Leighton Smith Podcast #304 - October 1st 2025 - Guy Hatchard - 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 of the US, Now the
Layton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts three hundred and four for October one,
twenty twenty five. This morning, I was giving considerable thought
to a number of issues that I decided or realized,
if you like, had connections in common, albeit not in
the same literal category. Example, how to make a great
cappuccino on a plane versus how to deal with a

(00:48):
medical crisis on the same aircraft. The only commonality is
the plane. Now try and resolve a dilemma involving truth.
Why so well, at the moment there's much disagreement on
precisely that, and more recently, we have politicians in different
countries wanting to introduce legislation outlawing commentary that does not

(01:10):
represent their truth, which in itself is nuts. And then
I opened an article by a medical professor in the
US on that same question. It was total coincidence. Herein
lies the problem, herein lies the problem he writes, how
can we ever arrive at a true representation of reality?

(01:31):
During the Great COVID Disaster, I kept thinking that if
only the actual, unbiased data could be shared with those
who insisted the virus evolved naturally, or those who believed
early treatment was impossible, or those who insisted that mRNA
agents were safe and effective, the impulse could be broken.

(01:54):
Alas that never happened because the source of illumination had
been altered from what it was in the past. With
the advent of postmodernism, the literal definition of truth itself
has changed. The truth has been replaced by my truth
and your truth. Truth has become an opinion, no more

(02:14):
important than whether you like your stake rare or medium. Now.
In the past, we relied on ethical medical science to
lead the way to find the truth. But is that
even possible now? In current medical studies, it seems that
the conclusions are now made first, then the study is
designed to fit those conclusions. A recently published study on

(02:35):
a trial of a new drug to treat hypertension had
this statement appended to the end. The sponsor designed and
conducted the study, including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of
the data. The sponsor was involved in the preparation, review
and approval of the manuscript, and decision to submit the

(02:56):
manuscript for publication in collaboration with all authors. The final
decision on content was exclusively retained by the authors. Now,
he says, I realized that rug companies are interested in
proving their products indeed help people. But if the drug
manufacturer designs and conducts the study, including collection, management, analysis,

(03:18):
and interpretation of the data, does it not give one pause?
Is it appropriate for the drug manufacturer to have this
degree of control?

Speaker 3 (03:28):
Now?

Speaker 2 (03:28):
I want to take this a little further, but let
me tell you first. The author is russ A. Gonering
Gooble n Erng, Adjunct Professor of Ophthalmology at the Medical
College of Wisconsin, and the article appeared in Brownstone. I
want to go further with it, though, because it makes
a very good point. That is, I think, I think terribly,

(03:52):
terribly contributive to understanding some of the issues that we've
been well, I want to say, bitching about for some
time in this country and others, with the one side
being right and one side being wrong. Do I need
to explain? Gonoring gives a number of examples, and I
want to choose two of Consider this article by Carlton

(04:14):
Giles in the Canadian Veteranary Journal, published in twenty fifteen.
This was five years before the Great COVID disaster. Giles
references the statements of editors of two of the most
renowned medical journals in the English language and bemoans the
state of medical publications. This is a quote published in

(04:36):
Drama from Marcia Angel, former editor in chief of the
New England Journal of Medicine. Over the past two decades,
the pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation
of its own products. Drug companies now finance most clinical
research on prescription drugs, and there is mounting evidence that

(05:00):
they often skew the research they sponsor to make their
drugs look better and safer. Two recent articles underscore the problem.
One showed that many publications concerning Merck's rofe kobics that
were attributed primarily or solely to academic investigators were actually
written by Merck employees or medical publishing companies hired by merk.

(05:24):
The other showed that the company manipulated the data analysis
in two clinical trials to minimize the increased mortality associated
with Rofe Kobix bias in the way industry sponsored research
is conducted and reported is not unusual and by no
means limited to merk Then, in his twenty fifteen commentary,

(05:45):
Richard Horton, the editor in chief of The Lancet, wrote,
the case against science is straightforward. Much of the scientific literature,
perhaps half, may simply be untrue, afflicted by studies with
small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analysis, and flagrant

(06:05):
conflicts of interest, together with an ab session for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn
towards darkness. This from the editor in chief of The Lancet.
The author then asks the question is their remedy, and

(06:25):
cutting to the quick, he says things may have changed.
On August fifteen, twenty twenty five, J. Batticharia, the new
director of National Institutes of Healthy NIH, published his vision
of a unified strategy to redirect the priorities of the
NIH in order to restore confidence in the science. And

(06:50):
there's a number of points that I might go into.
You can read it for yourself though on Brownstone. Now
at the back end of the podcast, a brief mention
of a couple of technical matters that will very likely
interfere with your life, if not immediately, then in the
not too distant future. Spooky, but in a moment. Guy Hatchet.

(07:32):
Guy Hatchard is director and principal contributor to the Hatchard Report. Actually,
he's made some adjustments to the Hatchard Report, and we'll
mention that at the end of the podcast. He's been
a lifelong advocate of food safety. He was formerly Director
of Natural Products at genetic Id, a global food safety
testing and certification company now known as food Chain Id.

(07:56):
Genetic Id developed techniques to test for the presence of
genetically modified organisms in food and provided services to Bolk
food trading companies like ADM, Cargol and many others in
order to facilitate access to export markets and increase consumer trust.
He's presented his findings to the governments and industry leaders

(08:17):
around the world. He appeared before the New Zealand Royal
Commission on Genetic Modification and has been a key figure
in discussions since twenty seventeen, which eventually led to the
repeal of the Natural Products Bill. And he's written the
book Your DNA Diet, which is available from Amazon's great
to have you back.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
Great to be here, Laton.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
There is so much, so much to discuss. Well, let
me make this observation and get your comment. Am I wrong?
And it could be because you know, I spent five
weeks out of the country and in Europe it didn't
pay a lot of attention to things. Am I wrong
in saying that there has been an increase in input

(09:03):
as in research, reporting, writing, and I don't mean media
research and reporting in the area that we are basically
here to discuss, and that is the gene technology bill.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
Oh yes, I think there's a big buzs isn't there?

Speaker 2 (09:21):
And I'm talking just the last few months.

Speaker 4 (09:24):
Yeah, I think it's an issue. You know, this is
a big change for New Zealand, it's a big change
for the world, of course. And people are expressing their
I'm not going to say opinions, They're expressing what they
know about the issue, because there is a lot known
about the issue, a lot of research published, and I

(09:47):
think the centers around the whole notion of substantial equivalent.
There has been this assumption that gene auto products are
somehow very much the same as naturally occurring products or
their sort of genetic ancestors. But research has come out
and that's simply not the case. And people are aware
of this, and they're talking about writing to their MPs,

(10:10):
they're setting up public forums and this is a matter
of concern because what we eat affects us and that's
this is the whole point of my book Your DNA Diet,
that the missing factor in our understanding of nutrition is
the fact that we rely on the genetic structures in

(10:33):
our food for our health, not just the vitamins, not
just the fats, proteins, cofactors of digestion and so on, carbohydrates,
the actual natural food that has a genetic structure is
vital for our health and there's an enormous amount of
research on this now. Altering that genetic structure is degrading

(10:59):
the essential quality of the food that we eat, and
there's a lot known about it. A lot of the parameters,
the cacture of food, the nutritional content changes when you
genetically modify an organism, so it's it's you know, this
is something of huge public concern and we have been

(11:21):
protected from this in New Zealand after the big debate
that we had at the end of the nineties that
the genetic modification debate and the government is proposing to
change that. Well, there has to be a national debate
about this, and it just doesn't these days. It's not

(11:42):
just about food, it's about medical procedures, it's about vaccines,
it's about food processing as well, using genetically modified microorganisms
and so on. Quite an extensive subject and we need
to inform ourselves about it.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
It's got a very broad base now, doesn't it.

Speaker 4 (12:07):
It does, and I think these concerns are genuine. They
have to be thrashed out and I'm very pleased to
see that New Zealand Versus has taken a lot of
these concerns very seriously, and that is the reason that
this bill hasn't rushed through parliament. We're still waiting for
the Health Select Committee to report and Shane Jones publicly

(12:32):
announced that they're very concerned about the content of the
bill and they wish to negotiate what it covers. Personally,
I think that they need a much stronger regulatory regi
than the when they've got at the moment, not the
proposed deregulation, and I think the reasons for that are obvious,

(12:54):
aren't they we've just had five years pandemic. It seems
virtually certain that that COVID itself came out of a lab.
The intervent, the health interventions after which weren't really very
successful and in fact carried a lot of harm with them,
the vaccine and so on, and the procedures in hospitals,

(13:17):
all of these things came out of a paradigm based
on biotechnology. Thirty million people. This is the figure that
our world and data a very reliable health data.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
Source, thirty million people. Excess deaths in the world during
the last five years. That should be really a wake
up caution.

Speaker 2 (13:40):
Well, it should. There's been a volcanic eruption of information
that's flooded the market, but its only flooded the market
that is willing to process it and proceed with it.
And you've got plenty of media that still won't have
a bar of it, won't touch it because it's still,
as far as they're concerned, not the narrative, and they

(14:01):
are making fools of themselves. And that's being revealed day
by day, week by week.

Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah, you've only got a look at the publishing that's
going on. The facts that are coming out about the
dangers of the gene technology and we're looking at anchogenesis
and people are so uninformed.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
Just this morning, a few.

Speaker 4 (14:24):
Minutes ago, I was reading an article and Stuff about
increases in bowel cancer and.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
There's in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (14:34):
In New Zealand, there's.

Speaker 4 (14:35):
Been an academic epidemic which is overwhelming according to the
people working in the field, the oncologists and so on.
A doctor Frizell, who works in this field was interviewed
by Stuff and he said he started off by saying,
looking for the causes of this massive rise in bowel

(14:58):
cancer among young people, he said, genes haven't changed, they
are the same as they always were, and therefore he
concludes the must be due to environmental factors. Well, he's
completely off base. Our genetic functions have changed substantially and
there are a lot of studies now published in reputable journals,

(15:22):
period reviewed journals showing that there are significant changes in
genetic functions following mass vaccination with m RNA vaccines, and
these have been linked to increases in cancer incidents. Now,
these are very significant studies and here we have members

(15:48):
of our hospital system who are uninformed about this. Oh,
obviously these are busy people. If they're dealing with a
pandemic or an epidemic of rising epidemic of bowel cancer.
Obviously they're very busy and really unable to look into
it given the time that's available to them to look

(16:10):
at this sort of broad landscape of scientific publishing about
the effect of the vaccine. But they need to look
into it. We need to ask, has there been a
decrease in immunity and the general population and an increase
in susceptibility to cancers and other neurodegenerative diseases?

Speaker 2 (16:35):
All right, a couple of points that increase includes younger
and younger people. Does it not?

Speaker 3 (16:42):
Absolutely?

Speaker 4 (16:43):
Yeah, And that's what's frightening about it is because we've
never seen this before.

Speaker 3 (16:48):
This is totally new.

Speaker 4 (16:50):
We're in uncharted territory, and we have to ask why,
and we have to have an open mind about that.
We can't go back to the previous kinds of explanations.
You know, for the last you know, twenty thirty years,
we've had increasing rates of answers, and there are environmental

(17:11):
factors and dietary factors that have been identified as causal.
But what we've seen now is not more of the same,
but a sudden jump in cancers and unusually not found
in the previous system. In the previous series, young people

(17:33):
coming down with cancers. And when we say young people,
we're talking about the sort of twenty to thirty range.
And you have to when you have a data series
like that, you have to conclude that something novel has changed.
It's not more of the same, it's not business as usual.

(17:55):
Something different has been introduced, and that gives you the
ability to understand and look into what are the causal
factors here. We have to have a national debate. The
lack of a national debate, the fact that the medical establishment,
the media and the government have closed down debate on

(18:18):
this subject and pontificated about it. It's not just that
it's a national scandal that we're not having a debate,
or it's not just that you know, it's unfortunate and
we wish we talk more. People are dying at a

(18:40):
greater rate than before. Our excess desk is still five
percent of the pre pandemic levels, and we have to
ask some difficult questions. We have to have some conversations.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
When you say we opens the door to any number
of questions and responses. Will the Gene Technology build pass
that was published on the twelfth of August. Then if
we go to the twenty fourth of September, a long
essential read on the brink of disaster, A watershed moment.

(19:13):
Not overstated, no.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
Not at all.

Speaker 4 (19:17):
All Right, so we're sliding into a very unfortunate future
and we're not asking the right questions.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
A long essential read is what you published on the
brink of disaster, a watershed moment. If enacted, the Gene
Technology Bill will take us further away from our Keiwi
foundational principles and our cultural heritage of independence and care.
The bill signals have proposed new direction for New Zealand
in alignment with and with and subsidiary to the world's

(19:48):
leading biotechnology nations that will have a radical effect on
our food and our health. Now, what got me hooked
on what you were working on some little time back
was when I discovered that if the Gene Technology Bill passes,

(20:08):
then there will be no information on products that you
buy in the supermarket in tins or packets or whatever.
There will be no information on what's in there or
what's been what's been done to the product that's in there.

Speaker 5 (20:26):
Yeah, so all those sorry, all those all those people
who you see looking looking at the information on the
side of a box or on a tin before they
put it in their basket will not be able to
do that because it won't exist anymore.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
Why do they want to.

Speaker 4 (20:47):
Do that, because they're aware of the fact that people do.
There's a significant cohort of people who do care about
what goes into their food, and they know and the
research shows that if it's labeled as altered in some way,

(21:10):
then it's acceptability goes down and their sales are going down.
So they absolutely this is a you know, this is
a line that they want to cross. They want to
get to a point in the food industry, as it
is to a large extent in America already. They want
to get to a point where you don't have to

(21:31):
identify what cocent food. And there are huge issues here
because they are changing what coast into food.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
I'll give you I'll give you a personal example. Only
two days ago, I presented my wife with a box
of breakfast cereal granola, and I said, is this better
or worse? Then, because she's the prow in the house,
is this better or worse than what I'm eating? And
she looked at it and she read it for a minute.

(22:01):
She said, this is good, this is what you want.
And the very fact that they will deprive her and
everybody else probably who's listening, the ability to make a
judgment call on what they want and certainly don't want
to eat too much sugar, too much salt, or whatever
it might be. Then I think that's criminal.

Speaker 3 (22:24):
Absolutely.

Speaker 4 (22:26):
It's one of the things here that, yeah, it is
denying people information about what they're eating and changing surreptitiously
changing what we're eating without telling this obviously is criminal.
But it's happening on a scale. It's such a vast,
vast scale that the whole notion that someone might be

(22:51):
prosecuted for this is kind of it's just not likely
to happen. It's like at the end of the Second
World War there in the Nuremberg trials, but you know
a handful of people, a couple of dozen people were
prosecuted at Nuremberg, but actually you had a vast mass

(23:14):
the whole nation, and not just one nation involved in
genocide in war and so on and so forth. What
is going to change the situation is knowledge. There is
significant evidence published research analysis of the outcomes of the

(23:35):
pandemic and analysis of what is happening to our health
that can be connected back to what we're eating. This
has to be come to the front. The knowledge has
to come to the front, because that's going to be
capable of resolving the situation. It's just not going to

(23:55):
go be resolved through courts because of the vast mass
of people who just simply got caught up in government
regulations or lack of regulations, where the whole mass of
humanity is moving towards a less healthy diet some particular
medical interventions which are affecting health. To change that, we

(24:18):
have to move back to knowledge. We have to re
anchor ourselves. We're in scientific age. We have to re
anchor ourselves the science. We have to re anchor ourselves
to our own personal experience about what life is, what
constitutes life, and realize that we are being We are

(24:42):
a part of nature, and nature is an integrated, holistic
system that has evolved over billions of years, and it's nourishing.
It's essential characteristic is nourishing and evolutionary. And if we
go too far away from nature, then we're getting out

(25:03):
of not a comfort zone, but we're getting out of
a health zone essential that we start to re establish
our relationship with nature, We start to re establish our
relationship with knowledge, and we start to re establish our
relationship with who we actually are, understand ourselves.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
Let me ask you about the Royal Commission. Where are
we up to now with the commission hearing?

Speaker 4 (25:32):
It's hard to know, isn't it? Because they back down
on having public hearings. They said it wouldn't serve any
useful purpose to have a public hearing where people like
Ashley Bloomfield and to Cinderad and so on gave evidence.

(25:52):
You know, extraordinary. What's the whole purpose of public commission?
Royal Commission is to reassure the public that the right
questions have been asked of the right people and the
evidence has been assessed properly.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
I know that you made a submission. What sort of
reaction did you get?

Speaker 3 (26:13):
I wrote, I wrote a submission, but I wasn't called
to give evidence.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
Who did they call to give evidence? Not names, necessarily,
but what sort of people?

Speaker 4 (26:22):
They picked a selection of industry representatives and community groups
to give evidence, and I think a lot of ideas
were left out of that. And they had what thirty
seven thousand submissions. They might have heard from fifty or

(26:43):
so people.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Is there anyone else in New Zealand that has the
food background that you do, that might have that might
have been giving evidence.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
Yeah, there are. There are some people who are very
aware of some of the issues. I believe that some
of them did presentations to the Commission. I don't think
so much in the food industry, in the food side
of things. I think the food side of things is
very very important. There are some fundamental principles that need

(27:17):
to be understood and thought about. And the whole medical well,
you know, this is a huge bandwagon. When I said,
I to think about it, and I just think that
the whole tech bandwagon that means biotech, AI and so on,
it's a huge there's a huge amount of money riding

(27:40):
in that and it has a huge influence on government.
Governments pay attention to money. And because the potential profits
in the food industry are so enormous, if you can
capture the food industry, food is something everybody has to
eat every day. It's that, it's the it's the golds

(28:02):
that if you want to make money, if you can
come up with a food that everybody has to eat
every day and you have the patent to it, then
you're going to make massive, massive amounts of money. So
this is the battleground, the sort of technological battleground that's
going on. People want us to stop eating things that
you can grow in your garden and start eating things

(28:24):
that they make in a factory that they alone have
the right to make. And so there's a lot of
money and influence pouring into government and being bought essentially.
I mean, the head of Oracles named Larry Elson just
gave two hundred and seventy five billion to the UK

(28:49):
government to establish a science research center at one thing
he's Oxford, I think, basically centered on biotechnology.

Speaker 3 (29:01):
And how much was that two hundred and seventy five
million it?

Speaker 4 (29:07):
You know, people are buying influence in order to buy deregulation,
to buy deregulation of the food industry so that they
can capture a bigger slice of the food industry, which
will be a massive money making for them. So we're
dealing here with forces that are just they're almost unstoppable,

(29:31):
but we can stop them by being careful about what
we buy in the supermarket. So a key thing here
is to remove labeling of novel content in foods, because
then our capacity to be aware of what we're buying
is radically decreased.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
And I said that's criminal.

Speaker 4 (29:54):
Yeah, well basically I agree absolutely that it's criminal. Just
working out how to move ahead into that area. We
have to sort of become more knowledgeable people. That's my answer.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
So how you touched on this how the AI and
biotech alliance will affect New Zealand. Now that that was
published on August three, I'm giving dates because people will
want to find them or try to, and also because
it endorses what I This is how I got the impression.

(30:30):
Because I've got all these printouts and they've all congregated
over the last few months. It's like there was a
major breakthrough or that everyone people have got onto it
or whatever. An article published in Nature on July thirty,
entitled Crisper GPT for Agentic Automation and Gene Editing Experiments

(30:54):
explains how genetic modification of human and plants cell lines
en mass is now being controlled by computers. What could
possibly go wrong? Was that was your opening paragraph, So
take it from there.

Speaker 4 (31:10):
Well, what has happened is that now thousands of genetic
experiments can be basically initiated using specialized AI computerized control.
And so we're seeing an exponential you know, it's an

(31:33):
ex volcanic is the word you use quite rightly, We're
seeing a volcanic explosion in genetic experimentation. If we think
that the pandemic, as most people do, came out of
an experiment in a lab in Wuhan, now just rethink
that and start to realize that labs all over the

(31:54):
world are now using AI to initiate not one or
two or three or four experiments as they were doing
in Wuhan, but tens of thousands of experiments on our genes.
And remember that our genes are very precise and specific,

(32:19):
and altering them is fraught with risk. Altering them on
mass as is now starting to happen all around the
world is absolutely mad. Why are we doing this when
we've just gone through this problem with world health which

(32:40):
is connected to altering genes.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
I mean, just think for a moment.

Speaker 4 (32:44):
One codeon out of place is the cause of Huntington's disease,
which is an inevitably fatal disease. One code on, well,
one tiny. It's not a one gene, it's one letter
out of place among billions, and that's sufficient to cause
the seriously in a serious inherited disease, which reflects reflects

(33:08):
a very large number of people around the world because
it can be passed through the generations. Why are we
suddenly saying we're going to let computers decide what you know,
what is altered? How is that in any way at
all sensible?

Speaker 2 (33:28):
Well this, well, it doesn't have to be, does it.
It just has to produce. I'm a capitalist, always have been,
always will be. But there are some common sense matters
that have to be taken into account. You've got kids
growing up these days thinking capitalists are evil and horrible
and they should all be strung up. All over the world.

(33:50):
They're thinking that, and you read about it quite quite seriously,
particularly in the United States. But there are, if not
rules to the game of capitalism, there are requirements if
you're going to if you're going to have a capitalist society,
and all of that seems to be lost.

Speaker 6 (34:11):
We live in a chaotic world where you know, we've
reached a point where our moral and ethical basis has
been degraded and people are entering into things, into activities
which harm others, or mislead others and justifying on the

(34:32):
basis of the fact that they're making a profit.

Speaker 3 (34:35):
I'm a capitalist.

Speaker 4 (34:39):
I can't say I've worked in business, but I you know,
I believe that financial stability, financial fluidity, innovation are fundamentally good.
But let me put it a completely another way. Actually,
the way I see what has happened is that our

(35:00):
fundamental goodness, the goodness of mankind, arises from our connection
with what is universal in life, universal consciousness, the universal
good that exists that is behind the whole universal progress
and evolution of life everywhere. Our connection with that relies

(35:25):
on our genetic structure. Our consciousness is expressed through our
genetic structure. If we set about altering our genetic structure
and function, we're degrading our connection with that universal consciousness,
which is the source of good. And what we're going
to get is chaos. And that is what we're seeing

(35:46):
at the moment in the world. We're seeing chaos. We're
seeing people taking decisions which are obviously morally or ethically wrong,
and they've lost their connection with the thread of life,
the thread of universal consciousness. Or put it in another way,
in you know, my original training was in physics, second

(36:08):
law ofload a thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynatics says
that disorder increases is always increasing. What it means is
if you put a car out on your front lawn,
eventually it's going to rust. It's becoming from the orderly
structure of a car. It eventually becomes a pile of rust.

(36:30):
So what goes against that in the universe are living
systems where organization order increases. Why do living systems increase
in order? They increase because they're consciousness. They're conscious, they're awake.
And why are we conscious and awake. We're awake because

(36:54):
our genetics enables us to express consciousness. If you alter genetics,
you'll degrade our ability to express consciousness, and as a
result of that, disorder will start to increase rather than decrease.
You'll see chaos. And that is what precisely we have

(37:14):
seen since the beginning of the pandemic, when we had
mass genetic vaccination of almost the whole world's population. We're
seeing chaotic situations developing everywhere.

Speaker 2 (37:28):
He's right, you know, everywhere and spreading.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
Yeah, we read about it every day in the newspapers,
and some of which we don't read about because the
media simply ignores it. For what's going on in places
like Nigeria.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
Let me refer to the modern age cannot be an
age of biotechnology. And you open that with there are
turning points in history when the direction and destiny of
the human race shifts. These times are characterized by new experiences, ideas, choices, inventions,
and conflicts. We've arrived at a fork in the road

(38:04):
of mechanistic, rationalistic, scientific parent time of life which has
dominated our outlook for the last four hundred years. The
choices we make at this point in time will determine
the future direction of our health, wealth, comfort, and happiness.
And I want to read the bit where you quote

(38:25):
Leonardo da Vinci, because we've had We've had da Vinci
featured at least two times on different podcasts very recently.
Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple,
or more direct than does nature because in her inventions
nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous. Is that as

(38:49):
relevant today as it was when he wrote that?

Speaker 3 (38:53):
Absolutely and timeless?

Speaker 2 (38:55):
All right, So I'm going to take a different stance
with you for a moment. Why is it then, that
we have developed so many things in the period of
time since Da Vinci was alive in that era of enlightenment.
Why is it that we can't accept that maybe things
that were unknown then have been shall we say, developed,

(39:18):
worked on, discovered, and maybe they're not so bad after all?

Speaker 3 (39:24):
Modern technology you mean.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
Anything you want to include, but certainly modern technology.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (39:30):
I'm not against progress and I'm not against I'm not
a luddite who feels that we need to go back
to the to the part of the distant past. But
we need to be aware of the depth of life.
It's essential sacred core if you want to talk in

(39:54):
religious terms, or it's the essential profundity of the silence
of the cosmos, which is.

Speaker 3 (40:04):
In our own mind.

Speaker 4 (40:06):
If you add that in, then you get and naturally
you get a precautionary view. You get tremendous you know,
the depths of human consciousness, and maybe depths is not
the right term, the grand state of human consciousness, our
inner unbounded silence, those inner unbounded spaces. If you're well

(40:28):
grounded in that, you can handle technology. But if you're not,
technology can become a tool of destruction, which is again
what we're seeing. We saw it in the Second World War,
and I was suddenly seeing all of seeing all of
that coming up again everywhere, popping up, this kind of

(40:51):
technological destruction of life everywhere that occurs when we've lost
touch with our inner nature, with who we are, we've
lost touch with nature itself. Is that that's the cure
as well of our situation is to reconnect with our

(41:11):
in their self.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
Maybe too many people who don't think fondly of themselves
and don't want to know. Look, you you wrote this.
This is a continuation of what I started reading. The
reality of experimental results in fundamental physics is a fat
cry from this gray, lifeless view of existence. Their rigorous

(41:32):
interpretation requires an observer who is not passive, but rather
an intimately involved actor on the cosmic stage. There are
six key ways in which consciousness has entered into and
occupied a central place in twentieth twentieth century physics. And
you go one, two, three, what you start with Einstein actually,

(41:56):
but one that caught my eye was the second one. Secondly,
the emergence of quantum mechanics revealed that measurements, and hence
the observer plays a call in the evolution of physical states,
which can even extend to backwards causation in time, which
is written by Green the fabric of the cosmos. Measurement

(42:21):
collapses the quantum mechanical wave function from an abstract, multi
dimensional probabilistic Hilbert space of all possibilities into what we
call concrete reality. Can you please break that down for me?

Speaker 4 (42:37):
I think the simplest thing is to say that this
is not an alien concept for us. You know, it's
an everyday thing. We're always juggling all kinds of possibilities
in our everyday thinking. And then when we finally do
something and decide what we're going to do about something,
then it collapses to a point we actually do something specific.

Speaker 3 (43:00):
But before that, you know, maybe I will have.

Speaker 4 (43:05):
A vanillaized cream, or maybe oh, a banana flavored ice cream,
and maybe I won't have an ice cream at all,
where the consciousness space is full of possibilities, which when
we actually do something, collapses to a point. In physics,

(43:29):
events evolve in what's called a virtual abstract space, a
Hilbert space. It's a mathematical concept, but when an actual
measurement takes place, then it collapses to something you can
see and feel, and that shouldn't be an alien concept.

(43:50):
It's a concept that people worry about a lot.

Speaker 3 (43:55):
They think that.

Speaker 4 (43:56):
People often say O continent canacters counterintuitive. Well, I take
the opposite point of view. I think it's very intuitive.
I think it's our everyday experience that life sort of
evolves in an abstract space, our consciousness, and then collapses
into specific actions. That is physics, but it's also our

(44:21):
personal experience. And there are so many ways you mentioned
as I wrote, there are six different ways that and
you know, in particular where consciousness, you can't formulate a
consistent physical theory of the world around us without invoking
an observer. But here's what has been missed is that

(44:45):
physics tends to call consciousness an observer, as if it's
a sort of it's just looking on at what is
happening in the cosmos. Well, actually, consciousness is an actor.
It changes things. If there are bananas in Germany, it's
because someone introduced bananas into Germany. Consciousness is an actor.

(45:08):
We are on the stage in when Copernicus discovered that
we're not at the center of a crystalline sphere, that
actually we're on a planet orbiting a sun and so
on and so forth. People felt a certain amount of
ex extential angst because they weren't at the center of

(45:29):
the universe. Well, I'd like to put people back at
the center of the universe. We are an actor on
the cosmic stage, and we can become more aware of that.
We can start to experience more of that. I learned
meditation when I was very young, and it has helped

(45:49):
me understand the life around me and also my own
consciousness and unravel the things that we're faced with.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
But anyone can do that. That's not unique to me.

Speaker 4 (46:02):
Anyone can and should, I believe, have a journey into
the old, into the whole yield of consciousness.

Speaker 3 (46:10):
I did transmit meditation.

Speaker 4 (46:12):
I met Marishi Maheshyogi and he taught me meditation and
that was amazing. But it wasn't him telling me what
to do. He said, look, here's a technique who will
explore consciousness. And once you've explored consciousness, you can do
research and find out actually what exploring consciousness does. And

(46:34):
it increases the orderliness in the brain. It provides more
energy and deep breast and better health and torn that's
the frontier that we have the title of the article
we're looking at is the modern age cannot be the
age of biotechnology, has to be the age of consciousness.

(46:55):
This is the frontier that we have to pass if
we're going to deal with all these technological challenges, we're
going to be able to deal with unscrupulous people or warmongers,
we have to pass. We have to go into the
age of consciousness because in that universal silence of the

(47:18):
conscious universe which we can experience and participate in, in
that these problems get resolved, the pettiness of conflict and hate,
and the debility of ill health get resolved. That's the
that's the age that we have to enter into. The

(47:40):
Age of biotechnology is a colder sack. It's a frightening
colder sack. It's a dead end.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
It's interesting you you've been pilloried in the past for
your approach to such things. Are they still at it?

Speaker 4 (47:59):
Well, I think one of the things that happened is
that there's been this pole and you'll be aware of
this completely, Like is the polarization of you know, people
turned off, They've they've they've said, oh, I'm not listening
to this person that person, and it's a very very
long list. Now that people have been canceled. So it's

(48:24):
it's not so much that people spend any time attacking
me or people who have similar abuse. Is that they
just switched off. They don't want to know. They're hiding.

Speaker 3 (48:37):
But how can you how can you hide from your
own consciousness?

Speaker 2 (48:42):
Well, I have to say that I don't know that
too many people wander around worrying about that.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
Well, look at look Put it this way, is that
if it's like living in a house and you the
how the whole house relies on the foundation, and if
you live in the house for a long time and
you ignore the foundation, the whole house can fault a bit.
And the foundation of life is conscious business. You have

(49:10):
to pay attention to the foundation of life. You have
to understand your consciousness. And if you are going to
live in the house and ignore the foundation, then ultimately
that house is going to be at risk.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Is this a way of putting well, is this a
way of putting it that you have to be aware
of your You have to understand yourself.

Speaker 4 (49:37):
Yes, and not in an intellectual sense, but you have
to take time to be silent in yourself. You have
to have a period in the day. There are different
forms of meditation, and there are cultural practices and their
forms of prayer and that have been honored through time

(49:59):
and contemplation and so on. One has to have that
time to be to go in rather than just out.
We were very we're very object orientated, object referral conscious society.
We're so busy with everything that happens outside of ourselves

(50:22):
and what we own and so on. So proud of
what we own and what we've achieved, but we have
to go within. Change begins within.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
It's the starting point. You mentioned vanilla ice cream. Do
you like vanilla?

Speaker 3 (50:39):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (50:39):
I do, But it's funny you should say that, because
it's being very it's become very very hard to actually
buy anything that is real vanilla.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
Yes.

Speaker 4 (50:53):
Yeah, I think there's only one variety of that's now
available in one of our supermarkets that actually genuinely vanilla.
So there's little bottles of so called vanilla extract there's
very very few of them, possibly one. My daughter, who
does a lot of research on this, tells me there's

(51:14):
just one variety now that really is just extracted simply
and traditionally from a vanilla bean, rather than using various
kind of chemicals and or then of course it's artificial vanilla,
which goes into my most ice screen.

Speaker 2 (51:33):
Now, yeah, you're probably wondering why I asked you then
when it was just a passing, passing illustration. It's because
earlier this morning I saw a review. It was in
the Wall Street Journal, and they send out, you know,
they mail me the books of the week, and vanilla

(51:55):
occupies an uneasy status between culinary necessity and luxury, a
temperamental crop plagued by unpredictable weather and criminal activity. But
it's much more than that, because it's it's just over
three hundred pages, just being published, just being released, Vanilla,
the History of an Extraordinary Bean. I love coincidence. But

(52:18):
I read that. I read that probably two hours ago.

Speaker 4 (52:21):
Well my covering on that is it seems that this
is the history of an extraordinary bean that is being
consigned to history currently by the biotechnology industry.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
Well, it's a good example, yeah, it is.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
Of course, it's an expensive crop.

Speaker 4 (52:41):
You know, if you want a tiny little bottle vanilla flavor,
it costs you ten dollars or more of these.

Speaker 2 (52:47):
Days anything with vanilla, and it I love it. Yeah,
So let me just get back to something quite serious.
We touched on this earlier, but I really want to
I want to investigate further with you. This is This
is published on September twenty four. We need a open

(53:09):
national debate on healthcare and biotechnology. It refers to the
Listener article New Zealand spends more on health than most countries,
So why is our health system still sick?

Speaker 4 (53:22):
Take it from there, Well, we're in a health emergency
where some hospitals are actually considering have said that they're
considering setting up tents outside the hospital to triage the
number of people who are who are falling sick. This
is particularly this winter August of this year, there were

(53:45):
more ambulance callouts than at any other time in New
Zealand's history. We're in a health crisis whose origin is
not really being discussed. Instead, people are suggesting our health
service is not being managed very well, or there should

(54:07):
be a need for more AI in medical consultations, or
perhaps we need to spend more money on it. We're
not actually asking the big question, which is there's another
possibility that the immunity of the population as a whole

(54:29):
has been compromised. We have to ask why is our
health service failing? We have to probe deeply and look
at the statistics, and instead of that, there's this statistics
are being kept from the public. It's actually hard to
know how many people have cancer, or how many people

(54:51):
have dying of heart disease, or how exactly what people
are dying. Are they vaccinated or unvaccinated, Have they had
COVID or have they not really had COVID. These kind
of questions are not being looked into, and they need

(55:12):
to be The listener, to its credit, said that there's
a mystery here and we need to get to the
bottom of the mystery. I think they would have done
better service to the article if they'd taken a more
rigorous investigative attitude, and they might have got to the

(55:33):
bottom of the problem. They should have asked how much
worse is the problem today and why? And it's when
you start to look at that that you realize there
was a sudden change in the health of the nation
in twenty twenty one when we started the mass genetic

(55:55):
mRNA vaccination of the whole population. There are studies now
which are coming out which show that this has particularly
affected our immunity. So putting this whole discussion we've had
today in this perspective is this is not a kind

(56:16):
of an abstract intellectual discussion. It's a matter of life
and death. You know what could be more serious than
that for a nation as a whole. That's where we
have to get. We have to have that kind of discussion.
And it's happening in America.

Speaker 2 (56:34):
Well, it's happening in America because of Kennedy, is it not.

Speaker 4 (56:38):
Yeah, they're having a national debate. They're raising questions, and
of course it's in a political context, because you know,
almost everything these days has a political context. But what's
happening in our media is we're laughing at it. People
are laughing at Trump. And when he said, for example,

(57:02):
about Thailand or which is paracetamol, that it could cause
a risk of autism, people in our newspapers laughed about it.
That's all our population is getting but a natural fact.
There are a lot of serious studies pointing to the
fact that paracetamol use in pregnancy especially carries a risk

(57:24):
associated with autism. Even the makers of dailanol have omitted
that there is a risk. The government there is starting
to assess how big of a risk is that. That's
the kind of discussion we should be having here looking
at what particular kinds of problems and illnesses are increasing,

(57:48):
and then asking why and delving into the figures. And
that has to be an open discussion. It can't be
a discussion. Well at the moment, I get the impression
there is no discussion behind closed doors in New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
Oh, I think you're right.

Speaker 3 (58:07):
This authodo that it's.

Speaker 4 (58:12):
The New Zealand Herald had an article following on this
debate in America headlined experts reject Trump's baseless parasita mold claims,
and they quoted a Dr Brian Betty, a New Zealand
GP and chair of the General Practice New Zealand, who
basically said, oh, this is all baseless. He hadn't done

(58:33):
his research, and that's all we're that's all we're getting.
But actually it's a very genuine debate that's happening, a
very public debate that's happening in America. The papers are
writing about it almost every single day.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
Well, I think that I think that the laughing is partly, strongly,
partly anchored to Kennedy's speech, and I think I find
that deplorable.

Speaker 4 (59:01):
Yeah, yeah, it could well be. He has a medical condition,
which means that is when he talks, he us this
kind of gravely hesitation in his voice that you know,
and he's struggling to speak. But that's a medical condition
that has nothing about his grasp of the statistics, which

(59:22):
is when you see him perform in front of congressional
panels and so on, he is as sharp as tack.
And that they're going slowly. There they're going. They're appointing
people to positions and these are not unqualified people or

(59:42):
fanatical people. There are people who are asking questions and
the medical establishment and the media establishment are very apparently,
very uncomfortable with people asking questions here in New Zealand.
We're not being allowed to ask questions. We're being silenced.

(01:00:04):
Where are the questions being asked? And that debate has
to start. That's absolutely essential. What chance democracy is open,
open capacity to ask questions.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
You're right, it is, and the media are failing in
their job, in my opinion, in a big way on
more fronts than we're discussing today.

Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
Absolutely absolutely, guy.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
Just let me run through some numbers for you from
the piece that was tagged staggering new data from Health
New Zealand and others and based on a freedom of
information request to Health New Zealand. You asked for the
number of people under the age of forty presenting to

(01:00:57):
emergency departments A and E throughout New Zealand hospitals with
chest pain or heart issues by the year. The Health
New Zealand answer contains shattering information. Let me quote. In
twenty nineteen, the number presenting to emergency departments with chest

(01:01:18):
pain was two thousand, two hundred and nineteen. Twenty twenty
four thousand, four hundred and six, twenty twenty one, thirteen
thousand and sixty three. These are people under forty in
twenty two, twenty one thousand, four hundred and sixteen, and

(01:01:39):
in twenty three, twenty thousand and five, and then finally
twenty twenty four fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. Now,
don't get carried away with the fact that that number
is down on the rest, because that figure is only
to June twenty half the year fourteen thousand, six hundred

(01:02:01):
and thirty nine. Is it fair to ask you what's
happened since then?

Speaker 3 (01:02:07):
Well, then the.

Speaker 4 (01:02:11):
Department of Health are refusing to release any further information.
I and these but these are not isolated figures there.
We did another article a little bit earlier than this
where there was an eighty three percent increase in heart

(01:02:33):
attacks in Wellington region. There are little snapshots, little looks
into the health data. You know, it seems to me
normally when they release these kind of figures under oias
or it's leaked data, is it kind of it's almost

(01:02:54):
it seems it comes out by mistake and then someone
gets their knuckles wrapped for letting people know what happened,
or there's a witch hunt in the health service to
try and find out who leaked the information. That has
the stop. There has to be a public debate when

(01:03:17):
we get these massive increases in serious health conditions, as
was where we began today in close to where we
began to day in the Stuff article about the massive
increase in bowel cancer, that there has to be a debate.
This can't be swept under the carpets. And this is

(01:03:37):
among young people. A bowel cancer is among young people.
It's unprecedented, and yet somehow other people want to look
the other way, They want to sweep it under the carpet.
You know, we're getting massive, massive increases in particular kinds
of conditions. We need to know what their conditions are,

(01:03:58):
which people are getting them were is it a part
of the vaccination program? Is this associated with COVID? These
are questions that need to be on.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
All right, here's the question that you can answer. Which
which of the two chest pain and bowel cancer? Which
of the two is the worst? From a health and
fix it perspective?

Speaker 4 (01:04:24):
Heart attacks? So the cardiac issues are. Cardiac disease is
the second. I think it's the second biggest killer in
New Zealand, but cancer may be the first.

Speaker 7 (01:04:40):
It's it's uh, but but there are various cancers, Yeah,
of course there are. But bowel cancer. New Zealand has
the highest rate of bowel cancer in the world. There's
a statistic for you.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
That's the capita. Yeah, that's wicked.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
Both serious issues.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
I want to conclude with this. Over the years of podcasting,
I've made many friends across the planet. It's been fascinating
and I sent your article, the long Essential Read on
the Brink of Disaster a watershed moment. I said it
to one of those who is in the medical fraternity,

(01:05:27):
and it came back to me. Nice article. It's really
a technology without much use, so they had to fabricate one,
hence the pandemic agenda.

Speaker 3 (01:05:41):
That was the comment, Wow, well that's a good comment.

Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
I'm trying to reach a wider audience. Laden I've shifted
my more technical articles about biotechnology and the dangers of
biotechnology per se to substack because you get a you know,
you pick up readership around the world, and my aim

(01:06:10):
is to move the debate away from the kind of
the details of the pandemic into biotechnology in general and
the risks involved in biotechnology in general. So that's why
we've moved a lot of articles to substack, and i'courage

(01:06:37):
people to go to substack and subscribe to just look
for Guy Hatchad doctor Guy Hatchad, and then you can
subscribe to that and subscription. It doesn't cost money. You
can contribute if you want, but you can subscribe and
then you'll be notified about those articles which used to

(01:06:57):
go out on the Hatchid Report, they no longer do
because I don't want to duplicate. So they saw a
significant number of articles that I'm writing are now going
out on substat with the purpose of reaching a wider
international audience. We're continuing with the Hatchad report, particularly there's

(01:07:23):
a closer focus on New Zealand and the whole New
Zealand situation. But you're aware, and I'm aware that what
happens in New Zealand is quite tightly tied to global events,
global developments, multinational companies in commercial interests that go beyond

(01:07:47):
our borders. So to solve the situation about what is
happening here, of course, we have to reassert our independence,
but at the same time we have to be involved
in the international debate.

Speaker 2 (01:08:02):
So Guy, thank you so much. It's been very informative
and I look forward to discussion whenever it might be.

Speaker 4 (01:08:10):
That's wonderful, Latent. It's always a pleasure talking to you.
You're a very sane voice in a rather mad world.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverrix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief, and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty

(01:08:49):
four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the
nose deals with itchy eyes and stops sneezing. Leverrix is
an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So
next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call
into the pharmacy and ask for Leverrix l e v
r ix leveris and always read the label. Take us directed,

(01:09:14):
and if symptoms persist, see your health professional Farmer Broker
Auckland Late and Smith Podcast three hundred and four in
the mail Room with missus producer who else? How are you?

Speaker 1 (01:09:34):
Late?

Speaker 2 (01:09:35):
And I'm great?

Speaker 8 (01:09:36):
Thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
How are you? I'm going to get a new script
next year, I think, and the how are you will disappear.

Speaker 8 (01:09:41):
So I have to check three or four different ones
off before right, I'm really bad today.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
I think, so all right, why don't you lead?

Speaker 8 (01:09:51):
James says, it has been a wee while since I
last wrote to you. I was very interested to hear
your travel stories of your recent holidays. My wife and
I had a five week holiday in Greece and Italy
and July, probably the best holiday we've ever had. We
didn't have the unfortunate drama you exp sperienced. Thank goodness.
I've just finished listening to your talk with Muriel Newman.

(01:10:13):
All I can say is I'm grateful that there are
people like her keeping a finger on the pulse of
things we should all be aware of but are not
duly and properly covered in media. The two of you
did touch on cbdc's and the fact that it is
not something that is widely spoken of in the public domain.
I one, I've never heard anyone I know of talking
about it or even knowing what they are. With respect

(01:10:34):
to you and your podcast, perhaps you could have a
word in the air of your old mate mister Hosking
and see if he would mention it on his show.
I know that sometimes he brings up a topic that
gets plenty of people talking afterwards changing the subject, says James.
I admit I'm an unashamed fan of Donald Trump, although

(01:10:55):
sometimes I do cringe at some things he may say,
and other times I laugh and applaud his direct and
defiant manner. Admirably, he makes it absolutely clear on where
he stands on certain sensitive topics, despite the world's c
against him and his views. His Oval Office press conferences
are very entertaining, bold, brash, proud, He's not afraid to

(01:11:16):
be blunt and will definitely put a journalist in his
or her rightful place. And then James says, our own
Winston Peters and Shane Jones come to mind, and New
Zealand needs more of them. And he says Trump is
not afraid to change his mind or change tack if
things don't work out the way he anticipated. Trump's attempts
at negotiating a peace plan between Russia and Ukraine are

(01:11:39):
an example. Trump's latest brilliant piece of upfront honesty was
in his un speech stating Climate Changed as the biggest
con job ever. Yes again, I laughed when this drew
the US and ours from the audience. Absolutely fantastic. Glad
you're both back. I always look forward to Wednesday afternoons. James.

Speaker 2 (01:11:59):
Thank you, James. I've got to tell you that, if
you don't already know it, that the one comment that
I hear as frequently as any other is if only
we had a man like Donald Trump.

Speaker 8 (01:12:13):
I think there's only room for one.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
Well, that's not entirely true. Trump operates under the laws
of the United States and our prime ministers and what
have you operate under the laws of New Zealand. Originating
in England, of course, and they don't all have the
same powers. Sadly, maybe we could have a revolution though

(01:12:39):
so from somebody who's asked to remain anonymous, I enjoyed
Muriel Newman this week and her take on the state
of the current government. It was sobering at a times
alarming to listen to the fact that mari is forced
into many aspects of government and other positions of corporate
leadership is really beginning to cause me and I'm sure

(01:13:01):
others to turn off. And New Zealand have opted to
constantly play Marie songs on their planes as you sit
on board, waiting to depart and on arriving at your destination.
They also recently chose to conduct a complete flight from
Auckland to Queenstown in Mary language to celebrate Mary Language Week.

(01:13:21):
There wouldn't have been a chance to opt out short
of catching another service Jetstar anyone, boy. That'd be a
tough decision. SkyTV have also publicly announced their intention to
inject more Mary language into their English sport commentary. This
despite the fact that Mary commentary is already an option

(01:13:42):
for those who wish to listen. It's too much. On
another note to you, Layton you mentioned in the last
podcast your amazement at how Erica Kirk was able to
forgive the killer of Charlie Kirk. Erica will be well
aware that her forgiveness was not for the guy who
pulled the trigger, but for herself. She won't be entrapped

(01:14:05):
in a prison of bitterness and resentment. Her husband's murderer
will likely receive a lengthy prison sentence at the least,
and forever be haunted by what he did. Erica walks free.
It's a very good interpretation of it. Actually, always love
the podcast. Look forward to Wednesday afternoons every week, so

(01:14:25):
do why because it means I finished for the week? No,
why my Wednesday night is my Friday night?

Speaker 8 (01:14:31):
Yes? And about half an hour later you say, I
wonder what guest I should get for next week? And
it all starts again, lady, and interesting that your last
correspondent talked about Erica Kirk. Mike says, I have a
couple of comments with regard to last week's podcast. You
said that you would find it very difficult, indeed, to
forgive someone like Erica Kirk did, and then Mike goes

(01:14:54):
on to say, Jesus Christ, an innocent man as we
know was crucified in the cruelest way, and while on
the cross, he asked God to forgive those who crucified him.
Erica made her decision to forgive because of the example
given by Gess. In addition, she well knows that the
Word says that God is the judge, so the killer
will see justice one day. By forgiving, she doesn't have

(01:15:17):
to carry that burden for the rest of her life.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
Well, that's a duplicate that attitude to the one before exactly.
Look I get that, don't I do not want to
be misunderstood. If God forbid something like that happened in
my life, I would not be able to forgive, and
I wouldn't be thinking about it. Were given time, you
don't know what might come. But the one thing I

(01:15:40):
want to impress on you is I don't hate. And
there's a difference between not forgiving somebody and hating them.
I don't hate anybody. I cannot think of anybody I
truly hate it. I've said this before and not too
long ago. It just doesn't reside in me. It doesn't
mean I have to like them, but I don't hate them.

(01:16:03):
Can I detest them? Yes, I can, because that's different
to hating. In my you can hate somebody because you
hate them, but you can't necessarily detest somebody because you
detest them, If that makes sense does to me.

Speaker 3 (01:16:18):
Anyway, it's semantics to me.

Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Thank you for that.

Speaker 8 (01:16:22):
No, I don't hate.

Speaker 2 (01:16:23):
Thank you for your attention, Layton. This is my first
time emailing you. Firstly, i'd like to thank you for
all the amazing podcasts you provide us with. There is
so much going on behind the scenes in the world today,
and most kiwis do not have a clue about it,
often because they're too busy trying to survive. That's true.

(01:16:45):
You bring a real perspective which is sorely lacking in
the general media. A big thank you for that. I
might have left that out if i'd pre read this,
but I didn't. I listened to your podcast three h
three with Muriel Newman this morning. She is another person
we can thank for her exposure of what is going
on in the background in New Zealand. It was a

(01:17:05):
great interview. I am sort of call it a discussion
as much more more than an interviewer. Anyway, toward the
end of this podcast, you were commenting on Erica Kirk
forgiving the man who killed her husband. You admitted that
you could not understand how she could do that. I
wanted to share with you the answer. Jesus. Without submitting

(01:17:30):
oneself to his reign in our lives, forgiveness for such
a heinous act is probably impossible. But as Christians knowing
it's not only what he commands, but what he knows
is good for us, forgiveness is not only possible but vital.
If we ourselves want Jesus forgiveness, and we all need
that it is his command that we forgive others. It

(01:17:54):
also puts an end to the bitterness which comes with
unforgiveness and which can ruin our lives. I'm not saying
it's easy, but it's the only way. I commend Erica
for so quickly being able to do so in public.
I was stunned by it, just because you say you
forgive someone, though, how do you know you really mean

(01:18:14):
it if you're going to spout it? And I'm not
referring to her, she had her act together, But how
do you know that you mean it if it just
comes on you quickly because you haven't given you You
haven't given yourself time to adjust to anything. You may
be doing it just because you believe it's the right

(01:18:35):
thing to do, and believing it's the right thing to
do isn't necessary, doesn't necessarily endorse what you're saying.

Speaker 8 (01:18:42):
I suppose that's where the phrase forgive and forget comes from,
because you can definitely forgive but never forget.

Speaker 2 (01:18:48):
You see, I'll go back to the family situation that
I sort of alluded to before. If something happened, you'd
never forget, And if you never forget, have you really forgiven?

Speaker 8 (01:18:58):
It's an interesting question, though, isn't it, As you say,
at what point do you know that you've truly forgiven? Anyway,
we could carry on like this for ages.

Speaker 2 (01:19:07):
We should do it, or often we might discover things.

Speaker 8 (01:19:10):
Let me do my little part from Malcolm So enjoyed
podcast three oh three with Muri on Newman. It's frightening
how far off course we are and how much effort
is needed to get us back on track. Totally agree
with you and Muriel. Keep up the great work.

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
Here's another thing. If you don't to forgive somebody for
something like she has done, is it appropriate if that
person continues to hate, condemn, and what to kill more people.
You forgive somebody when they ask you for forgiveness. Yes,
that's really where it happens, not when they haven't, although

(01:19:47):
the cross experience that was described a moment ago doesn't
forward that.

Speaker 8 (01:19:51):
Yes, I understand that if they ask for forgiveness it
behooves you to think yes or no?

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
Shall I?

Speaker 8 (01:19:57):
But if they don't ask you.

Speaker 2 (01:19:59):
For fagiveness and keep rolling on the table.

Speaker 8 (01:20:01):
Yeah, and there they're not sorry for what they've done,
then why should they get for thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
I think we've instigated more conversation from Mike Muriel. Newman
is right with her summation of our coalition government's progress
effecting their election promises. However, I feel she was too
soft on them by offering as a partial excuse the
depth of the previous Labor government's entrenchment of a poor

(01:20:29):
poor and satyrty in legislation and other woke nonsense. The
best example of how they could have handled this is
Argentina's Millay reforms. Milay came to power around the same
time as Luxon, but compare the results. Argentina is about
to have a surplus for the first time in one
hundred years. Inflation has dropped from two hundred percent into

(01:20:53):
the twenties, thousands of civil servants have been laid off
and socialist controls have been removed. We should follow his
example and take an acts to everything that Muriel was
correctly criticized. While having a majority in the House, they
could legislate, as many other countries have done that. All

(01:21:14):
race references must be removed from all legislation and education immediately.
Civil servant numbers should be wound back to pre twenty
seventeen numbers. Numerous government departments should be disestablished, health should
be privatized, and the central Bank should be this established

(01:21:34):
over time. The definition of insanity is doing the same
things and expecting a different result. This is exactly what
they're doing with some slight fiddling at the margins. Muriel
and h alluded to politicians' lack of courage. This is
a major problem. Luxeon's party demonstrates this perfectly by sticking
with him on the net zero Paris Accord nonsense. This

(01:21:58):
country's woes could be turned around overnight with a courageous government.
And I agree with I think everything that Mike said.

Speaker 8 (01:22:07):
Leyden Allen's quickly much enjoyed listening to Muriel. I also
enjoy seeing Christian hosting George. So that's on the Geopolitical
Futures website. And Alan goes on to say, the apple
doesn't fall far from the tree. You must be a
proud dad, which you are. Well, I'm not too, and
I'm a proud stepmother.

Speaker 2 (01:22:30):
I'm enjoying it. And finally from a Rick, I understand
why you're troubled by what Erica Kirk said about forgiving
the murderer. Nice sentiment, but what the Bible says, quote,
we are to forgive others as Christ forgave us. If

(01:22:51):
I did not ask God for forgiveness of my sins,
I would not be saved. In other words, it is
a transaction. She can't forgive the murderer because he has
not asked for forgiveness. Eger I had endorsement. This is
what the Bible teaches.

Speaker 3 (01:23:08):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
I know we've had a fair bit of religious commentary
this week in particular on this, but it was probably inevitable.
I foresaw it well, I expected it, and I find
no fault with it. If I may borrow a phrase,
it's up to individuals to make their own decisions. And
I decide that the mail room is now closed. Very
good and I may see you next week.

Speaker 8 (01:23:29):
You may thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:23:31):
Thank you, missus p.

Speaker 3 (01:23:46):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
In last week's podcast, I mentioned that I got a letter,
a long letter from King's Council Gary Judd, and I
said I was going to leave it for this week,
and I'm glad I did because well, I'm glad I
did for a number of reasons. I'm going to read
it to you in its entirety, because I think it's
almost impossible to miss the imports of it. He wrote

(01:24:09):
this on the twentieth of September. He said, Latent, thank
you for your most interesting discussion with Louise Klegg. Her
description of some of her progressive friends as a little
bit malleable and credulous and also fashionable is perceptive. A
few more descriptors may be added. An uncritical desire to

(01:24:32):
be part of the good and on the right side
of history, a need to look good in the eyes
of others, asking not if this is true, but do
others think it's true? Seeking the approval of others, all
leading to a reluctance to engage in critical thinking and debate.
This is the mode of thinking of those whom iron

(01:24:54):
Rand described as second handers and portrayed in The fountain Head,
contrasted with the individualist Howard Rock. As Rand put it elsewhere,
it is to a second hander that the moral appraisal
of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts,
reason and logic. The divide in this aspect of the

(01:25:17):
human condition is not between the left or progressives on
the one hand and conservatives on the other. Conservatives can
be secondhanders as much as others. The divide is between,
on the one hand, second handers and those who have
loyalty to the group as a primary and on the
other those of independent thoughts and action who take responsibility

(01:25:40):
for those thoughts and actions. There is no doubt that
in New Zealand, like Louis's perception of Australia, too many
members of the legal profession are in the first camp.
Louise referred to Francis Fukuyana I consider right scary Judd.
I consider Fukiyama's The Origins of Political Order, tracing the

(01:26:01):
growth of political order from pre human times to the
French Revolution, and political order and legal decay from the
Industrial Revolution to what he calls the globalization of democracy.
To be great works. As Luis says in her Sliding
into Technocracy article in The Spectator Australia, fuki Yama places

(01:26:25):
faith in a properly functioning administrative state. What needs emphasis
is that it is critical to fuki Yama's conception of
a properly functioning administrative state that the state be one
where the rule of law prevails. He notes in Origins,
page two four six. Up to this point, I have
discussed political developments in terms of state building, the ability

(01:26:50):
of states to concentrate and use power. The rule of
law is a separate component of political order that puts
limitations on a state's power. The first checks on executive
power were not those imposed by democratic assemblies or elections. Rather,
they were the result of societies believing that rulers had

(01:27:10):
to operate under the law. State building and the rule
of law therefore coexist in a certain tension. On the
one hand, rulers can enhance their authority by acting within
and on behalf of the law. On the other hand,
the law can prevent them from doing things that they
would like to do, not just in their own private interest,

(01:27:32):
but in the interest of the community as a whole.
And Gary writes on. In her discussion with you, Louise
noted how during her legal career the profession in Australia
had moved steadily leftward. During my legal career in New Zealand,
the distance between the conservatism of most judges and other
legal elites at the start and today's frequent lack of

(01:27:54):
obedience to disliked legislation and abandonment of the virtues of
deciding a present case in the same way as a
previous case has become extreme. Incremental Ism is being supplanted
by radicalism, often driven by political ideology. This means that
judges and leaders of the legal profession, who should be

(01:28:18):
upholding and protecting the rule of law, are undermining it
by judges assuming the role of lawmaker without condemnation from
the profession, all the while pretending that they're acting to
advance the rule of law, when in truth, in truth,
they are trying to advance the rule of judges and lawyers.

(01:28:39):
The essence of the rule of law is that rule
is by law, not man. Practicality demands that society choose
some people to be responsible for making and implementing law.
In today's democracies, we need not rely only on societal
pressure to keep lawmakers within the law, but on the
ability to get rid of elected representatives. No such ability

(01:29:04):
exists regarding those who are charged with implementing the law,
that is the judges. And to conclude in his final paragraph,
when judges ignore the sovereignty of Parliament, abandon precedent and incrementalism,
and make themselves law makers, they place themselves above the law,
and in confrontation with the rule of law, in defiance

(01:29:26):
of the o's they took when entering office to be
faithful and bear true allegiance to the sovereign according to
the law, and to serve the sovereign according to the
law in the office of Judge. Regards Gary Zogary, I
appreciate the letter that it was a pleasure to read it,
so thank you, and I would invite any members of

(01:29:48):
the judiciary or the legal profession who have an opinion
they'd like to express on it to go for your life,
send it to me Layton at newstorg ZB dot co
dot NZ, and I will shall we say, entertain it,
but there is room for discussion, Layton Smith. Now before
we call it quits for or three four there are

(01:30:09):
two stories and they're not the only ones either, But
there are two stories. I just want to draw to
your attention. It's just in case you are unaware of it,
but I'm sure that most of you are probably not.
The digital gulag is being erected before your very eyes,
reads the headline. At the WEF the World Economic Forum

(01:30:31):
twenty twenty five, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez presented a
vision for the digital future that should send a chill
down the spine of every free citizen. Framed as a
solution to online harms, his proposal is in reality a
blueprint for a panopticon of digital control, perfectly aligned with

(01:30:54):
the globalist agenda of the World Economic Forum. He called
for an end to online anonymity, demanding that every social
media profile in Europe be linked to a state issued
You guess that European didgit digital identity wallet. He compared
the Internet to public streets, arguing that just as one

(01:31:14):
cannot drive without a license plate, one should not post
online without state verified ID. That's what Sanchez said. Then
the author writes what Sanchez is really saying. He's declaring
that the digital public square the last truly global space
for free unvetted discourse must be brought under the direct

(01:31:35):
supervision of the state. His retric is a masterclass in misdirection.
For instance, fighting misinformation is code for establishing a verifiable
identity for dissent. Under this system, any opinion deemed inconvenient
by the authorities can be traced directly back to the
citizen who voiced it. You know what's going on in

(01:31:57):
Ingot at the moment. You know that they're arresting people
in the middle of the night for a simple little
comment they made online. Ending cyber harassment is the pretext
for ending digital privacy. The principle that one can speak
without fear of state retribution is being reclassified as impunity

(01:32:18):
and pseudonimity is a trojan horse pseudonymity. It offers the
illusion of a nickname while ensuring that a government database
holds the key to your real identity, accessible whenever the
public authorities deem your speech a crime. This is not pseudonimity.

(01:32:38):
It is state mandated identity registration for speech. Now. This
is the ultimate goal of the World Economic Forum's Great
Reset and Digital Idea agenda, not safety but control. It
creates a system where participation in modern society is contingent
on accepting a government issued digital leash. The threats of

(01:33:00):
being banned or prosecuted for undefined crimes will inevitably lead
to self censorship, silencing legitimate criticism and neutralizing opposition. Sanchez's
second proposal to force open the black box of algorithms
completes the picture. It's not about transparency for users, but

(01:33:21):
about regulatory capture for the state. The gold is for
governments to dictate what content is amplified and what is suppressed,
shaping public opinion under the guise of managing the public conversation. Now,
the second one is to do with Britain and Starma.
UK goes all well in with mandatory digital ID and

(01:33:45):
biometric tracking Chinese commenters style digital tracking is coming to
the UK with a new quote right to work scheme
in the form of a universal ID called the brit Card.
I know you've probably heard of it. British Prime Minister
Keir Starmer, facing unprecedented backlash from native born citizens for

(01:34:05):
his open border policies and two tier justice system protecting
migrants from prosecution, is attempting to exploit public anger to
gain support for an Orwelly and surveillance rollout. The government
says the mandatory ID based on the UK one login
system will help stop illegal immigrants from crossing the channel

(01:34:28):
by denying them access to work. Look, I'm not going
to take it any further because you know that that's garbage.
It won't It's all part of the rolling out of
the limitation of freedom. Can't put it any better, but
it's true. So at that point we shall roll up
the carpet for podcasts three hundred and four. Most of

(01:34:50):
those pieces, by the way, came from one of the
best sources, Zero Hedge, who are very good at breaking
stories along along these lines. Now, if you would like
to write Layton at newstalksb dot co dot z or
Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot nz of your correspondence,
so keep it up. We shall return, of course with

(01:35:13):
podcast three oh five in the meantime. As always, thank
you for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:35:27):
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 #304 - October 1st 2025 - Guy Hatchard

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.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 #304 - October 1st 2025 - Guy Hatchard