Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of us now the Leighton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcast two hundred and fifty six for September eighteen,
twenty twenty four. Now, for long time attendees of this podcast,
the name Michael Recton World will be familiar. For those
who are not so informed, you'll find his background most interesting.
From two thousand and eight to twenty nineteen, he was
professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, and he
(00:50):
was a convicted Marxist communist. Then he saw the light
and transitd to libertarianism. Now that was the end of
his position at New York University. He was relieved of
his post. He guested first on podcast one oh one
in twenty twenty one, and that was in March twenty
twenty one, and again for podcast one seventy three in
(01:12):
September of twenty two. Kamala Harris, Democrat contender for the
US presidency, has been acclaimed the most left wing Socialist
member of the Senate as vice President. She is frequently
tagged a Marxist. So what is she? That's a bone
of contention rife among commentators of all political persuasions, Marxist
(01:34):
or empty head, And that's a polite call. Who better
to seek advice from than a past Marxist commonist professor
Michael Rechtenwald. But first, once again on the podcast morning,
I find that there is so much of interest that
I simply can't cover it all, in fact, nowhere near it.
But this is a common complaint on my part, I know,
(01:57):
but it's true. There is so much. So I thought, well,
actually I had a couple of ideas this morning that
I'll share with you a little later, either in this
podcast or next week. But there was something that caught
my eye a couple of days ago, and it came
from one of our more recent guests, Robert McCulloch from
(02:18):
Auckland University, who was in podcast number two hundred and
fifty one. And I'm going to quote you. This is
not very long, but I'm going to quote it because
there is I disagree with him on this particular point,
and I'll explain why shortly. Headed has This is from
his blog site down to earth dot Kiwi. Down to
(02:39):
earth dot Kiwi has former pm Adern become New Zealand's
single biggest individual emitter of greenhouse gases, and it reads
it's impossible to keep up with the former pm Adern's
emissions of greenhouse gazes. Where she has traveled on carbon
dumping into the atmosphere long haul flights this past year,
(03:00):
to name a few. In November of twenty twenty three,
she flew to Singapore to walk the Green Carpet and
to give earthshot as including in the category of clean air.
How ironic when you get homesick? How about around the
world flight back to good old New Zealand to marry
on location at a Vignard Yes, in January of twenty four,
(03:22):
it was long haul to do the wedding in the
Hawk's Bay. Then in March of twenty four she burnt
those air miles to Italy to inaugurate the academic year
at the University of Bologna. Oh, and don't forget the
carbon dumping flight up to Chicago in August of twenty
four to visit the Democratic Party Convention for a yarn
(03:45):
And why go to well I didn't see anything on
her performance in there, did you? But you could say
that Carmela is benefiting from her from Durn's experience. Sounds
like it than me. And why go to Italy once
in a year when you can go there twice on
a long haul jet to accept another award. This past week,
(04:05):
she flew to Venice to whoop it up at an
event coinciding with the Venice Film Festival. She preached there
that we must demand from our leaders empathy and kindness.
Competence would be a nice one to add, though always
seems to be missing off her list. I don't think
she could spell it anyhow. That's just a few flights
(04:28):
that we know about. We've got no problem with their
travel on this blog, provided carbon emissions are priced, though
we note the US does not have an emissions trading
scheme like New Zealand. Maybe that's a reason Adern is
basing herself outside this country, since she would probably single
handedly blow our reduction targets. Now, that's a critical column
(04:53):
of the ex Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I
choose to disagree with it on I think a very
sound basis. Ex Prime Minister at Dern no longer believes
obviously in man made global warming or man made climate change,
Otherwise she would not do what she did and fire
all those miles. Am I correct, Well, I have to
(05:14):
be Is she really so hypocritical that she'd tell you
can't do things, but she'd happily go and do it herself.
I'm saying or suggesting at least it's worth consideration that
the Prime Minister should be congratulated on waking up to
the con that she was part of mind you, but
waking up to the con that we have all suffered
(05:35):
from and finally realizing the best way to do it
is not to verbalize it, but to just act accordingly.
And I think that we should follow her lead. Robert McCulloch,
I'll see you at the airport. Michael Recton wat it's
(06:05):
great to have you back on the podcast and I
appreciate it very much much.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Thank you thanks for having me, and it's great to
be here.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
I was triggered to make contact with you because you
were a Marxist for much of your life, if not
most of it, and it was only in relatively recent
times that you actually woke up and what you'renar are
a libertarian basically, and even a conservative libertarian maybe like
(06:32):
my claim. But you have the experience more than anybody
I've known or have spoken with on Marxism and what
is a Marxist and who was a Marxist, etc. So
they say frequently you can read it in headlines all
over in articles that Kamala Harris is a Marxist. And
(06:52):
after all, her father was a Marxist professor, So why
wouldn't she be or couldn't she be with your experience,
would you call her a Marxist?
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Okay, that's a great question. I would say that Kamala
Harris is at least an unconscious Marxist, perhaps a conscious Marxist,
but I know that she's at least an unconscious Marxist
who has absorbed probably through her family, her father. But
you know, through the political zeitgeist itself the premises of
(07:24):
Marxist thought, and that is this idea that there is
this exploited class and that's the majority, and they are
stolen from at work at the point of production, and
therefore they need redistribution. There needs to be redistribution, and
that has to be conducted by the state, and that's
(07:45):
the state's role. And that's really where she comes down.
And you know, it's a zero sum thinking. It assumes
that anybody getting wealthy comes at the expense of somebody else,
which is just fallacious. It's completely economic dribble. You know,
her father was a Marxist economist, which is a contradiction
(08:07):
in terms Marxism is not economics at all. It is
completely you know, it's it's really metaphysical rambling and it
has no real economic basis to it.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
What a new opinion qualifies somebody as a Marxist, Well, if.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
They were a conscious Marxist, they have to believe a
couple of things. First of all, the history of all
of all, you know, hitherto human relations is the history
of class struggle, and that struggle is particularly undertaken in
the current era in terms of the proletariat and the
capitalist class. And the capitalist class, according to this theory,
(08:48):
exploits the worker every single minute of the day, and
they steal from them. It's a conspiracy theory. They steal
from the worker all all day long. They exploit them.
They siphon surplus value out of the labor process and
retain exploited wealth, and it builds up over time and
(09:12):
this creates a kind of impossible barrier for the worker,
and the only resort is to conduct a revolution, a
class revolution. And it all comes down to their belief
and the labor theory of value, which I once believed in,
which is the idea that labor is the source of
(09:34):
all value and that therefore, in order for the capitalist
to get any value extraction, he must exploit the worker
on a regular day to day, minute by minute basis,
paying them a fraction of what they really produce. Of course,
(09:54):
this is all complete nonsense because there's so many factors
that go into production, and the labor theory of value,
once you knock that out, which is completely fallacious, that's
not where value comes from. Value comes from the subjective
wants of consumers, of people that buy products. That's where
value comes from. It is not based on labor time.
(10:17):
If that were the case, I could go out and
dig a hole for sixteen hours and expect to be
paid at some rate, you know, the hole that was
useless to anybody, and then filled it back up and
expect to get paid for both processes. It's absurd.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Did you have got to the Soviet Union?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
No? I did not, had I gone to this. Had
I gone, I might have, you know, during the Soviet period,
I might have seen things differently. But to the Marxists,
they obscure what happens is in the Marxist milieuse. What
they do is obscure history and obscure the actual existing socialism,
(11:00):
actually existing socialism as the dissidents came to refer to it.
They obscure this from view and keep you focused on
the theory and the ideas and how theoretically wonderful be
and how just it is, you know. And having come
full circle into becoming a libertarian, a free market, a
(11:22):
believer in the free market and freedom, I now see
that this is anything but the reverse. This is actually
the reverse or the inverse of the truth that, in fact,
there's no freedom under Marxism because the first thing you
surrender is yourself. You are now property of the state.
And when you have no possession of yourself, that's the
(11:45):
first principle of libertarianism, as self ownership. Once that is surrendered,
you're a slave, and so there's no freedom. And of course,
if you look at the goolog system, there was forced labor, unpaid,
there was slavery, literal slavery in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
If Kavala was on the Marxist story, you weren't going
to refer to her as as any kind of Marxist.
What label would you put on her? I've got one
in mind.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Well, she is at least an unconscious Marxist, but I
would say, in keeping with the Marxist idea, she's also
a globalist and an internationalist, because one of the main
things about Marxism is it had to be the socialist
or communist system has to be international and likewise, her policies,
(12:33):
for example, on immigration, where she wants unfettered immigration and
also total social welfare inclusive of healthcare benefits for anybody
that's in this country, anybody, no matter how they got
here or how long they've been here. She wants to
give them free healthcare. This is internationalist, globalist, and it's
(12:55):
Marxists all at the same time, and those all fall together.
But what was your term?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Progressive?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
A progressive? Well, yeah, she's a progressive with a with
a foot with a foot on the gas pedal. It's
a highly accelerated progressivism. Okay, yeah, I mean she really
wants to create equity as they call it, as quickly
as possible, and that means redistribution. And she sees she's
(13:25):
running on this campaign now to help the middle class,
which is really quite ironic because if anything, her policies
will utterly dissolve the middle class into a stagnant lower
class pool that can never get out of it. I mean,
that's really what it will come down to.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Well, we had a Prime minister recently who claimed she
was a progressive. That's why I that's why I chose
that term. And you know about whom I speak. She
gets one mentioned in a list of similar types in
your book, The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty,
which was released last year. And I could only say
(14:09):
that most people, most people in this country don't realize
how close to disaster we really came. Albeit that it
was bad enough, but it could have been that it
could have been a whole lot worse. Speaking of which,
and let me divert just momentarily, the World Economic Forum,
the WEF, which had had to do with just into
(14:33):
redurance training. Are they still as active? Are they still
as progressive as they were? And I used progressive in
its in its proper sense.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, I mean the World Economics Forum, their main project
really well, there's kind of multi pronged, but that's only
because the main project that they support, which is Agenda
twenty thirty. UN's Agenda twenty thirty is a multi pronged
program and that their world, the World Economics form Great Reset,
(15:06):
not a conspiracy, but in a bi open plan is
about accelerating the arrival of the accomplishment of Agenda twenty thirty.
That's really what it is in a nutshell. So to
understand the Great Reset, all you have to do is
study Agenda twenty thirty. I mean not only but because
I did that in I think one or two chapters.
(15:29):
But there's a lot more to it because the UN
has a deep history as well. But Agenda twenty thirty
is what they want to bring about, and that is
a globalist plan to institute well to have the various
nation states and local and regional governments adopt. These are
the agenda items, and all of the agenda items refer
(15:51):
to things like redistribution of wealth, control over waterways, control
over land, control over individuals. These are the technologies, the
digital identity, and the whole slew of other means of
incorporating the subject, including in CBDCs. But the Bank of
(16:15):
International Settlements has said many times that the CBDC depends
on a digital identity, and that is exactly what they
look for. They want to have every single subject under
the UN's auspices as a digitally identified subject whom they
(16:36):
know virtually everything vital about, inclusive of their finances, but furthermore,
their political proclivities, their consumption and you name it. Basically
everything that you do would be part of a database
called which is the digital identity. It's not a mere
(16:59):
means of identification. It's a database attached to every single person,
replete with biometric surveillance data, so that they know exactly
who you are and what you do and they can
verify it through biometric data.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Well, we're in that position. New Zealand's Reserve Bank is
working toward a rather rapidly. I fear to order a CBDC.
There are lots of people, plenty of people at this
point of time who say, well, this would be a
great way of handling the financial system, who don't see
(17:39):
anything wrong with it. So what do you say when
somebody challenges you on that.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Well, I just point to the documents and what they
actually say straight up. The Bank of International Settlements kind
of the Central Bank Clearinghouse, if you will, says directly
that there's no there is no anonymity with anything using
a CBDC, So every purchase becomes completely transparent to the
(18:14):
central banks, and perhaps to all the central banks simultaneously
if they share data. So this data is now completely
transparent to them. That means every purchase you make is
known by the central bank. And since you know, in
the case of the United States, it's the Federal Reserve.
(18:34):
Of course, they're a private cartel. Nevertheless, they are also
strangely and ambiguously an agency of the federal government. So likewise,
the federal government effectively knows everything you buy, all the
money you have, et cetera, et cetera. And also they
can exact real time taxation on all income immediately. They
(18:59):
could even impose negative interest rates on balances that were
not spent at the proper rate. There's all kinds of
things they can do. They can forbid particular types of
transactions or perhaps give quotas on particular types of transactions.
Say you've had your full complement of meat this month,
(19:20):
you cannot buy any more meat, you know, so they
do that here with food stamps, you know, which is
now all electronic in the United States. They could do
this easily with the CBDC. Everybody will be on food stamps,
and everybody's spending will be capped at certain points on
different items, including gasoline, because they certainly want to phase
(19:42):
out the gasoline automobile and replace it, God knows why
with the electron electric automobile, even though that is environmentally
more damaging, damaging than the gas powered automobile, and it
uses gas, it uses fossil fuels in order to charge it.
(20:03):
It's absurd. I mean, the whole thing is absurd. I mean,
I don't know how this charade has and pulled over
the eyes of so many people for so long, but
it has well.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
I would suggest that, like so many other metas, the
media has a great deal to do with it.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Yeah, it's unbelievable. They represent things without getting giving any
kinds of context or information or really they managed to
pull kind of like a complete reversal of the truth
when they represent different things like this, like the like
(20:42):
the electric vehicle it has you know, there's no savings
and fossil fuels on that basis. I don't believe at all.
And in fact, it's in the United States. Much of
it is driven by coal technology because that's where the
power plants are. That's what the power plants are using,
is largely coal, and likewise it's just as polluting, if
(21:05):
not more than the gas power engine. So it's ridiculous
And how they get away with this is just like
you said, the media is very much of a shroud
over reality. It serves as a kind of obscuration of
facts and instead gives you this packaged view that's completely wrong,
(21:25):
and that's very frustrating for those who are somewhat awake
and aware of what's happening.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Oh, you must be a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Absolutely, I make no apologies for that. In fact, in
my books A Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty,
I have a whole chapter on the epistemological status of
conspiracy theory per se. And there's absolutely no there's no
justification for dismissing any theory because it's a conspiracy theory
on that basis, there's no justification at all. Because there
(21:59):
are conspiracies and there are hidden agendas. This is a fact,
and they're not so hidden all the time, and most
of the time you just have to look under the
hood and you'll find what's going on.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
But yeah, that's part five of the book on page
three hundred and thirty one. I'm just letting you know.
I've got a copy then the and it's full of
very interesting and intriguing information, I might add, So we
have diverted just slightly. Let me retarget Kamala Harris at
(22:35):
this point. What chance would you say that she has
of pulling this off?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Oh, unfortunately, it's very close to fifty fifty fifty one percent.
I mean, she has a very good chance of pulling
this off. It's alarming beyond words, but I think she
has a very good chance.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
So on that basis, assuming that that is the result,
what would a Kamala administration look like? Do you think?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
I think it'll be a sequel of the Biden and
Obama administration, So I think you'd see a lot of
recycling of the same people in the upper echelons in
the directorships and heads of all the agencies would pretty
much be the same, with some reshuffling I think to
(23:26):
make it look different. But it's going to be the
same cast of characters running the show, and they have
the same foreign policy and the same domestic policy. I
think you're going to see a sequel, but with acceleration.
I think Kamala Harris is what is known in Marxist
(23:46):
circles as an accelerationist. She wants to bring about these
things quickly, even if it means driving chaos on the way,
because there are those who say that you basically have
to make things really bad in order to get the
kind of change you want. And I think that's the
kind of the kind of pretext to her political philosophy.
(24:07):
If it makes things really bad quickly, then we're getting
closer to the goal.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Do you think that America as we have known it
would and could survive one or two terms of Kamala
Harris administration?
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Wow? Well, I think it would leave at best a
remnant of political dissidents and communities that are now being formed,
parallel communities that are being formed on the basis of
what you and I value, which is freedom, free markets.
(24:46):
But these are parallel communities that would survive somehow, like
for example, the Amish in the United States, no matter
what happens to the political establishment here or the whole
economic system for the most part these people would survive.
This is the kind of parallel economic and social bodies
(25:08):
that I think are forming in advance of all of this.
And they would survive. But how long it's hard to say.
And how many of them there would be, and how
many people they would have contain, very very hard to say.
But the overall economic order of the United States could
be plunged into a kind of post USSR disaster or
(25:33):
you know, the kind of economics that the USSR had
prior to their collapse, their total collapse. It would be
hard to take down the United States. You know, you
look around, you go to New York, you fly over
these cities, you see the vastness of this landscape and
the incredible resources that have been built up here. It
(25:56):
takes a lot to tear it down. It takes a
lot concerted effort, but it would be it would be hobbled,
severely hobbled at best after four years, and after eight years,
it'll be on its knees.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
I don't want to use the word challenge. We're I'm
going to challenge you just slightly on some of that
we've we've just we just discussed the CBDCs and the
control that they would give the administration whatever form the
administration was in. So on that basis and the fact
that the Amish I mean to armies land by the way,
(26:32):
and I was, I was, I couldn't believe. I was fascinated.
But the armies have survived because they had the freedom
to do what they wanted to do. When you when
you don't have that freedom, when that's taken away from you,
and let's say it it revolves around the administration of finance,
(26:53):
then the things aren't going to be so easy.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
No, yeah, I think it would be very difficult. And
the incursions of the overarching economic order into those places
would be very hard to resist, and also the states
impositions on them would be very difficult. I mean, we
just saw that recently with a Mennonite here in Pennsylvania
(27:18):
where I live. A Mennonite who just wants to farm
and sell his products, milk and things like this, and
they raided his establishment, took all the products, levied an
enormous sign against him. I think it was five hundred
thousand dollars, utterly destroying his business. So yes, as long
as those people can do that, as long as the
(27:41):
FDA here, the Federal and Drug Administration, Food and Drug Administration,
as long as they can get to you. In fact,
you could be destroyed even trying to keep yourself alive
with food. But we would say that, and I'm going
to be slightly provocative here, as these smaller communities would
have to be like the Amish, only armed frankly for
(28:02):
self protection, not for aggression.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Of course, that's why the to bear arms exists. Essentially
the state system. Of course, I have this throned me
from time to time by a couple of people, in
particular that Washington doesn't have that much power and the
states can undermine it. What chance, in your opinion, with
(28:26):
Texas and Florida and Tennessee, for instance, what chance would
they have?
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Well, it would come down to standoffs, and I think
they're going to be. There will be attempts to make
the states more autonomous, and you could see possible if
things get bad enough, secession, attempts at a secession and
to insulate themselves from the overreach, the overreach and penetration
(29:00):
of the federal hegemon that's running the show. And I
think you're going to have to also have people in
those states that are liberty minded, so they're not only
working on people through direct force and coersion, but also propaganda,
so that it's hard to even find leaders who understand
(29:21):
what we're trying to save in the first place. And
they're penetrating local governments too, using Agenda twenty thirty, rules
and issues and so forth to create sort of fifteen
minute type cities and all this nonsense. This stuff has
penetrated local townships, and I know for a fact because
(29:44):
I witnessed it in Colorado where these the administrators there,
the local government was doing all these globalist things. So
it requires an educated and resilient, recalcitrant remnant running the
show in those various local places and resisting the federal
(30:06):
incursions as much as possible. It's a very difficult proposition.
In the United States, there's an organization. I'm bragging about
it here because I'm involved with. It's called the Mesis
Caucus of the Libertarian Party, and that is the plan
of the Mesas Caucus now has been adopted by the
Libertarian Party. It's called Project Decentralized Revolution. It's really only
(30:30):
a revolution back to the kind of anti federalist, anti
centralized government that the founders actually envisioned in the first place,
and that the states would be autonomous except in matters
relating to constitutional provisions that the federal government had authority over.
(30:51):
In other words, only those things the federal government explicitly
has authority over can be imposed on the states. Everything
else can be nullified. It's difficult, but it can be done,
and there are cases of nullification happening all over the place.
And you know, one of the other movements that's really
(31:12):
along these lines is called the Defend the Guard movement
in the United States. It's a movement to preclude the
use of national guards state national guardsmen in undeclared wars
across the globe. This is another way of the states
asserting their own autonomy and it's not allowed to you know.
(31:37):
You know, technically the United States cannot fight fight wars
without a declaration from Congress, but it's been going on
without without really any hesitation otherwise. But at least they
could reserve their own National Guard and keep them at
bay and keep them from participating. So things like this,
(31:58):
Defend the Guard, decentralized revolution, all of these things can
be done, and they're already underway in some places. But
it's very difficult. It's not going to be easy. Nobody
said that this remnant will struggle against this kind of
detlitarianism that we're up against.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Right. This is a side by question, but it's related
from this far away. I've watched the story of the
Southern border unfold and if you go back, if you
go back four or five years, where it was already
a problem. Now it's more than a problem, but it
(32:37):
was a state of well, chaos wouldn't be the wrong word,
and the Southern border gradually, actually in a rush, became
no Southern border. And what number do you do you
use when you talk about the number of illegal immigrants
who have come across that border in the last few years.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I would say it's upwards of fifteen million, roughly upwards
of fifteen million, because the reports are somewhere around ten
or eleven, and I would say they're missing some people,
of course, so I think it's upwards of fifteen million,
and that's a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Well, you had the Texas governor take a stand on this,
and the fence off some areas of the along the river,
the name of which escapes me.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
I can't remember the name either right now.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Anyway, anyway, they tried doing that, and then the White
House sent down who was it that they sent which
particular grouping of military did they send down to ord
to try to put us up to it? And I'm
not sure. I'm not sure how it ended.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
You know, that's a good question. That's a story that
sort of disappeared, yep, and it needs to be examined.
But I think the standoff was using or an attempt
to use, the National Guard. But the National Guard are
state based, so I don't think they were able to
actually use any militia against this, against the fencing that
(34:19):
took place, and you're right, the body of water escapes me.
But they erected barbois fences and so forth to keep
people from crossing into Texas, and that's perfectly legitimate in
my mind. I think immigration should be handled at the
(34:40):
local level as much as possible. But the main thing
that's really going on here with this immigration is the
incentivizing of it to the tune of billions tens of
billions of dollars. The federal government is not directly funding it.
What they're doing is a little ledger domain in which
they use a middlemen, the NGOs, and they're handing out
(35:03):
tens of billions of dollars to these charities so called
these philanthropy and letting them distribute the money. And this
is in the form of everything from debit cards to transportation,
to housing, to healthcare to everything. This is being accommodated
through these NGOs largely. And then the States then in
(35:27):
the when this when the immigrants arrived, then they grant
them housing and hotels and housing and who knows where
else apartment buildings. In the case of Aurora, Hi, Aurora, Ohio,
they actually took over at an apartment complex. Is driving
people out of their plate homes and just basically a
(35:49):
violent takeover of property. This is where we're at.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, we've seen that. I don't know about local television,
but it's been it's been seen on the cable from
the States down here. I've seen it on more than
one occasion, and it's just just plain ugly.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
It's I'm believable, it's very ugly. It's just utter theft
of property and complete occupation of people's residences that they're
literally throwing people out of their homes and taking their property,
throwing it in the trash with if they don't want
it and occupying their property with the complete apparent okay
(36:34):
of the local authorities. They are doing nothing about it.
They aren't doing anything to stop it, and they're not
doing anything to reverse it when it happens. So in
this case, what we're looking at, if Trump got in,
hopefully he would have these places completely retaken. They have
to have a counter insurgence to get these properties back,
(36:57):
and that would be probably one of the first orders
of business, I think, because if you're going to go after, oh,
the illegals and deport them, I would think you might
want to get the ones first who have actually taken
over other people's homes. It's unbelievable, is can you believe
we're even saying this.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Well, let's not forget that. It didn't start in Ohio. Really,
it started up in New York as far as I'm aware.
Where you may have seen the woman on television who
had been away, away somewhere, came back. The house had
been occupied, and she called the police, and the police
arrested her.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Yes, the owner squatter's rights. Yes, based on squatters rights.
Once you get ahold of a property, that's it. In
New York, you are out it's unbelievable. So there's no
sense of property rights. In many places now property rights
are being completely abrogated. There is no sense that property
(37:57):
is real and that people have a right to it.
This has been one of the main reasons, I think
for the whole Wok ideology, is to make people believe
that they don't have any right to what they have,
that in fact they should feel guilty and should abdicate
it or or otherwise have been divested from it by
the authorities. That that's it's just it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
And you've got to wonder if the world's gone insane.
The substackt that you write for under the name if
my memory serves me correctly of and don't tell me
m recton wald great at substack dot com that's correct,
contains a large number of your offerings over the last
(38:43):
over the last couple of years, and it's it's an
extremely profitable place to spend a bit of time, in fact,
more than a bit of time, because it's very educational.
I just wonder every everybody these days and their uncle
is writing substact stuff. I'm watching the increase of it
(39:06):
just in our country, and it's turning out some extremely
good commentary, such stuff that the mainstream media simply wouldn't
wouldn't consider. And I suppose it's probably a long stretch
to refer to it as a contemporary version of those
pamphlets that were written back in the seventeen hundreds. I
(39:27):
think in your country. But is that a good ground, Well,
let's stay with you and yours. I would imagine you
have good readership, but there are so many now that
it's hard to know exactly where to spend your time.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
Yeah, it's very difficult to tell. I have a good
subscriber base. I think it's upwards of twenty five subscribers.
And I was very hesitant to move my work off
of my own website, Michael rectinwall dot com and to
put it first on substack. But I reach a much
(40:07):
broader eye audience this way. It's incredible how it just
traffics people between these various substack sites. And likewise, I've
gained tremendous reach over this, and so I don't regret it.
I do try to keep my other page up to date,
but I let the substack lead the way now, and
(40:28):
it's just very it's very good. It's a good way
of reaching a lot of people. You might call it
like a kind of pamphleteering, as in, you know in
England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, you know when
you had Addison and Steel and others writing for the
public in these kind of public squares. It's the new
(40:51):
public square for a long form, at least more than
a tweet long content.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
Yeah, I've got to refer to something as something else.
The university prefaces have started the petition for academics already
behind Donald Trump in the twenty twenty four presidential election.
The petition's statement, a project of Professor Daniel Klein of
George Mason University and Daniel Mahoney or that should be
(41:20):
many probably, professor emeritus of Political Science at Assumption University,
encourages scholars to support the Republican candidate. The article goes
on with more detailed but this is how it finishes. However,
he said, a Kamala Harris administration would be catastrophic. While
President Trump can be thought of as a bad landlord,
(41:41):
the Harris administration is a further step on the road
to serfdom, a step toward totalitarianism. Censorship suppression law fare
and attacks on the affluent middle class. The Democrats are
a passionate, indoctrinated mob that cares little for freedom. Now,
a lot of people, if they were reading that, i'd suggest,
(42:03):
would think, oh, what an exaggeration. It's nowhere near anything
as bad as that. Your response.
Speaker 3 (42:11):
I've been saying we were headed towards totalitarianism for approximately
nine years now, and I think it's great that some
people are catching up, and and it's amazing that you're
seeing a profess certain segments of the Professoriat actually finally
catching up to this. And yeah, I think he's correct.
(42:33):
You know, you're going to see with with Harris, you
would see a totalitarian regime, you know, in in if
not in full force, in in accelerated motion. And so
I think that is a very good development, and I
hope more more academics. But I think that many of
them will be cold and quailed, afraid to join because
(42:58):
it could mean the end of their careers as they do.
That's how bad it is.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
Well, we know that because you fell into that either
that very category, but you had you had survived. But
I'm guessing you'd say that it might be harder to
survive now. Because the market that you've you've helped create
is probably busy enough.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Yes, it's not easy. As I had a virtual sinecure
as a university professor. I mean I did teach. I
taught two days a week if that was a full
time job, nine months a year, and I gave it
up because of my greater value, which is truth. And
that's why I went into academy in the first place.
(43:44):
So I wasn't going to sacrifice the truth for a sinecure.
It's just a drive. That would be a sniveling and
very obsequist thing to do, and I couldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Why do you think the ruling class see is democracy?
Speaker 3 (44:01):
Oh that's interesting because I've been writing about this question
of our democracy as they call it here. The Democrat
particularly use this phrase, and it's anything but democracy. What
they mean by our democracy is something like our rule,
a rule by our party or our uniparty, whatever you
(44:22):
want to call it, and anything else is a threat
to democracy. So what they mean by democracy is kind
of like ruled by the administrative state with our puppets
in place, carrying out the deep state or administrative states deciderata,
(44:42):
and anything else is a threat or anti democratic or
fascist or nazi or whatever else they want to call it.
And it's just such an irony because they're anything but democratic.
It's in fact the opposite of democratic. It's dictatorial. It's
a dictatorship by a particular elite of subversive elites, and
(45:09):
that's who's running the show. And they consider any threat
to their single, solitary control of power to be anti democratic.
That's what they call it. So they hate democracy because
look at the people that would vote, and they want
to discount these people. They want to discount the fact
(45:31):
that you have at least half the country. I think
it's more who favors Donald Trump here in the United
States as opposed to the regime puppet that they want
to prop up instead, and that's called anti democratic. So
that's the people they want to shut out. They don't
want them having a voice, they don't want them casting about,
(45:55):
or if they do, they want to make sure they
get enough additional ballots from god knows where, including immigrants,
I believe, another chicanery. Really, they want to make sure
that they get they keep power, and they're willing to
subvert democracy in the name of our democracy.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
Such an irony well, I've heard if I've heard it once,
I've heard it a million times that the Democrats will
stop at nothing to retain power and win this election.
Speaker 3 (46:27):
Yes, that's absolutely correct. I think they'll stop it nothing.
And I wouldn't even put it past them to precipitate
a world war with Russia in advance of this, because
then they'll be talking about the peaceful transfer of power
and how we have to keep it in certain hands
(46:48):
and we can't let Trump, who's a conciliator and a
putent poppet, we can't let him in power because he'll
he'll put us at existential risk. But likewise we must
continue and we may have to suspend the election. I
would not put that pass them, even.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
It has crossed my mind, speaking of which I haven't
mentioned this on a podcast yet, but I'm going to
not that. Not that we've had many podcasts since that,
since that debate, but I said to my wife during
that debate, which wasn't a debate at the face, but
I said to her, she's had preconditioning with the questions,
(47:29):
and my wife said, no, no, no, they wouldn't dare
do that. She was look, she was responding, so immediately
so consistently with ret with what could only be described
as ready comments for every question. There was no hesitation.
It's just banged straight into it. Whether it was right
(47:51):
or wrong, or indifferent or whatever it was. It was
straight into it like she'd had like she'd had the
questions fed to her and been and been suare we say,
coached in them. And for anybody who who might struggle
to believe that, you've only got to look at the
the the interview that she did in Pennsylvania two days
(48:11):
later where she was asked where she was asked questions
by a lift leaning interviewer and she went back to
words Sellatville. Yeah, she gave disaster schounces.
Speaker 3 (48:22):
Yeah, I think you know she I was almost shocked
at her cogency during this so called debate. But you know,
there is a whistleblower now that alleges that she was
given This is from an ABC whistleblower, that she was
(48:42):
given the questions, or at least given the parameters of
the questions where she was able to delimit the possible questions.
I think everything she said was utterly memorized. That was
a pretty impressive feat. I've done a lot of public
speaking and it's very difficult to memorize that much material.
(49:03):
But I believe it was memorized, and I think it
was ready made, ready to spit out at on queue,
and that's exactly what happened. I do believe she was
given some sort of information, if not the direct questions,
then the topics, and just had a ready answer for
every topic and subtopic.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
I was aware of that whistleblower yesterday, and I decided
that I wouldn't raise it because I really need more
This is what I was thinking. I really, I really
need more confirmation of it than is currently available. I
saw that, I looked at I did a bit of research,
and I saw that there were sort of hints in
(49:49):
that direction from from elsewhere prior to that announcement yesterday.
One of the reasons that I decided to hold was
who was the guy who who worked for Trump who
announced on X that there would be in the next
couple of days, within a very short space of time,
(50:10):
that this would be revealed.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
That could have been Steven Smith. Perhaps it wasn't him.
I don't have that information at the top of my tongue.
Speaker 2 (50:23):
My tongue here it was somebody who'd been a bit
controversial in the past. That's that's why I held back.
But if that's true, you won't see it in the
New York Times.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
I don't know even if it's true. You know, that's
just it. I mean, they're curating reality. Google New York Times,
the whole media plex that you know, they're curating information
to such an extent that they're effectively curating reality. And
it's very difficult to put pierce through it. And no
matter what evidence you provide, they just say, oh, that's
(51:00):
been debunked, and that's it for It's that's the end
of it. It's supposed to be a conversation stopper. My
assistant would know all this. This is Lori Price. She
she works in compiling news and keeping track of everything,
and she would she wouldn't know. But I don't have
that on a tip of my tongue.
Speaker 2 (51:18):
This is a good spot, though, to raise something with
you that I've been intrigued with. You actually ran for
the presidency for the Libertarian Party. Correct?
Speaker 3 (51:29):
I did? Yes, I did. I ran as a presidential
candidate and the Libertian Party.
Speaker 2 (51:34):
If you were an official candidate, but you must have
known that you had no show of winning even if
you became the candidate, but you didn't, you got you
got defeated. But there's a story behind this. I know that,
So why don't you just drop it on us?
Speaker 3 (51:51):
Sure? Okay? So I was the lead candidate for the
whole campaign, and then during the nomination process there were
they do what they call round voting, and therefore you
have to get fifty percent of the vote to win,
and so they eliminate people based on various you know
(52:14):
you got under this? Not sure? You know? They eliminate
the bottom first of all, the bottom candidate, and then
anybody that fails to get X amount. I forget the
exact criteria. Anyway, I won the first five rounds of voting,
and I was very close to breaking through to fifty percent.
And then there was a candidate that got eliminated in
(52:38):
the fourth round. I'm sorry in the fifth round. And
he had promised to if he was knocked out, although
he was stingy to admit it could happen, if he
was knocked out, he would definitely support me. He promised
this three times, no less and one time no less
than three seconds before he went up to announce that
(53:00):
he was throwing his support to the other candidate. He
even said it to my face three seconds before he
made his announcement. I said, you're not going to endorse
Chase Oliver, now, are you? And he said, oh no,
and then stepped up to the microphone and did just
that and became his vice presidential running mate. So then
(53:24):
I lost. And then Chase Oliver couldn't win even in
the next round because he didn't get fifty percent, so
he had to run against nobody, and they call it noda,
none of the above, and he barely won against nobody,
but he did. And that's what happened and what we
got in place of me, which is you were correct.
(53:46):
I'm a conservative culturally conservative libertarian, yes, and this guy
is actually for transing children and other things, you know.
And I'm not bitter about this because, frankly, I would
have been in a precarious position now had I won
the nomination of having to deal with the fact that
(54:08):
you have a presidential candidate who's been they've attempted to
assassinate twice or somebody has attempted, and who could can't
afford to lose any votes in the swing states. So
I would have had the position I would have been
in the very uncomfortable position of having either to take
(54:28):
votes and maybe deprived of Trump of the election, or
throw my support to Trump in those in those states,
I would have gotten tremendous criticism and you know, vehemence
either way, in one case from the libertarian people, the
(54:49):
Libertarian Party people, and in the other case from the
Trump people. Naturally, of course, I'm voting for Trump, and
I'll make no mistake about that. I'm voting for Trump,
and I might even have voted for him against myself
because I am in the swing state Pennsylvania. Well, the.
Speaker 2 (55:14):
If you'd won, what what would that have meant to
your life?
Speaker 3 (55:20):
It would have meant a lot of travel, a lot
more travel. I'd already done a whole year of travel
doing this, traveling to all the states, doing all the conventions, participating.
We had twenty five thirty debates. I mean, it's nothing
like the Republican or Democratic primary, so you know, there's
twenty five or thirty debates. I would have continued to
(55:42):
do that. I would have got a lot of press attention,
probably a lot of negative attention, because what I was
saying was get rid of the administrative state altogether. Get
rid of the regulatory agencies, get rid of the intelligence agencies.
Start gutting the federal government because we can't. We cannot
survive under it. It is crushing us, and it is
(56:05):
crushing the economy, and it's a it's crushed people's lives.
They're not working for us, They're working on their own behalf.
They don't care about the general welfare. They're you know,
everybody is self interested, So why do you give certain
people monopoly over power? You know, since everybody is self interested.
I mean, it's quite frankly between you and me and
(56:28):
your listeners. I was running as an anarcho capitalist, that is,
free market, no state at all, and I thought that,
you know, I was going to argue that the federal
government should be dissolved. What do we needed for? And
you know, that would have been interesting, not to say
the least, it would have been perhaps the most radical
(56:48):
presidential candidate in history.
Speaker 2 (56:51):
Well, that would have been a fascinating thing to watch. Yeah,
I purposely lift out until the until the end, any
any discussion of Trump and what's been going on that
attempted assassination of the over the last weekend. Only a
couple of days ago, now has shocked a lot of people,
(57:14):
or is it now something that has been what's the word,
I want softened? People have been softened by the first experience,
now the second experience, So there's a third attempt, people
might start yawning.
Speaker 3 (57:31):
Yeah, it's ridiculous. I mean, we've had assassination attempts, two
assassination attempts on a presidential candidate, and the establishment media
couldn't be less interested, really and dismissive and putting scare
quotes on assassination attempt in every case they can, and
(57:53):
blaming Trump for his rhetoric, effectively what they call blaming
the victim. You know, NBC News has Lester Holt said,
you know this, this assassination attempt is really coming on
the heels of violent and incendiary rhetoric coming out of
the Trump campaign. They blamed Trump for people shooting at
(58:16):
him or attempting to shoot at him, or wanting to
shoot at him. It's unbelievable. So I can't be I'm
just amazed at how people have been habituated to this
and can particularly just forget about it, you know, weeks
or days after when we're having political violence here in
(58:38):
the United States, not on an unprecedented scale. After all,
we did witness the assassination of JFK and of course
Robert Kennedy and also Martin Luther King. It's not alien
to us. But here we have it right now, and
it's the same person every time. And if this were
the other if the shoe were on the other foot,
(58:59):
you would believe there would be endless commentary on news,
endless op eds in the papers to crying political violence,
and also to crying Trump's role in it. They would
have blamed them. They're blaming him in either case they
shoot at them and they blame them, or if they
shoot at somebody else, they would certainly blame them. So
it's just unbelievable. We're living in a similacrum, if you will,
(59:24):
a media similacrum in which they completely curtail and inquiry
and shut off thinking and curate reality. It's a stunning
it's a stunning development. It is.
Speaker 2 (59:39):
So I think my last question is going to be this,
If the worst happened between now and the election and
Trump was moving, what do you think the reaction from
the population would be.
Speaker 3 (59:52):
Yeah, that's a real good one. There'll be there would
be a lot of talk, at least talk of an uprising.
I'm not sure that the uprising would ever materialize, but
there would be an enormous amount of rhetoric in that direction.
I could see X, for example, the former Twitter blowing
up with threat you know, with plans and rhetoric and demonstrations.
(01:00:19):
I think there would definitely be demonstrations, big ones. You know,
it wouldn't really be civil war because it would be
the establishment versus this people, right, So interestingly, you know,
they talk about predictive programming. There was there is a
movie called Civil War and in which it's really the
(01:00:40):
state against this dissidant community or these dissident people politically.
So I mean that's that's either predictive programming or habituation
to the possibility of what might happen. I don't know
that the United States would see a mass armed uprising.
I doubt it because people are still too comfortable, They
(01:01:04):
still have things to protect, they still have things to lose.
Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
I think that is a brilliant way to put it.
I might borrow it if you don't mind, not at all.
I want to conclude though, with just saying that your
your substack site m recton World r C. T. E.
N w Ald Mrectonworld dot substack dot com is worthy
(01:01:30):
of attacking. So if you go to that site, make
sure you read the Grand Refusal by Michael. The Grand
Refusal Agenda twenty thirty and the Great Reset Plan to
bring it about is a multi tentacled, many headed hydra
of mythical proportions. It's a very good piece and it
contains something that stood out to me immediately, the nine
(01:01:53):
point plan for stopping the Great Reset.
Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
Yes, that's kind of like a companion to the idea
of a kind of decentralized revolution. But it doesn't mean
you have to move necessarily. You have to create local networks,
but also networks of like minded people who exchange goods,
who use their own currency if necessary, and you know,
(01:02:21):
they agree upon the currency, whether it's bitcoin, gold leafs,
what have you. I'm not going to adjudicate that, but yeah,
that plan is effectively a plan for resistance, and it's
not necessarily like an overthrow because it's just it's just
as many people that get involved in it, that's who
it will serve. It won't necessarily serve everybody, because not
(01:02:43):
everybody's going to get involved in it, but for those
who want to elude this totalitarian, centralized system, that's what
the plan's for.
Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
Very good. I just I've done to something else that
I meant to include, so I will quickly The Expect
Money Summit, yes, coming up on October seven through eleven.
I thought when I when I first read about it,
I thought that would be worth attending. The list of
(01:03:15):
guests is great, but more importantly, it is all being
done online. And am I correct in saying that it's free.
Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
It's free online except for us a few special programs,
of which yours truly is one, and I am speaking there,
but to see my talk you have to pay. But
most of the talks are free, and largely the thing
is free, with a few exceptions of some events. But yes,
(01:03:46):
it's all online. It's Expat Money Summit, Expat Money one word,
summit another one word. It's altogether dot com And that's
an amazing event. And I am friends with the guy
that runs it, and they have very good ideas for
(01:04:06):
protecting your wealth and perhaps your life if it comes
down to that. So that's how That's how I'll leave
it there.
Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
So it says to reserve your complimentary ticket head to
expect money summit. Do you do you need to register?
Speaker 3 (01:04:18):
Maybe? Yes, you will have to register, and if you
register under my link you'll have to pay, but you
can find the free links on their site from there.
Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
All right, well, I shall be in attendance. Michael.
Speaker 3 (01:04:31):
It's wonderful.
Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
It's been great. I thank you for your time. You've
donated quite a bit of it, and canoni in by
saying I look forward to the next one.
Speaker 3 (01:04:42):
So do I. And it's great talking to you. I
always it's always a pleasure, and I appreciate your giving
me a forum to the events, but to also get
across the ideas that I think are vital for us.
Speaker 2 (01:04:55):
Terrific. Thanks Michael, thank you. There are essential fat nutrients
(01:05:15):
that we need in our diets as the body cart
manufacture them. These are omega three and Omega six fatty acids.
Equisine is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening
primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of
Omega three and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally
existing ratios. The omega six from evening primrose oil assists
(01:05:37):
the Omega three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine
is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening
primrose oil that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source
from the deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magrol provide essential Amiga
three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal
organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity
(01:06:00):
before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to
be flexible, so important to support healthy blood flow and
overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood, balance and mental
clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting
stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and healthy eyes as
we get older. Equason is a premium, high grade fish
(01:06:22):
and evening primrose oil to be taken in addition to
a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and
health stores. Always read the label and users directed and
if symptoms persist, seeing your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland
Layton Smith. This is producer. Welcome to the mail room
(01:06:42):
for podcasts two hundred and fifty.
Speaker 4 (01:06:44):
Six high lighton how are you doing?
Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
I'm doing just fine? Thank you good, better than expected.
I could even say, oh dear, So let me begin
if I may from Eva Layton. Just finished listening to
your podcast with Nicholas a'roni, and as always, it was
incredibly engaging. Didn't ease my concern that we seem to
be loosening laws while multaneously moving away from religious values
(01:07:10):
and nurturing care for children. We're raising the next generation
in daycares and behind screens, with parents so consumed by
modern life that they aren't instilling strong character, as Nicholas discussed,
a worrying combination at the end, from either look I would,
this is what I say, this is how I look
(01:07:30):
at it sometimes anyway, Yeah, there's a lot of kids
who aren't being raised well at all. There are, on
the other hand, there are, on the other hand, kids
that are being raised in households where they are brought
up magnificently, with both parents working, holding down jobs and
just doing what they need to do.
Speaker 4 (01:07:51):
Laydon Scott says, it's been some years since I have
written to you, laden your podcasts have been as staple
for me since your days on news Talks. It'd be
ended your interview with Robert McCulloch was the catalyst for
me hitting the keyboard. Roberts suggested that the cream of
our young talent was heading overseas at ever younger ages,
and you seemed unconvinced by this. I immediately recalled the
(01:08:15):
name Jamie Beaton, and I'm sure that this demographic was
the target market for his company, Crimson Consulting, though I
haven't heard much about them in recent times. And then
Scott goes on to say, my own experience with our
thirty three year old son, however, couldn't be more of
a contradiction to Roberts theory. A fairly bright individual, but
(01:08:36):
not exceptional. He graduated Auckland University with a b coom
did his professional papers to attain his ca qualification recognized
more widely, then set about developing a specialization field, which
was financial analytics within accountancy, to make himself more employable.
(01:08:57):
He has no desire to leave New Zealand, even though
his parents at one point delicately suggested that they might
head to Queensland and would he follow. He seems unconvinced
that the grass is new, necessarily green or elsewhere, and
although he has a large friend base overseas, is resolute
that he will remain here in the medium term. Lucky you, Scott,
(01:09:18):
rest of us have got children disappearing. And then Scott
goes on to say, I think he also has a
perception that the job market is perhaps easier here, as
with the exodus from New Zealand. There are fewer people
vying for the positions he wants. His corporate progression has
been steady, and the companies he has found himself working
for are usually domiciled off shore. Anyway, renumeration is on
(01:09:41):
a par with what he would be making in Australia.
He may be lucky in this regard, or his field
might just be an outlier, but that negates that reason
for leaving New Zealand. And then Scott goes on to
talk to you about a trip that he and his
son did in the States, and I'm sure you've read
that late. Then he goes on to say, I express
(01:10:02):
the same sentiment as many in hoping that you keep
up with the podcasts for some time. Yet the broad
array of subjects keeps me looking up for the next one,
although you will no doubt be a where by this
letter that I am currently running one month behind. That's
from Scott Scott.
Speaker 2 (01:10:19):
Now, thank you for that. Yes, I did read the
trip story and I don't disagree with you. They need
just make a reference to one thing. He says here
talks about him and he and his son san Antonio, Houston, Dallas.
They were unsurprising Austin had a bit going on, and
my boys just just come back from being in Austin
(01:10:42):
and raving about it. And san Antonio was quite pretty
culminating in lunch alongside the Mid Canal, the Mid City
Canal at one of the vast array of eteries have
eaten me. One of those vast array of eateries. Wouldn't
be a coincidence if it was the same one. Then
you get to New Orleans for a few days, and
I'm envious with an overnight stop in a one horse
(01:11:04):
town on the way wandered. Bourbon Street and the French Quarter, etc.
All had a foreboding air of commercialism about it, as
every last vestige of originality seemed to be squeezed out.
I have advised a couple of people recently on New
Orleans and Bourbon Street is a place to be clear of,
(01:11:26):
I think come nighttime. So it seems I haven't been there.
We haven't been there since twenty thirteen. Ton's it's eleven
years so it's a long long time, and my claim
to have gone there for thirteen or fourteen I can't
remember now different trips is starting to wear a bit thin.
Maybe it's time to update now From Joe, I have
(01:11:49):
an interest in megalithic structures at ancient civilizations around the world,
i e. Stonehenge, pyramids, et cetera. Researching this has led
me to look at our own country and I'm astonished
at what I found. Some examples of this would be Low.
He goes through a number of different places like Silverdale, Bombay, Boulders,
(01:12:09):
chin Hill, part of the above Isthmus alignments, places I've
never heard of even little and know where they are.
There's quite a few of them, involving megalithic structures, carvings,
and a few other things. It appears that over the years,
acknowledgment of these structures and people has been suppressed and
(01:12:31):
kept from the New Zealand public. In some cases, a
seventy five year embargo has been put in place. Other cases,
caves and skeletons remains have been destroyed. Geologists and archaeologists
around the world are finding more and more evidence of
ancient civilizations due to satellite imaging and they're now finding
(01:12:52):
pyramids around the globe in places never before known. The
belief is that these may be all interlinked in some way. However,
due to New Zealand's shutting this down, they are unable
to study this part of the world where other countries
embrace it. New Zealand suppresses Marie legend, even speak of
feskinned people with red hair being here when they arrived.
(01:13:15):
They also know of the structures around the country. It's
also believed that a lot of married items were in
fact copied from these pre Marie people. My question is
why and what can be done to bring this incredible
story in history back to the public of New Zealand.
Has the government tried to keep this from the New
Zealand public and rewrite history. I can see a great
(01:13:37):
opportunity here for New Zealand. Imagine the extra tourist dollars
that could come into the country. Any assistance would be appreciated. Well,
I don't know what I can do to assist, but
there's all sorts of restrictions that have been placed on
various parts of this country, some inspired by local Marie,
(01:13:58):
others not. I don't know that what's there is going
to albeit true, is going to be much of an
attraction to the the vast majority of people who come here.
But then I might be wrong.
Speaker 4 (01:14:13):
Lady Taran says, I've been listening to you on and
off for almost thirty years in Brackets. I'm only forty three.
My dad was always tuned to you on the radio,
and I vividly remember listening to you as we painted
our family beach house one summer in my early teens.
Another excellent episode again this week, but I think it's
(01:14:33):
time to get Jeffrey Tucker back on. We haven't heard
from him since episode one three eight that was in
November twenty one, and Taran goes on to say, here
is a tweet of his from four days ago. You
could have an entire interview with him just discussing this.
So this apparently is Jeffrey Tucker's tweet. No event has
(01:14:54):
traumatized me so much as watching nearly the whole of
the professional media and academic class be entirely fine with
the sudden imposition of totalitarian controls on association, movement, and speech,
provided they could luxuriate at home believing there to be
a killer virus and hang out on video chats as
(01:15:16):
the workers and peasants kept society running and delivered groceries
to their front doors. That same group was thrilled to
receive trillions in payments for having done this. Again, nearly
the whole of the top third of society was just
fine with this and certainly raised no objection. Many within
this group manufactured excuses for their deeply disgusting disdain for others.
(01:15:39):
I doubt I can never recover the respect I once
had for the wealthy, the educated, the credentialed, and the successful.
In the COVID period, they deployed their privileges as a
weapon against modern ideals and against all the people they
secretly regarded as they lessers. This really happened, and it
(01:16:00):
revealed everything. In the end, they were rewarded for their
disgraceful attitudes and behaviors. This reality, again, more than anything
I've ever personally witnessed, has shaped my views on nearly
everything and fundamentally disrupted much of what I once believed.
So that's Taran, You're writer. Later on delivering the quote from.
Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Rom Jeffy Tucker, taren, I did Jeffrey Tucker twice, and
the last time when he was launching the Brownstone Institute,
although nobody knew knew about it at the time of
that second interview. I knew something was going on because
I had the second interview arranged for I believe from
(01:16:43):
memory it was a Sunday night, and with fifteen minutes
fifteen minutes before we were due to record, he communicated
and said, could we postpone it to Monday night? And
I found out why. One of the major sponsors of
Brownstone Institute was coming for dinner and Jeffrey was cooking
for him. And so I've sort of left him alone
(01:17:04):
because he's had his hands full so much. I don't
know whether he does some, you know, interviews on podcasts anymore.
He writes a column for The Epic Times a couple
of times a week. I think he writes for Brownstone
Institute frequently, as he would probably be aware. I just
reckon he's got his handsful, but I think he's one
(01:17:28):
of the greatest. With that in mind, thank you for
another great podcast, writes Cam this alliance, missus producer. With
what you just read in a way intelligent and influential people.
He's referring to another great podcast. You see intelligent and
influential people. A couple would be better easy. Jordan Peterson,
(01:17:52):
Douglas Murray, Elon Musk not so easy. Let me tell
you I have considered. Look, people want me to ask
me to do things, and I give it consideration. I
set this up to do one on one long form
interviews and discover things, particularly people, and I'm enjoying it. Still.
(01:18:18):
Can you imagine trying to line Jordan Peterson, ed Elon Musk,
or even Douglas Murray, because he's difficult enough aligning two
of them up at any one time from different parts
of the world. That doesn't work for me. But I
appreciate your comments. Thank you, Layton.
Speaker 4 (01:18:34):
Paul says, through the talkback show and now the podcast,
your broadcasting style has shaped how I interact with the
vast ocean of information now available regarding world affairs.
Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
A bit worrying it is.
Speaker 4 (01:18:48):
The list of go to sources you've pointed out is extensive.
Two of the very best are George Friedman and Jeffrey Tucker.
My respect for George Friedman is immense. Now the gem
of Jeffrey Tucker has provided another source of reading material
that breeds understanding. I believe that a podcast with these
two great thinkers would be spect tula.
Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
What's this an assault?
Speaker 4 (01:19:11):
Everybody's a producer this week? But thank you though, I
have endeavored to attach a copy of Jeffrey's latest piece
on the Brownstones website titled What Broke Libertarianism? It is
a twenty seven minute read but well worthy effort, and
Paul has sent you the brownstone dot org.
Speaker 2 (01:19:33):
Link he has. Okay, thank you. Mark has written answer
to is Trump the closest thing America has had to Hitler?
By John Smith Laton. Do you really believe that Trump
is fit to be president when all the people who
worked with him so strongly disagree? Signed Mark. So, Mike,
(01:19:58):
I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going
to in the next segment, which will be an additional one,
and just for you at anybody else who wants to listen,
but especially for you, I'll cover a couple of points
that will take a few minutes, and just see if
that makes any difference, missus producer. That means you can go.
Speaker 5 (01:20:16):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (01:20:17):
I don't want to hold you up because you're a
very busy woman. So thank you. We shall see you
see you next week. I was going to say, for dinner.
Speaker 5 (01:20:24):
See you next week.
Speaker 2 (01:20:38):
Now to Mark's comments, let me make a couple of points.
The term all the people who worked with him being
Trump is of course not true, and by any stretch
of the imagination, it's not true. There are plenty who
don't want him in the Oval offers because they know
that he is likely and for that you can read,
(01:20:58):
probably will release details of events that they once kept secret.
Think of JFK's assassination, just for starters, and then think
of the deep state the administrative date. There are lots
and lots of secrets and plenty of corruption in Washington,
and there are plenty of people who want to keep
it under wraps. Secondly, the lessons learned in the first
(01:21:21):
Trump administration would facilitate greater achievement in the second is
a simple way to put it. Then there's something else
that eventuated very recently. Ben Carson, doctor Ben Carson, neurosurgeon, retired,
of course, a man who entered politics and what was
(01:21:44):
He was Secretary of Housing at Urban Development in the
first Trump administration. I had quite a bit to do
with Carson on the two visits that he made to
New Zealand back in the mid teens. He is a
deeply religious man. He is a very honest man, and
he has the very best intentions for his country and
(01:22:05):
the people in it. He interviewed in the studio with
me on two occasions, and we did an interview on
stage before a large crowd, which actually was a lot
of fun. So why do I bring him up. The
answer is because there was an announcement made at the
Republican Convention and Donald Trump made the following comment. Kamala
(01:22:28):
Harris and the radical Left have waged war in America's
faith community since the day they took office. His election
of Governor Tim Walls as her vice president nominee solidifies
their commitment to intensifying those efforts. Ben Carson is a
man of unwavering faith, the perfect person to work with
leaders of the faith community on behalf of the campaign
(01:22:48):
to promote the protection of religious freedom and prosperity in
our country. That's part of it. In his acceptance of
this role, Ben Carson, amongst other comments, said, I'm honored
to serve as his national Faith Chairman and will work
diligently with the faith community to get him elected. There's
only one candidate in this race that has defended religious
(01:23:11):
liberty and supported Americans of faith. And that man is
Donald J. Trump. So being a man of character, of
having character, I have a great deal of faith in
Ben Carter's opinion. Now I got to drag this out
a little longer because I want to quote you an
article written by Elise Stephanick. Elise Staphanick represents New York's
(01:23:33):
twenty first congressional district chair, is the House Republican Conference
Chair and the chair of Women for Trump. But this
is don't worry about that. Just listen to the detail.
Numbers don't lie. Women thrived under Trump, suffered under Harris.
Of the countless lies about Karmala Harris perpetuated by Democrats
(01:23:55):
and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream media, one of
the most egregious is that Karmala Harris's presidency will deliver
historic economic opportunity for working women. Unfortunately, for the desperate
Democrats attempting to erase publicly available data, numbers tell the
exact opposite story. Carmala Harris and Joe Biden saddled women
(01:24:19):
with the largest pay cut, inflation crisis, tax hike, and
economic crash so far this century. Whereas President Trump delivered
the greatest economic boost for American women of any modern
day president. The median income for women increased every year
during the Trump administration, reaching the highest on record in
(01:24:40):
twenty twenty. Real average weekly earnings increased eight point two
percent under Trump, yet decreased three point nine percent under
Joe Biden and Carmla Harris. The unemployment rate for women overall,
and for Black women in particular, reached a record low
during President Trump's term. In twenty nineteen, the workforce participation
(01:25:02):
gap between men and women shrank to the narrowest in history,
and Trump's economy made history with the most women in
the workforce ever. This was not by accident. Understanding that
working women are also balancing families, President Trump delivered a
pro family economic agenda that included doubling the child tax
(01:25:24):
credit from one thousand to two thousand per child and
expanding eligibility. Nearly forty million families received an average benefit
of twenty two hundred under his leadership, totaling credits of
approximately eighty eight billion dollars. He then created the first
ever paid family leave tax credit for employees earning seventy
(01:25:46):
two thousand or less and signed into law twelve weeks
of paid parental leave for federal workers. He also signed
the largest ever increase in Childcare and Development Block grants,
expanding access to quality, affordable childcare and more than eight
hundred thousand low income families. President Trump signed into law
(01:26:08):
a provision that enabled new parents to withdraw up to
five thousand dollars from their retirement accounts without penalty when
they gave birth to or adopted a child. The oft
to ask question about balancing work and family life is
can women have it all? Under President Trump's leadership? The
answer was a resounding yes. Under Joe Biden and Carmala
(01:26:30):
Harris not so much. Biden and Harris's failed economic policies
hurt every American, but hit women hardest of all. Women
are bearing the brunt of Harris's tie breaking vote for
Biden's comically named Inflation Reduction Act, which turbocharged inflation with
a glut of ridiculous climate spending. Women are working longer
(01:26:54):
hours and delaying retirement as a result. Talk to any
woman in America and there is no question that inflation
is a woman's issue. Since Carmala Harris was sworn in
as Vice President, prices have risen by ninetyzero point four percent,
making it increasingly difficult for women to provide for their families.
Women are the majority of grocery shoppers and grocery bills
(01:27:17):
of skyrocket at forcing many Americans to cut back on essentials.
A single mother of two and Nevada had to sell
a car to afford groceries. Under Biden, a mother of
two in Michigan had to think about putting gasoline prices
before buying my kid's clothes because of the Kamala Harris
tie breaking vote for Biden's radical green energy agenda, Families
(01:27:40):
now need an extra twelve thousand, five hundred and ninety
dollars annually just to maintain the same standard of living
that they enjoyed three years ago, according to Congress's Joint
Economic Committee, and sixty seven percent of parents say inflation
has impacted their ability to pay for their children's education,
school supplies, and extra curricular activities this past school year.
(01:28:04):
The cost of childcare has increased thirty two percent for
the average family since twenty nineteen, and nearly two thirds
are spending twenty percent or more of their annual income
on childcare. The average price for a pack of disposable
diapers has increased thirty two percent since twenty nineteen, and
forty seven percent of families reports struggling to afford them.
(01:28:26):
In twenty twenty two, Joe Biden and Carmala Harris's incompetence
created a baby formula shortage, causing the price to soar
to an all time high. Some forty four million people
were living in food insecure households in twenty two, a
thirty one percent annual increase and the largest one year
increase since two thousand eight. Women, she concludes, make up
(01:28:49):
the majority of voters in America, so it's no wonder
the Harris propaganda machine is in overdrive, attempting to gaslight
them into thinking they've never had it better. But as
much as Democrats may lie numbers, never do they show
that President Trump not only cares deeply about women and
all Americans, but also knows what it takes to stimulate
(01:29:11):
the economy to create historic opportunities on our behalf. Carmala
Harris meanwhile, sees women as a convenient voting block to pander,
to deceive, and then abandon in favor of an economic poisonous,
radically liberal agenda. To my fellow women voters. Don't be fooled.
Speaker 3 (01:29:34):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:29:34):
I know that she's the chair for Women for Trump
and holds a position in Congress, but the political aspect
of that aside, and it's obvious these statistics are real.
And as she says at the top, statistics don't lie,
and I won't lie to you either. That takes us
(01:29:55):
out for podcast number two hundred and fifty six. Now,
if you'd like to comment on any of the above,
go for it. Latent at newstalksb dot co dot NZ
Well Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot com co dot m Z
love getting your mail. There's been some very good stuff lately.
See if you can match it for better. We shall
(01:30:15):
return shortly. So there is only one thing to say,
thank you again for listening, and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:30:30):
Thank you for more from us Talk zed B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio