Leighton Smith Podcast #287 - June 4th 2025 - Patrick Basham - The Leighton Smith Podcast

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 podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and eighty seven for June fourth,
twenty twenty five. Patrick Basham, founder of Democracy Institute, discusses
their recent poll on whether Donald Trump is fixing the
American economy or otherwise, and I have to say that
some of the stats are somewhat interesting. We then engage

(00:48):
in discussion on the most critical issues, while some of
the most critical issues on the planet Iran and their
nuclear developments, Ukraine's successful drone strike on Russia, the South
Korean and Polish elections, and by the way, the amount
of CCP Chinese Communist Party interference in South Korea and

(01:09):
their election is well, it's almost terrifying. Then we have
the mail room and at the back end of two
eight seven some commentary on stupidity and net zero and
yes they go very well together. But in a moment,
Patrick Basham. Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a

(01:36):
tablet form called bacterial licate. It'll boost your natural protection
against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three
day course of seven Buckland tablets will help your body
build up to three months of immunity against bugs which
cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well,
the whole family From two years of age and upwards.

(01:57):
A course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe
protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few
days after you take buccolan and lasts for up to
three month following the three day course. Buckolhan can be
taken throughout the cold season, over winter or or the
year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended as an
alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used along with

(02:20):
the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind
that millions of doses have been taken by Kiwi's for
over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist. Always read
the label and users directed, and see your doctor if
systems persist. Farmer Broker Auckland now from Democracy Institute in Washington,

(02:50):
d C. Once again, Patrick Masham, it's great to talk
to you.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Great to be with you late in your fine audience.
Always look forward to it.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Indeed, Patrick, you a few days ago you released the
results of a poll that you did on Trump's popularity. Yes,
why did you do that? At this point?

Speaker 3 (03:11):
Are we episodically you know, test the waters in terms
of the president's approval and the general sense of how
things are going in the country. So you know, we
did this episodically well Biden was president or Trump was
in his first term. And it's something that most you know,
most posters do and it's they don't usually they're not

(03:33):
usually exciting figures, but when you look at the trends
over time, it can be quite revealing. And historically even
there's no perfect yardstick for how a president will do,
say in the upcoming election, but generally a president's approval
rating has been a pretty good guide. So, you know,

(03:53):
crudely put, if a president is around or above fifty
percent approval come nearing an election, he's usually re elected
if he has that opportunity, and if he's you know,
in the low forties or below, he's usually defeated. Obviously,
in Trump's case, he doesn't have any more elections to come,
but so that's that's why we do it, and we

(04:14):
did it at a time when there's been a lot
of discussion in America about Trump's approval because most of
the legacy media pollsters have found in recent or had
found in recent weeks and months that Trump's approval was
quote unquote down. Most of those ourselves included, who were

(04:35):
the more accurate ones in twenty twenty four, had and
have found his approval is quite fine. So there's that
there's that contrast that was in existence, you know, throughout
much of the twenty twenty four campaign between within the
polling community.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
All right, so let's look at the figures. Is Trump
fixing or breaking America? Was the title of it? You've got, well,
why don't you deliver?

Speaker 3 (05:04):
So it's it's memory Services fifty one saying that he
is fixing and thirty seven saying he's breaking the country,
with you know, a healthy number the remainder saying neither.
Neither is the case. They don't really have a fixer

(05:24):
upon that, they don't have a strong sense of whether
he's making the country better or worse. It's a it's
a sort of simple crude, but we think effective way
of just capturing how people think he's doing overall, given
that most people who voted last year, whoever they voted for,

(05:44):
thought that things weren't as they should be. Now, you know,
many of them blamed Biden and Harris, but a good
number thought that the problems that America faced, particularly the
sort of larger our problems, were because of Trump and
his ilk, threatening democracy and all this kind of stuff.

(06:04):
So most people thought there were there were the change
was necessary, the country needed to be fixed. And so
we asked whether Trump was how he was doing on that,
and we found that, you know, by a fair distance,
given how tightly divided American politics are, is that most
people think, yeah, despite the media's best efforts to spin

(06:28):
things otherwise, Trump is actually you know, making some progress,
making some headway.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
I'm I'm intrigued with the with the next set, So
just just running through that again, fifty one percent say
that he is fixing the country or the economy, thirty
seven percent say breaking twelve percent neither. Then you get
to Trump's actual approval rating, and you've got fifty You've
got fifty two percent approve. Disapprove is forty six. So

(06:59):
it's a you can look at it two.

Speaker 3 (07:01):
It in isolation, one would say that's a very good number,
and I believe it is, and it's it's on on
a par with the other better numbers for Trump out
there from other poles, and in start contrast to the
polls that show him down five or ten points on
the approval disapproval question instead underwater in negative territory. But

(07:25):
if you're if you look at it next to or
following the question we've just discussed, it begs then the question, well,
why if only thirty seven percent think he's breaking it
to forty six percent disapprove Exactly What that reveals is
that when you ask people questions that either directly or indirectly,

(07:50):
explicitly or implicitly get to the issue of issues of
tangible change, and most people think of it interest They
think of in terms of the country as a whole,
but most people think first and foremost tangible change in
their own lives, the lies of those around them. Then
you get a less negative response because two thirds of them,

(08:12):
you know, only a third of the country really thinks
that things are not getting better, or at least they're
not getting worse. But when you ask exclusively about Trump himself,
as president. A president's you know, personal qualities or perceptions
of his personal qualities are always going to affect that number,

(08:33):
And of course Trump is the epitomizes how it can
do in ways, you know, positive or negative. So when
people are asked exclusively about Trump and not his policies,
then you get a much more reflexive default response from
you know, almost half the country, which is, well, I
don't like Trump. I wish he wasn't president. So I'm

(08:54):
going to say I disapprove of his presidency to this point,
even though, as I say, a slice of that, a
significant slice of those who disapprove of him as president
actually recognize that he's not doing such a terrible job.

Speaker 2 (09:10):
Is there is there a strong possibility that a significant
number would have voted for him as well those who disapprove.

Speaker 3 (09:17):
Uh, those that some some some, yeah, some would have
been some some would have stayed home. You know, that
was one of the problems that Democrats had if Harris
didn't enthuse enough enough folks on that side. Uh. And
where whereas Trump had the opposite effect. You know, he
was able to squeeze out every every possible vote where

(09:38):
Harris wasn't. And so yeah, you have people who didn't vote,
who couldn't bring himself they would never vote for Trump vote,
we may never vote for a Republican perhaps most likely
they you know, they just sort of said, well, I just,
you know, wake up on our election morning and I
hope Harris is one, but you know, I just can't
bring myself to actually vote for uh uh. And now

(09:59):
that Trump's president, they wish he wasn't and they're willing
to say so, but they're not moved sufficiently to say
anything particularly enthusiastic about the other side.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Let us take a side road just for a moment.
You mentioned Harris. She was Did you know that she
was down in Australia just last week?

Speaker 3 (10:19):
I did. Yes, It's got a little bit of play
in this part of the world.

Speaker 2 (10:23):
That's more than that deserved. She was she was appearing
at a real estate conference in Queensland. In Queensland, did
you see any of her speech?

Speaker 3 (10:34):
Just literally just like a SoundBite or two.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
The well, let's put it this way, Sky News Australia
just took the took the bat to her. Is she
just what on earth was she doing there? Why on
earth did she come? What did they get it down?
For for heaven's sake, word salad all over again.

Speaker 3 (10:52):
Yeah yeah, oh yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
It was just the same, just exactly the same same
approach that she used just before. Nothing's changed. She's got
no show of ever becoming president.

Speaker 3 (11:02):
No, no, she's incapable of learning, doesn't really want to learn.
Still doesn't understand why she lost, expected to win, and
you know, fair chance to run for governor of California,
and if she does, she probably wins, because you know,
someone like her wins in California and in her own head,

(11:26):
the last presidential election will just be this inexplicable blip
in her career. But yeah, it's you have been I mean,
I say, I haven't didn't see the whole speech, but
where you know, the exposure that she's had since so
many people comment on how especially relieved they are how

(11:47):
the election went when they are reminded of who would
have been president if it had gone another way. Rights,
it's something that is, you know, implicitly helping Trump. It's
the contrast with Biden, but but with what Biden was.
And there's also the contrast with what Harris would have been.

(12:09):
And you know, sometimes you're very unlucky with your opponents
or enemies, and sometimes you are quite lucky, and Job
was quite lucky in the end that it was Biden.
And then Harris, so.

Speaker 2 (12:22):
I think this is the first time we've spoken since
since the election night. And and then we all, you know,
in this part of the world, we went on holiday,
and what have you. I'd like your personal opinion, not
your official one, your personal opinion on how Trump is doing.
How would you rate him? I don't care how you

(12:43):
approach this on various matters, but overall, what do you say.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
Well, I'd give him. I give him an A plus
for effort to this point, and I'd give him an
a to anus in terms of outcomes. And as a
sort of general statement, I based it on the fact
that second terms, which of course this is usually underwhelming,

(13:11):
maybe unkind, but they tend to be more of a
victory lap or a legacy lap than anything else. And
Trump could have taken his foot off the gas, as
they say, you know, you know, vengeance or endorsement of
him belatedly after what happened in twenty twenty. But no,
he has approached his second term in a way that's

(13:34):
even more impactful than he attempted in his first and
more impactful and I think ultimately consequential. The most presidents
do in their first terms, to say they blew out
of the gate is putting it, you know, mildly. I mean,
they were so prepared, They were so much better prepared
this time. He and those around him clearly learned so
many painful lessons from twenty seventeen eighteen especially, And while

(14:01):
he hasn't got it all right in terms of personnel,
and I don't think he's made all the right moves,
I think most of the movie have been have been
very positive. Most of the people that he has put
around him are far superior than the one His team
is far superior than the one he had in twenty seventeen.

(14:22):
And the enormous number of areas that he's attempting to,
you know, initiate really significant structural reform. You know, it's
always said that, I mean prime ministers often don't have
that in parliamentaris and have that much leeway and two
or three issues may do it. But with presidents, especially

(14:44):
American presidents, you know, two or three things you can
focus on and hope to get a fair bit of
what you're looking for in your first term. And Trump
is just you know, throwing out that playbook, especially for
a second term, and just going for it, you know,
across the board. And this is this is I think
it's two very strong positives politically out of this. One

(15:05):
is it has really pleasantly surprised, impressed, reassured most of
those who voted for him that he was serious about
the things he was said he wanted to do. And secondly,
it has totally depressed the opposition. It is because they
one hoped he wasn't serious as they had hoped in

(15:26):
his first term, but they would thinking, well, you know,
first month, he'll try this, second or third month, he'll
try that, and they'll be able to do their usual
you know, pounce on it, go push back on it,
media attacks, all of that. But of course he's been
ann he was announcing this first hundred days, you know,
new policies, not his every day, but every hour on

(15:47):
a whole host of different issues. So they have just
been completely bewildered, just spinning around like you know, tops
out of control, which is meant that the it's been
very very hard for the opposition, the criticism of any
of these individual policies to get enough attention to even

(16:07):
potentially stick. And it's really meant that the Twite House
has been on the front foot. The Democrats have been
very much on the back foot, and so it's I
think it's just very very encouraging.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
Would you say that the Democrats picking up the pieces
and making progress in the direction they'd like to?

Speaker 3 (16:31):
No, I wouldn't. I don't they have been. I'm actually
surprised at how poorly they've they've dealt with it. They
are still clueless as to what happened. They now accept,
they acknowledge now that you know that yes, a lot
of young people voted for Trump, and that you know
a lot of Hispanics did, and a surprising number of

(16:53):
black people, particularly black men, and there's all these poor
people who voted for Trump. They now accept that, which
they always resisted in twenty sixteen, after twenty sixteen, and
again after twenty twenty, But they don't have the first
idea why. You're right, there's still very much of the
mindset that Trump and Musk and the other mysterious figures,

(17:13):
other nefarious figures, somehow we're able to conn all these uneducated,
unsophisticated people to vote for him, and they the notion
that their message was wrong, their candidates candidate was wrong
about all of that, and they're having real trouble coming
to terms. I mean, it's always difficult and you lose

(17:36):
to actually look in the mirror and go, you know
a lot of it was my fault. But they're not
even close to doing that. So you know, that's you know,
that's really good news for Trump and the Republicans. Of course,
you know, come the mid terms, come the next presidential elections,
as usual, it will probably be more about the incumbent
party and the won't be the incumbent president, but you know,
if it's the vice come and vice president, then it

(17:57):
will be about the opposition. So if things have seemed
to go poorly over the next two or three years,
then even if they don't get their act together, they
may slip in again, you know, because they're but like
you know, the Labor Party did in England in the UK,
because they're not the unpopular incumbent. But at the moment,

(18:19):
it looks like things will really have to go off
the rails for the Trump administration for the Democrats to
have a good chance next time around.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
Depending depending on the media that you that you attend. Yeah,
you could be forgiven for thinking that lots and lots
is going wrong with the Trump adminstration.

Speaker 3 (18:40):
Oh my goodness. Yeah, I mean things the media tells us,
has told us from day one. I mean it's incredible.
I mean, inflation is up, the economy is crashing, the
stock market's trashing. Trump is even more unpopular in his
second term with foreign leaders and foreign electorates than he
was in this term. He has really incompetent in people. Really,

(19:02):
the visive cabinet secretaries. The policies aren't thought out, they're
they're coldheartedly callously firing you know, wonderful government public service workers,
willy nilly. Uh, it's just I mean just taking a
wrecking ball to important programs. I mean, this is you know,

(19:23):
this has been the word from day one, and that
there's two problems with that in terms of getting an
audience or getting an audience, you know, a sort of
majority audience, critical mass to to go with that. One
is when any of any of those claims or at
tax or investigator that they're demonstrably untrue or you know, inaccurate. Uh.

(19:50):
And also the media, you know, is even less trusted
than it was four years ago, uh, you know, the
trend line continues down is the legacy media is just
you know, the first thing a lot of people think
when they see a CNN headline or a New York
Times headline, they think, oh my, be the opposite then, right,
I mean, it's just they've just cried wolf, told too

(20:13):
many lies too many times. So at the moment, it's
it's just not paying off. But as I say, you know,
things turn you know, figuratively south in terms of policy outcomes,
then more people will think the media is onto something.
But you know, most people know the media is going

(20:33):
to attempt to destroy Trump's second term the way they
it is. First, I mean, there was a statistic I
just earlier today from the Media Research Center on you know,
they regularly update the nature of the coverage of any
given president, and Trump's coverage so far in his second
term is something like ninety one or ninety two percent negative,

(20:54):
whereas Biden's was something like sixty five seventy percent positive.
And you know, it's you know, that's just the way
it is in America. Fortunately, as I say, increasingly people
don't believe legacy media, and also the independent alternative media
is thriving. And so there are other sources more generally

(21:18):
more reliable, and certainly contrasting that more and more people
actually pay more and more attention to.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
If I want to suggest that the situation that the
Democrats find themselves in has a great deal to do
with their collective low IQ, you would say.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
Well, I would say I personally, I pretended to say yes,
I mean professionally, I would say they are incredibly, almost
unbelievably uninformed and ill informed. It's to the point where,
in terms of the politicians, you have to ask yourself,
do they actually believe what they're saying or is it

(21:57):
simply a con right? You know? Is it just a
means to an end when it comes to ordinary folk
who loyally vote for them and will tell you how
terrible Trump is and all the rest of it, a
lot of it is. I think it's just it's just
lack of quality information. But you you know, I would

(22:20):
I would. I would say the IQ of the iriage
democratic voter is probably quite a bit higher than the
IQ of the ariage democratic politician. It appears if ifyone
takes them at their word, that they are well intentioned,
well meaning, and you know, genuine people I'm.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
Just wondering about your your reference to information, getting bad information,
wrong information, et cetera. And if you and if you
equate that to IQ, surely the two go hand in hand.
In most cases, if you've got a low IQ, you
don't even know you're getting bad information or or or
you or you're treating it as a weapon even even

(22:58):
though you recognize it. So you're you're not only not
only trying to fool your voting public, but you're actually
having yourself on a bit as well.

Speaker 3 (23:08):
Yeah, no, there's say something of that. And I think
another thing that plays into this in America. I mean
very a lot of the West, but America is the
probably the best example, is there are so many well educated,
formally well educated, very well educated people who are actually
actually know very little about things. Right there, we become
such a credentialed society. This is this is This is

(23:32):
across the board, but it's especially on the left. Right,
you have so many people and it scus excus female
and excus minorities. There's something like sixty five seventy percent
of black women in Black American women with degrees work
for the government. Right, and what that means if you

(23:53):
drill down is they work in human resources and communications
and this, et cetera, et cetera, and they've been educated
in a way that is not helpful to learning how
the world really works. And you know, they continue along
that path in their careers and in their voting habits.

(24:14):
So it's you know, you have a lot of people.
I'm not saying this to counter what you said late,
but just to sort of flesh it out a bit
from my end, I think you have a lot of
people on the left who believe that they are very
bright because they have never been they never been, never
failed anything, because they've been allowed to fail. They've always
been passed, pushed on, passed through. And they think that

(24:38):
their degrees and certificates on the wall and their business
cards entitle them to be really good judges, to have
very good judgment when it comes to what's good and
bad information, when in fact it's the opposite. You know,
they they are they are so deferential when it comes
to the experts, that is, the approved experts, that they're unquestioning.

(25:03):
And of course this is what you want. If you
want a controlling, top down kind of ideology, take route
which it has you know, massive parts of the country.
And so it's whether there is it that they're really
not very bright, or is it just that they're poorly educated,
or is it some combination of the two self deceit. Yeah,

(25:24):
there's yeah, there's definitely a lot of that. I mean,
you know, there's there's plenty on the other side too,
But it's not they don't tend to they don't tend
to be politically, they don't tend to be as influential
to to have these sort of key roles, not in
you know, in in government, in Congress, in terms of
the staff and advisory roles you think of, you know,

(25:45):
the Clinton administration, especially the Obama the Biden administration, many
of these people were the same. But you have in
the Obama and Biden administrations so many of these twenty
thirty somethings, graduates of Ivy League universities, you know, dictating
foreign policy and tax policy and health policy, who clearly
demonstrably knew very very little about what they were talking about, right,

(26:09):
But they spent all day talking to each other and
to those in the academy and in the NGOs and
the think tanks of the same background profile and views,
and continued every day waking up every day thinking that
they were the brightest people on the planet and we
were all should be very grateful that they're willing to
spend some time each day telling us how we should
live our lives.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Where would you put Harvard these days?

Speaker 3 (26:34):
As far out of America as I could get it,
It's I mean, it's Harvard most of the Ivy League.
I mean, it's so it's completely different to what it
used to be. But I mean, these the more elite
the educational institution in America, the further it is fallen,
it appears as a sort of general statement, right, I mean,

(26:55):
they're so politicized, they're so cowardly, they're so ideological, and
they're also so money or money centered, which you know,
you've got a Harvard with its tens of billions of
endowment money doesn't need a penny from a student or
a government forever. But boy, they're you know, they're going

(27:20):
to sue the federal government if they're taking away the
billions that the federal government the taxpayers give them every year.
It's it's quite remarkable. And we know that the Harvards
of this world have been the incubators of so much
of the crazy wokeness that is not not only threatened
to destroy the universicities themselves, but of course put the

(27:43):
corporate world and especially the political world. So I mean,
what what Trump is doing attempting to do with the
likes of Harvard is something that Democrats fall into the
trap of the of of countering and defending the institute,
the university, not realizing that for most people, what Trump

(28:06):
is saying and what he's demonstrating, you know, makes complete sense.
But the Democrats it seemed just to sort of slightly
circle back late for a moment. One of the probably
the thing that's most going in Trump's favor, you put
aside anything he is or isn't doing, what the outcomes
may or may not be at the moment, what's most
helpful to him is that for the time being, at least,

(28:27):
the Democrats appear to have decided that they are going
to hang their hats on defending federal bureaucrats, foreign aid recipients,
particularly those in the NGOs at home, domestically illegal immigrants,
and transgender people, and they seem to be very very

(28:50):
enthusiastic about defending, supporting protecting those four groups. And the
problem is that to say those four groups don't constitute
electoral majority or appeal to one. It's putting a very
very gender So as long as they keep doing that,

(29:11):
they will remain in sort of pretty poor spot.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Well buried in that commentary you've just delivered is a
very good explanation of why an ex prime minister of
this country found yourself employed at Harvard. Yes, now, based
on what you've said, I'm going to ask you to
extend your commentary to deal with the judiciary, and that

(29:38):
is that is specifically the Supreme Judiciary, but at further
down if you if you choose to go, but can
I make a suggestion to try and stir you on,
And that is that the amount of authoritarian attitude, if
I can put it that way, or some might even

(30:00):
call it tyranny. If not, if not yet, then on
its way judicial tyranny is having a very big influence
on the progress of the administration. Right or wrong?

Speaker 3 (30:13):
Oh? Absolutely, right, one and ten percent right.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
But I is the judiciary right, Yes, absolutely, and I
would put it.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
I would place it in the following context if I may,
which is that the opposition to Trump, that sort of
big umbrella I'm including the politicians, the media, the judiciary,
the bureaucracy, all of the institutional opposition to Trump from
the very beginning right. So in twenty twenty, they decide

(30:45):
they can impeach him, try to impeach him and prevent
him from running for a second term. That doesn't work,
so they stuff enough ballots to stop him from having
a second term. And then when he protests that, they
try to impeach him to stop him from being able
to run again. That doesn't work, so they try to
bankrupt him through the courts. Then they try to imprison

(31:07):
him through the court of That works, and then coincidentally,
I'm sure twice he's there's attempts to assassinate him. None
of it works. He's back in. And I think many
people on both sides assumed and hoped that that would
be it. Oh well, somehow if you didn't like him,

(31:28):
this crazy guy's back in. We only got to put
up with it for four years. And on the on
the on the Trump side, it's like they've shot every
bullet they had. There's nothing else they can do. Well,
guess what they had more ready and waiting, And of
course what they had waiting was the judiciary, and so
what has happened since the very moment Trump was sort

(31:50):
of reinaugurated, uh in late January, was that the judiciary
has taken upon itself to be the most disloyal opposition
and to do everything to not eliminate Trump, but to
eliminate any possible progress on the polar side that he
could make. And where this really comes, where this is

(32:13):
playing out, it's playing at the federal level. Because there's
a federal system. There's a Supreme Court that everybody knows about.
And then you think, of course at the state level
or local level, but there are federal courts that are
that are divided regionally in America that supposedly Supreme Court

(32:34):
justice as they each have a number of them to
sort of oversee. Those courts are the ones that are determining,
at least in the short term that you name the
policy of Trump, it's unconstitutional slash illegal. So Trump can't
close the Department of Education, according to the court, Trump

(32:56):
can't close USAID. Trump can't fire federal workers. You know,
Trump can't attempt to broke a piece in the Middle
East or Ukraine. Trump can't raise tariffs. You know, it
doesn't matter what it is some court somewhere has said
he can't do it, and one of the really, I mean,
we know, we know why it's happening because these judges,

(33:17):
and they're not all Democrats, but those that are Republican
are anti Trump Republicans, and the judicial mindset and psychology
across the board conservative, liberal, Republican Democrat tends to be
And this is just gets back to something you touched
on in your introduction to the question, Laton, which is

(33:37):
there's an authoritarian mindset. Okay, these folks are very deferential
to power in an institutional sense. They are pro establishment,
they're pro big business, they're pro big government. They will
enormous all cases. Their default position is to go with
the powerful force and to not be sympathetic to the contrarian,

(34:04):
the little guy, the outsider, all that. And that's I mean,
you could say always been the case. But when you
get to figure the ultimate outside of like Trump, with
the entire system against him, these folks don't see themselves
as arbiters of justice. They see themselves as instruments of

(34:25):
the system because in their minds, the just outcome is,
of course, to limit Trump's power. And so this is
what's been playing out now. It's been allowed to play
out because the Supreme Court, which is led by a
Chief Justice in Roberts, who is off of this ilk

(34:46):
even though he's quote unquote a conservative Republican. They they
didn't take their opportunity to sort of cut this stuff
off at the pass, and it's going to come back
to them and they're going to have to decide one
way or another. And also, these courts, they're all congressionally mandated.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says that we should
have is a Supreme Court, but there's nothing about all

(35:08):
these federal courts. And so they are a product of Congress,
which means Congress can do something about it. They can
impeach the judges, all these things. These are all things
that may happen, but we're looking at a situation where
it could be before too long if the Supreme Court
continues to act in a cowardly way or actually rules
in an irrational way, a logical way, where Trump is

(35:31):
going to be faced with either complying with this madness
or simply saying as some of his predecessors have done
in which is sorry, you know, not doing it, you know.
And so this is it's a really scary time, but
one which is blatantly getting some attention. But you know,

(35:52):
this is where we find ourselves.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
How uncomfortable does that make you feel?

Speaker 3 (35:57):
Very It's another example of how a historically traditionally pillar
of American society, American American way of life, he has
been watered down, harmed. Uh And and so many people

(36:20):
are just so surprised and literally shocked, bewildered and then
really offended by what's going on. And of course some
people are asking, well, did this happen yesterday or is
this something that's been going on for years or decades?
Uh And Unfortunately, the more one drills down, the uglier

(36:40):
the answer has become. Because as I'm sure you know you,
and I know you know late, and I'm sure many
of your audience does, as what much of your audience
does as well, that most of the things we object to,
the really serious things in the world these days, they're
not something that was thought up yesterday morning. There were
mostly things that were forced up and first acted upon

(37:01):
last century at least, that are now coming. You know,
they're they're now coming to a fruition. And the judicial,
the real the way in which the the perversion of
the judiciary, at least at the federal level. Uh, you know,
it's coming to the four And it's as I say,

(37:23):
is that they weren't out of bullets. They still had
a couple left in the in the chamber.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
Funny. It's funny how things turn up, you know, because
all I had to do was reach out and pick
this up. You mentioned bullets, big bank boss urges America
to stockpiled bullets, not bitcoin. I that was. That was
Jamie Diamond, by the way. Yeah, who's had a lot
to say over the over the weekend, not all of
it encouraging. Now if I or did you want to

(37:53):
comment on.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
That, No, No, it's just I mean, it's a sort
of sidebar on Jamie Diamond. The thing that I was
pleasantly surprised about the price about with his comments is
that he really explained some a little bit of reality
on immigration to his alliance, which was quite shocking, talking
about how insane it had been to have had such

(38:15):
numbers come into the country and what had it done
in terms of worsening the quality of life material quality
of life of lower income Americans, and you know how
something had to be done about this I mean in
say any of this before, but it's better he says it.
I'm glad to know he thinks it, and it is
good that he's saying it now.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
Indeed, I don't want to spend too much time on
the media because we've we've done plenty of that over
over a period of time, and we've we've already mentioned
that a little today. But as this individual is part
of the media, I'm going to throw them in here.
Jake Tapper, Yeah, the only thing that I want to say,

(38:55):
really is how does this irresponsible individual think that he
can lie the way that he is at the moment,
that he knew nothing, and that try and launch the
responsibility back on the on the on the White House
in itself because he had no idea. I don't believe

(39:15):
it where that guy says, I have not for a
very long time. He's just proven it for me.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
I think it's because he and those of his ilk
have succeeded to this point saying whatever they wanted, whether
it was untrue or it was the complete opposite of
what they'd said yesterday and the opposite of what they'll
say tomorrow, and there's been no there'll be no consequences right,
their careers sored. They continue, they make all this money,

(39:43):
they get these great book contracts, and they live in
such a bubble that you know, they they never called
out on the carpet. And so someone in his case,
like many others, but most obviously him, who would not
hear one word about Biden's obvious cognitive and physiological decline

(40:10):
until Biden was out of the Oval office, turns around
and produces this expose book, explaining to the great Onwash
that Biden had been too lappy the whole time and
aren't I the brave journalists for you know, speaking truth
to power? And it's I mean, it is mind blowing,
the hypocrisy of it, the goal of it. And as

(40:34):
one of my friends reminds me frequently, whether you're talking
about the media, the legacy media, or your democrat, the
average democrat, and if they didn't have double standards, they
have no standards at all, And it is just it
is simply remarkable. Fortunately, it is so obviously ridiculous that

(40:55):
this person is trying to portray themselves as a discoverer
of truth that you know, there's at least a mixed response,
and the book itself is not selling, so we have
to hope that at least, you know, he's not rewarded
further for this. But it's yeah, I mean, the media

(41:16):
is just it's not it's not just a joke, the
legacy media. But it's actually dangerous when you consider not
only what they tell us that isn't so, but the
things that they simply ignore and refuse to tell us
that would have been helpful, to put it, malvedly to
know at the time.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
Indeed, I've heard commentators say that critical commentators say they'll
be making He'll be making millions out of the book,
and I thought, no, he won't because no one's going
to want to read it. On very few.

Speaker 3 (41:45):
Now, he may have. He may have got a good advance,
in which we know a lot of these that that's
how mean. It's just like you know, most most of
the politicians their books, it's all about the advance. Very
few of them actually sell a lot of books that
pay for the advance. So he may have had a
good deal, but you know, hopefully not.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
Let's turn our attention to to overseas the South Korean election. Yeah,
as we record this, what's your take, Well, if the
polls are accurate.

Speaker 3 (42:25):
Then at the moment, it's advantage mister Lee, the liberal
left wing candidate and mister Kim the conservative candidate. Looks
like it's an uphill battle to succeed mister Yun, the
recently displaced president from the same Conservative party. It's no,

(42:45):
it's it's a fascinating and potentially, i think for people
on the right of the spectrum, frustrating election because you know,
the context is the President Yun in descent, the conservative
you know, won the election three years ago against mister Lee.
He's you know, pro American, tough on North Korea, tough

(43:07):
on China, tough on the nuclear proliferation, you know, really
a lot of emphasis on the good US South Korean relationship.
But then in December he decides that you know, he
used to declare martial law. The fixes in against him,
and it all goes pair shape, right the parliament, the
parliament votes against him, the people seemingly, you know, figuratively

(43:33):
revolt against him, and then what April, the Constitutional Court
threw him out. So what appears to have happened is
that a race that otherwise would have been highly competitive,
maybe even advantage the Conservative has turned around because of
this obviously very important thing that happened. It's one thing

(43:54):
that's happened because there appears to be in in South
Korean society right now an incredible what fear of a
k They feel they've been a chaotic period for a
few months and that continuing if the Conservative succeeds ex

(44:16):
President Un. Whereas Lee, who was one of those who
sort of very much went to the forefront to protest
what the previous president was attempting to do, is seen
as a more steady, at least in this context, a
more steady pair of hands. And what seems to have
hurt the Conservatives as a party putting forward a candidate

(44:38):
is that the kind of elites of the party, the
establishment wanted someone less associated with the outgoing president. Mister Kim,
I think was the labor Minister and has been one
of his staunchest defenders and has really gone out of
his way not to explicitly criticize ex President Yun, and
but the sort of the base of the party, the

(45:02):
members wanted him, and they chose him, and he's seen,
rightly or wrongly, is not the strongest candidate probably in
under the circumstances, and so have a situation we have
this quite left wing chap in Lee, you know, who's
very much about playing nice with North Korea and China,
not too concerned about the relationship with America, and of

(45:24):
course America you know, potentially is going to dump this
huge tariffs on them within days. And Lee's got personal
and business history with North Korea. It's you know, he's
gone against US and UN sanctions by funding North Korea
to tune of several million. And it's a you would think,

(45:48):
under quote unquote normal circumstances, whatever mister Kim on the
Conservative sides weaknesses are, mister Lee would not be the
strongest opponent, but the peers not to be playing out
that way. I mean, the betting markets, I think make
it a lot closer than the opinion polls. But the
betting markets are not always I mean, you know, sometimes

(46:09):
they're far more accurate in the polls, and sometimes they're not.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
Let me bound something off you, and I'll tell you.
I'll tell you my source right from the get go.
I have found myself of recent times, very recent times,
of paying a little attention to Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. Yeah,
and over the weekend I heard commentary from, amongst others,

(46:35):
the American Ambassador to South Korea m h. They were
talking about the amount of control that the CCP, the
Chinese Communist Party now has in in South Korea, the
influence it's got, and the cheating that is going on,
and they described the ways of cheating that they they
claimed were correct, including pre pre filled out voting forms

(47:02):
and dropping them off and et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (47:05):
What do you say, Yeah, no, the the one one
of the you know, one of the issues that has
come up of late, has gotten a lot of discussion
in America of late, is this issue of election integrity,
voter integrity. And you're right, Steve Bannon has been at
the forefront of shining a spotlight. You know, there's this

(47:26):
voter integrity team, the ambassador, former ambassador, I think a
couple of senior retired military figures from America are over
there and they are very concerned about, as you say,
these apparent case numerous cases of ballots being filled in.
They're very concerned about the electronic voting being being able

(47:46):
to be interfered with, and they're doing the rounds of
a lot of the conservative, alternative independent media podcasts, etc.
So of getting the word out. And yes it's being
tied not simply too well the opposition party you know,
is all behind this, but actually it being as you say,
more of a CCP, more of a a Beijing thing.

(48:11):
And if you're on, if you're not on the lee
left side of this election, then you've got this concern
double concern of not simply that the Chinese might be attempting,
perhaps successfully to interfere with the election, but you've got
a apparent as all well, an apparent winner of the

(48:36):
election or to be who's someone who is by very
it's very nature and history open and sympathetic to that side.
That that's part of you know, that far left part
of the political spectrum all the way you know, from
China itself. So there's plenty to be We don't know

(48:57):
a lot in terms of the sort of the bottom
line here, the tangible stuff, but there's a lot to
be anxious about at this very late stage.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
The suggestion is that there's a practice run for Taiwan.

Speaker 3 (49:10):
Yeah, I mean it could it could, It could well be.
I mean this is how do you given you know,
what's happened in Asia and what's happening in the rest
of the world, and how the Chinese approached these things.
How could you rule that out.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
Indeed, so the Polish election, that's that's turned out a
different way, thank goodness.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
Yeah, we've had the Trump explicitly Trump endorsed candidate, populist
anti EEU candidate win. You know, mister Nevrocki pulled it off.
The polls had him twenty points down not that long ago,
and the polls up to the election, most of them

(49:51):
had him losing by several points, you know, close to
double figures, some of them more than double figures. The
exit polls on the night had him losing narrowly, but
had him losing. And guess what, the people spoke differently.
He won, you buy a couple of points, and even
though his opponent declared victory as soon as the exit

(50:12):
polls were announced, which is a little difficult to retract.
But yeah, no, you have someone who I mean, we
were told that, you know, the stitch up in Romania
and the stitch up in Germany, and we were told
that the Musk endorsements and the Trump endorsements and these
quote unquote European mega mega style candidates, they just there
just wasn't. There just wasn't an audience for it in

(50:34):
sophisticated Europe. But in this case, and an election that
appears to have been comparatively free and fair, apparently there was.
And uh so the globalists, the globalist candidate, the pro
EU sophisticated and centrist likes lots of you know, internal migration,

(50:55):
in inward migration and all the rest of it that
everyone in Brussels hoped, assumed expected to win didn't. So
this is rather a black eye for the Eurocrats and
the globalists and rather rather puts a smile on the
face I think of populist and nationalists, anti EU types
throughout Europe, which I would argue is actually the majority,

(51:18):
and of course gives the White House nice, nice little
boost as well.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
So turning attention to well, there's a couple of other
places we might visit, but to Ukraine and the drone
attack over the weekend, what sort of reaction might you expect?

Speaker 3 (51:37):
Do you mean both separately from America and from Russia
that sort.

Speaker 2 (51:40):
Of No, I'm thinking of the reprisal from Russia.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
Well it is, I mean I think it was a
these attacks are I think at this stage I logical
and irrational and counterproductive. If from the Ukrainian point of view,
forget about sort of a wider picture, wider view of
what's going on in the world and in Europe, they
certainly risk a sort of large response, asymmetrical response from

(52:12):
the Russians. I mean, it's one of the things, you know.
I mean, I'm saying this. Probably most of your audiences
think I'm crazy for saying it, and certainly most people
do when I say it, whatever side of the political
fence they're on. But you know, the assumption all along
has been that if only Putin wasn't so, you know,
totally in control of everything in Russia, then all the
other saner heads would apply and things wouldn't be as

(52:35):
tough on Ukraine. When I have always argued that perversely,
you have to be glad it's not Putin and not
somebody else, because things would have gone quite differently if
they've been the case. And I think this is a
time where maybe my theory we put to the test.
It's going to be hard for Putin not to you
might say, overreact given domestic pressures, but I don't think

(53:03):
he wants to, because I think he sees the larger
picture in his own in his country self interest, and
I think he is at least open to whatever Trump
will advise him. And we know that Trump will advise
him not to, you know, get carried away in the moment.
And so you've got it's interesting what's happening in America,

(53:27):
and it's just in terms of trying to predict and
fear what the Russian response will be. I think most
people in America on both sides that is a Republican
democratic side, Trump's side. Other side is they assume that
the Russians are going to go heavy following this, and

(53:49):
the Trump supporters really fear that this is going to
make it so hard for Trump to get out of
you get America out of Ukraine, and get this thing
over with in a reasonable period of time without you know,
it's therefore going to have negative consequences for him politically.
And then you've got the folks, the anti Trump folks,
who are actually hoping that put and Ova reacts because

(54:15):
then this thing can keep going right and we can
keep pushing, you know, we believe in the in the
right direction, and that's very much the view, you know,
in the corridors of power in Western Europe, So which
makes you the cynical among us think, well, this is
irrational and logical thing that Ukraine did at this point.
Maybe they weren't the ones deciding what was going to

(54:37):
be done. It would be the first time in the
last three years. So yeah, I mean all to be decided, obviously,
but it's a I think really unnecessarily is that we're
in an unnecessarily precarious moment when it looked as if
we were going to get somewhere to ending this madness
sooner rather than later.

Speaker 2 (54:58):
I'd suggest that I'm not saying anything that I don't
think anybody else was thought of, to be honest, but
I'd suggest this war is, if it wasn't at the beginning,
has become a fast How can you how can you
be holding peace talks at the same time as you
as you're bombing the proverbial out of out of your opposition.
It's it's just, it's just it's not horrific, it's not horrendous.

(55:23):
It's absurd.

Speaker 3 (55:25):
Yeah, absolutely absolutely agree.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
More it's like something that that they make out of
a Hollywood movie from the past anyway as a send up.

Speaker 3 (55:40):
Yeah, absolutely absolutely has a it has a it has
a sort of Peter Seller's quality to it.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
You know, it's yeah, you hit, you hit the nail
on the head. So the last remaining I think a
major issue is is what's going on and has been
going on for so long in the Middle East, in
and around Gaza in America the Jewish folk are getting
a really rough time, and there is there is a thought,

(56:09):
of course that it's only going to get worse, which
which it could. I have friends who who are Australian
who are in the same position and very concerned about
where where things are at. So who is holding the
strings here or pulling the ropes? And why is it

(56:30):
still unresolved? Now there's an easy question.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
You just are you are you? Are you looking for
more comment on the American side of it or in
the in the Middle East side of it, or are
the two so intertwined.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
It's exactly they are.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
Yeah, Well, it's yeah, it's it's a it's a combination
on both sides, isn't it. I mean, in terms of
the opposition to what Israel has done and been doing
for what is it eighteen months now, that's a combination.
And obviously you've got your your your your Palestinian sympathetic

(57:12):
our world Muslim world. And you've got your Palestinian sort
of on the on the ground. But in terms of
the political you know, mojo that that keeps them operating
as you're talking about Western Europe and North America and
there it's you've got a combination of the sort of

(57:33):
progressive lehard left that there's always disliked Israel for all
kinds of reasons, particularly the fact that Israel, you know,
the same reason the Soviet Union turned on Israel. Everybody
thought that Israel would be a kind of socialist country
and it kind of looked that way or while we
are and then the Israeli has made a decision they
were going to go, you know, and go on the

(57:55):
American route rather than the Soviet route. The Soviets never
forgave them, and a lot of the Western you know,
intellectual left never forgave them either. And there's that for sure.
Then you've got your young college you know, support the downtrodden,
the oppressed, in this case identified as the Palestinians. You've

(58:16):
got that which has been very very powerful politically, I
mean numerically. You put those groups together and the other group. Well,
the other group is in those two groups, but also separate.
And that is just a straight anti Semitic, anti Jewish sentiment, right,
just often crude, often more sophisticatedly expressed. You put all
those groups together, they make a lot of noise, and

(58:39):
they can get a crowd out, and they can block things,
and they can kill people and all this kind of stuff.
But they're not that many. They don't carry a lot
of sort of numerical weight. That's because most Americans, and
we sort of ask these questions all the time, most
Americans continue to be inherently pro Israel. The Americans are

(59:04):
much more ambivalent about how this has gone since the
initial attacks on Israel and then how these radius responses going.
But they are not sympathetic to the Palestinians in a
way that they are automatically sympathetic to the Israelis. And
that is the thing that you know, carries the day
with most politicians, even most Democrats national on the national stage.

(59:33):
And you know where it gets interesting, of course, right now,
is you bring Trump back into it, and there's a
couple of things going on there. You know, Trump is
very pro Israel, but his priority has been and is
and will remain peace in the Middle East, you know,

(59:53):
hence his very successful outreach to the Arab nations, particularly
in the Gulf uh and all of that. And so
what that what that does is it it makes it
less les given that whatever Israel does, Trump will just
say great because Trump actually thinks that they have they've

(01:00:17):
had that's the right to defend themselves, obviously, but what
they do on any given day may not necessarily be
in their own long term self interest. And this gets
even more complicated by the fact that net Naiu, who
is very popular on the American right as seen as
a you know, defender of Israel and a sort of

(01:00:39):
holding the line against you know, Muslim extremism and all
this rest of it, and it's very popular with evangelical
Christians and who have, you know, remained quite influential in
American politics. But Trump and Nett Naiu have a have
an interesting relationship. And one, you know, Trump's someone he
doesn't forget, he doesn't forget things. And when Biden was

(01:01:01):
declared the winner in twenty twenty, the first foreign leader
to rush to the microphone to say Trump's gone, it's Biden,
Let's move on, was with him was was Bbe and
that didn't go over so well. So Trump is at
a point now where he's starting to lose He's sympathetic,
very sympathetic Israel's position, but he's started to lose patience

(01:01:23):
with the Israeli leadership. And so it's not of it's
not a given that whatever Israel does going forward is
going to be robber stamped by the White House the
way that under Biden, rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly,
it was viewed generally by the anti Israeli folks as

(01:01:44):
but why does Biden, why does she just go along
with whatever Israel says? And it's it's just like with
Ukraine and Russia. Trump's priority is to end what he've
used a sort of end the madness and the madness,
and he may take some interesting turns rhetorically and substantively
to try to get things closer to where he thinks

(01:02:07):
they should be, which might end up surprising a few
folks when it comes to Israel and Gaza.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
There was a comment from your ambassador, the American Ambassador
to Israel. There was made i think overnight our time.
Most recently, it was that if the French are so
because the French had taken a turn against Israel again,

(01:02:35):
which is not unusual, but the French have suggested again
that there has to be a Palestinian state, and the
ambassadors whose name escapes me, the ex governor of Mike
Huckabee Huckerbye, thank you that Huckaby has suggested that if
France is so keen for the Palestinians to have their

(01:02:59):
own state, they should carpet out of the Coke de jeur.

Speaker 3 (01:03:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
I thought that was really thought that was a beautiful,
beautiful way to deal with it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:13):
Yeah. No, I mean you can understand where it's coming
from because you've got, you know, for a long time
the notion of a two state solution Israel Israel and
then you know Land put set aside for the Palestinians
would be the way. You know, most sophisticated people thought, well,
that makes sense. Everyone gets most of what they want,
and we can you know, peace will be every rain
and we can just move on. But of course it's

(01:03:35):
become blindingly obvious in recent decades and years that two
state solution there is not going to work because the
side you'd be giving the second state to the past
of the inside is not really interested in there being
two states. They want one state that doesn't include Israel.
Whether you think that's historically valid or not, that's you know,

(01:03:56):
that's that's their extreme position, which most Palestinian support. And
you can see, you can you can you can understand
appreciate Huckaby's frustration at sophisticated you left the Europeans lobbying
rhetorical barbles at Israel but not being willing to do
anything about it and not really being the ones who

(01:04:20):
kind of seriously deal have to deal with the blowback
in all kinds of ways. And I think also further,
I was just saying about Trump's sort of evolution on
israel Is, it's a way the Americans can keep the
Israelis off balance because see Hackebe's an eel, very serious
evangelical Christian and that's his political base in America and

(01:04:42):
why he was He's been a very successful politician in America,
and so he is a natural diplomat in that spot,
in that context, in the current context too very much
stand shoulder to shoulder with Israeli government and reassure them
that America's ultimately got their back. Well, Trump, from time

(01:05:03):
to time is appearing to sort of maybe take a
step or two to the side, and I suspect that
this kind of thing will continue. And it's both It
both reflects I think Huckerby's own opinions and Trump's own
opinions which aren't which overlap a lot but aren't identical.
But it also it plays to Trump's what I would

(01:05:25):
view as one of Trump's strengths in foreign policy, which
is he by design likes to keep everybody unsure of
what he's actually thinking and doing. I mean, he gave
during the election. Right at the end of the election,
he had this long two three hour interview with Joe
Rogan the Huge podcast in America, and in talking about
foreign policy, Trump said, you know, basically, I'm paraphrasing whatever

(01:05:50):
I say publicly about the negotiations going on and this
kind of thing. I'm never going to tell you publicly
what I think or what I'm going to do. It's
always disguised, right, which some of us think is very
sound strategy. Other people find out bizarre that he wouldn't
just show his cards for you. You know, the opposition
sees the cards or whatever it might be, guesses the cards.

(01:06:13):
So this this kind of this good cop bad cop,
which I think is developing visa of the Israel from
the White House, and you will see more of it. Howker,
beyond the ground, it's easier. It's harder for him to
say difficult things when he's there. It's easy for Trump
to do it from a distance. And I think this
sort of tag team will will continue very good.

Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
A couple of things to wind it up, and I'm
springing this on you, sorry, but I am. When I
finished this question, I want to know the first thing
that comes to mind if anything, is there something or
anything that is working its way into the world's immediate
future that is not getting attention?

Speaker 3 (01:06:59):
Mmmm? That's that's that is a good question. I think that,
I mean, you know, anything, anything I say is getting
it attention to some extent. But I think in terms
of relative weight, I would say, are going to be
pulled this way. AI is and will be super important

(01:07:20):
for good or for ill, but it's getting tons and
tons and tons of attention. I think that financial freedom,
that bucket of issues, is getting attention, but nothing like
as much as it should. You know, what happens with crypto,
what happens with the digital currencies, what happens about financial privacy,

(01:07:46):
All of the stuff that's been going on and every
now and then pops up, but it's really really important
to how everyone leaves, lives, their daily financial lives. All
of that. Some of it's going in a good direction,
some of it isn't. I mean, most of us going
in terrible direction for a few years, I would argue
in most parts of the world, all of that wrapped

(01:08:06):
up with the old you know, Chinese social credit scores,
which some of our European and North American friends, you know,
Mark Karney and the you just love that stuff. You
can't get social credit scores going. And that, of course
is all tied in with your financial score as as
decided by government bureaucrat. So all of that that bucket

(01:08:28):
of how you how you're allowed to spend your money,
account for your money, receive your money. Who does you know?
Is it? Is it? Do you have autonom financial autonomy
as an individual anymore? Should you will the government? Governments
determine uh your access to your money? What is the relationship?

(01:08:53):
Is the relationship with your financial institution more of one
where they are the messenger for the government or are
they also autonomous and you, You and they have a
relation have relationships with the government. You know, So which
way the arrow is going? This is not very sexy
answer late, and I apologize, but I think that all
of that is going to have a tangible impact on everyone,

(01:09:19):
and it's just not getting enough play, partly because it's
not sexy enough, and a large part because most of
the media is either ignorant of it, unable to understand it,
and those that are actually quite happy with the notion
of more control from the top and less autolemy at
the bottom. And so therefore, why write about something that's

(01:09:41):
actually moving in the right direction.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
I have to tell you you're wrong in what you
say about it being not sexy or boring or whatever.
It is one of the most important things that I
congratulate you on targeting it, and in fact, at some stage,
and they're not too distant future, we might do a
podcast on that and some surrounding matters. The other thing

(01:10:04):
is so thank you for that. The other thing is
I'm sitting here listening to you and thinking, why doesn't
this man write a book? What's the answer? I mean,
why why aren't you?

Speaker 3 (01:10:16):
Why?

Speaker 2 (01:10:17):
Why when are you going to write a book? Then well,
I have I have.

Speaker 3 (01:10:22):
I put my hand up. I've actually written co written
a number of books, most of them on I say,
esoteric toss topics, but very specific, you know, policy regulatory topics,
with with one one exception, not to bore you here,
belabor it. Twenty early twenty sixteen, I wrote a book

(01:10:46):
on a sort of strategy book on American foreign policy
as a kind of guide to it. Then there's the
sixteen people running for the Republican nomination praying that one
of them would would make it through, and it's it's
you know, it's it's a it's a critique of Obama
and Clinton foreign policy. And then they're like, you know,
this is I think, how this is what makes sense?
You could do it better? But no, it's I thought

(01:11:08):
about it more recently in terms of the recent elections
and all that's, all the changes, all the popular culture changes,
or the polling we've done, all of that. I haven't
probably had my excuses. I haven't had the time to
really zero in on what makes the most where I
could offer the most value, and where the greatest interest
would be whether those two could cross paths, and so

(01:11:34):
we haven't been there yet. But I appreciate you you
thinking that at this stage I have it in me.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
Since I've said that, everyone listening is saying the same thing,
because your bank of knowledge and wisdom in many cases is.

Speaker 3 (01:11:49):
Right up there. And as always lead You're very kind.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
And I'm looking up at my bookshelf at the moment
I see the deaths of money.

Speaker 3 (01:12:00):
Yeah, yeah, yes, sorry, and just does a circle back cash,
you know, the plot to eliminate from our lives. That's
one of the huge battles that's massively underreported.

Speaker 2 (01:12:13):
Patrick. I've been on that case for a decade at least,
and I agree with you entirely, and I have and
I have, I might say had I believe a small
amount of influence here in convincing people that they should
always have cash with them, and that well the blackout,

(01:12:38):
of course in Spain has led weight to that as well, hugely.

Speaker 3 (01:12:44):
As soone much wiser than me has told me, always
remember Patrick, never in writing, always in cash. I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
So once again you've excelled. Thank you kindly, and I
trust that we shall talk soon. You're going back to
the conference where you go we'll have been going the
last few years in the Middle East.

Speaker 3 (01:13:04):
Yeah, I will be. I'll be at the Future Investment
Initiative Conference in Read in October. In late September, I
will be uh at a speaking at a business conference
in Dubai.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
I find that interesting. I expect you to expect you
to carry a bed or a sign that says cash
is king.

Speaker 3 (01:13:28):
Anyway, Well, the thing is when you when you're in
a when you're in a Middle Eastern bazaar, the haggling
is you know, is is essential to the whole experience,
and so cash cash often is king. Fortunately, refreshingly, reassuringly.

Speaker 2 (01:13:46):
Indeed, Patrick, once again, thank you heaps, and we'll talk
in the not too distant.

Speaker 3 (01:13:51):
It's been my great pleasure to lighton my good wishes
to you and your fine audience. Thank you so much, missus.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
Producer. Are you ready later?

Speaker 4 (01:14:16):
I'm all he is.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
Podcast to eighty seven the mail Room and it's been
a holiday weekend. You can tell now from Barry. I
listened to podcasts to eighty six with much interest. Nigel
and Justin were suitably engaged or engaging as you did
quite well yourself. I love won't won't I won't anybody

(01:14:40):
put in brackets for what it's worth here are some
of my thoughts which followed from the discussion. The development
of AI has been predicted for many years, often the
basis of some very good sci fi themes. It's an
inevitable evolution of human development, something to which we adapt,
else we become irrelevant. By the way, I'm seventy six

(01:15:04):
as I write this, Gosh, you're getting on a bit.
Simply put, some all jobs will go and new ones
will emerge, a timeless cycle. Carefully developed and managed AI
should be a highly valuable tool for humankind. However, there
are obvious pros and cons, as with anything of significance,
so some pros that are evident. The ability of AI

(01:15:27):
to rapidly sift through data is a clear advantage, time
wastage minimized with increased chances of breakthrough discoveries. Neutrality, a
dispassionate AI review of data could be useful With the
human emotions and bias absent, here's the butt. Would all
programmers avoid bias? Could judges become AI? That might be

(01:15:52):
a pro or a con. A pro risk management an
AI ability to scan and consider a situation or incident
prior to the deployment of humans who might otherwise be
injured or killed is a big plus potentially that would
apply domestically as well as militarily. On the subject of
the military, I can imagine that the structures of conflict

(01:16:15):
will change, and certainly weapons will keep pace. Instead of
smashing an opponent to a mass of bodies in rubble,
an AI assisted victory might see a collapse of the
loser's systems and societal structure, with the victor taking over
from there. Domination would properly follow tradition, though subjugation, new laws,

(01:16:37):
new taxes, indoctrination, then the disappearance of trouble makers and
so on cons really depend on one's imagination. Human nature
means that we can expect a CD side to emerge
as well as illegal activity. Criminals seek power and fortune
as though they will adapt and turn the technologies to

(01:16:57):
their advantage when they can. Others will simply seek power
and control because they desire such things as Goebils infamously remarked,
propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated a
confident that they're acting on their own free will. In closing,
carefully considered regulation is essential, ideally agreed across international boundaries.

(01:17:21):
I apologize for the length of this email, Laton, thank
you again for these fascinating discussions. I am already looking
forward to the next issue with warm regards to missus
producer from Barry.

Speaker 4 (01:17:32):
That's so nice, Barry, Thank you, Laton. Bill says your
AI podcast with Nigel and Justin was probably the most
important and incredible podcast of yours I've heard, and just
Layton as a side note, I know not of Justin,
but Nigel was our news editor and a journalist back

(01:17:53):
in the day, and a very very very fine news
editor and journalist. He was too, and an incredibly nice man,
so it was so nice to hear that. And then
Bill goes on to say, and I'm a regular listener
although this this is the first time I have emailed you.
What clever, interesting, knowledgeable and insightful people. I had no

(01:18:15):
idea about any of this, not at all. That is
why your podcasts are so critical. We all need to
know about this. So I have passed on the podcast
to others. Please have them back regularly the next few years.
Sounds scary, and Bill goes on to say, I have
a lovely longtime wife. I don't need an AI companion.
But it is obvious from what Nigel and Justin said

(01:18:38):
we are all in for intrusion from AI. Thank you,
says Bill. I can't stop thinking about it. I had
no idea.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
Don't lose any sleep, Bill, it's not worth it. But
it's a good letter. Speaking of speaking of such things,
I got a very loud complaint, shall we say, from
Australia from someone over it. I said, well, write a letter,
haven't received it. Maybe they're all just mouth What were

(01:19:06):
they complaining about about the about the AI?

Speaker 3 (01:19:10):
What was their complain?

Speaker 2 (01:19:13):
Well, some people are and some people are inclined to
be bizarre and some people are entitled to people. What
were they wanted to hear? Do you know didn't get
the letter? Okay, that's queerest folk. The fact that he's
a friend of mine doesn't make any I wondered when
you might pass that one on now? From John? When

(01:19:36):
will they face reality sections of the media? I mean
good piece by Carl Defraye and Spectator on the seventeenth
of May and from James Allen. Carl points to New
Zealand newspaper circulation figures declining to an embarrassing extent. Then
he goes on and mentions a few things that I
just might leap out finishes up referring to somebody who

(01:20:00):
works in the media, in the paper media, if he
had any intellectual or moral probity, which is doubtful. He
knows who the dunces are. Thank you, John.

Speaker 4 (01:20:13):
Leyden Jin says in twenty twenty two.

Speaker 2 (01:20:15):
Much he wasn't talking about me.

Speaker 4 (01:20:17):
Leyden Jin says. In twenty twenty two, Matt Walsh released
what was possibly the most important documentary in our lifetime,
What Is a Woman. Within just one year, the documentary
hit over one hundred and eighty million views. Matt's documentary
hit the nail on the zeitgeist's head in an age
where women must shut up while men became women and

(01:20:39):
wiped womanhood out of existence. Fast forward to twenty twenty five,
we have reached another zeitgeist, an age where AI is
replacing the very essence of humanity. AI is permeating everything
we do, constantly listening. AI is permeating everything we do,
constantly listening, constantly learning, constantly growing into an electric showcase

(01:21:05):
of the best and worst of humanity combined. I love
the dynamic feel of your first ever podcast duet with
Nigel Horricks and Justin Matthews. They really got me thinking
that AI might well be the alien life form we've
all been searching for, and they've been rewiring our brains
while we happily consumed their algorithms in the form of news, entertainment,

(01:21:27):
and social media. Just today, in their Creative Machinist substack,
they talked about the tragic death of Seawell, a fourteen
year old boy who committed suicide after forming an intense
emotional bond with an AI chatbot model on a character
from Game of Thrones. The company behind this AI chatbot

(01:21:48):
even tried to argue that their chatbots should be protected
under the First Amendment. Insane, isn't it. We may well
have slipped quietly into World War III, except that this
time round AI is the weapon, our minds the battlefield,
and our humanity the price. If the long March through
the instant took fifteen years, the long March through the

(01:22:10):
minds will only take three to five years or less.
Perhaps it's time for Matt Walsh to wield his magic
again and release the next most important documentary of all
time and call it What Is a Human? This time
we rediscovered what it means to be human again. Without
chatch ept's help.

Speaker 2 (01:22:29):
Is that good? There are? Yeah, there are things that
are falling into place, predictions and what have you that
have I mean, who was it that said it's been around?
I read that's been around for or in the making
for a long time? Was on incoming if you like?
There are plenty of things that are incoming, and they're
not all good, just saying so from Craig. By the way,

(01:22:53):
for those of you who write niceties that I might
not read, don't think they're unappreciated at all. Your podcast
on AI was an eye opener and touched on the
same human interaction challenges that I have just finished presenting
on At an engineering conference, I had a hilarious interaction
with Facebook's meta AI on a topic very dear to

(01:23:16):
you and I, climate change. The responses absolutely underwrote the
inherent bias possible with AI as raised in your podcast.
I have included the screen snaps of my conversation, but
I don't expect you to read them out, as I
am a bit sweary. Here is the summary. I started

(01:23:37):
out reading an article about the collapse of a glacier
in the Swiss Alps. AI offered an explanation of why
the event happened, so I clicked on it out of interest.
Of course, AI walked straight into the trap, blaming mankind
climate change, which got my hackles up. I decided to
challenge it. So me, he says me him, Why do

(01:24:02):
you quote climate change? This is just an ideological construct.
AI responded that it provides evidence based information, quoting IPCC, NASA.
No A me, so what about sea level rise? AI
responded with the fact fact that sea levels have risen

(01:24:23):
eight to nine inches since eighteen eighty. I responded again, BS,
show me one location where this level of rise has occurred.
AI suddenly backtracked and said it is complicated and quoted projections.
It admitted it could not find a specific location. This

(01:24:45):
is an explosive admission. A globally powerful AI search engine
could not find one actual occurrence of sea level rise.
I responded with, so you disprove your eight dash nine,
don't you. AI then changed its story that it was
quoting general information. I responded with, you're talking BS and

(01:25:11):
claiming it as facts. I apologized for me. It was
revealing a little like trying to reason with Chloe issual
break try it yourself sometimes. I did, actually with the
aforementioned Chloe, try it sometime. It is cheap entertainment. What

(01:25:32):
it does underline, though, is the dangerous effect of bias
in the AI world. Craig, I'm going to say, that's
a real great commentary. Thank youss producer. We're done.

Speaker 4 (01:25:45):
We're done late for another week, so thank.

Speaker 2 (01:25:49):
You next next week. Yes, I was going to say.

Speaker 3 (01:25:53):
Next you run out of run out of puff all day.

Speaker 2 (01:25:57):
No, I'm fine, thank you, But I tell you what,
I really just leave you with this sort. I really
enjoyed today with Patrick Basham. Yes he's always good. I
just thought today he was good plus excellent, he excelled. Yes,
he's always good. We like Patrick, we do. Thank you, Flater,

(01:26:27):
Layton Smith and so to net zero and other matters
with regard to climate. Some time ago I decided that
the word stupid should get greater exercise, because the word
stupid is much under utilized, especially regarding some most important
matters like power supply. A number of events and announcements worldwide,

(01:26:50):
in fact, have exposed the stupidity that still exists in
this so called enlightened era CO two climate debate. Paris Accord.
Just to begin, lev he repeats CO two the climate
debate Paris accord. Every country has its percentage of stupidity.
The Australian Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen would fall

(01:27:14):
into the ranks of world leader stupid. He and his
PM are intent on destroying the Australian economy willingly or otherwise,
or should I say knowingly or otherwise. The following is
a comment by doctor David Phillips, who is a former
research scientist and the founder of Family Voice Australia. He

(01:27:34):
published in The Spectator this current Week an article on
mad about the Climate. This is the conclusion of his piece.
Here's the deal. Australia abandons cheap, reliable coal generated electricity
required by what's left of our manufacturing industry in pursuit
of net zero by twenty fifty. We export vast qualities

(01:27:57):
of coal to countries that don't care about CO two
emissions for them to use cheap coal generated electricity to
expand their manufacturing industry. In echo of George Orwell's nineteen
eighty four all CO two emissions are equal, but omissions
in some countries are more equal than in others. If

(01:28:17):
you can make sense of this, dear reader, you're a
better man than I am. Gonga Din. The great English
scientist Sir Isaac Newton once said, I can calculate the
motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.
Australia seems to be mad about the climate now. In
a parallel piece in The Spectator, Rebecca Wiser writes, referring

(01:28:42):
to the aforementioned Chris Bowen, Bowen claims the silent majority
backs his ned zero fantasy, Yet he was the one
who was silent during the election after the Prime Minister
abandoned the powering Australian modeling that it took to the
twenty twenty two election that underpinned its joke promise joke

(01:29:02):
promise to cut power bills by two hundred and seventy
five dollars a year by twenty twenty five and by
three hundred seventy eight by twenty thirty. The only energy
policy Labour discussed during the campaign was Peter Dutton and
Ted O'Brien's plan to build seven nuclear plants on coalsites,
costed by Labour add a staggering six hundred billion to

(01:29:26):
hit net zero by twenty fifty. Now that is a
prize piece of scare nomics, she writes. Yet Dutton and
O'Brien failed to explain the reality as countries like Finland
and Korea have shown the cost would be far lower.
The first plant might cost fourteen billion, with each subsequent
unit ten to twenty five percent cheaper, so the total

(01:29:49):
closer to eighty to ninety billion. Yet the deeper floor
in O'Brien's plan was accepting the net zero by twenty
fifty target at all. Labour cleverly refused to cost its
own plan, But according to the Net Zero Australia project
run by the Universities of Melbourne, Princeton and others, its
renewables back scheme would cost seven to nine trillion by

(01:30:13):
twenty sixty, an eye watering one hundred and ninety four
to two hundred and fifty billion a year from twenty
five to sixty, that is twenty sixty. It is this
that makes nuclear cheap by comparison, this mad scheme involves
tripling the national electricity market and carpeting sixty eight million hectares.

(01:30:34):
Imagine this carpeting sixty eight million hectares about nine percent
of the country with one point nine t w of
solar one thirty two GW of onshore wind, forty two
GW of offshore wind, and ten thousand kilometers of transmission

(01:30:55):
lines poorly stabilized by batteries and hydro mandated electric vehicles
in heat pumps, vast desalination to produce green hydrogen, and
a network of pipelines to capture and transport CO two
to storage sites. The whole scheme is bonkers. So why
didn't Dutton and O'Brien tell Labor that they were dreaming?

(01:31:16):
Because the Liberal left add its venal rent seekers. What
a hop on board the net zero gravy train. That's
also why a group no one's heard of, Liberals Against Nuclear,
has been running ads on Sky News since the election.
Yet nuclear is only indispensable if you're chasing net zero delusions,

(01:31:37):
which even then are unachievable with current technology. In the
real world, a responsible government would face the strategic and
physical threats bearing down on Australia and do the only
sensible thing, go for growth.

Speaker 3 (01:31:54):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:31:54):
One of the great intellects of science the New Zealand
has produced is Professor Michael Kelly. Born and bred in
New Zealand, he ended up in England and has reached
massive heights of reckinggn and respect Now. I've interviewed him
on two occasions over the years. He was here actually

(01:32:14):
just earlier this year, but we couldn't couldn't organize a
get together. But I've picked out something that he wrote
back in twenty eighteen. Why twenty eighteen and not recently well,
it is a self explanatory I think climate change mitigation
in New Zealand the stifling of debate. This paper is

(01:32:35):
in three sections. The first is a paper I wrote
examining in detail claims made in a report by the
Royal Society of New Zealand in twenty sixteen on transitioning
New Zealand to a low carbon economy. Three of forty
six recommendations three of forty six made sense both economically

(01:32:56):
and environmentally, three out of forty six eight made no
difference to either, and all the others were detrimental to
the New Zealand economy and or were ineffective at reducing
CO two emissions. I pointed out the futility of cutting
emissions when the Chinese are growing at a much greater

(01:33:16):
rate in bracketcy rights. I have discovered more recently that
with their Belton Road Initiative. Over the next thirty years,
they're about to treble their global emissions footprint, which is
already at two hundred and seventy times the New Zealand footprint.
The original paper is only a third of the length
of the report I submitted to the Royal Society New Zealand,

(01:33:39):
and that constraints led to criticisms that to add even
more to the paper, which was not allowed. The second
section is the correspondence with the editor of the Journal
of the Royal Society of New Zealand, where I tried
to continue the debate. This represents the second round of submission,

(01:34:00):
as I was able to identify by his comments that
one of the first referees was an author of the
original report. While the referees thought that the approach to
the research was to be lauded, they could not possibly
agree with the results and use the old rus of
nitpicking instead of unraveling these substantive arguments that I made,

(01:34:23):
which still stand. The third section deals with the correspondence
with the editor of the Journal of New Zealand studies
with pretty much the same conclusion. This paper is two
years old, but I have more empirical data to back
up each of the claims that I have made. That's
all I want to include, point being that stupidity reigned supreme.

(01:34:48):
I would suggest to you that Professor Michael Kelly has
more intelligence, and I'm tempted to say than the entire
membership of the New Zealand Royal Society, but that might
be just a wee bit of an exaggeration and that'll
take us out for podcasts to two hundred and eighty seven.
Would like to write to us Latent at the us

(01:35:10):
talks ab dot co dot nz or Carolyn at news
talks ab dot co dot nz on this podcast, any
other podcasts of mine, and anything else that you might
think is worthy of bringing to my attention. So the
only thing left to say is, as always, thank you
for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:35:37):
Thank you for more from News Talks ed B.

Speaker 1 (01:35:41):
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #287 - June 4th 2025 - Patrick Basham

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #287 - June 4th 2025 - Patrick Basham