Leighton Smith Podcast #274 - March 5th 2025 - James Roguski - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks 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 debate of the now, the Layton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and seventy four for March five,
twenty twenty five. Ever heard of James Roguski? Maybe yes,
maybe no? Now. I spoke with James Rogowski earlier in
the year. He is an interesting character fighting a battle
that he's passionate about. And more on Rogowski shortly. First,

(00:49):
there is the story that's spoken this morning of Richard
Prebble's resignation from the White Tangi Tribunal. I didn't even
know that he was on the tribunal. He's only been
there about, i'm told, four months. Nevertheless, having read the
letter of resignation, I have to say, Richard Prebble has
not let us down. It is a brilliant letter. It

(01:10):
tells the truth about the situation, and if it doesn't
make politicians in this country pull their socks up and
actually get some guts, then this country may well be
in an attempted to say terminal trouble, but certainly serious
trouble if it's not already now. Leaving that aside, it'll

(01:30):
be everywhere for the next few weeks, I would imagine,
and it will cause some disruption, But let's deal with
the small matter of the rest of the world. We
went to bed last night with one story, we woke
to another, all together different version of the lay of
the land. Now, in the period since the oval office

(01:52):
verbal battle that ended in total chaos, we've had commentary
from all sundry, everybody, all over the world. Everybody has
how to say about it. There have been arguments I've
had to extract myself from some because people have different opinions,
different versions, and different interpretations of what's happened, mostly based
on their understanding of what this is all about in

(02:14):
the first place, and variations on the theme it has
become once again a social crisis. Very good friend and
I agreed that we would not talk about it anymore
on the basis that we couldn't come to we couldn't
come to a mutual anything. My argument is and always
has been that when there is a crisis like this,
you cannot rush to judgment. My opinion is it always

(02:37):
has been for as long as I can remember, is
that when there is a crisis of this nature, and
this is probably the worst one we've had for a
long long time. But when there's the crisis of this nature,
you cannot garner all the information at once. You have
to wait for it to be revealed. You have to
get different opinions. Doesn't matter what you thought before. Unless

(02:59):
you're in receipt of all the detail, you can't really
make a decision about how you feel. Oh, you could
arrive at one, but you might be deceiving yourself. And
let's not forget it's where you get your information from
that is vitally important. Let me give you some examples
of what's been published in the last few days. Europe

(03:21):
is falling. Martin Armstrong warns, that's why they need war
with Russia. Zelensky goes to town. If the President of
Ukraine Zelensky were on my Christmas list, I think I
might give him a copy of Through Sidade's History of
the Peloponnesian War, Zelensky has finally and fatally misstepped. Seldom

(03:43):
in modern times has the fate of a whole nation
been so dependent on a single meeting and on a
single relationship. When Zelensky entered the Oval Office on Friday,
he had one job to repair a deep and catastrophic
rift between him and Donald Trump, who the previous week
had called the Ukrainian president a dictator. Zelensky held the

(04:03):
future of US support for his country's defense against Russia
in his hands. Cutting Zelensky down to size, President Trump
and Vice President Vance's combative meeting with the Zelensky today
was an important first step in preparing the American people
for peace. It's a different sort of a different sort
of article. It has a perspective Trump, Vance and the

(04:27):
New World Order by Stephen Sukup. We had Stephen Sukop
on the podcast a couple of years back on his
book on Wokeism, and he was very good. This opening paragraph,
least part of it, I think is essential. Quoting this
past week, the venerable A. Mutton Wolf, chief economics commentator
for The Financial Times, used his column to declare the

(04:48):
Trump administration and by extension, the United States, the enemy
of the West today. He wrote, autocracies are increasingly confident
in the United States is moving to their side. According
to the subhead on the column Washington has decided to
abandon its post war role in the world. Meanwhile, Wolf

(05:11):
cites the in his estimation August Franklin Roosevelt as he
complains that the United States has decided instead to become
just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short
term interests, to which Sukup starts his response. The ironies here,
as well as the historical ignorance abound, And having read it,

(05:36):
I can tell you that Sukip's right. And I've never
had much regard for Martin Wolf, and there are many
many others that I could quote you. Now let me
cut to the quick disaster in the Oval Office. DEM's
lead Zelensky and Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to
reject mineral deal. Written by Michael Goodwin, a senior journalist

(05:56):
with the New York Post. Now this is worthy of
some quoting. A common criticism of Zelensky's disastrous Friday performance
in the Oval Office is that he failed to read
the room. Actually, the Ukrainian president did read a room,
but it was the wrong room. Before we go any further,
let me just say that the war of words between

(06:19):
opinion makers has largely been based on who caused this
ruction to kick off and the left scribblers have gone
straight for the jugular with the president the Vice President
of America. Listen to what Michael Goodwin has to say.
Before meeting President Trump, Zelensky met with anti Trump Democrats

(06:40):
who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral
deal that the President was offering. According to Senator Chris Murphy,
Democrat Connecticut, quote, just finished a meeting with President Zelenski
here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will
not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything
he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.

(07:03):
He posts that on x at eleven to fifteen am
on Friday, which a picture of Zelensky at a conference
table with Murphy seated on the opposite side. Forty minutes later,
Zelenski arrived at the White House, where Trump met his car, smiled,
shook his hand, and walked him to the Oval Office.
The meeting, as the world now knows, quickly went off
rails and ended with Trump angrily rejecting the arrogant ingrate

(07:28):
from the White House. The earlier meeting with Dems. The
Democrats undercuts wild claims that Trump and Vice President J. D.
Vance staged, staged in ambush. In fact, it was Zelensky
who came with an ulterior motive, And the piece goes
on and gives much more detail. Now there is a

(07:52):
second from the New York Post from I say our
very own Miranda Devine. She is astray and of course
we had her on the podcast a few years ago,
and shortly after she moved to New York and has
stayed there ever since. Zelensky was the true instigator of
the Oval Office fracas, not the ambush from Trump. Anyone

(08:12):
who watched the entire Oval Office meeting between Trump and
Ukraine President Zelensky would know that it was not an
ambush or a set up by Trump, as characterized by
Democrats and malign media entities. It was the opposite. If
anyone came to that meeting in bad faith, it was
clearly a Zelenski whose body language and attitude was negative

(08:35):
from the start. Trump could not have been more cordial,
having steered the complex negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to
a first step where he believed peace was a real possibility.
But Zelensky had other ideas. He contradicted, interrupted and insulted
Trump even before Vice President J. D. Vant said a word.

(08:55):
Now there's plenty more like I say, Miranda Divine and
Michael Goodwin from the New York Post you can find
them online. But there is one opinion piece that I
want to emphasize that the only Trump, not Zelensky, can
say Ukraine. I have known Vladimir A. Zelensky very well

(09:15):
for years as a senior official personally appointed by Zelensky.
I spoke to him many times a day and observed
him closely, both in public and privately. We parted on
good terms and without rancor. I have no personal act
to grind, but today I cannot This was written by
the way On, published on February twenty five, which was

(09:37):
before before the Overloffice blow up. But today I cannot
remain silent about how Zelensky is weakening Ukraine under the
guise of war. As a result of this new climate
of fear, I must write these words under the veil
of anonymity, a necessary precaution against retaliation from the very

(09:57):
regime I once served. It pains me to admit that
at least some of what Donald Trump said about Zelensky
is true. While Western politicians have rushed to condemn Trump
and his vice president's remarks, a quiet ripple of approval
ran through large parts of Ukrainian society. Ukraine has become
a paradox, a nation fighting for its sovereignty while dismantling

(10:20):
its own democratic foundations. Four years, the West has indulged
in the illusion of Zelensky as the faiths of democracy.
In reality, he has undermined our democracy, institutions and economy,
making Ukraine much weaker in the face of an existential threat,
and in the process destroying our nation's motivation to fight

(10:43):
the Russian aggressor. Now one two, three and a half pages,
so I'm not going to quote at all, but let
me choose some segments. His first presidential term ended in
May twenty twenty four, but with the war ongoing, no
elections were held. Zelensky who prolongs martial law every three
months and has never sought about easing it. As European

(11:06):
politicians are suggesting claims that the people don't want elections.
The recent Ukrainian survey confirms this, with sixty five percent
of Ukrainians not wanting to have elections throughout the war,
but over half of Ukrainians want to see the end
of the conflict as soon as possible. According to the
Gallop polling last year, that percentage might be higher now. Moreover,

(11:30):
I often doubt we can trust current polls from Ukraine Today.
Fear rules over a country where elections are indefinitely postponed,
human rights are systematically eroded, and fear dictates daily life.
As Zelensky's authoritarian instincts were already becoming clear even before
Putin's invasion. As early as twenty nineteen, I listened as

(11:51):
he demanded propaganda from his subordinates to flood the media
with praise when his policies failed. Today he's achieved that,
a vast army of voices branding him the face of
democracy and the very embodiments of Ukraine itself. War has
provided Zelensky with unchecked power, enabling his security forces to

(12:11):
act with impunity in at least eight front line regions.
Martial law has given rise to police and military excesses
under the pretext of hunting down collaborators. State forces raid homes,
search phones and laptops, and detain civilians arbitrarily. In such areas,
people and people will never reveal their true thoughts to

(12:33):
a journalist or a poster, they will parrot the state's
approved rhetoric. Zelensky is a hero, Ukraine is unbreakable, and
then in private they will say what they really think,
that they want him gone. The war has given Zelenski
everything he ever wanted, absolute power, control over billions in
foreign aid and standing ovations from the world. From his

(12:55):
very first day in office, which I witnessed first hand,
he was fixated on securing a second term. Publicly, he
dismissed any talk of reelection, insisting it was too early.
Privately he never stopped preparing. Zelensky is obsessed with his
approval ratings. Even now he is laying the groundwork for
his campaign. Since September of twenty four, his administration has

(13:18):
been funneling extra payments to those who promote his image online,
flooding social media with thousands of carefully curated videos showing
him as the charming actor turned wartime leader clad in
his signature khaki T shirt. But his more decisive strategy
has been the systematic elimination of political opponents, and the

(13:41):
author goes on, shall I conclude with the final paragraph,
Ukrainians are not cowards but they don't want to die
for Zelensky's government drowning in corruption scandals day after day.
Only ending the war and restoring democracy and the economy
can preserve Ukraine. Continued war will not lead to victory,

(14:01):
but to the collapse of our nation. Power must change hands,
and if Donald Trump does not make that happen, then
Ukraine has no hope. Now, just to wrap this up today,
of course, this morning's news was that Zelensky is full
of apologies, desperate to go back to Washington sort this
out and get the benefits that Trump was offering. So

(14:24):
if you look at all this in order of how
it happened, particularly the discovery that Zelensky went and negotiated
or talked or got coached or however you want to
interpret it by some undesirable democrats as opposed to more
desirable democrats. Murphy is one of those, a less desirable democrat,

(14:46):
then when you can see that things need a different
interpretation to the one that they were banging on about
on MSNBC and CNN and other places. Now you can
find that article only Trump, not Zelensky, can save Ukraine
on the Spectator dot com, not the Australian Spectator the

(15:07):
Spectator dot com. If you want to find any of
those other articles, you want any more information than write
to me and I'll happily provide them. You could argue
that because it's anonymous, it's not reliable, and I agree
that there is a sceric of that. However, I however,

(15:28):
as you know, I have great respect for the Spectator,
and I don't believe for a moment they would be
printing something if they didn't know what the source was.
And I might just note that the Australian Spectator this
week is printing opposing viewpoints. It's interesting to note the
war of words that has developed between some shall we say,

(15:48):
highly respected high flyers in the world of academia and
business over this whole issue. Interesting to see it. I
sort of feel sad that it's happening. On the other hand,
I think it's great that there is actually full fledged
and articulate disagreements being publicly discussed, which, in the manner

(16:11):
of free speech, is highly desirable now. James Raguski is
a researcher, an author, a natural health proponent and an
activist who believes that the old systems are rightfully crumbling,
so we must build their replacements quickly. In March of
twenty two, he uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the

(16:32):
International Health Regulations and was instrumental in raising awareness about them,
which resulted in the amendments being rejected. James is now
doing everything possible to expose the World Health Organization's hidden
the gender behind their proposed pandemic treaty, as well as
the who's ongoing attempt to amend the International Health Regulations.

(16:56):
His vision for the future can be summarized by the
phrase out of the WHO and in with the New
Now at the book title, Your doctor is a liar.
He is undoubtedly controversial, and he will upset some people
probably and attract others. But nevertheless, I thought and think

(17:17):
that his opinions are worthy of airing. We shall talk
with mister Rauguski next. James Ragaski is a researcher and author,

(17:42):
a natural health proponent, and an activist who believes that
the old systems are rightfully crumbling, so that we must
build their replacements quickly. In March of twenty two, James
uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations
and was instrumental in raising awareness about them, which resulted
in the amendments being rejected. James is now doing everything

(18:06):
possible to expose the World Health Organization, the who's hidden
the gender behind their proposed pandemic treaty, as well as
the who's ongoing attempts to amend the international health regulations.
His vision for the future can be summarized by the
phrase out of the WHO and in with the New.

(18:28):
James is very good to have you on the Latensmith
podcast and I appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
Thank you well, thank you very much for having me.
There's a lot of issues to discuss going on in
the world. I think most people are on overload. Where
would you like to start.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
I'd like to start with me sitting up in bed
yesterday morning actually and opening up my laptop as is usual,
and reading a piece about you, a short piece information
piece about you and what you wrote, what your latest
activity is. And you've opened up a something that I

(19:04):
would call an asset to the many people who care
about the sort of things that the DURAN don't involved
with the sort of things that we discuss constantly, and
that is the World Health Organization, matters, COVID and all
related to it. Now you've set up this new website,

(19:24):
just give us a brief.

Speaker 3 (19:27):
Well, you know, your use of the word asset makes
me feel very good that that was the first thought
or word that you use for this. The phrase I
use is a resource center, but I think those two
phrases are very very similar. It's called not safe and
not Effective dot com and it actually is just a

(19:51):
domain name that points to a series of twenty six
and potentially more articles that I've written on my substack account,
and not safe and not Effective dot com is a
direct pushback against the claims that many people have heard,
mostly relating to the COVID nineteen injections. I refuse to

(20:14):
call them vaccines, where everyone keeps saying, oh, they're safe
and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective, Well they're not.
They're not safe, they're not effective. And what I've been
doing for the last months, because I've been publishing these
one per day, is just essentially collecting the evidence that

(20:35):
anyone could use to buttress their well founded belief that
these products are not vaccines. They are not beneficial, they
are dangerous, and quite frankly, if you look at it,
very clearly, they are really biological weapons designed to harm you. Now,
if that shocks you, I encourage you to dig into

(20:57):
the information because I don't say anything unless I can
back it up with documentations. This is evidence, not speculation.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
When did you begin this journey?

Speaker 3 (21:08):
Well, you know, if you want to get spiritual about it,
you know, I was born in nineteen sixty. I was
born with club feet, and I spent a lot of
time in you know, orthopedic surgeon offices as a child
wearing casts and braces. If anybody has watched the movie

(21:29):
Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump was running with braces on his legs,
and you know I grew up with those, So I can,
you know, give testament to the fact that wonderful things
can be done to help, you know, people improve their lives.
As far as I'm concerned, you know, I overcame that problem.
I don't have any issues with my feet or legs

(21:52):
or whatever. But after the age of nineteen, so approximately
forty five years ago, I'm sixty four going on sixty five.
Since the age of nineteen, I have not set foot
in a doctor's office. You could not pain me to
go to a medical doctor or take a pharmaceutical drug
you couldn't pay me to take an aspirin or a

(22:14):
time and all because I know too much. I've studied
natural ways of healing, and there are things out there
that your doctor will never tell you because it's just
simply not part of their business model. And so to
fast forward to you know, current times, when all of

(22:35):
this craziness started happening in twenty twenty, you know, I
had a lifetime of learning to understand that we were
being lied to, but unfortunately many people fall for the propaganda.
The last article that I published is really all about
how people fall for, you know, sweet sounding lies that

(22:55):
you know both give you the idea that someone is
there to try to help you while making you scared
of an invisible boogeyman. You know that you have to,
you know, do something to your body to try to
prevent a problem that you don't actually have. It's marvelous
how people's minds have been manipulated by what I call

(23:16):
the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex pH EIC. And the
reason why I use that phrase is it ties in
to the other PHEIC from the who they have the
authority under the International Health Regulations to declare a public
health emergency of international concern or fake. So when you

(23:42):
fall for one fake and then you go to the
pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex and fall for another fake,
thinking that swallowing or injecting poison into your body is
the pathway to health. If you don't wake up to
that reality that they profit from your ill health, that

(24:02):
is the problem that we face. And the who is just,
quite frankly, a tiny little piece of that complicated puzzle.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
You write a book a few years ago with regard
to doctors and the cholesterol.

Speaker 3 (24:18):
I did. I was managing a small herb nutrition, homeopathic
aromatherapy store here in California and had many many conversations
with you know, the customers who would come in, and
one too many of them said, oh, Jim, you ought
to write a book, okay, And so that was about
nineteen years ago. I've always given it away. You can

(24:41):
download the PDF for free. It's entitled and you can
go to the website by the same name. Your doctor
is a liar dot com And so cholesterol is just
a flat out lie, and it's older than I am.
The lie began in the nineteen fifties, and so that's
a rabbit hole that. You know, we could go down

(25:03):
if you want to, but I think there's more current
problematic things. But it does together because when you look
at the people who died and their deaths were I
think inaccurately inappropriately attributed to COVID. You've probably heard the
phrase co morbidity. Well, morbidity means disease, and so you

(25:28):
know what percentage of people, let's just say, in the
United States are diagnosed as having high cholesterol or high
blood pressure or high blood sugar, diabetes or whatever, and
what that really means. You know, the people who died
and their deaths were attributed to COVID, but they had
all these co morbidities. What is really going on there

(25:52):
is because they were told they had a problem that
wasn't really a problem, and the solution that they were
given wasn't really a solution. These people were being poisoned
in multiple ways with a cholesterol lowering medication, a stat
or a high blood pressure medication, or some sort of
sugar you know, blood sugar management poison and they were suffering,

(26:17):
you know, liver damage and kidney damage from the poisons
that they were being given. And when whatever happened to
them and then they were treated inaccurately and appropriately with
ventilators and high concentrations of oxygen or rem decivir or whatever.

(26:38):
They were murdered by the pharmaceutical industry under the guise
of you know, oh well, this is the approved therapy,
the approved treatment, the standard protocol. And the problem is
those standard protocols do not address the cause of the problem.

(26:59):
And when you know, your doctor or healthcare practitioner puts
youth through their system, which it starts with, oh, you know,
you have to get a yearly check up. Okay, they're
bringing you in to get tested to find some number
on a test on your blood test or whatever, some

(27:22):
sort of screening to take healthy people to get them
to believe that they have a problem that can be
fixed with a drug or a JAB. And so I
called those things the screenings, the testing, the drugs and
all that, and certainly the vaccinations, which I use that
term loosing. Those are customer acquisition tools in the business

(27:46):
model of the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex. Now, if
you look at COVID, how many completely healthy people were
forced to get a PCR. I don't want to call
it a test because it's not a diagnostic test. Even
Carrie mallis the event or said it's not completely healthy.

(28:08):
People were told because of a quote unquote test fraudulent tests.
Anybody can go to pcrfraud dot com and learn how
that came to be. They were told that they were
asymptomatic cases with COVID nineteen. Well, asymptomatic means you don't
have any problem, which you know, disease. How can you

(28:31):
have no symptoms but yet have a disease. It's amazing,
But people fell for that, and they continue to fall
for it. And you know, if a person is not
allowed to go to work, or go to school, or
go to wherever. I still have friends who their children

(28:52):
will not allow their grandparents to see their grandchildren unless
they've been jabbed and tested. And I know of people
who had the swabs stuck up their nose and it
punctured the lining you know, between your upper sonuses because
it was done improperly, and they had a leak of

(29:13):
the fluid that protects your brain and had all kinds
of health problems from a test that isn't even remotely
capable of diagnosing disease. So what we're really dealing with
on a big level is propaganda and lives designed to
turn healthy people into lifelong patients and or customers, if

(29:35):
you will.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
That's an extremely effective summary of the situation I have.
I've interviewed a large number over the last four years
of people medical people in the main who have given
us some pretty good insight into what's well. They've opened

(29:58):
up the doors to what's available information wise, and really
this is the way that I see it, that nothing
should be mandated. It should all be a matter of
option and choice based on the best information that we
can that we can have. What happened, of course in
this country, was that we had a government that wasn't

(30:19):
interested in any other approach to this other than what
turned out to be falsehoods on the part of many companies,
many individuals, and many highly qualified so called highly qualified medicos.
And that's left a bit of taste in the mouth
of a lot of people. But since then it has

(30:44):
given people the opportunity to expand their interests into other
areas where they needed more information to cover off things
like well cholesterol and statens and what have you.

Speaker 3 (30:58):
Well, you know, government politicians and or public health officials
who try to force people to do things for their
own good. I'll bring it around in a different way
to try to address what you just said. I am
of the belief that I was born with a terminal illness. Okay,

(31:22):
it's known as James Rogusky syndrome, and I've been dealing
with it all my life. Eventually, it's probably going to
get me at some point. I think that maybe decades
away from now. But if I were to go to
a medical practitioner and they were to try to give
me some sort of help for any health issue that

(31:44):
might crop up as part of my unique situation, They're
not going to find an ICD ten code and International
Classification of Disease code from the WHO that says James
Ruguski syndrome on it. They're going to have to buy definition,

(32:06):
miscategorize me and say, well, you've got you know, mister
Elzheimer's disease, or mister Parkinson's disease, or mister Luke Grigg's disease.
Now I've got James Rogusky syndrome. I've been managing it
all by myself pretty well for the last sixty four years.
And the moment a person gets die agnosed the Latin

(32:30):
means two people do not know what's going on. That
is when the problems begin. When a person is diagnosed
and categorized by some disease classification, the thinking at that point,
the examination and the investigation stops. They don't look back

(32:53):
and say, well, I wonder what it is you're doing
or you're not doing. What is it that you're experiencing?
What is going on with you as a unique person
man or woman or child. Boom that stops. And there
was a protocol to follow. Once you've been it's been determined,

(33:13):
Oh you're a diabetic, or you're a heart patient, or
you're a cancer patient, or you're this, that or the other.
That is the problem, and almost everybody falls for it.
If I may, let me give you a couple of
good examples please. A good friend of mine whose mom
has since passed, like a decade ago, but a couple

(33:34):
of decades ago, her mom was injured. She was one
of the actual original dancers in the Broadway musical West
Side Story, and a couple of decades ago, she bashed
her knee on a coffee table. Its swelled up and
they ended up going to the medical doctor who manipulated

(33:55):
it actually made it worse. Ultimately, she was given a
diagnosis of arthritis. And so my friend called me up
and said, you know, Jim, arthritis is like, you know,
a long term degradation. She didn't have any problems. How
could that be? I said, well, this is the perfect
example of how the trickery begins. It begins with the diagnosis.

(34:19):
And I said, well, hold on a moment. You went
in and your mom's got a knee. It's swollen and
just a problem. Well, the doctor just translated swollen knee
into Latin. Ours means joint and itis means inflamed. Doctors
just repeat back to you in a language that you
don't understand the very thing that you told them, so

(34:41):
that they can fit you into the cubbyhole of whatever
diagnostic protocols they can make money off of. Use the
idea of fibro mio alja fiber muscle pain. Person goes
to the doctor, Oh, manuel ache all over, it hurts,
you know, I'm sore all of the time. They're told

(35:03):
that they have fibromyo alga fiber muscle pain. Well, that
doesn't do anything other than confuse the person. They thought
they had muscle pain, and now they go home going oh,
my god, I've got fibromano alga. Right, it's linguistic trickery.

(35:23):
They should have said, well, what are you eating? What
are you doing? You know, when does it get worse?
If you go to a homeopathic practitioner, they'll ask you
five hundred questions about your life and they'll give you
an appropriate treatment for you. If you go to a
medical doctor, they want to misclassify you. And let me
tell you, they understand, and I've spoken with people who

(35:44):
they know that in their doctor system, all of the
files are color coded because some diagnose diagnoses are way
more profitable than others. You might have a headache because
you're constipated and you really just need to go to
the bathroom and it will subside. Or they might convince
you that you might have a brain tumor and you've

(36:06):
got to go, you know, get an MR or or
I or cat scan or whatever it may be. And
that is enormously more profitable than take to ask for
and call me in the morning. Okay, Well, the point
behind all of this is that we are easily fooled
by experts who claim to know us better than we

(36:30):
should know ourselves, should.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
And should be should be the operative word should be
the operative word.

Speaker 3 (36:37):
And so with you know, trying to bring this back
around to COVID and the who and what's going on
in New Zealand and what people can do and why
we're having this conversation. How many of your listeners who
I would trust, are you know, higher up in their

(36:59):
learning and awareness of what is going on? How many
of them know everything?

Speaker 2 (37:06):
If that's a question? None, okay.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
So if we start with there's always something to learn,
it starts with, well, where are you going to get
that information? So about two and a half months ago,
I was looking through some lawsuits that had been filed
by various you know, attorneys general and people individuals or

(37:31):
law firms and so forth, and I asked myself a
rhetorical question. I said, you know, if I was going
to bring a lawsuit to protect myself against this, what
evidence would I submit? And I went looking. I was like, well,
you know, has anybody you know really scanned you know,
the world of what's been going on for the last

(37:52):
five years to collect all of not conspiracy, theory or
speculation or opinion, but evidence? Okay? And then I asked
myself a second rhetorical question, and I said, well, you know,
if a friend of mine came up to me and said, Jim,
I get it. You know, I understand the COVID nineteen

(38:13):
injections really don't help, you know, they're problematic. I understand that,
But I don't really know these things. You know, how
could I learn more? So I went and I looked
at what was out there in the world, and I
realized that nobody had kind of brought it all together
under one roof. So on one level, anybody who goes

(38:36):
to not Safe and Not Effective dot com will have
a library available to them of concrete evidence, published papers
that are in peer reviewed journals, available through PubMed here
in the United States. You know, data from the studies

(38:59):
that were done, you know, government documents, bear's reports, all
all these many things. You know, information specifically about New
Zealand the details there. I'm actually going to be publishing
a page tomorrow, I believe in maybe the next day Saturday.
I'm different for New Zealand because of the time it changes.

(39:20):
I'm in California that talks about you know, the massive
numbers of deaths that were reported, you know through American
veyers of people who died in New Zealand and all
around the world. That really should be seen as undeniable evidence.
But if you're ignorant, and I pronounced that word differently,

(39:44):
if you're ignorant of the facts, and if you want
to just continue on in your belief whatever your beliefs
may be, you're going to have a difficult time going
forward in life because the facts don't match the claims
that have been made by companies and public health officials

(40:07):
and so forth. And their only answer to it is
to ignore. They are ignorant of the facts. They don't
want to face the facts. It's not that they're stupid.
It's worse than that. You know, if you're unaware of something,
you know that's forgivable. None of us know everything. But

(40:27):
once you know and you choose to look the other way,
you are ignorant. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ignorance of these facts is not a valid excuse. And
all I've done really is put my personal filing cabinet,

(40:48):
if you will, I broke it down into twenty six chapters,
and so anybody who goes to not Safe and Noneffective
dot com can have access to the research that I've
done I claim no copyright on it. You know, I
encourage people copy it, print it, you know, mirror it.
If you have any type of online presence, please use

(41:12):
it however you want. I claim no ownership over any
of it. It's meant to be an asset. As you said,
I refer to it as a resource center. Go learn
and go share that information with people who want to learn.
People who don't want to learn that they won't even

(41:32):
be able to look at it. They don't want to know.
But there are people who do want to know. And
let me tell you, in the process of researching this
over the past years, but certainly in the last couple
of months, very intensely, there's a lot of things that
I learned that are just, you know, mind boggling. Like

(41:53):
you know, Pfizer lied in the studies. They hid deaths
due to the or that were associated with the treatment
group in their vaccine trials, and they made it look
like they were saving lives when in fact more people
who got the job died than got the placebo. Now,

(42:15):
they hid that data and they wanted to continue hiding
it for seventy five years. But it's been exposed in
the United States. It's very confusing, but at the moment,
six months old children, according to the CDC schedule should

(42:38):
receive three jabs of the COVID injections, not because they
aren't approved, but they're still under emergency use authorization. And
if those children are deemed to be immunocompromised, they should

(42:58):
get another job every two months, or they could get
another job based on their doctor's recommendation every two months. Ongoing. Now,
when you look at the studies for pregnant women, there
are well over a one thousand reports and theirs. On

(43:19):
the same day that a woman got the COVID nineteen vaccine,
over a thousand reports that they had a miscarriage and
lost their unborn child. This is of such epic horror proportions.
It boggles the mind that anybody who sees this information

(43:43):
can continue to be ignorant of it. But the problem
is most people don't know. They just don't know the
extent of the horror because the media has been hiding
it and misrepresenting it in a disinformation campaign that they
were paid billions of dollars to participate in by the

(44:05):
government who's working on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies because
in the United States, the FDA receives more than half
of its income from the pharmaceutical companies. What we're dealing
with is classic fascism, where government and corporations are working together,
along with the media and all kinds of foundations and

(44:26):
non government organizations to lie to people to degrade your
health so that you become even better customers of the
pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex.

Speaker 2 (44:39):
A lot of people who are listening to this who
have not yet taken some of it on board, likely
to think why would a company, a huge company what
to follow this path that not just you, but many
many medical people and people with qualifications hither thither and yon,

(45:03):
including economists, have pointed out the falsehoods, the fakeries, and
the corruption that many of us accept has taken place.
And the place you'd start, from my perspective, if you
wanted to establish that firmly, would be with one Fauci.
He is a leading life in all of the above. Now,

(45:27):
if you are uneducated in any of this area, and
you are either used to going to your doctor for whatever,
or even if you go for the very first time
in your life understanding any alternative other than the authority
of these people and of that that's conveyed by the

(45:48):
media is something you just have to accept because you
don't know any better, and you've been told that if
you don't do this, this is going to happen, or
that might happen. You've got no choice, really, have you
at that particular point of time.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Oh well, I will disagree. I thought you mindly with.
You know, everyone always has a choice, but there are
consequences of those choices. And so while fauci is you know, certainly, uh,
I'll just say he has been or he had been
doing his you know, pseudo retired at the moment you

(46:28):
go back forty years to see the evil that he's
been involved in. He actually was not in the structure
you know that authorized these horrors. You know, he was
involved with what he did. But one of the problems
is that people need to push back at the appropriate point,

(46:51):
in the appropriate way, with the appropriate tools. And so
if the person that you have chosen to take health
advice from, and you know, it's totally valid to admit
that you don't know everything and it's good to get
advice from someone, if that person refuses to look at

(47:14):
the evidence that is readily available on Not Safe and
Not Effective dot com in regards to the COVID nineteen injections.
If they refuse to look at I kid you not
literally thousands of peer reviewed published papers that are are

(47:36):
case studies of the harm that has been caused, and
you know, scientific research into the simple concept that is
easily easily seen in just one histopathology slide from an

(47:56):
autopsy where if you've ever looked at a anatomy book,
you may have seen a microscopic photo of muscle tissue. Okay,
you might think of the elongated cells that enable your
muscles to contract and relaxed and so forth. Well, when
you see the slide of the tissue from a person

(48:21):
who died and the pathologists who who did the autopsy
determined that it was due to the COVID nineteen vaccine,
and you see the results by design, okay, the jabs
are designed. Two they call it lipofection. Okay. They take

(48:44):
the mRNA that is the blueprint for the spike protein.
Now it's not the identical spike protein. It has been manipulated,
it's not ever occurred in nature, and it's very very different,
and they wrap it up in a essentially a bubble
of man made fats that in and of themselves have

(49:08):
not been studied for carcinogenesy and toxicity, but it lipoffects,
meaning the one bubble of fat that they've injected into
a person merges with the fat layer that makes up
the membrane of cells throughout the body, so that the
cell can start making this toxic, toxic protein, so that

(49:32):
the immune system identifies it and destroys it. You can
see in the slides where the muscle tissue, whether it's
in your arm, or in the heart or somewhere else,
has just been liquefied. It's just been blown to smithereens.
Think of what photographs you may have seen of Gauza

(49:56):
or any other horrifically war torn area where it's just devastation.
What we're talking about is microscopic devastation of tissue throughout
the body muscle, heart, lung, brain, liver, kidney, wherever these
nanoparticles may have LiPo affected a cell throughout your body,

(50:18):
you know, through your arterial structure, your capillaries, your veins,
your arteries, your aorda, your heart, and it's just been
liquefied by your immune system who destroyed it because it
identified that those cells were infected and were manufacturing proteins
that were not part of you, were not supposed to
be there. And then if the person survives that, it

(50:42):
gets laid over with a fibrous mesh, which essentially is
scar tissue. So the design of these products is to
go everywhere in the person's body, destroy it on a
microscopic level, or actually I should say encourage it to
destroy itself by LiPo affecting it with you know, something

(51:05):
that will make it create a toxic proteins. It needs
to be destroyed and then scarred over. And then when
the body is making antibodies to these proteins and it
subsides a little bit, they tell you to go get
a booster and go do it all over again. Go
kill yourself with another billion more cuts. I truly believe

(51:31):
that the vast majority of people around the world cannot
visualize in their mind what these jabs are designed to do.

Speaker 4 (51:41):
Now.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
I don't know if I've painted a good enough picture, okay,
but if you could imagine a little tiny bubble of
fat being injected into somebody's arm and it floats into
their brain or their heart or their lungs, or their liver,
or wherever bone marrow, you know, every place you can
imagine ovaries, testes, and so forth, causes a cell to

(52:03):
start making a toxic protein, so that the immune system
is then you know, its job is to then destroy
that aberant cell. You're dealing with warfare on a microscopic level,
where the destruction could result in any ailment possible, and

(52:28):
sometimes it happens very rapidly, So people put two and
two together. But what it's really designed to do is
to turn the person into a customer. What is that
person going to do when you know, part of their brain,
or their liver, or their thyroid, or their kidneys or
spleen or anything else start to malfunction, They're going to

(52:49):
go right back into the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex
and seek help from the people who caused the problem.
Do you think any doctor who pushed their patient to
get the JAB is going to allow themselves mentally to
recognize that they caused this problem? You know, that could

(53:11):
be anything out of seventy five thousand ICD ten codes. Now,
let me ask a rhetorical question. I know it's not
a fair question. I would be shocked if you, if
you knew the answer. Does anybody know the ICD ten
code for harm caused by a COVID nineteen vaccine? There

(53:31):
is such a code. The CDC actually published it before
the WHO did. It's you, it's you twelve point nine.
Do you think your doctor is intimately familiar with ICD
ten code you twelve point nine?

Speaker 2 (53:49):
That's you. You, you the letter, not the word you.

Speaker 3 (53:53):
The letter twelve point nine. That is what the WHO
has put into the International Classification of Disease coding structure
for billing and record keeping and all that sort of thing.
This showed up in German data where after the jobs

(54:13):
were rolled out on insurance, information was revealed and hundreds
of thousands of people were treated and the code that
was given was UCD twelve point nine, which was correct
and appropriate. These people were treated for, you know, adverse
events of the job because you know, at least in

(54:36):
this situation, they were properly described as having suffering from
side effects of the job. It was that obvious. But
you know, I would venture to guess that if anybody
on this call, when they talked to a healthcare professional,
or they talked to their friends and family, or they
talked to any government health related anybody and ask them,

(55:01):
do you know the ICD ten code that should be
put on a person's medical records if they were harmed
from the COVID nineteen injections. If they don't know that
that's the code, then they get to not use it,
and then the data never shows that there's any problem
because everybody is being misdiagnosed. And so the problem is

(55:27):
one of data manipulation out of information that people don't
want to let out. And if your doctor doesn't even
know that there's a category when you go and say, hey,
I think this was because of the jabber or somebody
else does, they don't even know how to classify it,

(55:48):
and they're never going to classify it because they were
the ones who caused it. And so the issue starts
with knowledge. The vast majority of people don't know what
they don't know, and I certainly do not know everything.
I try to learn something new every day, and if
anybody ever tells me that I'm wrong about something, that's

(56:10):
a blessed day. You know, if you can show me
that I'm wrong about something, you're my best buddy. But
the problem is the people in authority believe that they
know everything, and they refuse to actually look at the
evidence to the contrary, and that is at the root.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
Of the problem, and that's at the root of many problems,
including climate change and other matters. There's a couple of
other things I want to query you on. I want
your opinion on gene technology. The New Zealand government at
the moment is looking to pass the Gene Technology Bill,
and you understand what that means. If you think it's

(56:52):
necessary to describe what it means, then go for it.
But what I'm interested to know is what your reaction
to the passing of that bill, what it might mean
as an outcome.

Speaker 3 (57:06):
Well, you know, I will tie this in to what
I can speak very clearly about in regards to the WHO,
and tied into that. On June first, twenty twenty four,
even when people were celebrating a false victory, the WHO

(57:28):
and all of the member nations adopted amendment to the
International Health Regulations. And part of what's in that is
they defined what would now be known if these are
allowed to go into effect, because they can still be rejected.

(57:49):
There's a period of time that every nation can reject
the amendments that were adopted in June first of twenty
twenty four, and New Zealand was one of only four
countries that rejected the amendments that were adopted in twenty
twenty two. So good on you go, do it can, Okay.

(58:10):
What they put in place was that pandemic related products
were defined in the International Health Regulations and it was clearly,
you know, only pharmaceutical products, including gene and cell based therapies.

(58:32):
It did not include vitamins and minerals and herbs and
homeopathic remedies or any such thing. So by agreement, if
it's allowed to stand now, please understand that every nation
can reject those amendments. We have until July to make
that happen. But I would like to promote a referendum

(58:54):
that petition signatures are currently being sought. If anybody goes
to who knows meaning who knows dot co dot NZ
as you might say, and Z who knows dot co
dot NZ get involved with exiting the WHO, because those

(59:21):
international regulations make it so that the only response that
is recognized by the WHO includes cell and gene based therapies. Now,
the jabs that have been injected into billions of people
around the world. In my opinion my analysis, and I

(59:44):
think I have evidence to back it up, were clearly
not vaccines. They were genetic techniques, if you will, and
they've turned into what I think is an immuno imbalancing therapy.
They are not like people think of vaccine should be,
which is you get a little bit of the problem

(01:00:07):
that you might run into in the future to alert
your body to some pathogen, and then your body has
seen it once, so if it ever sees it again,
it deals with it better. Well, the way they design
these actually destroys your full bodied immune response. You only
see a made up protein that's not ever found in nature,

(01:00:31):
and it actually triggers your immune system to respond inappropriately.
I mean, the insanity behind the design of this can
only be described as evil. And so what people are
finding is that if they get injected, their immune system
gets imbalanced. They're actually more likely to have the very

(01:00:54):
problem that they were told the injection would help prevent.
And so this is a wide open field that they
are trying to craft into to legislation. And you know,
very much like the guidelines that New Zealand published almost

(01:01:15):
a year ago now for their pandemic response plan. People
need to pay attention, and so I would encourage everybody
to go to who knows, dot co, dot NZ because
the answer as far as the WHO is concerned, is
to put them in the rearview mirror and have the

(01:01:37):
leadership realize that what the WHO really is is not
an organization that is designed to help improve your health.
They are the marketing and promotion arm for big pharma,
and what they're trying to do with these negotiations is

(01:01:58):
not prevent the next pandemic. They want billions of dollars
to flow through the WHO, and they want to be
in charge of the distribution and logistics network for unlimited
injections because they believe in their mind that these products

(01:02:19):
work to your benefit, but they actually work to your detriment.
And you know, this isn't a set of negotiations to
improve your health. It's a set of negotiations, if you
really read them, to redistribute wealth away from you towards
them and their cronies in the industry. And so you know,

(01:02:43):
I can't even begin to say how I feel that
everybody needs to get much more clear on the evidence
of what is really happening. We are victimized by misinformation
that comes from our own side, and we are victimized

(01:03:06):
by people in positions of perceived authority who refuse to
look at the evidence that would actually implicate them in
massive crimes against humanity. So it starts with knowledge, It
starts with an awareness, and all I try to do

(01:03:27):
is condense that information as much as possible so that
the average person can look at this and go, this
is this is insane. This has to stop. Why are
we sticking three injections into six month old babies for
an ailment that they would never have, It would not
cause them any problems? Who is responsible for this kind

(01:03:49):
of thing? They need to be held accountable and this
has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Speaker 2 (01:03:56):
It's easy to say, not so easy to fulfill.

Speaker 3 (01:04:00):
Understood. Understood, it starts, It starts with, you know, one
step of collecting the evidence, not a opinion. You asked
me for my opinion, and I certainly have them, but
I generally try to answer that type of question with
it's not my opinion, here's the evidence. And so anybody
who goes, you know, to not say for non effective

(01:04:22):
dot com, you'll find thousands of peer reviewed published papers
that are evidence that your doctor and your public health
official are choosing to be ignorant of and you have
to take forth and put the effort into saying, look,

(01:04:44):
this is not my opinion, and your opinion doesn't count.
And in the hierarchy of evidence, in terms of scientific validity,
opinions don't mean a darn thing. And you know, faced
with the ample evidence that they refuse to consider, you
have to look in the mirror and ask yourself, why

(01:05:05):
in the world would you ever trust anybody in that system.
You need to get out of that system. You need
to stop going to medical doctors to receive poisonous pills
and injections, and you know, find how it's more appropriate
to treat yourself as unique man, woman, or child, because

(01:05:28):
that's not what they do. They diagnose you and put
you in a cubby hole and follow a protocol that's
designed to turn healthy people into lifelong patients.

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
The who is no Longer Fit for Purpose title of
an article written by relish the curve. You agree or disagree?

Speaker 3 (01:05:50):
Oh? Absolutely? I mean what is their purpose? They have
been functioning for the last twenty years, as you know,
the mouthpiece for vaccines, and when you understand where their
money comes from and how it is directed through the

(01:06:12):
organization they are basically you know, this is one way
of looking at it. They're just hired help. They're just
contracted to do a job. If the billing and the
Gates Foundation donates, you know, half a billion dollars and
they say, well, we want you to you know, uh,

(01:06:33):
put these vaccines in children all throughout Africa. That's what
the who works on doesn't really mean that they're trying
to improve the health of people. And all of their
statistics show that the health of the people that they're
supposedly helping is you know, being degraded. But their money
comes with strings attached, and so you know that alone

(01:06:56):
is you know, evidence of corruption and you know fit
for purpose. You know, if the purpose is to improve
the health of the world's population, they're failing miserably, and
their own data shows exactly that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:08):
The interesting thing, I suppose, well, it's not interesting, it's
just obvious. The obvious thing is that there are so
many people now of good qualification, but more importantly, good intent,
who are lining up behind that statement. I don't mean
literally that statement literally, but with that approach, and would

(01:07:33):
you this gives me the chance, right at the end
here to ask a question, because you just raised them
Bill Gates. If I were to say that Bill Gates
is evil, you'd say.

Speaker 3 (01:07:44):
I am certainly not going to stand in his defense. Okay,
But Bill Gates is so well protected and so distant
from you how this all actually works. What I encourage
people to do is do what you can with the

(01:08:06):
people who are going to actually directly impact your life.
Bill Gates is not going to convince your child to
get a vaccine or other treatments. Okay, your local doctor,
your local police officer, your local you know, businessman, merchant, friends, family, whatever.

(01:08:29):
The rubber hits the road. Not because Bill Gates knocks
on your door and has some goon who wants to
inject you. Is because it's your local officials who listen
to authority that has an agenda that is not for
your benefit. So I generally stay away from discussions of

(01:08:49):
people like Fauci and Bill Gates, because what really is
the issue is your relationship with your family, your friends,
your neighbors, people you work with, people you may go
to school with, or or you know anyone at whatever church,
or you know faith you have. We all can help

(01:09:15):
educate everyone around us, because it's the people closest to
you that just violated you over the last five years.
And they do it because they, you know, say, oh,
well this authority or that authority said so. And if
they're going to continue to blindly obey lies, the problem

(01:09:41):
is going to continue. My job is to try to
put evidence and make it available to people so that
they can then learn enough to have a discussion with somebody,
and not try to convince them. Find the people who
want to learn and help them learn. The people who

(01:10:05):
don't want to know, You have to watch out for
them in every way, shape or form, whether they're a doctor,
a lawyer, a politician, or your spouse or your children
or your neighbor. People who are unwilling to learn are
the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
So I have whenever I say this is the final question,
I invariably come up with tools read more. So I've
got I've got two final questions. If you had a
heart attack today, what would you do.

Speaker 3 (01:10:35):
I don't plan on having a heart attack. I don't
entertain the notion. You know, if there are many things
I don't get into describing health treatments. Okay, when you
understand that the term heart attack is not as properly
defined as you might think it is, and that the

(01:10:59):
statistics around all of that are so broken. Obviously, you
know when it's a person's time to it's their time
to die, and so I have written extensively on quite
a lot of things. The issue really is to understand

(01:11:20):
that if that is your concern, if you have a
problem that you're concerned about, you better learn about it
in advance. And so, yes, anybody can have an accident,
anybody can have a health issue. That's an explanation that
requires not an hour long program or a quick one

(01:11:43):
word answer. What would you do? You have to change
how you think about the entire thing so that you
avoid the problems, not just with drugs or chemicals or
herbs or vitamins or minerals, but in the manner in
which you understand the holistic nature that gets you there
in the first place. Now, I know some people may say, oh,

(01:12:06):
you know, he's avoiding the Well, the question is what
is it that you're doing on a daily basis to
improve your health optimize your health so that something like
those types of problems is such a remote, distant possibility
you don't even entertain the idea The problem is we're

(01:12:31):
taught oh this happened to you randomly, you know, out
of thin air, nothing you could do about it. What
drug are you going to take or what orb are
you going to apply that idea? The question is the
wrong question. The right question is how do we build
a structure to teach people how to optimize their health

(01:12:54):
so that they're living vibrantly. And that's a you know,
happy to talk to you for days about that one.

Speaker 2 (01:13:02):
Very good. So the final question is this. We had
this discussion before we rolled, and I asked you this question, Joel,
now asking ask you again, albeit that I know the answer.
What are your qualifications? Oh?

Speaker 3 (01:13:20):
I have absolutely none. I went to school back in
the late seventies and early eighties. I studied computer science
before people had computers. I dropped out of an Ivy
League school because I realized I was being lied to.
I spent fifteen years working as a carpenter of renovating
old homes in New England. Moved out to California, I

(01:13:44):
think about twenty eight years ago now, and managed a
couple of mom and pop urb and nutrition stores for
about fifteen years. Wrote a couple of books related to that,
but I learned that the types of things that people
can do to heal and heal themselves if they get

(01:14:06):
out of balance or maintained on so that they don't
become ill, are so vast. It's astonishing that anybody would
ever have their first response, Oh, I got to ask
my doctor. Okay, I got to go to the pharmacy
and take a drug or get a surgery or whatever.
I have seen miracles happen under my own hands and

(01:14:29):
done by other people as well. It makes your medical
professional look like a butcher when you understand, you know,
the Star Trek level technology that's out there that you're
not being told exists. I should have said it a
minute ago. I have another domain that people can go
to to get additional information. If you go to the

(01:14:52):
Complete Guide to Health dot com The Complete Guide to
Health dot Com, you'll get deeper insight into what we're
talking about here. Going to a doctor to get a poison,
either to swallow or be injected, maybe in certain circumstances

(01:15:13):
when you are so far out of balance, having a
poison to distract your body from the problem at hand
might be helpful. But if you've allowed yourself to get there,
you've already made so many mistakes.

Speaker 2 (01:15:27):
It's mind log way ed. It's been fascinating talking with you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:30):
I have to say, well, thank you, thank you for
having me, and look forward to doing it again. One
last thing that I always do is I give everyone
my phone number. I'm in California, so you may have
to use you know, appropriate country code, or you can
connect with me on signal or telegram or WhatsApp or
text message or whatever. But here in the United States,

(01:15:51):
in California, my phone number is three one zero six
one nine three zero five to five. If you have
any questions, if I can help in any way, and
even better, if you think I'm wrong and you want
to help me learn something new, you mean to call
anytime three one zero six one nine three zero five five.

(01:16:12):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
So it's plus one three one zero six one nine
three zero double five, Thank you very much. Leverrix is
an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverrix

(01:16:33):
relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's
a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action.
It's fast acting for fast relief, and it works in
under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.
Lebrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals

(01:16:54):
with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time
you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
pharmacy and ask for Leverrix v Rix Levericks and always
read the label. Take us directed, and if symptoms persist,

(01:17:15):
see your health professional. Farmer broker Auckland. Layton Smith now
the male room for podcast two hundred and seventy four,
and this is producer has just arrived. You're looking good, Layton.
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:17:36):
Ready to go.

Speaker 2 (01:17:37):
The very strong rumor going around though that you're tired.

Speaker 4 (01:17:40):
Well, I don't know where that room has come from.
I'm perky, is anything.

Speaker 2 (01:17:44):
I think it's a tribal thing. Anyway, if you're so perky,
go for your life.

Speaker 4 (01:17:47):
Everybody's tired at the moment. Leydon Paul says. George Friedman
has consistently risen above the noise of legacy media sensationalism
in his forecasting business. He and the excellent team at
Geopolitical futures and his past creation of stratfor have provided
me with the best analysis of the geopol called Big

(01:18:09):
Picture bar none for many years. Why do I regularly
parrot this point in my communications with you? My simple
answer is that George and co. Have been correct almost always.
Thanks again Layton for introducing me to him. Another worthy
commentator who regularly appears on the podcast as Murial Newman.

(01:18:30):
She has a deep understanding of threats to democracy that
are entrenched in New Zealand's domestic political machinations. If you
have a child attending a university in New Zealand, I
encourage you to direct said child to listen to podcast
to seventy two. Good luck with that, says I from experience,

(01:18:51):
and that was from Paul Later.

Speaker 2 (01:18:53):
Well appreciate it greatly. Thank you. This one is slightly dated.
It's sort of out of place now, but I am
going to read it for a reason. Steve. Steve wrote,
I'm hoping you can't wait to get back on air
and give us your two cents worth. Hard to believe
this is written on five for February. Hard to believe

(01:19:15):
that so much good in Brackets has happened over the
last two or three weeks unbelievable talk about a new broom.
It's more like a pioneer approach, slash and burn and replant.
I am sure that most of your audience is waiting
breathlessly for the latent take, mainly because I suspect that
you're as breathless as the rest of us. Happy New

(01:19:37):
Year and cheers. I afflicted him a note at the time,
and I said, I think you'll be pretty pleased with
the interview in the first which was a couple of
days after this, after he wrote this with mister Jones,
I haven't had a reply. I have no idea whether
RE enjoyed it or not.

Speaker 4 (01:19:54):
Leydon pat says, I would like to say how much
I enjoyed your talk with Dr Muriel Newman. Enjoyed may
not be the right adjective, as her content is frightening.
I subscribed to her weekly emails, but to hear her
explaining everything as she did on your show was even
more enlightening. What is wrong with our government that they
don't stand up to the Supreme Court judges on such

(01:20:15):
critical matters. I agree Luxon has been weak, and it's
mainly the likes of Peters and Shane Jones that show responsibility. Incidentally,
I enjoyed your podcast with Shane Jones. His command of
English is outstanding and his desire to dig in mine
would help us get the country out of the mess
we're in. As Dr Muriel said, Lord help us of

(01:20:36):
the other mob get him keep up the good work.
And that's from Patrick.

Speaker 2 (01:20:40):
Now from John, he says, I'm glad you're back. But
what a couple of contrasts. Shane Jones full of hype
and great ideas, then Muriel Newman, sounding as jolly as
an undertaker. Now I mention of why we can the
Privy Council. It started when Margaret Wilson appeared there for
the Crown. It was a mary Land's case. One of

(01:21:03):
their lordships questioned the Mary Claimant Parties Council something like this,
So if you think that you're a Mary, you can
be a Mary, Yes, your lordship. And if you are
a Mary, you can claim any land that could belong
to Mary. Yes, your Lordship, then I'm a Mariy was

(01:21:24):
the best and most ominous response, to which Margaret Wilson
sat stony faced, with no input into the humor around her.
That case was understandably lost by the claimants immediately on
her return, steps were taken to commence the process to
deprive us of the greatest legal minds in the world.

(01:21:46):
And there you have it. Regards John John, I didn't
I was completely unaware of what you tell us with
regard to the interchange, and I'd love to know your source.
In the meantime, I have to stand uncommitted as to
its accuracy, not because I don't believe you, but because
I haven't seen any evidence. So if you can source me,

(01:22:09):
I'd be very appreciative of it. In fact, I'd like
to read more about it. Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:22:15):
Laden Alan writes to you and lets you know that
two of his books are back on Amazon, and I
guess you will have read that, And then he goes
on to say, as the US have now removed itself
from the Paris Accord, rendering sixty plus percent of all
greenhouse gas mitten nations for instance China, Russia, India, and

(01:22:36):
now the USA canceled from that original arrangement. I think
it might be relevant for you to remind your listeners
of this reality and that they can get understandable information
of just why that void with the Paris Accord has occurred.
For instance, Earth's atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gases, so
nothing is achieved by the emissions targets set by that

(01:22:59):
international accord for twenty thirty five and twenty fifty.

Speaker 5 (01:23:03):
And Alan goes on to you a bit more personal stuff.
So that's from.

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
Allan Trotter, one of the three authors of a couple
of very good books. I received this from Chris from Canberra.
I enjoy getting mailed from Canberra. I spent two years
of my life there, felt like ten, but I believe
it's much better than now. In fact, we must go
visit Canberra sometime, must we? Well, I could show you

(01:23:30):
were about my first house or something along fascinating. Further
to my email on the twenty seventh of February, I
suggest you read Chris Alman's article in the Weekend Australian
for a far bleaker picture of Australia's defense pasture than
the one I presented in my email. Chris has got
a bit of inside the information. I actually responded to

(01:23:51):
him and said, thanks Chris, I read it this morning,
so this was Saturday. I read it this morning. Dire
Straits wasn't just a band cute the two countries are
running a parallel. When you take it into account the
size in the population et tetra, the two countries are
running pretty much a parallel. In taking a dive.

Speaker 4 (01:24:16):
Layton Jin says, I watched the heated exchange between Trump
and Zelensky in the Oval Office, which was surprisingly entertaining,
to say the least. As the news and online chatter
lit up on the Internet, I began to realize that
first world Western audiences tend to misunderstand both Trump and
Zolensky because they both shatter our expectations of them two

(01:24:37):
understand them. We need to stop seeing these two as
typical politicians and start looking at them as willing actors
arising from the brokenness of the people that they govern.
George Friedman's analysis that Trump has a very high IQ
and a damaged personality is equally applicable to Zelensky. You
don't get through Hollywood without some form of deranged personality. Surprisingly,

(01:25:01):
Trump and Zelensky are more alike than most people.

Speaker 2 (01:25:04):
Would like to admit.

Speaker 4 (01:25:06):
Firstly, both of them were successful actors. Trump owned his
acting skills as The Boss and his hit TV show
The Apprentice, while Zelensky acted as the Ukrainian Prime minister
in the hit Ukrainian TV series Servants of the People. Secondly,
both of them are cunning negotiators. Trump shrewdly negotiated billion

(01:25:27):
dollar deals for his building empire, while Zolensky charmed billions
off the clueless Biden administration. Thirdly, they both achieved results
through unpredictability, Trump's highly Trump's highly publicized clash with Zelenski
achieved his greater goal of saving American dollars by getting

(01:25:48):
the Europeans to pay for their own and Ukraine's military defenses.
Zelensky used his very same clash with Trump to achieve
his greater goal of obtaining billions from Europe. We are
not watching two politicians duking it out. We are watching
two actors attempting to outperform each other. My worry that

(01:26:08):
countries like China, North Korea and Iraq handing out the
popcorn while we remain distracted.

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
That's from Jim and following that very soon after, just
after I sent my email to you, which features the
well articulated contrarian view of James Allen on the Russia
Ukraine War. I feel that we can't believe most things
we read or here nowadays, so a lot of mainstream

(01:26:36):
media are spreading lies, rumors, and opinions rather than facts. Anyway,
I have this very long letter that was left over
from last week because I couldn't read it, and I
now have it in readable form, and so I'm going
to pass it on. This is about the state of
New Zealand. It's interesting. Make sure you listen. Coming up next,

(01:26:57):
missus producer, will see you next week.

Speaker 5 (01:26:59):
Thanks lady.

Speaker 2 (01:27:15):
Now, this is the letter that I didn't read last
week because I couldn't. I can't describe to you what
the page looked like when I printed it. It's a
long letter, and he apologizes for it. But the reason
I want to read it is because I'm always interested
in other people's opinions, other people specifically who have never
lived here all their life like I haven't, people who

(01:27:37):
have come from other places, or have been out of
the country a long time, or different experiences, and their
reaction to New Zealand today. And that's exactly what this
letter provides. In redoing it into a legible presentation, because
the first one I couldn't read. He's done a very
good job, double spaced a different type and starts this way, oh,

(01:27:59):
and requests that I don't mention his name. I don't
know why, but I'll honor the request. Sorry, this is
a bit long, and I'm not very good at writing,
so it may seem like a bit of a ramble.
I enjoy listening to you every week, and even though
sometimes I feel more depressed about our situation than before,
depending who you are talking to. On the face of it,

(01:28:21):
New Zealand has a lot going for it. It has
a good climate on the whole. People are friendly. The
population is small and spread out, meaning it's easy to
get away from it all. We have beaches and mountains
and national parks that people come from all over the
world to see. It's a place where you can almost
take yourself back in time for a slower pace of life,

(01:28:44):
with all the same modern convenience as the rest of
the world has at a slower pace. What's not to like?
I came to New Zealand in nineteen ninety five, age sixteen,
from the UK when my family moved out here. At
that age, I was starting to see the world around
me and could tell the differences between the two places.

(01:29:04):
After being here a few months, it started to become
clear to me that New Zealand had a big problem.
It's a country with the population of a medium sized
city that acts like it has ten times the population.
Our politicians continue to play on this, with grand plans
being touted constantly but never coming to fruition. The short

(01:29:26):
election cycle, whilst meaning we can get rid of a
bad government after three years, seems fine in theory, but
it also means that in a three year term there
is really only one year to make anything happen. The
first year is spent getting a handle on the issues
as they see it once they get hold of the books.
The second year is when things can actually be done,

(01:29:49):
but the third year everything goes into election mode. In reality,
nothing meaningful can get off the ground in one year,
meaning that most of the time they're just playing around
at the edges and nothing meaningful ever gets done. The
majority of what has been done over the last thirty
years has been social engineering and over spending, particularly by

(01:30:12):
labor led governments. There is a reluctance, especially from national
led governments, to wind back any of the social engineering programs.
The population gets used to having a government that throws
money around. Taking money from people is not a vote winner,
particularly when it's marketed as free. Working for families and other.

(01:30:34):
Tax credits are the perfect example of this. Instead of
giving people their tax money back, how about not taking
it off them in the first place. These schemes increase
permanent Wellington, our deep state. The system is designed intentionally
to grow like a cancer. Every scheme needs more administration,
more people, and more money. We continue to pour money

(01:30:57):
into Wellington with nothing to show for it. The priority
of our government, regardless of which party leads it should
be the taxpayer. We continue pouring money into social life
and environmental issues at the behest of the un which
we really cannot afford. This money goes offshore and does
not benefit the population of New Zealand. A lot of

(01:31:18):
the population are not educated enough to see that they
are being sucked dry by the system. Now this boils
down to education and media. At school and university, people
are told what to think, not how to think, and
our legacy media reinforces this twenty four hours a day,
seven days a week. It's hard to turn this around.

(01:31:40):
It has taken forty or fifty years to get to
this point. It'll take at least that for the population
to develop another point of view, our population is spread out,
meaning that we need more hospitals, schools, roads, power lines,
water pipes, etc. Per person than other places. As a
result of this, we've ended up with very high rates

(01:32:02):
of taxation to pay for our infrastructure, yet our infrastructure
is still years behind. There was next to no pre
planning done to extend our infrastructure, and as the population increased,
the land for infrastructure had houses built of it. Any
infrastructure we now need to build becomes expensive and time consuming.

(01:32:25):
Nobody wants to give up their house or have things
built in their backyard, and the process gets held up
for years. And the process gets held up for years
in consenting and litigation, increasing the costs exponentially. The cheapest
time to build is now, always has been, always will be.
Any delay adds costs. This is before we get to

(01:32:46):
the wastage of consultants and communications for projects that ultimately
never go ahead. We have a lack of skilled people
to build and manage our infrastructure, which is a failure
of our education system, so we import people to do
these jobs. These people add to the population and put
more pressure on our infrastructure. The answer for this should

(01:33:09):
be to fix our system to produce our own people,
but instead we just import them because it's easier and
get further behind with our infrastructure. We're sitting on plenty
of natural resources, but we're not getting them out of
the ground. We don't even need to do this ourselves.
The rights to these can be sold off for a royalty,

(01:33:29):
giving us access to the resource and money. Importing oil,
gas and coal when we have plenty of it is lunacy.
We should be able to generate enough powder to never
have to worry, but I can't record a new power
station coming online for the past thirty years. We all
know that another drain on our taxpayers is the Mari issue.

(01:33:52):
This has been talked about at length since forever. Everyone
knows the issues and there's no point dredging them up.
But needless to say, the tap needs to be turned
off before we end up in the same state South
Africa finds itself in. Of course, there is more, but
all of this leads to one thing, a constantly increasing

(01:34:12):
cost of living. We're always hearing about having a low
wage economy and comparing us to Australia, but it's more
complicated than that. We rely heavily on imported goods, through
our modern lifestyle. Due to our location and small market,
shipping costs make up a larger percentage of the product
value than they would in Australia. Goods that we manufacturer

(01:34:36):
are expensive due to labor and energy costs. Materials for
goods we manufacturer are also imported and more expensive than
they would be else elsewhere. The more we pay people
to produce products locally, the more expensive they'll be, and
the end user is the one that pays, increasing the
cost of living and perpetuating the cycle. This leads to

(01:34:58):
the final question, is there a way out of this?
To me? Says the author, There is no political will
to change the status grow. The politicians and bureaucrats around
them are doing just fine and have no reason to
push for change. There is no alternative politician, Alah Donald
Trump who can shake up our system. Is there any hope?

(01:35:21):
Maybe the tide is turning in the USA, but it'll
take more than four years of Trump. The biggest hope
I have for the Trump administration is that JD. Vance
will become the forty eighth president and continue for another
eight years. Then maybe some changes will stick. Whatever happens
in America will ultimately happen in the rest of the West.

(01:35:43):
The upcoming elections in Germany and Canada will be interesting
and will point to where the world is headed. As ever,
it will probably take another ten to twenty years before
things reach New Zealand. The only thing that will speed
it up will be Australia turning. That's if there is
any one productive left in New Zealand by then. Well,

(01:36:07):
although it was where reading and I'd be interested in
your opinion on things that were said in that letter,
but that will take us out for podcast number two
hundred and seventy four. If you'd like to correspond with
us Latent at newstalksib dot co dot nz or Carolyn
at newstalksib dot co dot nz. As always, we love

(01:36:28):
getting your getting email, so I will leave you in
a world of some turmoil at the moment. Watch this
space carefully. We'll be back with two seventy five in
a few days of course. Until then, as always, thank
you for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:36:54):
Thank you for more from newstalksed B listen live on
air or online and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #274 - March 5th 2025 - James Roguski

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #274 - March 5th 2025 - James Roguski