Leighton Smith Podcast #287 - June 4th 2025 - Patrick Basham

some of the stats are somewhat interesting. We then engage in discussion on the most critical issues, while some of the most critical issues on the planet Iran and their nuclear developments, Ukraine's successful drone strike on Russia, the South Korean and Polish elections, and by the way, the amount of CCP Chinese Communist Party interference in South Korea and

their election is well, it's almost terrifying. Then we have the mail room and at the back end of two eight seven some commentary on stupidity and net zero and yes they go very well together. But in a moment, Patrick Basham. Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form called bacterial licate. It'll boost your natural protection

against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day course of seven Buckland tablets will help your body build up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the whole family From two years of age and upwards. A course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for up to

three month following the three day course. Buckolhan can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter or or the year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions of doses have been taken by Kiwi's for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed, and see your doctor if

systems persist. Farmer Broker Auckland now from Democracy Institute in Washington, d C. Once again, Patrick Masham, it's great to talk to you.

over time, it can be quite revealing. And historically even there's no perfect yardstick for how a president will do, say in the upcoming election, but generally a president's approval rating has been a pretty good guide. So, you know, crudely put, if a president is around or above fifty percent approval come nearing an election, he's usually re elected if he has that opportunity, and if he's you know,

in the low forties or below, he's usually defeated. Obviously, in Trump's case, he doesn't have any more elections to come, but so that's that's why we do it, and we did it at a time when there's been a lot of discussion in America about Trump's approval because most of the legacy media pollsters have found in recent or had found in recent weeks and months that Trump's approval was

quote unquote down. Most of those ourselves included, who were the more accurate ones in twenty twenty four, had and have found his approval is quite fine. So there's that there's that contrast that was in existence, you know, throughout much of the twenty twenty four campaign between within the polling community.

he's making the country better or worse. It's a it's a sort of simple crude, but we think effective way of just capturing how people think he's doing overall, given that most people who voted last year, whoever they voted for,

thought that things weren't as they should be. Now, you know, many of them blamed Biden and Harris, but a good number thought that the problems that America faced, particularly the sort of larger our problems, were because of Trump and his ilk, threatening democracy and all this kind of stuff. So most people thought there were there were the change

was necessary, the country needed to be fixed. And so we asked whether Trump was how he was doing on that, and we found that, you know, by a fair distance, given how tightly divided American politics are, is that most people think, yeah, despite the media's best efforts to spin things otherwise, Trump is actually you know, making some progress, making some headway.

the approval disapproval question instead underwater in negative territory. But if you're if you look at it next to or following the question we've just discussed, it begs then the question, well, why if only thirty seven percent think he's breaking it to forty six percent disapprove Exactly What that reveals is that when you ask people questions that either directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly get to the issue of issues of tangible change, and most people think of it interest They

think of in terms of the country as a whole, but most people think first and foremost tangible change in their own lives, the lies of those around them. Then you get a less negative response because two thirds of them, you know, only a third of the country really thinks that things are not getting better, or at least they're not getting worse. But when you ask exclusively about Trump himself,

as president. A president's you know, personal qualities or perceptions of his personal qualities are always going to affect that number, And of course Trump is the epitomizes how it can do in ways, you know, positive or negative. So when people are asked exclusively about Trump and not his policies, then you get a much more reflexive default response from you know, almost half the country, which is, well, I

don't like Trump. I wish he wasn't president. So I'm going to say I disapprove of his presidency to this point, even though, as I say, a slice of that, a significant slice of those who disapprove of him as president actually recognize that he's not doing such a terrible job.

Harris wasn't. And so yeah, you have people who didn't vote, who couldn't bring himself they would never vote for Trump vote, we may never vote for a Republican perhaps most likely they you know, they just sort of said, well, I just, you know, wake up on our election morning and I hope Harris is one, but you know, I just can't

bring myself to actually vote for uh uh. And now that Trump's president, they wish he wasn't and they're willing to say so, but they're not moved sufficiently to say anything particularly enthusiastic about the other side.

in her career. But yeah, it's you have been I mean, I say, I haven't didn't see the whole speech, but where you know, the exposure that she's had since so many people comment on how especially relieved they are how the election went when they are reminded of who would have been president if it had gone another way. Rights, it's something that is, you know, implicitly helping Trump. It's the contrast with Biden, but but with what Biden was.

And there's also the contrast with what Harris would have been. And you know, sometimes you're very unlucky with your opponents or enemies, and sometimes you are quite lucky, and Job was quite lucky in the end that it was Biden. And then Harris, so.

him belatedly after what happened in twenty twenty. But no, he has approached his second term in a way that's even more impactful than he attempted in his first and more impactful and I think ultimately consequential. The most presidents do in their first terms, to say they blew out of the gate is putting it, you know, mildly. I mean, they were so prepared, They were so much better prepared

this time. He and those around him clearly learned so many painful lessons from twenty seventeen eighteen especially, And while he hasn't got it all right in terms of personnel, and I don't think he's made all the right moves, I think most of the movie have been have been very positive. Most of the people that he has put around him are far superior than the one His team is far superior than the one he had in twenty seventeen. And the enormous number of areas that he's attempting to,

you know, initiate really significant structural reform. You know, it's always said that, I mean prime ministers often don't have that in parliamentaris and have that much leeway and two or three issues may do it. But with presidents, especially American presidents, you know, two or three things you can focus on and hope to get a fair bit of

what you're looking for in your first term. And Trump is just you know, throwing out that playbook, especially for a second term, and just going for it, you know, across the board. And this is this is I think it's two very strong positives politically out of this. One is it has really pleasantly surprised, impressed, reassured most of those who voted for him that he was serious about the things he was said he wanted to do. And secondly,

it has totally depressed the opposition. It is because they one hoped he wasn't serious as they had hoped in his first term, but they would thinking, well, you know, first month, he'll try this, second or third month, he'll try that, and they'll be able to do their usual you know, pounce on it, go push back on it, media attacks, all of that. But of course he's been ann he was announcing this first hundred days, you know, new policies, not his every day, but every hour on

a whole host of different issues. So they have just been completely bewildered, just spinning around like you know, tops out of control, which is meant that the it's been very very hard for the opposition, the criticism of any of these individual policies to get enough attention to even potentially stick. And it's really meant that the Twite House has been on the front foot. The Democrats have been very much on the back foot, and so it's I think it's just very very encouraging.

people who voted for Trump. They now accept that, which they always resisted in twenty sixteen, after twenty sixteen, and again after twenty twenty, But they don't have the first

idea why. You're right, there's still very much of the mindset that Trump and Musk and the other mysterious figures, other nefarious figures, somehow we're able to conn all these uneducated, unsophisticated people to vote for him, and they the notion that their message was wrong, their candidates candidate was wrong about all of that, and they're having real trouble coming to terms. I mean, it's always difficult and you lose to actually look in the mirror and go, you know

a lot of it was my fault. But they're not even close to doing that. So you know, that's you know, that's really good news for Trump and the Republicans. Of course, you know, come the mid terms, come the next presidential elections, as usual, it will probably be more about the incumbent party and the won't be the incumbent president, but you know, if it's the vice come and vice president, then it

will be about the opposition. So if things have seemed to go poorly over the next two or three years, then even if they don't get their act together, they may slip in again, you know, because they're but like you know, the Labor Party did in England in the UK, because they're not the unpopular incumbent. But at the moment, it looks like things will really have to go off the rails for the Trump administration for the Democrats to have a good chance next time around.

the visive cabinet secretaries. The policies aren't thought out, they're they're coldheartedly callously firing you know, wonderful government public service workers, willy nilly. Uh, it's just I mean just taking a wrecking ball to important programs. I mean, this is you know, this has been the word from day one, and that there's two problems with that in terms of getting an audience or getting an audience, you know, a sort of

majority audience, critical mass to to go with that. One is when any of any of those claims or at

tax or investigator that they're demonstrably untrue or you know, inaccurate. Uh. And also the media, you know, is even less trusted than it was four years ago, uh, you know, the trend line continues down is the legacy media is just you know, the first thing a lot of people think when they see a CNN headline or a New York Times headline, they think, oh my, be the opposite then, right, I mean, it's just they've just cried wolf, told too many lies too many times. So at the moment, it's

it's just not paying off. But as I say, you know, things turn you know, figuratively south in terms of policy outcomes, then more people will think the media is onto something. But you know, most people know the media is going to attempt to destroy Trump's second term the way they

it is. First, I mean, there was a statistic I just earlier today from the Media Research Center on you know, they regularly update the nature of the coverage of any given president, and Trump's coverage so far in his second term is something like ninety one or ninety two percent negative, whereas Biden's was something like sixty five seventy percent positive. And you know, it's you know, that's just the way

it is in America. Fortunately, as I say, increasingly people don't believe legacy media, and also the independent alternative media is thriving. And so there are other sources more generally more reliable, and certainly contrasting that more and more people actually pay more and more attention to.

lot of it is. I think it's just it's just lack of quality information. But you you know, I would I would. I would say the IQ of the iriage democratic voter is probably quite a bit higher than the IQ of the ariage democratic politician. It appears if ifyone takes them at their word, that they are well intentioned, well meaning, and you know, genuine people I'm.

across the board, but it's especially on the left. Right, you have so many people and it scus excus female and excus minorities. There's something like sixty five seventy percent of black women in Black American women with degrees work for the government. Right, and what that means if you drill down is they work in human resources and communications and this, et cetera, et cetera, and they've been educated in a way that is not helpful to learning how

the world really works. And you know, they continue along that path in their careers and in their voting habits. So it's you know, you have a lot of people. I'm not saying this to counter what you said late, but just to sort of flesh it out a bit from my end, I think you have a lot of people on the left who believe that they are very bright because they have never been they never been, never failed anything, because they've been allowed to fail. They've always

been passed, pushed on, passed through. And they think that their degrees and certificates on the wall and their business cards entitle them to be really good judges, to have very good judgment when it comes to what's good and bad information, when in fact it's the opposite. You know, they they are they are so deferential when it comes to the experts, that is, the approved experts, that they're unquestioning.

And of course this is what you want. If you want a controlling, top down kind of ideology, take route which it has you know, massive parts of the country. And so it's whether there is it that they're really not very bright, or is it just that they're poorly educated, or is it some combination of the two self deceit. Yeah,

there's yeah, there's definitely a lot of that. I mean, you know, there's there's plenty on the other side too, But it's not they don't tend to they don't tend to be politically, they don't tend to be as influential to to have these sort of key roles, not in you know, in in government, in Congress, in terms of the staff and advisory roles you think of, you know, the Clinton administration, especially the Obama the Biden administration, many

of these people were the same. But you have in the Obama and Biden administrations so many of these twenty thirty somethings, graduates of Ivy League universities, you know, dictating foreign policy and tax policy and health policy, who clearly demonstrably knew very very little about what they were talking about, right, But they spent all day talking to each other and to those in the academy and in the NGOs and the think tanks of the same background profile and views,

and continued every day waking up every day thinking that they were the brightest people on the planet and we were all should be very grateful that they're willing to spend some time each day telling us how we should live our lives.

used to be. But I mean, these the more elite the educational institution in America, the further it is fallen, it appears as a sort of general statement, right, I mean, they're so politicized, they're so cowardly, they're so ideological, and they're also so money or money centered, which you know, you've got a Harvard with its tens of billions of endowment money doesn't need a penny from a student or

a government forever. But boy, they're you know, they're going to sue the federal government if they're taking away the billions that the federal government the taxpayers give them every year. It's it's quite remarkable. And we know that the Harvards of this world have been the incubators of so much of the crazy wokeness that is not not only threatened to destroy the universicities themselves, but of course put the

corporate world and especially the political world. So I mean, what what Trump is doing attempting to do with the likes of Harvard is something that Democrats fall into the trap of the of of countering and defending the institute, the university, not realizing that for most people, what Trump is saying and what he's demonstrating, you know, makes complete sense. But the Democrats it seemed just to sort of slightly

circle back late for a moment. One of the probably the thing that's most going in Trump's favor, you put aside anything he is or isn't doing, what the outcomes may or may not be at the moment, what's most helpful to him is that for the time being, at least, the Democrats appear to have decided that they are going to hang their hats on defending federal bureaucrats, foreign aid recipients, particularly those in the NGOs at home, domestically illegal immigrants,

and transgender people, and they seem to be very very enthusiastic about defending, supporting protecting those four groups. And the problem is that to say those four groups don't constitute electoral majority or appeal to one. It's putting a very very gender So as long as they keep doing that, they will remain in sort of pretty poor spot.

this country found yourself employed at Harvard. Yes, now, based on what you've said, I'm going to ask you to extend your commentary to deal with the judiciary, and that is that is specifically the Supreme Judiciary, but at further down if you if you choose to go, but can I make a suggestion to try and stir you on, And that is that the amount of authoritarian attitude, if I can put it that way, or some might even

call it tyranny. If not, if not yet, then on its way judicial tyranny is having a very big influence on the progress of the administration. Right or wrong?

a second term. And then when he protests that, they try to impeach him to stop him from being able to run again. That doesn't work, so they try to bankrupt him through the courts. Then they try to imprison him through the court of That works, and then coincidentally, I'm sure twice he's there's attempts to assassinate him. None of it works. He's back in. And I think many people on both sides assumed and hoped that that would be it. Oh well, somehow if you didn't like him,

this crazy guy's back in. We only got to put up with it for four years. And on the on the on the Trump side, it's like they've shot every

bullet they had. There's nothing else they can do. Well, guess what they had more ready and waiting, And of course what they had waiting was the judiciary, and so what has happened since the very moment Trump was sort of reinaugurated, uh in late January, was that the judiciary has taken upon itself to be the most disloyal opposition and to do everything to not eliminate Trump, but to eliminate any possible progress on the polar side that he could make. And where this really comes, where this is

playing out, it's playing at the federal level. Because there's a federal system. There's a Supreme Court that everybody knows about. And then you think, of course at the state level or local level, but there are federal courts that are that are divided regionally in America that supposedly Supreme Court justice as they each have a number of them to sort of oversee. Those courts are the ones that are determining, at least in the short term that you name the

policy of Trump, it's unconstitutional slash illegal. So Trump can't close the Department of Education, according to the court, Trump can't close USAID. Trump can't fire federal workers. You know, Trump can't attempt to broke a piece in the Middle

East or Ukraine. Trump can't raise tariffs. You know, it doesn't matter what it is some court somewhere has said he can't do it, and one of the really, I mean, we know, we know why it's happening because these judges, and they're not all Democrats, but those that are Republican are anti Trump Republicans, and the judicial mindset and psychology across the board conservative, liberal, Republican Democrat tends to be And this is just gets back to something you touched

on in your introduction to the question, Laton, which is there's an authoritarian mindset. Okay, these folks are very deferential to power in an institutional sense. They are pro establishment, they're pro big business, they're pro big government. They will enormous all cases. Their default position is to go with the powerful force and to not be sympathetic to the contrarian, the little guy, the outsider, all that. And that's I mean,

you could say always been the case. But when you get to figure the ultimate outside of like Trump, with the entire system against him, these folks don't see themselves as arbiters of justice. They see themselves as instruments of the system because in their minds, the just outcome is, of course, to limit Trump's power. And so this is what's been playing out now. It's been allowed to play out because the Supreme Court, which is led by a Chief Justice in Roberts, who is off of this ilk

even though he's quote unquote a conservative Republican. They they didn't take their opportunity to sort of cut this stuff off at the pass, and it's going to come back to them and they're going to have to decide one way or another. And also, these courts, they're all congressionally mandated. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that we should have is a Supreme Court, but there's nothing about all these federal courts. And so they are a product of Congress,

which means Congress can do something about it. They can impeach the judges, all these things. These are all things that may happen, but we're looking at a situation where it could be before too long if the Supreme Court continues to act in a cowardly way or actually rules in an irrational way, a logical way, where Trump is going to be faced with either complying with this madness or simply saying as some of his predecessors have done in which is sorry, you know, not doing it, you know.

And so this is it's a really scary time, but one which is blatantly getting some attention. But you know, this is where we find ourselves.

the answer has become. Because as I'm sure you know you, and I know you know late, and I'm sure many of your audience does, as what much of your audience does as well, that most of the things we object to, the really serious things in the world these days, they're not something that was thought up yesterday morning. There were mostly things that were forced up and first acted upon last century at least, that are now coming. You know,

they're they're now coming to a fruition. And the judicial, the real the way in which the the perversion of the judiciary, at least at the federal level. Uh, you know, it's coming to the four And it's as I say, is that they weren't out of bullets. They still had a couple left in the in the chamber.

of sidebar on Jamie Diamond. The thing that I was pleasantly surprised about the price about with his comments is that he really explained some a little bit of reality on immigration to his alliance, which was quite shocking, talking about how insane it had been to have had such numbers come into the country and what had it done in terms of worsening the quality of life material quality of life of lower income Americans, and you know how something had to be done about this I mean in

say any of this before, but it's better he says it. I'm glad to know he thinks it, and it is good that he's saying it now.

Jake Tapper, Yeah, the only thing that I want to say, really is how does this irresponsible individual think that he can lie the way that he is at the moment, that he knew nothing, and that try and launch the responsibility back on the on the on the White House in itself because he had no idea. I don't believe it where that guy says, I have not for a very long time. He's just proven it for me.

out on the carpet. And so someone in his case, like many others, but most obviously him, who would not hear one word about Biden's obvious cognitive and physiological decline until Biden was out of the Oval office, turns around and produces this expose book, explaining to the great Onwash that Biden had been too lappy the whole time and aren't I the brave journalists for you know, speaking truth to power? And it's I mean, it is mind blowing,

the hypocrisy of it, the goal of it. And as one of my friends reminds me frequently, whether you're talking about the media, the legacy media, or your democrat, the average democrat, and if they didn't have double standards, they have no standards at all, And it is just it

is simply remarkable. Fortunately, it is so obviously ridiculous that this person is trying to portray themselves as a discoverer of truth that you know, there's at least a mixed response, and the book itself is not selling, so we have to hope that at least, you know, he's not rewarded further for this. But it's yeah, I mean, the media is just it's not it's not just a joke, the

legacy media. But it's actually dangerous when you consider not only what they tell us that isn't so, but the things that they simply ignore and refuse to tell us that would have been helpful, to put it, malvedly to know at the time.

recently displaced president from the same Conservative party. It's no, it's it's a fascinating and potentially, i think for people on the right of the spectrum, frustrating election because you know, the context is the President Yun in descent, the conservative you know, won the election three years ago against mister Lee.

He's you know, pro American, tough on North Korea, tough on China, tough on the nuclear proliferation, you know, really a lot of emphasis on the good US South Korean relationship. But then in December he decides that you know, he used to declare martial law. The fixes in against him, and it all goes pair shape, right the parliament, the parliament votes against him, the people seemingly, you know, figuratively revolt against him, and then what April, the Constitutional Court

threw him out. So what appears to have happened is that a race that otherwise would have been highly competitive, maybe even advantage the Conservative has turned around because of this obviously very important thing that happened. It's one thing that's happened because there appears to be in in South Korean society right now an incredible what fear of a k They feel they've been a chaotic period for a few months and that continuing if the Conservative succeeds ex

President Un. Whereas Lee, who was one of those who sort of very much went to the forefront to protest what the previous president was attempting to do, is seen as a more steady, at least in this context, a more steady pair of hands. And what seems to have hurt the Conservatives as a party putting forward a candidate is that the kind of elites of the party, the

establishment wanted someone less associated with the outgoing president. Mister Kim, I think was the labor Minister and has been one of his staunchest defenders and has really gone out of his way not to explicitly criticize ex President Yun, and but the sort of the base of the party, the members wanted him, and they chose him, and he's seen, rightly or wrongly, is not the strongest candidate probably in under the circumstances, and so have a situation we have

this quite left wing chap in Lee, you know, who's very much about playing nice with North Korea and China, not too concerned about the relationship with America, and of course America you know, potentially is going to dump this huge tariffs on them within days. And Lee's got personal and business history with North Korea. It's you know, he's gone against US and UN sanctions by funding North Korea

to tune of several million. And it's a you would think, under quote unquote normal circumstances, whatever mister Kim on the Conservative sides weaknesses are, mister Lee would not be the strongest opponent, but the peers not to be playing out that way. I mean, the betting markets, I think make it a lot closer than the opinion polls. But the betting markets are not always I mean, you know, sometimes they're far more accurate in the polls, and sometimes they're not.

of paying a little attention to Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. Yeah, and over the weekend I heard commentary from, amongst others, the American Ambassador to South Korea m h. They were talking about the amount of control that the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party now has in in South Korea, the influence it's got, and the cheating that is going on, and they described the ways of cheating that they they claimed were correct, including pre pre filled out voting forms

and dropping them off and et cetera, et cetera.

the forefront of shining a spotlight. You know, there's this voter integrity team, the ambassador, former ambassador, I think a couple of senior retired military figures from America are over there and they are very concerned about, as you say, these apparent case numerous cases of ballots being filled in.

They're very concerned about the electronic voting being being able to be interfered with, and they're doing the rounds of a lot of the conservative, alternative independent media podcasts, etc. So of getting the word out. And yes it's being tied not simply too well the opposition party you know, is all behind this, but actually it being as you say, more of a CCP, more of a a Beijing thing.

And if you're on, if you're not on the lee left side of this election, then you've got this concern double concern of not simply that the Chinese might be attempting, perhaps successfully to interfere with the election, but you've got a apparent as all well, an apparent winner of the election or to be who's someone who is by very it's very nature and history open and sympathetic to that side. That that's part of you know, that far left part of the political spectrum all the way you know, from

China itself. So there's plenty to be We don't know a lot in terms of the sort of the bottom line here, the tangible stuff, but there's a lot to be anxious about at this very late stage.

He won, you buy a couple of points, and even though his opponent declared victory as soon as the exit polls were announced, which is a little difficult to retract. But yeah, no, you have someone who I mean, we were told that, you know, the stitch up in Romania and the stitch up in Germany, and we were told that the Musk endorsements and the Trump endorsements and these quote unquote European mega mega style candidates, they just there just wasn't. There just wasn't an audience for it in

sophisticated Europe. But in this case, and an election that appears to have been comparatively free and fair, apparently there was. And uh so the globalists, the globalist candidate, the pro EU sophisticated and centrist likes lots of you know, internal migration, in inward migration and all the rest of it that

everyone in Brussels hoped, assumed expected to win didn't. So this is rather a black eye for the Eurocrats and the globalists and rather rather puts a smile on the face I think of populist and nationalists, anti EU types throughout Europe, which I would argue is actually the majority, and of course gives the White House nice, nice little boost as well.

I mean, I'm saying this. Probably most of your audiences think I'm crazy for saying it, and certainly most people do when I say it, whatever side of the political fence they're on. But you know, the assumption all along has been that if only Putin wasn't so, you know, totally in control of everything in Russia, then all the other saner heads would apply and things wouldn't be as

tough on Ukraine. When I have always argued that perversely, you have to be glad it's not Putin and not somebody else, because things would have gone quite differently if they've been the case. And I think this is a time where maybe my theory we put to the test.

It's going to be hard for Putin not to you might say, overreact given domestic pressures, but I don't think he wants to, because I think he sees the larger picture in his own in his country self interest, and I think he is at least open to whatever Trump will advise him. And we know that Trump will advise him not to, you know, get carried away in the moment. And so you've got it's interesting what's happening in America, and it's just in terms of trying to predict and

fear what the Russian response will be. I think most people in America on both sides that is a Republican democratic side, Trump's side. Other side is they assume that the Russians are going to go heavy following this, and the Trump supporters really fear that this is going to make it so hard for Trump to get out of you get America out of Ukraine, and get this thing over with in a reasonable period of time without you know, it's therefore going to have negative consequences for him politically.

And then you've got the folks, the anti Trump folks, who are actually hoping that put and Ova reacts because then this thing can keep going right and we can keep pushing, you know, we believe in the in the right direction, and that's very much the view, you know, in the corridors of power in Western Europe, So which makes you the cynical among us think, well, this is irrational and logical thing that Ukraine did at this point. Maybe they weren't the ones deciding what was going to

be done. It would be the first time in the last three years. So yeah, I mean all to be decided, obviously, but it's a I think really unnecessarily is that we're in an unnecessarily precarious moment when it looked as if we were going to get somewhere to ending this madness sooner rather than later.

strings here or pulling the ropes? And why is it still unresolved? Now there's an easy question.

of on the on the ground. But in terms of the political you know, mojo that that keeps them operating as you're talking about Western Europe and North America and there it's you've got a combination of the sort of progressive lehard left that there's always disliked Israel for all kinds of reasons, particularly the fact that Israel, you know,

the same reason the Soviet Union turned on Israel. Everybody thought that Israel would be a kind of socialist country and it kind of looked that way or while we are and then the Israeli has made a decision they were going to go, you know, and go on the American route rather than the Soviet route. The Soviets never forgave them, and a lot of the Western you know, intellectual left never forgave them either. And there's that for sure.

Then you've got your young college you know, support the downtrodden, the oppressed, in this case identified as the Palestinians. You've got that which has been very very powerful politically, I mean numerically. You put those groups together and the other group. Well, the other group is in those two groups, but also separate. And that is just a straight anti Semitic, anti Jewish sentiment, right,

just often crude, often more sophisticatedly expressed. You put all those groups together, they make a lot of noise, and they can get a crowd out, and they can block things, and they can kill people and all this kind of stuff. But they're not that many. They don't carry a lot of sort of numerical weight. That's because most Americans, and we sort of ask these questions all the time, most

Americans continue to be inherently pro Israel. The Americans are much more ambivalent about how this has gone since the initial attacks on Israel and then how these radius responses going. But they are not sympathetic to the Palestinians in a way that they are automatically sympathetic to the Israelis. And that is the thing that you know, carries the day with most politicians, even most Democrats national on the national stage.

And you know where it gets interesting, of course, right now, is you bring Trump back into it, and there's a couple of things going on there. You know, Trump is very pro Israel, but his priority has been and is and will remain peace in the Middle East, you know, hence his very successful outreach to the Arab nations, particularly

in the Gulf uh and all of that. And so what that what that does is it it makes it less les given that whatever Israel does, Trump will just say great because Trump actually thinks that they have they've had that's the right to defend themselves, obviously, but what they do on any given day may not necessarily be

in their own long term self interest. And this gets even more complicated by the fact that net Naiu, who is very popular on the American right as seen as a you know, defender of Israel and a sort of holding the line against you know, Muslim extremism and all this rest of it, and it's very popular with evangelical Christians and who have, you know, remained quite influential in American politics. But Trump and Nett Naiu have a have

an interesting relationship. And one, you know, Trump's someone he doesn't forget, he doesn't forget things. And when Biden was declared the winner in twenty twenty, the first foreign leader to rush to the microphone to say Trump's gone, it's Biden, Let's move on, was with him was was Bbe and that didn't go over so well. So Trump is at a point now where he's starting to lose He's sympathetic, very sympathetic Israel's position, but he's started to lose patience

with the Israeli leadership. And so it's not of it's not a given that whatever Israel does going forward is going to be robber stamped by the White House the way that under Biden, rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, it was viewed generally by the anti Israeli folks as but why does Biden, why does she just go along with whatever Israel says? And it's it's just like with

Ukraine and Russia. Trump's priority is to end what he've used a sort of end the madness and the madness, and he may take some interesting turns rhetorically and substantively to try to get things closer to where he thinks they should be, which might end up surprising a few folks when it comes to Israel and Gaza.

Most recently, it was that if the French are so because the French had taken a turn against Israel again, which is not unusual, but the French have suggested again that there has to be a Palestinian state, and the ambassadors whose name escapes me, the ex governor of Mike Huckabee Huckerbye, thank you that Huckaby has suggested that if France is so keen for the Palestinians to have their own state, they should carpet out of the Coke de jeur.

and we can just move on. But of course it's become blindingly obvious in recent decades and years that two state solution there is not going to work because the side you'd be giving the second state to the past of the inside is not really interested in there being two states. They want one state that doesn't include Israel. Whether you think that's historically valid or not, that's you know,

that's that's their extreme position, which most Palestinian support. And you can see, you can you can you can understand appreciate Huckaby's frustration at sophisticated you left the Europeans lobbying rhetorical barbles at Israel but not being willing to do anything about it and not really being the ones who kind of seriously deal have to deal with the blowback

in all kinds of ways. And I think also further, I was just saying about Trump's sort of evolution on israel Is, it's a way the Americans can keep the Israelis off balance because see Hackebe's an eel, very serious evangelical Christian and that's his political base in America and why he was He's been a very successful politician in America, and so he is a natural diplomat in that spot, in that context, in the current context too very much

stand shoulder to shoulder with Israeli government and reassure them that America's ultimately got their back. Well, Trump, from time to time is appearing to sort of maybe take a step or two to the side, and I suspect that this kind of thing will continue. And it's both It both reflects I think Huckerby's own opinions and Trump's own opinions which aren't which overlap a lot but aren't identical.

But it also it plays to Trump's what I would view as one of Trump's strengths in foreign policy, which is he by design likes to keep everybody unsure of what he's actually thinking and doing. I mean, he gave during the election. Right at the end of the election, he had this long two three hour interview with Joe Rogan the Huge podcast in America, and in talking about foreign policy, Trump said, you know, basically, I'm paraphrasing whatever I say publicly about the negotiations going on and this

kind of thing. I'm never going to tell you publicly what I think or what I'm going to do. It's always disguised, right, which some of us think is very sound strategy. Other people find out bizarre that he wouldn't just show his cards for you. You know, the opposition sees the cards or whatever it might be, guesses the cards. So this this kind of this good cop bad cop, which I think is developing visa of the Israel from the White House, and you will see more of it. Howker,

beyond the ground, it's easier. It's harder for him to say difficult things when he's there. It's easy for Trump to do it from a distance. And I think this sort of tag team will will continue very good.

as much as it should. You know, what happens with crypto, what happens with the digital currencies, what happens about financial privacy, All of the stuff that's been going on and every now and then pops up, but it's really really important to how everyone leaves, lives, their daily financial lives. All of that. Some of it's going in a good direction,

some of it isn't. I mean, most of us going in terrible direction for a few years, I would argue in most parts of the world, all of that wrapped up with the old you know, Chinese social credit scores, which some of our European and North American friends, you know, Mark Karney and the you just love that stuff. You can't get social credit scores going. And that, of course is all tied in with your financial score as as

decided by government bureaucrat. So all of that that bucket of how you how you're allowed to spend your money, account for your money, receive your money. Who does you know? Is it? Is it? Do you have autonom financial autonomy as an individual anymore? Should you will the government? Governments determine uh your access to your money? What is the relationship?

Is the relationship with your financial institution more of one where they are the messenger for the government or are they also autonomous and you, You and they have a relation have relationships with the government. You know, So which

way the arrow is going? This is not very sexy answer late, and I apologize, but I think that all of that is going to have a tangible impact on everyone, and it's just not getting enough play, partly because it's not sexy enough, and a large part because most of the media is either ignorant of it, unable to understand it, and those that are actually quite happy with the notion of more control from the top and less autolemy at

the bottom. And so therefore, why write about something that's actually moving in the right direction.

as a kind of guide to it. Then there's the sixteen people running for the Republican nomination praying that one of them would would make it through, and it's it's you know, it's it's a it's a critique of Obama and Clinton foreign policy. And then they're like, you know, this is I think, how this is what makes sense? You could do it better? But no, it's I thought about it more recently in terms of the recent elections and all that's, all the changes, all the popular culture changes,

or the polling we've done, all of that. I haven't probably had my excuses. I haven't had the time to really zero in on what makes the most where I could offer the most value, and where the greatest interest would be whether those two could cross paths, and so we haven't been there yet. But I appreciate you you thinking that at this stage I have it in me.

basis of some very good sci fi themes. It's an inevitable evolution of human development, something to which we adapt, else we become irrelevant. By the way, I'm seventy six as I write this, Gosh, you're getting on a bit. Simply put, some all jobs will go and new ones will emerge, a timeless cycle. Carefully developed and managed AI should be a highly valuable tool for humankind. However, there are obvious pros and cons, as with anything of significance,

so some pros that are evident. The ability of AI to rapidly sift through data is a clear advantage, time wastage minimized with increased chances of breakthrough discoveries. Neutrality, a dispassionate AI review of data could be useful With the human emotions and bias absent, here's the butt. Would all programmers avoid bias? Could judges become AI? That might be

a pro or a con. A pro risk management an AI ability to scan and consider a situation or incident prior to the deployment of humans who might otherwise be injured or killed is a big plus potentially that would apply domestically as well as militarily. On the subject of the military, I can imagine that the structures of conflict

will change, and certainly weapons will keep pace. Instead of smashing an opponent to a mass of bodies in rubble, an AI assisted victory might see a collapse of the loser's systems and societal structure, with the victor taking over from there. Domination would properly follow tradition, though subjugation, new laws, new taxes, indoctrination, then the disappearance of trouble makers and so on cons really depend on one's imagination. Human nature means that we can expect a CD side to emerge

as well as illegal activity. Criminals seek power and fortune as though they will adapt and turn the technologies to their advantage when they can. Others will simply seek power and control because they desire such things as Goebils infamously remarked, propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated a confident that they're acting on their own free will. In closing, carefully considered regulation is essential, ideally agreed across international boundaries.

I apologize for the length of this email, Laton, thank you again for these fascinating discussions. I am already looking forward to the next issue with warm regards to missus producer from Barry.

so it was so nice to hear that. And then Bill goes on to say, and I'm a regular listener although this this is the first time I have emailed you. What clever, interesting, knowledgeable and insightful people. I had no idea about any of this, not at all. That is why your podcasts are so critical. We all need to know about this. So I have passed on the podcast to others. Please have them back regularly the next few years. Sounds scary, and Bill goes on to say, I have

a lovely longtime wife. I don't need an AI companion. But it is obvious from what Nigel and Justin said we are all in for intrusion from AI. Thank you, says Bill. I can't stop thinking about it. I had no idea.

Zealand newspaper circulation figures declining to an embarrassing extent. Then he goes on and mentions a few things that I just might leap out finishes up referring to somebody who works in the media, in the paper media, if he had any intellectual or moral probity, which is doubtful. He knows who the dunces are. Thank you, John.

replacing the very essence of humanity. AI is permeating everything we do, constantly listening. AI is permeating everything we do, constantly listening, constantly learning, constantly growing into an electric showcase of the best and worst of humanity combined. I love the dynamic feel of your first ever podcast duet with

Nigel Horricks and Justin Matthews. They really got me thinking that AI might well be the alien life form we've all been searching for, and they've been rewiring our brains while we happily consumed their algorithms in the form of news, entertainment, and social media. Just today, in their Creative Machinist substack, they talked about the tragic death of Seawell, a fourteen year old boy who committed suicide after forming an intense emotional bond with an AI chatbot model on a character

from Game of Thrones. The company behind this AI chatbot even tried to argue that their chatbots should be protected under the First Amendment. Insane, isn't it. We may well have slipped quietly into World War III, except that this time round AI is the weapon, our minds the battlefield, and our humanity the price. If the long March through the instant took fifteen years, the long March through the minds will only take three to five years or less.

Perhaps it's time for Matt Walsh to wield his magic again and release the next most important documentary of all time and call it What Is a Human? This time we rediscovered what it means to be human again. Without chatch ept's help.

not read, don't think they're unappreciated at all. Your podcast on AI was an eye opener and touched on the same human interaction challenges that I have just finished presenting on At an engineering conference, I had a hilarious interaction with Facebook's meta AI on a topic very dear to you and I, climate change. The responses absolutely underwrote the inherent bias possible with AI as raised in your podcast.

I have included the screen snaps of my conversation, but I don't expect you to read them out, as I am a bit sweary. Here is the summary. I started out reading an article about the collapse of a glacier in the Swiss Alps. AI offered an explanation of why the event happened, so I clicked on it out of interest. Of course, AI walked straight into the trap, blaming mankind climate change, which got my hackles up. I decided to challenge it. So me, he says me him, Why do

you quote climate change? This is just an ideological construct. AI responded that it provides evidence based information, quoting IPCC, NASA. No A me, so what about sea level rise? AI responded with the fact fact that sea levels have risen eight to nine inches since eighteen eighty. I responded again, BS, show me one location where this level of rise has occurred. AI suddenly backtracked and said it is complicated and quoted projections. It admitted it could not find a specific location. This

is an explosive admission. A globally powerful AI search engine could not find one actual occurrence of sea level rise. I responded with, so you disprove your eight dash nine, don't you. AI then changed its story that it was quoting general information. I responded with, you're talking BS and claiming it as facts. I apologized for me. It was revealing a little like trying to reason with Chloe issual break try it yourself sometimes. I did, actually with the

aforementioned Chloe, try it sometime. It is cheap entertainment. What it does underline, though, is the dangerous effect of bias in the AI world. Craig, I'm going to say, that's a real great commentary. Thank youss producer. We're done.

with regard to climate. Some time ago I decided that the word stupid should get greater exercise, because the word stupid is much under utilized, especially regarding some most important matters like power supply. A number of events and announcements worldwide, in fact, have exposed the stupidity that still exists in this so called enlightened era CO two climate debate. Paris Accord. Just to begin, lev he repeats CO two the climate

debate Paris accord. Every country has its percentage of stupidity. The Australian Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen would fall into the ranks of world leader stupid. He and his PM are intent on destroying the Australian economy willingly or otherwise, or should I say knowingly or otherwise. The following is a comment by doctor David Phillips, who is a former research scientist and the founder of Family Voice Australia. He published in The Spectator this current Week an article on

mad about the Climate. This is the conclusion of his piece. Here's the deal. Australia abandons cheap, reliable coal generated electricity required by what's left of our manufacturing industry in pursuit of net zero by twenty fifty. We export vast qualities of coal to countries that don't care about CO two emissions for them to use cheap coal generated electricity to expand their manufacturing industry. In echo of George Orwell's nineteen eighty four all CO two emissions are equal, but omissions

in some countries are more equal than in others. If you can make sense of this, dear reader, you're a better man than I am. Gonga Din. The great English scientist Sir Isaac Newton once said, I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.

Australia seems to be mad about the climate now. In a parallel piece in The Spectator, Rebecca Wiser writes, referring to the aforementioned Chris Bowen, Bowen claims the silent majority backs his ned zero fantasy, Yet he was the one who was silent during the election after the Prime Minister abandoned the powering Australian modeling that it took to the twenty twenty two election that underpinned its joke promise joke promise to cut power bills by two hundred and seventy

five dollars a year by twenty twenty five and by three hundred seventy eight by twenty thirty. The only energy policy Labour discussed during the campaign was Peter Dutton and Ted O'Brien's plan to build seven nuclear plants on coalsites, costed by Labour add a staggering six hundred billion to hit net zero by twenty fifty. Now that is a

prize piece of scare nomics, she writes. Yet Dutton and O'Brien failed to explain the reality as countries like Finland and Korea have shown the cost would be far lower. The first plant might cost fourteen billion, with each subsequent unit ten to twenty five percent cheaper, so the total closer to eighty to ninety billion. Yet the deeper floor in O'Brien's plan was accepting the net zero by twenty

fifty target at all. Labour cleverly refused to cost its own plan, But according to the Net Zero Australia project run by the Universities of Melbourne, Princeton and others, its renewables back scheme would cost seven to nine trillion by twenty sixty, an eye watering one hundred and ninety four to two hundred and fifty billion a year from twenty

five to sixty, that is twenty sixty. It is this that makes nuclear cheap by comparison, this mad scheme involves tripling the national electricity market and carpeting sixty eight million hectares.

Imagine this carpeting sixty eight million hectares about nine percent of the country with one point nine t w of solar one thirty two GW of onshore wind, forty two GW of offshore wind, and ten thousand kilometers of transmission lines poorly stabilized by batteries and hydro mandated electric vehicles in heat pumps, vast desalination to produce green hydrogen, and a network of pipelines to capture and transport CO two

to storage sites. The whole scheme is bonkers. So why didn't Dutton and O'Brien tell Labor that they were dreaming? Because the Liberal left add its venal rent seekers. What a hop on board the net zero gravy train. That's also why a group no one's heard of, Liberals Against Nuclear, has been running ads on Sky News since the election. Yet nuclear is only indispensable if you're chasing net zero delusions,

which even then are unachievable with current technology. In the real world, a responsible government would face the strategic and physical threats bearing down on Australia and do the only sensible thing, go for growth.

back in twenty eighteen. Why twenty eighteen and not recently well, it is a self explanatory I think climate change mitigation in New Zealand the stifling of debate. This paper is in three sections. The first is a paper I wrote examining in detail claims made in a report by the Royal Society of New Zealand in twenty sixteen on transitioning

New Zealand to a low carbon economy. Three of forty six recommendations three of forty six made sense both economically and environmentally, three out of forty six eight made no difference to either, and all the others were detrimental to the New Zealand economy and or were ineffective at reducing CO two emissions. I pointed out the futility of cutting emissions when the Chinese are growing at a much greater rate in bracketcy rights. I have discovered more recently that

with their Belton Road Initiative. Over the next thirty years, they're about to treble their global emissions footprint, which is already at two hundred and seventy times the New Zealand footprint. The original paper is only a third of the length of the report I submitted to the Royal Society New Zealand, and that constraints led to criticisms that to add even

more to the paper, which was not allowed. The second section is the correspondence with the editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, where I tried to continue the debate. This represents the second round of submission, as I was able to identify by his comments that one of the first referees was an author of the

original report. While the referees thought that the approach to the research was to be lauded, they could not possibly agree with the results and use the old rus of nitpicking instead of unraveling these substantive arguments that I made, which still stand. The third section deals with the correspondence with the editor of the Journal of New Zealand studies with pretty much the same conclusion. This paper is two years old, but I have more empirical data to back

up each of the claims that I have made. That's all I want to include, point being that stupidity reigned supreme. I would suggest to you that Professor Michael Kelly has more intelligence, and I'm tempted to say than the entire membership of the New Zealand Royal Society, but that might be just a wee bit of an exaggeration and that'll take us out for podcasts to two hundred and eighty seven.

Would like to write to us Latent at the us talks ab dot co dot nz or Carolyn at news talks ab dot co dot nz on this podcast, any other podcasts of mine, and anything else that you might think is worthy of bringing to my attention. So the only thing left to say is, as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.