Leighton Smith Podcast #248 - July 24th 2024 - Ramesh Thakur

Ramesh Thakur is well known to this audience; he has appeared on the Leighton Smith Podcast more than once.

There was much to catch up on.

His views on the world and its various parts are substantiated by life experience. He taught at a number of universities including Otago and ANU Canberra and Rector at the U.N. University. He was also an assistant Sec-Gen of the U.N.

As a result his commentary on world issues is superb.

And finally, we delve into The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks at 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 this now the Layton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcasts two hundred and forty eight for July
twenty four, twenty twenty four. Ramish the Curve is a
familiar name on this podcast. His history is pretty well known.
Professor at Otago for a lengthy period, then Australian National University, Canberra,
time at the United Nations, including as Assistant Secretary General

(00:51):
and a profound author, and there's many more accolades. At
the beginning of the discussion that we have we worked
our way through so much of relevance, beginning with the latest,
well almost the latest in US politics, hard to keep
up other world matters, including dangers of a centralized digitized world,

(01:11):
cash and cbdc's free speech wokeness. We called time at
eighty minutes, and I've chosen to split the discussion over
two weeks. Over two weeks podcast so two forty eight
is part one. Now, I have no doubt it falls
into the category of one of the best. After the

(01:32):
mail Room, I've included what is a lengthy piece, an
article that's highly relevant to believers in democracy, freedom, independence.
Actually it's actually it's relevant to everyone. Really, one man's
battle with a suppression will cover it for the moment.
It also has a connection with Oliver Hartwitch's column on

(01:54):
the New Zealand Initiative website. Europe is now on its
own a connection because both involve Europe, specifically Germany. Now,
a couple of things in passing just before we get
into Ramesh the Kur there is an individual who's causing

(02:15):
a great deal of shall we say, agitation with practically
all the population, well those who are aware of it.
This individual is a member of Parliament and shouldn't be.
This individual is sitting on the back seat and collecting
full salary, which she apparently is entitled to as long
as she stays there for the next two and a

(02:35):
half years. Now there are people who are blaming other
people and trying to trying to decide who's responsible for
this situation. And the answer is there's one thing that's
responsible for it, and it's called MMP. And MMP has
wrought all sorts of issues over the years. It's something
that we should dump yesterday. But it won't happen, of course,

(02:59):
because it's too difficult, and I suppose we have to
live with it. But it's failings showed themselves occasionally, and
this is one of them and one of the worst.
There are all sorts of adjectives I could use to
describe this person, but I'll leave that for you to
fill in some spare time with the other one is
the other one I want to mention is something that

(03:21):
is relevant elsewhere but also of interest to us. The
chances are very high that you've never heard of this
individual whose name is Tina Peters.

Speaker 3 (03:33):
Who was Tina Peters?

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, she was the election clerk at Mesa or Mesa,
whichever you want, Mesa County of Colorado at the twenty
twenty election. And she's looking at twenty years in jail.
Why because in the election that mattered, she decided that
she would retain records of voting. Now, I have no

(03:58):
idea of any further details except that this story broke
just a few minutes ago while I was recording, and
it came up on my phone. So I had a
quick look at it, and I thought I'll throw this
in for good measure because we have experienced, all of
us have experienced this trauma that came out of the

(04:18):
twenty twenty election and the twenty two election as well,
but with voting machines and all sorts of claims and
counterclaims and megabucks being paid out in lawsuits, etc. It
gained an awful lot of attention. And the question still
hangs in the air. Was the twenty twenty election corrupt?

(04:40):
I know that it was, but was it corrupt enough
to swing the result? It's something we don't know. I
don't know, nobody knows, but you can have a guess. Anyway,
this story just broke and I thought I'd throw it
in because if it's true, and I have no idea
as to its truthfulness, came up on X then there

(05:03):
could be all sorts of repercussions. And I just find
that interesting or a tacit your way now in just
a moment, rameshtheku. There are essential fat nutrients that we
need in our diets as the body can't manufacture them.

(05:26):
These are Omega three and Amiga 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 the Omega
three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a

(05:48):
high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the
deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty
acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
to be sold. Equism supports cells to be flexible, so

(06:11):
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. Equasin
is a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil
to be taken in addition to a healthy diet and

(06:34):
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. Rameshtha Kur is emeritus

(07:04):
Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the
Australian National University. He's a Fellow of the Australian Institute
of International Affairs and Brownstone Institute's Senior Scholar. He's doing
brilliant work with Brownstone. He was a Senior Vice rector
at the United Nations University and Assistant Secretary General of

(07:25):
the United Nations. Educated in India and Canada, he was
a professor of International Relations at the University of Otago,
a professor and head of the Peace Research Center the
Australian National University, and Foundation director of the Balsilly School
of International Affairs at Waterloo, Ontario. He's also served as
a consultant advisor to the Australian, New Zealand and Norwegian

(07:47):
governments on arms, controlled, disarmament and international security issues. And
he was commissioner and one of the principal authors of
the Responsibility to Protect in two thousand one, and Senior
Advisor on Reforms and principal writer of the United Nations
Secretary General KOFE. NaN's Second Reform Report in two thousand

(08:07):
and two he's been on this podcast on more than
two occasions, and it's a great pleasure to welcome me back.

Speaker 3 (08:16):
Ramsha. I hope you're good. Good, Thank you. Laden.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
I noticed that we hadn't spoken this year at all,
and that disturbed me, and it was it was even
it was about nine months ago. I think that we
that we actually did our last interview. And I can't
understand that except that this year.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
Has been a little bit. Time flies.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
This year has been a little different to a lot
of a lot of others. Are you yes, you've just
come back from Japan too? Was what was the cause?
I was in Hiroshima. Every year since twenty thirteen, the
Governor of Hiroshima, which is an elected position, has convened
a small group of international experts on a team called

(08:59):
the Hiroshima Around Table. We look at the year that
has gone by and look forward to the year that's
coming with respect to the threats and attempts.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
To reduce the threats from nuclear weapons. And we've done
it every year except for two years when we couldn't
because of the travel restrictions in relation to COVID. Is
it what you announced? This? Sorry? Just one last thing, Well,
I'm on that subject. I announced to the group this
year that this will be my last meeting. Excuse me,
I'm getting a bit too old to engage in law

(09:32):
distance travel. Your body rebuilt. I'll keep going to New
Zealand and to family in India, and beyond that that's unlikely.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Well, there are people, it is really important or interesting.
There are people in New Zealand who will see you
as often as you like. Now, you've also published a
book last year, our enemy, the government. I want to
talk to you about the book, and I thought it
appropriate to rate it at the beginning. But before we
do the book, I want to ask you about your

(10:03):
thoughts on American politics at this moment, with the last
couple of weeks in mind, because there has been well
what can I say, there has been an earthquake. Politically
of course.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yes, yes, Well it's in a sense part of the
ongoing sense of in Churchill's words, the gathering storm once
again internationally. But of course the United States has a
uniquely important influence in shaping the contours of world affairs

(10:37):
and geopolitics as well. So what's happening that is important
for all of us, particularly all of us in the
Western democratic world, if you like. And we began the
year with the thought that surely the United States can
do better than presenting us with the same two choices.
But in fact there has been remarkable developments with respect

(11:00):
to both of them within the past two to three weeks,
including today as we speak, or overnight as we speak,
with respect to President Biden finally bowing to reality, the
political reality which is caused by his increasingly obvious health reality.

(11:22):
So yes, there's all sorts of convulsions is probably the
best word. In the meantime with the attempted assassination on Trump,
there's another whole slew of questions and reflections in relation
to that. I mean, I think we're all going to
be watching that particular photo endlessly from not in November,

(11:44):
and I suspect periodically after that. I'm not sure what
photos you can compare that to. Its certainly visually very
reminiscent of the famous photograph on Yuojima as the Americans
raised the American flag, except that was obviously more consequential
in terms of the Pacific War theater of the Second

(12:06):
World War, but it was whereas the Trump thing was
lived reality in technical for everyone who was watching it
live or unless they've been hiding themselves under rock, watched
the news since then, and it recreates a myth of
Trump which is in a sense sharper than and different

(12:28):
from his previous perceived for sooner. So that's one side
of it. And that followed the disastrous debate performance by
Joe Biden, which performed the reality that he's mentally aged
a lot, even in the past four years, almost on
a monthly basis, and essentially, to be blunt about it,

(12:51):
the Democratic Party and the press by and large have
light to the public about just how bad he's been
and until it became just too obvious and they had
to backtrack. And now he's had to leave. Where does
that leave us? We don't know, but the fact remains,
but the election in November will be exceptionally consequential for

(13:13):
the United States and for the world. And there's a
number of teams that call us around that. So as
on how much you want to unpack, but you know,
the just political stupidity, but the worrying implications for democracy
of the way in which they have weaponized lawfare against Trump,
adding to the way they made it impossible for him

(13:33):
to govern in his first term. How much of that
has he learned from? Will he from the first day onwards,
to use his phrase, try to drain the swamp, except
with more efficiency and determination, perhaps more success this time.
Because that erosion of democratic freedom, civil liberties, election integrity,

(13:58):
the institutions, the slide from democratic self governing republics and
monarchies for that matter, to the administrative administrative state where
the technocratic elites are in charge, aligned with international elites,
technocratic elits and organizations, and in collision with the big media,

(14:22):
big tech, etc. The transformation of democratic politics as we've
known it in terms of political partisanship and social cievage,
in the sense that democrats in the US, labor parties
on the UK, Australia and New Zealand have changed from
have evolved and changed qua dramatically from their roots and

(14:45):
workers and working class people into representing the elites. And
it's the conservative parties now that are increasingly aligning with
the workers. You see that vigaide defense. You know, if
you look, well, Kamala Harris another likely to be the
new presidential candidate. But if you look at these two together,

(15:06):
it's a good conjunction because between them. Vance is the
one who has white trash origins, if I may use
that phrase in this context, from Middletown, Ohio and overcame
that complete dysfunction, completely dysfunctional family, poor boy, come good,

(15:29):
worked on self discipline, used education, joined the Marines, then
used the gi bill, leveraged that background to enroll in
Ohio State University, graduated, went Yale Law School, graduated from there,
became a venture capitalist of businessman, entrepreneur, and then entered politics.

(15:50):
And his book, I assuming you've read it, Hillbilly Elergy.
I read it some years ago now when it came out.
It's quite a gripping account of this heart scrabble backstory
that he has. And he represents one, shall we say,
leg of the great dream of overcoming your origins, working

(16:12):
hard and achieving success and financial rewards. But just as importantly,
and I think at this point has to be made
as well, his wife, Usha Chili Huri Evans. Now she
is from middle class, comfortable background for immigrant parents, and
represents the dream that immigrants have when they come to

(16:33):
the West of working hard, being rewarded for it, and
a belief in the rule of law where no one
is either above the law or below the law. In
other words, they are subject to the law and bound
by it, but they also are protected by the law
against excesses and arbitrary excess as a power. So all
those things are just being complete that in one sentiday.

(16:56):
On the other side, surprisingly, by contrast, Kamla Harris is
the child of privilege and as an adult, the beneficiary
of political patrileage. And yet in terms of racial avent
do you think it should be the other around? So
it's a strange world, but it's a world in transformation.

Speaker 2 (17:15):
In the middle of chaos, with hope it's creative rather
than destructive.

Speaker 3 (17:20):
Girls.

Speaker 2 (17:20):
Well, I'd very much like to think that you're that
you're right when you when you said something about the
two of them, were you talking about about JD and
his wife or were you referring to him alone?

Speaker 3 (17:35):
When I started off as referring to j Evans comparison
to Kamala Harris, well, then of course I did segive
into the two of them in terms of the Vans
and Vans.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
So what about the combination of Trump and Vance? How
does that sit with you?

Speaker 3 (17:49):
It's an interesting choice. I was very pleased with that. Uh,
and we don't will. I guess we might find out
in due course if his choice might have been different. Oh,
he was leaning in a different way before the attempt
on his life. But what happens after that is very
interesting if you think you threw from his point of view. Firstly,

(18:11):
I suspect it confirms in his mind that he's going
to win this year. That attempt and his survival and
the way he reacted in a sense, is the deed.
If that's the case, he doesn't need to worry so
much about a running mate who brings other states or
other votes to the elected College to add to his.

(18:33):
He now takes that for granted and thinks, okay, if
I win, I want my revolution to be institutionalized within
the party, and I want someone who will carry on
my legacy. Now, if you think of his first administration
and the chaos and his senior appointments and the Turner
were in the senior appointments, the vice president is the

(18:55):
one person he can't sack elected on the ticket. All
the other cabinet appointees he can sack. So he needs
someone that he thinks believes in his vision and in
and in what he's trying to do. And secondly has
the strength of character to withstand the attacks that will

(19:18):
come his way as well. So if you're going to
embed your legacy, none of the other potential choices would
have matched what Vance has to offer, whereas some of
the others would have been better in terms of winning
State A or State B as well. So there's that consideration.

(19:38):
Vance is trump Ism without the Trump character flaws. He's articulate,
he's personable, he's accomplished, he has a stable family. He
is clearly a devoted a husband and father, and he
seems to give higher priority to that than to anything else,
which is understanda will give in his own background. Then

(20:01):
at the convention he introduces his mother, and I certainly
hadn't realized since reading the book that the mother has
been on the mend and has been clean and sober,
as you put it, for more than nine years, almost
ten years or ten years will be completed in January.
So it's quite a compelling story. And I thought he
spoke very well, and his wife did a good job

(20:22):
introducing him as well, and I think that will build
and the two of them together should make an effective
set of campaigners. So for those reasons, I was actually
quite pleased with the choice. I think in terms of
what he's trying to do. You know, Rance is not
going to have the crude vulgarity that is an inevitable

(20:43):
part of the baggage of the package that comes with Trump.
But I think and also both of them are more
pragmatic conservatives rather than ideological conservatives, and so I think
they may balance out quite nicely. Vance is supposed to
be an excellent debater as well, and we've seen glimpses

(21:05):
of that. So it will be interesting. Now the course
of focus will turn to who's going to be Kamala
Harris's running mate, and of course on the final products.
And now, as someone who's Indian, you've got a bit
of Indian as a presidential candidate now and one half
of the advanced package as an Indian background as well.

(21:27):
So it's spearing to see us in my community doing well.
The Indians are coming Indians, I hear me, Well, don't mind.
I don't think soon like did very well as Prime
Minister in the UK, but Attlea at least you know
the good about the UK. If if I'm against Sichtra

(21:47):
is that Indian he was just as he should have
been all alone on his performance, not on the color
of his skin. And it's to his everlasting credit that
he has not blamed any of the results on racial
discrimination or presidente and the same with Chili Kuri. It's
a family that relied on hard work and application. No

(22:07):
one came to favoritism. So I think if you look
at the Indian overseas Indian community, including in New Zealand,
they seem to reflect the thing that I argued in
relation to the voice to be here, and that is
that I do not seek any privilege or rights is
not available to every other Australian, but I do want

(22:28):
to claim rights all the rights that are available to
any other Australian, So just as on our merits and work,
not on our inherited characteristics. And that's I'm pleased to
see that that's a more widespread phenomena as far as
the overseas Indian community is concerned.

Speaker 2 (22:46):
Now you may mention of the Democrat Party edits Hinchman
and in the same breath the media and how they
have deceived, which.

Speaker 3 (22:59):
Deceived, dessembled protected Democrats tried to undermine the Trump first
administration and his candidacy since then so yes, issues for
the Democratic Party.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yes, So the question, the question becomes, is that rectifiable
or is it? I mean, they're already back into the game.
And I'm talking I'm talking specifically the media. Now, I
mean they have switched sides on two or three occasions,
the media that we're talking about, the so called legacy media,

(23:30):
And it's only it's only taken a word from somebody
like a Bama or to to encourage that and effect
that switch, so that you know, within a twenty four
hour period, they're they're they're backing, they're backing Biden. Then
all of a sudden, they're not backing Biden. And then
then they were again, at least some of them were.

(23:51):
And so the inconsistency wall, now that's the wrong thing
to say, because they're very consistent in their in their approach,
even though even though there's a large slice of the
population here as well that realizes that they are dishonest

(24:11):
and even criminal in some quarters. But it doesn't seem
to penetrate the bulk of the Democrat Party.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
No, but it has affected the reputation of the media
and reach. If again, the polls have documented in the
country after country declining trust in pretty much all the
major institutions, and in most places the reputation of the
media is almost the same as that of governments now,

(24:43):
in other words, very low. This is the legacy media,
and so more and more people are getting the information
from other sources. Now. Having said that, I do have
some sympathy for the legacy media in that clearly they
have been under great pressure and stress, even from the

(25:04):
revolutions in technology that has troy the old model of
if not a generous profitability, at least viable profitability. And
they're losing money and you saw that. I forget the
huge amount that the Washington Post has been losing, for example,
and the owner came and said, you know, you're losing

(25:26):
this much per day. The people are not interested in
reading what you're writing. So that message will sooner or
later I have to either get through or the leading
examplars of legacy media will die whither are on the vine,
and the next to come under stress will be the

(25:48):
publicly funded broadcasters. I don't think those models are viable either.
I just I think they'll go to subscription model and
will have to be forced to survive. And of course
it's not true that it's not necessarily the case that
the case for publicly funded broadcasting is as valid today
as it was when they were first set up.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
Well, there's plenty of discussion about it from time to time,
when when a crisis arises and you find that the
investment that the population is putting into into the government
owned benures simply isn't isn't going anywhere and not achieving
anything now, and and so we we should we should

(26:31):
move on. I was going to ask you anyway, We've
we've already discussed a fair bit of politics, but the
state of the world in general. You with your experience,
and we've emphasized that on numerous occasions, but your your
United Nations experience and what came from it. What is

(26:52):
your interpretation of where the world is at at the
moment out leaving America aside.

Speaker 3 (26:59):
Well, there's several things. On the one hand, there's little
well different theaters of the gathering storm and thenations that
seem to keep ratcheting up. Ukraine is still a problem
in Europe. The Middle East is getting worse rather than better,
and it certainly looks as though with the Gaza situation

(27:23):
under control by Israel, from Israel's point of view, the
tension might be ratting up on the northern border with
regard to his vola in Lebanon. So there's that, and
then of course the unresolved issue with Iran. We keep.
There's no reason to feel any less worried about what's

(27:44):
happening in East Asia around the South China Sea and
Taiwan issue Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's any worse,
but it's not got any easier either. I think the
subcontinent at the moment, with the exception of what's volatility
domestic volatility in Bangladesh, at least in international politics of continent,

(28:06):
is perhaps a bit less fertile. And I was actually
pleased with the outcome of the election in India in
terms of putting a check on the authority intendencies of
the government without necessarily throwing them out to plunge in
thea into instability. And I think across the Western world
in the meantime, the thing that vories me in terms

(28:30):
of the centralization of power, firstly in the central government
and then in the office of the Prime Minister, and
the growth of the power of the state at the
expense of the freedoms and liberties of citizens. That remains
of concern, certainly in the UK. I think their indication

(28:50):
that the Starmer government is going in for a massive emputy,
rapid expansion of the techno bureaucratic pombocratic if there is
such a word state as well rather than and that
will have the inevitable effect of producing freedom. And I
think the international trends again reflect the centralization of power

(29:14):
and influence in the global alliance of the technocratic elite.
So I think at some stage this disconnect between what
the people are prepared to tolerate. You see the pushback in Europe,
and I think it's going to come here as well.
And I don't mind not about New Zealand now, but

(29:36):
the pushback as the individual costs of the net zero
green agenda become obvious, people are saying, no, we're not
going to we are not prepared to pay that price.
And we don't see that, you know, but if you
look at the health infrastructure, for example, we don't see

(29:57):
why you should prioritize the health of the planet against
the alleged threat of global warming over the needs of
our health today. And yet you've got the wh or
expanding sentacles to embrace climate change as a health threat.

(30:19):
You've got medical counsels in various places doing the same thing.
So those things are on top of the geopolitical tensions,
and you just get the same sense that at some
point some thing's got to give, which was in a
sense in a strange way, if you know what I mean.
I think that was also the case with the assassination

(30:41):
attempt from Trump. The qualification, the abuse was getting to
extreme youth against sense that something had to give, and
that happened. So there's some release point of pressure, some
valve that will release the pressure that's going to Europe
somewhere or other, is my sense. So the existing institutions

(31:01):
of golobal governors meant to manage all this peaceably smoothly,
there proving less and less fit for purpose, and that
gap between the institutions of governance, both nationally and internationally
and the people's needs and desires and expectations, that gap

(31:22):
is putting stress both on national government systems and global
government systems which are more Which is a more abstract
way of making the same argument.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
There's so many tangents we could spike off on from
from what you've just said. But I'm intrigued with your
one word of thought. This goes against the grain of
your your background in the United Nations, especially as a
as a sorry, what's the word, Assistant Secretary general.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
As sex general.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Yeah, well, let me let me just let me spit
this out. I'm see you and I travel. I've discovered
in the same boat on numerous issues, and climbing climate
change is one of them. But I'm looking at a
headline and I can't even tell you where I got
it from because I printed it and it's got no

(32:17):
reference to it. But the headline is climate change and
man made co to the biggest con in history. I
know that it's from a legitimate site, but I can't
can't recall which one because I've had it for a while.
But at the very last paragraph, humans attempting to eliminate
CO two from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil

(32:38):
fictional plant demon attending to eliminate attempting to eliminate oxygen
from the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire
human race. Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans,
eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants. Now, do you

(32:58):
get the feeling that this is starting to make progress
and sink through some rather thick brains.

Speaker 3 (33:05):
I think so. And it's through the governments as well,
not certainly not in Australia at the moment, but you know,
this year the Opposition party has at least committed to
reopening the domestic nuclear energy debate. So there is that progress,
and they're I think of reading the room in the

(33:27):
global level and the States and in Europe. And you
had the commitment from I think on this board Van Vat,
who let's say, said are the like more likely winners
at this stage in November, they are committed to reversing
the green agenda completely and very urgently. In fact, Trump

(33:51):
and his acceptance speech went back to his drill, Baby drill,
and Vance made a reference to that as well. So
so I think that is getting through. But the problem
is there's been so much indoctrination and brainwashing that I'd

(34:13):
be surprised if a majority of young people realize that
carbon dioxide is absolutely essential to plant life. And I
don't think most of them would know or would even
believe you if you told them that there has been
actually a greening of the world with increased warmth, nor

(34:38):
would they know that the evidence, all the available research
shows that in relation to extreme weather conditions, ten times
as many people in the world die from extreme cold
as from extreme heat. When has there been a time
when climate has not changed? And in relation to what
you're thinking about the United Nations, I don't think it

(35:01):
helps anyone for the Second General to start using the
hyperbolic language of we have moved on from climate from
globe warming to global boiling. When that that's just irresponsible,
extremist language.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
We're all interested, I think, to know from your perspective
when the un changed. Can I say as dramatically as
it seems to have over over over a period of time,
but it when when did it start?

Speaker 3 (35:31):
It's been well, it's it's been gradual, I suppose, And
I think you'd have to tie to what I was
saying earlier as the functions that the core functions of
government are delegated from the legislature and the executive to
the administrative state and the technocrats. That has become reflected

(35:56):
in the international organizations as well, because it's the same
technocratic elite that moves society base back and forth. And
so if we were to read take the agenda and
vest the real powers of the functioning of government back

(36:17):
in the parliament and back in the executive and take
it away from the bureaucracy and the judiciary, then I
think you see that reflected in the United Nations as well.
The United Nations is not an independent actor. It is
still subject to control and ownership by governments, and so

(36:38):
if the politicians took charge of it more, then I
think you see that transferred across to the United Nations
as well. So I think we have to be careful
not to blame the United Nations directly as such, it
does what member states want. Policy is set by the
member states, not by the International Secretariat. Even the Secretary

(37:01):
General and call for things, but he doesn't get to
vote on these issues.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
What about the influence that the shall we say, the
darker nations have and I don't mean color, I mean
in outlook on things. And I'm and I'm thinking of
I'm thinking of the dictatorial countries specifically.

Speaker 3 (37:26):
Why is why they don't they don't they don't have
so much power in the human system. It's it's mainly
in the Security Council. It is the Western powers in
the General Assembly that there's they don't have a such
a huge block. It's on Israel, for example. The agenda
is driven by the Middle East and Islamic countries, not

(37:48):
not by the digitarial countries so much or not similarly
on other issues is different coalitions. And there are some
countries that are influential swing states, and that includes India.
It used to include Sweden, for example, Canada used to be,
but it's not at the moment of the five permanent
members Western, Democratic, UK, France, USA. I think we need

(38:13):
to remember that the most of the UN agenda is
still under the West control and the worker then that
comes from the West and is driven by the West.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
Okay, you mentioned Israel momentarily, what to quote you? As
the liberal international order fades, institutions that were created as
part of the euphoria of liberal internationalism are becoming unmoored
from foundational values as rather than in contact of the ICC.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
Yeah, as relative power is ceded to newly powerful but
illiberal countries. Western powers that designed, created and provided stewardship
stewardship in the post forty five order losing their controlling
grip of the institutions of that order speaking of Israel,
and this you wrote this, of course, of the opening
paragraph of the ICC's legitimacy and integrity, the important word deficits.

(39:08):
So what is your take then on Israel's performance to
date in the wars?

Speaker 3 (39:20):
Firstly, that general argument that I was making there is
a continuation of the argument that I've been making since
my book on the UN and back in two thousand
and six, So it's not actually new, but the trend
has continued and has intensified. And I was raising these
issues then already, and I remember writing, for example, in

(39:42):
relation to the death penalty, by what technocratic grace or
by what legitimacy does the United Nations claim a state
of grace above and beyond that of its member states
when it comes to the death penalty. So it's those
the general questions. And I was raising the same issue
in relation to the piece efforts in these teamor and

(40:06):
you know that when they were deciding that they would
disband the or not pursue criminal justice against the previous
regime in relation to each timor and the new government
and Indonesia's and that agreement of predcision, that these are
issues that were raised in relation to trying to and
conflicts in Africa. So all that was there, but it

(40:27):
has intensified. The difficulty is now since then, the rise
of China has become more obvious, and inevitably the major
powers of the era will seek and will gain commensurate
influence in the institutions of governance of the time. And

(40:50):
the fact that for the first time in history, we're
going to have a global hedgemon that's not English speaking,
that's not liberal, that's not democratic, that's not capitalist, and
doesn't engage in international diplomacy in the English language. All
that's creating a lot of discomfort for us, as it
as bound to and as it should. So that's a

(41:11):
different issue now. In relation to Israel and the United
Nations and ICJ, the World Court and the International Criminal Court,
you've got a peculiar situation where different parts of the
UN system either defer excessively to Israel or focus excessively

(41:31):
on it and condemn it excessively disproportionately to compare to others.
So the Human Rights Council, for example, puts Israel in
the talk more than any other country, and that clearly
cannot be justified on any objective basis. On the other hand,
in the Security Council, Israel has got away with defiance
of United Nations or resolutions more than any other single country.

(41:54):
The World Court has ruled on the legality of Israeli
occupation in terms of international law. I think the World
Court is right. At the International Criminal Court, the prosecutor
has sought a restaurance, but the judges have not yet
granted that. I hope they don't give it. If they do,
it creates a different set of difficulties. But now you

(42:16):
relate that to what my basic argument has been for
two to three decades now in relation to these issues,
and that is the international level, you have a development
of legal institutions and criminal justice institutions the stand by
themselves without the supporting infrastructure of a legislature, a bureaucracy,

(42:40):
an executive, and that reverses the historical trend. Domestically, a
functioning legal system apart from the legislature and the executive
comes at the end of establishment of institutions of governmance,
not at the very start. They don't, for example, have
enforcement capabilities themselves. And it's when the basic first auto

(43:07):
political question are settled and the purpose of the state
is reflected in our constitutional constitution arrangement of government parts,
whether in written constitution or by convention, then you can
start having separation of judiciary from the others. But at
the moment we don't have that internationally. And should the

(43:32):
Prime Minister of Israel be welcome in Australia or New Zealand,
or the UK or India. Should the President of Suddam
be welcome in South Africa or in India. These at
the moment are not principally legal questions to be addressed,
announcewered with the legal analysis and passing of what things are.

(43:53):
They are primarily political questions and for us they are
foreign policy questions. And I don't think it works to
subordinate every other calculation to the determination of the law
and the criminal law as judged by deucocrats sitting in
the Hague. And that was a mistake that was made,
and it's coming home the implications of that. How can

(44:17):
you reconcile the fact that the United States and Russia
and China are not members of the International Criminal Court,
have not subjected themselves to the discipline and authority of
the Criminal Court, have not signed the wrong statute and
yet have a vote in the Security Council on matters
that come up in relation to the Criminal Court. India

(44:39):
has not signed the NPT, doesn't get a vote on it.
United States has not signed the Convention of the Law
of the Sea, doesn't have a vote on it or
any role in it. So there are all these compromises
that we thought, well, we'll just keep quite about it
because we want progress on this. But the result is
it's creating political difficulties and I think it was a

(45:02):
British Prime Minister Rishisu Nakhu said in relationship to the
ICC request for the rest worried by the prosecutor. This
doesn't advance any of the political agendas. It doesn't help
to seek relief of the hostages. In fact, it delete it.
They delays it. It will impede and obstruct at negotiating
a compromise, and it doesn't help in a relation to

(45:25):
the two test to state solution as an ultimate objective
of these negotiations either And here's right on the practical side,
all the three parts agender were obstructed rather than facilitated
by that. But of course the legal answer to that
is well, that's not our concerned you're only looking at
the law, and that's what I'm saying. The separation from

(45:49):
law of law from politics doesn't work on the existing
international conditions we wanted domestically, and we see the consequences
of not having it with the weaponization of lawfare against Trump.
But again, the political impact has been it has backfired
on the Democrats. I'm glad you made it. You don't think, Yeah,
I'm glad.

Speaker 2 (46:09):
I'm glad you mentioned Trump again, just momentarily, because I
was going to go back there off the off the
back of what you've been saying, Can you give me
a good reason why there are, as far as I know,
three Trump X advisors or staff members who are in

(46:29):
jail at the moment for declining to accept a subpoena
to appear before a House.

Speaker 3 (46:35):
Committee, and it's just been released. I think, who has
one of them? Has that's been released to served his term? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (46:44):
Okay, but but he served his term. And at the
same time, the present Attorney General also declined to accept
his invitations to appear before before the House committee, just
refused basic basically stuck his nose in the air and
told him what they could do with it. Now, where's

(47:07):
the jail tour for him. That's this is only one,
one single example of so many of similar situations. But
I'm just wondering your thoughts.

Speaker 3 (47:17):
Well, it goes back to the thing which is the
enforcement arm, is the Department of Justice. So for that
to happen, you need a change of administration, and that
becomes a problem that I think it is. It is,
It is an inconsistency, but it's not as bad really
as as a prosecutor who campaigns on getting Trump and

(47:39):
then bends and twists the law into a complete pretzel
to pursue Trump. And that whole thing is just absolutely ridiculous,
and I think it is a backside big time.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Got a little while to wait to see that, but
I'm looking forward to you being right.

Speaker 3 (47:58):
I don't think Trump would have had an easy ride
to nomination of the Department Party if they had not
pursued him so recklessly and so relentlessly. And they have
proven his assertion that they're coming after him with everything
they've got. They vilified him, they slandered him, they made

(48:19):
it impossible for him to govern as a duly elected president,
and the shootspath saying he doesn't accept election results. You
have intelligence officers lied to the American public after before
the last election, the fifty one intelligence officers senior intellience
offices in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Then
they have tried to bankrupt him, they have tried to

(48:41):
imprison him, and in the recent times they even had
a shot at him. I mean, I'm using day in
the general sense there because we don't know what because
motivation was, but all that progressively, a lot of independents
who would have found Trump too distasteful to vote for
him have been angered enough and incensed enough at this

(49:04):
overt politicization and weaponization of the justice system. Did they
see that as a greater threat to democracy than Trump is?
And there's lots of poor evidence to back that up.

Speaker 2 (49:15):
Yes, there is Laighton Smith. So that is part one
of our discussion with Ramesh Thicker. We will have part
two in podcasts two forty nine. We get into Julian
the Sanane and have a little discussion. We agreed this,
we disagreed slightly. And reliance on technology, cash and the

(49:38):
importance of it, and Western society's bent on feeding fuel
into the fire that is consuming them and DEI they're
just some of the Things A Podcast two forty nine.

(50:05):
Over to the podcast for number two hundred and forty eight,
missus producer.

Speaker 3 (50:09):
You're looking very well, lighton. I'm great.

Speaker 4 (50:11):
Got rid of the pesky cold after the plane flight,
Well mostly I've got rid of it.

Speaker 3 (50:17):
Yes, feeling one hundred percent excellent and the sun is shining,
albeit that it's still chilly.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
Could you want I want to get in a plane
cold or no cold on planes and go somewhere warm.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
That'll be good. Yes, all right, why don't you lead?

Speaker 4 (50:31):
Layton Vincent says in the same week that the Reserve
Bank has media releases about the brilliance and safety of
its desired CBDCs to be rolled out across the country.
We have what's been described as the largest IT disaster
in history, grinding much of the world to a halt.
All it took was a simple software update gone a

(50:53):
right to shut down civilization and stop everybody.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
In their tracks.

Speaker 4 (50:58):
I'm thankful that we have about three hundred dollars in
cash sitting in a drawer at home for such moments
as these, so we can pop to the shops with
some milk without queuing up with others who have bemused
and frustrated at what's going on. Of course, my three
hundred dollars won't last long, but this whole episode does
highlight the fragility of unmodern world and that cash truly

(51:18):
is king and always will be if given a chance.
Cheers to the businesses who've been turning their noses up
at the folding stuff. How's that working out for you?
Still loving the podcast of more than five years later,
and we really appreciate your hard work team, and long
may these continue as long as you're keening.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
Vincent, Vincent, that's very inspiring, Vincent. Who knows what it
might have done, what it might have created? And I
think that what you had to say was pretty correct now,
David writes underneath the address for a video he has included.
This video goes through the audio sequence of gunshots of
fired at the Trump rally. Mike Adams, who made this video,

(52:02):
is open to critique on his methodology, but believes that
there were three shooters firing at t based on the
audio files. Mike Adams also provides an update at the
end of the video which suggests that one of the
shooter positions was from the water tower, which gels with
the previous video that I sent you that was produced

(52:24):
by Clayton Morris at redacted. It's in your podcast. Your
treatment stated that he found it hard to believe that
there was a conspiracy to assassinate Trump. I would suggest
that evidence is mounting daily from sources that this was
indeed a conspiracy. From what has been discovered so far,
mainly by independent media, it's become clear or becoming clear,

(52:47):
that the twenty year old crooks did not act alone.
Of course, the public will never get the full story
as long as the corrupt FBI is involved in the investigation.
They cannot even provide an update photo of crooks to
the media. Yet we are told that a police officer
took a photo of him when he was seen acting

(53:09):
suspiciously prior to the start of the rally. Well, let's
just say at this point that that doesn't mean that
that the picture that the guy took the cop took
was one of detail.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
Or even on his face or whatever. We don't know.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
As for George Treatman's comments regarding the Secret Service, it
would appear that a large number of Trump's security detail
were not actually Secret Service members. The DEI hires that
were seen bumbling along the limo as Trump was taken
away and did not inspire public confidence. It was like

(53:41):
watching an old Keystone Cops movie starring Laurel and Hardy.
I don't know, did that Laurel Hardy did Keystone Cops?
Or you're too young to know, David, thank you. There's
some there's a bit of a bit of an anticipation
in your in your letter that I think we'd all
be wise to just hang out a bit longer. And wait,
I mean it is it is today, earlier today that

(54:05):
whatever name is forgotten was before the House Committee, and
she wouldn't answer any questions. We don't really know any
more than what we did, do we And there's a
lot of supposition that's going on. I'm just being cautious,
that's all I mean. I I love the sound of
a good conspiracy, to be honest, but I also like

(54:27):
destroying them even more.

Speaker 4 (54:29):
Leighton Claire says, I totally disagree with George's take on
how fit the women and the Secret Service are. Maybe
they have past tests in the field, but they are
not fit for purpose. How can a person of any
sex who has head and shoulders shorter than their protect
tea possibly be seen as a good fit. The short
person can't shield the protect tea and couldn't possibly get

(54:52):
the much taller and heavier protect tea into safety. I
heard on several occasions that when Reagan was shot, a
Secret Service agent picked him up like a rag doll
and got him into the waiting vehicle. A short person
couldn't have possibly done that.

Speaker 3 (55:06):
With Trump.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
I don't usually talk politics, and my friends are apolitical,
but they know where I stand. Twice in the past
two weeks, when pushed with stupid comments about Trump by acquaintances,
I've point blank told the speaker I was going to
vote for him, and why they were dumbfounded. And that's
from Claire, who I presume is in the States.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
Yeah, yes, well, who knows what effect what you're saying
to them might have. I mean, they're not being fed,
they're not being fed or they're not receiving shall we say,
proper information, And that's widely known now and it's just
very frustrating. Late and I heard you discussing the female

(55:47):
security personnel protecting Trump the other day. You should google
and listen to the very entertaining the Late debate on
Sky News Australia on fifteen July. What the panel discusses
is so correct and obvious that you must agree that
females are not suited to that role.

Speaker 3 (56:05):
I'm female.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
By the way, listen to the audio without subscribing to
the visual show. The one on seventeen July is also
worth listening to. I'm sure you'll get a giggle out
of them. There are commentaries going all which way at
the moment. I'll look, I'm the first to say that
neither of the two main women that we're talking about

(56:28):
in the service inspired confidence in anybody.

Speaker 3 (56:33):
I don't think.

Speaker 2 (56:34):
I don't know how they could with what was required,
albeit that they were doing the best that they could.
I know there's a letter here somewhere though, as a
producer that somebody has a different.

Speaker 3 (56:44):
Opinion to that. Have you got?

Speaker 4 (56:46):
I must say I initially thought when I saw those
pictures that the I know, look, granted, she was smaller
than Trump, wasn't she can't deny that. But the one
in the middle of those pictures I thought was incredibly brave,
as the men were as well.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
But I just mind add that there are so many
There are so many versions and commentaries of various kinds
over this that you've got people, unquestionably, you've got people
seeing or hearing things that didn't happen, or they didn't
really see, they just convinced themselves that they did.

Speaker 3 (57:23):
I'm not saying that's anybody that's written to us today.
It's just that.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
It's patently obvious that until there is a proper inquiry,
a proper inquiry and a neutral one, then we need
more information. And then I say to myself quietly, will
we ever get to know the real deal? I think
it's just as unlikely as tomorrow's weather forecast.

Speaker 4 (57:50):
Leighton Paul says Podcast two four seven was as good
as ever. I enjoyed Jordan William's pragmatic view of tax
The big highlight for me was George Friedman's consistent analysis
of the American political system and the reasoning he provides
for the current chaos. All in all, it is one
of the best podcasts I've had the pleasure of listening to.

(58:12):
George's input prompted me to reread The Geopolitical Future's special
report The Geopolitics of the American President. That was well
worth my effort as well. Thanks again, and I'm looking
forward to the next podcast, says.

Speaker 3 (58:27):
Paul, I might see if I can find that.

Speaker 2 (58:29):
I will see if I can find that and quote it.
If so, they're Latin and Carolyn missus producer.

Speaker 3 (58:37):
If you don't mind, Carolyn's fine, thank you.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
Following the events of the past two weeks, people must
surely begin to either believe in the existence of conspiracy
theories or the existence of God. Trump was being assassinated
on live TV, and all he lost was part of
his right here in a pretty small part by the
look of it now, and he gained a political turnaround

(59:03):
of epic proportions. Biden swore that he would remain in
the presidential race, only to be taken by COVID and
had his political campaign assassinated by the Democrats. It's a
good way to put it, actually. Of course, the American
leftist mainstream media tried to play down the inevitable MAGA
tsunami coming their way. While Jordan Williams rightly lamented the

(59:26):
lack of conservative media representing the population they serve, America
does have media like the New New York Post, which
reported that Secret Service officials repeatedly rejected Donald Trump's request
for additional security in the two years before his assassination attempt,
or before the assassination attempt. I hope America is reaching

(59:49):
the good end of George Freeman's fifty year cyclical history,
because America is severely broken, and the American political landscape
is indeed a swamp. Will God save America or abandon her?
We shall see in November later.

Speaker 4 (01:00:05):
This is from Robin, who was referenced seeing the comments
she made a week or so ago about petrol and cars.

Speaker 3 (01:00:15):
Do you remember.

Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
That that I was just contemplating my money saving Ah?

Speaker 4 (01:00:20):
Yes, you were too well, Robin says, no, don't, especially
in a European car. In a previous life, I was
a motor mechanic. I still mess about with cars. My
three V six lagooner has been on ninety one ever
since I got it.

Speaker 3 (01:00:35):
Not you. At one point when it.

Speaker 4 (01:00:38):
Was low on gas, I had some fresh ninety eight
left over from racing.

Speaker 3 (01:00:42):
Why wasted?

Speaker 4 (01:00:43):
I thought, after all, the computer will adjust it wrong,
not in this car anyway. It became virtually undriveable. Fortunately
it was my wife driving, not me. She was not
best pleased, thought she would get stranded. It was almost
worse than limp home mode. When I got to it,
I wondered how she'd managed to drive it. It was

(01:01:04):
a mission to reset the computer as I had no
scan tool to reset, so battery disconnected, et cetera to
clear the computer. Then about three adaption runs later and
it was back to operating close to right. I moved
it onto ninety five. We don't have ninety eight where
I am, and I will never change the rating again.

(01:01:24):
Some will say it doesn't matter, but in my experience
it does. And I'm just coming home from a walk
along the beach to the spit in Malulabar. HIVEH twenty
one predicted today. That's from Robin time.

Speaker 3 (01:01:39):
Time to go.

Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
Finally from Ian Laydon, what a tumultuous week in US politics.
We have the cardboard cutout that is Joe Biden finally
exposing what we all knew at a photo of Donald
Trump defiantly raising his fist in front of an American
flag after being shot in the ear. I have to

(01:02:03):
say that the photo reminded me of the one in
Iwajima during World War II. One thing is for sure,
Trump is now heading for a landslide victory. I can
only imagine the chaos that would have followed in the
US had the shooter succeeded. Even now, who knows what
might follow the upcoming election. It will be better than

(01:02:27):
the best movie Ian the landslide victory. You know, I
was almost alone on the radio when I predicted that
Trump would win in twenty sixteen, and I wasn't surprised
at all, And everybody's stunned. And what I did to
know how I knew. I'm not so convinced that it's

(01:02:48):
going to be a landslide victory. Part of the reason
is the same as well, going back to twenty twenty.
You don't know what they're going to do. You don't
know how they might do it. You just don't know,
don't know, don't know. It's been interesting because a producer
that a lot of people have been taught about. I

(01:03:09):
saw a headline, Let's put it this way. I saw
a headline how far will they go? Referring to the
Democrats to stop him? And that surprised me for a
particular reason. But I quickly worked out why. Patently, the
author of that headline and the article that was under
it wasn't availing themselves over the lengthy period of time

(01:03:31):
that Trump was in office and since as to how
he was dealt with by the media, and the media
was less than honest. The media have been corrupt and
liars from beginning to end. When I say the media,
not everybody in the media, but the mainstream or legacy
media as we were referring to it. It's an unknown

(01:03:54):
at this point, and this could be. This could be
even more tumultuous and disruptive to America and the world
and what we've already seen. I'm not predicting anything. I'm
just saying, keep the possibilities open mind. Thank you, business producer,
Thanks later, see you next week.

Speaker 4 (01:04:12):
Lectures over.

Speaker 3 (01:04:32):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
In the introduction, I mentioned that there was a piece
by Oliver Hardwitch in the New Zealand Initiative, which I
recommend you read. Europe is now on its own. But
I have chosen a piece that is written by somebody else,
C J. Hopkins, And all will be explained at a
moment C. J. Hopkins, The People's Court of New Normal Germany,

(01:04:56):
and I think it will become evident why I have
chosen this lengthy as it is, every bit of it
is worthy of our attention. Just when I thought things
could not possibly get more shocked, kingly totalitarian in New
normal Germany will or will be explained where I am
being prosecuted in a criminal court for the second time

(01:05:18):
for tweeting. The German authorities have gone and surprised me again. No,
they haven't established an actual Nazi style people's court yet,
And of course, there is absolutely no similarity between the
current German justice system, which is totally fair and democratic
and a paragon of impartial justice and the rule of law,

(01:05:39):
and the People's Court of Berlin during the Nazi era.
Nor is there any similarity between Nazi Germany and new
normal Germany, that is modern day Germany. And I would
never ever suggest that there was, as that would be
intellectually lazy and tasteless and completely inaccurate and illegal. And well,

(01:06:02):
let me fill you in on the latest. The Berlin
Superior Court has set a date for my next sought
crime trial. As regular readers will probably recall, my first
thought crime trial was in January and ended with my acquittal.
So the German authorities are putting me on trial again. Yes,
they can do that in Germany. But wait, that's not

(01:06:25):
the best part. The best part is at my new
sought crime trial, this time in Berlin's Superior Court. Full
scale anti terrorism security protocols will be affected in the courtroom.
Everyone will be subjected to TSA style scanning and screening
and will have to surrender all their personal possessions and

(01:06:46):
hats and coats and head coverings to the security staff
and completely empty their pockets of all items before entering
the courtroom. No computers, phones, smart watches or any other
potential recording devices will be allowed in the courtroom. Pencils
and sheets of paper will purportedly be provided to members
of the press by security staff. Members of the press

(01:07:10):
and public will be limited to thirty five and after
they have successfully passed their security screening that be cordoned
off in the last five rows of the gallery in
the very bank of the court room for security reasons
and monitored by armed security staff. Now at a benefit
of any new readers unfamiliar with me and my case, asaid,

(01:07:34):
everything would be explained. I am not a terrorist. I
am an award winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist.
Have lived here in Berlin for twenty years. The German
authorities have been investigating and prosecuting me since August of
twenty twenty two. My case has been covered by the Atlantic,
Racket News, a Multi polar and many other outbits, so

(01:07:58):
I won't reiterate every little detail here.

Speaker 3 (01:08:00):
Again.

Speaker 2 (01:08:01):
Basically, I'm being prosecuted for spreading pro Nazi propaganda because
I criticize the COVID mask mandates and tweeted the cover
artwork of one of my books, The Rise of the
New Normal Rank here's the cover artwork of that book,
and he shows it on screen online. The other two

(01:08:22):
images are the recent covers of Despiegel and Stern, two
well known mainstream German magazines, which are not being prosecuted
for spreading pro Nazi propaganda. As anyone even the German
authorities can see, the Spiegel cover artwork uses exactly the
same concept as the cover artwork of my book. The

(01:08:43):
only difference is the Spiegel schwastiger is covered by the
German flag, whereas the schwashticker on my book is covered
by a medical mask. Both artworks are obviously intended as
warnings of the rise of a new form of totalitarianism.
Despiegel was warning about the alternative for Deutschland Party, the AfD,

(01:09:05):
as was Stern with its Swashstiger floating in a Champagne
class I was warning about what I dubbed the new
normal Reich, the new nascent form of totalitarianism that emerged
during twenty twenty to twenty twenty three, which is still
very much on the rise, and which is thoroughly documented

(01:09:26):
and analyzed in my book, which book was banned by
Amazon in Germany. At the same time, the German authorities
launched a criminal investigation of me and instructed Twitter to
censor my tweets, which Twitter did. Would be interesting to
see how the current owner of what is now x
would respond to that. The pretext the court is citing

(01:09:47):
for ordering these anti terrorism security protocols at my trial
is ridiculous and infuriating. The court claims that the court
room in which my trial is to take place is
occasionally used for a certain high security trial. Therefore, according
to the court, my trial must also be subjected to

(01:10:07):
anti terrorism security protocols. Seriously, the court sent my attorney
a fact setting forth this explanation, which is of course
a load of horse droppings. The Berlin Superior Court is
a huge building containing multiple court rooms, one or two
of which are probably not subject to such anti terrorism

(01:10:29):
security protocols. When high security trials are not taking place
in them. No, the imposition of these anti terrorism security
protocols is clearly a cynical ploy, intended a to suppress
coverage of the trial, b to discourage the press and
public from attending, and c to intimidate and harass me

(01:10:51):
and my legal counsel at any members of the press
and public who nevertheless attend the trial in spite of
these security procedures, that they will be subjected to this
cynical tactic, which is not an official press blackout, because
journalists can still attend and attempt scribbled notes on their
knees with the pencils and sheets of paper provided by

(01:11:11):
the security staff. Comes as no real surprise. As I
mentioned above, my case and my first trial got a
fair amount of attention from the international press, enough to
put the court on notice that my prosecution was being watched,
as though it's no mystery why the German authorities would
want to discourage any reporting on my do over trial

(01:11:34):
in Superior Court. Also, the gallery was filled to capacity
at my original trial in January, where I delivered a
rather unusual closing statement to the court, which was then
published and disseminated widely.

Speaker 3 (01:11:47):
In Germany.

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
So again it is no real mystery why the Superior
Court wants to discourage members of the public from attending
this new trial by threatening to subject them to these
humiliating security protocols, and why it has limited the gallery
size to only thirty five seats. I assume the German authorities,

(01:12:09):
and by authorities I mean the Berlin District Prosecutor's office,
the Berlin District Court and whatever other authorities are intent
on punishing me and making an example of me for
daring to criticize the government's edicts during twenty twenty to
twenty twenty two, that is suspension of the constitutional rights,

(01:12:31):
mask mandates, segregation, the banning of protests, etc. I assume
these authorities are particularly motivated to prevent the press from
covering this second trial in Superior Court, because, from what
I understand of the German legal system, they are going
to do me. Do comes in qrites do me, that is,

(01:12:54):
convict me this time. The way the German legal system
works if they want to do you is one, you
are acquitted in the lower criminal court too, the district
prosecutor appeals the verdict to the Superior Court. Three, the
Superior Court overturns your acquittal, and then four the prosecution

(01:13:18):
court goes back to the original criminal court, which stages
a new trial at which you'll be found guilty, because
once the superior court has overruled your acquittal, the criminal
court will convict you based on the superior court's ruling.
There's almost parallel, certainly a sample of what Trump's been

(01:13:39):
going through in the States. At which point you will
appeal and on and on and on. It will go
until you're broke, or until you give up fighting because
you're just so effing exhausted. I'm not making this up.
This is how the People's Court of New Normal Germany,

(01:14:00):
that is, the post COVID German justice system, which again
bears no resemblance whatsoever to the People's Court of Berlin
Nazi Germany, or to the courts in the Soviet Union
during the Stalin era, or any other totalitarian justice system.
Close brackets. This is how it works in New Normal Germany.

(01:14:21):
If you are a critic of the authorities and refuse
to meekly accept whatever punishment they want to summarily dish
out for whatever they deem to be your thought crimes.
Ai fabler I hope you're listening to this, but hey,
at least they're not going to take me out and
put me up against a wall and shoot me like

(01:14:42):
they did with political criminals in Nazi Germany and the USSR.
So I suppose I should be grateful. I have to
work on that. If you think my case is an aberration,
it isn't. There are many many other people critics of
the government's COVID measures during the twenty twenty to twenty
three period who are being persecuted and made examples of.

(01:15:05):
Most of these people do not have the financial resources
to pay law is to fight these prosecutions, so they
plead guilty to the charges and pay the fines, which
are typically much less than what they would face in
attorney's fees. Being somewhat of a public figure, I thought
it was my responsibility not to do that. I'm extremely

(01:15:26):
grateful to everyone who has donated to my legal defense fund,
which is how I've been able to cover my legal expenses.
There's enough left in that fund to cover this next
trial in Superior Court, so I'm okay for now. Financially.
I mentioned that because people are already asking how they
can send me money, what people can do if they

(01:15:50):
want to do something helpful is make as much noise
as possible about what's happening, not just in Germany but
throughout all the West. Because what is happening is well
what I tried to capture and analyze in my book.
The powers that be are going totalitarian on us. They

(01:16:11):
are gradually and not so gradually, phasing out the so
called liberal or democratic rights and principles that it was
necessary to plicate the Western masses with during the Covid
War era, which it is no longer necessary to do
beyond a certain superficial point. I have published three books
of essays documenting this transition to a new global capitalist

(01:16:34):
form of totalitarianism. So I'm not going to go on
and on about it here, but that's what all the
censorship is about. That's what all the manufactured hysteria, fermented hatred, fanaticism,
the permanent state of emergency and crisis and culture wars,
the cults of personality, the bombardment of our minds with

(01:16:56):
absolutely meaningless nonsense, the naked displays of force, the blatant
instrumentalization of the justice system to punish political dissonance, not
just here in Germany but throughout the democratic West, democratic
being again in quotes, that is what all this is about.

(01:17:16):
So I'll keep my readers posted on the details of
my upcoming trial in Berlin Superior Court. My attorney is
objecting to these security protocols. Of course, we'll see how
that goes. In the meantime. Instead of sending me money
this time, maybe try to step back from all the
mass hysteria and hatred that we're being inundated with and

(01:17:36):
see the big picture. It isn't pretty. Help spread the
word about the new totalitarianism, about the phasing out of
our democratic rights. I don't care which side of whatever
you're on Trump, Biden, Palestine, Israel, the culture wars, the
cancel campaigns, covid elon musk Russia, whatever, and neither do

(01:17:59):
the powers that be. Take a step back and try
to see the bigger picture, the forest instead of just
the trees, and then make us much noise about it
as you can. We are heading somewhere, very ugly, somewhere
most of us can't imagine. Some of us will get
there first, but all of us will be there together eventually.

(01:18:21):
My story is just one example of what it'll be
like there in that ugly place. It isn't really a
story about Germany. It's a story about the end of
the myth of democracy and the rule of law and
all that good stuff. As Frank Zapper once so eloquently explained,
the illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's

(01:18:43):
profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the
illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take
down the scenery. They'll pull back the curtains, they'll move
the tables and chairs out of the way, and you
will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
It's something to be hold. That brick wall is especially

(01:19:05):
up close and personal. You'll see when you get there.
I'll save you a seat. Now, I know that was lengthy,
but I would have run sixteen odd minutes. But the
point being that there is a message there that I
believe needs to be respected. You can say only time

(01:19:25):
will tell, and I'd go with that. But nevertheless, here, there,
and everywhere there are things taking place that, unless they're stymied,
unless they're terminated at this point, will pick up a pace.
Don't just ask me our CJ. Hopkins, and ask lots
of other people. Ask the people in the in the

(01:19:45):
Free Sweets Union, just what they're confronted with, and you'd think,
why would it ever happen here? The answer is simply,
in the end, it can. And that is where we
shall depart, probably, thank goodness from podcast number two hundred
and forty eight. Don't forget if you'd like to correspond.

(01:20:06):
I love your correspondents on anything and everything today on
this podcast, I should say probably. The mail is latent
at Newstalk SIB dot co dot Nz, Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB
dot co dot Nz.

Speaker 3 (01:20:22):
Love your correspondence.

Speaker 2 (01:20:24):
All some good stuff in podcasts two four eight, So
we shall rejoin you very shortly, and don't forget part
two of Ramesh the Kur in two forty nine. And
I'm looking forward to two fifty for more than one reason,
but we'll reveal that at the time. So all that
is left to say is thank you so much for listening,

(01:20:45):
and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:20:54):
Thank you for more from Newstalk sed B. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio