Leighton Smith Podcast #275 - March 12th 2025 - Rodney Hide - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates us now the Layton Smith
podcast cow it by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two hundred and seventy five for March twelve,
twenty twenty five. Rodney Hyde, ex politician, is fighting a battle.
It began a couple of years ago and it continues today.
In fact, we spoke with him a couple of years
back and he outlined the foundation of this. It involves
the relationship and sexuality education curriculum being taught in his

(00:50):
daughter's school, but not just there, It's being taught in
all schools to different levels. Rodney is not the only
parent unhappy about what's being taught, but he stands almost
alone in trying to address it. It is a matter
for him of principle. But we also discuss other matters,
important ones like wocism, the rbn Z and Adrian Order,

(01:12):
NATS and pm luxon economic growth and other things. And
I learned something about mister Hyde of which I was unaware.
But first if I may a word of warning to
local pundits regarding Donald Trump. Many pundits are putting the
boot into Trump whenever they get the chance. I'd like
to read you a small paragraph of something that is

(01:35):
yet to come. Trump's out of the deal is the
most democratic thing we've seen since the experts told us
to trust the science. Einstein reportedly said that one fact,
rather than a hundred experts, could prove him wrong. Trump
has done in less than two months what thousands of
experts have failed to do in the years. And that's

(01:55):
a fact. It occurs to me that those who are
rushing at every opportunity to, like I say, put the
boot in, might end up eating that boot. As I
record this, there is a flash come up up on
my phone from Greg Sheridan in The Australian. Could it
be that Trump is actually going to produce a decent
outcome in Ukraine? After all? And I say never underestimates

(02:21):
Donald Trump, Speaking of whom, let me make reference to
something else in the same stable. For years, American politics
has been defined by the advance of an enemy variously
labeled wocism, DEI, the civil rights regime, the deep state,
and more. And the occasional, usually ineffective pushback of Republicans.

(02:45):
I'm quoting this for a reason, not just to talk
about American politics, but to talk about my reference to
talk about New Zealand politics, because if you listen to
what I'm about to quote, you can replace America and
Republicans with New Zealand and Nationals. With the return of
Donald Trump to the White House, that enemy seems, for

(03:07):
the first time in living memory, to be genuinely in retreat.
Daniel Horowitz observes that Republican leadership of failing or refusing
to capitalize on Trump's momentum, and Horowitz warns that this
will give the woke regime time and space to reorganize
and prepare its next assault. We have, he says, an

(03:28):
historic opportunity to deep six the woke regime, but that
potential has not yet become kinetic. I love that word.
If Republicans are not prevented from working their controlled opposition magic,
the forces of wokeness will regroup, reload, and reconstitute under
a different name. Remember when we killed common Core last decade,

(03:50):
common Core education, It's simply reconstituted under a more subtle, subversive,
and nameless construction. Democrats find themselves over extended politically on
issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, racial politics, and gender ideology.
An intrepid Republican Party would go in for the kill,

(04:10):
end those policies and plow with salt over their graves. Unfortunately,
we're watching in real time as proposals in state legislatures
to categorically ban illegal immigration, end all forms of affirmative action,
and extirpate any reference to things like race, gender, and
global warming in state policy are being defeated by the

(04:33):
Republican Party. GOP legislators are pushing to only deport criminal aliens,
to focus only on men in female sports and not
on the core of transgender insanity, and to continue racial
preferences at some level in state governments when Republicans are
in power. When Republicans are in power, they refuse to

(04:54):
wield it as Democrats do. This gives the woke regime
time to retreat behind safe lines and reconstitute the same
vision under slightly different policies, parlance, and presentation. They will
return now. I think you get the gist that the
conservative parties also called conservative parties, are full of verbiage

(05:17):
that they don't necessarily apply to practicality, and I think
we're experiencing some considerable bit of that in this country
at the moment. Now speaking of moments, in just a moment,
Rodney Hyde Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to

(05:40):
the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies
or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has
a unique nasal decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief,
and it works in under an hour and lasts for
over twenty four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that

(06:01):
unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing.
Leverrix 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 l e
v Rix Leverix and always read the label, takes directed

(06:23):
and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland,

(06:51):
I've known Roddy Hyde for about thirty years. I remember,
first of all going to his house, which wasn't that
far from where I was living at the time, and
I went to visit him in his house. There was
a reason for it, although that escapes me, and I'm
sure that he won't remember, but that was the first
occasion I believed that we met. But we've known each
other for a long time, and I think I will

(07:12):
credit myself with this and say that we have considerable
respect each for the other. Would that be right, mister Hyde.

Speaker 3 (07:21):
Total late and total respect.

Speaker 4 (07:24):
That said, I have a great deal of respect for
almost everyone. People that do a good job, are competent
and have regard for others earn my respect. And so
I have a great deal of respect for you because
I always realized you were a very good broadcaster and

(07:45):
people that are good at their job and pressed me.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
The reason for this conversation was triggered by something that
you sent me with regard to relationship and sexuality education curriculum. Now,
before we get onto that direct, tell us all, because
plenty of us either will only have a touch of
knowledge on it or at all, tell us how the

(08:10):
boards of school school boards? What are they responsible for
in their school?

Speaker 3 (08:16):
Oh? Wow, well, the running of the school.

Speaker 4 (08:19):
But one of the strange things is one of the
particular functions are given, is they are given responsibility for
reproduction and sex education, and they specifically have to consult
with the parents the community of the school which is
identified as the parents, on what that should be and

(08:42):
then come up with it, and they have to consult
every two years.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
Funny enough, none of the schools.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
Do, none of them, not that I know of, And.

Speaker 4 (08:53):
The boards are totally unaware of the sex education occurring
in the school and my observation and experience, and it's
been happening oftentimes without even the principles being particularly aware
of it. It's the most extraordinary situation.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
The last time we spoke, which was twenty three, so
a good two years ago, we discussed, amongst other things,
an issue involving your daughter, Yes, and there was quite
some reaction to it from my perspective. Now it has
advanced since then. There are two videos that you've posted

(09:36):
that people can can see, but we'll get to that
a little later. But that's what you sent me, That's
what I watched, and I was very keen to discuss
it with you. But we will get onto some on
a number of other topics. Before we finished this discussion,
you did these two videos based on the fact that

(09:58):
you decided that you wanted to address the school board
on this subject, Relationship and Sexuality education otherwise known as RS.
How did How did that go for you?

Speaker 3 (10:11):
And look great? It took me.

Speaker 4 (10:14):
My daughter goes to Wakatipo High School. It took me
nine months to get before the board emailing them.

Speaker 3 (10:22):
I did get to meet the chair, you know, and all.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
Of these people I got to say, are lovely, and
it's a great school, and it's a well run school.

Speaker 3 (10:33):
And this is actually happening in.

Speaker 4 (10:34):
Every high school, so it's not like Wakatippu is a typical.
But the background is I got an email to say
that my daughter would be engaged in this being taught
this RC reproduction sex education, and the email implied that
it was compulsory, and I knew that it wasn't.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
It's up to a parent to agree.

Speaker 4 (10:58):
And so I asked to see it because I thought
I can't agree. U, Yes, I see it. To be fair,
I had a fair inkling because of our earlier interview.
My daughter was younger, I had become alarmed at what
had happened, so I was well attuned to it. I
also joined a great group called let kids be kids,
and so we've been very active at trying to discover

(11:21):
what's happening in the schools and also empowering parents. So anyway,
I wrote to the head of physical education in the
school and said, look, this is great. I'd like to
see what you're going to be showing my daughter, because
they said they had this curriculum, they had videos, and
they had of course materials. This is the extraordinary. But

(11:45):
the teacher came back. My daughter's thirteen. The teacher came
back and said, you can't have it because it's intellectual
property that we have developed, and also the booklets that
we use are copyright so that I internally I didn't

(12:06):
do anything, but I went off my head because I
knew that I had to give consent to this. I
had the opportunity to refuse, but I couldn't make an
informed choice, and of course this triggered me over the
whole COVID thing. I couldn't make an informed choice for
my own daughter, and I wasn't allowed to see the
material on the subject that she was to teach or

(12:30):
was to be taught. I ended up buying it. Family Planning,
who now have a long married name, produced it. And
I bought for her, which was year nine. I bought
that the manual, two hundred six pages, only cost five dollars.
I bought it and I read it, and I have
to say latent nothing prepared me for the horror of it.

(12:53):
It was absolutely horrific. I could not believe it, and
I wrote to the principle which you required to do
and pulled my daughter out of the class, which is
no drama. They were doing their rotation. She just did
a rotation or something or other. But then I thought
this is crazy because I couldn't see how any sensible

(13:16):
person still can't could agree to teaching this to a
thirteen year old girl or boy.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
Now stop there for a moment. Was she the only
one who was taken out?

Speaker 3 (13:29):
I don't know the answer to that. I suspect.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
So do you know any parents who are aware of
what's in Wakatipu at the school? Do you know any
parents who are concerned about it?

Speaker 3 (13:43):
I know of about two, and there two that I've
spoken to.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
None the others aren't concerned because they don't know, or
because they don't care, or they approve both both.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
It's always a touchy subject for parents with their children,
and so they quite like ducking responsibility and saying, oh, well,
the school can do all that.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Bearah.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
We have spoken to parents. I have spoken to parents.
Some are okay with it, and what you might call
permissive parents who literally have the high school children having
their boyfriend and girlfriends over to stay the night. They're
comfortable with it. The older parents that I know aren't.
I find it a very hard subject to bring up

(14:30):
with parents, because you know, you've got to know someone
pretty well to have the.

Speaker 3 (14:34):
Discussion we're about to have.

Speaker 4 (14:36):
So I actually don't know the layer of the land
on it, because to me, any parent would be mortified
by it and look to be fair later. And when
I sit down with any parents and explain it to them,
they are absolutely mortified, and they're firing a letter off
to the principle to pull their child out. It's that bad.

(14:58):
So but they don't know, and the board don't know.
I met with the board chairman, lovely guy lawyer director,
and he he's not down into the weeds of what's
taught in the school. He's busy worrying about buildings and
fundraising and employment and the big strategic issues of the school,

(15:19):
like he should so he wasn't aware of what was
being taught, and he's got children at the school what
was being taught in sex education. But when I explained
it to him, he didn't take it upon himself to
do anything about it. So I resolved that the board
was a representative of parents and that if I could

(15:39):
have ten minutes in front of them.

Speaker 3 (15:42):
And highlight that a.

Speaker 4 (15:44):
This was something that they had to sign up to
be that there was something they had to consult with
parents over and see here's a little bit of the
content that you have supposedly agreed to that I would
get an instant reaction. The principal and the chair were

(16:04):
very anxious that I not present to the board, and
so it took me nine months to finally get ten minutes.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Why do you think that they didn't want you to
make a presentation.

Speaker 4 (16:18):
Because I believe the board would have said, we're what
we're doing this?

Speaker 3 (16:26):
I think the board would be alarmed.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
Would you Is there a chance you might be surprised
that they're not?

Speaker 3 (16:33):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (16:34):
I thought about that too, and that always perplexes me
that we have gone so far down to destroying our
children's innocence that a parent wouldn't care that a male

(16:56):
young teacher is standing in front of a class of
thirteen year old boys and girls and teaching them how
to do anal sex and that's something you know, that's
in the curriculum that's approved. The principle said to me
that the particular teacher, mister King, wasn't showing that video,

(17:21):
But that to me wasn't the point, because the board
had approved that video to be shown.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
If the board itself had approved the video, then obviously
they know what's going on.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
No, they have no clue.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
They have, But how would they have no clue if
they if they know that that's what he You know, they.

Speaker 3 (17:39):
It's never been through the board.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
You mean to say they've ticked it off without without any.

Speaker 4 (17:45):
I would say they've never even ticked it. That's the
extraordinary thing of what's happening in every score.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
All right, let's go to the You you turned up
to make this commentary, Yes to the board.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (17:59):
And what happened, Well, the way it went was Penny Marie,
who's a lovely lady. A couple of years ago, she
presented to her board on the same subject and she
recorded herself and it went viral because literally parents said,

(18:19):
oh my goodness, I had no idea and send it.

Speaker 3 (18:22):
Out of their friends on Facebook and stuff.

Speaker 4 (18:25):
And so I resolved that if I was going to
get ten minutes in front of the board, I should
record it because that would give me an opportunity to
explain to parents this is what's happening, and doing it
in front of the board would sort of give it
that impture of authority. And so I wanted to likewise

(18:47):
record my ten minute presentation. I knew I could because
a school board is a meeting in public. It's not
a public meeting called in a hall, but it's a
meeting in public that anyone can attend. You don't get
speaking rights, you have to seek those. But I had
thought speaking rights and had them. And so literally five

(19:11):
hundred parents could turn up to a board meeting, the
media can turn up and record it because it's a
meeting in public, that.

Speaker 3 (19:21):
It's a public enterprise.

Speaker 4 (19:23):
And to double check that I was on good ground,
I emailed what is called the New Zealand school Board
of Trustees Association, and they are an outfit that advised
school boards on governance. So they are the experts of
interpreting the legislation and the responsibilities of a school board.

(19:47):
And they assured me that I had every right to
record my presentation, but they said it would be a
courtesy to.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
Let the school know.

Speaker 4 (19:57):
So I emailed the school the week before I was
to turn up that I would be recording my presentation,
and I told that to the principal and to the chair.
On the day that I was to present, I got
an email from the lovely principle saying that I wouldn't
be recording it, and I emailed him back and said

(20:18):
I would be, and that's.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
Where it sort of hung. Then I got an email.

Speaker 4 (20:23):
Just as I was leaving actually to go into the meeting,
I got an email from the board cheer, citing a
section of the Act that the board had board powers,
saying that he was exercising these board powers to prevent
me from recording it, and also that he was claiming

(20:43):
that the board members had privacy rights and that my
recording myself would interfere with their privacy. I quickly rang
the school Board of Trustees and look, I don't want
to get the guide into trouble. But he almost sell
off his cheer laughing. Because it was this idea that

(21:03):
you could use the legislation to prevent having a public meeting,
and the idea that you are an officer on a
crown entity, which is what a school is, and claimed privacy,
so you in a meeting in public, you can't be
said that you were there. So I knew I was

(21:24):
absolutely right. So I turned up to the meeting. The
principal came running out and he said that you're recording it.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
I said, of course I am. I told you I was.

Speaker 4 (21:32):
He said, well, it's against the tea hunger of the school,
the tea hunger, and that was another triggering thing for
me because I said, look, you can't just make out
rules and I'm going to record it. So he scuttled
back into the meeting, and then the chair came out
and he was explaining to me that that had legal
advice and I wasn't to record and they were in

(21:53):
their rights, and I said, I'm going to record and
i'll record you throwing me out if you want. Then
they decided that the issue was he was a sixteen
year old student representative on the board. They wouldn't want
me to be discussing sex education in front of her.
Of course, the irony that I was talking about what

(22:13):
they were teaching a thirty year old. Anyway, they wouldn't
let me record, and I said, well, I'd like to
sit in on the meeting anyway, because I didn't want
to go away with my tail between my legs. And
so I went into the meeting and I sat there
and it was literally just around a table.

Speaker 3 (22:35):
There was no room for members of the public.

Speaker 4 (22:37):
But I sat there for an hour and a half
and listened to it, and halfway through they broke and
had pizza, and I introduced myself as best I could
to the board who were It was very awkward for
me being there because they knew that I had been
denied my opportunity to speak.

Speaker 3 (22:55):
And then I went outside and.

Speaker 4 (22:59):
Explained what had happened in the video, and then I
gave my ten minute presentation to video.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
And I have to say, from my point.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
Of view, it's been an incredible success because it's gone
around New Zealand at a great pace of knots. And
I'm still astonished at how many parents are coming up
to me at the school and saying they saw my
video and how great it was and thanking me for it.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
But where does it go for them? Where does it
go from there.

Speaker 4 (23:28):
I will stand for the board and stop this stuff
being taught in our schools.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
Can one person do that? Of course, when is the
next election?

Speaker 3 (23:39):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (23:39):
I haven't checked that, but it's this year. But we
can't stop on this. This is a hill that we
all have to die on because we have a responsibility
late and don't we.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
You and I know this to the next generation.

Speaker 4 (23:54):
And this is much deeper than just an appropriate messaging
to kids to use the phrase that they might do.
This is actually the destruction of a generation that's occurring.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
And I don't say that lightheartedly.

Speaker 4 (24:14):
This is a very great evil that is being inflicted
on our children by, to all intents and purposes, very
well meaning people in our schools. The ball is very
well meaning. They do their best, They do a great job.
The teachers are all very well meaning and do a

(24:34):
great job. The school does a great job. But what
is going on within our schools is they've been hijacked,
and they've been hijacked in a number of areas, and
one of them is sex education. And it's cutting right
into what a child believes and their sense of self, and.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
It just expand on that sense of self aspect for us.

Speaker 4 (25:02):
Well, this is a funny one. There's a lovely lady
called Elizabeth Cave who explained this to me, and she
drew on the work of a practicing psychologist, Michael Stosney,
and let me do it talking about you and me
and what it was like when we grew up in school. Now,

(25:24):
when we grew up in school, we had a great
sense of who we were because we built on a pyramid.
Didn't know this at the time, It just happened. And
this is what Michael Stolsney explains. The bottom of the
pyramid is a concept of humanity. So we grew up

(25:44):
in a world where we were connected with every other
human in the world. We had our humanity, we had
our care for one another. We had on top of
that our character. And when I look back at my
upbringing and your upbringing, character was number one that was

(26:04):
extraordinarily taught to us by scout masters, our parents, uncles,
the rugby coach, the school, so much so that you
wouldn't snitch because that was bad character. And this will

(26:26):
horrify younger listeners. But if you were getting bullied, you
would likely be told go and deal to the bully,
stand up for yourself character. On top of that, we
were given a sense of self with our beliefs and
our ideology. And in my case, I wasn't a Christian

(26:49):
then I didn't believe in the supernatural or the divine,
but I respected christian a thought. But I lived in
a Christian world, and so my beliefs were the universal values,
which I thought were universal values of forgiveness, of grace,

(27:11):
of loving your neighbor, of all those things, of a
moral uprightness, of being prepared to lay down your life
to protect a woman and a child, to be a knight,
and shining armor, to open the door, to give your
seat up, found your self sacrifice for others. That was

(27:31):
what I believed. I had a great sense of history.
It was instilled in me like all of us. We
were member of the Commonwealth, and we had built this
Westminster system, our Fourbears, where we had free speech, speech
and rights. We had abolished slavery, we had abolished serfdom.

Speaker 3 (27:53):
Jack was every bit as good.

Speaker 4 (27:55):
As his master, and here in New Zealand we had
perfected it.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
That's what we believed.

Speaker 4 (28:02):
On top of that, that's what we believed growing up,
that we had we loved Western civilization, and here in
New Zealand it was its pinnacle because we got we
didn't have the class system. On top of that, we
were taught talents and skills and we rated them. If
you were talented and you were skillful, you were a

(28:23):
good person. And if you applied them to the benefit
of others, that was a good thing. And at the
very top of that pyramid, hardly mattering at all was
our race and ethnicity and our sex and what we
now call gender. And they were insignificant to us.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
How could they be insignificant to you?

Speaker 4 (28:48):
Because we believed and were taught to believe in the
ideal that you were to be blind to race, that
you were to value another person first of all because
they were another human being, but secondly by their character
and their skill, their talents, and that applied to men

(29:11):
and to women. Men and women were different, but they
had value because they were human beings and a woman
that was good at things would be admired just like
a man would be. But we didn't value them by
their sex, the agenda, or their race. That was irrelevant,

(29:34):
totally irrelevant.

Speaker 2 (29:35):
So what age are we talking now? For you?

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (29:39):
Primary school, in high school, in the nineteen sixties.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Wasn't long before that, for instance, that and I'm thinking
of one case in particular that I'm very familiar with
of a woman who grew up in London and was
highly intelligent and set a couple of records for female students.

(30:03):
But the best job they could get that I'm talking
literally for women, the best job they could get was
school teaching or working in an office as an assistant,
something along those lines. And if they got pregnant, they
had to stop working. So there wasn't there was plenty

(30:26):
of room for improvement in the situation and the balance
back then, don't you think.

Speaker 4 (30:33):
Of course, but we make a mistake if we see
things that are wrong that we can put right versus
condemning everything. And that was the mistake I made. So
you see injustices and you see things that are troubling
and you say, oh, that's so terrible, let's throw it out.

(30:53):
For instance, you say, how terrible is it that this
poor woman got pregnant and now it was poverty stricken,
and you say, well, let's just you know, give me
a financial support through the government fix that problem. You
see a woman being beaten in an abusive relationship.

Speaker 3 (31:16):
And no easy way out of being married.

Speaker 4 (31:18):
And you say, well, let's make for no fault divorce
and financial support. And what you don't realize is you're
throwing them, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So we literally got rid of marriage and the family
because of those issues. We got rid of respectful woman

(31:42):
because we didn't think it was right that a woman
should be confined to particular jobs. Whereas what we could
have done is through a generosity of spirit and through
being better people ourselves, we could have helped those ladies,
and many people did, and we could have in our

(32:03):
own lives not discriminated against women. But the move was
to take those instances and literally to destroy marriage, the family,
and womanhood, and we did it extremely successfully. So I'm
not going to defend the institutions that we've had for

(32:25):
thousands of years against particular instances of injustice, because you can't.
But what you can say about those individual instances and justice,
I can do something myself to ameliorate that and to

(32:45):
help that and to fix that, which is actually the
Christian thing to do. But you'd make a terrible mistake
to undermine thousands of years of tradition because of that.
Funny enough, I think that's been always the argument of
what you and I might call the progressive left, where

(33:06):
they pick on a single, single instance and use that
to turn everything over. You know, in fact it is
it's the emodus operandi. So oh, we've got a terrible
problem of child abuse, so let's get rid of smacking.
And that's what happened, And so yes, I agree with you.

(33:28):
It was terrible.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
It was particularly bad when young.

Speaker 4 (33:32):
Women couldn't go to university, or young women would go
to university qualify as great astronomers but couldn't work in
obsur tree even though they were far better than the mean.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
At times, it actually it actually makes you laugh in
what regard to think about that you think about this
is the effect that has on me. You just mentioned
the woman who couldn't work in an observatory, and I
don't know which case you're talking about, but I certainly
I certainly recall one in particular, and the fact that

(34:06):
a woman couldn't work in an environment like that, albeit
that she was highly qualified, was insane. And if it's insane,
then it's laughable. It's very risible, certainly. I mean, it's
just ridiculous, is it?

Speaker 4 (34:25):
Yes, it's a funny thing, you know, because I'm not
so sure you're right. Well, let me have another shot
at it. It is ridiculous now, yes, yes, Now that
that opens up the argument that you can't judge today
on one hundred years ago. No, of course, and that's

(34:50):
the way that it was then, and possibly in time
to come, some of the stuff that goes down these
days will be treated in exactly the same way. I
find it interesting because part of I've realized that that
we've lost respect for woman, so young men, not all

(35:12):
and maybe not typically, but there's a disrespect of woman.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
And it's part of this failure to do.

Speaker 4 (35:21):
This identity because just to finish that in a sentence,
whereas what was happening to us, our humanity, our character,
our belief systems, and our talents and our skills were
being worked on when you attend school. Now it's all
about race and gender. That's what matters, and it's fluid,

(35:46):
and so our kids aren't being taught character and humanity,
and not particularly being talented or skilled.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Let me refer you to something that is present in time,
and I'm talking about wokeness, which led to all sorts
of things, THEI being one. Yes, And it came out
of America, and it's spread fairly rapidly through the world,
or through the Western world anyway. Now it's changed, it's

(36:19):
been made illegal certainly in government departments, et cetera. And
it's spreading pretty much like wildfire through big organizations in
the States. Now the question is, are we yet seeing
it here the same as white nonsense spread around the
world and came here settled. Does it mean that the
follow on from the Trump action will do the same,

(36:43):
and so it will spread and settle here and will
be done with it? And I want to suggest to
you that, well, let me refer you to two headlines.
Understanding the backlash against corporate DEI and how to move
forward is one, but these are two American pieces. Elite
holdouts will keep wokeness alive. And I could quote you

(37:05):
some of it, but I won't because I think they
speak for themselves. And then you get a New Zealand
headline Corporate New Zealand is doubling down on diversity, equity
and inclusion. Global Women's new CEO says, I read that
only this morning, and she justifies the whole thing and
says that the companies that she deals with and her

(37:27):
organization deals with, and she's talking about top companies from
pricewaterhouse Coopers and down. Like I said, they're doubling down.
And she anticipates that we will we will continue to
stand independently in the world if necessary. But what do
you say?

Speaker 4 (37:44):
I noticed it was a woman, and I mean this genuinely,
And this goes back to distinct roles and differences because
men would never stand for it. Men are inherently competitive
and tough and are not knowing for their known for
their emotions. But the men were gotten rid of early

(38:06):
on and feminized and so in the corporates and in
these leadership positions, it's woman and that the men you
met aren't men like we knew as youngsters growing up,
because the men that you and I growing up wouldn't
stand for it.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
Will it end? I don't know.

Speaker 4 (38:29):
I have a great regret that I went on your
show and you asked me about Trump. It might be
not the last episode, but the one before that we did,
and you pulled me up quite rightly because you asked
me what I thought of Trump, and I said, well,
I think I said he's not sort of someone that

(38:49):
I'd particularly.

Speaker 3 (38:50):
Like to have dinner with.

Speaker 4 (38:51):
But you know, I support him, And you said, come on,
it's either in or out, and I said, I'm totally in,
but I had been socialized not to say I'm one
hundred percent Trump when we went into the selection in
the United States of America. I regard it Trump winning
as Western civilization hanging in the balance. I regard his

(39:14):
success of his agenda and as team of who I
call pirates or revolutionaries that Western civilization depends upon them
being successful. If they're successful, then it will sweep through
New Zealand. Wokeness will die if they're not successful. I

(39:34):
fear for the Western civilization because what is under attack
here with wokeness is actually Western civilization. It's all the
values and the moras and the traditions. And this actually
relates to what we're discussing because DEI and Will Wokeness
are far more corrosive than anyone appreciates.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
And let me pick on a New Zealand example.

Speaker 4 (39:58):
We had a navy ship run aground and it's captain
happened to be Fema. You and I would both agree
that there could well be a very capable a woman
captain of a ship, and you and I would both
agree that they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to compete
for that role. Would you agree with that? I would

(40:18):
you and I, I think would also agree that it's
a great problem when you make a fan fear about
a person getting the job because she is a woman
or because she is Mary. And that's what happened here.
Now you go online and they're arguing about was this

(40:40):
diversity and inclusiveness that made this boat go on the
water because you just had someone who was incompetent. And
I say, that's not the point. Obviously she was incompetent
because the ship that she was in command of ran aground.
That's the very definition of being incompetent. But here is
a more telling thing. An organization can only be about performance.

(41:04):
If you're talking about the Navy, it's its ability to
do the job of a navy. If from the very top,
from the Minister of Defense to the Chief of Defense down,
your virtue signaling, your wokeness, are saying, oh, look we've
got a woman, we've got this, we've got.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
That, look at us, look at us.

Speaker 4 (41:26):
The morale and the performance right through their organization collapses.
And that's what's happened an organization across New Zealand and
across the world, and it is actually what is being signaled.
We no longer say, oh, we've got the best navy

(41:47):
because they achieved this. Now we've got the best navy
because we have a woman captain. That is crazy. Later,
the same thing has happened in corporate New Zealand. We
used to evaluate companies by whether they survived.

Speaker 3 (42:03):
And made a profit.

Speaker 4 (42:04):
Now we're looking at companies and literally it's do they
have the rainbow tick? Are they recycling? Do they have
inclusive policies for staff and profit? And survivability are neither
here nor there. The people running the companies love this

(42:24):
because there's nothing better than having more than one objective
to shoot for, because you can never fails. Our profits
are down a bit this year, Sam oh, Yes, but
I appointed three lesbians as managers, right, And these multiple.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
Goals have.

Speaker 4 (42:43):
Shielded the corporates from accountability. And of course at the
same time, we have regulated these industries so much that
there can't be a takeover. And of course it's the
same thing in our instance of our navy and our
air Force and our Army because I love it in

(43:05):
Trump's America because the issue for their military now is lethality.
How good are they killing? We don't evaluate our navy
by how good they are blowing other ships out of
the water.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
Well, do we have any ships that are capable of
doing it?

Speaker 4 (43:20):
No, we can't. We don't have a ship that's capable
of surveying a reef. And they attempted to survey a
reef and they sunk it. And that's because put identity
and irrelevancies over and above performance, and you know all
of this matters. I take young kids to a cadets

(43:43):
and one boy is desperate to be in the Air
Force and he's fourteen.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Great kid, What are his chances?

Speaker 4 (43:51):
He's worked out thy zero because he can't get a
scholarship because you'd need to be a marry or woman.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it. Are you
telling us that he's this kid? This boy is not
fit for purpose for applying for a scholarship. Correct, not
that he could apply, but he knows he wouldn't get it.
That he can't apply, He doesn't qualify for application.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
Is it? They're an unavailable to him?

Speaker 2 (44:25):
Well, based on what you've told us, I'm finding I'm
finding a need to suppress anger.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
Oh it's very dark.

Speaker 4 (44:32):
And of course the thing of this is to get
upstream of it, so not to be arguing down, you know,
at the bottom of it all, which is what I've
always done, but to get upstream to where the starts.
And if you get upstream, I think you see that
there are not one hundred problems or a thousand problems,

(44:53):
or a million problems that are overwhelming.

Speaker 3 (44:55):
But there's one.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
I knew you were going to say that. Now, are
you talking about an individual?

Speaker 4 (45:01):
I am, but you don't necessarily need to believe in
the supernatural to see it. I am talking about Jesus,
but talking also about the Juda Christian ethic, because I
could see the Judeo Christian ethic and its value before
I accepted the divine and the supernatural.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
So I knew that everything.

Speaker 4 (45:20):
That I enjoyed in society was a consequence of the
Juja Christian ethic. That gave us science, It gave us freedom,
it gave us civilization, it gave us rationality, It gave
us democracy, and not easily. It had to be hard,
for slavery didn't disappear when Jesus went to heaven. It

(45:46):
took hundreds thousands of years, but we worked away in it,
and so I do believe it's a basis of our
Judeo Christian ethic. I don't know quite how you hold
on to a Judaeo Christian ethic without a belief in Jesus.

Speaker 2 (46:02):
Well, let me, can I just point something out to
you though, Yes, you see you're talking the deo Christian ethic. Yes,
but Jesus didn't figure in the Judaeo part.

Speaker 3 (46:16):
Well, he did not as.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
Far as Judaism, and that's what what you're talking about
Judaism is concerned.

Speaker 4 (46:27):
No, but the Old Testament recognized that the Messiah was coming.
And what surprised everyone and confused them was they expected
the Messire to be like King David and to rescue
the Jews and defeat the Romans. And this Messiah turned
out and he was the antithesis of what you would expect.

(46:50):
Rather than being a great king raising an army and
saying fight, he wrote into Jerusalem on a donkey and
died alongside a common criminal or criminals. So yes, they
didn't recognize them as the Messiah. Only Christians did and
we do.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
Was there such a thing as Christians? Then no? So
how do we then attach that to the approach you're taking.

Speaker 4 (47:16):
Well, I'm not a theological expert later, but I'll do
my best. I've been a Christian for only a year
a little over, so it's very new to me. But
it seems to me that with the disciples and the
word being spread, and what an amazing word it was,

(47:37):
because the word was these Christians are very strange. We
throw our babies out to die when we don't want them,
and these Christians pause, they are run around and gather
them up and care for them. These Christians aren't impressed
by power and don't fear death. That's amazing. And it
spread to New Zealand. So missionaries on their own with

(48:00):
married guides would travel from tribe to tribe, tuning up
at a tribe, not knowing whether they would live or die,
and they'd walk in there and preach the word and
the slaves would be released. And these slaves would return
to their tribe and they'd say, what happened to you?
We thought you would gone, And they'd say, the strangest

(48:21):
thing happened. And so Mary weren't colonized, they were Christianized,
and so this was a very powerful message. And it's
an amazing message because it means building on the Old Testament,
which is the point that the Judeo point, the Judeo

(48:43):
Christian point is that you and I later and are
in the image of God. Were fallen, but we're in
the image of God and have to be respected.

Speaker 3 (48:50):
Of such.

Speaker 4 (48:50):
You can't treat marriage badly. Even though they in those
days they could be regarded as perimeter, they were still
made in the image of God. What are amazing message
that was to turn up to New Zealand with If
the Romans had turned up they would have just wiped
them out or taken them as Slavesians wouldn't do that,
and so it was a very powerful message. Also, if

(49:12):
you're a Christian again in the juj Christian heritage, the
world is rational, there's an order to it because it's
been made, and we have been with that passive God's
breath in our bodies. We have been given a mind
to uncover that order and to wonder at it. And

(49:32):
so the scientists were always Christian. There were great scientists
and other religions, of course, but nothing right Western science.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
If if we go back to the part where you
started talking about Mari and preachers going to persuade them
that their lifestyle wasn't the best. Yes, how do you
think you'd go making a presentation like that to the
Mari party.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
Fascinating, isn't it?

Speaker 4 (50:00):
Because you wouldn't succeed And you wouldn't have succeeded with
me three years ago.

Speaker 2 (50:05):
Would that stop you if you had the opportunity.

Speaker 4 (50:09):
No, No, because we all always must try. And just
because you've hit a head against a wall and it's
never fallen over doesn't mean the next time you have.

Speaker 3 (50:20):
Your head on it won't. And so yes, you do.

Speaker 4 (50:24):
But what we have to understand is the value of
freedom and where that comes from, and the limits of
it and what it requires of us. And so the
married party and the individuals and the married party, all
of us, we have all benefited enormously through freedom, through democracy,

(50:48):
through living in the civilized world, through the leaders of
marriedom that realized the future that they could have for
their people, and by the early missionaries and political leaders
of New Zealand coming together and seeing beyond the egos

(51:09):
and the rankles and the disputes of today to where
we could be and in a funny way, when you
look at a white tangy day, you and McQueen pointed.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
This out to me.

Speaker 4 (51:24):
He's written a wonderful book called One Son in the Sky. Yes,
and he stood against me and epsom lovely, lovely man,
and we were chatting about white tangy day and he said,
there was an interesting moment in the morning when a
young woman got up and spoke and said that she

(51:48):
had been an alcoholic, a drug addict, homeless, used and
abused by everyone, and then she'd found Jesus and realized
he cared for her and that she had a friend.
She was special, made in the image of God, and
it saved her. And you and said you looked around
the ground and there wasn't a dry eye. Members of

(52:11):
the married party, we're tearing up. Members of the National Party,
we're tearing up. Members of the audience were tearing up.
And you realize with her speechs she's reaching into our
common humanity and what brought us together originally as people,

(52:33):
taking away this violent colonialist story to the story of love.
And so when you speak to the married party, yes,
I would try that. I don't think it would necessarily
work first time, but I'd persevere if I had the
opportunity to, if they would listen, They're not throw me
out because it's the most important message of them all,

(52:57):
and I think that's the message that will get us
back our huge humanity.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Let me ask you this, Just give me a brief
answer to it. Since you and you've undoubtedly talked about
this before in other places, I was unaware of the
fact that you that you became a Christian a year ago.
How much difference is it made to your daily life?
Just a short answer.

Speaker 4 (53:22):
I don't recognize myself. Two things. One is before it's
a Christian. My lovely children, who are loved and adored,
were clever animals. My wife and I were bound by
an agreement, not something sacred. I regard my children as
now a gift of God to be cherished, and my

(53:43):
marriage is sacred. I never saw that before. How big
a changes that?

Speaker 2 (53:50):
So let's say you're living at at the moment your
attitude is ten out of ten? What was it before?

Speaker 3 (53:59):
One?

Speaker 2 (54:00):
No, it couldn't be that low, surely, Yes, Okay, now this.

Speaker 3 (54:05):
Is the I mean that.

Speaker 4 (54:06):
I mean that very very because before you don't have
meaning or purpose. I carried a lot of anger because
I hadn't learned to forgive. I carried a lot of
why didn't this happen to me? Rather than counting my blessings?

(54:28):
But most importantly, I had never learned to forgive myself
for my shortcomings. So when I look back and say
I was a one, I guess I tend to go
to the extremes.

Speaker 3 (54:40):
I'm never a five, right, it's one or ten.

Speaker 4 (54:44):
A little thing that we do, and we started early on,
was to say grace at dinner. That transformed our family
life because in modern times, how often do we stop
to count our blessings? And our little kids stop and
learned to count their blessings. It's not a thing we do,

(55:05):
so yes, it's made a huge difference.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
Later, it's at this point. If this was radio, I'd
say we need to take a break. Yeah, but I can't.
Well I could, actually, I suppose, but it would be
inserted at a later time. So let me go back
to where we were talking about wocism and give me
your thoughts on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and

(55:31):
where it was at until a couple of days ago.
And there's no guarantee that it's going to change all
that much, but certainly it was struggling with some serious issues.
In my humble opinion, it was.

Speaker 4 (55:45):
Terrible, and we went through a hard time with Don
Bresci's governor Reserve Bank, because we worked out what a
reserve bank was for. It was for maintaining the value
of our currency and for overseeing the prudential administration of
our banking system that their banks just didn't collect nelly,

(56:09):
that our money was safe and that a dollar today
would be worth a dollar tomorrow. And Don Grash achieved that.
We went through a great deal of pain bringing inflation
under control, and Adrian or came along with Grant Robertson
and destroyed it. The Reserve Bank started worshiping marry spiritual gods.

(56:31):
I'd be upset if they started worshiping God, because that's
not the bank's role. That's the role of a church,
and you go there yourself in your own time. But
we had a public institution, all of them, every government
department now was the same where they literally worship pagan gods.
It's not even whether you agree or a believer in

(56:54):
these pagan gods, like you can believe rall if you want,
but it shouldn't be the basis of you working at
the Reserve Bank. And how far off track has a
bank become if it's worshiping pagan gods as part of
its ethos?

Speaker 2 (57:13):
All right, so what does the Reserve Bank need to
do to get this country to do it's bit to
get this country back where it should be.

Speaker 4 (57:23):
Well, funnily enough, what I do is I know Don Brash,
and he's still healthy and hardy. I'll actually i'd put
Don Brash in charge as governor. I've never spoken to
him about this, but I would.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
Funny enough, when you were just saying that a moment ago,
I thought, I wonder if he would be interested.

Speaker 4 (57:42):
But well, I'm sure he would because he's a great patriot.
But the thing is, nothing would signal more the change
than putting him in charge, and anyone else coming in
he won't be thinking, oh yeah, he'll try and reverse this.

Speaker 3 (58:00):
But with Don Bresh it would happen that moment. The
signal would be clear.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
Are you suggesting there's a little Trump is in there? Yes?
I don't know that this country could cope with that.

Speaker 4 (58:14):
No, I don't know if we could either, And I
certainly do know that Chris Laxon in the National Party couldn't.
But you asked me what the solution was, and it
is actually that sort of signal, wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (58:26):
Is there anybody else that would fall into a similar
category for you.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
As for Reserve Bank governor?

Speaker 4 (58:32):
Yeah, oh, I think Bill English someone like that, But
you know, I think it would be a bit more middling,
whereas I think Don Brash would be hardcore and he
knows the ropes. I think he's he's a powerful symbol
as not a ditz or a compromiser on this issue.

(58:53):
Interesting and Bill English is a great man, but he's
been a politician for a long time and has had
to sort of have everything in the little balls and
the balance, if you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
Look, let's put let's put your let's put your political
hat on or keep it on. Ah, And you mentioned
the Nats and and the mister Luxeon. There's no question
about it. There is a growing cry for his replacement. Well,
I'm not saying I'm not I have no idea of numbers.
I'm not saying that everybody's in favor of that, but

(59:31):
there is a growing movement to talk him out yes,
would that be good or bad? And if it's good,
tell me who there is who could do a better job.

Speaker 4 (59:42):
It's very important he leave because from the moment he
assumed the leadership of the National Party, he displayed no
backbone or principle and he actually start stands in mark
contrast to build English in this respect, because Chris Lackson
couldn't run further away from his Christian belief than he did.

(01:00:03):
Funny enough, at that time, I wasn't a Christian, but
it's still shocked because Bill.

Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
English was a Catholic.

Speaker 4 (01:00:11):
Is a Catholic, and he said he was a Catholic,
and he stood by it, and he said this is
how I'll vote. I'm a Catholic, my beliefs, So you
knew he had bottom lines. He also said, I understand
I'm in a caucus and I'm in a parliament and I.

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
Don't get to dictate what happens.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
But I looked at Chris Luckson Christopher Luxon when he
came and as leader, and he was absolutely nowhere men,
and I thought, how can you possibly be a leader
if you don't stand for anything. Well, he became Prime
Minister and he still doesn't stand for anything wokeness, no

(01:00:58):
getting back the national anthem?

Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
H does he stand for that?

Speaker 4 (01:01:05):
That's quite funny now that I get the joke's And
in fact it's a little bit worse because he's gone
out of his way to outwoke just into a turn.
And so we have this remarkable situation.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
That yes, because because it's a it's a pretty big chore.

Speaker 4 (01:01:29):
I know. We had a example of a older teacher
brought back into service teaching at a pre school and
she writes off to the Prime Minister very alarmed. She said,

(01:01:51):
I can't believe it. There are four and five year
olds and one is youngest three and a half at
this preschool questioning their sexuality and wanting to be described
as who them's and they they thems.

Speaker 3 (01:02:08):
And she wrote that to Christopher Laxa.

Speaker 4 (01:02:10):
Now, if if Cinda Adurn had got that letter, she
would think, whoa, this is a problem, and she'd write
back and she'd say, I'm having my team from the
Ministry of Education investigate this.

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
Or Bilnish would get that.

Speaker 4 (01:02:31):
Email and he'd write back and say that's unacceptable.

Speaker 3 (01:02:34):
It'll stop. Christopher Luxon had.

Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
His senior Correspondence secretary right back explaining that she should
understand that Christopher Luxon is one hundred celebrating and supporting
our lgb t QTI plus community supports and celebrates it

(01:03:04):
and celebrates diversity.

Speaker 3 (01:03:06):
End of email.

Speaker 4 (01:03:07):
That's in the face of three four and five year
olds being confused by the appearance and presumably maybe their
principal as to whether the boys or girls or something else.

Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
Did you see that letter? Yes, you saw the letter
that the secretary wrote.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
Yes, I wrote a column on it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:32):
Where was that published?

Speaker 4 (01:03:34):
Bess at Brash and Hide And I.

Speaker 2 (01:03:38):
Said, are you still writing for them?

Speaker 3 (01:03:41):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
I said, I'm embarrassed that I didn't know that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
No, not at all.

Speaker 4 (01:03:46):
And I said, this is the end of his prime ministership,
because no prime minister conservative otherwise.

Speaker 3 (01:03:53):
Can survive that.

Speaker 4 (01:03:54):
He's never repudiated it. You could say, oh, look that
was a staff member, but you'd quickly repudiate and say
it was a mistake.

Speaker 3 (01:04:01):
He has it because he doesn't want to upset quote
the Rainbow community. Well, this is a great thing. This
is the time. I'm going to interrupt you.

Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
Later. It's very rude of me, but I was interrupting you.
But actually, first of all, it's.

Speaker 4 (01:04:14):
A very important point about this, and I love it
and you and I know this that we need to
remind ourselves wokersm eats itself and it can't stop eating
itself because you can never be woke enough. And the
reason that these organizations goes so off course because they

(01:04:39):
allow a chink. You say, oh, we've got a gay
guy who's got gay ideas.

Speaker 3 (01:04:45):
Oh well, you know, and he's saying, oh, we need
to get a rainbow tick.

Speaker 4 (01:04:49):
You get a rainbow tick, and every year you'll be
doing more and more rainbowing.

Speaker 3 (01:04:55):
It will never be enough.

Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
And the extremists can't be given in too, because when
the extremists come along, they're fretting you with losing your
rainbow tick and public shame. And so you see, these
radical transactivists have turned off feminists, have turned off the

(01:05:19):
gay community, the traditional gay community, and so they can't
help but eat themselves because Christopher Laxin can't be woken
enough of them. Even having transgenderism implemented in this preschool.

Speaker 3 (01:05:36):
Is not over the top for him. Don't you find
that extraordinary?

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
I'm speechless, to be honest, And this.

Speaker 4 (01:05:44):
Is why, this is why what I'm talking about with
the school is so significant because it's easy to dismiss
these things as oh, well, you know, it's a bit
over the top, but no, this is a fund These
are fundamental attacks on who we are, what sort of

(01:06:06):
society we iran. But more importantly, the coming generation and
the generations to come after that we have a supreme
obligation to look after them and to nurture them, and
to provide for them. And if they are running around
a preschool confused about who they are, or having to

(01:06:28):
give up this seat because he's a Mary got problems.

Speaker 2 (01:06:32):
I've got to read you. I've got to read you something, please,
And it was not my intention to do it. I
was considering either doing this some probably after this interview
or discussion. I want to read this a couple of
short paragraphs to you. The right should be cautious. The
right should be cautious, though, as political and social battles

(01:06:56):
are rarely, if ever won for all time. Liberalism and
progressivism are two labels that required multiple rebrands across several
generations due to failing fortunes with the public, and yet
maintained enough elite support. I'm going to repeat that, and

(01:07:16):
yet maintained enough elite support to return just as powerfully
as before. Those of us on the right understand that
what's now known as wokeness is not new or a
heretical deviation. Rather, it is the necessary outgrowth of the

(01:07:36):
left's assumptions and assertions about the world, inseparable from its
conception of progress. Most ordinary Americans, though, are busy with
their lives and haven't traced the left's radicalism as it
lurched from college campuses in the nineteen seventies into the
mainstream of elite sorry of elite consensus. Given enough time

(01:07:59):
and distance, a period of revisionism always arrives and and
the battle must be taken up. So history repeats itself,
but it's directed to the commentary of courses as directed
totally against what is currently being eliminated. And you've only

(01:08:21):
got a look at Marxism really to get a good
idea on that. Yes, I.

Speaker 4 (01:08:29):
Attribute Wokism to laziness because knowledge is very hard to acquire,
and I was fortunate enough to study science and I
found it extremely hard, and to pass an exam was
quite something. Workism explains the whole world to you in

(01:08:52):
an easy way, because he's just an oppressor and a
victim and a power imbalance, and it appeals to soft minds,
and of course you don't even have to debate or argue, because.

Speaker 3 (01:09:06):
There's no such thing as true just power.

Speaker 4 (01:09:10):
And so I think our university's got lazy, and you
can see that by the nonsense that they write, and
the students have got lazy, and the politicians have got lazy.

Speaker 3 (01:09:19):
In the media got lazy.

Speaker 4 (01:09:23):
I don't agree with the thesis that you read out
because it's the idea that we have to continually have
this battle. And that's not my makeup. My makeup is
the elimination of it. It's total destruction of the ideas
and the reason that's simple.

Speaker 2 (01:09:41):
But Rodney, that's really what this is about. Yes, the destruction,
but it won't be destroyed. That's the point. It will
still survive in enough quarters to make a comeback as
the world turns.

Speaker 4 (01:09:57):
I wonder, I wonder if you, for example, imagine if
there was no funding. This is what's going to be
interesting Trump, because what we thought were organic protests were
funded by taxpayers.

Speaker 3 (01:10:18):
The black lives matter to far.

Speaker 4 (01:10:22):
And if you look at wokism here in New Zealand,
none of it's voluntary it's all being paid for by
you and me and our listeners. Dry up the funding
if you can, if you can't make money explaining why

(01:10:43):
Marxism is a good idea or why Mary are oppressed.
If you're if you're doing that at a university and
you're funding drives up, what job do you do?

Speaker 3 (01:10:55):
Latent?

Speaker 4 (01:10:56):
Look across the world and realize that this is all
being funded by poor taxpayers who have been our gold
and to pay me money for healthcare and looking after
the poor and the aged, and that money has been

(01:11:16):
cleverly diverted by political interests in defunding the stuff. If
it wasn't funded, they wouldn't exist because you're not going
to go anywhere in life. You can't succeed in a
market economy on grievance, and so we can eliminate it.
But we actually have to be hard. And that's what

(01:11:39):
I love about Trump. It's hard. He's being hard, Elon
Musker being hard. What we love about World War two
was they were hard and they eliminated Nazism still around, yes,
but vestiges no power. I mean, so it is so

(01:12:00):
it is so destroyed that you use it as a
political epithet to describe Trump and his supporters people like
you and me. Likewise, the racist outlook of Japan and
its imperialism was destroyed. Now that is not destroying. That was,

(01:12:25):
you know, physically destroying a country. Both countries were destroyed
to eliminate an idea. I'm not suggesting that you know,
we both violence is not an answer, but surely, to
goodness latent, it's not beyond our wit to stop funding it.

(01:12:46):
And of course we realize in our own little way
this to party marry business that's government funded. Tax payer
money has funded that through all these government grants, to
the White period of trust and whatnot. One way or another,
you don't even have to assert criminality. Just look at

(01:13:07):
the money that's for Adam to this. Drive the money
out and see how long you survive in a market
economy protesting your grievance.

Speaker 2 (01:13:17):
I want to share something with you in conclusions, even
though there's plenty more we could talk about. This is
I quoted this headline earlier, understanding the backlash against corporate
DEI and how to move forward real world examples of
transformation because this is pro DEI. Consider the story of
the Cawlan Robertson a former alt right filmmaker in the

(01:13:41):
United Kingdom. For years, Robertson worked with extremist figures to
produce anti immigrants and anti Muslim content that garnered millions
of views online. Then, in twenty nineteen, Robinson saw media
coverage of Mosque shootings where fifty one people were killed
by a white supremacist. The tragedy rattled him. In Robertson's

(01:14:02):
own words, the event forced him to confront his assumptions
about white identity and how it can be involved in
violence and extremism. What began as an overwhelming sense of
disorientation turned into a period of deep reflection. Robertson eventually
rejected his old beliefs, began speaking out against extremism, and

(01:14:23):
co founded an organization to help others deradicalize. Similar learning
occurs on smaller scales in workplaces every day. For example,
a male manager who initially feels threatened by gendering equity
policies might over time come to recognize the barriers women
face at work and become an advocate for change. Or

(01:14:44):
a white employee who feels uncomfortable during discussions about racism
might come to see how privilege has shaped their experiences.
I just want to stay with this guy, Robertson, and
get your opinion about him, about him, because I've got

(01:15:04):
one definitive answer to him. But what's your response.

Speaker 4 (01:15:08):
Well, he's a racist, and the other example was a sexist.
So this guy was a racist, and he thought whites
were better than non whites, and then he had the
mosque shooting and he decided, wow, that was done by
a white person. Maybe non white people aren't so bad.

(01:15:29):
After all, we're also bad. The failure is the racism,
the idea that you identify yourself and your views and
your belief tribally skin color, And of course that's how

(01:15:51):
the author of the article has framed it, whereas the
true answer in both instances is that you're an individual.
You're not white or brown first, or even second, or
even third. You're an individual Jews, it's your behavior that

(01:16:11):
we're going to judge, not your ethnicity, not your group.
And yet this is so ingrained in us, in movies, books, schools, universities,
political discourse, that everything's getting framed in terms of race,

(01:16:32):
And that's his problem. Why couldn't he just stop being
a racist and see individuals?

Speaker 3 (01:16:42):
That to me is the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:16:43):
Rat, that's the problem that's going to be difficult to solve.

Speaker 4 (01:16:48):
My point because it's been inconculted everywhere.

Speaker 2 (01:16:52):
My point was that there was no mention whatsoever of
the violence from Islam all over the planet. Now all
of a sudden, all of a sudden, that's irrelevant and
white be damned.

Speaker 3 (01:17:10):
Yes, But the question is this does a Muslim per
se bother you?

Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
It's an interesting question, and I could give you an
answer of something an example sprang to mind immediately, but
I'm not going to. I'm not going to utilize it.
The answer is it depends on the individual.

Speaker 3 (01:17:28):
Absolutely, And that's your point and my point.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
And I didn't say that because of what you said.
It is the individual. If I see a mongrel mob
member walking toward me, you could ask me the same question. Yes,
it might be a mongrel mob member, but what else
can I tell about him? Yes, that's fair enough.

Speaker 4 (01:17:51):
Absolutely, I totally concur Now, we always fall into the
into it's not necessarily a trap because it can save
our lives of pattern recognition. So if I was walking
home on a dark night and I saw half a

(01:18:15):
dozen choir boys walking towards me, I'd feel safe if
I saw half a dozen Mongol My members walking towards me,
I'd think, oh, I think I might just stuck around
the corner here. And you'd say, well, that's a prejudice,
and I'd say, no, it's a pattern recognition, and I
would say, I'm not judging the individuals. I'm making a

(01:18:39):
patent decision to just play it safe, and we all
do that. Likewise, if I saw a young choir boy
walking into a church with a musical instrument case, I
would say, oh, yeah, he's going to play something for
the church. If I saw a guy in Islamic garb

(01:19:04):
walking in with a music case, I'd say, I need
to see what's in there, you know what I mean.
It's a complicated thing for people to realize that we
have an instinct to recognize patterns, and we have a
higher conscience to realize that we've also got to appreciate

(01:19:27):
the individuals what decides. And there are Mongol Mob former
Mongol Mob members who have proved exemplary and we should
never give up on them.

Speaker 2 (01:19:37):
So we didn't touch on a few things that I
wanted to. I want to ask you two or three questions.
I want you to give me a sentence and answer, Okay,
do your best anyway. Do you know who Antonio Guteris is?

Speaker 3 (01:19:53):
I do is the head of the UN?

Speaker 2 (01:19:56):
Do you think that New Zealand would be better off
pulling out of the UN totally?

Speaker 4 (01:20:02):
The UN is a corrupt organization that promotes war and
famine around the world and says no good purpose.

Speaker 2 (01:20:13):
So you think that we should pull out of the
World Health Organization totally?

Speaker 4 (01:20:18):
The World Health Organization has proven itself unfit for purpose
and almost revives on scaring people witness and coming up
with a solution to justify its existence.

Speaker 3 (01:20:31):
We should get out of both organizations.

Speaker 2 (01:20:33):
I don't know whether you're familiar with the central bank
digital currencies, but would you be in favor of the
central Bank of the country eliminating cash and everything is
done on a CBDC basis.

Speaker 4 (01:20:50):
No, because this will be a convenience sold to us
as a convenience and it will very quickly become a
method of control.

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Is it interesting that there are so many examples of
the convenience cell and yet people still don't get it.

Speaker 4 (01:21:08):
Convenience and or safety. Yeah, this will keep this will
keep you safe.

Speaker 2 (01:21:13):
Well, that's convenience too.

Speaker 4 (01:21:14):
Quite confused and everything every and I mean the left
or those or tyrants are fantastic at the language. They
don't have an argument, They've just got a great language.
So everything is sold to us as a sound bite,

(01:21:35):
endlessly repeated and literally there's been a few hundred sound
bites that have brought Western civilization to its nees. And
we on the right, by the way, or conservatives, always
feel the need to concede.

Speaker 2 (01:21:52):
Why is that short answer?

Speaker 4 (01:21:57):
Social standing, and we don't want to lose the argument.

Speaker 3 (01:22:03):
And I now.

Speaker 4 (01:22:06):
Admire those who lost the amen that stood firm. I've
got a great admiration now for Patricia Bartlett.

Speaker 3 (01:22:15):
Too late, yes, but I can still admire her.

Speaker 2 (01:22:20):
Can I tell you no? Of course I can. It's
my podcast m I'll tell you a little story about
Patricia Bartlett. I used to mock her in my Wellington days.
When I ended up in Auckland. Years later, she wrote
to me, and I had reached a point where I
had realized that there was much more to Patricia Bartlett

(01:22:43):
than a joke, and we wrote to each other electronically,
although she did write letters. A few times. She wrote
to me and I wrote back to her, and like you,
I had developed by that stage a regard for her
that had never entered my more juvenile mind.

Speaker 4 (01:23:06):
Quick story, and nine seventy five I turned up to
the University of Canterbury. Peter Dunn was the president of
the Canterbury Students Association, and in that first orientation week
I went to everything and never attended another thing. Patricia
Bartlett came along to the Niomass Theater and spoke, and

(01:23:27):
she explained how men having playboys beside the bed were
destroying their marriage and their family. The students hooted and
yelled at her and was throwing condoms at her, and
I sat there ashamed. I never agreed with her message

(01:23:52):
because I was in favor of free speech and playboys.

Speaker 3 (01:23:57):
What's the big problem?

Speaker 4 (01:23:58):
I watched this frail lady stand there with her message
against an audience that was one hundred percent against her
and egging each other on to abuse her. She never flinched.
At the time, I thought I'd disagree with her message.
But that's the bravest woman I've ever seen. Now I

(01:24:22):
agree with your message.

Speaker 2 (01:24:23):
You reckon, There would be room for acceptance for a
posthumous award.

Speaker 3 (01:24:30):
Fascinating, isn't it?

Speaker 4 (01:24:31):
Apart from our listeners, and some of them will disagree
with us. Very few New Zealanders would appreciate the need
for guardrails or lines in the sand. We have primary
school kids waiting for the school bus with their smartphones
watching hardcore porn.

Speaker 2 (01:24:52):
I was going to raise that at one stage when
you were talking about the situation of a Waker Tippoo
High school earlier on that those thirteen year olds. I
don't know about the girls. Certainly the boys are probably
watching plenty of it. Yes, so the argument might be

(01:25:14):
I shouldn't raise this now. But the argument might be, well,
if they're watching it online, then what's the problem with
teaching them the things that you were suggesting?

Speaker 4 (01:25:25):
Well, I do my utmost to keep it from my children.
Second of all, I don't want to normalize it. When
I was a little kid and we looked at a playboy,
we thought it was extremely naughty and we didn't want
the school teacher to find it, find us with it

(01:25:46):
or appearance, because we knew we'd be beaten black and blue,
because we knew it was wrong. When you start teaching
this in school as though it's normal, you're normalizing it.
So we're normalizing sexual experience for twelve and thirteen year olds.

(01:26:06):
They're not emotionally ready for what sexual experience. It won't
lead to a good outcome and it won't lead to
a fulfilling marriage and a good family, and so that's
what's wrong with it. It's terrible that the appearance of
that their kids watch hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean
that because they do. Mister King at the Walkertippo High

(01:26:29):
School should be texting my daughter at thirteen how to
lube and protect herself should she want to have anal sex.

Speaker 2 (01:26:38):
And on thatsavory note, I will say once again thank you.
It's been two years. As we mentioned at the top,
maybe we should maybe we should back up a little
earlier than that.

Speaker 4 (01:26:50):
Well, lady, and I can't tell you how much I
enjoy your interviews and being interviewed by you.

Speaker 3 (01:26:58):
You're a wonderful human being and a gentleman.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
You're too generous and some people would argue with you
quite with some volatility, and I have great admiration for
the stance that you take and that you continue to develop.

Speaker 4 (01:27:16):
So thank you and Rivadecci, thank you Lagen, thank you Leiden,
and please put in a plug for lit.

Speaker 3 (01:27:24):
Kids be kids.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
You do it right now.

Speaker 4 (01:27:27):
Oh look, there's a community of parents and grandparents that
are concerned about this. Google us lick kids be kids
and sign up and get armed and get strong because
we're building an army.

Speaker 2 (01:27:40):
Let kids be kids.

Speaker 3 (01:27:42):
Let kids be kids.

Speaker 2 (01:27:43):
Talk to you soon.

Speaker 3 (01:27:45):
Thank you. Laighton Smith, the Male.

Speaker 2 (01:28:02):
Room for Podcasts two hundred and seventy five, Business producer.
You're well, aren't you?

Speaker 3 (01:28:05):
Late? Not great? How are you?

Speaker 2 (01:28:07):
I don't know why. I think put it on rote
always good. I'll put it on rot good. Life is good, excellent.
Why don't you? Because there's a mixture this week, and
I've restricted the number because I've got two very long letters,
but they both need they both need sharing.

Speaker 5 (01:28:24):
So and I've got some very long ones as well.

Speaker 6 (01:28:26):
And I'm sure these people will understand if we sort
of shave them a tiny bit, because otherwise we'll still
be here next week doing these letters.

Speaker 5 (01:28:35):
But thank you so.

Speaker 2 (01:28:36):
Much for your input.

Speaker 5 (01:28:39):
Input. Yes is the word, so Jin says.

Speaker 6 (01:28:41):
A few weeks ago, my doctor called me for the
second time to encourage me to take my booster jab
for tetanus. In normal circumstances, I would have willingly complied,
but I don't live in normal circumstances. I'm living in
twenty twenty five PC, that is twenty twenty five post COVID.
After falling for the lies about the COVID vaccine, I

(01:29:02):
now question the necessity of every single vaccine. And upon
listening to your podcast with James, I am thinking of
giving my tetanus boost a JAB A miss. Don't Jin
have the tetanus tetanus jab and James isn't alone. Candice
Owns ran a whole video series, A Shot in the Dark,
which uncovered the ugly truths about vaccines, and doctor Robert

(01:29:24):
Malone exposed the dangers of mr NA vaccines on vaccines
on Joe Rogan's podcast, Jin, thank you for the rest
of it, but I'll just end up by saying, the
post COVID era is an era of mistrust. That is
a belief that I have to I understand that, Jin.
We don't trust the politicians, we don't trust the media,
we don't trust the justice system, and now we sometimes

(01:29:47):
don't even trust our own doctors. Perhaps it's time we
started trusting our judgments. Perhaps it's time for the next
age of enlightenment.

Speaker 2 (01:29:56):
From Yeah, and I would endorse the tetanus shot im
mist I have I had them. I had one last year,
and I think I have shown note real signs.

Speaker 5 (01:30:08):
As a resultness.

Speaker 2 (01:30:10):
That's the main thing now from mer Julian, once again
a wonderful podcast, and just a comment on your initial
discussion regarding Ukraine. I take it from your citing of
various opinions that you're not a fan of Zelensky and
his oval office performance. I spoke to a Ukrainian woman
this morning who still has contacts in her country, and

(01:30:33):
it confirmed my suspicion that Zelensky still holds majority support
within Ukraine. The fact that the administration has suspended elections
is often disingenuously used as proof of Zelensky's dictatorial nature,
and even Trump has stated this, which I might add
he recently dismissed wanting to move when questioned. I presume

(01:30:56):
that if an election were to be held now, he
would still hold power, but that's not to say that
when the elections resume, he would suffer the same fate
as Churchill after the war ends. In terms of the
press conference, it was clear that although tense, it was
only until forty two minutes so long when Vance chipped

(01:31:18):
in that things changed for the worst, and Zelensky folded
his arms and rest as history. Zelensky has a right
to feel highly suspicious of Number one Putin, who has
broken many agreements at America, Inc. For not following through
on protection when Ukraine relinquished their nuclear weapons. I thank
you in advance for allowing me to exercise my write

(01:31:41):
at free speech PS. I am a Trump supporter, but
not on this occasion.

Speaker 6 (01:31:48):
Layton Brett has written a very lengthy letter Brett, thank
you so much. He gives to start with a couple
of examples where pharmaceutical based medicines weren't used very appropriateriately
and these people got better. I know you've read it,
so you understand what he's talking about, but it's very long.

(01:32:09):
So Bret goes on to say, there are so many
stories I know of personally myself included, where health lay
outside the pharmaceutical based medical profession. Our medical profession does
have its place. There are some good people doing their best.
However needs to be treated with all due caution. A
lot of harm also occurs. The medical profession is said

(01:32:31):
to be the biggest killer in the US. There is
foundation for this and Brett goes on to say caution
is advised no matter which health journey or avenue one
might take. Finding the right path for yourself and right
help is a challenge and is so much. There is
so much to learn. There's good and bad whatever the
field or walk of life, and the right fit for

(01:32:51):
one may not be so for another. He says, it
should also be noted that not all information is good information,
which also presents its own challenges for each of us
when dealing with health issues. Some solutions may in fact
be very simple. Addressing the root cause of the imbalance
in our biology then often allows biology to self correct.

(01:33:13):
Your guest may have ruffled some feathers and some quarters.
Each must take from it what is valid and useful
for them, and that's from breaks.

Speaker 2 (01:33:21):
Thanks and then just passed me that if you would,
because I want to quote that again in a moment
at the end of this late and I'm a regular
and long time listener to your podcasts. Podcast two seven
four gave a very interesting perspective on Zelenski. I'm quite
right wing by the way, add a big Trump supporter.

(01:33:42):
Then followed the interview with James Ruguski, how could you
be sucked in by this nutcase. I can't believe that
you would ever give him airspace. I certainly didn't agree
with his COVID vaccine restrictions, but this guy goes way
beyond that. His views are dangerous, and his disregard of
the medical profession is an insult. I've now lost faith

(01:34:04):
in your judgment. Might not tune in again. I bet
you're there listening to this now, and I have. I
have a couple of responses for you. One is, I
note your address. I live four doors down the road
for three years. How about that. Here's the second one,

(01:34:25):
and it's why I asked Carolyn to passby the letter
from Brett, and it summarizes my feeling in regard to
what you have said. It should also be noted, wrote Brett,
that not all information is good information, which also prevents
its own challenges for each of us when dealing with
health issues. Some solutions may in fact be very simple.

(01:34:46):
Addressing the root cause of the imbalance in our biology
then often allows biology to self correct. Your recent guest
may ruffle some feathers in some quarters. Each must take
from it what is valid and useful to them, and
that's the way that I feel about it because people
have got different backgrounds, different ideas, all sorts of things,

(01:35:09):
and I'm prepared to take a gamble on occasions and
share stuff that I know will upset some people. But
that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be heard and dealt
with by us as individuals.

Speaker 6 (01:35:23):
Carolyn Layton, I have got something from Chris, he says
regarding the long letter you read at the end of
mail Room two seventy four. So much of what the
correspondent said in his long letter could be applied to Australia.
On another matter, by the way, if you do decide
to visit Canberra, I would like to meet you. I
have lived in Canberra for thirty three years now and

(01:35:44):
has changed a lot. You wouldn't recognize it. Unfortunately, like
a lot of cities these days, it's been overtaken by
high rise apartment buildings instead of building houses on quarter
acre lots as used to be the case. Even the
freestanding houses that are being built are being built on
much smaller lots, most of which are very small backyards. Unfortunately,

(01:36:05):
we have a Radical label government, which until the October
twenty twenty four election, had been a Labour Greens government
for at least twelve years, if not more. This government
has been and continues to be as radical as the
Andrews government in Victoria, although during COVID it was not
as trigger happy on lockdowns as the Andrews government.

Speaker 5 (01:36:27):
That's from Chris.

Speaker 2 (01:36:28):
Chris, appreciate the offer and I will take you up
on it should the occasion occur. You are the only
he is the only contact that I have with Canberra.

Speaker 5 (01:36:39):
Do you have nobody else who writes from Canberra that
you know of?

Speaker 2 (01:36:42):
Not that I know of, But I mean after spending
two years at a and you what I'm saying is
and buying a house there. What I'm saying is that
he's my only contact with an old stopping ground.

Speaker 5 (01:36:54):
It was a long time ago later, so it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:56):
Would be that I mentioned that my father, being an architect,
designed the very first motel in Canberra. It's true I
went there on a couple of occasions with him as
a young person.

Speaker 6 (01:37:08):
You mentioned the circus that was the entire day up
in the northern part of New South Wales in January
where we went on a wild goose chase looking for
something your father had built, but we never found it.

Speaker 2 (01:37:22):
Did we know there was a block of apartments on
the seashore. The place had changed so much you couldn't recognize. Well,
probably the aspect of.

Speaker 6 (01:37:32):
That block of land had probably been built on three
times since then.

Speaker 2 (01:37:36):
I don't think so. It was a good solid block
of apartments, not a huge one about three or four
stories tall as all. Anyway, we couldn't find it, but
we tried. Now this is this is a very important one,
and I think and I think Bethie'll appreciate it too.

(01:37:56):
From Linden, thank you for your latest guest, James Ruguski.
I do enjoy listening to him. I don't agree with
everything he says, but I loved the process of challenging
my perspectives and in knowledge as a doctor. I concur
that eighty percent of the so called facts about COVID
are not correct, and he puts not in other case,

(01:38:20):
I think, in other words, he's determined that's right. I
think the World Health Organization should be disbanded and ignored,
and it is not uncommon to find research challenging historical beliefs,
and therefore we need to adjust current practice. This is medicine,
This is science as an aside part of My role

(01:38:41):
is to peer review research before publication. I'm used by
a number of well acclaimed international journals. Don't worry latent.
I am not an expert, and in brackets, I detest
the word. But I am pretty good at looking through
facts and figures, understanding statistics, spotting data manipulation and industry bias. Interestingly,

(01:39:01):
I reject more than nine out of ten articles said
to me as they don't fulfill the criteria of good science.
Pretty high number. But I have to say that while
any reasonable doctor knows that medicine does not have all
the answers, I still get up every morning striving to
care for my patients, expanding my knowledge and sacrificing time

(01:39:22):
and energy so other people's lives will be better. I'm
not in it for the money. I am, despite James's
book title, most certainly not a liar. I think something
else I forgot to mention from my perspective from James's
book and his attitude, is that he is an American,
and in America, as the saying goes, the medical field

(01:39:47):
is responsible for the biggest number of deaths or something
along those lines. It's said by responsible people anyway. But
I have to say that while any reasonable doctor I
did that, you should know that not everything James stated
is true. Listening to him speak, it is clear he
is very well read, but he also doesn't understand everything

(01:40:10):
about how the human body works, and some of the
physiology knowledge, and some of his physiology knowledge is inaccurate.
If I may a quick example, James stated that I
know a few people who have had nasal swab tests
for COVID that went up and damaged the nasal cavity,
so the fluid around the brain leaked out and gave

(01:40:32):
them long term problems. Is he suggesting that a nasal
swab went through the nose, managed to get past two
large inferior and middle conture, ripped through the nasal mucosa,
then rupture the periosteum. That might be a mispronunciation of

(01:40:55):
the bone, smash through the thick ethmoid bone, then through
another layer of perio steam staem, punch through a couple
of layers of meninges to where it would encounter the
CSF fluid that protects our brain.

Speaker 5 (01:41:15):
I think you should just that's source.

Speaker 2 (01:41:17):
You don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:41:18):
You don't know whether you're pronouncing any of that right.
It's just nobod, It's why don't you just say a
litany of tissue?

Speaker 2 (01:41:28):
See what I have to put up with? Christian, don't
ever have a.

Speaker 6 (01:41:31):
Producers a litany of tissue? And then he goes on
to James.

Speaker 2 (01:41:35):
James stated, I know a few people who had a
naval swab test for COVID that went up and damaged
the nasal cavity, so the fluid around the brain leaked
out and gave them long term problems. Is he suggesting
that a nasal swab went through the nose, managed to
get past two large inferior and middle conture, ripped through

(01:41:56):
the nasal mucosa, and on egos, mentioning a number of
other things that the swab had to defeat to achieve
what James was I'm not here to argue lately this
can be achieved, but it can take a ten centimeter
long drill on power and would take three or four

(01:42:18):
seconds to drill through the bone. So what James said
about this on your show, with all the confidence in
the world, was a categorical lie. So while it's great
to hear views from all sides, your listeners should be
reminded when an articulate person states facts from all their
extensive research. This does not mean that they are always

(01:42:39):
telling the truth. Can I just say that maybe he
believed what he was saying and wasn't lying, but was
making a mistake. I'm just throwing that in another aside,
if I made vaccines. As far as the COVID disease
moderating drug not vaccine goes, it is not required by

(01:43:01):
ninety five percent of the population. It does have side effects,
but nothing as catastrophic as James suggests, but definitely enough
to be cautious. As a doctor and a scientist who
tries to get to know the facts as best he can,
not an expert, I will never have it again, nor
will my family. Hysteria aside, When I look at the

(01:43:23):
risk benefit ratio for me, a slightly unfit, mostly healthy,
forty eight year old, the risks outweigh the benefit. And
here's my hysterical opinion. The commonest regime of forcing this
drug into every person or excluding them from society should
be put in jail. Very well balanced. Please, please, please,
do not tarnish all vaccines with the same brush as

(01:43:47):
the COVID vaccine. No, I don't do that. Most vaccines
are incredible the polio vaccine is up there with one
of the greatest scientific advancements for humankind in the world
for health, extraordinarily safe, and the lives and morbidity it
has prevented cannot even be calculated. It is so large.
In my short career, I have amputated a baby's leg
due to measles complications. I have two children under my

(01:44:10):
care who have cerebral palsy and are fed through a peg,
live in a wheelchair, and can't speak as a result
of measles infection that spread to their brain. And I
have also cared for a young child and watched her
die of measles. If ninety five percent of New Zealanders
immunized their children from measles, then measles would go the
way of polio near eradication. But in the case of measles,

(01:44:34):
hysterical mistruths have given people fear of the extremely safe
measles vaccine completely unfounded, just like people still wearing masks
outside on their own and just as misinformed. Now there
is a little more than the included I also last
year had a young man suffer tetanus ah admitted with

(01:44:56):
a simple infection from a cut in his foot. His
parents refused to vaccinate him on the grounds of all
vaccines are evil and on admission, when offered the short
term protection of immunoglobulin, which is good if unimmunized, they
refuse this. Also, after six weeks in ICU dialysis machines

(01:45:18):
and being incubated to keep him alive, he thankfully just
managed to survive, but his life will never be the
same at across the taxpayer. By the way, more than
half a million dollars rees care. That's twenty people living
in pain with arthritis who won't get their hip replacement
this year. A safe tetanus vaccine costs fifty dollars. In short,

(01:45:42):
not all vaccines are evil. In fact, most are excellent.
I love your show, Layton. I enjoy hearing views from
all angles. In the case of James Raguski, he makes
some excellent points. The joy of science is that it
is never concluded and we grow and learn. But please
tell your listeners that not all doctors are evil. Most

(01:46:03):
of us mistrust Big Farmer more than James. We work
in science every day, and not everything that you hear
on the radio is true, even if it is on
the most excellent latent Smith podcast, keep up the great word,
Lindon that I'm going to frame that. Every once in
a while something comes along that I want to frame,
and that's going in one thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:46:25):
It was a very good piece. So finally from me lighton,
Brent says, great interview. James is a true freedom fighter,
so well informed about the dangers of the WHO. Hence
America's exit, as should New Zealand. And then Brent goes
on to say, your next interview should be with Dr Bloomfield.

Speaker 2 (01:46:42):
Any one of us would emerge missus producer, Thank you
for thanks later, see you next week and us some
good mail today.

Speaker 7 (01:46:53):
It was thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:47:17):
I was going to say that I think that there's
a great ruckus that is being perpetuated by the circumstances
across the planet at the moment, I can't say that
because it's not a great ruckus. It's a hugengus, a
hugengous ruckus that has people arguing, people picking on people,

(01:47:37):
and people not accepting what other people have to say, etc.
And then there is the lying of the cheating, and
that's been going on for a long time. There's a
number of books, for instance, that expose a lot of
it when it comes to science and the world of medicine. Well,
medicine is part of the world of science, and it
crosses the border such as it is. What about the

(01:47:59):
quote from is regarding a book that has just been released.
In fact, I think it hit the shelves today. That
is the what are we the ninth and it's the
crisis of unreliable science. A pharmacologist call for radical reform,

(01:48:20):
and the author writes, each year biomedical scientists pump out
about a million new papers, one million, but a troubling
truth hides in plain sight. Much of this work cannot
be replicated. Far from a small glitch, this is a
colossal crisis, squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling

(01:48:42):
genuine breakthroughs. In an interview with Chemical and Engineering News,
pharmacologist Savo Sabo, a professor at the I look the
name up for pronunciation spelled Csaba s z Abo. Saba
Sabo a professor at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,

(01:49:03):
who confronts this chaos head on previewing his recently published
book un Reliable. His verdict the scientific system is fractured
beyond repair and band aid fixes will not cut it.
Nothing short of a revolution will do the Sabo's journey
into this quagmire began casually over Beer's in Fact, with

(01:49:23):
colleagues in New York during a sabbatical. The question that
kept surfacing was simple, yet halting. Why is it that
nobody can reproduce anybody else's findings. It's a problem scientists
have grumbled about for years, but Sabo decided to do
something about it, and the result is unreliable. A deep
dive into the causes of irreproducibility, ranging from hypercompetition and

(01:49:49):
sloppy errors to statistical trickery at outright fraud, his conclusions
are as sobering as they are provocative. Then, when it
comes to the scale of the problem, Sabo's findings are
jaw dropping. After sifting through the global scientific literature, not
just the polished papers of PubMed but everything published anywhere,

(01:50:11):
he estimates that ninety percent of it fails the reproducibility test.
Even worse, he believes twenty to thirty percent is entirely fabricated.
I didn't expect the numbers to be that high going in,
he admits, it's just absurd. The financial tile is staggering
paper mills, fraudulent outfits, the churn out fake research for

(01:50:35):
profit rake in billions annually. This is not a cottage industry.
It's an industrial scale scam. Now, what's more shocking is
who's left to clean up the mess. It's not the
grant agencies, the university's journals, or governments stepping up. Instead,
it's a ragtag crew of private investigators working unpaid late

(01:50:58):
into the night while dodging lawsuits from the very fraudsters
they're exposing. What kind of system is this, he asks.
Sabo doesn't mince words. The h lough measures tried so far, workshops,
checklists of the light have flopped. The things that we've
tried are not working, he says. I'm trying to suggest
something different.

Speaker 3 (01:51:19):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:51:19):
His fix a top to bottom overhaul of how science
is taught, how it's funded and published. It's an ecosystem,
he argues, and you can't fix one part without tackling
the whole. Now, on the subject of education, Zabo proposes
splitting scientific training into two tracks, one for discovery and

(01:51:41):
another for integrity. The latter would train a new breed
of professionals in experimental design, statistical rigor data management, and
independent review, especially essentially watchdogs embedded in the system. It's
a bold idea, but it could professionalize the policing of science.

(01:52:04):
Then he takes aim at the current grant lottery, where
scientists spend endless hours writing proposals, only for the same
big institutions to pocket the cash year after year. His
radical suggestion give institutions lump sums tied to strict reproducibility
and integrity benchmarks. Let them figure out how to spend it.

(01:52:25):
The catch It demands visionary leadership, something in short supply. Still,
it could free researchers from grant writing drudgery and focus
them on actual science. On the publication front, Savo wants
journals to demand replication supplements, independent labs verifying findings before
papers go to print. It's a practical step that could

(01:52:48):
boost confidence in high profile claims. But he doesn't stop there.
He also floats shrinking the scientific workforce and installing cameras
and keystroke monitors in labs. There are cameras in cockpits
and behind the barista in Starbucks. He notes, with so
much money and ultimately human lives at stake, why should

(01:53:09):
labs be exempt?

Speaker 4 (01:53:11):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:53:11):
I'll leave it there. It goes on for double the
length of that. The point of my dragging this out
was a because it's brand new. B because the book
is brand new, and by the way, I had to
look at it online, and you can buy it instantly
for a considerable amount of money. I think it's fifty
two dollars. By downloading it from the website. You can

(01:53:37):
buy a paperback for about another fifteen dollars, I believe,
and that is what I'm going to be ordering, but
it might get here for a little while, and then
then comes the real surprise. The hardback copy is something
like and this is from memory, something like two hundred
and seventy four dollars, which is extraordinary. I love books,

(01:54:00):
and I prefer hardback, but I think I'll stick with
the paperback now. The point of drawing your attention to
this book unreliable is because it's a fresh example. Because
there's plenty of them from the past. There's many books,
and this is a new book by a scientists to
some considerable repute. I spotted it on What's Up with that?

(01:54:22):
Dot com? Wawts up with that? Or one word dot com,
which is a site that I visit regularly. It drops
into my mailbox once or twice every day. They're very
busy at what's up with that, and they provide very
good material, and it's a reminder that the science is
never settled. And we've had our own recent example of that,

(01:54:45):
of course with COVID, where doctors got shredded. Some doctors
got shredded because they wouldn't they wouldn't play horse with
the authorities who thought they knew everything but knew nothing.
And that makes me think of people walking away with
honors when they don't deserve them. But that's another matter anyway.
As I say, the point of it is that we're

(01:55:07):
all adult and should have and I would like to
think of the capacity to size people up from what
they write, what they say where it fits, and make
our own decisions and there we shall let things rest.
That takes us out for podcasts number two hundred and
seventy five. Now, if you are to write to us,

(01:55:27):
please do Latent at Newstalks ab dot co dot mz
or Carolyn at Newstalks ab dot co dot MZ. Love
getting e mail say that every week, but it's true,
and I don't walk at a bit of criticism unless
it's stupid and that's another matter. And I am looking
forward to some comment on Rodney Hyde. I think there's

(01:55:48):
plenty that you can dissect or analyze and comment on.
So we shall be back in a few days time
with number two hundred and seventy six. Until then, as always,
we thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:56:09):
Thank you for more from Used Talk sed B.

Speaker 1 (01:56:12):
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #275 - March 12th 2025 - Rodney Hide

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Breakfast Club

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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 #275 - March 12th 2025 - Rodney Hide