Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News talkst B. Follow
Speaker 1: this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of us, now the Leighton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by News Talks B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcast two hundred and forty nine for July
Speaker 2: thirty one, twenty twenty four. Patrick Masham returns after an
Speaker 2: extended but unintended absence I think about ten months. Patrick
Speaker 2: founded the Democracy Institute in Washington, d C. And London
Speaker 2: and his organization does regular polling for the London Daily
Speaker 2: Express and more, and his polling method has proven pretty
Speaker 2: accurate to date. And part two of the eighty minute
Speaker 2: interview that we did with Ramesh thecur on important matters
Speaker 2: such as the dangers of a cash free society, and
Speaker 2: there are plenty diversity in equity and inclusion, etc. And
Speaker 2: we also cover Julian Massage the rights and wrongs as
Speaker 2: we see it, and we have a bit of variation,
Speaker 2: and there are other matters as well. Now, something that
Speaker 2: I'm adverse to doing is predicting the next week's content
Speaker 2: of a podcast, because things tend to happen but the
Speaker 2: announcement today by in New Zealand regarding the company's green
Speaker 2: agenda has well, I've got to say it's amused me.
Speaker 2: Reading comments this morning also frustrated me. So there are
Speaker 2: issues to address, but they will have to wait in
Speaker 2: a moment. Patrick Basham Patrick Bajem is well known to
Speaker 2: the majority of listeners to this podcast because he has
Speaker 2: appeared on numerous occasions over a number of years. In fact,
Speaker 2: we first met I think it was twenty thirteen when
Speaker 2: he was actually in New Zealand. He is the founding
Speaker 2: director of the Democracy Institute, which is based in Washington
Speaker 2: and London. It's a research organization and Patrick does a
Speaker 2: lot of research. In fact, you are doing a great
Speaker 2: deal of research at the moment. Patrick, It's great to
Speaker 2: have you back on the podcast. The Laily Express is
Speaker 2: exploiting your work.
Speaker 3: Yes, indeed, high lighton. Wonderful to be back with you
Speaker 3: and with your final audience. Alwas appreciating the invitation, the
Speaker 3: opportunity to have a conversation with you about important things. Yes,
Speaker 3: we do a lot of public and private polling, and
Speaker 3: most of our public polling in terms of American politics
Speaker 3: is for The Daily Express Family of newspapers out of
Speaker 3: the UK, and so we always do at least a
Speaker 3: monthly poll for them, but we also do more real
Speaker 3: time timely polls when news merits, and there's been a
Speaker 3: lot of that lately. So we continue to pump out
Speaker 3: the numbers. They continue to please some and irritate others,
Speaker 3: but that probably means that we're maybe getting it close
Speaker 3: to the mark.
Speaker 2: Indeed, is it difficult to keep up at the moment.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 3: One of the things that's always difficult with polling is
Speaker 3: is to figure out just what it is that people
Speaker 3: are focused on. You know, you're always asking what most
Speaker 3: important issue is that type of question that your audience
Speaker 3: will be very familiar with, and where in the normal
Speaker 3: course of events that ebbs and flows. But there are
Speaker 3: only occasional events that and it sort of interventions that
Speaker 3: really can in the short, medium or long term really
Speaker 3: sort of upset those particular apple carts or really sort
Speaker 3: of change the nature of the public debate. But in
Speaker 3: the US context, of course, over the last several weeks,
Speaker 3: you know, we had the first we don't have with
Speaker 3: the last to the last Biden Trump debate, Then we
Speaker 3: had the assassination attempt on Trump. Then we had the
Speaker 3: Republican Convention, Then we had Biden quitting the race. Now
Speaker 3: we have you know, Harris against Trump. Apparently, So all
Speaker 3: of this happened within a number of weeks, and most
Speaker 3: of it within there's a couple of weeks at the outside,
Speaker 3: and you're pulling all the time during that and trying
Speaker 3: to catch trying to catch people's while they're paying attention
Speaker 3: to this.
Speaker 4: This new issue.
Speaker 3: Figure out how much change that is creating in voters'
Speaker 3: minds and consequently perhaps their decision making itself and their
Speaker 3: actual voting. But then something else comes along, either while
Speaker 3: you're pulling, right after you've pulled, that doesn't blow it up,
Speaker 3: but just throws up potentially throws a lot of sparing
Speaker 3: of the works in the sense of how do you
Speaker 3: disentangle it all and figure out, Okay, what's happened. The
Speaker 3: change we're seeing is mostly because the assassination attemptor it's
Speaker 3: mostly because Trump's convention speech, where it's mostly because Biden
Speaker 3: got out of the race, it's mostly because of Harris, right,
Speaker 3: and so all of us on the polling side, if
Speaker 3: you know, if we're honest with ourselves and with others,
Speaker 3: you know, it's it's an art. It's art more than
Speaker 3: science when it comes to this stuff, and often people
Speaker 3: say the same. The things to do is just sort
Speaker 3: of let let it all out and just let time
Speaker 3: pass and things will become more obvious with the passage
Speaker 3: of time.
Speaker 4: That's a huge of.
Speaker 3: Course, that we don't have any more of these unexpected
Speaker 3: events happening over the next few weeks and months.
Speaker 2: I've got to I've got to mention my favorite question
Speaker 2: in one of the two polls you've done in the
Speaker 2: last couple of weeks. See if you can guess what
Speaker 2: it is? Yeah, the the so we've got a yes, no,
Speaker 2: and don't know what answers. Thirteen is my lucky number,
Speaker 2: and yes is thirteen.
Speaker 4: Oh it's the Is it the hunt of Biden?
Speaker 2: You got it? Sure, good hunter Biden seek Democratic presidential nomination.
Speaker 2: And it just stunned me that there were actually thirteen
Speaker 2: percent of respondents who said yes. Do you think they
Speaker 2: had any idea what they were talking about? What the
Speaker 2: question was?
Speaker 4: I think so? Would you see?
Speaker 3: That means that about a third a third of Democratic
Speaker 3: voters are saying yes to that, and they are the
Speaker 3: folks who think that Joe Biden is just a wonderful father.
Speaker 3: His son has just had some bad luck and has
Speaker 3: been maligned by the media and the Republicans. And what
Speaker 3: Hunter has been doing, it was doing, you know, well,
Speaker 3: arguably it's still doing, but certainly was doing up to
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's departure from the presidential race, was counseling his father,
Speaker 3: being a good son, trying to run the country as
Speaker 3: best he could in his father's literal absence. And they just,
Speaker 3: you know, they think that thing critical is a lie,
Speaker 3: and they will say they will support anything that Biden
Speaker 3: did or does. They will support anything that anything the
Speaker 3: Hunter does or says.
Speaker 4: You know, it's it's a reflexive default position.
Speaker 3: And but apart from those folks, those find people, everybody
Speaker 3: else pretty much understands that you wouldn't you know, you
Speaker 3: wouldn't want to hunt Biden though within within striking distance
Speaker 3: of running.
Speaker 4: A fish and chip shop, let alone the presidency.
Speaker 2: Well at least you'd have access to his supply.
Speaker 3: The the no figure was absolutely you, yes, there was
Speaker 3: a madness to there was a method to his madness.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, yes, So the no vote was eighty four percent
Speaker 2: and don't know, three percent you can forgive that. Don't
Speaker 2: know it's because there's always a bunch of them. But
Speaker 2: the pulling that you've done throughout some throughout numbers and attitudes,
Speaker 2: and for instance, let me go back to the very basics,
Speaker 2: should Biden resign the presidency. So this is out of date,
Speaker 2: but the yes vote was sixty three percent, twenty eight
Speaker 2: and don't know nine, So that is now that has
Speaker 2: now happened, and we transit to missus Harris, and she's
Speaker 2: doing pretty well at the moment. How would how would
Speaker 2: I don't think you've done anything on her just yet,
Speaker 2: but how would she be performing now in your polling?
Speaker 2: Do you think?
Speaker 3: Well, we actually did our most recent poll that came
Speaker 3: out over last week, just a few days ago. It's
Speaker 3: the first poll that we have had her up against
Speaker 3: Trump as the presumptive nominee. We've been polling Trump against
Speaker 3: Harris for quite some time as a possibility if if
Speaker 3: Biden jumped or was pushed. But so we do have
Speaker 3: one since she since Biden left the president that the
Speaker 3: election scene, and since she jumped in and was anointed
Speaker 3: by all the important people in the Democratic Party, we
Speaker 3: do have one one poll on this and so I
Speaker 3: would say in answering, in answering your question about what
Speaker 3: do we think is also pushing back a little against
Speaker 3: your sort of introduction to this, in that I would
Speaker 3: say that Harris isn't doing particularly well, and that the
Speaker 3: narrative that in the last several days everything has changed
Speaker 3: and this is now an uber competitive race where Harris
Speaker 3: is really sort of neck and neck with Trump is
Speaker 3: to this point sort of without foundation, and I can
Speaker 3: I can risk boring you in your audience.
Speaker 4: By sort of fletting that out a little. If you'd
Speaker 4: like it, go for it.
Speaker 3: Well, Okay, So first of all, this the context of
Speaker 3: the media narrative in America pre debate with Biden was
Speaker 3: that is a very competitive close race, right, and the
Speaker 3: criticisms of Biden from the Republicans weren't sticking because they
Speaker 3: were so manufactured and the things in the country were
Speaker 3: pretty good. Just that Biden wasn't getting enough credit. So
Speaker 3: therefore it was a competitive race, otherwise he would have
Speaker 3: won it to be winning easily. Then the debate comes
Speaker 3: along and everybody sees what the other side has been
Speaker 3: saying for years, which is Biden can't do the job.
Speaker 3: Everybody pretty much agrees, and then Biden started to lose
Speaker 3: support apparently, which was true. He lost more support. Then
Speaker 3: the assassination attempt comes on Trump, build sympathy for Trump.
Speaker 3: Then the Republican invention happens, good, you know, positive vibes
Speaker 3: for Trump and the Republicans. So at the end of
Speaker 3: that process, everyone's agreeing that Trump is a shoe in
Speaker 3: to win. But what I would argue is that for
Speaker 3: a year Trump was in a very strong position. Weren't
Speaker 3: guaranteed to win, but pre debate he was a heavy favorite.
Speaker 3: Everything that happened, the debate, the assassination attempt, the convention
Speaker 3: made it going from quite probable to almost guarantee.
Speaker 4: So I sail this because the media.
Speaker 3: And the Democrats publicly at least refused to acknowledge the
Speaker 3: fact that Trump was in such a strong position. They've
Speaker 3: always they've argued the problem was Biden has simply become
Speaker 3: too old and appeared not up to the job anymore
Speaker 3: more physically than anything. So they've switched out Biden for Harris,
Speaker 3: and they're saying, so there we are, We're right, right,
Speaker 3: we were right. It wasn't about the policies or how
Speaker 3: people felt about the country. About Biden's as a president,
Speaker 3: it was simply, you know, he was too snow seen
Speaker 3: as too old. No, we've got this young, energetic vice
Speaker 3: president and she's going to do really well.
Speaker 4: And look at these polls showing that she's doing really well.
Speaker 3: What those polls The reason those polls are showing that
Speaker 3: Trump's lead has shrunk or you know, might even be
Speaker 3: neck and neck with Harris, is that what those polls
Speaker 3: are doing is they are I don't know if it's intentional,
Speaker 3: but certainly the outcome is that they are over sampling Democrats.
Speaker 3: They're including too many Democrats disproportionate number of Democrats, then
Speaker 3: their size of the electorate. And that means that if
Speaker 3: you have five to ten percent too many Democrats almost
Speaker 3: whom all of whom are going to vote for the
Speaker 3: Democratic candidate, then you get it. Instead of trumping up
Speaker 3: by six, he's up by two, or Istred, of being
Speaker 3: up by four, it's now a tie, or Harris is
Speaker 3: up by one, this kind of thing. If you are
Speaker 3: more careful about these things, as I hope we are
Speaker 3: and some others are, then what you see is what
Speaker 3: we see, which is we see almost no change. So,
Speaker 3: for example, after the convention and the assassination attempt. Our
Speaker 3: second most recent poll, we had Trump up nine against Biden.
Speaker 3: Our first poll, almost recent poll Trump against Harris, Trump
Speaker 3: is up eight and.
Speaker 4: Trump's numbers aren't down significantly.
Speaker 3: What it is is that Democrats were so depressed and
Speaker 3: disenchanted with Biden by the time he dropped out. The
Speaker 3: fact they now have a living, breathing candidate, they are relieved,
Speaker 3: They are at least temporarily energized. And some of them
Speaker 3: who were not going to vote, and some of them
Speaker 3: who are going to vote for Robert Kennedy Junior as
Speaker 3: a sort of sort of protest, I've sort of come back.
Speaker 3: So Harris is the margin between Harris and Trump is
Speaker 3: one point in our polling, different less different than what
Speaker 3: it was, smaller than what it was between Trump and Biden.
Speaker 3: And if you look at, you know, all the demographic breakdown,
Speaker 3: all of those numbers that were looking so good for
Speaker 3: Trump and so bad for Biden among blacks and Hispanics,
Speaker 3: even amongst women, the white working class in the PA,
Speaker 3: and they're all those numbers haven't shifted.
Speaker 4: Those numbers are still the same. Now this is the.
Speaker 3: First poll, you know, we'll be doing lots of polls
Speaker 3: between now and November five. Yep, but there's no Well,
Speaker 3: my point is that we've been told as a search
Speaker 3: that everything's changed now, and what I'm suggesting to your
Speaker 3: audience is that there is no us there's no rigorous
Speaker 3: empirical evidence to support that.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at the the figures that you mentioned. I
Speaker 2: only had to spool down two pages and I found
Speaker 2: it and realized that I was in era. But I
Speaker 2: did wonder. I had wondered that poll was done. I'm
Speaker 2: looking at the demographic subgroups just at the moment, and
Speaker 2: then there's the main one forty eight to forty to
Speaker 2: Harris above it. That was done after after Joe stood
Speaker 2: down and she was declared the runner, or prior to that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was afterwards, because he stood down on the Sunday,
Speaker 3: and then in the next forty eight to seventy two hours,
Speaker 3: I mean, she declared her.
Speaker 4: It was immediately she was endorsed by Bob.
Speaker 3: The only thing that hadn't happened by the time we
Speaker 3: took the poll is Obama hadn't endorsed her, but everyone
Speaker 3: had come together. They'd announced that there weren't going to
Speaker 3: be any other candidates allowed at the convention, et cetera,
Speaker 3: et cetera. So at that point, the only shooter drop
Speaker 3: was and I thought this might be possible that Obama
Speaker 3: because he didn't want Harris. But it turns out he's
Speaker 3: been out maneuvered by her and her cabal, that he
Speaker 3: was holding back an endorsement because he had another candidate
Speaker 3: in mind and he was going to jump He's going
Speaker 3: to throw in at the convention. And I thought that
Speaker 3: might be you know that if it was a silver
Speaker 3: bullet for the Democrats, that would be it. Obama being
Speaker 3: a very savvy operator in these in these regards, but
Speaker 3: he saw the writing on the wall. He wasn't able
Speaker 3: to wouldn't be able to get Harris out. So subsequent
Speaker 3: to that poll, he's endorsed. Obviously, he's endorsed Harris.
Speaker 2: I'm interested also in who convinced Biden to leave in
Speaker 2: people's opinion, and that runs from thirty six percent thinks Obama,
Speaker 2: and surprisingly who convinced Biden to leave on four percent
Speaker 2: was Jill Biden.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, well people recognize, I mean it's you know,
Speaker 3: it's not exactly a secret that Joe Biden didn't want
Speaker 3: to go. But there was a there was a window
Speaker 3: of persuadability there. But Jill Biden everybody knew she had.
Speaker 3: She was gripping on to the furniture in the Oval office.
Speaker 3: She was not going to give up her presidency. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, her position is first Lady without a fight,
Speaker 3: right literally, I mean, there are strong rooms. I don't
Speaker 3: know if they're true, but I suspect they may be that.
Speaker 3: For the past two years, Joe Biden was okay with
Speaker 3: leaving as long as he left was able to leave
Speaker 3: with his head held high, but Jill.
Speaker 4: Biden refused to go along with it.
Speaker 3: And more recently, of course, Joe Biden wasn't going and
Speaker 3: didn't go with his head held high.
Speaker 4: And that was his problem.
Speaker 3: He just couldn't bear the thought of being ousted and
Speaker 3: what that would mean for his legacy.
Speaker 4: And of course, it turns out they.
Speaker 3: Were able to get him out because Obama and Harris
Speaker 3: were able to tell him, you know, look, you either
Speaker 3: go now or we're going to, you know, in vote
Speaker 3: the twenty fifth Amendment and we'll get the votes and
Speaker 3: they'll kick you out because you're incapacitated.
Speaker 4: And how that going to look on your legacy?
Speaker 3: So you know, the Letter of two evils as far
Speaker 3: as by Joe Biden was concerned, but I'm sure Jill
Speaker 3: Biden probably had to be medicated in order to get
Speaker 3: her literally out of the building.
Speaker 2: Well, come time for the changeover, I think they should
Speaker 2: have armguards on the on the White House, indeed, especially
Speaker 2: the furniture rooms. Let me just ask you for your
Speaker 2: personal opinion on how this will turn out. I mean,
Speaker 2: I know it's a long call still, but how do
Speaker 2: you think it will end up?
Speaker 4: Strictly the election itself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, with the obvious but necessary caveat that anything can
Speaker 3: happen with ninety nine days out of the time I'm
Speaker 3: speaking with you, Layton, so with less than one hundred days,
Speaker 3: there's plenty of time for something major to happen. And
Speaker 3: obviously the last several weeks tell us that major things
Speaker 3: can happen, some predictable, some not.
Speaker 4: So with that caveat out of.
Speaker 3: The way, I would say it is highly improbable that
Speaker 3: Harris can pull this off. And just to sort of
Speaker 3: hopefully the audience ske sort of Pracie my rationale. If
Speaker 3: you're looking at this, you take the names away, take
Speaker 3: Harris away, and all the pros and the connotations that
Speaker 3: go with that name, and Trump away and the connotations
Speaker 3: that go with his name. You look at the state
Speaker 3: of the country economically, socially, in terms of foreign policy,
Speaker 3: place in the world, all of that, and you look
Speaker 3: not just at the raw numbers, but you look at
Speaker 3: what people what most people, what their quality of life is,
Speaker 3: what their what their fears, frustrations are, their anger, how
Speaker 3: they see the direction of the country, how see their
Speaker 3: own they see their own futures.
Speaker 4: You see.
Speaker 3: You look at how young people are viewing things quite
Speaker 3: differently than they.
Speaker 4: Were when Obama was president.
Speaker 3: You look at how Hispanics are looking at uh looking
Speaker 3: heavily towards the Republicans in a way they happened since
Speaker 3: George W.
Speaker 4: Bush. You look at how arguably a fifth to a quarter.
Speaker 3: Of black voters seriously thinking of voting in a way
Speaker 3: that they ever voted before. And then you say, you
Speaker 3: have a president, if a former president running whose presidency,
Speaker 3: whilst almost would argue it was demonstrably far superior to
Speaker 3: the one that followed it, the current one. The important
Speaker 3: point is that if you ask, if you ask Americans
Speaker 3: what they think of Trump's presidency, was it a success
Speaker 3: or a failure. Was it better or worse than what's come?
Speaker 3: Since they have always been surprisingly positive about Trump's presidency,
Speaker 3: will they be passing month of the Biden presidency, they
Speaker 3: become more favorable. So now the retrospective for you on
Speaker 3: Trump the fore and president is more positive than negative,
Speaker 3: much more. And then you have a vice president attempted
Speaker 3: to succeed the president who.
Speaker 4: Has never run for national office.
Speaker 3: Well, she's run for her party's nomination once, but did
Speaker 3: so poorly. She had to get out before any votes
Speaker 3: were cast because it was going to be a disaster.
Speaker 3: Who who throughout her Korea has never won a competitive race,
Speaker 3: you know, just hasn't it hasn't had that opportunity or.
Speaker 4: Or has failed when she's when she's attempted it.
Speaker 3: And who has historically low favorability ratings, and is ranked
Speaker 3: ranked by the public, not by historians, but it's ranked
Speaker 3: by the public as of the worst vice president anyone
Speaker 3: can remember. You pull that together, and it's hard to
Speaker 3: see how it adds up literally or figuratively in favor
Speaker 3: of Harris. It just, you know, it's just the trends
Speaker 3: aren't there, The signs aren't there. It doesn't you know,
Speaker 3: It just doesn't seem plausible that a race that was
Speaker 3: Trump's almost guarantee to win ten days ago is going
Speaker 3: to be a close run thing because they swapped out
Speaker 3: a very unpopular president for an even more unpopular candidate.
Speaker 2: Now I'm going to count to you because she has
Speaker 2: won something where she was voted in.
Speaker 4: Did you know that which will voted into to which position?
Speaker 2: Well, let me quote you and declare from the current
Speaker 2: Spectator Australia. James Allen, Who's Jim Allen, who is a
Speaker 2: Canadian law professor who works in Well, he was in
Speaker 2: New Zealand for a number of years and now in Queensland.
Speaker 2: I will to quote you a diversity pick in the
Speaker 2: oval office. Carl Harris does have one political victory. It's
Speaker 2: the only democratically chosen office that saw her run required
Speaker 2: actual voters to pick the winner, and she won. That
Speaker 2: was back in twenty ten when Miss Arras ran for
Speaker 2: the office of Attorney General of California. In that election,
Speaker 2: Jerry Brown won the governorship against the Republican by thirteen points.
Speaker 2: Barbara Boxer defeated her Republican opponent for the California Senate
Speaker 2: seat race that year by ten points, and Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: defeated the Republican candidate in twenty ten by wait for it,
Speaker 2: zero point eight percent. Yes, yes, and that's in California.
Speaker 2: Let me remind you exactly.
Speaker 3: She has the unique status of being the only Democrat
Speaker 3: in California to turn and an uncompetitive state wide race
Speaker 3: into a competitive one.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that you.
Speaker 3: Know, this is this is who they're hanging their hopes upon,
Speaker 3: right and we see, I mean, just we know all
Speaker 3: how wonderful it's going for her.
Speaker 4: We've been told the last few days. But if you
Speaker 4: see what.
Speaker 3: What they're doing, how they're campaigning, it tells us a lot.
Speaker 3: Because the Kamal Harris campaign, they started advertising and they
Speaker 3: started their messaging, and she is to this point clearly
Speaker 3: running as the woke candidate. It's all it's all pride stuff,
Speaker 3: it's all transgender. There's not a white man in sightly,
Speaker 3: it's not a white, straight white man. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: the identity politics to the max. They are obviously believing
Speaker 3: that the California electurer is the national electurer, or that
Speaker 3: there are all these hidden woke voters who no one
Speaker 3: else has discovered yet, who are going to come out
Speaker 3: none of the hills, but you know, come out of
Speaker 3: their their wine bars and their suburban mansions and vote
Speaker 3: for her. Whereas at the same time, the Trump campaign
Speaker 3: in the Swing States are running attack ads against Harris
Speaker 3: on crime and immigration and running their own ads pro
Speaker 3: Trump ads on immigration in the economy. I mean, just
Speaker 3: what they're focusing on and how they're focusing on it
Speaker 3: gives a strong signal as to which side, regardless of
Speaker 3: whose right or wrong policy wise, but which side gets
Speaker 3: it in terms of where the electorate is, you know.
Speaker 4: So it's I just don't see the magic yet.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's all going to pop up soon at the
Speaker 3: convention or afterwards or during a debate, But that seems
Speaker 3: highly unlikely, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It does seem highly unlikely. I based my prediction in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen that Trump would win on the fact that
Speaker 2: I could not believe and would not believe that the majority,
Speaker 2: well the collective IQ of Americans, was so stupid as
Speaker 2: to elect the other party who deserves and I mentioned, uh,
Speaker 2: and I'm and I'm basing my prediction for this one
Speaker 2: on exactly the same reasoning. Now, I want to I
Speaker 2: want to transfer a little bit because the title of
Speaker 2: that James Allen article a diversity pick in the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: Alex Berenson, the journalist and author. Have you ever read
Speaker 2: any of his his spy type books.
Speaker 4: I haven't.
Speaker 3: I'm more familiar with him during the COVID and post
Speaker 3: COVID period with his critiques.
Speaker 2: Of yeah in that regard, Yeah, yeah, he wrote some.
Speaker 2: He wrote a series. You know, there were a number
Speaker 2: of series of books starring in each series from different
Speaker 2: authors of you know, one particular hero, and he had one,
Speaker 2: and I've got a collection of them. I just thought
Speaker 2: i'd tell you he's written a piece that's about another piece.
Speaker 2: If I'm making sense, and his is headed read this
Speaker 2: and weak and then it brackets and be outraged. Heather
Speaker 2: McDonald's been writing about the war on men for a while.
Speaker 2: Today in City Journal she turned her attention to the
Speaker 2: Boy Scouts, who are no longer the boy Scouts at all,
Speaker 2: but Scouting America. Now. This is all about DEI and
Speaker 2: associated woke matters. And when you read, and you can,
Speaker 2: if you go to a Cityjournal dot org Cityjournal dot org,
Speaker 2: you'll find the full piece written by Heather McDonald, and
Speaker 2: it's worthy of attention. The Boy Scouts of America has
Speaker 2: a Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion.
Speaker 2: The organization requires all Eagle Scouts to earn a badge
Speaker 2: in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. And I can't go on
Speaker 2: because I'll throw up. I wonder if well you tell me,
Speaker 2: you tell us is wokeness and DEI on the way?
Speaker 2: Is it under threat or is it still raging?
Speaker 3: It is all of the Abovely, it is still raging
Speaker 3: because those who advocate for it, and more specifically, those
Speaker 3: in positions either positions created to advocate for it, usually
Speaker 3: paid for by the taxpayer or paid for courtesy of
Speaker 3: big business. Those folks are true believers, and of course
Speaker 3: they want the cottage industry to continue to continue to grow.
Speaker 3: So that is not going to stop until they are stopped, until,
Speaker 3: for example, you know, Coca Cola and McDonald's and you
Speaker 3: name the big multinational, until they eliminate these positions, until
Speaker 3: the government eliminates these positions, until the academy ellict eliminates
Speaker 3: these positions, these folks will continue making their often high
Speaker 3: six figure salaries and pouring out more of this nonsense. However,
Speaker 3: as more and more regular folk come to understand what
Speaker 3: is going on, what has been going on, and what
Speaker 3: the plans are for the future. The normal, the regular folk.
Speaker 3: The regular person's response is that they too are horrified.
Speaker 3: They're baffled. At first, people don't believe it's true because
Speaker 3: it is so bizarre, so surreal, so ridiculous, so farcical.
Speaker 4: And then they discover.
Speaker 3: Because they started looking at their kids' textbooks, or they
Speaker 3: talk to people they work with and their experience in
Speaker 3: the service, that they watch Disney films and programs. But
Speaker 3: this is actually true, and most people think the world's
Speaker 3: gone mad. There's not much they can do about it.
Speaker 3: But some people, particularly when it comes to education. Parents,
Speaker 3: a lot of parents are trying to take back control,
Speaker 3: which is something that not just the woosters what the
Speaker 3: liberal elites who govern education in most Western countries are
Speaker 3: very resistant to allow to give that control back, not
Speaker 3: just in a power sense, but ideologically.
Speaker 4: They actually think the parents shouldn't have control.
Speaker 3: The government should have control of your kid's education, obviously,
Speaker 3: and so public opinion, which didn't really consider these things
Speaker 3: until fairly recently, is massively overwhelmingly against all of this madness.
Speaker 3: And those politicians who are brave enough to step out
Speaker 3: in front of that public opinion and sort of tend
Speaker 3: to walk walk in front of it, lead it as
Speaker 3: best they can, you know, tend to do well. But
Speaker 3: most politicians are still scared because they don't want to
Speaker 3: be labeled racist and homophobic and all the rest of it.
Speaker 4: And just in terms of public opinion itself, just as this.
Speaker 3: Either be real, I mean, may or may not be
Speaker 3: reassuring to your audience, but just as overwhelmingly voters are
Speaker 3: against these transgender policies or you you know, the critical
Speaker 3: race theory or d I and all of that, these
Speaker 3: are not racist, homophobic, misogynistic people.
Speaker 4: They recognize there's a great deal. Look, there's all the
Speaker 4: limbs in the.
Speaker 3: World between treating everyone equally regardless of gender, race, sexual
Speaker 3: orientation and treating some groups discriminating in favor of certain
Speaker 3: groups because they are the minority.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: And so the people get it now, more and more
Speaker 3: politicians get it. But we're still a long way from
Speaker 3: getting rid of it. Because as obviously, the the woosters,
Speaker 3: the woke industry has you know, established pretty strong roots
Speaker 3: in some places, and every you know, every Olympics opening
Speaker 3: ceremony to bacle helps you know, helps thots.
Speaker 2: Well, it's just got a great big boost. Yes Watching
Speaker 2: television yesterday, there was a sequence of commentaries by Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris of her talking about equity, equity, equity, equity, equity everywhere,
Speaker 2: and he just went on and on and on different
Speaker 2: speeches and in equity, repeating herself. And if the if
Speaker 2: the American public realizing that voted for her and she
Speaker 2: became the president, I think of Mary, I think you'd
Speaker 2: move out.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's yeah, it's it's pretty unimaginable because, you know,
Speaker 3: when people were voting for Biden, here's somebody who's demonstrably.
Speaker 4: Corrupt on Earth the call and challenged in various ways.
Speaker 3: But he's someone who always, at least within his own party,
Speaker 3: just went with the flow.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: He was pro segregation at the beginning.
Speaker 3: He ended up being on the woke side because that's
Speaker 3: just way the way the music was playing, and he
Speaker 3: just you know, tried to go with that and very
Speaker 3: successfully throughout you know, forty to fifty year career. Well,
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, she has to leaves this stuff, right. I mean,
Speaker 3: she she is someone who is I mean, she's not
Speaker 3: very bright. That's one problem, and she's rather unethical, that's
Speaker 3: another problem. But she actually is a true believer. I mean,
Speaker 3: she can't do anything more than spout talking points. She
Speaker 3: can't debate it, she can't defend it, but she actually
Speaker 3: likes it. You know, she wants more of it. And
Speaker 3: you know, her problem is not that Trump's wall wasn't finished,
Speaker 3: that it was started in the first place.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's why you know JD. Vass is debating her.
Speaker 3: I'd like him, for example, to ask her, which of
Speaker 3: your Marxist economist father's beliefs did you do you agree with?
Speaker 3: And which do you disagree with? You know, I mean
Speaker 3: it's you know, it's in the DNA. I mean, I
Speaker 3: think he was a thousand times smarter than her. It's
Speaker 3: wrong on everything. She's wrong on everything and not very smart.
Speaker 3: So it's it's even more alarming and probably even more
Speaker 3: dangerous than if she if she was actually a smart
Speaker 3: Marxist or a dim opportunist like Biden.
Speaker 2: Well, if he answered that sort of question, she'd probably
Speaker 2: answer along the lines of what's gone before?
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 3: And I mean the next spicacle of the press question,
Speaker 3: of course, is to ask her what the reparations she's cutting,
Speaker 3: giving her family slaveholding history in the Caribbean. But she's
Speaker 3: she's she's there's so much low hanging fruit with a
Speaker 3: candidate like her right in California. It's more difficult because
Speaker 3: California is California. But in terms of what she has
Speaker 3: to do to win, you know, she doesn't have to
Speaker 3: convert people in Manhattan or even people in Florida. She
Speaker 3: has to convert white blue collar men in the rust belt, right.
Speaker 4: She has to. She doesn't mean she doesn't like white men.
Speaker 4: She doesn't like white people bring much at all, and
Speaker 4: she has to convert them.
Speaker 3: And they're worried about illegal immigration and inflation and the
Speaker 3: lack of manufacturing jobs and crime.
Speaker 4: It's a heavy lift for a candidate like her.
Speaker 2: Indeed, just finally want to quote you somebody named Matthew Garrett.
Speaker 2: To my colleagues at Bakersfield College and nationwide, I say,
Speaker 2: keep the faith. We are winning the battle one case
Speaker 2: at a time. Is a conservative professor who got disciplined
Speaker 2: for criticizing DEI and has won two point four million
Speaker 2: dollars to settle the lawsuit against the college. Isn't that
Speaker 2: great news? Headlines?
Speaker 3: It is great, and there are things happening in the
Speaker 3: last let's say, twelve months that weren't happening twenty four,
Speaker 3: thirty six, forty eight months ago, and this is very encouraging.
Speaker 3: There were occasional victories, now the victories are starting to
Speaker 3: pile up. Right, Are we at a currical mass? We
Speaker 3: are in terms of we are in a critical mass in
Speaker 3: terms of public opinion. But are we at a critical
Speaker 3: mass in terms of policy, legislation, the law, in terms
Speaker 3: of those who are those who are making decisions in
Speaker 3: politics or in the corporate world, in academia. No, we're not,
Speaker 3: but we appear to be closer, much closer than we were.
Speaker 3: And how this election goes in November, not just presidentially,
Speaker 3: but at the congressional level as well, is going to
Speaker 3: tell us a lot about whether that momentum, positive momentum,
Speaker 3: continues and we can kind of see the promised land somewhere,
Speaker 3: maybe far in the distance, but at least it's there,
Speaker 3: or whether we sort of look at each other and say,
Speaker 3: my god, you know it's time to run for the.
Speaker 2: Hills lot as there's caves in the hills. I will
Speaker 2: take this opportunity to say, well, actually, to ask you
Speaker 2: how often, how frequently are you going to be running
Speaker 2: the pulling?
Speaker 3: At least at least monthly, but it's probably going to
Speaker 3: be twice a month the way things are looking now.
Speaker 2: All right, So I will utilize your figures and whenever
Speaker 2: it is appropriate we shall talk. If you accept my invitation.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, whenever you think I can be helpful, I will
Speaker 3: endeavor to do so.
Speaker 2: It is great talking to you again, Thank.
Speaker 3: You, Thank you late, and pleasure in honors Mine.
Speaker 4: Layton Smith.
Speaker 2: There are essential fat nutrients that we need in our
Speaker 2: diets as the body can't manufacture them. These are Omega
Speaker 2: three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equisine is a combination
Speaker 2: of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula
Speaker 2: that provides an excellent source of Amiga three and Amiga
Speaker 2: six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega
Speaker 2: six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish
Speaker 2: oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality
Speaker 2: fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works
Speaker 2: synergistically for comprehensive health support. Sourced from the deep sea sardines,
Speaker 2: Anchovisa magril provide essential Omega three fatty acids in their
Speaker 2: purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch
Speaker 2: is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold.
Speaker 2: Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support
Speaker 2: healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood,
Speaker 2: balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the
Speaker 2: way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and
Speaker 2: healthy eyes as we get older. Equisine is a premium
Speaker 2: high grade fish and evening primrose oil to be taken
Speaker 2: in addition to a healthy diet and is only available
Speaker 2: from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the label and
Speaker 2: users directed and if symptoms persist, seeing your healthcare professional.
Speaker 2: Farmer Broker Auckland. Part two of the eighty minute interview
Speaker 2: that we did with Ramesh the khur So, bringing it
Speaker 2: back to the to the to the present and another matter.
Speaker 2: We all agreed that speech, free speech is very important.
Speaker 2: You can't have democracy without free speech, It's not possible.
Speaker 2: So there was somebody who was in a crossover consistency.
Speaker 2: I suppose there was somebody who spent a long time
Speaker 2: either either penned up or in jail, who has very
Speaker 2: recently been released, of course, and that is Julian Assange.
Speaker 2: And you wrote on you called the column defending Assange.
Speaker 2: I started out, if I may. I started out years
Speaker 2: ago thinking he was guilty and deserved what he got.
Speaker 2: But as time went by and I found out more,
Speaker 2: in the end came to a to a different conclusion.
Speaker 2: Now I have I have family members who have been
Speaker 2: US military people in the States, and so if I
Speaker 2: said this even today, I'd get my head torn off
Speaker 2: because because they haven't changed their minds. But my final
Speaker 2: word to people who say, well, why do you think so,
Speaker 2: is because he has been He has spent his time
Speaker 2: being behind bars and inhibited from from doing anything outside
Speaker 2: of four walls for a long long time, so he's
Speaker 2: paid the price. Anyway.
Speaker 5: You say, well again, I'm in via at the same
Speaker 5: page in story now you and I. But we obviously
Speaker 5: began differently because from the start I didn't think he
Speaker 5: should have been interested if for another reasons. Firstly, he's
Speaker 5: an Australian citizen. If you and I break an American law,
Speaker 5: they can arrest us if you're in the United States.
Speaker 5: I don't see why their law should apply extraterritorially twelves here.
Speaker 5: So that's the first thing to remember, and of course
Speaker 5: that makes it worse when they start talking about treason, Well,
Speaker 5: your country. You can't be guilty of treason against another country.
Speaker 5: It has to be your country. So I think second,
Speaker 5: this convention of releasing information that you have that may
Speaker 5: cause embarrassment discomfort to governments, if you do it.
Speaker 2: Responsibly as media.
Speaker 5: And withhold information rather than publish it that, in your judgment,
Speaker 5: is going to endanger lives, then that has a long
Speaker 5: and distinguished history, which as far as press freedom is concerned,
Speaker 5: I don't have any problem with the media cooperating with
Speaker 5: authorities not to put lives at risk. And so in
Speaker 5: that article I did say, if in fact the disclosures
Speaker 5: did lead to jeopardizing the lives of soldiers, then identify
Speaker 5: that and prosecute those individually rather than a blanket back.
Speaker 5: And what he was doing was he was publishing information
Speaker 5: that showed illegal and possibly criminal activities by our own governments,
Speaker 5: and that should never be punishable under our us if
Speaker 5: you've got it to the rule of law and the.
Speaker 2: Freedom of the press.
Speaker 5: I think that is exactly what visual protection laws are
Speaker 5: needed for and have evolved over time because we recognize that.
Speaker 5: So the comparison to the Pentagon papers, I think is
Speaker 5: very direct. And that example I gave of Australia's agencies
Speaker 5: snooping on the East timor ease is after well, we
Speaker 5: condemned these actions and when the Chinese and the Russians
Speaker 5: and the Iranians do it, and I think we should
Speaker 5: condemn the persecution of people on those lines as well.
Speaker 5: So yes, if Asciance disclosed anything that led to identifiable
Speaker 5: threats against people, far by all means prosecute them.
Speaker 2: For that is.
Speaker 5: No, I am not aware of a single case where
Speaker 5: it has actually put someone's laugh at risk. Now and
Speaker 5: for my point of is the single best example of
Speaker 5: why I think I have been supporting me is that
Speaker 5: video that I refert. Have you seen that video from
Speaker 5: Baghdad in around two thousand and four where a helicopter gunship.
Speaker 2: Kills some people? Yes, yes I did.
Speaker 5: Because I gave the link to that that's still up
Speaker 5: on the leg because I used to show that in
Speaker 5: my lecture on human rights. In my classes, I would
Speaker 5: show that slip and says, you know, this is why
Speaker 5: the rest of the world reacts so cynically to the
Speaker 5: rhetoric of Western countries. They have no credibility in saying
Speaker 5: they're committed to human rights. You're talking to the US
Speaker 5: military as I was living next to a serving US
Speaker 5: Air Force kernel when I was in Tokyo, and after
Speaker 5: the pictures of our grave and things like that came out,
Speaker 5: he just came home and there and says, for the
Speaker 5: first time in his life he feels the shame wearing
Speaker 5: the uniform for the American military. So I think you
Speaker 5: know the same argument we use about the police. If
Speaker 5: you close ranks and you the one bad apple, you
Speaker 5: condemn the whole barrel of apples. If you're going to
Speaker 5: protect the honor and reputation of the military as you should,
Speaker 5: then I think you have to call out the UK
Speaker 5: bad person and punish them. Bring in mind that they
Speaker 5: make difficult choices in the fog before, that's one thing.
Speaker 5: But if they make deliberate choices to engage in activities
Speaker 5: that under own laws are prohibited and a criminal may
Speaker 5: be criminal.
Speaker 2: It goes back to.
Speaker 5: How do you accept gain of function research being funded
Speaker 5: and then overseas jurisdiction because it's banned in your own country.
Speaker 5: I think it's just as bad.
Speaker 2: So should doctor Faci be in in he should be
Speaker 2: in the dock. I was thinking beyond the dock. He
Speaker 2: he No, he isn't titled to the dew process. Oh sure,
Speaker 2: I'm but sure, But I didn't mean I didn't. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that would escape procedure. But I want procedure to take Well,
Speaker 2: that's what I mean.
Speaker 5: He should be in the dog. He should be charged,
Speaker 5: and he should be made to answer for that. And
Speaker 5: he's and he's all alone.
Speaker 2: Either. Look, if I may, If I may, there's a
Speaker 2: couple of other a couple of other areas that I
Speaker 2: would like to touch with you.
Speaker 5: Last last let me just let me just turn the
Speaker 5: back on you. So if if, if Fauci is approving that,
Speaker 5: but the money comes from Defense Department because they're engaged
Speaker 5: in the effort to develop defensive defenses against use of
Speaker 5: biological weapons, do we say someone who releases that then
Speaker 5: is a criminal and should be charged.
Speaker 2: I mean it's the same arguments. Some stage.
Speaker 5: If activities are being done that are illegal, and they're
Speaker 5: burning done by our side, then we do need mechanisms
Speaker 5: to find out about that. And I don't think we
Speaker 5: should persecute in this case, people release that information.
Speaker 2: Well, i'd agree with that. Whistleblowers generally serve, serve well,
Speaker 2: doing public service generally.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I do I do maintain that other thing.
Speaker 5: If in fact some of that information did cause identifiable
Speaker 5: harm to individuals, then go after him.
Speaker 2: That's fine, I have no problem that good. The events
Speaker 2: that took place place last Friday, in the middle of
Speaker 2: all the other stuff with this global outage, the crowd
Speaker 2: strike global outage, Yeah, I think the anti virus software
Speaker 2: company say that again, the anti virus software company, Ah,
Speaker 2: it shows the dangers of centralized reliance on technology. Well,
Speaker 2: that's exactly my point. It was the first thing that
Speaker 2: I said to to this producer, to my wife that
Speaker 2: there's an there's there's a prime example. It's the best
Speaker 2: one I've seen for a long time, prime example of
Speaker 2: why cash should be maintained forever. H well, certainly for
Speaker 2: the foreseeable future. And the replacement of cash, the withdrawal
Speaker 2: of cash. And my understanding tell me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: because if somebody only told me this a couple of
Speaker 2: days ago from from Sydney, is that they've announced the
Speaker 2: government's announced that cash will be gone in two years
Speaker 2: in Australia, I haven't seen that. Yeah, well I've got
Speaker 2: I've got I've got a feeling this particular person's got
Speaker 2: it mixed up just slightly, but they're certainly heading everywhere.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily if you're heading that fare.
Speaker 5: And I'm in the past couple of years, I've constantly
Speaker 5: begun to use cash more and more. Well, I think
Speaker 5: you're just putting ourselves at risk of complete social credit
Speaker 5: system and government control.
Speaker 2: That's the collusion with a big tech that's that's the
Speaker 2: that's the name of the game exactly.
Speaker 5: So so I am actually using cash a lot more now, right,
Speaker 5: drawing cash and using it so obviously for a lot
Speaker 5: of things you can't but central bank and on that Frida,
Speaker 5: by the way, that's when I came back.
Speaker 2: I was lucky to escape that. I have traveled, I
Speaker 2: have I have a friend who will be listening to
Speaker 2: this at some stage who was caught caught in Los
Speaker 2: Angeles with his son, young son, and I'm yet to
Speaker 2: get the picture, but I believe he's got a good
Speaker 2: story to tell. So the danger of centralized digital wealth,
Speaker 2: central bank digital currencies is there, is there the possibility
Speaker 2: in your mind that they could exist in conjunction with
Speaker 2: the current system, or do you think that the introduction
Speaker 2: of cbdc's will just provide leverage for for removing cash.
Speaker 5: We've seen two things. One is governments of different political
Speaker 5: persuasions have discovered that the share of common interest in
Speaker 5: gaining hold over technology that allows them to exit more
Speaker 5: and more control over their own citizens.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 5: Justin Todau in Canada had no compunction in the banking
Speaker 5: and the financializing people associated with the Freedom Convoy of truckers,
Speaker 5: and that included people who were giving ten dollars twenty
Speaker 5: dollars more donations as well and.
Speaker 2: Freezing their assets.
Speaker 5: Now mister Mody looks at that and he says, what
Speaker 5: a good idea. And weeks before the Indian election, the
Speaker 5: opposition Congress party has its assets frozen under some alleged
Speaker 5: violation of some laws or the He sees the weaponization
Speaker 5: of the justice system and jailing of opponents in the
Speaker 5: United States and he says, well, if the world's most
Speaker 5: powerful democracy can do that, so it can be. And
Speaker 5: I think there were three incumbent chief ministers at state
Speaker 5: level who were put in jail. The head of the
Speaker 5: General election and their ability to campaign was impeded. So
Speaker 5: that's one side that governments have a shared interest in
Speaker 5: expanding their power to control their citizens' activities and monitor
Speaker 5: the citizens' citizens financial transactions, and they're moving in that direction.
Speaker 5: So there's that site. The second thing is the elements
Speaker 5: of the private sector discovering they have a shared interest
Speaker 5: with governments and being able to monitor and surveil what
Speaker 5: we are doing in terms.
Speaker 2: Of what by very by, and being able.
Speaker 5: To nudge our preferences towards particular products or to towards
Speaker 5: particular ideologies and political parties. So that double centralization is
Speaker 5: all at the expense of our liberties and freedom of
Speaker 5: action and freedom from being monitored and put on the surveillance,
Speaker 5: whether it's for our commercial activities purchasing history, or whether
Speaker 5: it's for our political leanings and tendencies. So yes, it
Speaker 5: goes back into that broader theme that varies me more
Speaker 5: and more that we are moving into a world of
Speaker 5: big Brother, in which big Brother is a combined national
Speaker 5: and global behemoth. And you see that with the legacy
Speaker 5: media in terms of news God and this and that
Speaker 5: and then garm whatever the thing calls for, Where where
Speaker 5: they're trying to remove from the plug is public sphere,
Speaker 5: essentially people whose values or opinions they disagree with m
Speaker 5: and that's happening more and more so it does worry me.
Speaker 2: Well it is happening in Australia.
Speaker 5: Yes, we have the Safety Commissioner who's goes after the
Speaker 5: opinions of people. And do you remember this. She's an
Speaker 5: American important and she took on a fight with your
Speaker 5: own mosque on some things, so there you know.
Speaker 4: This was this.
Speaker 5: She asked for a couple of things. One was the
Speaker 5: famous one where she wanted footage of the stabbing of
Speaker 5: the archbishop. Yes, taken off not just in Australia but globally.
Speaker 5: So the e Safety Commissioner, one individual with her staff,
Speaker 5: asserted the right to decide what other people from in
Speaker 5: other countries can and cannot watch. And it wasn't the
Speaker 5: case of misinformation because this was an actual event that
Speaker 5: had happened and she was saying, well, this may not
Speaker 5: be wasted. At the same time, other things that were
Speaker 5: worse from a physical violence point of view was still available.
Speaker 2: So there's that.
Speaker 5: But there's something else in respect of gender ideology that
Speaker 5: she was trying the same thing in Australia. But this
Speaker 5: is a phenomenon that that bureaucrats and technocrats decide what
Speaker 5: we should think, what we should say, what we should
Speaker 5: believe in, what we should buy, who should produce what
Speaker 5: under what ours. So it's that assertion of government control
Speaker 5: over all aspects of our daily activities that we witnessed
Speaker 5: under COVID now being now the effort is being yet
Speaker 5: to institutionalize and embed that as a permanent feature, which
Speaker 5: is exactly what we were saying at the time that if
Speaker 5: you comply. Now, don't be surprised you start to expand
Speaker 5: and repeat this in other sectors.
Speaker 2: Yes, and there's still still much to be said about
Speaker 2: about the COVID era. Yeah, but it's the same.
Speaker 5: You know, why why should the government decide that we
Speaker 5: have to switch to electric vehicles.
Speaker 2: I'll just save the planet. Yeah sure, but surely you
Speaker 2: know that.
Speaker 5: But you know, when when different forms of transport come
Speaker 5: along and they have obvious benefits and cons and advantages,
Speaker 5: people switch. Well, I think it's starting for government's picking
Speaker 5: winners with regard to you know, you you have to
Speaker 5: use renewables, you have to do electric vehicles, and again
Speaker 5: the calculations that they don't They don't add up when
Speaker 5: you actually go through it as well. So governments are
Speaker 5: no better at picking winners today. In fact, they might
Speaker 5: be worse than they have historically been.
Speaker 2: Well you've got you've got media companies still refusing to
Speaker 2: entertain any alternative viewpoint when it comes to matters climate
Speaker 2: and serving the planet, et cetera. And we've got them.
Speaker 2: We've got them here, and they are disgrace because of it.
Speaker 2: But I'm hoping that sooner or later something will happen.
Speaker 2: There's one other thing I wanted to mention with regard
Speaker 2: with regard to privacy, and that it is directly linked
Speaker 2: to CBDCs et cetera. Privacy. We have people in positions
Speaker 2: of influence, including one retired Prime minister in this country,
Speaker 2: who have said, anytime that something comes up about privacy
Speaker 2: and people not knowing what you're doing, etc. Has said, well,
Speaker 2: have you got nothing to hide? You've got nothing to fear.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I know how old that that's saying is, and I
Speaker 2: have the excital contempt for it. But the question is
Speaker 2: why are they I've had nobody can explain this to
Speaker 2: me yet, Why are there intelligent people that simply can't
Speaker 2: see the light.
Speaker 5: Well, that's a deep philosophical question. I think the short answer.
Speaker 5: My short answer would be that the share of the population,
Speaker 5: so you're not talking to absolute numbers, but the proportion
Speaker 5: of the population that habitually engages in independent critical thinking
Speaker 5: has declined quite dramatically and reflects the switch from education
Speaker 5: to indoctrination from early childhood all the way through school
Speaker 5: and university and spread into all sectors of society. Who
Speaker 5: would have thought thirty forty years ago the big corporates
Speaker 5: would think they have any business telling us what we
Speaker 5: should think, or what values we should adopt, or what
Speaker 5: positions on controversial social and or contested not controversial, necessarily
Speaker 5: contested social, political, economic, and even scientific issues, that they
Speaker 5: have some comparative advantage in knowing what the quote unquote
Speaker 5: truth is, the truth is, and telling us their views
Speaker 5: and we should do what they tell us.
Speaker 2: And again on.
Speaker 5: That there're certainly in Australia there has been a pushback
Speaker 5: and a recognition about the media boardrooms that maybe they
Speaker 5: should pull back from this because they've discovered that a
Speaker 5: majority of even their employees, shareholders, and certainly their consumers
Speaker 5: do not align with their views, and it actually affects
Speaker 5: the bottom line. And when I go into a supermarket,
Speaker 5: I want fresh produce and quality products at most affordable prices.
Speaker 5: I have absolutely no interest in learning about what the
Speaker 5: view of their CEO might be in relation to any
Speaker 5: social or political issue. Same with celebrities. And yet they
Speaker 5: think that the echo chamber of the elites in the
Speaker 5: different sectors of life has an position of virtuous enlightenment
Speaker 5: that everyone else should be made to follow.
Speaker 2: Well, you know you want to do that, Go ahead
Speaker 2: and do it. So the World Economic Forum is at
Speaker 2: what point of its existence and influence? Now? Uh?
Speaker 5: Hopefully terminal? I might become a believer in God.
Speaker 2: Yet ah, I read, I read what you had to
Speaker 2: say about religion. I was I was intrigued. But that
Speaker 2: could be true.
Speaker 5: Well, I respect other people's religion, but yes you do, Yeah,
Speaker 5: and that's of all fits. But I have problems myself
Speaker 5: and that left religion a long time ago and no
Speaker 5: desire to go back.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a free world, yeah, free will, fee will,
Speaker 2: So I think we can continue with the free society.
Speaker 2: Just one one other thing that I would like to include.
Speaker 2: Why I leave it out? It's your white guilt, not
Speaker 2: my white privilege. It's a headline from another of yours.
Speaker 5: That's a problem. That's the that's a problem, that's right. Yeah,
Speaker 5: the problem is your white guilt, not my white privilege.
Speaker 2: But white guilt and colonization two things that go hand
Speaker 2: and end at the moment and seem to be motoring
Speaker 2: along fairly powerfully, are they both in Australia and New
Speaker 2: Zealand and the USA and Canada. So what's the answer? Well,
Speaker 2: it's puzzled me obviously.
Speaker 5: I mean, look, which major country, or which even middland
Speaker 5: country can you point out to me today whose borders
Speaker 5: do not reflect the use of force?
Speaker 2: Perhaps repeatedly in his history.
Speaker 5: It's been a part of history, and it's been a
Speaker 5: part of the natural world as well, and I suspect
Speaker 5: it will stay the case for a long time yet.
Speaker 5: So if you're going to go back to the equivalent
Speaker 5: of trying to trace the original sin, we're going to
Speaker 5: lead to the most massive upheaval we've ever known, and
Speaker 5: volatility and fighting all over again. So how do we
Speaker 5: reconcile existing borders with present day values? Well, we don't
Speaker 5: do that by reversing history. One second. I think the
Speaker 5: net contribution of Western civilizations to global human welfare on
Speaker 5: prosperity and education and longevity has been greater than that
Speaker 5: of any other civilization and culture. And that's not such
Speaker 5: a hard thing to document. In terms of the aspirations
Speaker 5: that pretty much people's all over the world now have
Speaker 5: two emulating the lifestyles and the benefits, the material benefits
Speaker 5: and the intellectual benefits of that. And even with respect
Speaker 5: to slavery, for example, the slave trade, again I think
Speaker 5: it's not that difficult to document that probably the biggest
Speaker 5: contribution to ending the slave trade, and some of the
Speaker 5: highest costs that were made that were paid in that effort,
Speaker 5: that came from Britain, and the biggest guilty parties in
Speaker 5: the origins and volume of the slave trade would include
Speaker 5: the Arabs and the Africans. So why this focus on
Speaker 5: the sense of guilt And if that sense of guilt
Speaker 5: was real and I'm sure I've said this, if not
Speaker 5: to you, then to some other interview in New Zealand,
Speaker 5: if that centers of guilt was real, and if that
Speaker 5: sense of moral censure was real and genuine, authentic, then
Speaker 5: huge numbers of people from the non Western countries would
Speaker 5: not still be fighting to get into the West, and
Speaker 5: it seems to be a confected outrage at the historical
Speaker 5: role that some Western countries have had to play.
Speaker 2: Other other thing.
Speaker 5: Anyone denies that, and all in favor of having an
Speaker 5: honest accounting in our history books. But the honest accounting
Speaker 5: goes both ways as well. I think there were benefits
Speaker 5: that were brought to millions of people around the world
Speaker 5: by Western civilization, and there were costs steps were brought
Speaker 5: and in some cases resulting in genocide or neo genocide
Speaker 5: of indigenous populations. But that is part of history, and
Speaker 5: I think we should study history and learn from that,
Speaker 5: but not engaged in an endless self vagulation which is
Speaker 5: unmerited and self destructive. I think in one of the
Speaker 5: articles that they'd say it's like Western societies are bent
Speaker 5: on feeding their fuel into the fire that is consuming them,
Speaker 5: which I find very puzzling. So the net contribution of
Speaker 5: Western civilization I think has been positive rather than negative.
Speaker 5: Other countries have also had stayed pasts, and we acknowledge
Speaker 5: that we don't necessarily condone that. We certainly don't want
Speaker 5: to have that nece society today, but I think we
Speaker 5: should just insist on treating everyone who's lawfully in our
Speaker 5: country and is a citizen the same, without distinction on
Speaker 5: grounds of race or religion or whatever else inherited treat
Speaker 5: So I don't understand the white guilt part, and if
Speaker 5: it does exist, I don't see why I, who have
Speaker 5: not been part of that, should be made to suffer
Speaker 5: for that either. So it goes back to where we
Speaker 5: started off and the general attitude almost the overseas Indians
Speaker 5: as well, that what we want is to be left
Speaker 5: alone and given the same opportunities. Well maybe if we
Speaker 5: should an't that it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
Speaker 5: So I still prefer the phrase equality of opportunity rather
Speaker 5: than equity because that tries to look at it in
Speaker 5: terms of outcomes. And you've seen that, you know the
Speaker 5: decision from the US Supreme Court late last year whenever
Speaker 5: it was on the Harvard admissions case. Japanese, none of
Speaker 5: the Asian Americans who would have taken the case too
Speaker 5: in the court system.
Speaker 2: But weren't there weren't there a lot of Japanese students
Speaker 2: who were involved in it. No, it was Chinese and
Speaker 2: Indians more than Japanese.
Speaker 5: It's but the Asian Americans were amongst the highest academic
Speaker 5: scores and the lowest rates of admission. I think you
Speaker 5: needed to be for an Asian American, it's you needed
Speaker 5: to be in the ninetieth persentile, and your chances were
Speaker 5: still lower than a Black in the fortieth personile, a
Speaker 5: Hispanic in the sixtieth personyle, and a white in the
Speaker 5: eightieth personile. So the four groups, the Asian Americans had
Speaker 5: to be the most complet and in medical schools in
Speaker 5: the different studies. Short this is from the American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 5: I think for medical schools, you on the same score,
Speaker 5: a Black American had more than ten times a prospect
Speaker 5: of getting admitted to medical school compared to an Asian American.
Speaker 5: And again then it was the Hispanics the second most
Speaker 5: advantage and the words third, and the Asians were at
Speaker 5: the bottom. So that was what they had taken it.
Speaker 5: It's very easy to demonstrate statistically. And finally the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court said racial criteri you were illegal.
Speaker 2: So it goes back to the same thing.
Speaker 5: You believe in merit, you believe in the quality of opportunity,
Speaker 5: and you believe in rewarding hard work. Then you get
Speaker 5: a different student profile in universities and med schools and stuff.
Speaker 5: Then if you start talking about equity and diversity. And
Speaker 5: by the way, we've seen, going back to the pushback argument,
Speaker 5: a lot of companies are now starting to dismantle the
Speaker 5: deer elements of their bureaucracy, and so they should yep,
Speaker 5: And well you see that, you saw the results of that. Well,
Speaker 5: now there are allegations that that is partly to explain
Speaker 5: the security failures with regard to the assassination attempt on Trump.
Speaker 2: Yes, with the Secret Service.
Speaker 5: Being interested in these efforts more than in basic competence.
Speaker 5: And you'd think, well, it shouldn't affect universities, until suddenly
Speaker 5: it I mean the consequence of that agenda, until suddenly
Speaker 5: it did. When the three famous university presidents could not
Speaker 5: answer a basic question under congressional testimony as to where
Speaker 5: the calls to engage in ethnic expulsion of Jews or
Speaker 5: whatever genesida Jews was to be prohibited. You remember how
Speaker 5: they were completely unable to answer the simple moral question.
Speaker 2: God yes comes back.
Speaker 5: And all three happened to be women presidents, and the
Speaker 5: Harvard one was clearly a diversity higher clearly or what
Speaker 5: diversity higher I think for that phrase, that phrase has
Speaker 5: become a presorative term now and they're saying that the
Speaker 5: chief of the Secret Service is a diversity higher and
Speaker 5: you see the results.
Speaker 2: Well, it was, there was, there was.
Speaker 5: She may not survive tomorrow's hearing it in Congress on sorry,
Speaker 5: there was.
Speaker 2: There was a similar similar lineup and they were all males,
Speaker 2: roughly around the same time. Asked us being asked in
Speaker 2: in the in the House inquiry how much? How much
Speaker 2: CO two was there in the atmosphere? Few of them,
Speaker 2: none of them knew, not one had no idea and
Speaker 2: it was hell. We started this long but excellent conversation
Speaker 2: with a quick mention of your book our enemy the government.
Speaker 2: Let's conclude on it.
Speaker 5: Why the title, Well, if you have a commitment to
Speaker 5: human rights, you face attention. The worst breaches of human
Speaker 5: rights and violations of human rights occur in conditions of anarchy,
Speaker 5: and you need the machinery of government and the legislative,
Speaker 5: executive and judicial frameworks to enforce.
Speaker 2: Human rights.
Speaker 5: Laws and values, to legislate and enforce them. At the
Speaker 5: same time, if you do have stable, effective function government,
Speaker 5: then potentially the biggest threat to your human rights comes
Speaker 5: from governments, and these are the powerful entrance toutality in
Speaker 5: states with their government machinery, in countries like Nazi Germany,
Speaker 5: like communss China, like Communist Soviet Union. As it was,
Speaker 5: so that tension is an ongoing reality and we need
Speaker 5: to navigate that. And parts many parts of what we've
Speaker 5: been talking about for the past hour or whatever it
Speaker 5: has been, has been in relation to the growing threats
Speaker 5: to our freedom and civil leuties that comes from over
Speaker 5: centralization and over expansion of the state into spheres of
Speaker 5: social and personal activity that hitherto were separate and considered
Speaker 5: sacrosanct and none of the state's business, like telling us
Speaker 5: which type of car we should buy, or which type
Speaker 5: of car manufacturers should make and produce, and punishing dealers
Speaker 5: if they don't sell x percentage of a particular type
Speaker 5: of vehicle. Governments should stay out of these sources of actctivities.
Speaker 5: In that sense, our common enemy, just as governments have
Speaker 5: a common interest in expanding the power at the expense
Speaker 5: of citizens, see the people's share a common interest in
Speaker 5: limiting the powers of governments.
Speaker 2: Hence our enemy the government. And it's a very good book,
Speaker 2: and I recommend it. One other thing that I want
Speaker 2: to recommend, Ramesh, is the transcript of the interview that
Speaker 2: you did with Epic TV or Epoch TV, whichever with
Speaker 2: someone from American Thought Leaders, and it runs eighteen pages
Speaker 2: and it's full of great information, great commentary, and I
Speaker 2: was actually sort of a bit envious when I read
Speaker 2: it that I hadn't done it, But nevertheless it's superb. Yes,
Speaker 2: I didn't know how to pronounce his name, but it's
Speaker 2: it's You'll find it under the Romesha's name on the
Speaker 2: on the Brownstone site. You just have to. You just
Speaker 2: have to dig it at do a search the new
Speaker 2: biosecurity state, and you'll get even more from that than
Speaker 2: on top of what we've discussed in the last in
Speaker 2: the last eighteen minutes, so you see time flies when
Speaker 2: you're enjoying yourself.
Speaker 5: I want to thank you. Add one thing so that
Speaker 5: don't leave a wrong impression. Going back to the secret servicing,
Speaker 5: when the assassination on Trump, sure, I think I would
Speaker 5: like to acknowledge that the courage of the individual members
Speaker 5: of the immediate protective Unit, including the women, was no
Speaker 5: less than that of the men when they all threw
Speaker 5: themselves and formed a protective shield around Trump. So that
Speaker 5: wasn't a comment on you know, I wasn't trying to
Speaker 5: demonize or not technowledge contributions to individual members. But the
Speaker 5: factory means that the women members were not the size
Speaker 5: and height of the male members and therefore they could
Speaker 5: not completely form that human shield when he will come
Speaker 5: and he stood up again.
Speaker 2: That's the point, and that's the point that has been made.
Speaker 2: And I have been in the same position that you
Speaker 2: have and had to had to say that it wasn't.
Speaker 2: It wasn't the fact that they were women, and you
Speaker 2: may you've maybe do something that I reached across and
Speaker 2: picked up a book and I bought this book for
Speaker 2: my one of one of the girls, and it's by
Speaker 2: an ex Secret Service agent whose name is Ivy Pomperess. Okay,
Speaker 2: and there's two things I would observe. When Carolyn saw
Speaker 2: the picture of her, she said, Wow, she's beautiful. I
Speaker 2: couldn't say anything. But if I'd said that, you know, what,
Speaker 2: what do you think it'd be out of for she's
Speaker 2: a woman. The point being The book is called Becoming
Speaker 2: Bulletproof Life Lessons from a Secret Service Agent former former
Speaker 2: Protective Detail for three presidents and recipient of the of
Speaker 2: the Medal of Valor Award. And I can't swear to this,
Speaker 2: but I'm pretty sure she's five foot two mm five
Speaker 2: foot two, which was probably shorter than those those women
Speaker 2: the other the other the other day. But she was
Speaker 2: patently very successful as a secret service agent. M And
Speaker 2: on that note, I want to thank you, very very
Speaker 2: very sincerely for a marathon effort. I'll leave you alone
Speaker 2: for a little while, but your opinions are valuable, worthwhile
Speaker 2: and to be heard by as many as possible. Thanks
Speaker 2: lessen into the mail room for two hundred and forty nine,
Speaker 2: MISSUS producer.
Speaker 6: Welcome lighton.
Speaker 2: How are you very well?
Speaker 6: Great?
Speaker 2: It would be rude of me not to ask how
Speaker 2: are you?
Speaker 6: I'm always good. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: I knew then I could have written the script anyway.
Speaker 2: Let me begin from Dawn, reinforced by your earlier interview
Speaker 2: of an authority on US international affairs. The name alludes
Speaker 2: me to the effect that the Moscow Beijing Iran clique
Speaker 2: is at pains to sustain the Biden Democrat regime. I
Speaker 2: warmed to the above. Peace Harris given to hysterical outbursts
Speaker 2: of laughter is an airhead. She watched her Biden brief
Speaker 2: to deal with the exponential invasion of refugees across the
Speaker 2: Texas border, so damaging to USA society and infrastructure. To
Speaker 2: my mind, her present popular surge reflects mere public relief
Speaker 2: from a medically senile, long incompetent Biden, whose leadership is
Speaker 2: redolent of the adurn brand of progressive change early days.
Speaker 2: Yet a couple of things to comment on that, just
Speaker 2: briefly given to hysterical outbursts of laughter is an airhead. Oh,
Speaker 2: I think I could do better than that, to be honest,
Speaker 2: watched her Biden brief to deal with the exponential invasion
Speaker 2: of refugees across the Texas border. I don't know that
Speaker 2: I can agree with that statement. And you'll understand why
Speaker 2: she was installed, so to speak, as the czar of
Speaker 2: the border or whatever. But that meant nothing because this
Speaker 2: has all been intentional. It was all. It was all
Speaker 2: just window dressing, because that was the intent as many
Speaker 2: as possible. And by the way, there are now appearing
Speaker 2: signs evidence in fact of the fact that they're signing
Speaker 2: them up to vote in this election.
Speaker 7: Leighton Colin says the podcast with Ramashakur was very interesting,
Speaker 7: especially on Donald Trump.
Speaker 6: One piece.
Speaker 7: He said it is important for Trump to pick a
Speaker 7: person for the vice presidency that would be in tune
Speaker 7: with his ideas and understand him. That night, after I
Speaker 7: played the podcast, I tuned into an interview by Jesse
Speaker 7: Walters on Sky when he had Donald Trump and JD.
Speaker 7: Vance on so keeping in mind what Tha Kerr had said,
Speaker 7: I was really pleased with what I saw. The two
Speaker 7: guests were adding to each other's statements and bringing each
Speaker 7: other into the mix, even sometimes finishing each other's sentences.
Speaker 7: It was an interview that showed a chemistry between the
Speaker 7: two men. The Republican Party needs to push this hard,
Speaker 7: as quite often the USA has had a presidency ticket
Speaker 7: that hasn't jelled at all. The Democrats we the woke
Speaker 7: diversity ticket of Biden and Harris has proven to be
Speaker 7: very weak and bad for US and for the world.
Speaker 2: And Colin is quite correct and by the way, I
Speaker 2: think I might make more reference to that David Flint's
Speaker 2: article than Donald wrote about at the end of this podcast. Now,
Speaker 2: Claire writes this old quote from J. D. Vance has
Speaker 2: to be one of the funniest ever. Childless cat ladies.
Speaker 2: Do you find that amusing?
Speaker 6: Well, not really, I do, of course you do. A
Speaker 6: man who won't let me have a cat?
Speaker 2: No, no, but it's an old it's an old saying,
Speaker 2: and he's just he's just resurrected it. And to sort
Speaker 2: of indicate that she goes on. Derek Hunter, a conservative
Speaker 2: American with a daily podcast, says frequently quote don't spike
Speaker 2: the football on the five yard line. In other words,
Speaker 2: don't count on Trump winning. It ain't over till the
Speaker 2: fat lady sings on election day. The old fat lady's
Speaker 2: getting a workout too. That's from Claire, who, by the way,
Speaker 2: responds to your question about does she live in America
Speaker 2: whatever a couple of weeks back, American expat living on
Speaker 2: the west coast of the South Island.
Speaker 6: Lovely's beautiful.
Speaker 2: I think I knew that.
Speaker 6: Actually you know everything later, No, not quite.
Speaker 7: Nick says, longtime fan who greatly appreciates what you do.
Speaker 7: Just wondering when or if you are getting Patrick Bashion
Speaker 7: back on the podcast. He was always fascinating to listen
Speaker 7: to and it would be great to hear his take
Speaker 7: on what is happening in the States.
Speaker 2: Well, what do you reckon, Hey fix that one easily
Speaker 2: and thanks for the tip. A reference to the article
Speaker 2: in the New Zealand Herald on the twenty seventh of
Speaker 2: the seven which was last Saturdays by Stephen Joyce Health
Speaker 2: New Zealand overhaul sad yet predictable after merger missteps. This
Speaker 2: Herald piece should be compulsory reading for all its Gainsayers
Speaker 2: presumably can identify tangible health benefits from mister Little's reforms
Speaker 2: other than those of an aspirational or anticipatory nature given time.
Speaker 2: If so, such benefits are far from obvious, either for
Speaker 2: Mary or non Mary. That more than a billion dollars
Speaker 2: of taxpayers money was spent on this ideological exercise is
Speaker 2: not justifiable, given that it did little more than raise
Speaker 2: an expectation that health services for Mary would significantly improve.
Speaker 2: No doubt those across the board languishing in pain on
Speaker 2: waiting lists for elective surgery would express the matter more vehemently.
Speaker 7: Layton Jin says, the choice between Donald Trump's May America
Speaker 7: Great Again and Kamala Harris what can be unburdened by
Speaker 7: what has been is a choice between a man no, no,
Speaker 7: I have no idea what can be She doesn't know either,
Speaker 7: unburdened by what has been.
Speaker 2: I got told her? Who told you that previously?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 7: Is a choice between a man knows what needs to
Speaker 7: be done because he's been there before, and a woman
Speaker 7: who merely spouts nonsensical limericks because she's never been able
Speaker 7: to make it. Karmala Harris is having a cinder o
Speaker 7: durn moment, thrust into leadership by accident, and totally ill
Speaker 7: equipped to be a leader. As Jadie Vance said at
Speaker 7: last Saturday's campaign rally in Minnesota, if there's one thing
Speaker 7: we've learned about Kamala Harris, it's that she's had a
Speaker 7: hard time winning votes because she's too extreme even for
Speaker 7: the Democrats. Remember, in the twenty twenty primary, Harris dropped
Speaker 7: out months before they even cast the first vote. She
Speaker 7: was so unpopular she pulled in the low digit, in
Speaker 7: the low single digits among the Democrats the entire campaign.
Speaker 7: She wasn't even the top three in her home state
Speaker 7: of California. And that's pretty embarrassing, ladies and gentlemen. That
Speaker 7: was Jodie Vance's commentary. Trump made a most excellent choice
Speaker 7: in selecting JD. Van as his vice president because, as
Speaker 7: Ramesh the curb brilliantly equipped Vance's trump Ism without the
Speaker 7: Trump character flaws.
Speaker 6: And if you think about.
Speaker 7: It, this American election is no longer a contest between
Speaker 7: Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Rather, it is now a
Speaker 7: contest between JD. Vance and Kamala Harris. I only hope
Speaker 7: for the sake of the world that Americans have more
Speaker 7: clever voters than the stupid ones.
Speaker 6: God help us either way.
Speaker 2: Did I that the fact that Vance was going to
Speaker 2: debate her and now won't be, of course, because she
Speaker 2: will be the leader debating Trump is a bit disappointing
Speaker 2: for the simple reason that he wrote, Actually, I think
Speaker 2: he'd pack her up and put her on the shelf. Hmm.
Speaker 2: This is a little different, is personal. Late, after many
Speaker 2: years of looking at this bottle of Clevedon Hills Ports
Speaker 2: in the wine cupboard, we have finally opened it and
Speaker 2: sit in front of the fire here in Marpor enjoying
Speaker 2: a delicious, tasty after dinner drink. It is truly very special.
Speaker 2: Thanks for the wonderful tipple from John and Lindall.
Speaker 4: I just.
Speaker 2: Have to say there was a bottle of the original,
Speaker 2: the original bottle, because we had about four or five
Speaker 2: different bottles with different releases. That was in the cupboard
Speaker 2: at the back of the cupboard where you couldn't see it,
Speaker 2: and I dug it out. This is a little while
Speaker 2: back now dug it out. It was years old and
Speaker 2: it only had about a a quarter of the bottle
Speaker 2: in it, so I tried itsolutely outstanding. So I've got
Speaker 2: about five bottles of the of the last edition of
Speaker 2: the Layton Support from Cleveland Hills. What four bottles? I
Speaker 2: did not know that I have. I think it's five.
Speaker 2: And I've decided that everybody. There's so many people asking
Speaker 2: when are you going to do it again? Look, it
Speaker 2: was made by Enzo Bettio with some of his grapes
Speaker 2: and most mostly mine, but some of his, and he
Speaker 2: made it so well, and he's now off the scene.
Speaker 2: He's not making wine anymore, and it doesn't want to
Speaker 2: know about it, which is which is a shame. So
Speaker 2: these five bottles, I've decided I'm prepared to sell three
Speaker 2: of them at five thousand dollars a bottle. So anybody
Speaker 2: who loved it so much and as a spare five,
Speaker 2: then give me an email.
Speaker 6: That'll be the first financial thing that you that you
Speaker 6: ever do properly you comfort you okay later? This is
Speaker 6: from Salvatore.
Speaker 7: You were right to say that this week's from Esh
Speaker 7: the Kurr interview was one of your best. His explanation
Speaker 7: of the politics of the United Nations and the broader
Speaker 7: un system was absolutely masterful. A fantastic education.
Speaker 2: At an email that was decidedly insightful. So finally from Brenda,
Speaker 2: who wasn't writing to me but copied me in and
Speaker 2: I think you'll see why when she writes high there
Speaker 2: to the Reserve Bank. Hi, there, I see on your
Speaker 2: site there is a submission portal for a digital cash survey.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't have known about this if it were not
Speaker 2: for a friend emailing it to me. Can you please
Speaker 2: tell me when this was uploaded. I'd like to establish
Speaker 2: how long you have given people to respond in relation
Speaker 2: to the complexity of the situation, given that digital currency
Speaker 2: has the potential to forever change the landscape of our
Speaker 2: financial system and the way people live. I would like
Speaker 2: to know what kind of advertising you have done to
Speaker 2: let people know this survey is taking place. Most people
Speaker 2: do not understand what digital money is, let alone what
Speaker 2: they should or should not be in favor, whether or
Speaker 2: not they should or should not be in favor of it.
Speaker 2: I looked at the survey and found it too biased
Speaker 2: to fill out. The survey works on the premise that
Speaker 2: respondents agree with the CBDCs and then ask questions that
Speaker 2: are confusing and in one case contradictory. Despite these issues,
Speaker 2: I have made a submission. I urge the Central Bank
Speaker 2: to extend the deadline of the submission date and make
Speaker 2: greater effort to inform the public about it. It is
Speaker 2: deeply concerning that I did not see this survey anywhere,
Speaker 2: and it should have been in my algorithmic footprint due
Speaker 2: to my interest in the subject. Additionally, it would be
Speaker 2: beneficial to reword the survey to allow those who are
Speaker 2: against cbdc's to express their views without being led by
Speaker 2: the questions. Please respond urgently. I have posted this query
Speaker 2: at the NZ Center for Political Research to see if
Speaker 2: others were aware that this survey was available. Please advise Brenda.
Speaker 2: Brilliant approach you've taken, and I will wait to see
Speaker 2: whether you've got a reply with regard to that. This
Speaker 2: is producer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Later, I've got lots of editing to do.
Speaker 7: You do the best bits won't be heard sarcastic bits.
Speaker 2: I indicated that I might refer to David Flint's article
Speaker 2: that was referred to in a letter during the mail Room.
Speaker 2: At the end of the podcast, we are there and
Speaker 2: I shall fulfill my suggestion. David Plint has a long
Speaker 2: history of success in life. An interesting character is one
Speaker 2: way to describe him. But I want to concentrate on
Speaker 2: only what really matters as far as his professional identity
Speaker 2: is concerned. So under the heading of Korea. He was
Speaker 2: admitted as a lawyer in New South Wales and in
Speaker 2: England and Wales. He is Australian. He practiced for a
Speaker 2: number of years, lecturing in several university business and law
Speaker 2: schools that included a wide range of subjects including business, tax, antitrust, comparative,
Speaker 2: constitutional and international law. Now the important part comes under
Speaker 2: the heading of honors. Flint was awarded World Outstanding Legal
Speaker 2: Scholar the World Jurists Association, Barcelona in October nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 2: On twelve June nineteen ninety five, he was made a
Speaker 2: Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of service
Speaker 2: to the print media, particularly as chairman of the Australian
Speaker 2: Press Council and to international relations. He has written widely
Speaker 2: on matters and you can only say highly qualified to
Speaker 2: make comment on many things, but particularly with regard to well.
Speaker 2: I think what I'm about to quote you A number
Speaker 2: of people don't understand my attachment to Donald Trump, and
Speaker 2: I'm getting weary of explaining, so I thought, so I
Speaker 2: thought i'd quote David Flint under the heading of a
Speaker 2: Trump victory is critical. And keep in mind that this
Speaker 2: is written by an Australian for an Australian audience. As
Speaker 2: far as I'm concerned, New Zealand is part of that audience,
Speaker 2: and New Zealand is not part politically of Australia. But
Speaker 2: we don't have a closer relationship with any other country.
Speaker 2: So what he says I think is relevant to New
Speaker 2: Zealand as well as Australia. Donald Trump's election as the
Speaker 2: forty seventh president is crucial, and not only to the US.
Speaker 2: Four more years of appeasement to the Beijing Moscow Tehran axis,
Speaker 2: uncontrolled immigration, and the prevalence of climate catastrophism and other
Speaker 2: alien ideologies risk such damage to the US and Western
Speaker 2: civilization of which we are part that it could be irreversible.
Speaker 2: If anybody can return America to the power, respect, and
Speaker 2: authority she once enjoyed, it is Donald Trump. Here's what
Speaker 2: he suggests he will achieve. He'll close the borders to
Speaker 2: the uncontrolled massive migration that Biden imposed in reach of
Speaker 2: the law. As the forty seventh president, he will no
Speaker 2: doubt relieve America from the ideologies of the Long March
Speaker 2: through her institutions that have imposed themselves on the nation.
Speaker 2: He will require freeloaders to become true allies. He will
Speaker 2: return the Beijing, Moscow Tehran axis to the good behavior
Speaker 2: that they prudently demonstrated during his first term. He will
Speaker 2: restore peace in the Middle East, as he did with
Speaker 2: the Abraham Accords. He has ensured his ideas will continue
Speaker 2: with his choice of JD. Vance as candidate to vice president,
Speaker 2: and whatever he does at home will be a lesson
Speaker 2: for the free world. We must therefore ignore the commentariat
Speaker 2: that scorned him, just as they scorned Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher,
Speaker 2: John Howard, and Tony Abbotts. And he closes this three
Speaker 2: page article with this short comment. Today, few will disagree
Speaker 2: that this year's election is extremely important as Trump himself says,
Speaker 2: it is the most important close quote. America is at
Speaker 2: the crossroads. Only Trump offers salvation. His election is crucial
Speaker 2: to America and to the free world, including Australia, and
Speaker 2: I'm adding New Zealand. Now if you disagree with that,
Speaker 2: I'm going to have a good reason why. Open to
Speaker 2: your open to your prognostications. And I'll leave it there.
Speaker 2: But if you want to read that article, you can
Speaker 2: probably read it on the I can't guarantee it, but
Speaker 2: you can properly read it on the Spectator Australia website
Speaker 2: under the name of David Plint. Otherwise could pay you
Speaker 2: dues I suppose, and join up with Spectator Australia. This
Speaker 2: is not a paid ad. I've been saying it for
Speaker 2: a long time. That will take us out for podcasts.
Speaker 2: Two hundred and forty nine two fifty a quarter of
Speaker 2: a thousand, No big deal, really, I suppose. But there
Speaker 2: is something else attached to it that I'll make mention
Speaker 2: of next week. So if you would like to write
Speaker 2: to us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot Nz or
Speaker 2: Carolyn at the same address newstalkszeb dot co dot Nz,
Speaker 2: we shall return shortly with two fifty. In the meantime,
Speaker 2: let me say, quite genuinely thank you for listening and
Speaker 2: we'll 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