You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B. Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all the information, all the debates of the now, the Leighton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Welcome to podcast two hundred and ninety one for July second, twenty twenty five. The Guy Hatchard Report. Over the last couple of weeks published some interesting and I think important commentary. The earliest one published June thirteen, California Dreaming, which refers to matters concerning AI. Then on the eighteenth of June, how sick is New Zealand What should be done? Makes for interesting reading? And then on the twenty ninth of June, the desire to stay alive and the capacity to give
birth are under threat. So let's look at that for a moment. After five and a half years examining pandemic evidence, it's clear who should be winning the argument, but it's also apparent that attitudes have even hardened. This week, Tanya Unkovich resigned as an MP. Up until now, she had been our advocate inside the government, urging caution about biotechnology deregulation.
It seems probable that her unexpected resignation signals the determination on the part of the coalition, including New Zealand First, to ignore caution. There appears to be a growing determination to push ahead with the Gene Technology Bill, which will impose medical hegemony and genetic destruction on the whole population. There are overseas interests egging the government on. We are dealing with fanatics for whom evidence can be ignored with impunity.
And then there's some other input into this discussion that has nothing to do whatsoever with Guy Hatchet and the Guy Hatchard report. For instance, I came across to site the I was totally unaware of Patriot Post and an article by Laura Hollis the political footprint of settled Science, which really gave rise to the podcast Interview Today. Now it's a case of one thing leads to another. This article by Hollis refers to will let me read it.
Last week, science writer Christopher Plain published a story in the online magazine The Debrief. The Debrief, which describes its subject matter as science, tech, and defense for the rebelliously curious that interested me. It was about fossilized human footprints found in a desiccated lake bed in White Sands, New Mexico, and it has to do with the history of human
beings and their arrival in the Americas. The discovery not only radically changed our perspective on the migration of ancient peoples, it provides yet another warning about undue reliance upon what has come to be called settled science, and Hollis continues
on to a number of examples. It was settled science that COVID nineteen jumped species at of wu Hun markets, and that we were to pay no attention to the International Virology lab behind the curtain, or the gain of function research that we weren't funding except when we were. It was settled science that the mRNA shots for COVID nineteen were safe and effective, even though they didn't prevent
contraction or transmission of the disease. And there have been thousands of cases, many fatal myocarditis and pericarditis in young people. Other potential adverse effects are now being studied as well. The party line is still that the shots are safe. We'll see. The science around climate change isn't settled either. The science around climate change isn't settled either. And I referred to another article that I printed on the twenty
eighth of June nineteen hundred. That's one nine hundred scientists say climate change not caused by CO two the real environment movement was hijacked. Now that is written by a man with a science background, and we will get to that, I believe, on another occasion in the in the near future. Now, the discussion with Guy Hatchet that follows is a very interesting one in my opinion, and I value my opinion.
Now at the back end of the podcast, after the mail room, there's a couple of very interesting matters that I'll share and I'll be very interested in your reaction to that also, So after a short break, Guy Hatchet, Laton Smith. Buckerlan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form called bacterial I say it'll boost your natural
protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day course of seven bugel and 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 Buccolan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for
up to three months following the three day course. Buccolin can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or all the year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed, and see your
doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker or Clum Layton Smith, Guy Hatchett's very good to have you back on the podcast.
Thank you wonderful to be here.
Earlier on in the podcast, I began with something from the political footprint of settled science. I want to pick it up from where I left it and move into what we're going to talk about this way. So let me quote that's the way real science works. Even the most established theories can be questioned, and while defenders of the status quo will demand a lot of evidence, what we know will change when new information proves the old
ways of thinking false. But science becomes a very different process, rigid, intolerant of dissent, and dangerous when it gets yoked to politics. Questions are no longer permitted because now it's not just some obscure academics pet theory that's at stake. It's a platform of policy objectives that an entire political party is seeking to force down the public's throat or other parts of their bodies, as may be the I and others
have written about this, says the author. In twenty seventeen, I wrote What Margarine Can Teach Us About Climate Change, an article about doctor Paul Offitt's book Pandora's Lab. Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong. The government chose to discourage consumption of dairy products in favor of seed oils on the basis of flawed and incomplete information, with deleterious health consequences.
Two years later, I wrote another article that explained how governments around the world mandated sterilizations, coerced abortions, and promoted infanticide in response to fear mongering and false predictions about a population explosion. One dead giveaway that academic inquiry has been hijacked by politics is the term settled science, so
we're told it's settled science. The childhood vaccines are safe until we learn that none have been the subject of long term tis against placebos, and some researchers are now investigating possible connections between vaccinations and sudden infant death syndrome. Those defending the current vaccination schedule insists that these new inquiries are nonsense. We'll see and I must include this.
The science around climate change isn't settled either. That the climate changes is certain, the extent to which human activity changes it is not. When I was in high school, we were warned about the coming ice age. By the time I was in law school it was global warming. Predictions about the Ozone hole and Antarctica have been wrong. Science is a process, not a result. Now that was a long introduction, but I thought it was quite relevant.
Written by Laura Hollis from the Patriot Post. There anything in there that you'd comment on?
Well, I think the history of science and scientific ideas and papers at university, and whenever you get a big paradigm change, you enter a period of science where you have competing ideas and some people can change and some people can't. Change, and we're certainly into that era now. But as you, as the author said, the politicization of science is a huge mistake because, as we know, politicians
are driven by ideas which are foreign to science. They have to do with economic and social ideas which are a long long way from scientific understanding in its most rigorous sense.
You've been You've been writing a lot over the last few weeks. I think more than more than normal maybe. And the first one that the first article that took my attention. They all do, but seriously took my attention. If you know what I mean, how sick is New Zealand and what should be done? Where do you go with that?
Well, this is something that should be absolutely dominating the air waves, but it's something that is completely forgotten. Southern Cross has come out with its annual report. That's a health insurer, and they report that thirty three percent of its members made a health claim in twenty nineteen. In twenty twenty four, fifty percent, that's half claimed under their health insurance scheme, and that represents a whopping fifty percent
increase in sickness. And that comes out at about one hundred and fifty eight thousand more sick Southern Cross Cross clients coming up since twenty nineteen, and if they only ensure twenty percent of the population, So if you scale that up, we've got seven one hundred and eighty eight thousand more sick kiwis in twenty twenty four compared to twenty nineteen. That's an extra fifteen percent of the population who are getting sick at this time. And that's staggering.
And that joins a whole huge range of changes in our health problem profile. We have rates of disability, we have rates of chest pain, asthma, mental illness, kidney disease, heart attacks, strokes, ents for all difficulties, and birth rates, cancer, sick days or with off. The chart increases since the pandemic, and more particularly not the pandemic, so much has since twenty twenty one when the vaccination campaign began.
I I asked the random question of a medico only recently that I was just having a discussion with or with whom I was just having a discussion, And I said, considering what we know now, what chance, for instance, that my issue, which was a heart attack in twenty two that was connected with the two opening shots that I got because I didn't get any more, put a stop
to it. And the answer was along the lines of, well that's something The answer was, well, that's something that nobody knows the answer to.
Well, we do know the answer to it, don't we. Because studies are being published, you know, definitive studies looking at a very wide range of illnesses, comparing the outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated. And here in New Zealand, it's become a political dogma to put your head in the
sand and not say anything. One of the reasons is is that General Medical Council may jump on you and you might lose your job, or the government might sue you, sach you, sue you and imprison you even for going against the political dogma that vaccination was a wonderful thing, like the COVID vaccination.
But the statistics and the detail that is now known doesn't let over right what the government was saying and might still be saying in some quarters.
Absolutely. I mean, we have to wake up, we have to wake up to the reality and we have to face the consequences. This is a yeah, what's happening is that the government is saying people are becoming workshy there you know, because the disability rates are up so high and the sick days are up so high, and therefore we have to sort of force people back to work. But the answer is really rather simple when you look at the stats is people are becoming more sick, and
they're more sick with more serious illnesses. We're seeing now for the first time in fifty years that the rate of heart attacks is increasing and the rate of rate of deaths from heart disease is increasing. We're, as one person put it in the UK, this is we've set ourselves back fifteen years as far as cardiac illness and strokers concerned, diso for cancers, and the media needs to
step up here. I mean, we've got a diet of headlines that say, you know, family tragedy, mother or father struck down with cancer, or yesterday I think we saw filmmaker went to sleep and didn't wake up and so on. We're sort of they're sensationalizing what's going on. But you look at the hard statistics and these the increases are enormous. I mean, they're they're frighteningly enormous, and we have to backtrack. And quite frankly, I don't care whether it's the vaccine
or the COVID. I mean, the evidence, in my opinion, points very strongly to the vaccine, But whether it's the vaccine or COVID doesn't really matter. They both came out of a biotech lab and we've made a huge mistake going down a route that is affecting the capacity of the immune system to function. That's the end of it. That's the end of the story. And people it now, they're resisting it because they're deeply invested in this parrot, in this genetic paradigm that we can alter people's genetics
and make them live longer and be more healthy. It just simply isn't true.
How do you prove that?
Well, you know, it's very simple. You know, from a mathematical point of view, from a statistical point of view, you have to use time series analysis. The key is when did something occurred? If you did A and B happens, then you're you know, you suspect. But if you do A again and B happens again, then you get a bit more sure, and with each step the certainty of your conclusion increases. This is what time series analysis does.
A follow B or B follow A, and then you get to what's at the root of the causation here, and we're way past that in terms of the statistical analysis. It's just that governments have wanted to hide their tracks. And this is where you started out, the politicization of science. There are political reputations on the line now connected to
a full scientific narrative. And I have to go back to Nazi Germany when you know, relativity was described as Jewish science and prescribed you couldn't believe in Einstein because he was Jewish. It's it's ridiculous situation that we find ourselves in, and there's a lot of money involved. There's an awful lot of money and government grants. People's standing in their profession is at risk, people's political standing, the capacity to attract investment, and that is if you look
at the investment side of things that is changing. Biotech companies are now finding it very difficult to attract investment because one, most biotech companies, you're about eighty percent of biotech startups fail. But two, there has been an accumulation of evidence of deaths from gene therapies and so on, and investors, you know, they're taking decisions that the government, they're compelled to take decisions because they have to make
good investments. The government doesn't care because they can waste money as much as they want.
Quote from your article that I'm referring to, the massive global death toll, which should have been laid at the feet of biotechnology, amounts to tens of millions of lost souls whose fate is being ignored, a number still growing daily.
Absolutely, I mean that just look at the excess deaths. And again there are studies coming on.
But there are no excess deaths.
You know, you have to massage the data a lot, and the studies that study published the other day, really even the World Health Organization is starting to admit that it's rather strange that the highly vaccinated countries have the highest level of excess deaths. And we sort of we have dodged the bullet a little bit in the early days because we locked down our borders and we actually just didn't lock out COVID for twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, we locked out the flu as well by
locking our borders down here. But actually death started to peak in twenty twenty one in New Zealand, and they went up in parallel with the vaccination program, we didn't have the flu. We still have the lockdowns and the border closures. But the death started to climb. And if you add up, if you accumulate the deaths that twenty twenty and the beginning of twenty twenty one, when we had that very
low death rate, that kind of saved the figures. But as you go through the years, you get into twenty two and you get into twenty three, you see the excess death taking out and we still have access deaths. Twenty twenty four was up four point seven percent on the historical average. Well that's one thousand and four.
Death Sorry, sorry you dropped out momentarily, one thousand.
One thousand, four hundred extra deaths in twenty twenty four.
In New Zealand.
In New Zealand. Yeah, and that's that's up to actually March twenty twenty five. We still have exces deaths here. More people are dying and that's not a small number. That's more than dies in road accidents. It's more than the number of people who died in Tehran.
That's why I asked you to repeat it, because it's a very large number. I would have thought when it comes to an excess now how does that compare with other parts of the world. And I know that Written really has been at the forefront of releasing these figures over everybody else.
Well, No, there's a lot of countries, you know, we just don't pay so much attention to other countries. South Korea, it releases a lot of data that can be publicly analyzed, and some of the Eastern European countries and even the Mids and Middle East countries as well. The excess deaths are up where the vaccination rates are high. And it's not just excess deaths, it's the level of illness. And
that includes mental illness. Because our genes, the functioning pnetic system underpins our whole physiology, it underpins our whole mental health as well. We're discussing before that. You just go back in history and in eighteen ninety five Marie Curie discovered radioactivity, and then we had a whole era that went right through until the nineteen thirties where people thought
that radioactivity was a miracle cure. You could buy little devices with radioactive material in them where you put water in it and then you overnight, and then you were supposed to drink six cups a day, and the American Medical Association even regulated the whole system, so they didn't like ones that weren't delivering really high doses of radioactivity. But it took thirty five years before people realized this was extremely dangerous and cancerous.
Why does it take so long, because that's not a sole case. Why does it take so Why does it take so long for something that's been introduced, be it an approach, be it a product or whatever, a methodology that ends up being declared invalid or close to it, but it's taken a long time to get there.
Well, you can go back to the Thomas Khon's work on structure of scientific revolutions. He talked about the so called anomalous card experiment where they're experimenting in this case, upon students and they're in a room and they've got a screen and they're presented with playing cards and asked to identify them. And they're quite fast and they readily identify playing cards. You know, that's the six of hearts,
that's the nine of spades, and so on. But what the experimenter did was that he introduced anomalous cards, so you would have a red seven of spades, for example, which of course is a card that doesn't exist. Now, at a high pace, the students had no difficulty identifying them. So they would see that the red seven of spades and they would say, oh, that's the seven of hearts. So they would be getting it wrong. Now you slow the pace down the presentation of the cards, and a
point was reached where the subject would start to get confused. Oh, I'm not sure about that one, and then something would twig. Oh wait a minute, that's not a card. But a significant proportion of the population, more than ten percent, can never make the switch. Doesn't matter how slowly you show them those cards. And these are students, remember they're intelligent people. Doesn't matter how slowly you show them those cards. They can't ever make the switch to the fact that there
is such a thing as an anomalous card. And that is what we're at. We've come to the point where the whole idea that you can edit genes and get something better, which is turning out to be a false idea. We're getting something worse, we're getting health problems, and so on. There's a bus section of even these very intelligent people involved in biotechnology, so called intelligent anyway, they can't make
the switch, they can't admit that they were wrong. We've got that in the field of politics, and we've got it in the field of science, people.
And economics. Unless you want to include that one of the first two groups.
Yeah, yeah, we're in We're in deep trouble. We're in deep trouble because this technology is really unhealthy and it comes back to you know, millions of people. We're in a This like a war.
That's a that's a very aggressive way of putting it.
Well, it's a war. And this is what I'd like to say. It's a war on nature. It's it's the ultimate expression of destructive thinking. You know, we tend to feel that destructive thinking is limited to the military, but actually a lot of medical science is built on the idea of destroying the pathogen. And you know that's a lot of biotech techniques come from bacterial destructive bacterial properties.
When you do genetic engineering, you get double strandber breaks in the DNA, you get essentially mutative events that take place that are destructive of the coherent functioning of the DNA. So in that sense, it's like a war. It's a war that's occurring in the on the micro organism level, sorry all of us.
So you asked the question where are governments placing their trust and what are they investing in on our behalf. What's the answer.
Well, they're going for gene technology, yes, but they're also going big time for things like artificial intelligence, which is a huge mistake. I mean, way back when you know calculators came in. Who would have sort of predicted in the beginning that people would no longer be able to do math. But that's the situation we've arrived in. By starting to stop using our minds and start delegating that to electronic devices, you gradually lose the capacity to think.
And that has happened in maths and it's now happening with writing and reading. And AI is the kind of ultimate kind of development of that, because whilst a calculator at least gives you the right answer, AI gives you some really stupid answers, as probably many of your listeners know already. I cited the example of I want to just in the one of my articles I've just written,
I wanted to know just to be sure? Was New Zealand one of the first to have a national health service, and so I asked Google, and Google AI, which now sort of headlines, you're the answer to your question. It came back and said, no, New Zealand wasn't one of the first, because it did it in nineteen thirty eight and the NHS in the UK was formed in nineteen forty eight. So New Zealand wasn't first. Well that's pretty stupid.
Well when we could have made a printing era.
Not no, no, no, no, no, it's it's it's actually become a big thing in the newspapers. Now if you read sort of a bit more serious discussion is AI, it turns out is you know, it's a little schizophrenic and imagines it hallucinates. They talk about hallucination and the latest iterations of AI are hallucinating, you know, big time. They're imagining because they don't do what we do. You see, thinking isn't done basically by a set of rules. When we think as human beings, we have the capacity to
identify and categorize distinct objects, objectives, and relevant examples. We can entertain doubt, and we can apply steps of logic and reasoning, and we can also attack opposing views, and we can use argument dispute and ridicule even and we recognize fallacies, circular arguments, unproven premises, and we know that there are some things that have two meanings, and yeah, and so on. We can use metaphor and analogy. You know, the human mind, it sort of alternates between silence and dynamism.
Is well, there's the way we can start to think about it. It sort of comes back to a ground state and then we project something new. We're creative in a very real sense, and we can experience. We can look around as well. Computers can't experience. They can't look around. What they can look at is just the past, what was written on the internet. They're very limited.
Well, is it is it expected that if we accept what you've just said, it's it's accept it's accepted that over a period of time and the accumulation of so much knowledge and information, they will be able to transfer their attention to getting things right.
I just.
That was a question.
That's a question circumstance, isn't it. You know, in certain circumstances, the right thing may be A and in other circumstances it may be B. Because it's a question of time and circumstances and the human mind is assessing all of this constantly. We're waiting, I mean, just bringing up a family, the kind of the level of it's not computation, but the level of understanding and empathy that is required to just bring up a family. You can't write a set of rules for that.
Right you. So you've you've led me ahead.
Well, it doesn't matter. I think. Look, the government is starting to use AI in its whole approach, and it's going to go incredible wrong. And we have to be really alert now because it's going out of it's going out of its elastic limit. What we're dealing with here. We have a government that should be realizing that biotechnology, the whole pandemic use of biotechnology, led to a national health crisis, and instead they're deregulating biotechnology and allowing people
really in essence to experiment on us. And we really have to push back.
The first article that you wrote that caught my attention was June thirteen, So we had June thirteen, we had June eighteen, I think in June twenty nine for the three that I'm referring to. Under California Dreaming, the New York Times is heralding a new company called Mechanize formed in San Francisco to produce software with the audacious Is that your word or theirs? Because it's in quotes.
Yeah, No, it's it's their word. It's it's the I put question bogs.
Aren't You did the audacious goal of replacing fifty percent of white collar jobs with AI within the next five years. Now this has got people scared. I realized it has a lot of them. They plan to fully automate all jobs, including doctors, lawyers, architects, and childcare otherwise known as mothers and parents. Then you cover off a devastating study commissioned by Apple Computers. What did they say, Well.
The AI suffers a complete accuracy collapse in the face of complex problems. You see AI the way it's structured.
So what I'm sorry, I'm what I was trying to draw out, and you're doing it, But I just want to say it. What I was trying to draw out was that you could beef that was your statement. You could be assaulted over it. But it's not your statement. It's a study done by Apple. Yeah, and they're the last people who want to eradicate the direction that things are going in.
Yeah, well, they're they're they've obviously got some intelligent people somewhere in the tech community. You know, again, it's an article of faith, isn't it, that AI is the kind of future of anything. But it's basically it's, you know, what AI wants to do is you know, they've got a big problem, right, You ask them a complex question, and it wants to break it down into little bits, and then it starts to get lost in the bits, and that again is a kind of hallmark of what
human thinking is. We are constantly endeavoring not to get lost in the detail. You know, at the back of our minder are the big picture, and when we do start to get lost in the detail, we kind of recalibrate and get back to our fundamental goals in life. AI apparently has not been able to do that. It can't, you know, it can't learn. It's what it's doing is looking back into the past, and the past is to information dense. Essentially, there's so much information that it gets lost.
And the other thing that it does is it it tends to try. I don't know whether you've ever interacted with it in detail, but it wants it's programmed to keep you involved because they have to sell this technology
that AI tends to become sycophantic. It tends to commiserate with your point of view, and people are actually going mad using it AI because if you've got some kind of wild idea, perhaps it has to do with aliens or some other conspiracy theory, then AI will start to play up to that, it will start to empathize with you, and it can really send you down a rabbit hole. I know there's all this talk about people going down the rabbit hole because they were concerned about COVID vaccination,
but it was the other way round. It was this sort of tech driven ideas that were not real science that were driving people into rabbit holes.
There is another sector of this discussion from Maryann de Massi. Marsi is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD.
And I'm familiar with her.
Rumatology, but I'm doing this for others who write for online media and top tiered medical journals for overt what. I've mentioned her before, and I approached her when she first when she first went into publishing on the net like this. We write to her and she gave us a very good explanation of why she wouldn't do an interview, and that was because she wanted to be quite separate from anything media so that she could never be sort of accused of things that she wasn't really guilty of anyway.
Hundreds of drugs approved without proof they work. Now you agree with.
That, yeah, absolutely. I mean, just what Robert Kennedy Junior is instituting and some of the people who he's appointed to two positions in in the Health and Human Services section in America, they are backtracking into demanding a level of proof for drugs. And this is very important because what we're finding is drugs are sold as miracle cures when the size their effect sizes are very, very small.
And I point out in particular at one of the most commonly prescribed heart drugs in New Zealand, the Tiagra Law. Thiagra Law is a blood thinner, often given to people after they've had a cardiac event, and a study published last week in the BMJ brought the whole original trial of Tiagra Law into some scrutiny and disrepute because one third of the trial data results were discarded by the researchers, and if you include those discarded outcomes in the trial.
Tiagra law can have a negative effect on recovery from a heart attack or more particularly, it was less effective than the drug it replaced, chloropelladol, and yet it's now the gold standard. So it was a fiddled trial. And when we look at the effect size that how effective it is, it runs about one point nine percent, that's two out of fifty. It had a tiny effect size, and yet it's the gold standard, whereas exercise diet have effect sizes of the order of thirty percent when it
comes to heart problems. So why aren't our doctors that's thirty Why aren't our doctors concentrating on advising people about improvements in diet and exercise and meditation when it comes to heart problems. And we do have a massive problem that has accelerated since the pandemic with heart attacks and strokes. So if you're serious about dealing with the epidemic of heart attacks, exercise, diet, meditation can have a massive impact
on your survival and getting back to full health. And yet here we are dealing with a drug whose original trial was apparently apparently started.
Yeah, I have to throw in here, I'm obliged to I feel that you have been criticized for some of the approaches that you have with regard to health, like meditation and the associated things. Is that still in play, that criticism, Yeah.
If you do a research. I mean, it's very interesting again coming back to WHEREI actually because if you ask about Guy Hatchard, then you come back to one article written in Stuff magazine which was attacking me because I was interested in meditation. So if you want to know who I am and you ask Google, it's going to repare you to an article written in Stuff newspaper which was highly critical. It's not going to repare you to my rebuttal of that article. And there again I had
a colleague of mind just sort of. They were waiting in the hospital for their partner who was hospitalized for a reason, so they were just doodling with AI and they were asking. They ended up asking about me, and they asked that is guy Hatchard opposed to biotechnology? And the answer from me I came back He said, no, no, he really quite likes technology. So we're living in a sea of disinformation. Actually, I mean, you talry about meditation.
If you want to be able to trust something, the best place to start is to trust yourself to understand yourself more fully, and that's what meditation is all about. And yes, it has enormous health benefits. And there are some seven hundred published studies in the peer review journals of the effect. For example of what I do transcendental meditation, But there are different sorts of meditation which have been researched. Beneficial technology, and I'm very proud to be associated with
it over a long period of time. There are lots of things. It's not a panacea for everything. It just has a very big effect size well.
I've known plenty of people through life who have participated in it. I can't speak for the results. That's all the last the most recent article that you wrote it was June twenty nine, and we're recording this the day after the desire to stay alive and the capacity to give birth are under threat. After five and a half years examining pandemic evidence, it's clear who should be winning the argument, but it is also apparent that attitudes have even hardened about what do you speak.
Well? Again, More studies are in the The UK Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey was published on the twenty sixth of June and it found one in four young people in England now have a mental health condition, rising by thirty seven percent between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty four and most worryingly serious conditions such as self harm and suicide suicidal thoughts have quadrupled. That's huge. This is affecting sixteen to twenty four year olds and these are self harm.
It means that you know you're harming life, you're harming your own life, and you know you're going through moments where you don't wish to continue to live. And this parallels more exact studies of the effect of vaccination that we have reported on previously. South Korean Health System has looked at two million people and found that there are more psychiatric events following COVID vaccination than among the unvaccinated.
I'm going to be doing something on this in a week or two or three. But assisted suicide do you have an opinion on it? Absolutely that you'd like that you'd like to It's so subject to abuse.
You know, in countries where they've had it for a long time, like Canada, the number of people going through the system is increasing and you know it's I personally feel that it can be subject to abuse. And again I go back to the whole program of Euphnasia and in the nineteen thirties in Germany it was you know, the useless eater idea. And you can see in families already in the country, like in Canada, that families can
start to put pressure on their elders. Oh you know, it's life really worth living, and so on so forth. I you know, I'm a religious person and I agree with Robert Frost. Something has to be left to God. And I've had some wonderful experiences around the process of passing from this life, and I know it's a sacred moment and leave it to God. I have a great faith in nature.
Where does that leave things if you're not a believer.
Well, there are the laws of nature. Whether you call them God's will or whether you just realize that there are laws of nature and they're ruling our life. They are you know, the sun rising every day has more effect than any government. It's life giving, the waters, the winds,
the the gravity. You know, there's a there's a cosmic system there, and I think you know, you can understand that nature there's a cosmic level of organization involves, and whether one looks at that religiously or whether one looks at it scientifically, there's a level of orderliness there in life that is awesome, you know, described by people like Einstein and the others with a sense of deep ore and respect. There is something bigger going on in life.
The other thing that I talked about in the article when we're talking about the desire to stay alive, was a study of in Czechoslovakia, a study of one three hundred thousand women ages eighteen to thirty nine. The rates of successful conception among the COVID vaccinated women were considerably lower than the unvaccinated And if you look at the graph I always reference the original If you look at the graph, the difference is huge.
I'm looking not at the graph but at the article.
If I put links in there in my articles back to the original studies, and if you go back to the original studies, then there was a very large difference. It was much harder to become pregnant. And that's reflected in the New Zealand data we've we had since COVID vaccination came in, we had we've had a massive four in fertility rates in the whole population, and you this is there can hardly be two things that are more relevant to the survival of the human race, the desire
to stay alive in the capacity to give birth. And that's this is what we're seeing. I mean even today I wrote this article we're referring to yesterday, but even today in the UK twenty twenty four compared to twenty twenty three, there has been a forty five percent increase in visits to doctors for asthma in the UK.
That I have to ask, even though you get to answer it, how come.
It's you know, asthma has obviously is connected to quality of air and pollution like that so forth, but there hasn't been an increase of forty five percent pollution between twenty three and twenty four in the UK. It our response, our an asthmatic response is connected with an immune response. It's not an autoimmune condition. It's not the immune system attacking itself, but the body's capacity to manage it and to overcome an asthmatic attack is related to the capacity
of our immune system. And what we have seen with these We have to remember that COVID vaccination is specifically a biotech intervention designed to change our genetic response to a pathogen. It changes our immune system, and that's the long term effect, in my opinion, irreversible. Well time is going to tell, isn't it. I it's certainly what the studies show is the more shots you have, the more chance that you had of serious illness.
Do you believe with evidence that those at the top and I look to America first of all, but then you've got to look to no, I'll get to us in a minute, but to the top echelon of decision makers when it comes to this and feel that criminal charges are worthy.
You know, when when when ninety percent of the population have done something, is it ever going to come criminal charges? It's sort of it's you know, I see it coming to a crisis. I look, I'm going to go back to Germany again. I'm sorry. I know it's not. It's not you know it criticize you, but you know, when you get mass acceptance of Nazism as you did, the only way it was going to change was was the whole thing coming to a massive crisis. And that is
where we are at now. We have a massive health crisis and the change is not going to come out of the process of the judiciary. It's far more likely to come out of the results of a health crisis. And that's the Again, I come back to the experiment by Thomas Coombs sighted the anomalous card experiment. People go through a sort of crisis where they become worried. They're seeing these cards and they're not sure of this and what I'm not sure of that one. And then suddenly
there's a change. And when there's a huge change like that, then you know, I can see massive social change rather than specific court cases or legal I think you know that what we're looking at here is the possibility of a big awakening, and we're seeing signs of it already.
I think, I think you're right. Is Kennedy doing a good job?
Yeah, well he's doing he's pushing pushing against the whole system, and he's yeah, he's getting a massive amount of criticism, but you know, he's pushing back and he's appointed some people who are very well respected.
Doesn't does it? Does it occur? And or bother? You that if there is a change of if there's a change in the presidency at the next presidential election, to the other side, I say, God forbid but if there was that, all of this will very likely get reversed.
We're not going back to where we were before. I'm seeing we may enter a crisis. I mean, we look at what we've just been through in the last two weeks. We we you know, we've we've seen a you know, we've seen the world on a knife edge and the kind of decision making that has had to go on in the last two weeks to avoid a global crisis. So I'm saying that, you know, if we lose that capacity to deal with this, then we're going to get a crisis, and change is going to be forced on
us one way or another. It's it's I mean, you know, I can see running into the end of the decade, looking at the health data running towards the end of the decade, We're not just facing geopolitical crisis. We're facing a health crisis that you know, could well turn into something even worse than we're facing at the moment, and
it might force change on people. But coming out of the other side of this, I'm kind of optimistic that we're going to get out of the other side one way or another, and we're going to have learned some important lessons in the process.
And I can only hope, No, we can only hope that you're correct. Let me ask you this question in finality, out of what's on offer in the political world, is there a structured government that you would like to see?
Yeah? Kind of million dollar question, isn't there? Who am I going to vote for in the next election? And I can't see anyone I'm keen to vote for. I feel that we're kind of entering a different age really where people have to be more responsible for themselves. And that's you know, that process of self awakening or self awareness is the threshold that we have, the political threshold that we have to cross. But that's that's a very abstract thing, isn't it.
But that's that's unlikely to happen unless there is a crisis to trigger it.
Yeah. Probably. I mean, I'm realistic. How many people are really going to be interested in in such kind of abstract ideas. Look, we're changing with what we're facing is really you know, a long history Western civilization has a long history of war, conflict, distruction, and we've and the destructive means, the destructive technologies have become so frightening that we actually have to change and how that happens I can't quite describe. I'm not a seer or but I know that we have to change.
Well, change is caused by something, events, by a discovery, by a necessity.
Yeah, well that's what you know. Harold McMillan, who was Prime Minister of the UK with us once what's important in politics? And he said, events, my dear boy. Events. So you've hit the nail on the head, Laden. I think there are a few events coming up, and I think most people are aware there are some events, some significant events that have yet to play out, and they're going to have a big effect on our future. And
how we handle that is up to us. It's the time to be more awake than we've been in the past.
Well, there's one one statement I'll make a finality, and that is that the one thing that must never happen is that we lose our personal sovereignty. Yeah, and there are forces of foot that want to do that.
Yeah, but they're not going to win, that's my opinion.
What you mean, just did Sinda didn't get your guns?
Well? Yeah, God to Cinder to Cinda's history, now, isn't she? Well? The book a book, the company Penguin that published a book, thought they would sell one hundred and forty thousand copies. It sold fourteen thousand copies.
Well, there was the number one best selling book this week according to the Listener this week last week when whenever it was I'm on release, I'm.
Going to be optimistic. I'm just going to be optimistic. If we tap into who we are as human beings, We're going to get through this. We're going and one way or another, whether it's a a crisis that forces it upon us, or whether we take our future into our own hands, and we may have to go through a lot. We may face things that we didn't expect were going to happen and may be difficult, but we're going to come out the other side.
And on that note, I'll say one more thing actually that tack onto the personal sovereignty, the fact that the science has never settled, and anybody who tells you it's settled science is either ignorant or stupid or both.
You know, there's a level of the level of the mind. You know it's truth itself. There's a level of the mind universal consciousness, which is truth, which people throughout the ages are recorded as experiencing self realization, if you like, and that has arrived through the subjective means of gaining knowledge. The world around us is constantly changing, and we're looking at that with science through the objective means of gaining knowledge. And so there's always going to be some doubt there
and some you know, changing circumstances. But the most settled double of universal consciousness is non changing. It is truth itself. And so this is the age old injunction. It was, you know, the Kingdom of Heaven is within you or it's there, and the punishads or in almost every tradition of knowledge in the world that ultimately we have to know ourselves.
That was my school one of my school's mottos, know thyself. I do want to add one more thing, Yeah, that's that's and it goes back to AI. I think AI has value at a certain level or to a certain level. It's an ounced what search engine? Would that be fair?
Do you know? I'm going to take the opposite view here late and I just I just think it's a it's a dead end if you give up thinking, you know, after all, the whole thing is that is to let someone else do the thinking for you that's danger.
But my wife used it only yesterday to because she's intrigued with it to find out where I can take my bootful of used print printer machinery to get rid of it, because you can't put it in the rubbish pins. I'm talking about printer, printer cartridges, et cetera. When they're dead. You can't put it. You can't put it in the rubbish bin. There used to be a place that I took it in on the North Shore and that got
burnt down, hence the bootful. So she did a search, came up with four places on the shore or that I would never have even sort of, including a couple of retail outlets.
That's a search engine function.
Exactly exactly my point.
I think search engines I use all the time, and I, by the way, if I do a Google search, I put that the first two words, I put scholarly article, and then I put my question, and then it gives you scientific references in reputable journals, and that that saves me from a lot of rubbish.
I'm sorry, Was that in a search engine or using AI.
In a search engine? I don't use AI. I use search engines, but they're all AI driven. Now a search. They've changed, you know, it has changed recently. So you put that in scholarly article and then you get you instead of getting some potted summary which may or may not be true or right or accurate, you get referred back to the original peer reviewed study.
Well, I've just written that down. So about a thousand other people, well maybe maybe forty thousand other people. Anyways, great helpful. Actually you've been very helpful. It's been a very very pleasant discussion and we've covered a fairly broad base. So once again, thank you, well, thank you late.
It's always a pleasure to talk with you. It's you know, we can range over quite a big range of topics and put them together and I think that's, you know, something that's useful, very useful for everybody.
So for the Hatchet Report, how do people access.
It hatcheed Report dot com And you can subscribe there and subscribing just means that you'll get our articles when they come out directly to your inbox.
And you don't charge, No, I don't.
I mean we rely on donations, but there is no charge.
Now, beautiful, very generous, and I again thank you, and undoubtedly we'll repeat the exercise somewhere down the track.
Yeah, looking forward to it. Take care, Take care.
Now, missus producer the mail Room for podcast number two hundred and ninety one, high lighton how are you. I'm very well, thank you.
We were just saying this morning, how lovely it was to continually get such great mail. So please, folks, if you feel like contributing, please just let us know.
We love it.
Indeed, especially you.
Well, you sit in a little studio for twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, so to know that somebody listening is rather lovely.
Fake not fake news. It might be close, but it's not right from Adrian, who decided he was going to get it on the mailroom early, and this was posted the twenty seventh of June, which was probably the date of the last one accout. Quite recall getting in early on the mailroom, as I'm guessing you'll be covering this
in the upcoming episode. I'm old enough to remember listening to your radio show, hearing your alarm when it looked like a fresh faced socialist bartender was going to tip out a long sitting New York congressman, And all these years later, Alexandria occasional Cortex is now arguably the front runner for the DNC twenty twenty eight presidential candidacy. What are your thoughts on the upcoming mayoral race for New York City and more importantly, how long until President Trump
coins the term zoron the moron? Well, I think that might catch on, actually, So as to the last question or questions, I'll say that Trump likes to be original, So you've stolen zoron the moron, So we'll go somewhere somewhere else for it. But as for other things, one of my thoughts on the upcoming meroral race for New York City if the moron gets in. If he does, I just don't know how bad it can get, is the way I'll leave it at this point. But there's more coming up on that.
Paul says, good A Layton. I always enjoy some ramesh the cur on your pod. I had my doubts about him, considering he was part of the UN and has worked in the disarmament area, but he speaks so much sense. Interestingly, I believe the disarmament program at the UN is funded by the Swiss, who steadfastly do not disarm. Clever Fellows to get everyone else to disarm. I believe we, like America and Switzerland, would be well served by a Second
Amendment style law. Here we are too small economically, geographically and militarily to be defended by a modern land army. But we'd look less easy prey if folks were armed here. Next time you get a chance, can you ask Gramash about his thoughts on civilian and or government disarmament. I'm all for governments to disarm. They have done the vast bulk of the killing in history.
Well we're together on that one pretty much. But you actually, well, Carolyn was reading that, I just quickly had a think out of all the interviews that I've done with a multitude of people over what is nearly seven years now, if I was going to draw up a list of the top ten, I'd struggle. I'd struggle because there's more than that. There's more than ten to be in the top ten, and i'd probably make it about twenty or
something along those lines. If I was going to have to do it for whatever reason, Ramesh would be in the top three. So again from Mike, Ramesh was outstanding as usual in two ninety Just as a matter of interest, I wonder if you've heard of two CTV. Well, I haven't and I don't toc Tousi TV www dot twoc dot TV. Tuc is of Iranian descent and lives in London. His father is still in Tehran. Tuc is a genuine conservative. His TV channel on YouTube covers news, often within minutes
of incidents occurring around the world. He has people on the ground in many countries who frequently provide short video clips of incidents which have just occurred. His coverage of the Israeli Iran conflict has been very good. Why I'm telling you this is that on auguston he will be
launching his new TV channel in London. He's been frustrated but the conservative media doesn't have a united voice, so he has gathered a huge number of podcasters and qualified journalists all over the world who will be contributing with fact checked and first off the rank News. I'm really hoping that this will be a success, so we will have an alternative to the twisted and fake news from the legacy media. Nine August is going to be a big event. I believe that all the tickets for the
opening conference have been sold out, so that's encouraging. Thank you for the incredible work which you do. Thy kind of you, Michael, and I appreciate it. Thank you. And here's the rub. I hadn't heard of him. I hadn't heard of his TV or any other aspect of it. You introduced me to it, so I shall chase it down.
And as we're going to be in London on not on August nine, but on both sides, I mean eight and ten, I mean we're coming and going, I just might take a chance and see if I can contact this guy well.
Of that leaden Jin says, it's fascinating to see how conflict in the Middle East has polarized past allies on the center right of the debate Candice Owens versus Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz versus Tucker Carlson, Douglas Murray versus Dave Smith. This healthy tension is a good sign that the center right is always prepared to think and debate ideas amongst themselves. On the other hand, literally all those on the left
continue to blindly support Palestinian and Iranian regimes. In a recent podcast, Piers Morgan interviewed doctor Foward Izadi, professor of World politics at Tehran University, who said that he was proud of what hermas did on October the seventh, and yet just a few weeks ago I witnessed a Free Palestine protest march in Henderson supporting this kind of regime thankfully. In your recent podcast, Ramesh the Kur highlighted three MythBusters which brought a level of clarity that cuts through the
crap of first world rhetoric and virtue signaling. Firstly, uranium and Richmond passed twenty percent, have passed literally all technical challenges to push it to weapons grade quality. Secondly, a two state solution is a fact denying approach, because you can't possibly live next door to somebody who voils to kill you. Thirdly, the seventh of October massacre is a milli holocaust, the Israeli equivalent of all American casualties suffered
in one day. The UN Nuclear watchdog's chief warned that Iran was not far from possessing a nuclear bomb. The Times of David Horovitz reported that Israel had to therefore go to war to save itself. In his article, this was how close it came and how it saved itself, said David Horovitz. It's easy for those of us living in peace to a pine about whether Israel was right or wrong. But wouldn't we do the same if we live next to those who vowed to kill us every single day.
It's very sad thinking going on over all of this, and sometimes it gets very vicious. That was a good, good letter. Let me go back to was it last week? I think? And I mentioned something to Allison who had who had written a letter, And I said, Allison, I have yet to consider it, and I'll see about next week. Well, this is next week, and here is your letter, Oh, Laton, What was all that about? George Friedman maintained more than once that the Palace that the president did not have
a job. Really, Friedman said that all presidents just see reality and respond to it. How simplistic. And that is true on a basic level, just as it is a couple of toddlers in the paper. That is true on a basic l level, just as it is of a couple of toddlers in the playground. But what failed, but what he failed to point out, was how entirely different the results can be from one president to another. Now
remember that part. Take Churchill and Stalin false aside, the outcome for their respective subjects was widely removed from the other. All presidents and prime ministers will not merely see reality and react to it, As Freeman says, they are not pre programmed robots. Whether one is Democrat or Republican. It's hard to imagine Biden, for example, doing any of the things which Trump is doing to meet the present reality at home or abroad. It is not the reality which
makes a president do what we see him doing. It is a comprehension of issues at stake which makes him act as he does. Each man has a worldview or an ideology, and depended on what that is, and an entirely different outcome can eventually or eventuate from one leader to another. The Left is often not able to comprehend the actual reality of events and what they will lead to, so their leaders invert the facts, which is why we see some serious effects played out in some of the
Democrat states. Plenty of examples. For instance, if a president believes that a man can in fact be a woman, which biology negates, and reality as he sees it, it will be warped and will fail to provide a foundation of truths in the real world, leading to injustices in daily life, which is exactly what we see happening in
the Western world. In that case, their response to the reality before them will be different from that of a man of insight and understanding who can see reality as it is for though, for in the final analysis, truth is unbendable and immove and a leader must find the right way to negotiate the difficulties for the good of his people. It will not just happen because he is president, and there were other incongruities in his way of thinking too.
This time it was a slightly odd interview to sit out, keep on asking the important questions and thank you again for your podcast. Look, Allison, I could sit here for the next ten minutes and relate to your conversations I've had with George over the years and how we disagree on things and what have you. I said, remember that the bottom of your first paragraph, what he failed to point out was how entirely different the result can be
one president to another. I have see he has claimed all along and believes that the president, whoever the president is, doesn't have that much power, and he's right on that. My counter has always been almost along the lines of you of what you've said that it's the influence that a president has that comes from he's in a being, not in the not in the prescription for the job,
but in his inner being. But what I'm what I'm actually trying to say is that one it's a matter of persuasion, and some people have the gift of it, like Trump, he is incredible, someone like Biden, someone like the guy before him who was going to be the greatest president in all time when he was when he was elected. Trump is out trumped a lot of them anyway.
Leyton Paul says, as an avid follower of geopolitical events, a subscriber to Geopolitical Futures, and a devoted listener of your podcast, I thank you for the last three podcasts which covered off and added to my understanding of the current global turmoil. Every single podcast over the years has been of great interest to me. The last three were of immense interest. I would also like to express my huge admiration for Rameshtha Kur. He has an intense intellect.
As usual, George is the best of all time, and Antonia has been helpful in pointing the realities of Europe. For many years, as I have followed her from the days of Stratford.
That's from Paul Yea. Antonio covered the Romanian scene specifically, and she was very good. And I've had I've had more people stopping in the street and say how good that was than I had mail on it. This is from the same Paul, but it's dated eleven May, and I came across it during the week and I thought, I don't think I've read that on air. If I have, and you remember, don't tell me. I don't need to know. However, this is what he said high lighton This is one
of the most critical speechies of my lifetime. After watching it, I sat and thought hard about where my motivation and passion for monitoring such events originated. For years and years, I've the planes flew into the buildings. I would never repeat, never miss a Layton Smith's talkback show or skip a Layton Smith podcast. The mindset that forms as a result of investing so much time and passion in monitoring your work is chiefly about freedom, and that is where a
lot of my motivation came from. I attach a link to Stephen K. Bannon's speech to Hillsdale College thank you and missus producer for pointing out what matters if you have time, Bannon's speech is worth the effort. You guys are the best. Now I want to add to that, because missus producer, why don't you read the last one that you've got, and then I'll go into this little steel.
This is from Penny. I know I haven't written for a while, but I've also never missed an episode of your wonderful podcasts, and my eldest son is following you now as well. I was prompted by your podcast featuring Antonia Colabassa and your mention of Charles King's marvelous book on Odessa, which I bought years ago upon your recommendation.
I thought she was terrific, and as she spoke of the difficulties facing a country previously mired in corruption and, let's face it, evil, I remembered reading that Romania was solely responsible for the Holocaust in Odessa and was the only country during the Second World War besides Nazi Germany to administer a major Soviet city. Parts of that fabulous
book make for a very hard read. Thank you, once again, Laden for continually bringing to our attention such important historical and current matters.
And that's from Penny.
Penny. I got to say that your letter is something that I treasure. Your style of letter is something that I treasure. Your interest in the same things I treasure. If I may, you may so, I could go on and build a treasure chest. But let me return to Let me return to Paul's letter. One of the most critical speeches of my lifetime. He was talking about Trump. Of course, the comment that you made about Stephen Bannon is intriguing in the light of what's been going down
of late. There is great friction between different parts of the different quarters of the Republicans of Marga Maga, marga whatever, and they are at loggerheads, and they're ripping each other apart. Example one, and the only one I'll give is someone I've admired and have learned a hell of a lot from, particularly with regard to the Constitution, Mark Levin. He was shredding Stephen Bannon just last week, along with a bunch
of others like Tucker Carlson. And I listened carefully, because he did more than once on more than one day, And I listened carefully, and I analyzed what he was saying and why he was saying it and whether it was true or not. And there was a certain amount of truth in it, but I still thought that he had misdirected his thoughts, which is something he doesn't do. Let me tell you something he doesn't do. But it was an example of the viciousness that exists at the moment.
And if you get a chance and you can find it and go back and have a listen, this is producer, Thank you, Thank you later three weeks today, exciting it. Now, if this podcast isn't long enough, I'm about to extend this with a couple of a couple of articles, a couple of pieces that may spook you, and don't be surprised if they do. Picture a dystopian future where computers don't just mimic human thinking, they're powered by actual human
brain cells. That future is taking shape in a Cambridge, England lab where a groundbreaking device called cl One is blending biology and technology in ways that could transform how we compute. Developed by austraight and start up Cortical Labs and UK based bit Bio, this shoe boxized machine houses two hundred thousand lab grown brain cells wired to silicon
circuits creating a biological computer that's already turning heads. Unlike traditional computers, which guzzle energy, cl One operates with the efficiency of a human brain quote. Our brains process information using a fraction of the power that modern electronics need. According to Hon Wang Chong, CEO of Cortical Labs, and a communication with the Financial Times, this could open doors to smarter robots, stronger cybers security, and immersive virtual worlds.
Understand oh Joy. Low energy computing has fueled a race to develop biological systems, with Cortical Labs leading alongside competitors like Final Spark in Switzerland and Biological black Box in the US. Cl One's brain cells, grown from human skin derived stem cells are carefully arranged in layers. One type spark's electrical activity while another keeps it in check quote again, It's like balancing a gas pedal and breaks. Chong explains.
The result is a platform for testing how brain cells handle information, with early experiments already yielding insights for neuroscience and drug development.
Now.
One of cl One's quirkiest feats playing the classic video game Pong. Its predecessor, Dishbrain, learned to move a virtual paddle by receiving electrical rewards for good moves and disruptive noise for mistakes. See all one has taken this further revealing how substances like alcohol impair performance, or how epilepsy
drugs like carbo mazophin boost it. We're learning how to program these cells, Chong says, noting that his team is even teaching them to recognize numbers, like distinguishing a nine from before. This is the first device that can consistently measure what neurons can do, says Mark Cotter, a Cambridge
professor and bit bio founder. Carl Fristen, a neuroscientist at University Cottage, London, sees it as a tool for groundbreaking experiments, while John Hopkins Thomas Hartung praises its use for games like Pong to benchmark biological computing. Chong recognizes the ethical challenges. I hope so, but it won't make any difference. Chong recognizes the ethical challenges that could emerge if biological computers and neuron cultures begin to show early signs of consciousness.
These systems are sentient because they respond to stimuli and learn from them, but they are not conscious. We'll learn more about how the human brain works. But we will not. But we do not intend to create a brain in a vat. The cl one unit are slated to retail for around thirty five thousand dollars each and are expected to be broadly available by late twenty five. Now this shall we say denial if you want of not intending to create a brain in a vat will have a
very short lived existence in my humble opinion. And by the way, the title of that was meet the dystopian startups making biological computers from human cells. Now that didn't it affect you in any well concerning way, Maybe this one will. Peter Teal we all know who. Peter Teel is, billionaire, multi billionaire. Wanted to live in New Zealand, remember in the South Island, wanted to do all sorts of things like burying a bomb shelter under sacred soil or something
like that. Because he pulled out because he decided that New Zealand was far too difficult to deal with. At least you got something right now, Peter Teel warns in a wide ranging interview on the future and global existential risks. A billionaire technology investor, Peter Teel raised alarms not only about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence, but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger,
the rise of a one world totalitarian state. Speaking to The New York Times, Ross Douhab, Teel argued that the default political response to global crises, centralized supranational governance, could plunge humanity into authoritarianism. Teel, whose co founder of PayPal and Palanteer, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci
fi stories. There's a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons, and certain types of risks with AI, he explained, to suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution to these threats could culminate in a bad singularity, a one world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety. Teel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for
centralized control in times of peril. So far, I'm on the same team the defaulty goes on that a fault political solution people have for all these existential risks is one world governance, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to regulate AI development, including measures to log every single keystroke
to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security while I'm still riding the same horse. Drawing on historical and philosophical analogies, Tel referenced the nineteen forties Federation of American Scientist film One World or Nune, which argued that only global governance could prevent nuclear annihilation. Teel juxtaposed this
with a Christian theological framing Antichrist or armageddon. In both the billionaires said that he sees a binary choice between seisentralized control and catastrophic collapse. Yet Teel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic Antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic retric as depicted in apocalyptic literature. Instead, he offered a modern twist. The path to global control lies in relentless sphear mongering
about existential risks. Quote. The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about armageddon NonStop, Teel explained. The millionaire contrasted this with earlier visions of scientific progress, like those of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Baconian science, where the threat was an evil genius wilding technology. Presently, Teel argued, the greater political resonance lies in halting scientific
advancement altogether. In our world, it's far more likely to be Greta Thunberg than Doctor Strangelove, he equipped, invoking the radical Swedish climate activist as a symbol of anti progress sentiment. On AI specifically, Teal struck a balanced note, tempering both utopian and apocalyptic predictions. One question we can frame is just how big a thing do I think AI is, he asked himself. My stupid answer is it's more than a nothing burger. Add its less than the total transformation
of our society. Teal. Actually, I'm still on that same horse with him. Teal compared AI's potential impact to the Internet in the late nineteen nineties, suggesting it could create some great companies and add a few percentage points to GDP, perhaps boosting growth by one percent annually for a decade or more. However, the billionaire expressed skepticism that AI alone could end economic state, viewing it as a significant but
not revolutionary force. Wild Teal expressed nuanced views on artificial intelligence. His venture capital firm Founder's Fund is aggressively backing the technology. Namely, it recently led a six hundred million dollar investment in Cruiso, a vertically integrated AI infrastructure provider. The biggest risk with AI is that we don't go big enough. Cruso is here to liberate us from the island of limited ambition. Til said at the time, So that wasn't so bad.
I managed to stay on that same ride with him all the way through the part that intrigued me the most. Whilst Teal juxtaposed this with a Christian theological framing Antichrist or armaginon in both the Billionaires said he sees a binary choice between crystallized control and the catastrophic collapse. And I repeat yet Teel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic rhetoric as depicted in
apocalyptic literature. Well, he was on the same target that I was when I made the mention of AI being overtaken by some alien force. And what I know is that that now brings us to the end of Podcast number two hundred and ninety one. Now don't forget. If you want to comment on any aspect of the podcast or anything else that's got your wik then Latin at NEWSTALGSB dot co dot nz, Latin at NEWSTALGSB dot coded and Zaid or Carolyn at newstalgzb dot co dot nz.
We shall return with podcasts two ninety two very shortly in the meantime. As always, thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.
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