Leighton Smith Podcast #282 - April 30th 2025 - Ramesh Thakur - 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 ed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton
Smith podcast, cowered by News Talks ed B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and eighty two for April thirty,
twenty twenty five. Ramesh the Kerr honors us with his
appearance this week. Now most of you are familiar with
Ramesh the Kur, I think he excels himself on this occasion.
Discussion runs about an hour and a quarter and it
refers to many headline topics. For those who are unfamiliar

(00:49):
with Ramesh, here are his qualifications. Have borrowed them from
the Lowe Institute in Sydney. Ramesh the Kerr is Emeritus
Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy the Australian
National University, a Fellow of the Australian Institute of International
Affairs and Brownstone Institute. Senior Scott up I was Senior

(01:09):
Vice Rector of the United Nations University and Assistant Secretary
General of the United Nations. Educated in India and Canada.
He was a Professor of International Relations at the University
of Otago in New Zealand, Professor and head of the
Peace Research Center at the ANU, and Foundation Director of

(01:30):
the Balcilly School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ontario. He
has also served as a consultant and advisor to the Australian,
New Zealand and Norwegian governments on arms control, also on
disarmament and international security issues. He was a commissioner and
one of the principal authors of the Responsibility to Protect

(01:54):
and senior advisor on reforms and principal writer of the
United Nations Secretary General KOFE and NaN's Second Reform Report
of two thousand and two and We're Not Done. The
author or editor of new, umerous books, chapters in books
and journal articles, Professor the Kerr has also been a
regular contributor to media outlets, served on the international advisory

(02:18):
boards of institutes in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America,
and was the editor in chief of Global Governance twenty
thirteen to twenty eighteen. His books include The United Nations
Peace and Security From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect,
published by Cambridge University Press twenty seventeen, Global Governance and

(02:41):
the un An Unfinished Journey from Indiana University Press in
twenty ten. The Responsibility to Protect Norm's Laws and the
Use of Force in International Politics came out in twenty eleven,
The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Oxford University Press, That's
No Surprise twenty thirteen, Theorizing The Responsibility to Protect Cambridge

(03:05):
University Press, twenty fifteen. And The Nuclear Band Treaty, A
Transformational reframing of the Global Nuclear Order, published in twenty
twenty two. Now, I know that was a long, well
sort of introduction, but keep in mind that the knowledge
and experience that he has guarded over a lengthy lifetime

(03:27):
of work in various areas, as you've heard, qualifies him
for respect for the opinions that he expresses, and there
are many of them in the interview to follow, And
here is a shortlist of some of the things that
we touch on. Judicial activity, which is creeping, whiles not

(03:48):
creeping in its racing up the scale of concern in
much of the world India and Pakistan as a result
of the recent heated clash China. The World Economic Forum.
You'll be interested in his comments the United Nations, the WHO. Oh,
you'll be interested in his opinion on the WHO hospital systems,

(04:15):
mass migration, and the Canadian election. We touch on well,
I do briefly in mentioning because that was that was
yesterday and we were recording at the time when I
think they were about two hours to go before the
before the polling closed. So with that in mind, before
we get to Ramesh, let me lead with Mark Karney's

(04:39):
House of Cards, which is published by American Affairs and
its senior editor Michael Suwenka. Two narratives were at play
in Canada's election. Either the Great White Norse was going
to continue on its liberal sonder weeg. Sonderweg. It's a
word I'd not come across before, so I checked it out.

(05:01):
It relates to the Weimar Democracy is the simplest way
to put it, anyway, to continue on its liberal sounderweg,
rejecting the right populist surge that has erupted elsewhere in
the West. Or it was going to take the same
plunge into the unknown that their American and British cousins
had taken with Trump and Brexit. And from there I

(05:23):
jumped straight to the closing paragraph. At the start of
his ministry, Mark Carney made a bizarre gesture. He winked
at the camera as if to cross the fourth wall
and communicate with someone to those something to those watching
on social media. Karne was then compared with the protagonist
of the House of Cards, a shrewd Macavelian figure who

(05:45):
comes in from the shadows to seize and hold power
against great odds. Instead, what we Canadians got was a
house of cards in the more literal sense, a fundamentally
unstable structure that can be blown away at any time
by a strong gust of wind and a storm is
brewing across the border. Then there was my favorite comment

(06:09):
from kerch Schlichter, who wrote this on x before the
polls closed. He said, I sure hope Trump does not
cause Canadians to elect the guy who is quite liberal,
believes in climate change, won't rule out sending Canadian troops
to fight in Ukraine, wants massive immigration, and wants to

(06:30):
maintain imbalanced trade with the United States, over the other
guy who does but who had a couple of videos
where he frustrates reporters that amused American conservatives. Although that
was very clever. Now after a short break, Rameshakur. Now,

(06:55):
for those of you who've been listening for a few years,
and I speak specifically about the radio program, you'd be
aware of the name of Lance Green. Lance Green and
I have been made for a long time. We established
that relationship through doing some joint ventures in tourism, like
we would take tours away. We started with the New Orleans.

(07:16):
We ended up in Europe and particularly Italy. Lance has
been quiet for the last few years COVID, etc. And
he's now emerged with something different and I think enticing
one word in his mind he writes best described Sicily
extreme in the most beautiful way. Why would he say this?
Sicily is a tapestry woven from threads of various cultures

(07:39):
that have shaped the island over centuries, resulting in a
unique blend of flavors and traditions. I've only been to
Sicily once and I love it. I know other people
who've been time and time again. Lance has organized something
for the second half of June, and it's very special
and it's only for a very small number of people.
The journey focuses on two destinations, castell Mare de Gulfo

(08:01):
and Palermo, it's designed to immerse us in the environment
where we're staying, no rushing from place to place. Now,
this journey is for no more than eight guests. Tolder
was small and if you would like further information then
you need to contact Lance by email at Lance at

(08:23):
Lance Green dot endz, Lance at Lance Green dot en
z and he will fill you in with all the detail.
But you better be quick, I think, because this is
only for a few people.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Ramesh the Kur is well known to most of the
people listening to the podcast. For those who are not
quite so familiar or those who need a reminder, he
is an emeritus professor from the Crawford School of Public
Policy at the Australian National University. Prior to that, he
was at a Tiger University for a number of years.
He has also taught in other places, including Hong Kong

(09:11):
and in Britain. And should I include Canada there, Yes,
of course, and that's very important. We'll get onto that
short pig. But it's very good to have you back
on the podcast, and I thank you.

Speaker 3 (09:25):
You're welcome listener. It's good to be back. Thank you
for having me again.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
You have just returned from a three week journey. I
understand to Singapore and London. Feel free to cough if
you need to after picking up a bug on the plane,
but I want to I want to start with a
very general question because I have a long list of,
shall we say, headers that I would love to get into.

(09:52):
There is much going on in the world. There are
people who are even here in this country who are
very nervous about where things might be headed. But there
are so many things happening, and they're happening, some of
them predictable, others are happening from out of darkness. So
it seems I'm sure you agree with what I've said.

(10:14):
What I'm interested to know from you is what is
the connection do you think between things that are happening
in different parts of the world that maybe seem to
have no connection.

Speaker 3 (10:27):
I think the shortest answer to that, which obviously I'm
going to elaborate on, is that there is a definite
thingdisiacal air about it, that we're coming to the end
of one major era and transforming into another. So if
we are in the midst of a transformative change, and
hence the sense of unease and volatility and instability, but

(10:51):
that has both domestic and international components, and it spreads
across political, economic, trade, environmental, social, cultural issues, etc. And
all of that adds to this growing sense of unease
and anxiety, even as to aviare headed, who are potential

(11:15):
allies and trends on the one side and adversaries and
enemies on the other, Are we in fact going to
end up with a major war? Bearing in mind that
such major transformation in the past have been unleashed as
a result of wars, which themselves have come at the
moments of transition. So I think there is justified fear

(11:38):
and anxiety. The great unknown is known and knowns if
you like, and I doubt that anyone can predict what
will come out into in the world on the other
side of this turmoil.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
How much of a restraint do you think nuclear weapons are.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
It's a restraint, but it's a minor restraint. I've always
thought that its role was exaggerated. Yes, it adds an
element of caution, but it doesn't really change the un
the mine underlying dynamics, and it certainly doesn't affect the
domestic issues all that much. If you think of environmental

(12:17):
issues there the trading order it introduced elements of caution.
People might be more hesitant to go to a lot
of war than they were in the past, but that
doesn't mean that wars have become history and that the
use of force has been ruled out. Exhibit A, Russia

(12:38):
and Ukraine, Exhibit B. The Middle East.

Speaker 2 (12:42):
There is as we speak, also a constant change in politics.
I mean, at the moment as we speak, the Canadian
election is being held. It's got a couple of hours
to go before and a thing comes to the fore.
So we'll leave that to others. But on your trip,

(13:03):
of course to London, you undoubtedly had conversation with people
about the about the local elections in Britain and then
and then of course and you being in Australia, so
this involves you. You have the Australian election in three
or four days time, so give us your thoughts. And

(13:23):
I'm particularly interested in in what you picked up from
the local body election in Britain.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
Okay, again, let me break it into two sets of issues,
one domestic one international. I think domestically, there is a
very pronounced sense that democracy is under stress across the
Western world, if not further beyond. And what we've seen

(13:53):
is decades of the so called mass to the institutions
by the center left and the social justice activists and
the misnamed progressives, which has embedded cultural and social policies

(14:14):
from one side of the archeological spectrum into the dominant institutions.
And as the political atmosphere or landscape changes, they are
mounting a ferocious resistance two attempts to reset the balance
into a more traditional, to the most traditional center. And

(14:34):
we've seen that in Europe and the rise of people
like Giorgio Mulioni in Italy, center right parties in the Netherlands,
center right parties rising to the four quite dramatically in Germany,
in France. Reformed UK is part of that. Pierre Polieva
in Canada was on the ascendant quite substantially for months

(14:57):
and months and months until the governing Liberal Party replaced
Justin Trudeau with Mark Karney. And I think if it
had elections in another month, Kolievo would have been home comfortably.
As we speak, it's on the knife page. And in
Australia the Liberal should have been in this similar position.

(15:18):
But I have to say this is a single most
inept campaign I've experienced anywhere in the world from a
center right party that had so many open goals to
shoot that maybe is so confused that doesn't know which
goal to aim at and as a result is shooting
all over the ground that anywherey other, anywhere but the goal.

(15:41):
So it looks like Anthony Albanesi and Labor will be
back in. But we have a paradoxical situation where Poles
confirm the widespread sense that Labor deserves to lose, but
the Liberals don't deserve to win, and that is something
again that I haven't experienced elsewhere. So we'll see how

(16:02):
that goes as well. But the issues that are under
contention in all these countries are backlash to net zero,
and you'll have seen overnight as we speak, the massive
power blackouts in Spain and Portugal and the good chance
that they result from the switch to unreliables from the

(16:24):
good old reliables of fossil fuel and nuclear power. They
include elements of DEI and a pushback against that, with
many firms now starting to react to that. They include
elements of gender identity and the insanity of insisting that

(16:44):
biology is less real than self perception, and the problems
that they have caused. And remember for Trump, it's now
I admit that that a single most effective campaign slogan
against the Democrats was Trump is for you, Kamala Harris
is for their them, referring to the pronouns.

Speaker 4 (17:02):
Was And then even more importantly in a sense, if
you take this to the internet dimension, the pushback against
globalization on the trade front and globalism.

Speaker 3 (17:15):
On the political front, and the real emergence of hard
frontiers the state and a desire to reclaim national identity
and the sense that national identity has been lost to
ideological extremism. And at the end of the day, we

(17:36):
are citizens of political systems, not economic systems, and desire
to reprioritize politics and make politics control economics rather than
be subservient to it. So that's a wise spread phenomenon,
and then the Trump policies come into that. But internationally,
if the state is back, then inevitably we are witnessing

(18:00):
the return of geopolitics and the retreat of global institutions,
and the sense that global institutions have begun to dominate
the nation states instead of being servant to the nation states.
And that also goes across a number of fronts and
included the reaction with the policies on COVID management as well.

(18:21):
So there's a lot of disparate issues, but there is
a way of connecting the dots in these terms of
resetting the normative dominant normative points for governing both domestic
and international regimes and political systems and therefore effectively governing
our lives. And they're very pronounced. Desire for citizens to

(18:46):
reassert control over the processes instead of being norm takers
and value takers and economy takers, etc. And the pushback
against technocratic expertise, which has been proven to be not
very smart.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
At the end of the day, you have provided me
with almost countless exits along the way to pursue some
of the things that you that you mentioned.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
Well, it is a time for a big picture look
and analysis, I think.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
But there are things, there are certain things happening that
are counter to what and I agree with what you said,
by the way that that count counter what you said
and what and what I agree with I mean, for instance,
the situation with judicial matters all over the well what

(19:39):
we what we call the Western world, but mainly in
the anglosphere, and stretching a little beyond but specifically.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
The Germany and coming also yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
Is something that would confuse a lot of people. I think. So,
so here's here's the question. It's happening in Australia, it's
happening in New Zealand, it's happening specifically in America, and
I think that's where it kicked off in Britain and
the other and the other place. As you mentioned, why
is it happening?

Speaker 3 (20:12):
I think we've been presented with certain ideological perspectives dressed
up as scientific consensus and facts. Take environment net zero,
climate change what used to be global warming. Until things change,

(20:33):
It's hard to argue that science is settled, because science
is always work in progress. But if you get the
illusion of scientific consensus, then you engage in de legitimization
of any opposing points of view by attaching the labeled
denialism and deniers picking up on the pejorative views of
that with regard to those who for example, deny the Holocaust,

(20:58):
and COVID fell into that as well, and well credential
people who raised skeptical questions about what was being done
or quickly pushed away from the public square and deny
the voice and stuff Now if you extend that, then

(21:18):
what happens is people with a different point of view.
Our treat is not as people with a different but
legitimate point of view who need to be engaged within conversation,
but people who are science denies at the end of
the day, even evil and deserve to be hounded out
of the public space. And then political leaders go down

(21:42):
that path, you say, well, we can use the law
to put them in jail. So the long efforts to
use weaponized laarfare against Trump, the things they're doing in
Germany in denying legitimacy and trying to suppress.

Speaker 5 (21:57):
The AfD, the verdict against Marine le Pen in France,
and talking to me, you mentioned my visit to the
UK to talking to people there.

Speaker 3 (22:10):
I hadn't realized, but they are afraid that the slightest
opportunity the laws will be used to silence and perhaps
even imprisoned Nigel Farage, so he's got to be extremely
careful in things he says. So there is that sense of,
you know, the phrase that has become common in the
UK to fear justice, and it's hard to deny the

(22:34):
reality of that in the UK and in the US
and in other places. So yes, there is a sense
that law which should be impartial and objective, and no
one is above the law, but no one is under
the law, and that everyone is equal and deserves the
equal protection of the law. That sense seems to have
been thrown out, and there is again a lot of

(22:56):
unease over that. So I said at the start that
democracy is under stress, but I think there is a
deep division as to whether the greater threat to demoocracy
comes from the right or the left. And as one example,
as one if you like trivia, yet telling example of

(23:17):
that is you can have a very interesting and real
debate on whether the greater threat to democracy and our
freedoms comes from censorship of free speech. And that is
something that we are all undergoing as well. But to
say that you can't have the debate that there is
no compensation. That's what has happened across a range of issues,

(23:38):
and people are repelling against that.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
I think it's intriguing because I've been battling against the
scam of man made climate change for decades and we
got to the point where you started to wonder if
it was really worth it. Well, it was, of course,
but all of a sudden from seemingly out of nowhere.

(24:02):
It started to turn, and it's turning. It's turning very
strongly in some areas, except New Zealand. We have a
supposedly right of center government elected last year and they're
pursuing the net zero full force. It's just absurd in
the first place.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
I think on that later, and it helps to break
it down into different components of the tibate. One is
the science, and this claim to scientific consensus is very questionable. Now. Also,
of course, science doesn't rely on majority opinion. It can
be overturned with time, and it does change with time,

(24:42):
so there is a genuine quot for questioning the basic
thesis and the details of the science. Second, even if
you agree or have a majority view on science, there's
still the question of how you convert that into public policy.
And the third part, separate from that, is the politics

(25:03):
of it. If you have a consensus amongst the governing
elite and the ruling elite, and the cultural elit and
the economists and the environmentalists, you still have to deal
with the fact that there are serious empirical consequences of
climate change policies which will result in impoverishment and emiseration

(25:23):
of people's substantial drop in lifestyles and a transfer of
wealth and power to potential enemies internationally. And then you think, well,
what is the contribution of Australia and the UK in
the global issue on the global landscape environmental landscape? And

(25:43):
the answer it's very very modest. If VIEWO to reach
near zero tomorrow for practical purposes, given the existing policies
of China, Russia, India and now in the United States,
that would not even amount to a drop in the bucket.
Now if you extend that to New Zealand, it becomes
even more absurd. So why should we accept substantial drops

(26:06):
in our living standards? Then that makes not the slightest
different to the overall goal. How many call for stations
and are being opened by China and by India every month?

Speaker 2 (26:21):
Well, I think I think I need to inject another
aspect of this debate, and that is the media and
the media. The media in different sets in different parts
of the world has had different different approaches. In New
Zealand and you would probably be familiar, the media put

(26:42):
a blank on it. They won't discuss it, they won't
they won't entertain anything. But the official line. Now I'll
give you two. I'll give you two responses, relatively recently
over the last few months, two queries to various people
in positions of shall we say unfortunately authority. One answer

(27:05):
to a to a serious question was well, you've got
your science and we've got our science, and we believe
our science. End of story, end of discussion. I challenged
various people too, in particular Prime Minister and the Prime
Minister Scientific Advisor, over the years over it, and it

(27:27):
was it was The reaction was simply, this is what
the science says and that's where we're going with it.
And that's the end of it. Again, no discussion. And
if you if you put up somebody to discuss somebody
of authority, no one will turn up. No one will
take them on. We witness that here on a number

(27:49):
of occasions over a good ten years.

Speaker 3 (27:52):
Anyway, The old thing on that is the same people,
the same authorities you like in court, are the ones
who will insist that Mauri myths have equal status with
Western empurple science.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
There's nothing I can say about that that I could
get away with, no because and.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
The same people have been saying for the last three
to four years that a man can grow a cervix
and women can have a penis. Even kirs Tama said
one percent of visions going around with women are going
around with penises, which we're tut with something like thirty
thousand visions in that category. He's now, of course going

(28:35):
back on that after the Supreme Wourt judgment there. But yeah,
you're right, it's amazing that they don't see the contradictions
and often the hypocrisy in terms of what they proclaim
as the science and then the individual behavior.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Well, my belief is that I'm thinking of one or
two people in particular. My belief is that they they're
playing a different game. The The other one that I've
recalled is the other response that I have recalled is
that when challenged with the size of New Zealand and
its output, well we have to do our share. And

(29:13):
it's the dumbest, most stupid response that you that you
can give for the simple reass as you have explained,
the size of the size of the country, the upper
of the country and the influence that it has on
anything is zero.

Speaker 3 (29:31):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
So it's a dumb thing to say. Sorry, I get
carried away on this. I want to quote you, sure
you happen to be back in India based in New
Delhi doing archival and interview research for your PhD. The
experience of the overnight transition from a rambunctious democracy to

(29:55):
which argumentative Indians had taken with gusto, to a stifling
and oppressive rule by state feat was deeply and permanently sobering.
It led to my first academic article on returning to Canada,
the fate of India's Parliamentary democracy in nineteen seventy six.
What effect did that have on you?

Speaker 3 (30:17):
A permanent and passionate believer in democracy, freedoms and the
central importance of free speech. I do not like to
delegitimize people with different points of view. I'm happy to
engage people in debate endlessly if need be, And maybe
that's my Indian character. Provided that discussion is carried on

(30:41):
with civility and mutual respect. It can be passionate, it
can be robust, but there's no need for it to
degenerate into name calling and vulgarity and abuse. And what
has happened since that I wrote that, to my great astonishment,
is the walk back from those principles. You know, the
famous saying I will disagree with you, but I'll defend

(31:06):
your right to disagree with me to the death. We
walked back from that and lost our core values in
the process, and we need to re establish that. And
the media, I agree with you. The media is guilty
of that. But the media is part of the institutions,
and as part of the institutional structure, the media has
suffered as much, if not more than most other institutions

(31:31):
in the decline of public trust, and that has been
documented year after year around the Western worldmar the substantial
drop in trust of public institutions, including media, including doctors,
including governments, experts in general.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
Speaking of speaking of doctors, there is an issue regarding
the medical professions, particularly public medicine hospital systems. We have
a crisis. Australia has a crisis. Britain certainly has a crisis.
What do you put that down too, that's.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
Harder to say. Well, medicine is starting to be politicized,
and we see that again in the States, and I
hope we don't import some of their tendencies in that,
but I suspect we might. So that's one element. Indoctrination
in medical schools indoctrination into dominant political and cultural ideologies

(32:32):
as well. I think we have lost control of public
expenditure in pursuit of luxury beliefs like climate change. Therefore
have reduced capacity unless we want to keep on increasing
taxation to cover core issues. Now in the Australian context,

(32:52):
the best example of that is the so called NDIS
National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was introduced by the Gillard
government a decade ago, and the budget I think for
the NDIS now has already overtaken or is set to overtake.
The entire Medicare budget is completely out of control. Many

(33:15):
of us predicted at the time that because it was
based on the field good factor, they would not be
able to control it. More and more groups who want
to be eligible for that there will be a lot
of routing and fraud, and that has happened. So that's
another side to it. Throwing money into all sorts of
activist causes means you're diverting money that should be spent

(33:38):
on core health issues into other areas. So I think
that whole you know what we've ended up in many countries,
including Australia, and then be very surprised if New Zealand
was not worse than this is that number of net
beneficiaries of government largess is more than half, and that

(33:59):
means they can use the voting numbers to keep demanding more.
I'm not aware of too many expenditure budget lines that
managed to get abolished. And we've seen the effort by
elln Mosque in the stage and the terminal that is created.
And yet that's what we need for any additional expendites

(34:22):
to propose there should be a requirement to identify equivalent
cutback somewhere else. But instead what's granted today is becomes
a line in the sand that must not be questioned
in due course. And then other demands crop up and
what used to be regarded almost with shame, the need

(34:44):
to receive government handout is now regarded as a matter
of entitlement. And that has that's a change that has
happened within our lifetime. If you think back to it,
yes that our parents would never have agreed and will
be horrified to think what has happened today. And now
you get aggressive demands that you know, it's just a

(35:05):
cup of coffee for you, and it's this and this
for me sort of thing. So I think that basic
element of balancing books, of restricting government to minimum flow
rather than the ceiling in terms of what it should
be doing, the idea that it's my right to be

(35:27):
looked after over the government, which came to a head
again under COVID with massive handouts and subsidies and did
a renewals as well. So if you just take energy security, okay, affordable, accessible, reliable,
et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (35:42):
Can you find when you find any.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
Well, But that's the point I would love to go
back to the situation that the government says, fine, we
will let market forces decide. We'll lift in Australia the
ban on uranium or on nuclear energy, but you won't
give any subsidy. But we'll also take away subsidies from renewables.
You've got the abscess situation where with a combination of

(36:09):
massive subsidies to the renewal sector and physical penalties to
the fossil fuels, we made it costly to maintain coal
fout fire stations. But then when the price of that
hits in terms of power, out of this we start
directing subsidy again to cold stations to keep going for

(36:32):
another few months. Another few years. So the distortions are massive.
And if you just take the state out of that
and say, let the market decide, we'll get a better
idea of where people want to put their own money
rather than taxpayer money. But that's across the board. I'm
just taking that as an example, but that's across the
board as a problem. So I think we do need

(36:54):
It goes back to where I started off. It's a
transformational moment in world politics and world economics and world order,
and I'm not sure where it'll end up, but I
think the sense is that the path we're on was
simply not sustainable, and I think the instability and volatility
and problems we are encountering is all that coming to

(37:16):
a head. As I said earlier, historically these transformational moments
in going from one order to the next have come
at the end of major world wars. Unfortunately, given the
reality of nuclear weapons, they can't afford that. So where
do we go at the moment. The countries that are
avoiding the excesses of this insanity are countries outside the West,

(37:42):
and so we need to look at that as well.
In this Western world, the hope for something new that's
most sustainable, not in the environmental sense, but more generally
is the United States. And you see a battle lines
being drawn between the United States and Europe on that
as well, Europe being the state welface welfare state out

(38:08):
of it and the United States being more of the
free market and free society side of it. Which is simplifying,
but there is enough of a truth and that to
make it as a useful generalization. Are going to have
to fall into that and decide where you want to go. There.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
There's a family member of ours and it's not my son,
it's somebody else who who is actually English, lives in London,
has just returned from a visit to Poland. And while
I can't detail the picture too much, I can tell
you that this particular family member was stunned with the

(38:52):
progress that Poland has made m h. And it's leaving
the rest of it's going to I read somewhere relatively
recently that that Poland that Poland was going to be
the biggest, biggest or the most successful state in Europe
within a very short period of time.

Speaker 3 (39:11):
It doesn't surprise me. Lad you know something that we
tend to forget, how many people in the West do
you think are aware of the history of Polish troops
intervening in the Great Fight against Islam just outside of
Vienna and halting the march of Islam into Europe. Not
many was critical in that, so there is a certain

(39:36):
history behind that as well. But countries like Poland Hungary
is another one, countries that have emerged from communist rule
and are aware of the threats and dangers of totalitarianism
and the role of the Catholic Church in sustaining the
nationalism of Poland. So you've got let's say, the soft

(39:58):
states in the West, which I engaged in an orgy
of national self abasement and all the evils of the
world are laid at our own doors. And then you've
got others who still want to preserve that national identity,
take pride in their history and their contributions to human
welfare and progress, through their enlightenment, through the industrial revolution

(40:22):
led by fossil fuels, which have raised living standards around
the world, which have made education and better health possible.
We have made life a lot easier for all of us.
We have democratized society, breaking the old feudal system of
law of lords and service. So I think we've lost
that sense of perspective. Yes, bad things were done, but

(40:45):
the amount of good that Western civilization has brought to
the world far out weighs the harms it has caused.
And I speak as someone who comes from a country
that was colonized, whether British. Now that you know, there
were many bad things that were done, but historically speaking,
I rather it was Britain that colonized India than some

(41:08):
of the others, which I think would have left us
in a much worse state. So so you know, and
like before they came, was not idealic uh and living
in paradise in Asia. So I think that that that
whole issue of perspective and and and and teaching history
with a balance that bad things were done, but which

(41:31):
was the country that ended slavery and and paid daily
for that in both treasure and life. It was Britain.
So I think that I think the national self abasement
is probably the best phrase in that you know, it
puzzles me. I don't understand it, and you'll see. And
I think I've said this in an earlier interview with

(41:51):
you as well. Some of the most passionate deferent defenders
of the West's role in progregress and freedoms and manifestry
humanity are the immigrants, and it tends to be second
and third gnimeration immigrants who then want to revise history
and the talk of reparations and the evils of the West, etc.

(42:15):
So I don't know you. You well, you could talk
endlessly about that, but it is a great puzzle to
me aster why we believe we are amongst the most
be meaning West Christian West, the most evil people ever
in the world.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
Well, bringing it back home momentarily, there is a scenario
in this country, and you referred to it earlier with
regard to universities and the science, et cetera, and the
nonsense that goes that goes on. But we we have
brought a lot of people into this country, even just
in the last year, and I don't have any I

(42:56):
don't have any faith in the fact that the kids
of those new arrivals are going to get the education
that you would believe that they should have and that
many others of us do as well. So they're going
to they're going to grow up well with the falsehoods
and the encouragement to believe other things. And I don't

(43:22):
know what the answer to that is, because it's it's
not in the media at this particular point of time.
It it isn't in the politics really at this at
this point of time, the politicians themselves appear to be
either unfamiliar or non caring or frightened of actually standing

(43:44):
up and being counted. And I got an email from
I got an email from somebody who, well, this will
be read in the in the mail room after the
interview that we are doing. The author said, well, as well,
America has voted for the man of common sense, Donald Trump.
And if this was an election year in New Zealand,

(44:05):
I think that for the very first time, I'm ready
to vote for Winston Peters because like him or not,
he has been the man of common sense for literally
literally all his political life. How much of how much?
How much of that there there is a wash in
the community. I don't know, but I've certainly heard similar

(44:26):
comments in numbers. So you know, who who knows what
the what the result might be. Because the next election
is eighteen months off and Winston's getting on of it.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
I think your correspondent has put has put his or
her finger on a very important point in understanding contemporary
Western politics, and that is you have an elite consensus.
And I'm going to have said this in an earlier interview.
I'm sure that the divide is no longer between Democrats
and Republicans, or labor and Tories, et cetera. It's actually

(45:02):
elites versus deplorables, if you like most people what in
the States they call eighty twenty issues, in that Democrats
find themselves supporting causes that are supported only by twenty percent.
It may not be eighty twenty in Australia, but it's
certainly sixty forty. The percentage that broke down on the

(45:23):
Voice referendum sixty percent of it, forty percent supported it,
and I think that will be across the board on
most issues. Again, I don't know what it will be
in New Zealand, but where they have had elite consensus
across parties and hence the notion of UNI parties, there
is great scope politically for disruptive parties and they are

(45:47):
derided as populists, but that's because they are identifying with
causes that are popular. So far from a term of derision,
populist tractly is an accurate empirical description of where the
center of gravity lies in the electorate rather than in
the elites. And what you see is people rising and
parties rising, whether under charismatical leaders or under normal leaders.

(46:12):
If you like to occupy that space and to expand
that space, and when that becomes a threat, that's when
they start to try and ban them using dubious legal weapons.
It's certainly true of the AfD epasion. The last couple
of Poles, I think, for the first time, has majority
support nationally in the UK. Not forget about local elections

(46:35):
nationally now reform is polling number one, and conserves and
labor are buying for number two and three. So this
both by an eys of farage that he's going to
be the next prime minister, and most recently, I think
while I was there he assessed his chances at forty
five percent that he'll be the next prime minister. There

(46:56):
is a truth truth to that. It's what explains Trump's
remarkable political comeback, that he speaks to the majority view
outside of elite consensus in the medi world centers. And
that's where Peter doesn't has missed out in Australia. It's
been true in Canada. Again, it may be that Winston

(47:20):
Peters represents that gathering majority point of view in New
Zealand as well. So I think if the elite parties
maintain the uniparty consensus and give the one finger sign
to the electorate in terms of what the people want,

(47:41):
then there will be others who will rise to take
up that space, and they will complain about the far
right becoming dominant. Well, the way to avoid the far
right becoming dominant is to speak to the political center.
So the overturn window that is called what's become possible
to discuss and to move on will have to open

(48:03):
up to these movements and these forces. Otherwise I think
we're going to head for a revolution which will not
necessarily be peaceful. So I think my sense is that
the push track is going to intensify, and either one
of the established party's senses that and response to that,

(48:26):
or they get pushed aside and we'll see the emergence
of so called populist leaders movements parties in every country
one after the other. And again Poland is a good
example of a party that remains in this sense sensible
and prepared to protect what it believes in If you

(48:47):
don't have core values and convictions that you're prepared to
act on, you're lost to the society and people who
demonstrate that. So there is more scope for authenticity, and
that is another reason for the popularity of Trump, of
Miloney or Victor oband in Hungary of Nigel Faraje. In
the UK, people's sense that at least they say what

(49:10):
they mean, they do what they say, and they prepare
to fight for what they believe in instead of pandering
to the latest fad and the latest outbreak of political correctness.
And there is a great hunger in the electorate for
those sorts of leaders who can connect both emotionally and intellectually,

(49:31):
explain why somethings matter, and explain what they intend to
do and how they intend to get to that shared destination,
rather than take the knee and bend to the political
cross windsor so.

Speaker 2 (49:46):
Give me a number out of out of ten that
you would that you would give Peter Dunton on what
you've just said.

Speaker 3 (49:57):
I think he's been a disappointment. Give me a number,
maybe maybe four if you're generous.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
Fudly enough. Given three, yeah, well, funnily enough, the three
I was going to say the four is close to
where I was, but three is the best best I
can do now. The question then is why is he
the leader of the Liberal Party? Where where is the talent?

Speaker 3 (50:26):
The talent is there? You know who I'd like as
leader of the liborbody. Of all the people they have today,
just enterprise, jeez, I'm not surprised she is the closest
they have. I'm not surprised to people to the sorts
of people you are discussing, and I like people like
Alex Antick and Matt Canavan on the front bench.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
You must be a right winger.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
I'm far right, Okay, I'm far right. I just stood
still in the world turned around and where I was
far left has become far right, such as life.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
Well, I mean, the idea is you improve as you grow,
so you're on You're on track. Look, I want to
I want to concentrate on on Trump for the Trump's
entire political history. You write is a cautionary tale against
confusing elite and media fury for heartland site sentiment. A

(51:20):
certain strategic coherence at a common tactic unite Trump's domestic
and foreign policies in pursuit of the overarching goal of
making America great again. The bigger concern is not that
there's no method to his apparent madness, but that the
implementation of his ambitious national and international agenda could be

(51:44):
imperiled by incompetence and bumbling, as with the amateurish use
of signal chat groups for highly sensitive discussions. Pick it
up from there and tell us why you wrote a column.
Trump's tariffs make sense.

Speaker 3 (52:05):
Well, if you look at the head lines and the
analysis in the media and the dominant consensus amos the
elites on his tariff policy. That's where it started off. Obviously,
I'm not an economist, and the economic orthodoxy agrees that

(52:26):
tariffs are a bad idea, that they cause you harm,
that damage your consumers and effect your bottom line, et cetera,
et cetera, which may or may not be correct. But
the reality is decades of globalization and opening up your
borders and pursuing free trade have resulted in the industrialization

(52:50):
wastelands where they used to be thriving industrial production, a
loss of manufacturing capacity, and jobless growth. Whether economy grows overall,
for the standards of living and wages have not kept pace.
Even with the rise in cost of living, so that

(53:12):
for the first time, the next generation will be poorer
than the previous generation. And the rebellion against that caused
not the least by pursuit of these crazy policies where
we want to appoint people not just at a recruitment level,
but now we're in senior positions of decision making in

(53:36):
public and private institutions based on criteria of race and gender,
et cetera, rather than on merit and accomplishments, while providing
or creating an infrastructure that encourages equality of opportunity rather
than achieve rather than lifestyle based on inherited attributes. And

(54:03):
so he's rebelling against that and has tried to act
with a sense of urgency because he's only got one
term and he remembers what happened with the elites pushing
back in the first term. You see these policies in
opposition to DEI, in abandonment of net zero climate change parispact,
on the trade front and other areas as well, and

(54:28):
then immigration as a crossboard or on border issue. You know,
they don't even know was the ten million or twenty
million people who came into the US illegally under the
Bible dustry.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
It's extraordinary variation in numbers.

Speaker 3 (54:44):
Yeah, because they didn't move and keep records. But I
mean it's an extraordinary statistic. Why is that not actually
any innovation sort of thing? And then internationally, of course,
the inexorable slide of wealth and power to China, done
with the help of Western countries and the determination to

(55:06):
stop that, and if just and how do you say
that in my forthcoming article, if we just think of that,
one of the things that has been brought home in
Ukraine is how quickly Russia was able to upscale its
armament's production and move from production in the factory to

(55:27):
delivery on the battlefront, and the glacial speed with which
the West has tried to respond to that, so that
the assistance that we've given to Ukraine has ended up
depleting our own stocks of these munitions, and we can't
do that. You think of the time it takes to
build one warship today in the US compared to the

(55:49):
number they were producing per month during the Second World War,
and you'll get an idea of the difference. Did you know,
for example, that in four years recently China has built
an entire fleet equivalent to the total British Royal Navy fleet.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
Did I know that, not specifically, No.

Speaker 3 (56:11):
That's an extraordinary thing to think about. So China can
produce these things. And you know, the other thing we
learned from Ukraine is contrary to initial predictions and commentary,
in fact, Russia has been able to modernize and to
readjustice tactics and there is not that great qualitative discrepancy

(56:33):
between their munitions today and the Western ones that people
were saying at the start of it, and as German
products that are failing on the battle, et cetera. So
I think if you think of that and you think, well,
what it we were to end up in a shooting
war with China, short of nuclear war, you will not

(56:55):
be able to sustain a military conflict for any length
of time because we don't have the capacity to do
that today. And that's because we outsourced an offshore and
made ourselves dependent on critical long supply chains. So the
tariffs are a way of in that sense, they become
a strategic choice for which there is an economic price.

(57:18):
But if you're going to engage in a sustain conflict
along the lines of the Two Wars to World Wars
that lasted for several years. You have to have that
sort of industrial capacity at home, and that applies. I mean,
obviously you're not in the same skate in Australia and
usually isn't there at all. But our industrial capacity has

(57:38):
also holed out all in the name of economic efficiency,
lower prices for the consumer, whether or not it produces
more jobs at home, whether or not it increases our
dependence on potential adversaries. So in that sense, if they're
convinced that China is a real enemy, the tariffs becomes

(57:58):
a way means and a strategic tactic, a strategic ploy
to reverse offshoring and instead reshow manifact in capacity back
in the American heartland. We already know that the United
States remains the most innovative and the best balanced economy,
but I think they want to make it also once

(58:19):
again the manufacturing powerhouse for the world, or at least
move away song items from China are two countries like India. Maybe,
So in that sense, there is a certain strategic logic
to everything he is doing, and that is we have
to restore our self confidence. We have to restore pride

(58:39):
in what we stand forward be, meaning both the America
and the Western generally, we need to end the orgy
of national self amazement, and we need to think strategically
and long term about what if we end up in
a prolonged trade and heaven forbid milt you over China.

(59:03):
Are we going to be able to sustain it so
that at the end of it we prevail or are
you going to accept defeat? So if you think that
to any situation, and the old logic of military preparations
and preparedness, whether you win or lose a war is
not answered on the day the war breaks out. It's

(59:26):
answered in the years and decads leading up to that.
If you have the capacity not just the military, but
the industrial capacity and the economic capacity to sustain and
prevail in a major war, and that's the way I
think the coherence element comes in. But in implementation it's
been surprisingly amateurs and they're paying a political price for

(59:48):
that at the moment. I hope they recover in time,
but we'll wait and see. But one thing I might
add to that is too many opponents have under estimated
Donald Trump to their own cost in the past, so
I think we need to bear that in mind. He
is not your conventional politician. Everything he says says is

(01:00:11):
in as an opening gambit in a complex protected negotiation,
or sometimes I think he's just trolling his abbondance.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
Okay, so you you read him very well? How did
that come about? Did you read a book or two?
Did you work it out yourself? Do you have insight
into a bit of psychology?

Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
I think.

Speaker 2 (01:00:35):
Okay? And I accept that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:38):
I accept that that was only myself.

Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
That was that was that was only the introduction to
the question. And I think you just answered it, you
think for yourself. But why is it that there are
so many people who can't grasp it? And and that's
the majority majority of people by far?

Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
Really well with Trump with Americans, let's stick to that.
You get two caps. His supporters are only two, well
aware of his character flaws and other flaws, and are
prepared to overlook that in looking at policies and results.

(01:01:16):
His critics can never get beyond his character flaws and
his obvious vulgarity and crudeness, and therefore never look at
his actual policies and achievements. So his supporters discount his
rhetoric and take his policy seriously. His critics and opponents
takes his words seriously and ignore and discount his actual policies.

(01:01:40):
And that's where the problem comes in. So the effort
by the Democrats to keep insisting, and he's sitting even
more loudly. Look at his flaws, look at his well guarage,
look at his character. He's a convicted fellow. All that
was pointless in terms of changing the opinion of the
first group, and I think they've ended up in a

(01:02:03):
very strange position as a result. And we'll see what
next year's MITIM elections in Congress.

Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
Well, big danger there that I actually agree with if
if he doesn't get things into place enough, they'll reject him.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
I agree, But again we again, we'll have to be
careful that you don't mistake for the MSM and the
public intellectual lettering us call what the people think.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
I want to quote you. I just want to quote you.
I want to quote you. The scandal over the alleged
corruption of the founder of the World Economic Forum in
Davos would be just an anecdote were it not another
example of what has happened recently with many international institutions.
The Financial Times reveals that the we HAVE founder faces

(01:02:53):
accusations of manipulating the organization's analysis to gain favor with governments.
Davos went from being a forum for debate to a
congregation for repeating interventionist dogmas and whitewashing a single extractive mindset.
Those who defended economic freedom, attractive taxes, and control over

(01:03:14):
public spending were gradually ostracized. We have heard enthusiastic applause
for those demanding more taxes and greater assaults on job creators,
and one sided debates in which all participants repeated cliches
and words like resilience and sustainability as trojan horses for

(01:03:35):
predatory statism, where the where the idea of creating value
and wealth was repudiated. Forget the last little bit, but
the question is was Davos ever really a place of
any importance.

Speaker 6 (01:03:51):
I think initially it was a place for networking of
the high and mighty, the elite, the global elites, and
people wanted to go and wanted to be invited, and
it gave them status.

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
I think the underestimate the importance of craving states from
the group that matters to individuals. You know that as
a minor example. I'm sure that was a major factor
in Scott Morrison reversing his government's policy on net zero,
the fact that he got invited to some of these

(01:04:26):
G seven summit as a guest stoke phys ego in
that sense, and to belong to the club he had
to subscribe to the cop beliefs in Gasgow when he
first retreated from that. So there is an element of that.
And once in power, a surprising number of politicians gave

(01:04:50):
the status of fellow leaders from around the world, even
at the cost of their own people's approbation after that,
and there is that factor. Now will that change after
this I don't know, but certainly in recent times the
phrase the divers man has become a presorative phrase rather

(01:05:11):
than something to be admired, and I think in the
current elections in Canada, I think it will happen in Australia.
People will run to dissociate themselves from ever having attended
a w A forum or meeting, rather than thought that
as a credential for voting for them. So I don't

(01:05:35):
know how many people in New Zealand have attended any
of these forums, but certainly important networking them and getting
them into international positions or advisory boards.

Speaker 2 (01:05:48):
Sorry I just said yeah, okay, which reminds me. There
was a There is a piece in the Spectator of
Australia this week just Cinder a Dern and the empty
politics of kindness.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
Oh, Michael Jackson, that's actually from Spectator UK. That'd be
really produced. You know that my Jackon has a New
Zealand connection. No, he was at Canterbury. He was. He
was from England and I know him. He was a canyon.
In fact, in my trip to London, I had lunch
with him and I talked about this article that he
was just written. Indeed, but he was at Canterbury. He

(01:06:32):
was so disgusted with New Zealand's COVID policies that he
decided to return to England. He never did get vaccinated
and he returned home. He was co founder of New
Zealand's COVID Plan B.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
Do you think there's a Do you think there's a
case for removing the awards that were given to the
Prime Minister and her chief Science or her advisor Bluefield.

Speaker 3 (01:07:01):
For COVID management? Yes? Absolutely. I think there's a very
strong case for accountability. Yes, and I don't think that's
going to happened in the imminent future. But you know,
on one side, you feel angry that amongst Joe Biden's
final acts was pardoning Anthony Fauci. On the other at

(01:07:21):
the very least, that's an implicit admission of guilt. You
can't get pardoned for something that you haven't done as wrong.
And it also makes it easier now to demand answers
from him because he no longer has the defense of

(01:07:42):
I don't want to incriminate myself. He can't be prosecuted,
so he has no reason not to answer. And of
course one of the things that Trump has done, which
I like very much, is he's moved into position at
the top levels people who are early and consistent critics
of the COVID policy madness, like Jef Dagaria as head

(01:08:03):
of the National Institue of Wealth, like Marty McCary as
head of the FDA, and so on. So I think
in time they will want accountability, and certainly the awards
like the knighthoods two people in the UK, like the
Australian Order of Australia that we've given hearth to people

(01:08:23):
who betrayed the interests of the citizens and imposed unnecessary
and before not twenty twenty, unimaginable cruelty in the name
of containing COVID. They do need to be held to account,
and I hope I lot live long enough to see it,

(01:08:44):
although I doubt it.

Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
I'm pondering an answer to that.

Speaker 3 (01:08:48):
Well, let me explain on that. I think crimes that
are committed do require punishment, so I include punitive justification
as one reason. A second justification is emotional closure. The
number of people who are affected is in the millions.
People who are not able to say goodbye to elderly

(01:09:12):
parents and grandparents before their death, who died deaths of
despair and loneliness, people who are not able to attend
other important family landmarks, the loss of schooling for children,
the whole range of things. There's not going to be
emotional closure to them unless the wrongs that were done

(01:09:35):
are publicly acknowledged and people who were responsible for that
are shamed and or otherwise punished. And this is something
that I bring over from my professional interest in masatrocities.
So that's the second argument for that, and the third
argument is a simple one of returns. Your best antidote

(01:09:56):
or your best strategy for avoiding a repetition of such
cruelty and anti scientific policy insanity is to punish those
who are responsible. But if you keep grunting them endless impunity,
they don't think twice again, they just repeat it. So
I think there are three powerful arguments of justice being

(01:10:19):
seen to be done, emotional closure and the terms of
such activities in the future. And if you don't do that,
we will suffer repeat of that in endless cycles until
someone realizes that we need to take some action against
the perpetrators, otherwise it will happen again and again.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
Well, speaking of happening again and again, that leads me
onto the World Health Organization. And I don't know whether
you've seen David Bell's piece that's on Brownstone today. Yes,
but but I just I just want again.

Speaker 3 (01:10:57):
I met with him in London over three days, so
it's a.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
Small world is shrinking even further now. He's a good man,
and the two of you have very much in common.
As I've said the said in the past both of you.
Both of you have been involved with them, with the
World Health Organization and the UN, and both of you
have turned your back on them. So for those who

(01:11:26):
don't yet understand, just briefly, the World Health Organization, we
should as a country go along with their plans at
this point of time.

Speaker 3 (01:11:37):
No, No, We both David and I and a lot
of us subscribe very strongly to the principle of the
need for an international health organization. But I've been a
lifelong student of the UN system, as you know, and
held the senior position in the system. I think any

(01:12:00):
international organization that's been in existence for five, six, seven,
eight decades has accumulated a set of vested interests that
between them subvert its original mission and mandate to the
interests of the organization. And we see elements of mission creep,

(01:12:21):
and we see elements of compulsion and coalsion, and we
see elements of elevating the international order above the member states,
whereas they're meant to be servants of states agent. So
the principle, if that is the case, what can we
do to return to the foundational principles and purposes of

(01:12:42):
the organization? And more importantly, can we reform the existing
institutions or do we need to begin afresh? And I've
concluded after bitter experience, if you like that, if you
aim for reform, it will be counted the success. If
you achieve five percent of what you set off with

(01:13:02):
as your goals because you get caught in the process
and it gets taken up by the intergovernmental modalities and prostities,
and we end up with the lowest common denominator, which
is just tinkering and no substantial things. And the best
example of that is the UN Security Council, which is
totally out of line with the existing reality and therefore

(01:13:25):
the odd situation where it's resolutions and decisions have legal
force but are increasingly illegitimate as well as most of
the world is concerned. And you see that with countries defined,
for example, the international Criminal courts indictment of both Plutin
and Nathan Yahoo. So that's one element of that. And

(01:13:47):
if you want to return, on the other hand, to
foundational things, you are probably better off in terms of
effort to look for a new organization that restores the
balance between international, regional and national level authorities. And if
you think of COVID, the striking feature was the regional

(01:14:08):
variation where the big killer diseases in Africa remained the
traditional ones for malaria, TV, HIV, AIDS, et cetera, and
COVID was a minor bl bloom rather than a major factor,
whereas for Western countries for Europe and North America and
to someone in South America. COVID was a big factor.

(01:14:30):
So it's better to return decision making authority to regional
rather than international organizations and at the international level use
it for coordination. So we are reverse. You are not
averse to that, But the agreements that the International Health
Regulations amendments that were passed and the Pandemic Agreement that
has been negotiated, I think rewards the WHO for incompetence

(01:14:57):
and mismanagement and gives it a vested interest to expand
its resources and authority and powers by declaring emergencies when
there is an on necessary reason to do so, and
I think it becomes a matter of perverse incentives. So

(01:15:19):
I think we need an international health organization, but better
grounded in terms of the distribution of responsibilities and agency
between international, regional, national, and even individuals level of responsibility.
So I like to return to the principles of informed consent,

(01:15:40):
the sanctity of doctor patient relationship, reliance on doctors in
the clinic rather than bureaucrats in national and international capitals.
For what the policy advice should be. Break the links
between financial interest and decision making, break the links between
big farmer in terms of funding, structures, et cetera. So

(01:16:02):
there's a lot of things that need to be done
if we have big items and what they are going,
what they're doing is the wrong way around, and it's
rewarding failures, is rewarding mafecens in some cases, and putting
purpose incentives in place. So I'd like to work with
David on a project where we look at, as I said,

(01:16:26):
foundational issues and restructure it accordingly so it can return
to that. And a good example of what I have
in mind is if you look at the shift from
the League of Nations in the interwar period the United
Nations after the Second World War, many of the items
in the Charter of the UN were taken over from
the Covenant of the League of Nations. Many of the

(01:16:48):
structures remain the same, many of the policies and goals
remain the same, but for political reasons you wouldn't have
got agreement or the powers that be that were important
get kept the name the same, so we change and
change the name. Other innovations that were put into the
constitution of the Charter into the structure, well, I were

(01:17:09):
innovations that in practice had already been initiated under the League.
And then there was a third set, which are ideas
that were circulating during the League but hadn't been implemented,
which we implemented in the US system. The world quote
is an example one that was taken right over from before.
So you can keep the good parts, drop the bad parts,

(01:17:30):
and embed the innovations, but in a much more rational
and logical and sensible manner, returning to basic science, reducing
the element of politicization, and cutting back the influence of
groups that shouldn't have that influence in decision making in
the first place. So yeah, as you can get from that,

(01:17:53):
I think we still believe in the vision of an
international organization, but want to return it to a minimalist
coordinating role rather than directive command and control with too
much power and that too much faith in the discretionary
and decision making bodies of run by bureaucrats.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
That was an outstanding response, very logical and can I
use the term common sense again, look very very quickly. Finally,
I'm doing this for missus producer. She's very keen to
know your thoughts on Kashmir and the military confrontation that

(01:18:38):
took place between India and Pakistan recently. What was the
twenty six people I think got killed. Is there likely
to be a response, a military response do you think
from India?

Speaker 3 (01:18:53):
Much more likely than not. I think that's because the
Modi government has been committed to changing the underflying pattern
of provocative actions and India goes into a reactive mode.
We drew the lines of the dispute come conflict about

(01:19:15):
six years ago now where for the first time Indian
planes fired missiles deep into Pakistan proper rather than just
into disputed Kashmi territory, and they up the ante in
that sense. And the important point of that was not
the details of what they achieved, but the message that
were sent was there are no limits set by you

(01:19:38):
as to how we will respond, but we will respond
in a manner and a time of our choosing, and
on targets of our choosing. That said, the couple of
things that are different this time. The previous one in
twenty nineteen was an attack by militants on the military
or paramilitary convoy that killed the last number of people
in the forties, a thing from memory. This time it

(01:20:00):
was deliberately targeting tourists. So while I'll use the word
militancy for the previous one. This one, and I think
is satisfies all the core definitions of terrorism. It was
an ultra terrorism to the point where now remember we're
talking about Hindus and Muslims and Seeks. Mainly, they got

(01:20:23):
the main folk to lower the trousers so they could
distinguish the circumcise from the uncircumcised, spared the Muslim malls
and went after the Hindu and Seek mills in this attack.
I don't think they've succeeded in driving divisions between Hindus
and Muslim and Seeks in customery yourself, I think there's
a rare unanimility that as far as I can see

(01:20:45):
across the political spectrum and the horror at what was done.
But it's impossible to imagine the Maori government not taking
some military action because that will undo decades worth of
progress they've achieved in the strategic signaling with Pakistan, and
I think politically they believe in for the exposed one.

(01:21:07):
That's for me there's a minor consideration, but obviously for
them it might be a bigger consideration, modified by the
fact that they don't have to have elections for some
time yet, but they're not going to leave themselves vulnerable.
So I think there will be desperate communications between not
just Indians and Pakistani authorities, but outside, particularly the Americans

(01:21:29):
as well as possibly the Russian than some of the Europeans.
Will it go out of control? I doubt it. I haven't.
I mean, I've seen the allegations from the inside, but
you haven't got evidence that is independently verified of Pakistani
involvement and the extent of Pakistani involvement. Now, remember in
Pakistan it's possible for the intelligence services to act independently

(01:21:53):
of the government as well, so again there's degrees of
culpability and deniability. But I just don't see Indian government
not doing anything and not retaliating in some military form.
And I don't think it will be just a minor thing.
I think it will be court substantial.

Speaker 2 (01:22:10):
But you'll see I have sat here and considered myself
to be in class for the last hour and a it.
What I'm saying is that that's what the Education department needs,
doesn't matter where it is is people of standing that
you represent, and I say that unashamedly.

Speaker 3 (01:22:30):
You're very kind lesson as all this thank you, okay,
look forward to it next time. Well when you what
the results of the elections are this week in the meantime.

Speaker 2 (01:22:40):
Indeed, thanks y okay. Take Buckerlan is a natural oral

(01:23:03):
vaccine in a tablet form called bacterial. I say it.
It'll boost your natural protet against bacterial infections in your
chest and throat. A three day course of seven Buckelan
tablets will help your body build up to three months
of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So
who can take buccolan well, the whole family from two

(01:23:23):
years of age and upwards. A course of buckelan tablets
offers cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills.
Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan
and lasts for up to three months following the three
day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout the cold season,
over winter, or all the year round. And remember Buckelan
is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but

(01:23:47):
may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection.
And keep in mind that millions of doses have been
taken by Kiwis for over fifty years. Only available from
your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed, and
see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker, Auckland Layton
Smith Missus producer podcast number two hundred and eighty two,

(01:24:11):
and the mail room. How are you later, I'm very well,
thank you.

Speaker 7 (01:24:15):
And amongst all this mess this morning, Actually I was
just reading about a book. I think it was a
Japanese the ancient Japanese art of decluttering. Well, that book
would never be attached to your library, would it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
I wouldn't, not at anywhere near it.

Speaker 7 (01:24:28):
I'm going to be doing some decluttering this morning.

Speaker 2 (01:24:31):
Actually it may be contagious.

Speaker 7 (01:24:32):
Not better keep your door shut.

Speaker 2 (01:24:36):
Anyway, It's there for a purpose, so I can't find
it now. Steve writes thoroughly enjoyed listening to Nick Kata,
especially as at the time we were sitting on my
son and daughter in law's deck overlooking the beach at
d Y on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. Every time
I put my phone on there was an advert for

(01:24:56):
one of the one or other of the parties in
the Australian election. But as Nick suggested, it seemed to
me that areas like that are consumed by their own
elitism and that it's only the Teals, the Greens or
labor who really figure in the locals consciousness. What about
the diggers, the people who do the real work in Australia.

(01:25:18):
I don't know, but I doubt the existing Liberal party
really represents them either. And if you're interested, I've attached
my submission to Phase two of the Royal Commission of
Inquiry into the New Zealand COVID response which I sent
in today ANZAC Day, in that I wanted to stress
that the total inversion of medical ethics and morality propagated

(01:25:41):
at the time was akin to the legal profession deciding
en mass to discount everything to do with the Magna Carta,
or the engineers discounting everything to do with the euclid's
systems of measurements. Well, they've done well. I won't go
out of the engineers. It was that insane. Where would

(01:26:02):
the law be without Magna Carta or engineers without EUCLID.
Everything that doctors and has stood for was intentionally and
deliberately sabotaged for some nefarious and I personally believe evil purpose.
I concluded my submission with those two words never again.

(01:26:23):
Just my thoughts for the day, Keep well both of you,
and best wishes. Look, this submission that he made missus
Producer is so good. I'm going to quote a little
bit of it at the back end of this.

Speaker 7 (01:26:35):
Good lighton jin says Kurt Schlickter hit the nail on
the head regarding the key problem with America when he
said that America forgot what made America great. It didn't
matter where you came from, but when you came to America,
you became an American. You're American first. This was common
sense until America lost her common sense for a number
of decades. Kurt pointed out that one of the circuit

(01:26:58):
breakers to this American amnesia was nine to eleven when
it quote knocked America out of its complacency. But it
appeared that America needed an even bigger jolt of sense
to really awaken her. I watched a recent Tucker Carlson
interview with your brother in law George Friedman, who pointed
to a second circuit breaker with immense cultural impact to

(01:27:20):
America and the rest of the world. When Tucker Carlson said,
it feels like there's got to be some hard pivot
or something, you know, there's some disaster that resets people's expectations.
George instantly replied, it's called Donald Trump. What I'm saying
is whether he planned it or just is it. He's

(01:27:40):
the man of the moment. He's the wrecking ball that
Lincoln was and the wrecking ball that Roosevelt was and
Jackson was. And he's shifting the country by emphasizing two things.
One culture wars are untenable, and secondly, you can't keep
inventing classes. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome. That was
from George. Then George made this brilliant observation. Experts are important,

(01:28:05):
but they need someone with common sense above to tame them. Well,
Americas voted for the man of common sense, Donald Trump,
And if this was an election year in New Zealand,
I think that for the very first time, I'm ready
to vote for Winston Peters because like him or not,
he has been the man of common sense for literally
all his political life. Winston for Prime Minister? Maybe?

Speaker 3 (01:28:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:29):
I included that last little sentence in the discussion with
Ramesh because I thought it was appropriate. Now this is
in response to my request for some comments on what
I read the Pope's message to his bishops in America
just a few days before he died, and I suggested

(01:28:51):
the engine I'd be interested in hearing opinions. This was
the best one. What a pile of woke Marxist claptrap.
That letter from the Pope was that won't be pulling
lapsed Catholics like me back to the church from somebody
who lives with armed guards behind walls in a gilded throne,
on a gilded throne. What a nerve. Maybe he could

(01:29:14):
have told jd Vance Vatican City would offer asylum to
five thousand murderous thugs from MS thirteen. Where is this
call to illegal migrants into Europe to respect the Christian
homelands and the people who were giving them shelter, food, clothing,
medical care and pocket money instead of rape, murder and
knife crime at all time highs, car attacks and church burnings.

(01:29:38):
He could have shown some actual leadership. Instead, he exposes
himself as another lefty political creature with TDS. The Holy
See desperately needs strong moral leadership. I wonder if they'd
consider electing an actual and actual Catholic next time round.
Paul I asked for it, I got it.

Speaker 7 (01:30:01):
Thank you, Layton David says, as someone who has had
to abide by strict immigration laws during the last nine
years living in Thailand, I don't have any sympathy for
aliens who illegally entered the United States and are now
being confronted with the prospect of deportation. Of course, the
bottom feeding lawyers of the ACLU and corrupt activist judges

(01:30:22):
are doing their utmost to keep George Soris and his
son's globalist agenda alive by blocking deportations. Maybe President Trump
should change tax and consider relocating illegal alien gang members
to a purpose built prison camp in Alaska, rather than
fighting for deportation orders through the crooked court system. Give

(01:30:44):
all the illegal aliens the choice of either voluntarily removing
themselves from the US or end up on a government
sponsored one way trip to the backwards of Alaska. If
that approach proved to be successful, maybe the UK and
EU could be inspired to follow suit with similar schemes
to thwart the globalists and their resistance through the court

(01:31:04):
system to deportations of illegal aliens. Other than pampering illegal
aliens by housing them enforced our hotels at taxpayer's expense,
the UK government should offer them the same deal and
colonization and grievances. Everything about the wars was full of
Mari language, and TV News had the presenter ran on

(01:31:25):
for ages. In her appeasing Mari intro. The day indicated
that maybe our soldiers weren't united but forought and support
of Mary, who it appears, dominated our services. When will
this end? As the country is being more divided every day,
the media are playing their divisive best. I'm sick and
tired of this forced narrative where everything must be named

(01:31:45):
in Maray and everything it's Mari or it's worthless. Time
to end this utter nonsense. That's from Steve.

Speaker 2 (01:31:51):
Steve, appreciate it so very good male, and keep it up, folks.
And now you may wish to depart if you thank
you later, I say goodbye because I know you've got
things to that. We've always got things to do. Thanks Layton,
see you next week.

Speaker 3 (01:32:07):
Yes now.

Speaker 2 (01:32:22):
The submission to Part two of the New Zealand Government
Royal Commission of Inquiry into the New Zealand COVID response
from Steve. It's one two three three pages, close print,
but I'm going to be picky. In April of twenty nineteen,
I retired from medical practice. I've been a GP in
New Zealand since nineteen seventy eight. In December of that year,

(01:32:45):
the first rumors of a coronavirus appearing in China began
to permeate the New Zealand media. In the weeks, months,
and years that followed, the resultant inversion of and absolute
perversion of the ethical and moral framework of medicine and
healthcare could never have been imagined by anyone of sound

(01:33:05):
mind or anyone who had a modicum of wisdom until
it happened. To put this in perspective, the retreat from
reality which medical practice and healthcare adopted was no less
extreme than that of the legal profession deciding that the
Magna Carta was irrelevant, or the engineering profession deciding that

(01:33:27):
euclid's system of measurement and its derivatives were irrelevant. Medicine
turned its back on more than two and a half
thousand years of patient centered compassion and everything, I mean
everything that has been the basis of medical practice was upended. Now,
coming from a medical person, from a doctor of some

(01:33:50):
considerable experience, you have to say that puts the boot in.
Then it's divided. His submission is divided up into the
New Zealand response. Give you an example, what was the
New Zealand response to COVID? In short, everything was wrong
for example, and then runs through who eleven points before

(01:34:10):
carrying on first couple just for interest, quarantining healthy people
was wrong. Number two Using the PCR test as a
diagnostic tool was scientifically and ethically wrong. Number three quoted
case fatality rates including x the who was wrong. They

(01:34:31):
were intentionally malicious anyway. The next it goes on quite
a way. Vaccines is covered. Then we get to flawed science.
I believe it's important for non medical people to understand,
that's most of us, that the entire premise of mRNA
injections is fraught. In simple terms, mRNA is a protein which,

(01:34:55):
when injected into the body, will immediately be recognized by
that body's immune system as being foreign, and over millions
of years, immune systems have developed elegant and sophisticated methods
to recog dies and promptly destroy such foreign proteins. Part,
but only part, of this sophistication is now understood by

(01:35:17):
molecular biologists, and it was determined that by replacing one
of the four bases in an mRNA product with a surrogate,
it would be possible to disguise that foreign protein mRNA
so that the immune system would not recognize it. In
doing so, not only does that allow the foreign mRNA

(01:35:39):
to enter the cell and execute its function of stimulating
the productive the production of spike protein in the case
of COVID vaccines that was in brackets, but because it
bypasses and disables the immune surveillance system, it effectively makes
the cell vulnerable to other infections and similarly impairs the

(01:36:02):
body's response to the recognition of aber and cell behavior,
such as in the development of cancer. As a medical scientist,
to me, it is quite astonishing that the Nobel Prize
in Medicine in twenty twenty three was awarded to Courico
and Wisemann, the scientists who devised this method of disabling

(01:36:24):
the natural immune system. I fear that we are only
just at the beginning of the potentially devastating long term
results of this research into the undermining of the immune system.
Doesn't that leave you stunned? This is the only submission
that they need to consider. They don't need another one.

(01:36:44):
They just need one hundred thousand of these and then
it gets to the future for New Zealand. In my view,
it would be a not unreasonable stance for the Commission
to propose that future pandemics be managed along the lines
that pandemic preparedness had been carefully hammered out over the
decades through the twentieth century. In other words, in a

(01:37:05):
diametrically opposite manner in which which the New Zealand government
and governments of most of the world, at the behest
of the World Health Organization had dictated that COVID should
be managed. In essence, the traditional response to pandemics, which
had been decided and agreed to internationally over many many years,

(01:37:27):
was as follows. Quarantine the sick, protect the vulnerable, allow
the infection that's the virus to propagate through the healthy population,
to allow the development of natural herd immunity. And number four,
never vaccinate into an epidemic or pandemic, because by dint
of evolution, that is bound to lead to the development

(01:37:50):
of new variants of the pathogen against which your vaccine
will likely be ineffective. In large part, this approach mirrors
the proposal in twenty twenty in the Great Barrington Declaration,
as proposed by doctor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, j Baticharia

(01:38:11):
of Stanford and Martin Koldorf of Harvard, all of which
were summarily dismissed by the political and media establishment of
the Western world. Then this politics and the reckoning at
the end. But it's I mean, it should be read
by everybody because it's a brilliant submission and it has authority,
and I can only refer to the immediacy that Ramash

(01:38:35):
the Ker responded to my question about the honors and
awards that were handed out to people in this country
who did not and do not deserve them. Thank you, Steve,
and that is where we'll leave a podcast Umber two
hundred and eighty two, and don't forget if you have thoughts,

(01:38:55):
and don't forget if you have thoughts, write them Laton
at newstalksb dot co dot nzed or Carolyn at newstalksb
dot co dot NZ and I only have left to
say thank you for listening as always, and we shall
talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:39:18):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b 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 #282 - April 30th 2025 - Ramesh Thakur

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.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 #282 - April 30th 2025 - Ramesh Thakur