issues here that are much more frightening that
Speaker 3: The most frightening issue is cultural. So I would say
Speaker 3: that looking at the United States, there's talk about the debt,
Speaker 3: but that talk has gone on all my life, whatever
Speaker 3: it was, and the debt never failed to be paid.
Speaker 3: Because of the productivity in the United States, we could
Speaker 3: always raise taxes, so we don't take raise taxes because
Speaker 3: it reduces investment. So we're going to watch what Trump does.
Speaker 2: There's talk at the moment about the government. Trump if
Speaker 2: you like resetting the value of the Donna, not just
Speaker 2: of the Dona, but of gold as well, And I'm
Speaker 2: wondering if you think the same thing in there.
Speaker 3: It may well happen. Look with the Ukrainian War represents
Speaker 3: a turning point, oddly enough, just as much as World
Speaker 3: War two did. World War two ended European in Germany
Speaker 3: and power and buckled it under the United States and NATO.
Speaker 3: Now Russia has shown its weakness and the United States
Speaker 3: is left free to maneuver. What Trump is doing first
Speaker 3: is not just probing. He knows that the opposition to
Speaker 3: him in the United States will grow. I mean the
Speaker 3: idea that he's not going to have a huge opposition.
Speaker 3: You can do this. Roosevelt had his one hundred days
Speaker 3: when he's restructured the banking system completely because he had
Speaker 3: to and before Congress could stop him. Trump is doing
Speaker 3: the same thing. It's a very funny they do. He say, Look,
Speaker 3: I've got about one hundred days before they come and
Speaker 3: get me. I'm going to get everything done before that.
Speaker 3: I'm going to get my foreign policy done. I'm going
Speaker 3: to get my economic reforms done because the rest of
Speaker 3: the time I'm going to be blocked. He's doing pretty well.
Speaker 3: He's smarter than the average bear is.
Speaker 2: He also smarter than the average beer because he's surrounding
Speaker 2: himself with people who are, in many cases brighter than
Speaker 2: he is.
Speaker 3: That's the brightest thing, the brightest bears could do, surround
Speaker 3: himself with people who. Firstly, don't they talk about violating
Speaker 3: the norms right, well, the norms needed to be violated,
Speaker 3: so no, no one says, don't develop a new computer
Speaker 3: because violates the norm. Our political system goes undergoes every
Speaker 3: fifty years, a massive jefficient. You mentioned my books, I
Speaker 3: predicted that this was going to come at about this time.
Speaker 3: So all of the old order is being shifted. The
Speaker 3: old order is screening uncontrollably to what's happening. Calling him
Speaker 3: a dictator. Franklin Roosevelt was called a dictator for what
Speaker 3: he did. We have opera, not politics, And what's happening
Speaker 3: here is the pressures that built up in America partly
Speaker 3: came from the way we related to the world and
Speaker 3: our political structure. And there's been a revolution, and this
Speaker 3: violates the norm, and that will coalesce against him. So
Speaker 3: he knows he has so much time.
Speaker 2: And do you think he's doing well?
Speaker 3: Well, I think he's doing well or else he's lead.
Speaker 3: Now he may do badly, but he's taking the necessary,
Speaker 3: ruthless chances, building new coalitions, abandoning old alliances, restructuring the government.
Speaker 3: I worry a little that he overestimates that, but I
Speaker 3: was in the government, and the inefficiency of the government
Speaker 3: is breathless. To order, a new rifle had to go
Speaker 3: through three layers This is no joke. The US government
Speaker 3: has grown out of the Roselt period to an unmanageable mess.
Speaker 3: Now inevitably, Musk was sent in there to take care
Speaker 3: of it, and he's going to overshoot. He can't help that.
Speaker 3: He'll be blamed for it, not Musk, So he's going
Speaker 3: to push this very far and look very frightening. But
Speaker 3: he's not going to hold on to most of this.
Speaker 3: But he has to be able to maneuver in the
Speaker 3: first hundred days and then retreat as he has to Georgie.
Speaker 2: I want to get to the Masaudi situation, but first
Speaker 2: of all we need to cover off Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker 2: And I'm just I'm intrigued to know your thoughts on
Speaker 2: what the outcome of the Ukraine War is going to be.
Speaker 3: Well, we know one uncome. Russia suffered a massive defeat.
Speaker 3: The Russian Army, the Red Army, the defeated Hitler could
Speaker 3: not take Ukraine in three years of fighting. That and
Speaker 3: the world doesn't noted enough is extraordinary. It should have
Speaker 3: been as in Hungary, a two day battle and he
Speaker 3: couldn't do it. And he had an attempted kude Ta
Speaker 3: at the same time. So what he discovered I don't
Speaker 3: think he knew is that his military doesn't have the
Speaker 3: capabilities it had under communism, was unable to do this.
Speaker 3: At this point, the American view of Russia changes. We
Speaker 3: built our foreign policy around fighting communism wherever it is,
Speaker 3: hence Russia. Russia no longer represents a threat to Europe.
Speaker 3: Therefore NATO is obsolete and the Europeans are fragmenting as
Speaker 3: it did. And you notice the Europeans said troops the
Speaker 3: police said literally the President said hell no. So they
Speaker 3: understand the decline to the threat of Russia. They also
Speaker 3: decline to see that they have their own internal issues
Speaker 3: to settle. Europe is a mess. The EU doesn't work.
Speaker 3: And Trump understood that NATO was obsolete, archaic. The Russians
Speaker 3: were good attack The Europeans are quite capable of defending
Speaker 3: themselves and did not. It's not because they can't afford it,
Speaker 3: so we built NATO. NATO was designed because the Europeans
Speaker 3: could not possibly defend themselves, and the Russians really had
Speaker 3: an army. Now, the Russian army was a failure. They
Speaker 3: lost many, many people. We don't know the count because
Speaker 3: the Russians don't release it, but they lost a lot,
Speaker 3: and the United States now has a free hand to
Speaker 3: reshape the world, which goes into the question you asked
Speaker 3: about will they reprice the dollar? Will they reprice these things?
Speaker 3: And the answer is, at this point we have a
Speaker 3: free hand. That freehand will disappeirit over time. But Trump
Speaker 3: is trying to take this opening that was left for
Speaker 3: him and manage it on all aspects, cutting the Defense Department,
Speaker 3: reshaping the economic system, and to his joy because he
Speaker 3: doesn't like them throw into Europeans into chaos.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to challenge it. How much gold is
Speaker 2: there in thought.
Speaker 3: Knox, I wish a lot. We don't know. There are
Speaker 3: those who say there is none, and they won't leticine
Speaker 3: to see it.
Speaker 2: Well, he's going to he's going to do it.
Speaker 3: Well, he's certainly going to do it, and he'll find out.
Speaker 3: But remember, an economy is the standard of living. You
Speaker 3: measure the economy not by the abstract members of economists.
Speaker 3: He's measured the economy by the manner in which people live,
Speaker 3: the products that are available, security and so on and
Speaker 3: so forth, and that is not declining at all. There's pressure,
Speaker 3: There's was pressure during the bond crisis and everything else.
Speaker 3: We live with cycles. But whether there's gold or not,
Speaker 3: you can't eat gold. Some people like it for jewelry,
Speaker 3: I guess, but the basic economic structure is your production
Speaker 3: and consumption, and that's maintaining itself.
Speaker 2: Okay. By the same token, from my perspective, never underestimate
Speaker 2: the power of gold. So, just just having visited Ukraine,
Speaker 2: how's it going to end?
Speaker 3: Well? When one side defeats the other, it ends in
Speaker 3: the winning side deciding what happens when there's but basically
Speaker 3: a in the ability to win the war by either side.
Speaker 3: There's a negotiation. So Russia can't take Ukraine. It has
Speaker 3: a bit of it, not a small point, but it
Speaker 3: failed to do the whole thing. Ukraine can't push Russia out.
Speaker 3: The United States has no desire to get involved in
Speaker 3: this war. They don't care how big Ukraine is. The
Speaker 3: Ukraine is now saying we have precious medals, come to
Speaker 3: war with us. Sorry, guy, not precious medals, but rare earths.
Speaker 3: So the war ends with negotiations. There's no other way.
Speaker 3: You can keep fighting it dying. The Russians approved, they
Speaker 3: can't win all of what they wanted. The Ukrainians proved
Speaker 3: they could stop them with Western weapons, which that we
Speaker 3: get about Western lives. And so they are negotiations, and
Speaker 3: that's where the world is now. That's the center of
Speaker 3: the world, the negotiations over Ukraine. This war was not
Speaker 3: about Ukraine. This war was about Russian American relationships. This
Speaker 3: was about what the end of the Cold Wars really
Speaker 3: ended here, not back when the Colimans fell, what it meant,
Speaker 3: and the Russians proved of limited power, and the Americans
Speaker 3: are now prepared to deal with them because they might
Speaker 3: emerge again. They're a major power. They have a different
Speaker 3: understanding of the Russians. You know, Trump really had an
Speaker 3: understanding that of Putin. America has the understanding of Russia.
Speaker 3: And this is what's going on.
Speaker 2: You were detrimental a short while ago to Europe as
Speaker 2: a whole. Is it in decline? And I'll say the
Speaker 2: answers yes, But is it going to collapse?
Speaker 3: I don't know how Europe collapses. I know what I means.
Speaker 3: It means that they've returned to pre Cold War model.
Speaker 3: Europe is a continent, not a nation. It's a name.
Speaker 3: We use to talk about a whole bunch of different
Speaker 3: countries who never liked each other, have competing interests, but
Speaker 3: aren't going to get to war with each other. They've
Speaker 3: done that twice. It doesn't work. So it is a
Speaker 3: continent of highly literate, competent, technical people with great economic powers.
Speaker 3: They have economic competition and they have internal political rivalries.
Speaker 3: You know within the countries. The Germans are holding an
Speaker 3: election now, So what will happen to Europe is it
Speaker 3: will become a well to do place with economic influence,
Speaker 3: no geopolitical influence or little geopolitical influence. Do they want
Speaker 3: to spend the money? So it doesn't decline. I mean,
Speaker 3: it declines as a force in international politics, but it's economy,
Speaker 3: well that's declining, but reversible. But the EU itself as
Speaker 3: an institution is non functional the interests.
Speaker 2: Of the bulgar When I when I when I said Europe,
Speaker 2: that's that's what I was referring to.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, in that sense, Europe is fragmenting back to
Speaker 3: what it is a continent of the nation states with
Speaker 3: different interests and very different needs. Europe goes from poor
Speaker 3: countries like the Balkans or Bulgaria, to France, which nobody likes,
Speaker 3: to the British, which you know, these are very different
Speaker 3: countries that are very small place. They fought many wars,
Speaker 3: but there is no such thing as Europe until the
Speaker 3: United States imposed it on them. They're going back to
Speaker 3: what they were to continue trade and everything else. But
Speaker 3: the period that a European nation has gone.
Speaker 2: The cultures of those countries, independent as they have been,
Speaker 2: are they able to be sustained under the threat of
Speaker 2: the current threat, the long lived threat now of the
Speaker 2: African invasion.
Speaker 3: Well, the African invasion is immigrants. And one of the
Speaker 3: issues in Europe, as in the United States, is immigration.
Speaker 3: Victor Orban, who I first thought was way out, who
Speaker 3: is right. He has a country of nine million open,
Speaker 3: and you can easily get nine million Africans or Asians
Speaker 3: or what have you to overwheam the native population. This
Speaker 3: is where the Germans are experiencing now.
Speaker 4: The position, the liberal position to fill in Europe that
Speaker 4: we are the home starving of the world is unsustainable,
Speaker 4: So that will be stopped.
Speaker 3: But the Europe itself is not fairly. Remember we also
Speaker 3: have a counterforce, a demographic problem, an aging population and
Speaker 3: a falling birth rate. So these industrial nations are going
Speaker 3: to have to have population. The US is counter to
Speaker 3: what Trump is saying dependent on migration. His father was
Speaker 3: a migrant from Germany. That's what's kept our workforce steady.
Speaker 3: Europe doesn't have a culture of migration, and this past
Speaker 3: period has proven it's not very good at it.
Speaker 2: My suggestion is that it's culture rather than race that matters,
Speaker 2: and the culture that's arriving in Europe by the millions
Speaker 2: is not compatible.
Speaker 3: I agree that it's not race, but the culture from
Speaker 3: Latin America, which is not a different race by and large,
Speaker 3: is frequently incompatible with the culture of the United States.
Speaker 3: So the problem of migration is this stage migration. With
Speaker 3: our democrat problem is indispensable.
Speaker 2: Sorry say that again.
Speaker 3: Stage migration, staged migration, you know, slow, careful, where assimilation
Speaker 3: is made, where the children grow up to be engineers
Speaker 3: and doctors as we all became. I mean, this is necessary.
Speaker 3: The Europe has to have that it has in the
Speaker 3: future declining populations. United States has the same problem, mass
Speaker 3: population of the illiterate of being capable, who were only
Speaker 3: going to be consuming and becoming criminals of need. That's insane.
Speaker 3: So what the United States had was staged population. When
Speaker 3: the first people came to Scots, Irish. They were considered
Speaker 3: unassimblable because they were drinking, nasty fighters and everything, and
Speaker 3: every wave of immigration into the United States was on
Speaker 3: can't be assimilated. Now the Cubans in flow are wealthy
Speaker 3: beyond belief. The Europeans will have to look at the
Speaker 3: United States to see how immigration is managed at a
Speaker 3: time where they will need more labor. The Europeans are
Speaker 3: disorderly people. They seem very neat, but they disorderly, and
Speaker 3: they don't know how to really look at the world.
Speaker 3: They're still looking at the world as that each country
Speaker 3: thinks the other country is the danger. Well, they don't
Speaker 3: have to be one country, but they have to understand
Speaker 3: and all them share the same problem. The cultural problems
Speaker 3: solved by not surging migration, not allow unallowed migration.
Speaker 2: I get that, I get that, and I agree with it.
Speaker 2: But the surging migration has been going on for some
Speaker 2: considerable time, and the numbers tell the story.
Speaker 3: Well, they're there. They can deport them. That's very costly
Speaker 3: because they are making a living there and part of
Speaker 3: their economy depends on them, part of our economy depends
Speaker 3: on them. What Trump is trying to do in the
Speaker 3: United States is the surplus, the immigrants who really haven't
Speaker 3: taken jobs. The American industry could not run without immigrants,
Speaker 3: Never in its history could it do that. The Europeans
Speaker 3: don't have this cultural You're right, the cultural mechanism. All
Speaker 3: that Trump is trying to do is bounce out the
Speaker 3: rapid surplus that was allowed by the Democrats.
Speaker 2: View another headline, Poland is once again poised to become
Speaker 2: Washington's top partner in Europe.
Speaker 3: How come well I once forecasted it would. Poland is strategic.
Speaker 3: If you look at a way to model Poland, you
Speaker 3: don't want the Germans and the Russians to get together.
Speaker 3: Poland sits in the middle. In all the wars we
Speaker 3: had Poland European wars, Poland was the block between a coalition.
Speaker 3: If we make Poland's longer, we can go away and
Speaker 3: not worry about it because Poland is incredibly pro American.
Speaker 3: Poland is warlike. And remember that through his first administration,
Speaker 3: he sent tanks to Poland and they wanted a named
Speaker 3: for Trump after him. So this is a very close relationship.
Speaker 3: But Poland is strategically necessary power because of its position.
Speaker 3: So if Russia weakens it becomes not the Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: but Russia again a country, and Germany strengthens, it becomes
Speaker 3: not the Third Reiche, but a powerful country again. What
Speaker 3: keeps them apart? Poland?
Speaker 2: You said that you predicted that once. I saw that
Speaker 2: I need this morning shortly before we started recording. Actually,
Speaker 2: I was flicking through I pulled out the next one
Speaker 2: hundred years, the forecast for the twenty first century. I
Speaker 2: keep it in my museum section of the library, and
Speaker 2: I pulled it out and flicked through it, and I
Speaker 2: came across Poland being featured lots of other countries as well.
Speaker 2: How it just cast in mind back because this was
Speaker 2: two thousand and nine the book was released, and like
Speaker 2: I said at the top, it was it was a
Speaker 2: very big setup. How would you say your accuracy was?
Speaker 3: I was very good on declining countries, I called them right,
Speaker 3: and the ascending countries they have quite materialized, Turkey, Japan
Speaker 3: didn't become a military power and so on. But on Poland,
Speaker 3: I was right because I foresaw the fragmentation of Europe,
Speaker 3: the re emergence of Germany and the decline of Russia.
Speaker 3: And that led me to a map and said, what
Speaker 3: divides them? And what will the United States want more
Speaker 3: than anything else to keep the Russians and the Germans
Speaker 3: from ganging up.
Speaker 2: Actually, you've given me a sidebar question with that answer.
Speaker 2: The African invasion, let's stay with that is a terminology.
Speaker 2: How much is that affecting and is it likely to
Speaker 2: infect or affect the relations between the nation states of
Speaker 2: Europe because it's diluting the old numbers.
Speaker 3: Well, something's happening in Europe. As I mentioned Victor Ruban Hungary,
Speaker 3: and he had the first anti effective, anti immigration program
Speaker 3: and was ostracized by the Europeans. Now the European political
Speaker 3: mood has shifted toward that position. He's now a profit,
Speaker 3: not an outcast in that sense. So when you look
Speaker 3: at the situation, just as the United States had a
Speaker 3: shift away from what it had to be after World
Speaker 3: War Two, now it has a shift to what it
Speaker 3: has to be after the Cold War, and that includes
Speaker 3: at your political shift, but also a cultural shift. You
Speaker 3: watch the German.
Speaker 2: Elections, all the results around who won the right the
Speaker 2: AfD times sicken.
Speaker 3: And yes the right, Yeah, so the moderate right one
Speaker 3: and the hard right emerged. So you have a completely
Speaker 3: different political structure in Europe. In Germany and that structure
Speaker 3: is from hostile to uneasy with immigration, and all of
Speaker 3: Europe will have this evolution, not because they're racist, not
Speaker 3: because of any of these reasons, but that they're consumers
Speaker 3: not producers. And Europe's economic balance is declining somewhat, not catastrophically,
Speaker 3: and they can't afford this anymore. So what you have
Speaker 3: as a worldwide shift in the liberalism that emerged, I
Speaker 3: mean that the good sense to liberalism that emerged after
Speaker 3: World War Two, that ideology is dead, a different ideologies
Speaker 3: emerging of the nation state nationalism.
Speaker 2: I saw a pole let's see two days ago with
Speaker 2: regard to the AfD and where it was at and
Speaker 2: how well it was going to do. The prediction of
Speaker 2: that pole or the organizers is that next time around
Speaker 2: the AfD will take over.
Speaker 3: They have no idea what will occur Bolsters between now
Speaker 3: and then do I economically, politically, geopolitically. But there's also
Speaker 3: a remembrance in Germany, not of what they did to
Speaker 3: the Jews. That wasn't the issue, but what happened to
Speaker 3: Germany when Europe and the United States and Russia ganged
Speaker 3: up on it, not for the Jews, but for their
Speaker 3: own sake. The Germans are very wary of going too far.
Speaker 3: The German public is very weary. So I think that
Speaker 3: the idea that we're going to get a fascist government
Speaker 3: in Germany is not right. There'll be a fascist element
Speaker 3: in Germany. And does it be the loop right wing?
Speaker 3: Not the Allives. They'll be the right wing bouncers. So
Speaker 3: I think that poll overshoots. What's going to happen? All right?
Speaker 2: Let us wind up with the situation in Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: where there is activity and a three sided deal.
Speaker 3: Talk to me, well, what's happening in Saudi Arabia is
Speaker 3: not a negotiation of Ukraine. That's settled. Ukraine remains as
Speaker 3: it is and so on. The negotiation is this The
Speaker 3: United States does not want us be the guaranter of
Speaker 3: the world, so we'd like to go world to shut
Speaker 3: up for a while. The Gaza proposal Trump laid out,
Speaker 3: what could happen, We come in and take asa in
Speaker 3: wish Hey, Saudi Arabia has a lot of trouble, or
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia's joined the Abraham Accords. Why did you think
Speaker 3: about taking responsibility for shutting down Arab opposition to Israel?
Speaker 3: So every ten to fifteen years, we don't have one
Speaker 3: of these things. Dessali's said. If I take the burden
Speaker 3: of being the monitor of the Middle East, and I
Speaker 3: can do that, I become a great power. I have
Speaker 3: the Middle East, I have their resources and everything else.
Speaker 3: Russia's declining, I don't have to worry about them. The
Speaker 3: Americans are not a threat. They want to lie. So
Speaker 3: I see a three part heip world system approaching, one
Speaker 3: in which the Russians still matter. They're a major country,
Speaker 3: need American investment, Saudi Arabia, which is also a major country,
Speaker 3: and the United States, with the United States not taking
Speaker 3: responsibility for everything that happens in the world because less happens.
Speaker 3: I think that's what Trump is planning on. And that's
Speaker 3: what the Gaza proposal was about. Yeah, don't intend you
Speaker 3: to go to Gaza, but he sure have caught the
Speaker 3: Saudi's attention.
Speaker 2: Anything else on that.
Speaker 3: We have to understand that the global system has changed
Speaker 3: as radically as World War two changed it. The Saudis
Speaker 3: have emerged as the major power in the Middle East.
Speaker 3: They always were, they never wanted to play the role.
Speaker 3: Now they're ready. Now that it's not caught being a
Speaker 3: Russian American war, cold war, whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 3: So they're sitting down at a table and reodd The
Speaker 3: Russians are happy that the Americans are willing not to
Speaker 3: press their advantage in Russia. We couldn't. They still are
Speaker 3: a strong contrentty just lost this war. The Americans are
Speaker 3: looking at the opportunity to back out of the Eastern hemisphere,
Speaker 3: except with the Chinese, which now will be no problem.
Speaker 3: And finally the Russians see that the Americans don't want
Speaker 3: to destroy them, but become partners. So we have a
Speaker 3: very different order the Middle East, Russia, the United States,
Speaker 3: and Europe.
Speaker 2: Left out and what follows.
Speaker 3: What follows is a period where there's much internal unrest
Speaker 3: in countries. Like the interwar period between World War One
Speaker 3: and World War Two. It was short, this could be longer.
Speaker 3: There was economic issues and social issues that tore apart
Speaker 3: the world, and international politics was less important. And then
Speaker 3: they re emerged full blast with the later part of
Speaker 3: the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: So in the conclusion of your book, The Storm before
Speaker 2: the Calm, you get to the conclusion the American age,
Speaker 2: the year twenty twenty six will be. This is after
Speaker 2: you've predicted the twenties were going to be rocking and rolling.
Speaker 2: The year twenty six will be momentous for the US.
Speaker 2: It'll be two hundred and fifty years since the signing
Speaker 2: of the Declaration of Independence, two fifty years since the
Speaker 2: American settlers declared themselves a people and set themselves on
Speaker 2: a course that led to war, to improbable victory, and
Speaker 2: to the writing of a constitution that turned them from
Speaker 2: becoming a people into creating a regime. It all began
Speaker 2: on July four of that year, and the story is
Speaker 2: still unfolding. As I have shown in a distinct and
Speaker 2: uniquely American way. What would you say now is the
Speaker 2: likelihood of the events of twenty six?
Speaker 3: Well, the events of twenty six already beginning to play
Speaker 3: themselves out. The United States is emerging as obviously the
Speaker 3: major power, but instead of moving quickly to dominate countries,
Speaker 3: it seeks not to dominate countries. I suspect that we
Speaker 3: will have an extended period of prosperity, but we've been
Speaker 3: prosperous except for the depression, a long time. But I
Speaker 3: think what will change in the world as the world
Speaker 3: will have to start taking responsibility for itself. Israel can't
Speaker 3: count on us for everything, so don't have a war.
Speaker 3: We're not going to go into Iraq, so Saudi Arabia
Speaker 3: deal with it. They're already Saudi Iraqi talks going on today.
Speaker 3: Azerbaijan asked to join the Abraham Accords. The movement has
Speaker 3: already begun. The smart players already reposition themselves. For the
Speaker 3: United States, this will be a period of great stress,
Speaker 3: demographic stress and not enough workers of radical technical evolution,
Speaker 3: leading to another fifty years and we'll have another cycle
Speaker 3: with chaos, the Americans collapsing, you know, just like under
Speaker 3: the period before this one, which was the Vietnam War
Speaker 3: and economic crises and will never survive. So America is
Speaker 3: a suicidal nation. We're already always prepared for the worst,
Speaker 3: and that makes us come out on the top. That's
Speaker 3: a good way to be. So we're not confident, but
Speaker 3: the world will be a better place for this because
Speaker 3: unlike Russia that had to be imperialist, or Europe that
Speaker 3: had to be imperialist, we don't care. We're at home
Speaker 3: and we'll fight with Canada, and you'll fight with Canada.
Speaker 2: Oh, Canada, the fifty first state, fifty fifty.
Speaker 3: First, the Canadians went nuts. They thought we were serious.
Speaker 3: I thought it was hilarious. So it was a joke, Yes,
Speaker 3: so a joke. He puts out these jokes. It's taken
Speaker 3: seriously because the American President said it, and then he
Speaker 3: uses it as a wedge to get what he wants.
Speaker 2: What do you think his i Q is?
Speaker 3: His i Q is he has I think a very
Speaker 3: high i Q and a badly damaged personality. He's a
Speaker 3: crazy uns.
Speaker 2: At which point I will thank you profusely, and I
Speaker 2: hope I haven't planted you the storm before the calm.
Speaker 2: And like I said, you can still buy the book.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, you guys.
Speaker 2: You can buy it online or you can buy it.
Speaker 2: You can, you can. You can get it from Amazon, Amazon, Amazon,
Speaker 2: and it's and it's well worthy of your investment. So, George,
Speaker 2: the next book will be out eventually.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be fitted by the end of.
Speaker 2: March, okay, but it'll take a year to be published.
Speaker 3: Well, given the time frame, they're going to hurry it up.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well we shall interview again on that. So I
Speaker 2: appreciate your time. And it's a.
Speaker 3: Pleasure and a pleasure to hear your voice. You take care.
Speaker 2: Now, missus producer. After your abrupt departure last week, I
Speaker 2: have kept your score to a minimum today later, and
Speaker 2: that's very because I know that you've got things to do.
Speaker 5: No, no, we're all busy people. But I'm very happy
Speaker 5: to be here, as you well know.
Speaker 2: Yes, well it's a better of For how long anyway
Speaker 2: would you like to lead?
Speaker 5: Layton no says Muriel was nothing short brilliant. Her ability
Speaker 5: to explain issues and their long term implications is amazing.
Speaker 5: Seems to me we need her back in Parliament in
Speaker 5: a very senior all this time. Well done once again,
Speaker 5: that's from.
Speaker 2: Nol Noel, Thank you, Graham, right, so, thank you for
Speaker 2: this interview. He's referring to Peter Bagotian. Thank you for
Speaker 2: this interview. We greatly appreciate his rational and critical thinking.
Speaker 2: I would love to hear a debate with a Christian apologist.
Speaker 2: I've been a listener of yours for many years. I
Speaker 2: hope that you have a successor in the pipeline, although
Speaker 2: I hope that you go on for many years yet.
Speaker 2: From Graham, so.
Speaker 5: Do I what trying to secure up my personal future
Speaker 5: having you around for many of you? Laydon g says
Speaker 5: another reason New Zealand needs its own Trump. The Arts
Speaker 5: Council in the New Zealand on air are just some
Speaker 5: of New Zealand's own USAID money pipeline that's constantly flowing
Speaker 5: out to left wing causes. Even with this new government
Speaker 5: in place, the entire industry needs to be shut down
Speaker 5: then rebuilt.
Speaker 2: I try and favor with that commentary. You see what
Speaker 2: I'm holding here? Yes, See how long that is? See
Speaker 2: how difficult it is to read. Yes, it's in sort
Speaker 2: of I don't know what sort of prince you'd caught it,
Speaker 2: but it's very black, it's very close type, and it's
Speaker 2: difficult to read. So I'm going to save this until
Speaker 2: we have concluded, and I'll keep going and you can
Speaker 2: keep going and hang on. But it is I just
Speaker 2: want to say this, it's long, starts out. Sorry, this
Speaker 2: is a bit of a long one. But I've read
Speaker 2: it and it's well worthy of going public with it.
Speaker 5: So latent finally from Mejian, says the activist New Zealand
Speaker 5: Supreme Court illustrates what hell whole America would have been
Speaker 5: if the US Supreme Court had a majority of day
Speaker 5: Democrat elected activist judges. Fortunately for the United States, Donald
Speaker 5: Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court judges who uphold
Speaker 5: the Constitution without bias. Unfortunately for New Zealand, we instead
Speaker 5: have activist Supreme Court judges who uphold the spirit of
Speaker 5: Three Waters, have per Per and Teacunger. As doctor Muriel
Speaker 5: Newman said, Tea Kunger can't be defined, so incorporating Maurrai
Speaker 5: law into common law makes our justice system unpredictable and uncertain.
Speaker 5: What surprised me most from your interview with Muriel is
Speaker 5: that the New Zealand Parliament is meant to be supreme
Speaker 5: over the Supreme Court. Yet Parliament has no clue on
Speaker 5: what to do to restrain an activist Supreme Court running amok. Thankfully,
Speaker 5: just last October, Roger Partridge wrote a great New Zealand
Speaker 5: initiative article entitled Who Makes the Law? Reigning in the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, where he detailed how we can and should
Speaker 5: reign in an activist New Zealand Supreme Court. He proposed
Speaker 5: five options for Parliament to restore balance to our legal system.
Speaker 5: Number one targeted legislation that overturn court decisions that go
Speaker 5: too far. Number two defining the rule of law, which
Speaker 5: clearly defines guardrails to keep courts in their lane. Number
Speaker 5: three tightening statutory interpretation rules to discipline the misuse of
Speaker 5: law interpretation. Number four reforming section six to stop courts
Speaker 5: from adopting unreasonable or inconsistent meanings in rulings. And number
Speaker 5: five reforming judicial appointment processes to prioritize candidates who have
Speaker 5: demonstrated judicial restraint and respect for Parliament. And then Jin
Speaker 5: goes on to say Roger Partridge has done the hard work,
Speaker 5: Parliament just needs to implement them. My dead to Parliament
Speaker 5: is this, do you politicians have the guts to uphold
Speaker 5: democracy in New Zealand?
Speaker 2: I have a question about that, as in a question
Speaker 2: hanging over that some of them do, but I have
Speaker 2: a feeling there are too many of them that don't.
Speaker 2: Gutlass is the word. So that takes us out for
Speaker 2: the mail room. Although this is this is coming as
Speaker 2: an exit for the podcast, right, but it's it's worth
Speaker 2: it's worth hearing, So even though you're not going to
Speaker 2: hear it now, you can listen back to it later.
Speaker 5: I certainly shall.
Speaker 2: I shall read it with the best of the best
Speaker 2: of structure I can.
Speaker 5: Thanks Lady see you next week.
Speaker 2: See you next week very likely. And now there's been
Speaker 2: a change of plan. The letter I intended to read,
Speaker 2: I can't. I've said it back to the to the
Speaker 2: author and ask them to rewrite it with double spacing,
Speaker 2: because it is so close, so tight on the page,
Speaker 2: that after a few lines your eyes starts spinning, or
Speaker 2: your head does, or both together. Not his fault, but
Speaker 2: I've asked him to redo it, and I hope he
Speaker 2: does because it's worthy of quoting. So I'm replacing it
Speaker 2: with something that I think you'll enjoy it. It's written
Speaker 2: by the New Zealand author whose pen name is A. I. Fabler,
Speaker 2: and that speaks for itself. AI Fabler has appeared on
Speaker 2: the podcast a couple of times for interviews on books
Speaker 2: he's written, and he's a very good writer, and he's
Speaker 2: a very clever writer too. So under the heading of
Speaker 2: satire and the title of the piece to follow, the
Speaker 2: publishing world is on heat, I quote we forget most
Speaker 2: of what we read. For instance, it is said that
Speaker 2: we all share the same DNA if we go back fast,
Speaker 2: which means we're all related. I'd forgotten that. Consider the
Speaker 2: Ossie comedian Kevin Bloody Wilson, who makes his living by
Speaker 2: being outrageously rude and is currently singing What's Donald going
Speaker 2: to do today? Are we doomed or are we safe?
Speaker 2: On YouTube? Then consider Simon Bloody Wilson, economist on the
Speaker 2: New Zealand's only daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, who
Speaker 2: is so admired by the papers management that he's been
Speaker 2: given a full page per week for many years to
Speaker 2: be rude about anyone he considers to be conservative. Knowing
Speaker 2: what we know about DNA, it's fascinating to think that
Speaker 2: these two Wilsons are related, though I can see the connection.
Speaker 2: But that's a digression. What I really wanted to say
Speaker 2: is that the world of publishing is in meltdown. So
Speaker 2: called legacy media, after feasting on government COVID funding, are
Speaker 2: currently losing money as fast as they're losing readers in
Speaker 2: search of the truths. But the real action is in
Speaker 2: book publishing, peopled as it is by left wing progressives,
Speaker 2: of whom ninety two percent are reported as identifying as
Speaker 2: she her. The industry has been suffering from acute apoplexy
Speaker 2: over recent months as a result of the American people
Speaker 2: having rotted the system by electing a Nazi dictator as president.
Speaker 2: But hold on, all is not lost. Pandemonium has just
Speaker 2: broken out, and suddenly they them are all acting as
Speaker 2: if on heat. Why well, you may remember that Michelle Obama,
Speaker 2: famous for being married to a black president, gave name
Speaker 2: to an autobiography that garnered millions of readers and dollars,
Speaker 2: So you'll understand why the publishing industry is on heat
Speaker 2: at the news that not one, but two of the
Speaker 2: greatest left wing progressive heroes of our time are negotiating
Speaker 2: mega deals for upcoming autobiographies. What is particularly exciting is
Speaker 2: the realization that we now know the two heroes are
Speaker 2: related by DNA, even though one is black and the
Speaker 2: other is white. You guessed it. Vice President Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: and Dame Jacinda Adirn are busy writing about themselves. News
Speaker 2: is tightly embargoed and opinions are free, so I'll place
Speaker 2: what follows under the heading of rumors. It is rumored
Speaker 2: that the two big blockbusters have been tentatively titled The
Speaker 2: Joy of Kamala Harris as Told to Oprah Winfrey and
Speaker 2: Being Cruel to Be Kind Jasindra Adirn's Life lessons from
Speaker 2: the pulpit of truth. Everything is hush hush, of course,
Speaker 2: but secrets will always out. And I've been lucky enough
Speaker 2: to see the initial dust Jagget designs, which I share
Speaker 2: with you here no questions asked, paused for input. I
Speaker 2: have to say that I can't show them to you,
Speaker 2: of course, but you can find them for yourself. We continue.
Speaker 2: Dame Jacinda herself is rumored to have chosen the front
Speaker 2: cover picture of her investiture as a Dame Grand Companion
Speaker 2: of the New Zealand Order of Merit by Prince William
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three. Although it was she who recommended
Speaker 2: herself for the title, it was as a staunch anti
Speaker 2: monarchist that she accepted it on behalf of the people.
Speaker 2: It's the good of the people which always inspired her
Speaker 2: and it lies at the heart of her autobiography. Always
Speaker 2: known for her advocacy of kindness, Dame er Sindon has
Speaker 2: now matured into a thoughtful and wise international voice for hire.
Speaker 2: It was out of kindness that she forbade people to
Speaker 2: visit their dying parents or attend their funerals during COVID,
Speaker 2: After all, fathers were not allowed to see their newborn
Speaker 2: babies in hospital, so it was only fair, and denying
Speaker 2: the right to work or travel if people refused the
Speaker 2: vaccination that neither prevented them catching the virus nor passing
Speaker 2: it on to others was also an active kindness, because,
Speaker 2: as she says in her forthcoming book, there are times
Speaker 2: when one must be cruel to be kind. It's a
Speaker 2: lesson that the country needed to learn the hard way.
Speaker 2: As her friend Justin Trudeau wrote in his forward, her
Speaker 2: smile says it all. But will her keenly anticipated blogbaster
Speaker 2: have the gravitas and clouts of the rumored soon to
Speaker 2: be candidate for the governorship of California, Kamala Harris. Joy
Speaker 2: is the title of her forthcoming autobiography, and it is
Speaker 2: joy and good vibes that she brings wherever lovers of
Speaker 2: freedom and social justice gather. As doctor Jill Biden says
Speaker 2: on the Dust Jacket, we taught her everything we know,
Speaker 2: but was her wisdom properly understood? There was her speech
Speaker 2: in July twenty twenty three when she said culture is
Speaker 2: It is a reflection of our moments in our time
Speaker 2: right and in present. Culture is the way we express
Speaker 2: how we're feeling about the moment. This was after saying
Speaker 2: in April twenty three. So I think it's very important,
Speaker 2: as you have heard from so many incredible leaders for
Speaker 2: us at every moment of time, and certainly this one,
Speaker 2: to see the moment in time in which we exist
Speaker 2: and are present, and to be able to contextualize it,
Speaker 2: to understand where we exist in the history and in
Speaker 2: the moment as it relates not only to the past
Speaker 2: but the future. These are direct quotes, and they make
Speaker 2: me want to burst out laughing, but I guess that's
Speaker 2: the purpose of the article. Maggie Goldstein, the highly respected
Speaker 2: deputy editor and opinion columnist of The New York Times,
Speaker 2: wrote that America failed to understand the joyous truth in
Speaker 2: Kamada Harris's words and suffered as a result. The good
Speaker 2: news is that America may get a chance to correct
Speaker 2: its mistake in twenty twenty eight, if the rumor is
Speaker 2: true that she intends to run for president again. So
Speaker 2: there we are two great books from two great women,
Speaker 2: joined by their DNA. No wonder the book publishers of
Speaker 2: New York Ron Heat can't wait. A I Tabler, February
Speaker 2: twenty four, twenty twenty five now AI Favorless substack is
Speaker 2: available for all and sundry to read. I suggest maybe
Speaker 2: you should have a look at it. You may find
Speaker 2: that there is a permanent, a permanent input of shall
Speaker 2: we say things to keep you enlightened? And that will
Speaker 2: take us out for podcasts two hundred and seventy three.
Speaker 2: If you would like to correspond with us, love to
Speaker 2: hear from you. Layton at Newstalks ab dot co dot
Speaker 2: NZ Latent at Newstalks av dot co dot M said,
Speaker 2: and please remember to space you your letters, and preferably
Speaker 2: in print number eighteen, although fourteen will get by if
Speaker 2: you're using see I don't know what the difference is
Speaker 2: between printing methods in Apple from Apple which I have
Speaker 2: and whatever else is available, but I'm guessing that they vary.
Speaker 2: But keep it, keep it big enough in double space
Speaker 2: is best and then I won't have to send it
Speaker 2: back to you and ask you to redo it. And
Speaker 2: I say that with the very best of appreciations. So
Speaker 2: you can also write to Carolyn at newstalksb dot co
Speaker 2: dot nseid So as always, only one thing left to say,
Speaker 2: and that is thank you for making it this far.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening and we shall talk soon. Yes,
Speaker 2: I do love a bit of satire. See what you
Speaker 2: can do.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks, ed B. Listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online, and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio.