December 31, 2024 • 56 mins
Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2024.
An insidious phenomenon has become widely evident around the western world, and it is alive and well in New Zealand.
The attack has been against every institution that props up the pillars of our democratic freedom.
Retired Judge Anthony Willy justifies his accusations (from his essay “Blowing In the Wind”, NZCPR.com).
It’s an important document that should be studied in every school.
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.
Listen here on iHeartRadio
Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
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 be
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 now the Leighton Smith
Podcast powered by news talks It B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
After wishing everyone a Merry Christmas on Christmas Day, I
get the privilege of wishing everybody a Happy New Year
on New Year's Day of twenty twenty five in a
podcast interview that I think is some essential essential listening
and if you have folk that you think might appreciate it,
(00:48):
then send it to them. And insidious phenomenon has become
widely evident around the Western world and it is alive
and well in New Zealand. The attack has been against
every institution that props up the pillars about democratic freedom.
Retired Judge Anthony Willie justifies his accusations, the accusations that
(01:10):
he leveled in an essay Blowing in the Wind on
ENSIDCPR dot com, and we did the interview off the
back of that. It is an important document that I
suggest should be studied in every school. But enjoy it
and once again, Happy New Year. Layton Smith. Leverrix is
(01:41):
an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix
relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's
a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action.
It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in
under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.
(02:02):
Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals
with itchy eyes, and stops sneeze. Levericks is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time
you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix
(02:23):
and always read the label, take as directed and if
symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There
was an advertisement when I was young, when you're on
a good thing, stick to it. Retired judge Anthony Willie
(02:43):
has guested on this podcast on numerous occasions. Why because
when you're on a good thing, stick to it. And
it's great to welcome you back, Anthony, thank you.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
Lighton.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So your most recent column, your most recent contribution to
the discussion of things almost knock me out. Its length
was superb. Everything that you said in it was applicable
to what's going on and where it's headed. And my
guess is that a lot of people will want a
copy of this to refer to and to refer others to,
(03:17):
because it is on target. Called Blowing in the wind
Sir Elton John's beautiful lyrics aptly described the partus position
of the fragile candle of enlightenment and reason as it
exists in today's world. Both are increasingly assailed by the
winds of dogma, ignorance, and deliberate misinformation. What triggered you
(03:38):
to put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, curiously enough, it was the anniversary of the death
of Princess Diana, which doesn't have anything much it's relevant,
except that it brought to mind Elton John's lyrics. And
I was going to write something about the text of
what I did write, and I thought that that was
(04:04):
a rare description of what's happening to all of the
benefits of the enlightenment that we've for so long taken
for granted.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Well, I'd like to work our way through this through
this article as closely as possible and at whatever speed
you choose to deliver. But you start off essentially by
pointing out that there is an insidious phenomenon invading society.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
What is it. Well, we've taken for granted for so
long now the benefits that we acquired from this flowering
of thought which occurred in the principle the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, and we've sat back and assumed that life
will always be like that, and our position is secure.
(04:53):
But it's not so. We're surrounded with a growing tendency
for the old Marxist doctrines to take hold and doing
so very successfully. And of course they're the antithesi of
our way of life, which is based on all those
things I mentioned in the article free speech, the rule
(05:18):
of law, democracy, and so on. And it's something that's
really of concern. We don't seem to be grasping that
this is occurring in so many different facets of our society.
But of course we had the classic example of the
(05:40):
previous three years of the so called Labor government, in
which the Marxist philosophy was alive and well, led of
course by somebody who wasn't avowed Marxist and had been
the world president of a Marxist society. But we don't
seem to really be alert to just how dangerous this
(06:05):
is and what is happening.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
What is it that's preventing the continuation of not just
the practice, but the teaching of the advantages and what
we are discussing actually delivers to society, to individuals, to organizations.
It all really comes, I suppose, under the heading of
(06:28):
one word freedom.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Yes, yes, and really that sums up what is happening,
and it's the loss of freedom. And I give a
few examples in my article in no particular order. But
if you begin by subverting education so that children at
(06:55):
school only learn what this particular group in society want
them to learn, and if they are told that their
history is irrelevant, and that where they came from is
in New Zealand anyway is essentially bad m then it
(07:18):
starts very early and it's almost impossible to displace some
of this teaching as children grow up, because we all
know the old Jesue at Mantra, give us the child
till there's seven, and I'll give you the man. And
that's what's happening in education, or had been happening under
(07:40):
the previous government. Fortunately that is now being rectified significantly
by the present government, but it's going to take a
very long time, and there is now a whole generation
of young people who have been taught this stuff and
(08:03):
believe it, and the story goes on. I mean, we
saw it during COVID how medicine was politicized, without going
into detail, a so called poolput of truth dictated what
we would do with our lives. We would be locked up,
and we would have to have if injections of a
(08:26):
substance if we wanted to continue to live a relatively
normal life and so on. And that harks back to
what you were saying about Ashley Bloomfield and the who
and this sinister proposition that medicine is no longer the
(08:52):
curing of the sick, it is now part of the
national security complex which governs our lives.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Well, I was going to leave that till later, but
seeing that you've raised the article of that that that
came from was by Rob McCulloch, who was on the
podcast about six weeks ago, and is Sir Ashley Bloomfield
arguing in the New Zealand Medical Journal that this nation
(09:22):
should be turned into a police state. For the next
in brackets inevitable Rose Bragget pandemic and I mean, let's
ask us a question. But the direction that the article
takes is very obvious. Yes, and this this is a
I can only put it this way. This is an
(09:43):
individual that caused chaos as far as I'm concerned, in
this country or contributed to it greatly, and has for
whatever reason, been awarded a knighthood for it, and then
gone on to even greater height at the World Health
Organization and is now attempting to expand what he first
(10:06):
achieved here will.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Be absolutely and it wasn't really apparent from his public utterances.
But looking back we know what was behind all this,
and that was, as I just mentioned, utilizing what turned
out to be a relatively unharmful German if you like,
(10:33):
or whatever, measured in terms of the number of people
who died, which were very few. Indeed, that was used
as a front for closing down New Zealand society. It
hasn't it has never happened in the history of this
(10:54):
country that people were locked up in their houses for
their own good. The people had to take medicine for
their own good and so on. And to think that
there it is now becoming a derigue in these international
(11:14):
organizations is indeed very worrying. And of course the Americans
have just said, Nope, we're not having a bar of that.
We'll determine our own health policies, thank you. But I'm
not sure what our governments do about it. They haven't
said yet.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
No. I suspect they're being blown in the direction that
the Bloomfield would desire. You're right, and well, I hope
I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. Anyway, let me
go back to just to a bit of history, because
this is part of what you were saying is affected kids.
(11:54):
You're right after having listed the flowering of free thought
and curiosity otherwise known as the Enlightenment, and listed all
those things philosophy, law, democracy, medicine, education, freedom of expression, music,
economics and technology, etc. All of which are underpinned by
(12:14):
unhindered rational thought. That was the social contract Captain Hobson
brought to these shores in eighteen forty. It remained the
social norm since, but is now as much under threat
here as it is throughout the Western world. The threats
are numerous and growing, and they assail enlightened thought and
practice on all sides. It begins with the degradation of
(12:37):
our shared history. Do you think that those who are
pushing the shared history are aware of what they're doing.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
Absolutely, they're aware that to quote day cart that I think,
therefore I am, which was probably the mantra that was
at the heart of the Enlightenment, because he said I think,
(13:09):
therefore I am. Not what do I read therefore I am?
Or not? What do I listen to other people telling
me therefore I am? He promoted rational thought, and that
is the one strength that those who would upset and
(13:31):
destabilize our way of life have to counter. For as
long as people are free to think rather than just
listen to what other people tell them, then they're going
to get nowhere. These people who would wreak so much
damage on society, so they do they begin by attacking the.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Enlightenment, indeed, just talking about thinking. There was a well
known philosopher I believe, who write a book called I Drink,
Therefore I Am. It was a book on wine, of course,
so you cover that by saying it's now fashionable at
(14:17):
all levels of society to denigrate this process as the
product of whiteness and the oppression which accompanied it. And
you say, the Marxists are well aware of this crucial
fact as they seek to replace history with lies which
benefit the growth of the state to the detriment of
the individual. Are we being across the board too easily
(14:38):
seduced to comply with to comply and even vote for
this approach.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Well, well, I think we have been, because we must
be among the most complacent societies on the planet. Really,
when you when you look back to think of the
strengths of our society and the things we came to
rely on, our democracy and the rule of law and
(15:06):
education and all that sort of stuff, and we just
assumed that would go on forever. And when it was
attacked as it was in the last three years of
the so called Labor government, nobody seemed to well, very
few people seem to notice, and that encouraged those who
(15:28):
would replace it with something else to continue with the work.
I don't think it's going to go on. I'm confident
that with the new coalition government that we will reverse this,
but it's going to take time and it's not going
(15:52):
to be easy.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Correct and it will be thought, I believe by those
in the education system who have had a contribution to
driving it.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Absolutely. But I've got a lot of confidence in the
present Minister of Education and her deputy, yes David Seymour,
that they do they will do this. I'm quite confidence.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
He's my legal member, and I've never met her or
spoken to her. It's probably time we got her on you.
So we covered the education, then you hit on politicized
medicine wherever possible, by introducing racial considerations into the availability
of treatment and by supplanting the independence of the medical
(16:40):
profession to best manage their patients by substituting state intervention.
Can I just relate to you a little example. My doctor,
my own doctor, rang me a few months ago and
he was distraught, and I wondered, what the hell is wrong?
And it turned out that he'd just been dealing with
(17:01):
the department because of an aged patient of his, a
woman who needed certain assistance. But she didn't qualify on
the age front, because if you were Marie, you were
entitled to it in your fifties. She was seventy two,
(17:23):
I believe, and she wasn't entitled to it. And he
rang me, and really all he wanted to do was
just talk to somebody and get it off his chest.
And I saw, or heard rather the desperation in his voice,
which was which ran a parallel with what I've been
(17:44):
told by other doctors, but not quite so emotionally as this,
because there was nothing that he could do for the
woman without the Health department's contribution. Yes, so there we
are politicizing medicine. Have you got anything else in mind
besides what we went through in COVID.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
Well, yes, they pushed towards wards rationing medicine on the
basis of ethnicity. Now that is a essentially a political
notion because it divides society and you divide and rule.
That became the norm under the previous government. And indeed
(18:27):
you ticked a box where you went along declaring what
you're whether or not you had marry ethnicity, and unfortunately
that is still alive. And well, I mean, one is
these stories of just recently on this week, I heard
of a woman who went along to a surgery and
(18:50):
the first question was what is your ethnicity? I can't,
for the life of me now understand why any doctor
or nurse would be remotely interested in that because the
government has made it abundantly clear that that is no
longer a relevant consideration. But it gives an indication of
(19:13):
just how deep seated these things became, bearing in mind
after only three years of indoctrination.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
Indeed, moving on to the seeking to destabilize the legal
systems as you feel, of course for most of your life.
Is it and we've discussed it before, But is it
better now, worse now, or still much in the same place?
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Well, latent, it's hard to know how to describe this now,
but except to say it's incomparably worse, I suppose you
saw murial human She conducts these polls the end of
her series of articles on any given week, and one
(20:00):
of them, one of the questions was have you any
confidence in the judiciary? Ninety eight percent of the respondent
said no, they have no confidence now in the judiciary.
I mean, that is a truly appalling statistic, because unless
(20:21):
people believe that when things go wrong and they need
to invoke the law, they can go along to a
court and have a hearing before an impartial tribunal, well
that opens the way to anarchy. Really, so people would
instead of going along a court will make their own arrangements,
(20:45):
and we're back with U two and all that goes
with that. This destabilization is now very apparent in the universities,
in the law societies, and on the judiciary, and we
(21:08):
have this concerted push to introduce notions of spiritual beliefs
into the law called tea care, whatever that means, because
if you look at the dictionary, you'll get at least
a dozen different meanings, so that the law which the
(21:31):
judges then are expected to administer will no longer be
knowable in advance, it will no longer be certain, and
it will no longer be applicable to everybody who appears
before them. Now that's something which of course goes in
(21:53):
one ear and out the other for most people as
they get on with their lives, you can't blame them
until they want to invoke the law. And if this
continues unchecked, are going to be in serious trouble with
that pillar of our way of life, that is the
(22:15):
legal system. And if very I think there's every indication
at the moment that the present Attorney General is deeply
conscious of this, and my hope is that she will
(22:40):
do all she can to ensure that the sort of
people who are pointed to the judiciary at all levels
are not subject to these temptations of imposing their own
private thoughts and mores on the public. But it's it's
(23:04):
a long process because these people are there for they
could there for twenty years and in that time can
do a lot of damage. And that is why to
preserve I'm sorry to go on, but that is why,
to preserve the integrity of the legal system, we need
legislation which will make it abundantly clear that tribal practices
(23:32):
are not part of the common law of New Zealand
and that will stop certain members of our judiciary at
the highest levels. It's one of your previous interviewees expand
expanded upon. It'll stop this business of Oh, I think
(23:54):
it would be a good idea if we gave tribal
society a bit of a leg up by introducing tea
cager into the common law. It can't happen. If it does,
we will not have a legal system.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Well, if you don't have a legal system, you've got chaos.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Can you give me a warning, you know, enough time
to sell the house and bolt. Yeah, well, actually, actually,
just looking at looking at your article, you finish up
on the legal system. To the socialists, it's an outcome
(24:39):
necessary if existing social norms are to be destroyed, is
your final sentence. And then I turned the page and
read introduce chaos into the sovereign Parliament.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Yes, well, Winston Peters has been drawing attention to this recently.
I mean, for most people, they took them again, they
took their parliament for granted. They assumed it would be
a place of relatively rational debate, where the members attempted
(25:18):
to rely upon facts, and that they preserve the dignity
of the place. I mean to look at a parliament
on television now, it's so embarrassing. As Winston points out,
people make no attempt to dressed respectfully. That's showing some
(25:42):
respect for the institution they're in. They shout each other down.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
That's not unusual though on a global basis, no it's not.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
But it's big gaining impetus since the last election or
the previous election.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
For anybody who's not following it like you are and
watching parliament a regular basis. Has the abuse become more savage, Yes.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
It has, but it's become more irrational too.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Well. They go hand in hand on you.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah, yeah, And that's the worry again. It's the flight
of reason. And once that goes out the window, once
people stop relying on rational thought, well we all nowhere
it will end up.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Well, the flight of reason is a is a wonderful
little quote and it's applicable on a number of fronts.
Subverting the common language. And this is an easy one,
and it's the shortest one of the points that you
go into for I think obvious reasons, because it's steering
you in the face no matter where or what you do.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Well, yes, we have enjoyed the English language as a
common language. Now that's just an accident of history. There's
nothing particularly that's necessary or good about that, but it
just so happens. We've got it, and for the last
(27:19):
one hundred and forty odd years it's been our common language.
But within the last ten years there's been this movement
towards inventing a new language by using marry words to
describe concepts which were utterly outside of their experience at
(27:44):
the time their language was being developed. Now that's not
to say that their language shouldn't be preserved. By all means,
it must be preserved, but you don't take it and
then bastardize another language with words that have cannot have
(28:10):
had any meaning at the time these particular words were
first thought up. And as I think I've said to
you before, my favorite is moto car m O t
O k A. Now that that just illustrates the sort
of thing that's going on. And to walk into a
(28:33):
coffee shop and see a sign outside which says kof
ee and in brackets underneath a noun and underneath that coffee.
I mean, it's just silly, really, and it's demeaning to
the Mari language, which should be kept intact for those
(28:55):
who want to learn it as it as it was,
and speaking if they wish. But however it's happening.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Subject of science, of course, as you say, is at
the very heart of the Enlightenment, and I don't know
anybody who would argue with that. The corruption of science
is now widespread. For example, it is now widely accepted
in increasingly influential circles that rivers are no longer nature's
way of draining rainwater and snow melt from high places
(29:30):
to the sea, but they have some spiritual quality which
must be taken into account in planning and control of
catchments and fresh water usage. I didn't mean to read
all that, but once I started, I needed to anti science.
You might call it in general, How does it? Well,
I know of examples, and so I have a somewhat
(29:53):
of a grasp on it. When it comes to professions
like engineering, which is a science, there is an undermining
of the basis of it to an extent that is
unwarrant and could see some dangerous things happen in buildings
in the future. Mind you, we haven't been too good
(30:15):
at adhering to strict buildology work Byward over the past
few decades. But expand on that of how science is concerned, would.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
You, yes, Well, I think the attitude of the Royal
Society of New Zealand to that. I forget his name now,
but he was an eminent scientist, and he also had
qualifications of sympathetic involvement with the Marie community. And he
(30:49):
wrote an article in which he castigates, in which he
pointed out that the introduce the introduction of these sort
of spiritual values as the equivalent of science and as
a part of science, would only end up denigrating science,
and it would put this country back economically and socially
(31:15):
to the dark ages. Really, And I've always remembered when
I was doing environment court cases, one of the judges
coming to me and saying he had a problem. That
he was doing a case involving the Waikato River and
a gentleman has turned up and said, well, you can't
(31:36):
grant this because it would offend the tanny fires, and
he didn't quite know how to deal with that because
he didn't quite know what they were or what their
standing was in the proceedings inside. It just makes a
nonsense of the whole thing. So it's happening, and again
(31:57):
it's just something else that somehow the government and society
has got to deal with.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
And it won't be it won't be simple. Talking of standing,
the first time I heard that word being used in
the sense that you are using it was with a
Supreme Court in America who denied denied a hearing to
somebody because they didn't have standing. So would it be possible,
(32:27):
for instance, would it be legitimate for that judge who
you just described to say simply, I'm sorry, but tanaphars
don't have standing, or any judge to say it tanaphars
don't have standing.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Yes, that's exactly what he did. Yes, these cases are
concerned with provable facts, not miss well.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
That leaves me wondering whether the judge wasn't as bright
as he should be, or I'm brighter than I thought.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
It was a good judge.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Good look, there is there is. You've mentioned the Royal Society,
the Engineers Society, whatever it's called, has fallen in down
the same rabbit hole. Yes, and it's causing. It's causing
in the lives and minds of a couple of people.
(33:21):
I know, some ridiculous situations.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
Yes. Yes, I've got a very close friend who's a
retired civil engineer many years standing, who's had to tell
his institute please stop sending me this publication monthly because
I'm afraid I can't read most of the language is
written in and very little of it's got to do
(33:46):
anything to do with engineering, whether or not the bridge
stays up or the sewerage system works.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
That's what i'm That's what I'm told by somebody who
is who is at the top of the game.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, yeah, Oh it's happening, There's no question about it.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Global warming is your is your next suggestion? The subject
of whether why did you include global.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Warming because, as I say in the article, for me,
it's the poster child of the journey away from science
and from it's the poster child of the journey away
from Descartes. I think therefore, I am because people who
believe in it only believe, well, they believe, which is
(34:30):
a religious concept, but they only believe what they read
or what other people tell them. People who question it
do some they do their thinking, and then they look
to the facts and what's provable and what's not. And
(34:51):
the result is, and it harks back to what we
were talking about earlier. This is one of the new
constraints on society and on free thought, that if you
don't believe in global warming, then you are a danger
and you are miss informing the public, and it's got
to stop. And you'll recall that President Obama's climate czar
(35:18):
was a fellow John Kerry. I heard it. I sat
and watched him say this that he's deeply concerned about
the effect of the First Amendment to the American Constitution,
which of course ensured freedom of thought and expression, and
(35:39):
he thought that that was a license for misinformation and
it's got to stop. And he actually canvas ways in
which the Senate and the House could engineer the repeal
of the First Amendment. So global warming isn't just something
that's interesting to commentate us. It has this lurking danger
(36:06):
as well in terms of of freedom of thought and
freedom of expression. As I say, it's a religious concept.
And I was appalled at the treatment given to Maureen
pu the Member for the West Coast for National was disgusting,
absolutely appalling, and she was hung out to dry because
(36:29):
all she said was that she's waiting for the evidence
on what caused the bad weather on the East Coast.
And that really alarms me that we have in the
House a number of senior MPs who were quite unashamed
of you tell you what I believe in global warming. Well,
(36:50):
you can go along and believe in whatever you like,
but let's get some facts.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
It's timely that I read earlier today in an article
which I don't have in front of me. I wasn't
going to I wasn't going to utilize it. And it
refers to the article refers to a new study that
has just been released and there is no evidence of
(37:17):
global warming since the nineteen seventies. In spite of it says,
in spite of the so called records in Europe last year,
this is all from memory, they say. You won't read this,
of course in the mainstream media. But not just a report.
It's a major study put together by a bunch of
(37:38):
serious scientists.
Speaker 4 (37:41):
But that's the concern in this particular area, Lasan that
how on Earth any rational person can believe that a
gas which surprises no point not four percent of total
atmospheric gases, and which is crucial for the continuation of
(38:05):
life on the planet, could be causing the Earth's climate
to change. And I have not the slightest doubt that
the Earth's climate changes continually. And you've only got to
look back through more recent history to see the freezing
(38:26):
of the Thames and the medieval warming period and sun
that's unexceptional when you think we're just a rock hurling
around in space with a core that's molten rock, subject
to all the outside influences and the elliptical are but
(38:47):
and all that sort of stuff. But the people who
believe in this that they're not interested in the facts.
And that's where it comes back to the flight from
the enlightenment and reason. Once you depart from the facts,
you're lost. You're in a swamp, not.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Just in Washington. I actually I let to come back
to that subject briefly. When we conclude one of my
favorites is next, the mainstream media take it away.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
Well, it's just a disgrace at the moment, isn't it.
I mean, examples are they crop up every night on
on say TV end Z one news in a news
bulletin which maybe comprises half an hour of so called news.
To spend ten minutes dwelling upon some unfortunate young man
(39:47):
who filled himself up with drugs and alcohol and fell
off a balcony in Barcelona is to be utterly absurd
when there are so many things going on that cry
out for reporting and informing the public. Not a bit
(40:08):
surprised that the state broadcaster is in dire straits.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Should it be solved?
Speaker 4 (40:18):
The trouble is, well, who would buy it? The trouble
is what are you a place with? Wouldn't it be
better just to ensure that the board takes control of
the thing and they only employ Well, first of all,
they have a code of conduct which requires them all
(40:39):
to act impartially and fairly and so on, and need
to only employ people who are capable of complying with
that code.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Well, there's a couple of things I'd suggest. First of all,
in Australia, the ABC, where they have a much larger population,
much much broader selection possibility of appointees. The ABC is
run by the journal The news division is run by
(41:10):
the journalists and not the board. They one or two
have tried to make amendments and they fail because the
staff believe that they own it. And so the situation here,
of course is that we have a much more limited
(41:30):
pool to choose people from it. I'm budding whether there
would be anyone, if not enough, who would be game
enough to put their lives on the line, I mean
their professional lives.
Speaker 4 (41:44):
Yeah, yeah, Well, I think if it had a board
that was sufficiently rigorous and kept a close eye on
almost on a daily basis, of what was being said
or done, then these people could be called out. And
(42:04):
I think human nature being what it is, they'd get
the message if they want to keep it job and
earn a living, and that they would change their attitude
to Well. For example, they're reporting of politics in New Zealand,
which is so one sided it's just a joke really, But.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
What would be the what would be the case after
the after they change government, after we change government at
an excellent to just revert back again absolutely, because there
is no sorry, there is no we'll use a shipping
term here, there is no solid draft on that ship.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
No, no, And that's that's a risk that we do run.
But as the previous labor lot showed, my word, you
can embed some stuff very very quickly, and hopefully this
present coalition government is there long enough to embed the
sort of thing we're talking about, so it becomes the norm.
(43:06):
But it's pretty fragile here we are.
Speaker 2 (43:09):
Ye.
Speaker 3 (43:10):
So freedom of association is you're the next on your list,
and I think we've probably covered that rearably well. So democracy, well, I.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Left that in the economy to the end, because if
you're going to impose a sort of communist Marxist type
government on a country, the thing you've got to do
first is to destabilized democracy with a view to getting
rid of it entirely. And when do you look around
(43:43):
the world, the democracies, generally speaking are the prosperous and
relatively settled nations and the other lot the communists are
continually at odds with themselves with economies that have to
(44:06):
be by the stolen from from the West, or depends
substantially on oil. So admitted to me, it's just plain
as the nose, really that we cannot afford to see
our democracy placed in jeopardy at all. It's something that
(44:29):
is that is essential that we fight for it.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
What bothers me about what you just said is that
I think I'm fair in saying that you need people
with a certain degree of intelligence to take that on.
And it seems to me that we might be losing
most of them. If not, well it'll never be all
of them, but most of them to overseas. I mean,
(44:53):
we don't need to go into stories about people we know,
including our own kids, who have who have not fled
but don't plan to come back.
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Mm hmm, yeah, that said later. And I still have
a certain confidence in the so called common man, people
who know nothing about any of the stuff. But it's
the old pub test. You know that they know that
there's something wrong with what's happening and that something needs
(45:26):
doing about it. And I still think that there is
a large catchment out there of people who, once they're
alerted to what's going on, their own sense of common
sense and fair play will kick in and they will
start making noises about stopping some of these insidious sort
(45:52):
of influences that you're subject to at the moment.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
There is more to your article than we have covered,
but I want to leave it, yeah, because it's it
to me. Well, we'll explain explain where to get it shortly,
but I want to I just want to cover a
couple of other things. Headline the fatal flaw in artificial intelligence.
If I asked you what it was, you'd give up.
(46:19):
The answer is it's got a question mark at the
end of it, climate change. And I want to quote
you a little of this. AI's role in amplifying dominant
narratives will continue to stifle dissent, limit open debate, and
impose restrictive controls on society. If we allow this to
continue unchecked, AI will become a tool for shaping thought,
(46:43):
controlling discourse, and eroding the very freedoms it was meant
to empower. Would you find any fault with that?
Speaker 4 (46:50):
I couldn't agree more. I think part of the problem
is that people like me anyway, have not the faintest
idea what I actually is and what it actually does.
Presumably it's where images and words are manufactured out of, SAIDA.
(47:14):
I don't know, but I'm concerned about it. Yeah, I
really am.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yes, it could be, it could be controlled. So your
article is I think, something that should be studied in
high school, at least I've did serious. It's encompassing to
the point that it covers everything basically and logically and
seriously and would cause far greater thought among students than
(47:44):
anything that they're looking at now. I mean that. I
mean that very very sincerely. Now, thank you. Jeffrey Tucker,
who I refer to quite frequently, the founder, apart from
anything else, the founder of Brownstone Institute, which has become
a center for information for a lot of people. Yes,
(48:04):
Jeffrey Tucker wrote something a few days ago, and I
thought it slotted so beautifully alongside your article that I
wanted to touch on it. It's headed Globalism and freedom
do not Mix. And I quote you a little interesting question, why,
after many multiple decades of only localized migrant issues, most
(48:28):
having to do with border wars or other disruptions, have
so many nations at once dealt with floods of people
exploiting broken migration systems. In other words, how did a
local problem become a global problem so quickly? How did
all border systems break at once? And then goes on
and consider the problem before this one. We had a
(48:50):
globalized response to the COVID crisis in most nations of
the world. The policy response was eerily similar. There was masking,
distancing closures, travel restrictions, and capacity limits, while big business
was allowed to stay open. The same methods, which have
no modern precedents, were attempted in all countries in the
(49:11):
world except a few. Now we can relate to that.
That's only the beginning, But we can relate to that
in this country as much as anybody else can anywhere else.
On the question that the point that he raises grab
my attention specifically because I asked this question of at
least two interviewees on the podcast about the coincidence of
(49:38):
the same approaches being taken in other countries as well
as ours or ours as other countries, and what this
copying was all about, and neither of them was happy
to be agreeable with that. Just coincidence was the bottom line.
Speaker 4 (49:56):
I don't know about you, but I don't believe in coincidence, not.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Of that nature. No, So the Jeffrey Tucker article is
a clip on to yours. He goes on and covers
numerous other aspects, specifically the World Health Organization and what's
going on with that at the moment, specifically with well,
(50:21):
maybe i'll quote this. He talks about the nation state.
And I have a book called The End of the
Nation State, and it was written in and published in
nineteen ninety five, and it was determined that the nation
state was over and was about to finish. Well, it hasn't,
and it would be an interesting discussion to have separately
(50:42):
about whether or not we are still moving of late
in that direction, says all these years later, most people
in most nations, the United States especially, believes that they
should have a final say over the structure of the regime.
This is the essence of the democratic ideal, and not
as an end in itself, but as a guarranteur of freedom,
(51:03):
which is the principle that drives the rest. Freedom is
inseparable from citizen can roll of government. Would you agree
with that absolutely?
Speaker 4 (51:12):
Will? You really can't have one without the other.
Speaker 3 (51:15):
When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself
is gravely damaged the world today. Is packed with wealthy
institutions and individuals who stand and revolt against the ideas
of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea
of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They
(51:37):
believe that they have a global mission and what to
empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in
nation states. Now that's all I want to quote. But
he goes on and covers other things like disease, pandemic threats,
climate change, etc. As methods of achieving that. Yep, this
(52:00):
word juridical that I pronounce it rightly, Absolutely it is.
But it confused me at first. I thought someone had
made a mistake, a spelling mistake. But I hadn't come
across it ever. And don't forget I did a couple
of years of law twice.
Speaker 4 (52:21):
I only did one year twice.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I think that spells itself out.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
It just means things that judges. Well, it's things that
are decided in a judging way.
Speaker 3 (52:35):
Really, yes, But it's not commonly used, is it.
Speaker 4 (52:38):
No? No, it's too hard to pronounce.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
You got that right, So in wrapping this anything you'd.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Like to say, well, we were talking, well, just one
thing we were talking as an indication of how far
down the line we got in these anti democratic, anti
freedom sort of tendencies under the previous governments, and that
(53:09):
is David Seymour's referendum which he wants on the on
the Treaty principles. Well, we won't go into that, but
what he's asking for is that the public decide the
particular questions that that that he's raised. Whether they're right
(53:30):
or wris, it doesn't really matter. It's for the public
to decide. And I was appalled to read Chris Finolasen,
as a former Attorney General, expressing the view that these
things are far too difficult for the public to have
any saying and they probably come up with the wrong answers. Now,
(53:52):
that to me summarized very neatly a lot of what
we've been talking about in these attacks on the on
the freedom of expression and the democracy, and it just
illustrates how far down the track we we we came
(54:15):
before hopefully the stop signs went up, but I live
in hope.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
Anymore.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
No, that's we could we could talk for hours, Laton,
but well we.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Could talk for ours, but would you want to Tony?
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
All right, thanks Layton, good to talk. Bye bye.
Speaker 3 (54:58):
Now I'm doing it a little differently this year. The
the at the end of the replay, I usually have
a few words to say, and every year I have
to struggle to think up the appropriate thing is to
put in this particular plot. So I've decided to give
myself a break and do one that covers all of them.
So if you've heard this before, you can turn it
(55:19):
off because you've heard it, because it's going to be
the same one for each of the seven replays. Now,
if this is the first one, then I trust that
you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet,
your time will come. Rest assured. I have enjoyed doing
these because re listening to them myself, I get more
(55:41):
out of them, and I see things or I should say,
I hear things that I might have got slightly wrong
or I could have done better, So it's a learning
curve as well. Anyway, we will be back for the
next one a week from this particular release, unless, of
course it's the last one, which is on the twenty
ninth of January, and that'll be the end of this
(56:04):
replay series. Add On February five. We shall return with
fresh content in the meantime. At any stage, drop us
and drop us on notes if you've got comment that
you'd like to make later at newstalks ab dot co
dot Enzend and Caroline at newstalks ab dot co dot
nz and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
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
You're listening to a podcast from news talks It be
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 now the Leighton Smith
Podcast powered by news talks It B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
After wishing everyone a Merry Christmas on Christmas Day, I
get the privilege of wishing everybody a Happy New Year
on New Year's Day of twenty twenty five in a
podcast interview that I think is some essential essential listening
and if you have folk that you think might appreciate it,
(00:48):
then send it to them. And insidious phenomenon has become
widely evident around the Western world and it is alive
and well in New Zealand. The attack has been against
every institution that props up the pillars about democratic freedom.
Retired Judge Anthony Willie justifies his accusations, the accusations that
(01:10):
he leveled in an essay Blowing in the Wind on
ENSIDCPR dot com, and we did the interview off the
back of that. It is an important document that I
suggest should be studied in every school. But enjoy it
and once again, Happy New Year. Layton Smith. Leverrix is
(01:41):
an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix
relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's
a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action.
It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in
under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.
(02:02):
Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals
with itchy eyes, and stops sneeze. Levericks is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time
you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix
(02:23):
and always read the label, take as directed and if
symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There
was an advertisement when I was young, when you're on
a good thing, stick to it. Retired judge Anthony Willie
(02:43):
has guested on this podcast on numerous occasions. Why because
when you're on a good thing, stick to it. And
it's great to welcome you back, Anthony, thank you.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
Lighton.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So your most recent column, your most recent contribution to
the discussion of things almost knock me out. Its length
was superb. Everything that you said in it was applicable
to what's going on and where it's headed. And my
guess is that a lot of people will want a
copy of this to refer to and to refer others to,
(03:17):
because it is on target. Called Blowing in the wind
Sir Elton John's beautiful lyrics aptly described the partus position
of the fragile candle of enlightenment and reason as it
exists in today's world. Both are increasingly assailed by the
winds of dogma, ignorance, and deliberate misinformation. What triggered you
(03:38):
to put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, curiously enough, it was the anniversary of the death
of Princess Diana, which doesn't have anything much it's relevant,
except that it brought to mind Elton John's lyrics. And
I was going to write something about the text of
what I did write, and I thought that that was
(04:04):
a rare description of what's happening to all of the
benefits of the enlightenment that we've for so long taken
for granted.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Well, I'd like to work our way through this through
this article as closely as possible and at whatever speed
you choose to deliver. But you start off essentially by
pointing out that there is an insidious phenomenon invading society.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
What is it. Well, we've taken for granted for so
long now the benefits that we acquired from this flowering
of thought which occurred in the principle the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, and we've sat back and assumed that life
will always be like that, and our position is secure.
(04:53):
But it's not so. We're surrounded with a growing tendency
for the old Marxist doctrines to take hold and doing
so very successfully. And of course they're the antithesi of
our way of life, which is based on all those
things I mentioned in the article free speech, the rule
(05:18):
of law, democracy, and so on. And it's something that's
really of concern. We don't seem to be grasping that
this is occurring in so many different facets of our society.
But of course we had the classic example of the
(05:40):
previous three years of the so called Labor government, in
which the Marxist philosophy was alive and well, led of
course by somebody who wasn't avowed Marxist and had been
the world president of a Marxist society. But we don't
seem to really be alert to just how dangerous this
(06:05):
is and what is happening.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
What is it that's preventing the continuation of not just
the practice, but the teaching of the advantages and what
we are discussing actually delivers to society, to individuals, to organizations.
It all really comes, I suppose, under the heading of
(06:28):
one word freedom.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Yes, yes, and really that sums up what is happening,
and it's the loss of freedom. And I give a
few examples in my article in no particular order. But
if you begin by subverting education so that children at
(06:55):
school only learn what this particular group in society want
them to learn, and if they are told that their
history is irrelevant, and that where they came from is
in New Zealand anyway is essentially bad m then it
(07:18):
starts very early and it's almost impossible to displace some
of this teaching as children grow up, because we all
know the old Jesue at Mantra, give us the child
till there's seven, and I'll give you the man. And
that's what's happening in education, or had been happening under
(07:40):
the previous government. Fortunately that is now being rectified significantly
by the present government, but it's going to take a
very long time, and there is now a whole generation
of young people who have been taught this stuff and
(08:03):
believe it, and the story goes on. I mean, we
saw it during COVID how medicine was politicized, without going
into detail, a so called poolput of truth dictated what
we would do with our lives. We would be locked up,
and we would have to have if injections of a
(08:26):
substance if we wanted to continue to live a relatively
normal life and so on. And that harks back to
what you were saying about Ashley Bloomfield and the who
and this sinister proposition that medicine is no longer the
(08:52):
curing of the sick, it is now part of the
national security complex which governs our lives.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Well, I was going to leave that till later, but
seeing that you've raised the article of that that that
came from was by Rob McCulloch, who was on the
podcast about six weeks ago, and is Sir Ashley Bloomfield
arguing in the New Zealand Medical Journal that this nation
(09:22):
should be turned into a police state. For the next
in brackets inevitable Rose Bragget pandemic and I mean, let's
ask us a question. But the direction that the article
takes is very obvious. Yes, and this this is a
I can only put it this way. This is an
(09:43):
individual that caused chaos as far as I'm concerned, in
this country or contributed to it greatly, and has for
whatever reason, been awarded a knighthood for it, and then
gone on to even greater height at the World Health
Organization and is now attempting to expand what he first
(10:06):
achieved here will.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Be absolutely and it wasn't really apparent from his public utterances.
But looking back we know what was behind all this,
and that was, as I just mentioned, utilizing what turned
out to be a relatively unharmful German if you like,
(10:33):
or whatever, measured in terms of the number of people
who died, which were very few. Indeed, that was used
as a front for closing down New Zealand society. It
hasn't it has never happened in the history of this
(10:54):
country that people were locked up in their houses for
their own good. The people had to take medicine for
their own good and so on. And to think that
there it is now becoming a derigue in these international
(11:14):
organizations is indeed very worrying. And of course the Americans
have just said, Nope, we're not having a bar of that.
We'll determine our own health policies, thank you. But I'm
not sure what our governments do about it. They haven't
said yet.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
No. I suspect they're being blown in the direction that
the Bloomfield would desire. You're right, and well, I hope
I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. Anyway, let me
go back to just to a bit of history, because
this is part of what you were saying is affected kids.
(11:54):
You're right after having listed the flowering of free thought
and curiosity otherwise known as the Enlightenment, and listed all
those things philosophy, law, democracy, medicine, education, freedom of expression, music,
economics and technology, etc. All of which are underpinned by
(12:14):
unhindered rational thought. That was the social contract Captain Hobson
brought to these shores in eighteen forty. It remained the
social norm since, but is now as much under threat
here as it is throughout the Western world. The threats
are numerous and growing, and they assail enlightened thought and
practice on all sides. It begins with the degradation of
(12:37):
our shared history. Do you think that those who are
pushing the shared history are aware of what they're doing.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
Absolutely, they're aware that to quote day cart that I think,
therefore I am, which was probably the mantra that was
at the heart of the Enlightenment, because he said I think,
(13:09):
therefore I am. Not what do I read therefore I am?
Or not? What do I listen to other people telling
me therefore I am? He promoted rational thought, and that
is the one strength that those who would upset and
(13:31):
destabilize our way of life have to counter. For as
long as people are free to think rather than just
listen to what other people tell them, then they're going
to get nowhere. These people who would wreak so much
damage on society, so they do they begin by attacking the.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Enlightenment, indeed, just talking about thinking. There was a well
known philosopher I believe, who write a book called I Drink,
Therefore I Am. It was a book on wine, of course,
so you cover that by saying it's now fashionable at
(14:17):
all levels of society to denigrate this process as the
product of whiteness and the oppression which accompanied it. And
you say, the Marxists are well aware of this crucial
fact as they seek to replace history with lies which
benefit the growth of the state to the detriment of
the individual. Are we being across the board too easily
(14:38):
seduced to comply with to comply and even vote for
this approach.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Well, well, I think we have been, because we must
be among the most complacent societies on the planet. Really,
when you when you look back to think of the
strengths of our society and the things we came to
rely on, our democracy and the rule of law and
(15:06):
education and all that sort of stuff, and we just
assumed that would go on forever. And when it was
attacked as it was in the last three years of
the so called Labor government, nobody seemed to well, very
few people seem to notice, and that encouraged those who
(15:28):
would replace it with something else to continue with the work.
I don't think it's going to go on. I'm confident
that with the new coalition government that we will reverse this,
but it's going to take time and it's not going
(15:52):
to be easy.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Correct and it will be thought, I believe by those
in the education system who have had a contribution to
driving it.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Absolutely. But I've got a lot of confidence in the
present Minister of Education and her deputy, yes David Seymour,
that they do they will do this. I'm quite confidence.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
He's my legal member, and I've never met her or
spoken to her. It's probably time we got her on you.
So we covered the education, then you hit on politicized
medicine wherever possible, by introducing racial considerations into the availability
of treatment and by supplanting the independence of the medical
(16:40):
profession to best manage their patients by substituting state intervention.
Can I just relate to you a little example. My doctor,
my own doctor, rang me a few months ago and
he was distraught, and I wondered, what the hell is wrong?
And it turned out that he'd just been dealing with
(17:01):
the department because of an aged patient of his, a
woman who needed certain assistance. But she didn't qualify on
the age front, because if you were Marie, you were
entitled to it in your fifties. She was seventy two,
(17:23):
I believe, and she wasn't entitled to it. And he
rang me, and really all he wanted to do was
just talk to somebody and get it off his chest.
And I saw, or heard rather the desperation in his voice,
which was which ran a parallel with what I've been
(17:44):
told by other doctors, but not quite so emotionally as this,
because there was nothing that he could do for the
woman without the Health department's contribution. Yes, so there we
are politicizing medicine. Have you got anything else in mind
besides what we went through in COVID.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
Well, yes, they pushed towards wards rationing medicine on the
basis of ethnicity. Now that is a essentially a political
notion because it divides society and you divide and rule.
That became the norm under the previous government. And indeed
(18:27):
you ticked a box where you went along declaring what
you're whether or not you had marry ethnicity, and unfortunately
that is still alive. And well, I mean, one is
these stories of just recently on this week, I heard
of a woman who went along to a surgery and
(18:50):
the first question was what is your ethnicity? I can't,
for the life of me now understand why any doctor
or nurse would be remotely interested in that because the
government has made it abundantly clear that that is no
longer a relevant consideration. But it gives an indication of
(19:13):
just how deep seated these things became, bearing in mind
after only three years of indoctrination.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
Indeed, moving on to the seeking to destabilize the legal
systems as you feel, of course for most of your life.
Is it and we've discussed it before, But is it
better now, worse now, or still much in the same place?
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Well, latent, it's hard to know how to describe this now,
but except to say it's incomparably worse, I suppose you
saw murial human She conducts these polls the end of
her series of articles on any given week, and one
(20:00):
of them, one of the questions was have you any
confidence in the judiciary? Ninety eight percent of the respondent
said no, they have no confidence now in the judiciary.
I mean, that is a truly appalling statistic, because unless
(20:21):
people believe that when things go wrong and they need
to invoke the law, they can go along to a
court and have a hearing before an impartial tribunal, well
that opens the way to anarchy. Really, so people would
instead of going along a court will make their own arrangements,
(20:45):
and we're back with U two and all that goes
with that. This destabilization is now very apparent in the universities,
in the law societies, and on the judiciary, and we
(21:08):
have this concerted push to introduce notions of spiritual beliefs
into the law called tea care, whatever that means, because
if you look at the dictionary, you'll get at least
a dozen different meanings, so that the law which the
(21:31):
judges then are expected to administer will no longer be
knowable in advance, it will no longer be certain, and
it will no longer be applicable to everybody who appears
before them. Now that's something which of course goes in
(21:53):
one ear and out the other for most people as
they get on with their lives, you can't blame them
until they want to invoke the law. And if this
continues unchecked, are going to be in serious trouble with
that pillar of our way of life, that is the
(22:15):
legal system. And if very I think there's every indication
at the moment that the present Attorney General is deeply
conscious of this, and my hope is that she will
(22:40):
do all she can to ensure that the sort of
people who are pointed to the judiciary at all levels
are not subject to these temptations of imposing their own
private thoughts and mores on the public. But it's it's
(23:04):
a long process because these people are there for they
could there for twenty years and in that time can
do a lot of damage. And that is why to
preserve I'm sorry to go on, but that is why,
to preserve the integrity of the legal system, we need
legislation which will make it abundantly clear that tribal practices
(23:32):
are not part of the common law of New Zealand
and that will stop certain members of our judiciary at
the highest levels. It's one of your previous interviewees expand
expanded upon. It'll stop this business of Oh, I think
(23:54):
it would be a good idea if we gave tribal
society a bit of a leg up by introducing tea
cager into the common law. It can't happen. If it does,
we will not have a legal system.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Well, if you don't have a legal system, you've got chaos.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Can you give me a warning, you know, enough time
to sell the house and bolt. Yeah, well, actually, actually,
just looking at looking at your article, you finish up
on the legal system. To the socialists, it's an outcome
(24:39):
necessary if existing social norms are to be destroyed, is
your final sentence. And then I turned the page and
read introduce chaos into the sovereign Parliament.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Yes, well, Winston Peters has been drawing attention to this recently.
I mean, for most people, they took them again, they
took their parliament for granted. They assumed it would be
a place of relatively rational debate, where the members attempted
(25:18):
to rely upon facts, and that they preserve the dignity
of the place. I mean to look at a parliament
on television now, it's so embarrassing. As Winston points out,
people make no attempt to dressed respectfully. That's showing some
(25:42):
respect for the institution they're in. They shout each other down.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
That's not unusual though on a global basis, no it's not.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
But it's big gaining impetus since the last election or
the previous election.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
For anybody who's not following it like you are and
watching parliament a regular basis. Has the abuse become more savage, Yes.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
It has, but it's become more irrational too.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Well. They go hand in hand on you.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah, yeah, And that's the worry again. It's the flight
of reason. And once that goes out the window, once
people stop relying on rational thought, well we all nowhere
it will end up.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Well, the flight of reason is a is a wonderful
little quote and it's applicable on a number of fronts.
Subverting the common language. And this is an easy one,
and it's the shortest one of the points that you
go into for I think obvious reasons, because it's steering
you in the face no matter where or what you do.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Well, yes, we have enjoyed the English language as a
common language. Now that's just an accident of history. There's
nothing particularly that's necessary or good about that, but it
just so happens. We've got it, and for the last
(27:19):
one hundred and forty odd years it's been our common language.
But within the last ten years there's been this movement
towards inventing a new language by using marry words to
describe concepts which were utterly outside of their experience at
(27:44):
the time their language was being developed. Now that's not
to say that their language shouldn't be preserved. By all means,
it must be preserved, but you don't take it and
then bastardize another language with words that have cannot have
(28:10):
had any meaning at the time these particular words were
first thought up. And as I think I've said to
you before, my favorite is moto car m O t
O k A. Now that that just illustrates the sort
of thing that's going on. And to walk into a
(28:33):
coffee shop and see a sign outside which says kof
ee and in brackets underneath a noun and underneath that coffee.
I mean, it's just silly, really, and it's demeaning to
the Mari language, which should be kept intact for those
(28:55):
who want to learn it as it as it was,
and speaking if they wish. But however it's happening.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Subject of science, of course, as you say, is at
the very heart of the Enlightenment, and I don't know
anybody who would argue with that. The corruption of science
is now widespread. For example, it is now widely accepted
in increasingly influential circles that rivers are no longer nature's
way of draining rainwater and snow melt from high places
(29:30):
to the sea, but they have some spiritual quality which
must be taken into account in planning and control of
catchments and fresh water usage. I didn't mean to read
all that, but once I started, I needed to anti science.
You might call it in general, How does it? Well,
I know of examples, and so I have a somewhat
(29:53):
of a grasp on it. When it comes to professions
like engineering, which is a science, there is an undermining
of the basis of it to an extent that is
unwarrant and could see some dangerous things happen in buildings
in the future. Mind you, we haven't been too good
(30:15):
at adhering to strict buildology work Byward over the past
few decades. But expand on that of how science is concerned, would.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
You, yes, Well, I think the attitude of the Royal
Society of New Zealand to that. I forget his name now,
but he was an eminent scientist, and he also had
qualifications of sympathetic involvement with the Marie community. And he
(30:49):
wrote an article in which he castigates, in which he
pointed out that the introduce the introduction of these sort
of spiritual values as the equivalent of science and as
a part of science, would only end up denigrating science,
and it would put this country back economically and socially
(31:15):
to the dark ages. Really, And I've always remembered when
I was doing environment court cases, one of the judges
coming to me and saying he had a problem. That
he was doing a case involving the Waikato River and
a gentleman has turned up and said, well, you can't
(31:36):
grant this because it would offend the tanny fires, and
he didn't quite know how to deal with that because
he didn't quite know what they were or what their
standing was in the proceedings inside. It just makes a
nonsense of the whole thing. So it's happening, and again
(31:57):
it's just something else that somehow the government and society
has got to deal with.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
And it won't be it won't be simple. Talking of standing,
the first time I heard that word being used in
the sense that you are using it was with a
Supreme Court in America who denied denied a hearing to
somebody because they didn't have standing. So would it be possible,
(32:27):
for instance, would it be legitimate for that judge who
you just described to say simply, I'm sorry, but tanaphars
don't have standing, or any judge to say it tanaphars
don't have standing.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Yes, that's exactly what he did. Yes, these cases are
concerned with provable facts, not miss well.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
That leaves me wondering whether the judge wasn't as bright
as he should be, or I'm brighter than I thought.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
It was a good judge.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Good look, there is there is. You've mentioned the Royal Society,
the Engineers Society, whatever it's called, has fallen in down
the same rabbit hole. Yes, and it's causing. It's causing
in the lives and minds of a couple of people.
(33:21):
I know, some ridiculous situations.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
Yes. Yes, I've got a very close friend who's a
retired civil engineer many years standing, who's had to tell
his institute please stop sending me this publication monthly because
I'm afraid I can't read most of the language is
written in and very little of it's got to do
(33:46):
anything to do with engineering, whether or not the bridge
stays up or the sewerage system works.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
That's what i'm That's what I'm told by somebody who
is who is at the top of the game.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, yeah, Oh it's happening, There's no question about it.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Global warming is your is your next suggestion? The subject
of whether why did you include global.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Warming because, as I say in the article, for me,
it's the poster child of the journey away from science
and from it's the poster child of the journey away
from Descartes. I think therefore, I am because people who
believe in it only believe, well, they believe, which is
(34:30):
a religious concept, but they only believe what they read
or what other people tell them. People who question it
do some they do their thinking, and then they look
to the facts and what's provable and what's not. And
(34:51):
the result is, and it harks back to what we
were talking about earlier. This is one of the new
constraints on society and on free thought, that if you
don't believe in global warming, then you are a danger
and you are miss informing the public, and it's got
to stop. And you'll recall that President Obama's climate czar
(35:18):
was a fellow John Kerry. I heard it. I sat
and watched him say this that he's deeply concerned about
the effect of the First Amendment to the American Constitution,
which of course ensured freedom of thought and expression, and
(35:39):
he thought that that was a license for misinformation and
it's got to stop. And he actually canvas ways in
which the Senate and the House could engineer the repeal
of the First Amendment. So global warming isn't just something
that's interesting to commentate us. It has this lurking danger
(36:06):
as well in terms of of freedom of thought and
freedom of expression. As I say, it's a religious concept.
And I was appalled at the treatment given to Maureen
pu the Member for the West Coast for National was disgusting,
absolutely appalling, and she was hung out to dry because
(36:29):
all she said was that she's waiting for the evidence
on what caused the bad weather on the East Coast.
And that really alarms me that we have in the
House a number of senior MPs who were quite unashamed
of you tell you what I believe in global warming. Well,
(36:50):
you can go along and believe in whatever you like,
but let's get some facts.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
It's timely that I read earlier today in an article
which I don't have in front of me. I wasn't
going to I wasn't going to utilize it. And it
refers to the article refers to a new study that
has just been released and there is no evidence of
(37:17):
global warming since the nineteen seventies. In spite of it says,
in spite of the so called records in Europe last year,
this is all from memory, they say. You won't read this,
of course in the mainstream media. But not just a report.
It's a major study put together by a bunch of
(37:38):
serious scientists.
Speaker 4 (37:41):
But that's the concern in this particular area, Lasan that
how on Earth any rational person can believe that a
gas which surprises no point not four percent of total
atmospheric gases, and which is crucial for the continuation of
(38:05):
life on the planet, could be causing the Earth's climate
to change. And I have not the slightest doubt that
the Earth's climate changes continually. And you've only got to
look back through more recent history to see the freezing
(38:26):
of the Thames and the medieval warming period and sun
that's unexceptional when you think we're just a rock hurling
around in space with a core that's molten rock, subject
to all the outside influences and the elliptical are but
(38:47):
and all that sort of stuff. But the people who
believe in this that they're not interested in the facts.
And that's where it comes back to the flight from
the enlightenment and reason. Once you depart from the facts,
you're lost. You're in a swamp, not.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Just in Washington. I actually I let to come back
to that subject briefly. When we conclude one of my
favorites is next, the mainstream media take it away.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
Well, it's just a disgrace at the moment, isn't it.
I mean, examples are they crop up every night on
on say TV end Z one news in a news
bulletin which maybe comprises half an hour of so called news.
To spend ten minutes dwelling upon some unfortunate young man
(39:47):
who filled himself up with drugs and alcohol and fell
off a balcony in Barcelona is to be utterly absurd
when there are so many things going on that cry
out for reporting and informing the public. Not a bit
(40:08):
surprised that the state broadcaster is in dire straits.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Should it be solved?
Speaker 4 (40:18):
The trouble is, well, who would buy it? The trouble
is what are you a place with? Wouldn't it be
better just to ensure that the board takes control of
the thing and they only employ Well, first of all,
they have a code of conduct which requires them all
(40:39):
to act impartially and fairly and so on, and need
to only employ people who are capable of complying with
that code.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Well, there's a couple of things I'd suggest. First of all,
in Australia, the ABC, where they have a much larger population,
much much broader selection possibility of appointees. The ABC is
run by the journal The news division is run by
(41:10):
the journalists and not the board. They one or two
have tried to make amendments and they fail because the
staff believe that they own it. And so the situation here,
of course is that we have a much more limited
(41:30):
pool to choose people from it. I'm budding whether there
would be anyone, if not enough, who would be game
enough to put their lives on the line, I mean
their professional lives.
Speaker 4 (41:44):
Yeah, yeah, Well, I think if it had a board
that was sufficiently rigorous and kept a close eye on
almost on a daily basis, of what was being said
or done, then these people could be called out. And
(42:04):
I think human nature being what it is, they'd get
the message if they want to keep it job and
earn a living, and that they would change their attitude
to Well. For example, they're reporting of politics in New Zealand,
which is so one sided it's just a joke really, But.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
What would be the what would be the case after
the after they change government, after we change government at
an excellent to just revert back again absolutely, because there
is no sorry, there is no we'll use a shipping
term here, there is no solid draft on that ship.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
No, no, And that's that's a risk that we do run.
But as the previous labor lot showed, my word, you
can embed some stuff very very quickly, and hopefully this
present coalition government is there long enough to embed the
sort of thing we're talking about, so it becomes the norm.
(43:06):
But it's pretty fragile here we are.
Speaker 2 (43:09):
Ye.
Speaker 3 (43:10):
So freedom of association is you're the next on your list,
and I think we've probably covered that rearably well. So democracy, well, I.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Left that in the economy to the end, because if
you're going to impose a sort of communist Marxist type
government on a country, the thing you've got to do
first is to destabilized democracy with a view to getting
rid of it entirely. And when do you look around
(43:43):
the world, the democracies, generally speaking are the prosperous and
relatively settled nations and the other lot the communists are
continually at odds with themselves with economies that have to
(44:06):
be by the stolen from from the West, or depends
substantially on oil. So admitted to me, it's just plain
as the nose, really that we cannot afford to see
our democracy placed in jeopardy at all. It's something that
(44:29):
is that is essential that we fight for it.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
What bothers me about what you just said is that
I think I'm fair in saying that you need people
with a certain degree of intelligence to take that on.
And it seems to me that we might be losing
most of them. If not, well it'll never be all
of them, but most of them to overseas. I mean,
(44:53):
we don't need to go into stories about people we know,
including our own kids, who have who have not fled
but don't plan to come back.
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Mm hmm, yeah, that said later. And I still have
a certain confidence in the so called common man, people
who know nothing about any of the stuff. But it's
the old pub test. You know that they know that
there's something wrong with what's happening and that something needs
(45:26):
doing about it. And I still think that there is
a large catchment out there of people who, once they're
alerted to what's going on, their own sense of common
sense and fair play will kick in and they will
start making noises about stopping some of these insidious sort
(45:52):
of influences that you're subject to at the moment.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
There is more to your article than we have covered,
but I want to leave it, yeah, because it's it
to me. Well, we'll explain explain where to get it shortly,
but I want to I just want to cover a
couple of other things. Headline the fatal flaw in artificial intelligence.
If I asked you what it was, you'd give up.
(46:19):
The answer is it's got a question mark at the
end of it, climate change. And I want to quote
you a little of this. AI's role in amplifying dominant
narratives will continue to stifle dissent, limit open debate, and
impose restrictive controls on society. If we allow this to
continue unchecked, AI will become a tool for shaping thought,
(46:43):
controlling discourse, and eroding the very freedoms it was meant
to empower. Would you find any fault with that?
Speaker 4 (46:50):
I couldn't agree more. I think part of the problem
is that people like me anyway, have not the faintest
idea what I actually is and what it actually does.
Presumably it's where images and words are manufactured out of, SAIDA.
(47:14):
I don't know, but I'm concerned about it. Yeah, I
really am.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yes, it could be, it could be controlled. So your
article is I think, something that should be studied in
high school, at least I've did serious. It's encompassing to
the point that it covers everything basically and logically and
seriously and would cause far greater thought among students than
(47:44):
anything that they're looking at now. I mean that. I
mean that very very sincerely. Now, thank you. Jeffrey Tucker,
who I refer to quite frequently, the founder, apart from
anything else, the founder of Brownstone Institute, which has become
a center for information for a lot of people. Yes,
(48:04):
Jeffrey Tucker wrote something a few days ago, and I
thought it slotted so beautifully alongside your article that I
wanted to touch on it. It's headed Globalism and freedom
do not Mix. And I quote you a little interesting question, why,
after many multiple decades of only localized migrant issues, most
(48:28):
having to do with border wars or other disruptions, have
so many nations at once dealt with floods of people
exploiting broken migration systems. In other words, how did a
local problem become a global problem so quickly? How did
all border systems break at once? And then goes on
and consider the problem before this one. We had a
(48:50):
globalized response to the COVID crisis in most nations of
the world. The policy response was eerily similar. There was masking,
distancing closures, travel restrictions, and capacity limits, while big business
was allowed to stay open. The same methods, which have
no modern precedents, were attempted in all countries in the
(49:11):
world except a few. Now we can relate to that.
That's only the beginning, But we can relate to that
in this country as much as anybody else can anywhere else.
On the question that the point that he raises grab
my attention specifically because I asked this question of at
least two interviewees on the podcast about the coincidence of
(49:38):
the same approaches being taken in other countries as well
as ours or ours as other countries, and what this
copying was all about, and neither of them was happy
to be agreeable with that. Just coincidence was the bottom line.
Speaker 4 (49:56):
I don't know about you, but I don't believe in coincidence, not.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Of that nature. No, So the Jeffrey Tucker article is
a clip on to yours. He goes on and covers
numerous other aspects, specifically the World Health Organization and what's
going on with that at the moment, specifically with well,
(50:21):
maybe i'll quote this. He talks about the nation state.
And I have a book called The End of the
Nation State, and it was written in and published in
nineteen ninety five, and it was determined that the nation
state was over and was about to finish. Well, it hasn't,
and it would be an interesting discussion to have separately
(50:42):
about whether or not we are still moving of late
in that direction, says all these years later, most people
in most nations, the United States especially, believes that they
should have a final say over the structure of the regime.
This is the essence of the democratic ideal, and not
as an end in itself, but as a guarranteur of freedom,
(51:03):
which is the principle that drives the rest. Freedom is
inseparable from citizen can roll of government. Would you agree
with that absolutely?
Speaker 4 (51:12):
Will? You really can't have one without the other.
Speaker 3 (51:15):
When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself
is gravely damaged the world today. Is packed with wealthy
institutions and individuals who stand and revolt against the ideas
of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea
of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They
(51:37):
believe that they have a global mission and what to
empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in
nation states. Now that's all I want to quote. But
he goes on and covers other things like disease, pandemic threats,
climate change, etc. As methods of achieving that. Yep, this
(52:00):
word juridical that I pronounce it rightly, Absolutely it is.
But it confused me at first. I thought someone had
made a mistake, a spelling mistake. But I hadn't come
across it ever. And don't forget I did a couple
of years of law twice.
Speaker 4 (52:21):
I only did one year twice.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I think that spells itself out.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
It just means things that judges. Well, it's things that
are decided in a judging way.
Speaker 3 (52:35):
Really, yes, But it's not commonly used, is it.
Speaker 4 (52:38):
No? No, it's too hard to pronounce.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
You got that right, So in wrapping this anything you'd.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Like to say, well, we were talking, well, just one
thing we were talking as an indication of how far
down the line we got in these anti democratic, anti
freedom sort of tendencies under the previous governments, and that
(53:09):
is David Seymour's referendum which he wants on the on
the Treaty principles. Well, we won't go into that, but
what he's asking for is that the public decide the
particular questions that that that he's raised. Whether they're right
(53:30):
or wris, it doesn't really matter. It's for the public
to decide. And I was appalled to read Chris Finolasen,
as a former Attorney General, expressing the view that these
things are far too difficult for the public to have
any saying and they probably come up with the wrong answers. Now,
(53:52):
that to me summarized very neatly a lot of what
we've been talking about in these attacks on the on
the freedom of expression and the democracy, and it just
illustrates how far down the track we we we came
(54:15):
before hopefully the stop signs went up, but I live
in hope.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
Anymore.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
No, that's we could we could talk for hours, Laton,
but well we.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Could talk for ours, but would you want to Tony?
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
All right, thanks Layton, good to talk. Bye bye.
Speaker 3 (54:58):
Now I'm doing it a little differently this year. The
the at the end of the replay, I usually have
a few words to say, and every year I have
to struggle to think up the appropriate thing is to
put in this particular plot. So I've decided to give
myself a break and do one that covers all of them.
So if you've heard this before, you can turn it
(55:19):
off because you've heard it, because it's going to be
the same one for each of the seven replays. Now,
if this is the first one, then I trust that
you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet,
your time will come. Rest assured. I have enjoyed doing
these because re listening to them myself, I get more
(55:41):
out of them, and I see things or I should say,
I hear things that I might have got slightly wrong
or I could have done better, So it's a learning
curve as well. Anyway, we will be back for the
next one a week from this particular release, unless, of
course it's the last one, which is on the twenty
ninth of January, and that'll be the end of this
(56:04):
replay series. Add On February five. We shall return with
fresh content in the meantime. At any stage, drop us
and drop us on notes if you've got comment that
you'd like to make later at newstalks ab dot co
dot Enzend and Caroline at newstalks ab dot co dot
nz and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
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
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.