Leighton Smith Podcast #273 - February 26th 2025 - George Friedman

The unforeseen arrangements between China and the Cook Islands have induced greater interest in South Pacific geopolitics than we can ever remember.

How we deal with this surprise confrontation will be fascinating to observe.

One thing is obvious; the Kiwi's “benign strategic environment” has had its feathers ruffled.

In 2019 George Friedman published “The Storm Before The Calm”, which suggested the sort of events we are now experiencing. George Friedman guests on Podcast 273.

And, as ever, we round up with 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 ed 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.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
The sis, now.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
The Leighton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to podcasts two seventy three for February twenty six,
twenty twenty five. For those unfamiliar with George Friedman, albeit
probably few in number, George has a doctorate and a
professorship in his past. He has experience in areas involving defense,
and he started two companies Stratford, followed by his present organization,

(00:49):
Geopolitical Futures, and of course there are a number of books.
My first meeting with him was in nineteen eighty six,
and while we all may have differences of opinion, his
is worth assessing. Now. We spent most of the first half,
if not all of it, on China, New Zealand and
the Cook Islands, after which we moved on to the

(01:10):
Middle East, to Russia and Ukraine, and a couple of
other matters, including on my dad, Donald Trump's IQ. But
first there are major issues concerning most of the planet
Some are local, others are regional, others are international. New
Zealand is not in good shape on many fronts, not
helped by political obfuscation. The adern failure speaks for itself.

(01:33):
But there's still under present leadership issues being mishandled, including
medical issues, climate absurdities, productivity restraints. And I could draw
up quite a list. By the way, speaking of productivity,
I have an example of that, a personal one in
just a moment. Although it's not my intention today to

(01:54):
turn climate change issues into a major I do want
to cover off a couple of things. Want to quote
you something from Roger Scrutin's Green Philosophy, How to Think
Seriously About the Planet. In ninety sixty eight, Paul Erlick
initiated a worldwide movement of anxiety with his book The
Population Bomb, which predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive

(02:16):
hamines as early as the seventies. Demographic studies showing that
birth rate declines as wealth increases were largely ignored in
the ensuing panic, and it only now that the truth
is widely accepted that famines are, for the most part
political phenomena, the result of military conflict of state control

(02:36):
of the food economy, or, as in the Soviet Union,
a policy of genocide. Again, in nineteen seventy two, a
number of scientists began to predict a catastrophic cooling of
the Earth, and in no time the prediction had become
a widespread scare. Major cooling, widely considered to be inevitable.
Was The New York Times headline and science digest of

(02:59):
nineteen seventy three told its readers to brace themselves for
another ice age. The Cooling by the American science writer
Loull Ponti, published in nineteen seventy six, attempted to summarize
the evidence and to prepare us for the worst, informing
its readers that the cooling has already killed hundreds of

(03:19):
thousands of people in poor nations, and in their entertaining
book on mass Panics, Scared to Death, Christopher Booker and
Richard North enjoy pointing out that many of those who
had devoted their energies to warning the world against global
cooling within a year or two spreading alarms about global
warming instead. Such examples illustrates something that all wise people know,

(03:45):
which is that the truth of a proposition is often
the least important among the many motives for believing it.
Panics arise where there is an interest in promoting them,
and they pass from person to person with the irresistible
force of a contagious disease. So let me turn to
a couple of current headlines verse from the Epic Times.

(04:09):
The world is not going to reach NED zero by
twenty fifty. Vaklev Schmil is one of the leading thinkers
on energy and environment. Last year, the Distinguished Professor Emeritus
in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba
pend an extensive report for the Fraser Institute, a libertarian

(04:29):
conservative Canadian public policy think tank. In it, he outlined
numerous reasons why NED zero by twenty fifty is highly unlikely,
and he began with the glaring fact despite international agreements,
government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel
consumption surge by fifty five percent between nineteen ninety seven

(04:53):
and twenty twenty three. A second headline, Trump policy will
embolden developing world to reject climate agenda, which they're already
doing anyway, It'll just give them more weight. And I'm
talking countries like Nigeria, West of Africa probably, and the
fact that China, India and other countries are ignoring totally

(05:16):
and building coal fired power plants by the dozen. And
yet here in New Zealand we have a government and
a Minister for climate change who was introduced an approach
that is even worse than the adern administration had put
in place. How idiotic is that? And then there's the

(05:36):
Prime Minister who says that anybody in the twenty first
century who doesn't believe that climate change is man made
is an idiot. I think we should turn the pointer
around one hundred and eighty degrees. And as for any
comment that goes along the lines of we have to
do our little bit for the world, I cannot think
of a more insane comment to be making at this

(05:57):
particular moment. Now, as for my example of productivity failure,
it goes like this. On the nineteenth of the month February,
I ordered a book. Now, I'd search the internet to
find out how quickly I could get my hands on it,
because I wanted it fairly urgently, And I looked at

(06:18):
Amazon Australia. Then We're going to take a week or so,
a couple of other places, and I ended up with
Mighty Ape and Mighty Ape were going to get it
to me by this was the nineteenth. Mighty eight was
going to get it to me by the twenty first,
So it was a case of forty eight hours or
even less, depending on what time had got here. However,

(06:41):
come the day, which was the twenty first of February,
it didn't turn up. So I went and checked, and
I found the movements the book had made, and it
had gone from the Apernall's shore to East Tammocke, for
goodness sake, the Apernalls Shore to East Tammockee on the

(07:02):
other side of the city by some considerable margin, and
there it stayed from the nineteenth to the twenty fifth
when it was delivered. So for something that should have
taken two days, it took six days or five if
you want, I don't mind which.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
Now.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
I don't blame Mighty Ape for it, but I certainly
hold the New Zealand Post to account for taking six
days to get something that was due to get here
in two And if that's not a productivity failure, then
I don't know what is. Now. Having got that off
my chest and I'll say no more about it. We
will talk about far More Important Things with George Friedman

(07:39):
in Just a Moment Layton Smith. Leverrix is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongested action. It's
fast acting for fast relief, and it works in under

(08:02):
an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix
is a tiny tablet that unblocks the no deals with
itchy eyes and stops sneezing. Levericks is an antihistamine made
in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're
in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
and ask for Leverix lv Rix Leverrix and always read

(08:27):
the label. Take as directed and if symptoms persist, see
your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. George Redman is the
author of two major books. He's written more, but these

(08:48):
are the two majors. The Next one hundred Years, that
was released in two thousand and nine, was a massive
seller worldwide. The second book, The Storm Before the cam
America's Discord, The Coming crisis of the twenty twenties and
the Triumph Beyond was not a failure, but it sold slowly.
The interesting thing is the interest in that book is

(09:09):
now picking up a pace, as will be revealed sometime
in the near future. But nevertheless, the book was as
I've said many times on the podcast when it's come up,
the book was released the same day that COVID broke,
and all American networks wanted to know was about COVID,

(09:29):
and so George had a series of major interviews with
television and other media canceled simply because it got replaced
with COVID, and we all know the damage that COVID did,
So with that in mind, from geopolitical futures, George Treatment,
it's great to have you back. I wanted you. I

(09:50):
wanted you on, particularly because of what's going on in
this part of the world. But we shall transfer our attention.
After dealing with the South Pacific to the rest of
the world and some major issues. The Crook Islands strike
a deal with China on seabed minerals is a headline.
Struck a five agreement with China to cooperate in exploring

(10:10):
and researching the Pacific nations seabed mineral riches. A copy
of the deal, which is likely to work. Close partner
and former colonial ruler New Zealand showed it covers working
together in the exploration and research of seabed mineral resources.
Now the rest of the detail doesn't matter because it's
been fully publicized. But for about ten days I think

(10:35):
maybe even a couple of weeks, we were a bit
short on information. Now we have most of it. You've
seen the reports. What is your interpretation of China's entry
into the South Pacific.

Speaker 3 (10:49):
Well, firstly, remember the global geopolitical situation. The Russians and
the Americans we'll talk about later are believing much closer.
Russia is China's enemy. They fought war as being Khrushchev
and Mao. In fact, when Kissinger went to China, the
Russians attacked at the Yusiri River on the border. So

(11:12):
these are not too friendly countries. Communism is an ideology
sort of bound them together. So now they're looking at
their western frontier and wondering what in God's name the
Russians are doing. They're looking at their internal economic problems.
They just basically the amounts of the private sector was
going to be the major for striving the economy. But

(11:34):
it's more important to understand that from their point of view,
their threat to them comes through the Pacific, and Australia
is becoming a significant naval power, so they have to
show their strength. It was really a little, tiny, little
intervention by two frigate, a destroyer and a support ship.
This was not even a major approach, and at the

(11:57):
same time they sent them five fighters down in return
for them. They either did or didn't notify the New
Zealand government I don't know, but they didn't have to
or in international orders they did issue mat Tom's But
they're coming down there primarily to remind New Zealand that

(12:18):
New Zealand allowing Australia to place forces there or something
like that would not be a good idea. I think
it's a clumsy move, but they're in a difficult position.
They have to show that they're a major power, that
they can operate a distance. They didn't show that the
big boys any of that today. But they're also looking

(12:40):
down at Australia and the submarines they're receiving and everything
and are worrying great deal about it. So this was
a low cost, reversible event. New Zealand got all excited
and that's what they wanted.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Well, New Zealand hasn't got as excited as Australia apparently,
so you're.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Not excited, you're just frightened. I don't want to use
the word frightened. It was nothing. Australia is not going
to be intimidated. But the Chinese are running out of
options of how to play the international game, and so
this was a move in that direction, a minor one.
We're certainly going others coast Chinee. I'd says all the time.

(13:24):
You haven't been used to it.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Quite, but you left out the Cook Islands in that description.
It's not that the Cook Islands are any danger to anybody.
But elsewhere I've seen a suggestion that the Chinese are
going to be spending money, some substantial amounts of money
in the Cook Islands to build ports and other things
as part of this steal. Now, if that is true,

(13:47):
and I'm leaving room for maneuvering there. If it's true,
then surely the visitation of the three ships is a
warning that the Chinese are involved now with the Cook Islands.
They are no longer our territory because they're moving in.
And this is just a little statement of facts, I

(14:09):
mean to be blunt. To be blunt, the three ship
Little Crusade is bigger than our navy.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Well, that's a problem for New Zealand. But you don't
conduct an assault that the country as large as New Zealand,
with Australia to your north, you have to pass them,
and the US seventh Fleet, which is also an Atlantic
has to come through. So I don't think there's a
threat to New Zealand security. What it is, however, is
there's a worldwide search for rare earths. The Ukrainian War

(14:38):
is now a little about rare earths. If the Cook
Islands have rare earths, the Chinese wanted to get him first.
They needed that, so there's an economic reason to be there.
I don't see a major military reason. They didn't really
mind shaking up New Zealand a bit to show the

(14:58):
Americans they have some long range military naval capabilities, which
is unknown whether they really have it or not. I
don't think they do. This served a number of purposes, psychological, economic,
and it showed three ships how to say, a long
distance from.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
The Australian newspaper. I'm looking at a headline China accused
US Australia of hyping up live fire drills in the
South China Sea. But moving on a bit ex Australian
Prime Minister Tony Abbott over the weekend suggested Australia, the UK,
Canada and New Zealand should quote become much better at

(15:38):
offering the US help rather than rail against the only
leader of the free world currently has following China's posturing.
Of course, he went on, there is an alternative to
renewing alliances built on a shared history and valued cherished values,
cherished in common. And he was talking by the way
to the Danube Institute Forum in London. Australia caught opt

(16:00):
to become an economic colony of China. But in that event,
our paymasters in Beijing would hardly allow us a freedom
that their own people lack. As last week's life fire
exercise off our coast shows, Beijing's expectation is that its
clients tremble and obey. Soon enough, we would find that
without strength, neither peace nor freedom lasts very long. Now

(16:25):
is there anything worthy of night in that?

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Well? The Chinese want to desperately show that they have
not been nerved by what's happening in the rest of
the world, with their lives or potential lives moving the directions.
They also want to demonstrate that they have capabilities, and
they also will take the risk of New Zealand pulling

(16:49):
closer to the United States, which it should. There's an interest.
But remember the United States military has a problem with
New Zealand the expulsion of our naval vessels because they
might have nuclear weapons on board. Years back, rankles deeply,
and that will be overcome. That's not an issue. I
remember then we still mumble about it drinking beer. So

(17:13):
New Zealand. Australia is one thing in our mind. Now
New Zealand is another thing. You have this psychological problem.
It'll be overcome. But certainly New Zealand it has one
far out gegraphic advantage. If the Chinese managed to occupy
New Zealand, they could threaten Australia from the north and south.

(17:35):
But how did the Chinese provide supplies in New Zealand,
How do they get there, how did they maintain their force?
So that's why I say it's a wild theory. So
they may have somebody who has a dream. But I
think one thing we know New Zealand, with current technologies
and realities and wealth, cannot pretend that they're the little

(17:57):
child who is never there. Okay, everybody knows they're there.
Life is unpredictable. New Zealand's had a luxurious time since
World War Two. At some point it's going to realize
that it might be an asset to someone. I don't
think this is the time, but it will.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
So in the interim. Is there any advantage to the
Chinese locating themselves in the Cook Islands. Let us just
suppose that it came to that, and that was not
part of the deal, but it came as a result
of it that they were able to that they were
able to establish a solid base in the Cook Islands.

(18:36):
Would that be the question is would that be any
real advantage to them?

Speaker 3 (18:41):
It would be liability because they're far away from the
Cook Islands. The US Navy can interdict any major operation
to support Cook Island in the war, and Cook Islands
wore place and missiles in Guam and other places could
have operated, so it's a highly vulnerable position. I would

(19:01):
not base a fleet in there. Plus, building ports is
quite a job and it takes a long time. The
Chinese don't have much of a workforce. I would assume
I don't know Cookland very well, so they would have
to take workers and send in there. It's too complex
for a military purpose. Okay, that's not a good place

(19:22):
to have a port. That's not a good place to
have an airbase. It's too easily taken out by the
Australians and Americans.

Speaker 2 (19:29):
One more attempt. The Solomon Islands have done something with
the Chinese. The Fijians have done something with the Chinese.
What we could be talking about is is a series
of island links that would be serviceable, not as many,

(19:49):
but as one.

Speaker 3 (19:51):
Well. This was the Americans that did the Chinese. They
have Taiwan. They reversed Philippines relationship with China and hostility
to the United States, and now have four bases in
the Philippines, Australia to Papua New Guinea, on a line
from Anchorage, Alaska to Australia. Every strait that would allow

(20:15):
Chinese ships to enter the Pacific is practically under the
control of Australian United States. Remember, ships are very very
vulnerable to air strikes, missile strikes. It's no longer a
surface combat, and any Chinese war in that area as
a naval war, their army is not going to swim.

(20:36):
So what we did, and this was a couple of
years ago under Biden, we got the Philippines to flip.
You got Papu in New Guinea. Now that Chinese would
love to form another line behind that, all right, and
now that's the stake. The problem is they're forming a
line behind our line and putting a lot over our line.

(20:59):
And you know, this gets real complicated. How deep was
the Chinese going to put resources into this when it
could be so completely isolated. We can afford the isolation
of our force if they put it in, and it
would be a problem for us. But I think that's
what the Chinese are trying to do.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Okay, in associated matters our government is talking now about
putting I think the term was a substantial increase into defense.
Now substantial is a relative word, because our defense forces are,
shall we say, slim at best. Whether or not the
money that's spent is going to be worthwhile is for

(21:39):
the future to tell, but it's undoubtedly necessary. Going back
to the old approach, and that is that you mightn't
be the biggest team in the force. But you've got
to you've got to show your flag, and New Zealand
has been failing and doing that recent times.

Speaker 3 (21:56):
To show your part of the team. That's where New
Jill has been failing at.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yes, didn't I say Didn't I say that differently?

Speaker 3 (22:04):
You said it somewhat differently, but I said it better.
Don't worry. Okay, Look, the United States has no quarrel
really with New Zealand, just some old soldiers like me
that could be prepared. New Zealand should increase its defense budget,
but it cannot build it enough to take care of
all the potential threats it faces. It has to be

(22:26):
part of an alliance because no one is bound to
come to New Zealand's help. It would come to help,
but New Zealand must now join into the reality that
it's a prize. It's a very difficult prize to take
and New Zealand probably can't simply defend itself against the

(22:46):
power strong enough to come down there. So it needs
to come back into a relationship with the United States.
It needs to come into a relationship with Australia in
military relationship. I'll say something that the New Zealanders don't
want to hear Australia and New Zealand have a coordinated military.
Now they are, they're dominating their areas together. New Zealand

(23:10):
has to join that. It's in five eyes, which will
tell them when they're going to get hit. But they
must be in a position where the only force that
can come to truly defend them in the case of trouble,
which I don't see coming, but I may be wrong.
You must enter into liances. You're not strong enough to
do it yourself.

Speaker 2 (23:30):
I think we've always known that, but of more recent
times things of things have changed, in some cases quite substantially.
The other aspect to it is trade, of course, and
the biggest the biggest threat I believe is rather than military,
is trading routes, because as has been pointed out before

(23:50):
by you by yourself, in fact, they're very easily disrupted
some distance from our shore.

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Well. World War two, in both the I think in
the Pacific, were naval wars. If the United States had
lost control of the Atlantic, the Germans would have won
if Thejapanese which tried to take control of the Pacific one.
So these are naval battles jumping from island to island

(24:17):
was to build air bases and some ports, but the
real battle was naval and this is the thing that
the Chinese understand that are trying to catch up with.
They have a strong army, but who We're not going
to swim with an army over there. So your problem
is you're in the ocean. Wars are going to be

(24:39):
fought in the oceans, and in some evolution, not the
current one, it may be a prize. So the contingency
for New Zealand is to plan for the improbable. And
that's also always politically painful because you have to spend
a lot of money building assets for an improbable event

(25:03):
and getting yourself involved with the alliances that will ask
you for separate agreements send your forces here or there.
So probably the lions for New Zealand is that they
have obligations to it. Right now, New Zealand doesn't have obligations,
really has friends who are got are do something anyway,
and is in a beautiful geographic position. The Chinese now

(25:27):
want to tell you you're not you're not we can
come and get you. Well that's not true, but it's
a good move and the Chinese don't have many good
moves at this point.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
So the belief is by many that the Chinese have
now exceeded the American's capacity in naval force.

Speaker 3 (25:49):
Is that correct, Well, I'll use an unkind word preposters.
The Chinese problem is they're ports. They're all on the
eastern shore of China, and those ports are carefully watched
by American satellites and American submarines are out there, so
the fleet can't flom in taiw War, which is the

(26:11):
first battle we'll start when the Chinese move out of
their ports. The reason they didn't invade Taiwan is they can't.
It takes ten to twelve hours for a landing craft
to go from China to Taiwan, a longer time to
build up the force. Our satellites will see them. US

(26:32):
submarines are in a position and missiles in Guam to
take out that force militarily, they don't have the power.
So when you talk about the power of navies or anything,
you have to think about the geography they exist in.
The Chinese naval geography, its sports are terribly vulnerable positions.

(26:53):
They can be closed very easily, just closed over the
mines and make it very difficult to get let them
get out. So when they should take Taiwan in their mind,
but they can't risk it. So you don't count ships.
You count the capabilities of the ships, the experience of

(27:14):
the fleet, and the geography, in this case, the homeland
geography in which they live. The Chinese are strategically we
physician and this is one of the points I'd like
to make for New Zealand. You can build a force,
but you have to have a national strategy and it
really has to think through not just as political strategy,

(27:36):
not just how to train this force, but what its
mission is. And this is what I think is going
to be the problem. So in dealing with the Chinese,
it's not simply a defensive force, but it has to
have linkages into alliances. But when you speak of naval power,
things like port security capability, interdiction, intelligence capability, these are

(28:01):
extremely important things. The navies at this point on any
continental basis are the key and the Chinese I am
trying very hard to do this. They would love to
have ports somewhere else, but the problem is how do
you supply the ports with what they need? So the
US has the advantage of inddiction of the seas. And

(28:21):
even if they had a larger navy than we have,
which they don't. They have ships, but that's not necessarily
a navy. Even if they had it, they would be
attacked by missiles, not fleets. Naval warfare now is missile
warfare against ships, not ships against ships.

Speaker 2 (28:42):
I was waiting patiently for you to pause before I
mentioned that precise thing which would give would it not
the Chinese maneuvering room via space to take care of
any issues that they wanted to deal with in anywhere
in the world.

Speaker 3 (29:00):
Well, as a matter of fact, I'm just writing a
book on that subject. Yes, very much, it's that. And
we have a program called Artibus that will land has
already landed on the Moon, but will probably set up
by the end of this decade a colony on the Moon.
Now we are very interested in science, certainly, but when

(29:23):
you think about what the oceans meant, this is what
space means. Space is an ocean and is the high ground.
So the Chinese certainly want to go to space. They
have a space program. They're hoping to land on the
Moon at the end of the decade without leaving humans there.
But they're way behind. The Russians don't have the resources

(29:46):
to really do it. One of their rockets to the
moon last week, I think it was month certainly blew up.
It didn't work. So China building a fleet, building a
space force, bartying is order against Russia. Even vast China
has this hands full. And we are in a nice

(30:09):
position because we're breaking out of our alliances, out of
some of our commitments. We have command of the sea,
and we are surging into space.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
Looking at the world as a whole. Is the world
going to be able to afford all of this space maneuvering.

Speaker 3 (30:28):
Well, that's exactly where Columbus tried to convince Queen Isabella.
We have the money to go to North America, the
Western hemisphere. Western Hemisphere is there. Europe has spent vast
amounts of money on navies. The British almost bankrupted themselves,
and so on, but they knew that to be rich,

(30:48):
to hold India, to hold North America for a while,
and so on, navies are essential. So navies, interesting enough,
are investment that produces the possibility of trade and so on,
and our essential element space will be the same.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
But you know what I'm driving it the cost to
individual countries of following through with space programs is ginormous
and will only get bigger, and one by one they've
got to eliminate themselves from well, I see what you mean, Yes,
take take themselves out of play, because they simply can't

(31:29):
afford to maintain and what they have done in the
past on Earth, having spent so much or spending so
much in the clouds.

Speaker 3 (31:38):
Well, in some way we're saying the same thing, they
can't afford it, and what they can afford they must
devote to earthside military capabilities. It's interesting that in a
Musk is now sort of running the country in a way, right,
but he is the one who's has in its own

(31:59):
space program. So we have multiple private space programs plus NASA,
and we have the money to go to space and
all those workers laid off public paper musks rockets.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
George, tell me this then, an extended question with the debt,
that America now has so many trillions and no seeming
way to eliminate it or even drive it down because
it keeps expanding. How on Earth can how on Earth
can America at the same time keep expanding its.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
Spending because it has a vast industrial base. Its products
are sold all over the world and wanted because our
technology is extraordinary. I mean, when you take a look
at debt and a company you own, look at your
probability of paying for it by looking at your assets.

(32:58):
And we talk about this, but as many economists, it's
a very good political issue to intimidate. But the point
of fact, the economy still moves be to one point another,
not risking starvation, not risking the normal things. So the

(33:19):
fact is that the numbers are one sided, as if
you looked at your debts without your assets, well, that's
how do we pay for it? And the fact is
we're paying for it. And there's nothing to indicate that
the US is going to fail of his debt payments.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
What's the biggest expandit you're in the budget.

Speaker 3 (33:38):
The biggest single one, I would guess is a defense.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
What's second?

Speaker 3 (33:43):
And I'm not really sure. I'm not really certain. I
would social costs.

Speaker 2 (33:50):
Can I help you sure? It's just become the interest
on the debt.

Speaker 3 (34:00):
We pay it. I have mods look, you have to
take a look again at the flow of money into
the government that Trump is trying to cut back on,
along with expenditures. But it was not a crisis in
the United States. Many Poles showed that it was inflation

(34:22):
that went on to office. It was culture wars. It
was the hyper egalitarianism of the Democrats that have got
nuts and the company became sick of it. But there
are other issues here that are much more frightening that
The most frightening issue is cultural. So I would say

(34:42):
that looking at the United States, there's talk about the debt,
but that talk has gone on all my life, whatever
it was, and the debt never failed to be paid.
Because of the productivity in the United States, we could
always raise taxes, so we don't take raise taxes because

(35:04):
it reduces investment. So we're going to watch what Trump does.

Speaker 2 (35:11):
There's talk at the moment about the government. Trump if
you like resetting the value of the Donna, not just
of the Dona, but of gold as well, And I'm
wondering if you think the same thing in there.

Speaker 3 (35:28):
It may well happen. Look with the Ukrainian War represents
a turning point, oddly enough, just as much as World
War two did. World War two ended European in Germany
and power and buckled it under the United States and NATO.
Now Russia has shown its weakness and the United States

(35:52):
is left free to maneuver. What Trump is doing first
is not just probing. He knows that the opposition to
him in the United States will grow. I mean the
idea that he's not going to have a huge opposition.
You can do this. Roosevelt had his one hundred days
when he's restructured the banking system completely because he had

(36:13):
to and before Congress could stop him. Trump is doing
the same thing. It's a very funny they do. He say, Look,
I've got about one hundred days before they come and
get me. I'm going to get everything done before that.
I'm going to get my foreign policy done. I'm going
to get my economic reforms done because the rest of

(36:35):
the time I'm going to be blocked. He's doing pretty well.
He's smarter than the average bear is.

Speaker 2 (36:42):
He also smarter than the average beer because he's surrounding
himself with people who are, in many cases brighter than
he is.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
That's the brightest thing, the brightest bears could do, surround
himself with people who. Firstly, don't they talk about violating
the norms right, well, the norms needed to be violated,
so no, no one says, don't develop a new computer
because violates the norm. Our political system goes undergoes every

(37:17):
fifty years, a massive jefficient. You mentioned my books, I
predicted that this was going to come at about this time.
So all of the old order is being shifted. The
old order is screening uncontrollably to what's happening. Calling him
a dictator. Franklin Roosevelt was called a dictator for what

(37:38):
he did. We have opera, not politics, And what's happening
here is the pressures that built up in America partly
came from the way we related to the world and
our political structure. And there's been a revolution, and this
violates the norm, and that will coalesce against him. So

(37:58):
he knows he has so much time.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
And do you think he's doing well?

Speaker 3 (38:02):
Well, I think he's doing well or else he's lead.
Now he may do badly, but he's taking the necessary,
ruthless chances, building new coalitions, abandoning old alliances, restructuring the government.
I worry a little that he overestimates that, but I

(38:24):
was in the government, and the inefficiency of the government
is breathless. To order, a new rifle had to go
through three layers This is no joke. The US government
has grown out of the Roselt period to an unmanageable mess.
Now inevitably, Musk was sent in there to take care

(38:45):
of it, and he's going to overshoot. He can't help that.
He'll be blamed for it, not Musk, So he's going
to push this very far and look very frightening. But
he's not going to hold on to most of this.
But he has to be able to maneuver in the
first hundred days and then retreat as he has to Georgie.

Speaker 2 (39:06):
I want to get to the Masaudi situation, but first
of all we need to cover off Ukraine and Russia.
And I'm just I'm intrigued to know your thoughts on
what the outcome of the Ukraine War is going to be.

Speaker 3 (39:25):
Well, we know one uncome. Russia suffered a massive defeat.
The Russian Army, the Red Army, the defeated Hitler could
not take Ukraine in three years of fighting. That and
the world doesn't noted enough is extraordinary. It should have
been as in Hungary, a two day battle and he

(39:47):
couldn't do it. And he had an attempted kude Ta
at the same time. So what he discovered I don't
think he knew is that his military doesn't have the
capabilities it had under communism, was unable to do this.
At this point, the American view of Russia changes. We

(40:09):
built our foreign policy around fighting communism wherever it is,
hence Russia. Russia no longer represents a threat to Europe.
Therefore NATO is obsolete and the Europeans are fragmenting as
it did. And you notice the Europeans said troops the
police said literally the President said hell no. So they

(40:34):
understand the decline to the threat of Russia. They also
decline to see that they have their own internal issues
to settle. Europe is a mess. The EU doesn't work.
And Trump understood that NATO was obsolete, archaic. The Russians

(40:56):
were good attack The Europeans are quite capable of defending
themselves and did not. It's not because they can't afford it,
so we built NATO. NATO was designed because the Europeans
could not possibly defend themselves, and the Russians really had
an army. Now, the Russian army was a failure. They

(41:16):
lost many, many people. We don't know the count because
the Russians don't release it, but they lost a lot,
and the United States now has a free hand to
reshape the world, which goes into the question you asked
about will they reprice the dollar? Will they reprice these things?
And the answer is, at this point we have a

(41:37):
free hand. That freehand will disappeirit over time. But Trump
is trying to take this opening that was left for
him and manage it on all aspects, cutting the Defense Department,
reshaping the economic system, and to his joy because he

(41:59):
doesn't like them throw into Europeans into chaos.

Speaker 2 (42:03):
I'm not going to challenge it. How much gold is
there in thought.

Speaker 3 (42:06):
Knox, I wish a lot. We don't know. There are
those who say there is none, and they won't leticine
to see it.

Speaker 2 (42:15):
Well, he's going to he's going to do it.

Speaker 3 (42:18):
Well, he's certainly going to do it, and he'll find out.
But remember, an economy is the standard of living. You
measure the economy not by the abstract members of economists.
He's measured the economy by the manner in which people live,
the products that are available, security and so on and

(42:40):
so forth, and that is not declining at all. There's pressure,
There's was pressure during the bond crisis and everything else.
We live with cycles. But whether there's gold or not,
you can't eat gold. Some people like it for jewelry,
I guess, but the basic economic structure is your production

(43:03):
and consumption, and that's maintaining itself.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
Okay. By the same token, from my perspective, never underestimate
the power of gold. So, just just having visited Ukraine,
how's it going to end?

Speaker 3 (43:17):
Well? When one side defeats the other, it ends in
the winning side deciding what happens when there's but basically
a in the ability to win the war by either side.
There's a negotiation. So Russia can't take Ukraine. It has

(43:39):
a bit of it, not a small point, but it
failed to do the whole thing. Ukraine can't push Russia out.
The United States has no desire to get involved in
this war. They don't care how big Ukraine is. The
Ukraine is now saying we have precious medals, come to
war with us. Sorry, guy, not precious medals, but rare earths.

(44:04):
So the war ends with negotiations. There's no other way.
You can keep fighting it dying. The Russians approved, they
can't win all of what they wanted. The Ukrainians proved
they could stop them with Western weapons, which that we
get about Western lives. And so they are negotiations, and

(44:24):
that's where the world is now. That's the center of
the world, the negotiations over Ukraine. This war was not
about Ukraine. This war was about Russian American relationships. This
was about what the end of the Cold Wars really
ended here, not back when the Colimans fell, what it meant,

(44:45):
and the Russians proved of limited power, and the Americans
are now prepared to deal with them because they might
emerge again. They're a major power. They have a different
understanding of the Russians. You know, Trump really had an
understanding that of Putin. America has the understanding of Russia.
And this is what's going on.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
You were detrimental a short while ago to Europe as
a whole. Is it in decline? And I'll say the
answers yes, But is it going to collapse?

Speaker 3 (45:14):
I don't know how Europe collapses. I know what I means.
It means that they've returned to pre Cold War model.
Europe is a continent, not a nation. It's a name.
We use to talk about a whole bunch of different
countries who never liked each other, have competing interests, but
aren't going to get to war with each other. They've

(45:35):
done that twice. It doesn't work. So it is a
continent of highly literate, competent, technical people with great economic powers.
They have economic competition and they have internal political rivalries.
You know within the countries. The Germans are holding an
election now, So what will happen to Europe is it

(45:57):
will become a well to do place with economic influence,
no geopolitical influence or little geopolitical influence. Do they want
to spend the money? So it doesn't decline. I mean,
it declines as a force in international politics, but it's economy,
well that's declining, but reversible. But the EU itself as

(46:21):
an institution is non functional the interests.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
Of the bulgar When I when I when I said Europe,
that's that's what I was referring to.

Speaker 3 (46:31):
Okay, Well, in that sense, Europe is fragmenting back to
what it is a continent of the nation states with
different interests and very different needs. Europe goes from poor
countries like the Balkans or Bulgaria, to France, which nobody likes,

(46:51):
to the British, which you know, these are very different
countries that are very small place. They fought many wars,
but there is no such thing as Europe until the
United States imposed it on them. They're going back to
what they were to continue trade and everything else. But
the period that a European nation has gone.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
The cultures of those countries, independent as they have been,
are they able to be sustained under the threat of
the current threat, the long lived threat now of the
African invasion.

Speaker 3 (47:23):
Well, the African invasion is immigrants. And one of the
issues in Europe, as in the United States, is immigration.
Victor Orban, who I first thought was way out, who
is right. He has a country of nine million open,
and you can easily get nine million Africans or Asians

(47:44):
or what have you to overwheam the native population. This
is where the Germans are experiencing now.

Speaker 4 (47:51):
The position, the liberal position to fill in Europe that
we are the home starving of the world is unsustainable,
So that will be stopped.

Speaker 3 (48:03):
But the Europe itself is not fairly. Remember we also
have a counterforce, a demographic problem, an aging population and
a falling birth rate. So these industrial nations are going
to have to have population. The US is counter to
what Trump is saying dependent on migration. His father was

(48:27):
a migrant from Germany. That's what's kept our workforce steady.
Europe doesn't have a culture of migration, and this past
period has proven it's not very good at it.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
My suggestion is that it's culture rather than race that matters,
and the culture that's arriving in Europe by the millions
is not compatible.

Speaker 3 (48:50):
I agree that it's not race, but the culture from
Latin America, which is not a different race by and large,
is frequently incompatible with the culture of the United States.
So the problem of migration is this stage migration. With
our democrat problem is indispensable.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
Sorry say that again.

Speaker 3 (49:13):
Stage migration, staged migration, you know, slow, careful, where assimilation
is made, where the children grow up to be engineers
and doctors as we all became. I mean, this is necessary.
The Europe has to have that it has in the

(49:33):
future declining populations. United States has the same problem, mass
population of the illiterate of being capable, who were only
going to be consuming and becoming criminals of need. That's insane.
So what the United States had was staged population. When
the first people came to Scots, Irish. They were considered

(49:54):
unassimblable because they were drinking, nasty fighters and everything, and
every wave of immigration into the United States was on
can't be assimilated. Now the Cubans in flow are wealthy
beyond belief. The Europeans will have to look at the
United States to see how immigration is managed at a

(50:17):
time where they will need more labor. The Europeans are
disorderly people. They seem very neat, but they disorderly, and
they don't know how to really look at the world.
They're still looking at the world as that each country
thinks the other country is the danger. Well, they don't
have to be one country, but they have to understand

(50:38):
and all them share the same problem. The cultural problems
solved by not surging migration, not allow unallowed migration.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
I get that, I get that, and I agree with it.
But the surging migration has been going on for some
considerable time, and the numbers tell the story.

Speaker 3 (51:00):
Well, they're there. They can deport them. That's very costly
because they are making a living there and part of
their economy depends on them, part of our economy depends
on them. What Trump is trying to do in the
United States is the surplus, the immigrants who really haven't

(51:20):
taken jobs. The American industry could not run without immigrants,
Never in its history could it do that. The Europeans
don't have this cultural You're right, the cultural mechanism. All
that Trump is trying to do is bounce out the
rapid surplus that was allowed by the Democrats.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
View another headline, Poland is once again poised to become
Washington's top partner in Europe.

Speaker 3 (51:44):
How come well I once forecasted it would. Poland is strategic.
If you look at a way to model Poland, you
don't want the Germans and the Russians to get together.
Poland sits in the middle. In all the wars we
had Poland European wars, Poland was the block between a coalition.

(52:07):
If we make Poland's longer, we can go away and
not worry about it because Poland is incredibly pro American.
Poland is warlike. And remember that through his first administration,
he sent tanks to Poland and they wanted a named
for Trump after him. So this is a very close relationship.

(52:27):
But Poland is strategically necessary power because of its position.
So if Russia weakens it becomes not the Soviet Union,
but Russia again a country, and Germany strengthens, it becomes
not the Third Reiche, but a powerful country again. What
keeps them apart? Poland?

Speaker 2 (52:47):
You said that you predicted that once. I saw that
I need this morning shortly before we started recording. Actually,
I was flicking through I pulled out the next one
hundred years, the forecast for the twenty first century. I
keep it in my museum section of the library, and
I pulled it out and flicked through it, and I

(53:09):
came across Poland being featured lots of other countries as well.
How it just cast in mind back because this was
two thousand and nine the book was released, and like
I said at the top, it was it was a
very big setup. How would you say your accuracy was?

Speaker 3 (53:28):
I was very good on declining countries, I called them right,
and the ascending countries they have quite materialized, Turkey, Japan
didn't become a military power and so on. But on Poland,
I was right because I foresaw the fragmentation of Europe,

(53:48):
the re emergence of Germany and the decline of Russia.
And that led me to a map and said, what
divides them? And what will the United States want more
than anything else to keep the Russians and the Germans
from ganging up.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
Actually, you've given me a sidebar question with that answer.
The African invasion, let's stay with that is a terminology.
How much is that affecting and is it likely to
infect or affect the relations between the nation states of
Europe because it's diluting the old numbers.

Speaker 3 (54:29):
Well, something's happening in Europe. As I mentioned Victor Ruban Hungary,
and he had the first anti effective, anti immigration program
and was ostracized by the Europeans. Now the European political
mood has shifted toward that position. He's now a profit,

(54:51):
not an outcast in that sense. So when you look
at the situation, just as the United States had a
shift away from what it had to be after World
War Two, now it has a shift to what it
has to be after the Cold War, and that includes
at your political shift, but also a cultural shift. You

(55:12):
watch the German.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Elections, all the results around who won the right the
AfD times sicken.

Speaker 3 (55:20):
And yes the right, Yeah, so the moderate right one
and the hard right emerged. So you have a completely
different political structure in Europe. In Germany and that structure
is from hostile to uneasy with immigration, and all of

(55:41):
Europe will have this evolution, not because they're racist, not
because of any of these reasons, but that they're consumers
not producers. And Europe's economic balance is declining somewhat, not catastrophically,
and they can't afford this anymore. So what you have
as a worldwide shift in the liberalism that emerged, I

(56:05):
mean that the good sense to liberalism that emerged after
World War Two, that ideology is dead, a different ideologies
emerging of the nation state nationalism.

Speaker 2 (56:17):
I saw a pole let's see two days ago with
regard to the AfD and where it was at and
how well it was going to do. The prediction of
that pole or the organizers is that next time around
the AfD will take over.

Speaker 3 (56:37):
They have no idea what will occur Bolsters between now
and then do I economically, politically, geopolitically. But there's also
a remembrance in Germany, not of what they did to
the Jews. That wasn't the issue, but what happened to

(56:58):
Germany when Europe and the United States and Russia ganged
up on it, not for the Jews, but for their
own sake. The Germans are very wary of going too far.
The German public is very weary. So I think that
the idea that we're going to get a fascist government
in Germany is not right. There'll be a fascist element

(57:21):
in Germany. And does it be the loop right wing?
Not the Allives. They'll be the right wing bouncers. So
I think that poll overshoots. What's going to happen? All right?

Speaker 2 (57:34):
Let us wind up with the situation in Saudi Arabia,
where there is activity and a three sided deal.

Speaker 3 (57:43):
Talk to me, well, what's happening in Saudi Arabia is
not a negotiation of Ukraine. That's settled. Ukraine remains as
it is and so on. The negotiation is this The
United States does not want us be the guaranter of
the world, so we'd like to go world to shut

(58:04):
up for a while. The Gaza proposal Trump laid out,
what could happen, We come in and take asa in
wish Hey, Saudi Arabia has a lot of trouble, or
Saudi Arabia's joined the Abraham Accords. Why did you think
about taking responsibility for shutting down Arab opposition to Israel?

(58:25):
So every ten to fifteen years, we don't have one
of these things. Dessali's said. If I take the burden
of being the monitor of the Middle East, and I
can do that, I become a great power. I have
the Middle East, I have their resources and everything else.
Russia's declining, I don't have to worry about them. The

(58:45):
Americans are not a threat. They want to lie. So
I see a three part heip world system approaching, one
in which the Russians still matter. They're a major country,
need American investment, Saudi Arabia, which is also a major country,
and the United States, with the United States not taking

(59:07):
responsibility for everything that happens in the world because less happens.
I think that's what Trump is planning on. And that's
what the Gaza proposal was about. Yeah, don't intend you
to go to Gaza, but he sure have caught the
Saudi's attention.

Speaker 2 (59:22):
Anything else on that.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
We have to understand that the global system has changed
as radically as World War two changed it. The Saudis
have emerged as the major power in the Middle East.
They always were, they never wanted to play the role.
Now they're ready. Now that it's not caught being a
Russian American war, cold war, whatever you want to call it.

(59:48):
So they're sitting down at a table and reodd The
Russians are happy that the Americans are willing not to
press their advantage in Russia. We couldn't. They still are
a strong contrentty just lost this war. The Americans are
looking at the opportunity to back out of the Eastern hemisphere,

(01:00:10):
except with the Chinese, which now will be no problem.
And finally the Russians see that the Americans don't want
to destroy them, but become partners. So we have a
very different order the Middle East, Russia, the United States,

(01:00:31):
and Europe.

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
Left out and what follows.

Speaker 3 (01:00:36):
What follows is a period where there's much internal unrest
in countries. Like the interwar period between World War One
and World War Two. It was short, this could be longer.
There was economic issues and social issues that tore apart

(01:00:56):
the world, and international politics was less important. And then
they re emerged full blast with the later part of
the nineteen fifties.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
So in the conclusion of your book, The Storm before
the Calm, you get to the conclusion the American age,
the year twenty twenty six will be. This is after
you've predicted the twenties were going to be rocking and rolling.
The year twenty six will be momentous for the US.
It'll be two hundred and fifty years since the signing
of the Declaration of Independence, two fifty years since the

(01:01:31):
American settlers declared themselves a people and set themselves on
a course that led to war, to improbable victory, and
to the writing of a constitution that turned them from
becoming a people into creating a regime. It all began
on July four of that year, and the story is
still unfolding. As I have shown in a distinct and

(01:01:54):
uniquely American way. What would you say now is the
likelihood of the events of twenty six?

Speaker 3 (01:02:02):
Well, the events of twenty six already beginning to play
themselves out. The United States is emerging as obviously the
major power, but instead of moving quickly to dominate countries,
it seeks not to dominate countries. I suspect that we
will have an extended period of prosperity, but we've been

(01:02:24):
prosperous except for the depression, a long time. But I
think what will change in the world as the world
will have to start taking responsibility for itself. Israel can't
count on us for everything, so don't have a war.
We're not going to go into Iraq, so Saudi Arabia
deal with it. They're already Saudi Iraqi talks going on today.

(01:02:47):
Azerbaijan asked to join the Abraham Accords. The movement has
already begun. The smart players already reposition themselves. For the
United States, this will be a period of great stress,
demographic stress and not enough workers of radical technical evolution,

(01:03:08):
leading to another fifty years and we'll have another cycle
with chaos, the Americans collapsing, you know, just like under
the period before this one, which was the Vietnam War
and economic crises and will never survive. So America is

(01:03:30):
a suicidal nation. We're already always prepared for the worst,
and that makes us come out on the top. That's
a good way to be. So we're not confident, but
the world will be a better place for this because
unlike Russia that had to be imperialist, or Europe that
had to be imperialist, we don't care. We're at home

(01:03:53):
and we'll fight with Canada, and you'll fight with Canada.

Speaker 2 (01:03:58):
Oh, Canada, the fifty first state, fifty fifty.

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
First, the Canadians went nuts. They thought we were serious.
I thought it was hilarious. So it was a joke, Yes,
so a joke. He puts out these jokes. It's taken
seriously because the American President said it, and then he
uses it as a wedge to get what he wants.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
What do you think his i Q is?

Speaker 3 (01:04:28):
His i Q is he has I think a very
high i Q and a badly damaged personality. He's a
crazy uns.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
At which point I will thank you profusely, and I
hope I haven't planted you the storm before the calm.
And like I said, you can still buy the book.

Speaker 3 (01:04:49):
Oh yeah, you guys.

Speaker 2 (01:04:51):
You can buy it online or you can buy it.
You can, you can. You can get it from Amazon, Amazon, Amazon,
and it's and it's well worthy of your investment. So, George,
the next book will be out eventually.

Speaker 3 (01:05:08):
I'm going to be fitted by the end of.

Speaker 2 (01:05:10):
March, okay, but it'll take a year to be published.

Speaker 3 (01:05:13):
Well, given the time frame, they're going to hurry it up.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
Okay, Well we shall interview again on that. So I
appreciate your time. And it's a.

Speaker 3 (01:05:22):
Pleasure and a pleasure to hear your voice. You take care.

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
Now, missus producer. After your abrupt departure last week, I
have kept your score to a minimum today later, and
that's very because I know that you've got things to do.

Speaker 5 (01:05:53):
No, no, we're all busy people. But I'm very happy
to be here, as you well know.

Speaker 2 (01:05:58):
Yes, well it's a better of For how long anyway
would you like to lead?

Speaker 5 (01:06:05):
Layton no says Muriel was nothing short brilliant. Her ability
to explain issues and their long term implications is amazing.
Seems to me we need her back in Parliament in
a very senior all this time. Well done once again,
that's from.

Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
Nol Noel, Thank you, Graham, right, so, thank you for
this interview. He's referring to Peter Bagotian. Thank you for
this interview. We greatly appreciate his rational and critical thinking.
I would love to hear a debate with a Christian apologist.
I've been a listener of yours for many years. I
hope that you have a successor in the pipeline, although

(01:06:41):
I hope that you go on for many years yet.
From Graham, so.

Speaker 5 (01:06:46):
Do I what trying to secure up my personal future
having you around for many of you? Laydon g says
another reason New Zealand needs its own Trump. The Arts
Council in the New Zealand on air are just some
of New Zealand's own USAID money pipeline that's constantly flowing
out to left wing causes. Even with this new government

(01:07:09):
in place, the entire industry needs to be shut down
then rebuilt.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
I try and favor with that commentary. You see what
I'm holding here? Yes, See how long that is? See
how difficult it is to read. Yes, it's in sort
of I don't know what sort of prince you'd caught it,
but it's very black, it's very close type, and it's
difficult to read. So I'm going to save this until

(01:07:40):
we have concluded, and I'll keep going and you can
keep going and hang on. But it is I just
want to say this, it's long, starts out. Sorry, this
is a bit of a long one. But I've read
it and it's well worthy of going public with it.

Speaker 5 (01:07:58):
So latent finally from Mejian, says the activist New Zealand
Supreme Court illustrates what hell whole America would have been
if the US Supreme Court had a majority of day
Democrat elected activist judges. Fortunately for the United States, Donald
Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court judges who uphold
the Constitution without bias. Unfortunately for New Zealand, we instead

(01:08:22):
have activist Supreme Court judges who uphold the spirit of
Three Waters, have per Per and Teacunger. As doctor Muriel
Newman said, Tea Kunger can't be defined, so incorporating Maurrai
law into common law makes our justice system unpredictable and uncertain.
What surprised me most from your interview with Muriel is

(01:08:43):
that the New Zealand Parliament is meant to be supreme
over the Supreme Court. Yet Parliament has no clue on
what to do to restrain an activist Supreme Court running amok. Thankfully,
just last October, Roger Partridge wrote a great New Zealand
initiative article entitled Who Makes the Law? Reigning in the
Supreme Court, where he detailed how we can and should

(01:09:07):
reign in an activist New Zealand Supreme Court. He proposed
five options for Parliament to restore balance to our legal system.
Number one targeted legislation that overturn court decisions that go
too far. Number two defining the rule of law, which
clearly defines guardrails to keep courts in their lane. Number

(01:09:29):
three tightening statutory interpretation rules to discipline the misuse of
law interpretation. Number four reforming section six to stop courts
from adopting unreasonable or inconsistent meanings in rulings. And number
five reforming judicial appointment processes to prioritize candidates who have

(01:09:51):
demonstrated judicial restraint and respect for Parliament. And then Jin
goes on to say Roger Partridge has done the hard work,
Parliament just needs to implement them. My dead to Parliament
is this, do you politicians have the guts to uphold
democracy in New Zealand?

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
I have a question about that, as in a question
hanging over that some of them do, but I have
a feeling there are too many of them that don't.
Gutlass is the word. So that takes us out for
the mail room. Although this is this is coming as
an exit for the podcast, right, but it's it's worth

(01:10:29):
it's worth hearing, So even though you're not going to
hear it now, you can listen back to it later.

Speaker 5 (01:10:33):
I certainly shall.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
I shall read it with the best of the best
of structure I can.

Speaker 5 (01:10:38):
Thanks Lady see you next week.

Speaker 2 (01:10:40):
See you next week very likely. And now there's been

(01:11:03):
a change of plan. The letter I intended to read,
I can't. I've said it back to the to the
author and ask them to rewrite it with double spacing,
because it is so close, so tight on the page,
that after a few lines your eyes starts spinning, or
your head does, or both together. Not his fault, but

(01:11:25):
I've asked him to redo it, and I hope he
does because it's worthy of quoting. So I'm replacing it
with something that I think you'll enjoy it. It's written
by the New Zealand author whose pen name is A. I. Fabler,
and that speaks for itself. AI Fabler has appeared on
the podcast a couple of times for interviews on books

(01:11:46):
he's written, and he's a very good writer, and he's
a very clever writer too. So under the heading of
satire and the title of the piece to follow, the
publishing world is on heat, I quote we forget most
of what we read. For instance, it is said that
we all share the same DNA if we go back fast,

(01:12:09):
which means we're all related. I'd forgotten that. Consider the
Ossie comedian Kevin Bloody Wilson, who makes his living by
being outrageously rude and is currently singing What's Donald going
to do today? Are we doomed or are we safe?
On YouTube? Then consider Simon Bloody Wilson, economist on the

(01:12:29):
New Zealand's only daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, who
is so admired by the papers management that he's been
given a full page per week for many years to
be rude about anyone he considers to be conservative. Knowing
what we know about DNA, it's fascinating to think that
these two Wilsons are related, though I can see the connection.

(01:12:50):
But that's a digression. What I really wanted to say
is that the world of publishing is in meltdown. So
called legacy media, after feasting on government COVID funding, are
currently losing money as fast as they're losing readers in
search of the truths. But the real action is in
book publishing, peopled as it is by left wing progressives,

(01:13:12):
of whom ninety two percent are reported as identifying as
she her. The industry has been suffering from acute apoplexy
over recent months as a result of the American people
having rotted the system by electing a Nazi dictator as president.
But hold on, all is not lost. Pandemonium has just

(01:13:33):
broken out, and suddenly they them are all acting as
if on heat. Why well, you may remember that Michelle Obama,
famous for being married to a black president, gave name
to an autobiography that garnered millions of readers and dollars,
So you'll understand why the publishing industry is on heat

(01:13:53):
at the news that not one, but two of the
greatest left wing progressive heroes of our time are negotiating
mega deals for upcoming autobiographies. What is particularly exciting is
the realization that we now know the two heroes are
related by DNA, even though one is black and the

(01:14:15):
other is white. You guessed it. Vice President Kamala Harris
and Dame Jacinda Adirn are busy writing about themselves. News
is tightly embargoed and opinions are free, so I'll place
what follows under the heading of rumors. It is rumored
that the two big blockbusters have been tentatively titled The

(01:14:37):
Joy of Kamala Harris as Told to Oprah Winfrey and
Being Cruel to Be Kind Jasindra Adirn's Life lessons from
the pulpit of truth. Everything is hush hush, of course,
but secrets will always out. And I've been lucky enough
to see the initial dust Jagget designs, which I share
with you here no questions asked, paused for input. I

(01:15:00):
have to say that I can't show them to you,
of course, but you can find them for yourself. We continue.
Dame Jacinda herself is rumored to have chosen the front
cover picture of her investiture as a Dame Grand Companion
of the New Zealand Order of Merit by Prince William
in twenty twenty three. Although it was she who recommended

(01:15:22):
herself for the title, it was as a staunch anti
monarchist that she accepted it on behalf of the people.
It's the good of the people which always inspired her
and it lies at the heart of her autobiography. Always
known for her advocacy of kindness, Dame er Sindon has
now matured into a thoughtful and wise international voice for hire.

(01:15:45):
It was out of kindness that she forbade people to
visit their dying parents or attend their funerals during COVID,
After all, fathers were not allowed to see their newborn
babies in hospital, so it was only fair, and denying
the right to work or travel if people refused the
vaccination that neither prevented them catching the virus nor passing

(01:16:05):
it on to others was also an active kindness, because,
as she says in her forthcoming book, there are times
when one must be cruel to be kind. It's a
lesson that the country needed to learn the hard way.
As her friend Justin Trudeau wrote in his forward, her
smile says it all. But will her keenly anticipated blogbaster

(01:16:28):
have the gravitas and clouts of the rumored soon to
be candidate for the governorship of California, Kamala Harris. Joy
is the title of her forthcoming autobiography, and it is
joy and good vibes that she brings wherever lovers of
freedom and social justice gather. As doctor Jill Biden says

(01:16:48):
on the Dust Jacket, we taught her everything we know,
but was her wisdom properly understood? There was her speech
in July twenty twenty three when she said culture is
It is a reflection of our moments in our time
right and in present. Culture is the way we express
how we're feeling about the moment. This was after saying

(01:17:09):
in April twenty three. So I think it's very important,
as you have heard from so many incredible leaders for
us at every moment of time, and certainly this one,
to see the moment in time in which we exist
and are present, and to be able to contextualize it,
to understand where we exist in the history and in

(01:17:29):
the moment as it relates not only to the past
but the future. These are direct quotes, and they make
me want to burst out laughing, but I guess that's
the purpose of the article. Maggie Goldstein, the highly respected
deputy editor and opinion columnist of The New York Times,
wrote that America failed to understand the joyous truth in

(01:17:51):
Kamada Harris's words and suffered as a result. The good
news is that America may get a chance to correct
its mistake in twenty twenty eight, if the rumor is
true that she intends to run for president again. So
there we are two great books from two great women,
joined by their DNA. No wonder the book publishers of

(01:18:12):
New York Ron Heat can't wait. A I Tabler, February
twenty four, twenty twenty five now AI Favorless substack is
available for all and sundry to read. I suggest maybe
you should have a look at it. You may find
that there is a permanent, a permanent input of shall

(01:18:33):
we say things to keep you enlightened? And that will
take us out for podcasts two hundred and seventy three.
If you would like to correspond with us, love to
hear from you. Layton at Newstalks ab dot co dot
NZ Latent at Newstalks av dot co dot M said,
and please remember to space you your letters, and preferably

(01:18:56):
in print number eighteen, although fourteen will get by if
you're using see I don't know what the difference is
between printing methods in Apple from Apple which I have
and whatever else is available, but I'm guessing that they vary.
But keep it, keep it big enough in double space
is best and then I won't have to send it

(01:19:18):
back to you and ask you to redo it. And
I say that with the very best of appreciations. So
you can also write to Carolyn at newstalksb dot co
dot nseid So as always, only one thing left to say,
and that is thank you for making it this far.
Thank you for listening and we shall talk soon. Yes,

(01:19:38):
I do love a bit of satire. See what you
can do.

Speaker 1 (01:19:49):
Thank you for more from News Talks, ed B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio.