Before we go any further, Charles, explain to me why there
is water coming in in in your sound.
Yeah, well, we were chatting about this.
The one of the perennial issues, None. let's say, with recording
these sorts of things between three people in three different
places are the sound levels, which is terribly technical and
I would say verging on dull. But it is an indication of the
world we live in, in that there's no one way of doing
stuff. And I don't know when that went
wrong, but it is the constant bugbear of so many people.
And yeah, that's how many businesses thrive by making a
product that doesn't conform with everybody else's and that
doesn't do this, that and the other.
And so you're forced down a particular route, which is a bit
of a sidetrack, but it, but it does raise the issue, as you
say, that there is a sound you can probably hear in the
background when I speak, and that is the noise of water.
And I, I must say, I am delighted that that is the sound
because in the UK, and we've been talking about this on the
news, we have been very, very short of water.
And I think it's really indicative of again, of, of the
age. So I, my, my sort of tech mini
rant is pertinent in that. I think for the vast majority of
people living in the UK, perhaps in the so-called developed
world, whether or not it rains is just not something that
people think about. I think it's a sort of, well,
the weather's lovely, but in actual fact there is a massive
implication if it doesn't rain and, and I keep track of this
keeping livestock and whatnot and needing things to grow at
particular times. It's really important when stuff
happens, but equally it's a massive reminder of the
requirement to work with and not against nature.
And yet here we are, very, very short of water in the UK, no
provision for storage of water in proportion to the
requirement. And what I mean by the
requirement is that the UK's population has obviously gone up
dramatically over the last few decades.
Water shortages are now very much more to be something at
least that water companies can talk about and, and sort of
dangle over people and try to raise prices and all sorts
against the, the, the truth of it is sort of somewhere in the
middle in, in that the, the way that water companies are run is,
is beyond doubt very, very inefficient, very poor.
The infrastructure is very badly managed and I can say that with
absolute certainty, having dealt with my own water company on
very many occasions and found out exactly how poor their
record keeping is, as indeed their maintenance of the
infrastructure is. But, but it's a, it's a big
issue. And yet here we are talking
about trying to create new energy and new water resources
just to be able to funnel them into AI and data centres.
It is, it is really crazy. Anyway, it's raining.
I'm delighted. I hope we get more of it.
And if anybody thinks you know, well we'd rather whether it was
sunny then we've had some pretty much non-stop for four months.
So I think it's time for time for some rain.
Mike. Yeah, I mean, it is, it is quite
amazing that it is really raining probably for about the
third day this year in Plymouth. This is, you know, it's fairly
unprecedented. Of course, that's not a, a
climate, I'm not suggesting that's a climate issue.
That's a weather issue. And well, this particular year
it's has been pretty dry as, as, as Charles says.
So I suppose we should be welcoming it.
The question is whether it's going to stop raining now
between now and Christmas. And that's, that's another
thing, you know, because Plymouth is right in the West of
England and we are the pretty much the 1st to get the Atlantic
weather systems that come through.
And of course, this these days they get named because we've all
got to be full of fear. You know, I grew up in Northern
Ireland, as we, as we talked about before, German and that is
similarly battered by Atlantic weather systems.
And this is perfectly normal. We didn't need to name them for
all my life. And, and suddenly we've decided
we've got to name them just in the same way that we've got to
decide, we've decided we've got to turn, you know, temperatures
of 20° on the weather map red so that we know that we're in
danger. There's a great segue there
speaking about water. If, if my connection is
problematic during the course of this conversation, it is because
we have a damaged undersea cable running on the African
continent, which is currently I believe being repaired.
So it has, it has created issues with the Russians stability most
likely the Russians. It's always the Russians or the
Chinese, Mike. It's either the Russians or the
Chinese. Yeah.
So it's somewhere off the northern, the northern Horn or
some somewhere there. I don't know where the where the
where the problem is. But in in any event, if there's
an issue, it's simply because of that cable connecting me to the
rest of the world. But that's a very interesting
thought. I mean, you don't often think
about something like that. So like if you go into your
street and you look at the cables, you know, running along,
it's not very far, right. And so if you think about cables
that run throughout your suburb, start thinking, well, that's
really long. Think about how long an undersea
cable is. It is unbelievably long.
And it leads us to globalization.
And there's a, a point that I want to make because people
often get confused between globalism and globalization.
And I, I thought this could be a great opportunity just to
discuss quickly what those two terms mean.
See if you agree, because I am I've I've been trying to figure
out the difference between the two.
Because they get used interchangeably.
So globalism is an ideological term which effectively means
central control of everything, right?
And globalization is merely the technical connectivity of the
world, like using ships to take containers around or undersea
cables connecting us. It's not, it's not an
ideological thing. It's just making trade and
movement easier. But globalism is is an ideology.
Would you agree? Not entirely.
I think. I think that globalization is an
outgrowth of globalism. And so I don't think you can
separate them necessarily. I think that the style of global
trade, because it's not just global trade.
We, we've always traded with other countries for thousands of
years. We've traded with other
countries in, in Ireland, in England, There's a ton of
evidence of, of trade between, you know, Britain as it was and
you know, the Middle East and Africa and so on.
So there's always been trade between nations over quite well,
there was no such thing as nations necessarily, but trade
with between peoples over quite long distances.
I think what global globalization has done, and I
would argue that is a, an outgrowth of globalism is it has
made supply chains reliant on, on that distance at which
paradoxically doesn't mean, you know, we talk about the lack of
internal consistency in people's arguments.
But the same people that are pushing the climate change
narrative and the idea that we've got to, you know, reduce
carbon emissions are the same people that are pushing the idea
that we've got to make a bit of an aircraft in this country and
another bit of an aircraft in that country where we've got to
grow some food in, in the United States and import it into the
United Kingdom or from New Zealand or whatever it happens
to be. You know, these two positions
seem to be inconsistent to say the least.
And, and sort of gives an idea of, of just how stupid the whole
thing really is. But but I think I think you
can't separate the 2 in in the way that that you're suggesting.
But that's just my opinion. I think I'd go along with the
one. First of all, I'm not, I'm not
sure, John, that you necessarily meant there was a very clear
distinction between the two that there has to be in a way, by
definition, some sort of overlap.
It's just a question of, I suppose, which drives which if,
if one can even suggest that there's a case for saying either
way. Yeah, I, I, I would go along
with there being a strong, a strong relationship between the
two. I would all, you know, going
back to what Mike says, I mean, I think what is very interesting
is the in a way and somewhat paradoxically, the the outcome
of trying to have a, a sort of a world system which involves
these, let's say, globalistic lines of communication.
You know, whether they be trade routes or whatever.
The the there is an inherent over complexity with them in
that we're what seems to be attempted or has been done to to
a certain extent is to make direct connections from A to B
rather than in the historic context, using the points along
the way. So as Mike says, as you know,
people in the British Isles have without doubt traded with and
had a relationship with peoples all over the world for a very
long time, but perhaps not in a direct context.
Whereas now if we're talking about, you know, and we're
forever being bombarded with sort of show off trade deals
with, you know, doesn't matter who Taiwan that's over Taiwan
was a bad example, but but it doesn't matter.
So some somewhere that's further flung.
And what is implicit in that statement is that that is a
direct connection doesn't take into account any of the things
that any of the points in between and and geography is
important. And previously where things
would be traded along a route, you could see the sense in that
and also you could see the benefit to people along the way.
Whereas now and, and we're we're seeing this to a certain extent
with the sort of Trump tariff mayhem and and associated
nonsense. I mean, he, he's now come out
talking about, I haven't looked at the list, but I suppose it's
fairly predictable, you know, countries from which people may
not enter the United States and all this sort of thing.
So it's so the, the relationships that are now held
between countries don't, I would say don't really make sense.
I mean, they, they, they might make sense on, on some level in
that, yes, it's possible to fly an aircraft from one place to
another place over a whole load of other ones.
But, but is that really the most sensible way to do it?
And, and why, you know, on the Wednesday's news?
Well, I mean, we've been talking about it for some time.
I spoke about the strategic defence review, which has, you
know, just come out and it's, it's the, the nutshell version
is that we are all going to be at war with Russia as a nation.
I mean, all of us, not, not not just the armed forces, but
everybody, we're going to have a whole society war.
The entire economy is going to be geared towards it.
We're going to funnel billions into the war industry and we are
going to absolutely engage with nuclear and all the rest of it.
But but it it doesn't make any sense because it's it's not it's
not actually really deliverable. And it's part of, you know,
without doubt that that is part of a well fits, I would say
within your globalism definition.
But because of the, the sort of bit by bit piece meal way in
which things are done, it just, it, it, it sounds like a, it
sounds like a total and utter nonsense.
And I think that that is applied to, to frankly, whatever we're
doing, you know, again, the, the, it doesn't matter when the
trade relationships, diplomatic relationships, whatever they,
they, they don't really seem to work.
So I think there is there is a lot of overlap between the two
terms that you put out. It is, it is interesting that as
time goes on and, and I speak to more people, the difference in
attitudes or the difference in understanding of what the United
Nations is between those in the West, the so-called global West,
and those in the so-called Global South.
And, and I think that the the people in the Global South view
the United Nations as something quite different and something
that has the potential to actually put the put some kind
of restriction or limitation on the activities of the global W.
I'm not suggesting that that is an accurate view that that they
hold, but that's certainly a view that they hold it They they
seem to think that that the UN Charter has, has teeth.
And well, as I say, I'm not suggesting that I agree with
that position. I'm just, I'm just saying that
that's, that's a view that has been expressed.
So, so it, it is interesting that, that, you know, even if we
take the take Agenda 2030 and the Millennium Development
Goals, our, our understanding of that, because we see what is
being published and said by the various think tanks and policy
makers in the West. Our understanding of what those
represent and what the, the ultimate destination of the
Millennium Development Goals is, is very different to the
understanding of a country that actually just wants to feed its
people. And, and part of, I think part
of the issue is that even today, even at having seen what's
happened in the last 100 years, many countries and many people
in the, in the global S aren't quite cynical enough about the
motivations of some of the policy makers in the West for
their own, for their own good, I would suggest.
And so it is interesting how people view the United Nations.
Sorry, that's that's a bit of a diversion, but I just thought
I'd make that point. Yeah.
Well, I think I think it's a point absolutely worth making.
And, and also, you know, within that, considering the perceived
benefits of the United Nations to, to all of those different
parts, particularly in terms of whether it be money or, you
know, infrastructure projects or the type, the types of sort of
involvement that any country has with the UN.
But actually the, the again, that's another, you know, you're
talking about shipping food around the world.
Well, that, that, that's a, that absolutely case in point.
That's that's precisely what I'm talking about.
You know, you have an organization with a, as you say,
a globalist ideology or or background, but does it really
make sense to be shipping food from one point thousands of
miles away to somewhere else? Or would it be better sourced
absolutely next door? Well, I mean, we get that's
getting into a sort of a different thing because again.
Well, is it though, because, because you know, what would,
what would Britain be like if we decided instead of, instead of
orienting around a war footing, we, we actually recognize that
we're only 40% food independent in this country and, and let's
organize around food production instead.
They would just be. It would be just as beneficial
in terms of jobs and and and growth in the country, but
perhaps the motivation would be more positive.
What do you mean? Sorry.
No, go on, Charles. Do you mean to to turn the focus
of the economy onto self efficiency?
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, Well, absolutely. If only I.
Mean I wouldn't be talking from Cape Town to you.
Well, no, but that's, I think that's the thing.
You you yeah, you would, but but the OK, we're talking about your
undersea cable. I I must say I don't know
exactly. No, no, no.
I mean what I mean is what I mean is, yeah, well, that too.
But what I mean is ultimately historically based on the
Dutchess India Company, you know, ancestry.
I wouldn't be here if it weren't for, I guess, those shipping
routes. Yes, but but then OK.
It slightly depends at which point in time we we sort of land
on or, or draw a line from but, but trade to to down to South
Africa from Europe was was not well for a point in time was not
direct. I mean, it was, you know, there
were stops along the way either. Well, mostly via the sea,
obviously initially, but but but also over land.
So the the point is that any of these places were that were
arrived at. I mean, even, you know, South
Africa again, as as a, a staging post on a voyage elsewhere.
I mean, there was a relevance to everywhere along the way.
And, and, and that's the point I think I was trying to make
earlier, was that that all that stuff has been forgotten.
The relationships of places to one another have been forgotten.
We, we, everything now is like it's, it's sort of, I don't know
if they still print them, but aircraft used to have maps of
all their routes, you know, the airline's routes and they all
just go from one place to, you know, everywhere else in the
world. And it, it was, it was all about
the, you know, whether it was London or Paris or, or whatever,
as opposed to a route from London through Paris through
Berlin or, you know, whatever. And, and I think we we are just
the poorer and more vulnerable for it that the the sense of
sort of economic or other integrity via a relationship
that actually makes sense, a trade route that makes sense, I
think is something we've lost. But you're making an argument
for decentralization, actually, which is a good argument.
Well, I mean, yeah, possibly. Which is exactly, definitely,
definitely make it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, but I mean, that's, that's sorry, but that's the
undercurrent. The undercurrent is that
globalism is about centralization and you're making
the argument for decentralization, which is
ultimately, we know the better outcome for most things.
That's why I was starting off by saying globalism.
I'm, I'm suggesting it's not a positive thing because it's all
about central control, whereas whereas globalization like us
talking via undersea cables, etcetera is just, it's just the,
the, the, the consequence of technological progress.
Does that make sense? Or or or not?
It does, it does. I, I, I hope I haven't trapped
myself in a perpetual cycle of nonsense.
But yes, you're, you, you are quite right in that I am talking
about decentralisation. I think what I'm yes, I mean
that, that's a very good point. But, but it's as though to what
I think what I'm trying to say is that when you, you when you
put it forward that that there was an ideology and then in
effect a sort of a delivery system.
I think what I'm suggesting is that ironically or
paradoxically, the delivery system via globalisation is, is
actually not the most effective for, for pushing through the
ideology. I mean, that's not a tip to
Klaus Schwab or, you know, anyone else, but, but I, but it
I, I, I do think there is a, there's an inherent
vulnerability in having these, I, I would say sort of
disconnected networks of, of whether they are trade or, or
diplomacy or whatever. Let me.
Let me potentially stab myself on the foot and suggest that
when I use the example of undersea cables, I I personally
see that as a good thing because it allows me to access the world
from the bottom of the African continent via information and
chatting to you gentlemen and so on and so forth, right?
You could. You could.
Argue that that likely is is being used for bad nefarious
things and I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
I mean, we know that the cyber, the cyber future is, is is under
threat. But think about Starlink.
Now that could be the inversion of what I was just talking about
because the connectivity already exists.
Now that is a different type of connectivity, which I think is
tightly connected to mass surveillance and the collection
of data, which is ideological more than it is practical.
Starlinks more than that, I mean, it's effectively A defence
organization because it is being used, it is being deployed as a,
as a weapon. It is being used for military
purposes in certain countries. And, and so, but, but
increasingly the, the, the global Internet is also being
weaponized as, as you've just hinted at with by using the word
surveillance. But but the entire Internet from
the beginning to some degree has been predicated on this
opportunity and opportunism by certain people to use it for
that purpose. But you know, at the end of the
day, it's a piece of infrastructure.
And like any piece of infrastructure can be used.
It could be used for positive or negative purposes.
It depends who's in the driving seat at the time, I think.
I think the just, sorry, just to make one final point on your
globalism versus globalization question.
I think that the difference between what happened with,
because as we've said, there's, there's always been this global
aspect to trade, But the difference between what happened
in the past and what's happening now is that when trade happened,
it was because, you know, country A produced certain goods
which were perhaps useful to country B, and country B
produced certain goods which were perhaps useful to country
A, and those things were effectively swapped in some form
of trade. What's happened in recent
decades, of course, is that country A no longer produces
anything useful and country A attempts to exploit the
differences in the cost of labour with in country B in
order to to produce stuff more cheaply or whatever and
therefore make bigger profits. That's that I think is, is the
real danger of, of the policies that the West has pursued over
the last decades, because actually in not too many more
years, there won't be anybody left in our countries that
remembers how to do certain things.
And, and this is part of this sort of goes back to, to
Charles's point about the strategic defence review.
I'm not convinced even even if they wanted to, as Charles was
saying, even if they wanted to do what they're suggesting they
want to do, it's not actually achievable because a, they don't
have the skills, they don't actually have the intelligence
or the capability to, to, to pull it off.
So the whole idea is stupid and and will result in in disaster
for this country if it is pursued, if people don't oppose
it. So, but this this applies to
globalization, globalism and and how how globalization has been
done. It's not globalization in itself
isn't a bad thing as you're suggesting germ, but it's it's
it's the way it's being done is is absolutely detrimental to to
all our to to all our lives, in my opinion.
And and that doesn't just apply to people in the West because
people in the, in the so-called global S are absolutely
exploited by it left, right and centre.
So yeah, nothing else to add to that.
I remember when I when I had the great pleasure of chatting to
John McAfee before he was Epstein, and he made the point
that paranoia is a very good thing, and paranoia is what led
him to developing antivirus software before there were
viruses. I think we should be absolutely
paranoid. I think there's no question that
our governments are to get us. There's no degrees about it.
We should be absolutely paranoid.
Our governments are right to get us.
And now that is. I mean, this, this really is, is
the nub of it isn't it is, is who, who is our enemy.
And it's, it's, you know, we've got to keep our focus on who the
enemy actually is. It's yeah, it it begins with our
governments and then you start working out from there to, to,
to various heads of corporations.
And, and because you know, if, if we're talking about the
global W having exploited the global S over actually over a
couple of centuries or whatever it is that actually ordinary
people in Western countries are the, are the in a sense the same
as the global S because because we are equally being asset
stripped and exploded just as Africans were during the 19th
century and so on. It's, it's, it's quite
incredible to watch. And in the meantime, we're being
convinced that, you know, we have to pay our taxes to make
sure that the National Health Service is allowed to give
pharmaceutical companies big profits, But and we have to pay
increasingly corporatized and and centrally controlled food
companies in order for them to get have the right to poison us
with hyper processed foods and so on.
Even using the word food for those kinds of products is is
completely inappropriate. It is incredible how we are
absolutely unwilling to consider the possibility that that that
we are the targets for massive exploitation the likes of which
only certain countries experienced in the past.
But Speaking of paranoia, I flew to a few years ago, I flew to, I
flew to Australia. And I remember when, when I was
in Sydney at the luggage terminal, the luggage is coming
on that, on that what you call that conveyor belt thing.
And mine was the, only, the only luggage on the flight that was
wrapped in bubble wrap and it had all, it had straps around it
and all sorts of stuff. And, and, and so that's how I
muted my luggage because nobody else had had luggage looking
like that. And I, I took it off the, the
conveyor belt and this American woman next to me goes, are you
from South Africa? I said yes, she says.
I knew it. Yeah, that's, that's a very good
anecdote. And I and and absolutely I, I, I
understand that completely, but just, OK, go back one.
What? What do you mean by paranoia?
Well, that feeling that they're allowed to get us is it.
Yeah, I mean that, that they're on the fairest, on the fairest
agendas and nefarious people. OK, yeah, All right.
I mean, I, I would, I would go along with that.
I, but to me, paranoia sounds like a, a negative state to be
in, in that it seems to have inherent within it a level of
fear and therefore stress. And I, I consider that to be not
a positive way to think. And, and I would say that
always, regardless of the situation, the only thing one
wants to be considering is how to, how to take positive, a
positive action. And so, yeah, I think to be, to
be circumspect, to be sceptical, to be aware.
Yes, absolutely. I, I think I would stop short of
saying that. I I know this might sound like a
pedantic point to make, but I would say that stopping short of
paranoia, I think is is where I'd end up in in and actually
going back to the to the baggage carousel thing.
Carousel I think is the word you were looking for.
That's right, Carousel, yeah. Because because we've all, we've
all jumped on them at some point and had the alarm go off,
haven't we? But yeah, I would.
I would never ever wrap my bag up in that, in that wretched
cling film stuff. I would never do it.
And the reason I would never do it is that if someone wants to
pinch my bag or destroy it or take something out of it, cling
films just not going to stop them.
And the and and I think it's it's all about committing
effort. Sorry, that's not a really
deliberate pop at you, by the way.
The, the, the, the, you know, the, the way that I think the
world should work is, is that at least, you know, for us, if
we're, if we're confronting these sorts of points of view,
is, is that you have to put in the effort where it's going to
where it's going to count, where it's going to make a difference.
And things like, OK, I'll give you an example.
The car alarm. I mean, there have been a lot of
utterly pointless things invented over the years.
But the car alarm, I mean, seriously, what?
Whatever was that for it? I mean, the only time they go
off is wrong. I drove on the way to Plymouth
yesterday morning. I, I drove past transporter
lorry with two tiers of of vehicles on it and the, the car
at the very back on the lower deck, it's, it's alarm was going
off. I just thought it's just
classic. So, so there it was, you know,
flashing lights. How incredibly annoying for the
driver of the, of the transporter that his rear
vehicle, you know, nothing you could do about it, just car
alarm going off. And so the, the, the point I'm
trying to make via via in a way a deliberately stupid example is
that is that an induced state of paranoia.
I, I, I, I'm afraid to say I just did not see as being
productive. And, and also I see it as
surrendering control to the wrong side and to consider that
that somebody is doing something to you rather than you are the
doer. You are taking the situation on
its own merits and then deciding what's going to happen.
And yes, to anyone who's wondering still why I wouldn't
cling film my bag. Yeah, I have had stuff nicked
out of out of bags, but there we go.
I, I'm still here. And I think that's the that's
the point, you know, So, so yeah, I, I would say that you,
you know, with all these situations, with all these
thoughts, you've just, you've just got to consider it in such
a way that you turn it to your advantage and to your sort of
self improvement. Yeah, yeah.
I just want to add that I also agree with Charles as well.
And you know, I was being utterly flippant with with the
use of the term, But but, and really the point there was was
who is The, Who is the, this should be the focus of, of the
resistance of whatever urge for resistance that we have.
And and so, you know, it was, it was perhaps playing loose with
the term. But but, and I completely, I
completely agree with you, Charles, whatever is going on in
this world, we should not be interacting with it from a
position of fear. Yeah, exactly.
Yeah. So, so I mean, you know, if I
think of words used, we know the the governments are are out to
get us let's say well, you know, So what because how really is
that to be achieved? You know, let's let's say the
sort of The Cave scenario if we didn't work for UK column and we
didn't put out a news programme and research all these things
and we got on with our lives in a, you know, within the this
idea of being in a nation that was self-sufficient.
I mean, OK, there's obviously this is a an absolutely
ludicrous situation to be putting out there because it
might never happen. Let's not say won't because
there was a point in time where it did because it had to.
And don't forget that this is what drives everything is
necessity. And I go right back to the
beginning where I talk about the rain here.
And the only reason people do just drift about the place
listening to their whatever these radioactive Earpod things
are called, you know, not not having a clue is because there's
no necessity. They don't need to think about
water because all that's spoon fed, you know, all that's done
for them. And, and that's, that's sort of
what this comes back to, I think is, is this idea of necessity,
which which largely has been lost.
But, but, but, you know, so if we were in a situation where we
were not aware of the sorts of things that we do know about and
therefore are able to form judgements like the government
are out to get us because they have said blah, blah, blah,
blah. Actually, how would we know?
And, and OK, I say that from a position of being in a rural
environment where I, I don't see anybody who works for the state
ever. I mean, you know, occasionally
the people come past and pick the, pick the rubbish up.
But if they didn't, wouldn't be the end of the world.
There'd be a way to deal with it.
And, and that's it. OK, I, I know that's, that's one
thing if you, if you're, if you're in a, let's say, if
you're in an urban environment, the likelihood is you will see
people who are working for some state agency.
But, but, but probably in the bleak sense, they're not
actually there to necessarily deal with you.
So this is not an advert for people to switch off and not
watch UK column news, by the way, I should make that very
clear. But but the but the point is
that if you're you know, if you're not thinking about it and
then allowing it to corrupt your thoughts and make you feel
helpless and that it is taking control of your life.
And then, you know, you're you're yeah, you're you're sort
of moving into the into dangerous and and I would say
wrong territory. So yes, awareness, but use that.
So that's why you don't going back onto the why you should
watch UK column news bit. But the reason you should is
because there is a higher sense of being in a higher sense
purpose in that empowerment of knowing what these people are
trying to do and understanding how to make that inform your
life choices in a positive sense.
So like for example, the government or the state, they
are or it is out to get you. I think that is that.
I mean that's, that's, that's it's purpose.
It is out to get you to control you and, and, and the society at
large. But that's in the abstract
because there are individuals who work in various departments
who genuinely believe that they're doing a good thing and
they're trying to make, you know, their society better.
Makes perfect sense to me and that and that's you know that
brings us right to the heart of of what we do, which is the fact
that we are in an information war.
And if you present two people with a a shared set of values,
let's say exactly like the people you're talking about and
I and I can totally corroborate that I mean I've I've worked for
two of the the sort of so-called state agencies, the army and the
police. And I know that makes certain
people bridal because they wonder why on earth I should
therefore be speaking on a platform such as this.
Well, fair enough. I mean, people entirely entitled
to their views, but what I would say is that gives me absolutely
gold plated insight into how these organisations work and,
and what sorts of people they do attract good and bad.
And I've absolutely seen the bad and I'm not going to shy away
from that, although the, the point that we're discussing here
is really the good. So, so the, The thing is, if you
put people who do have shared values and in a sense a, an
inherent core of, let's say good, but you present them with
two different sets of information, then you would
expect the outcomes to be different, which is why it is so
dangerous to introduce narratives like climate change.
For example, here we are talking about dry weather and then some
rain, which I know perfectly well is weather exactly like
Mike said at the beginning. But but of course, if you're
told that it's climate and therefore it concerns carbon
dioxide and greenhouse gases and blah, blah, blah, then then the
outcomes that you think you desire going to be different.
It's a, it's a terrible, terrible problem.
And so that you know that that's the the way that this should be
treated, I would say. The the climate change
narrative, though, is part of that invisible boogeyman agenda.
You know you can't see it, and whenever there's a change in
whether it's climate change, it's because you drove a diesel
car. It's your fault or you know, you
left your light bulb on for too long.
You're incandescent light bulb, which by the way, is actually
healthier to use than an LED light, which most people don't
know. And or the other invisible one
is the pandemic, which remember, you can't see it right?
So you have to trust what you've been told.
What's there are a couple other invisible boogeyman Bill Gates
actually mentioned 4 in an interview recently.
And the problem here, and we spoke about this previously, is
that because it's Bill Gates, you'll dismiss everything he
says. And that's a bad idea because he
can actually tell you what he's thinking, and you should listen
sometimes. So when he says things like we
need to be prepared for climate change, which is the one
invisible boogeyman. The other he mentioned was more
pandemics. What is the other one?
It was nuclear war. I mean, we've never seen that
actually play out. We've only ever been threatened
from the, from the Cold War era. We've, we don't know actually if
nuclear war can actually be a real thing.
We, we just think it can. And, and then what was the other
one? He said There was one other,
I've gone blank now, I think. I think it was AI that was the
other one. Yes, AI taking control of
everything. Yeah, I mean that it's, it's
very interesting the the invisibility thing, because of
course one might say that it works both ways in that I would
totally agree with you that that if you want to make money and be
able to control people, then then the spectre of something
rather than having to actually produce a monster is is a much
more effective way of doing it because in in a sense, people's
imaginations do the work for you.
You just suggest as a whether it be a deadly pandemic or a
climate, this, that and the other and you don't even need to
bother to substantiate your claim in any way.
People will just run away with it.
So, so yeah, I mean, it's an absolute gift.
I would say the not exactly the counter to it, but of course the
the other side of it is that we are in a position now where we
look at things that are supposedly sort of in the
pipeline like let's say a digital identity system or a
central bank digital currency, which which does sort of exist
in some places and does sort of work.
In some. Places, yeah, OK, but, but but
not, not in the main, they're not, I mean, in, in the UK you
can exist perfectly easily without a digital identity or a
central bank digital currency. And yet they, so I'm sort of,
I'm describing them as things that you can't really see, but
they are certainly by people that are aware of them.
They are being considered as something that should be feared.
And I know we've talked about this a lot before.
I, I, I don't, I'm not trying to dismiss the pitfalls and indeed
the, the fact that they can be turned into a reality, but I
think I would like to qualify any sense of fear around, around
those ideas, all those, all those realities.
I think the, the, the motto in life that I would happily pinch
from my days as a soldier is, is adapt and overcome.
And if you know, if it happens, you're OK, you're not, you're
not going to embrace it, But there will be a way.
And I think this is this, we are, we are very quick to do
ourselves down. People have come up with
ingenious workarounds all the way through the ages.
And I think we just haven't had enough pressure on us to come up
with these sorts of things. But also I would, I would again
look at the positives and the places where in particular
digital currency has been tried. Certainly on the central banking
in central banking capacity, it has failed absolutely
spectacularly. Not Nigeria and Jamaica being
the two obvious examples to complete and utter flop and, and
say for the Bank of England or whoever else to put out this,
because it's very easy. You know, you, you, you write up
some snazzy looking PDF document and send it around the place and
get parliamentary committees to talk about it.
And then, and then you in a way you've sort of jacked up your
idea like there's a pandemic. You've, you've created the sense
that this thing is real and it is happening and you're all
going to be part of it. And actually the truth is, is
that that that is total rubbish. It is just to fiction and, and
we need to be really mindful of that.
So, so yes, be aware and, and you know that, that going back
to the sort of paranoia thing, be aware, be mindful of it, but
also reject it entirely. And we'll find those
workarounds. We, we, we have to do.
Like if we don't think like that, then then then we are, we
are just shooting ourselves in in the feet.
The other thing I would, the sorry, the other thing I would
add to that is that I was, I'm going to be talking about this
on the next UK column news program, but I was watching the
Ofcom Live seminar, we might call it, on the part of the
Online Safety Act, which is about protecting children.
And one of the, one of the core sort of tenets of this was we've
got to protect children online because children are using
online services and, and they're, they're exposed to all
kinds of harms, potential harms on the Internet.
And the whole it was, it was a whole day event.
And it began with a, a, a little propaganda piece, which was a
bunch of parents talking about the harms that their children
had been exposed to on the Internet and the effect that it
had on their children. And I'm, and, and it the entire,
sort of the entire basis of, of the whole initiative is that it
is wholly incumbent upon the platforms, the, the services on
the Internet to keep children safe.
At no point in the discussion was there any consideration of
the role of parents. And you know, I just, I just
find this whole approach totally about face and, and really
actually, we should be saying to parents it's all right to
restrict access to certain types of content on the Internet.
In fact, we're not saying that, we're saying the opposite.
We're, we're almost telling parents you have 0 role in the
upbringing of your children. It's completely.
And of course, we understand why this is the case, because it,
it's because the, the basis of this entire approach is, is to,
is, is about narrative control and the effort to, to regain a
foothold in the minds of, of younger people and make sure
that younger people aren't being given access to certain types of
information. And, and the threat of
pornography or other harms on the Internet is being used as,
as a tool for that. But it just, it just fascinated
me that, that, that they, they were quite happy to pursue, to
present this idea that parents were complaining that at the
lack of action from the platforms to protect their
children, where while at no point did the parents consider
protecting their own children themselves.
And, and this is, I think, indicative of something which I
suppose was expressed through the, through the pandemic, in
particular, this notion that that the role of the state is to
keep people safe. Now, you could say that
historically the role of the, of the the, of the king or the
whatever was to keep people safe.
But, but this has been taken to an entire different degree to
the point where in order, because it's been twisted that
in order for, for us to keep you safe, you've got to submit to
certain limitations. And, and, you know, and it is
without question attempting to build a level of control that we
haven't seen over people's lives, that we haven't seen
previously. And, and so that should be
resisted. But, you know, I think it keeps
saying this, it all begins with, with choices that we make as
individuals and, and whether we're willing to to take agency
for our own existence, which I suppose echoes a lot of what
Charles has said today. A lot of people around me, I
noticed, don't see the psychological war that's going
on. Very subliminal.
Extremely subliminal, where it's always about shifting
responsibility to the corporations or to the state
and, and it, and I think it's also a consequence of
entitlement. It's everybody has too many
rights. That's my personal view.
People have got too many rights. It's my right.
It's my right, you know, and
it's always my right and, and, and who enforces the right?
It's the state. It's never the personal
responsibility. And look at the messaging that
came out during the COVID era. It was about we will protect
you. It's always about putting the
emphasis on the bigger structures, the bigger power
structures. And what ultimately happens is
that you end up with very obedient, very compliant
peasantry, effectively at the end of the day.
So just to clarify, you would remove everybody's rights?
I think so. No, I think no.
I mean, I often joke. I often joke.
I'll say that I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a monarchist, anarchist,
you know, so I oppose the state unless I am the state.
But I mean ultimately, I mean so.
You're happy to be a dictator yourself, just benevolent.
I think I think it is a it is a serious issue.
I'm, I'm very happy to jump into this complete mess in that I
think, right. I know, I, I, I, I think I see
exactly where you're coming from in that.
What I would say is that is that rights really are nothing more
than a tool of control because they're, they are something
written down that can therefore be rescinded and, and, and
enforced and enforced. I mean, and so, and also they
are perfect for divide and rule you, you set one load of rights
against another or, or the rights of an individual against
those of a group or different individuals.
So, so the way in which rights have come to be manipulated,
whether or not that was intentional, it doesn't really
matter whether people do believe that to have been intentional or
not. We go back to things like, you
know, even the things like the UN Charter.
I mean, the point is the moment you write something down and
look at what the, whatever she's called the head lady of the ICRC
is now saying, I mean, admissibly, incredibly belatedly
about the situation in Gaza. It's the same with international
humanitarian law. It doesn't matter.
Whatever you write down will be manipulated.
And we go, you know, we spoke about this last week, we talked
about fundamental principles and you, you know, you talked about
free will. You, you've spoken about free
will, I think on the previous sessions we've done.
And you know, and, and so guiding, overarching guiding
principles like that are much, much easier or, or well, no,
sorry, let's put it the other way around, much harder to
manipulate and to create compliance slaves with.
So I, although perhaps we might come at it from sight of an
angle. I do, I do agree with you on
the, on the rights issue, which is not to say that people should
not be able to do stuff. And that's, that's not at all
what either of us would mean by it.
But but no, I mean I totally agree the way the the problem is
if you if you put your faith in rights, I believe you are on
hiding to nothing because it will absolutely be turned.
Against you. Let me just let me just come in
there because this is this is there's there's two types of
rights that that exist today historically and certainly in
recent centuries. If we look at the Constitution
of the UK or the United States, the there were there was not
necessarily expressed explicitly, but there was the
principle of God-given unalienable rights, certain
certain rights that everybody is entitled to, but those were
perceived they were written down or they were agreed that these
came from a higher power. Anyway, there what what happened
with the UN Charter and and subsequently was, was that the
idea of human rights came along. And I think that's where the
danger about rights comes from. Because once you remove, once
you say that, that a right is conferred by to 1 human from
another human, that is putting the other human in a position
above the human that gets the right.
The, the fundamental problem with human rights is it starts
with a blank piece of paper. It starts with the idea that you
have no rights, and then you start adding rights to those.
But if you're, if, if some, if a human being is giving a right to
another human being, then that human being can take that right
away again at some future point. And, and so, so, so I would, I
would say that that societies can organize around some
fundamental principles, which we might call, you know,
unalienable rights that are, that are give that are sort of
universal and, and come from something outside of humanity
and can't be removed. And we can agree that there that
there's like the right to life, for example, there are some
fundamental rights that, that, that, that are just obvious.
The, the, the issue for me is, is once you start bringing that
to a human level, because you've removed God from the equation.
And I'm not, I'm not saying that you have to believe in, in a
higher power, you know, although it's obviously easier if you do,
but you have to at least agree that there's a Prince, a
principle above humanity, which, which that, that, that in other
words, a human being can't remove certain fundamental
rights from people. I I think that that is important
even no matter it's an important distinction between what's
happened in more recent decades as opposed to what was
considered reasonable previously.
Sorry, I should have said I, I, I absolutely meant human rights,
the way in which human rights have been legislated and and so
forth. But, but, but yes, So what, what
you end up with is not only that these have been sort of
confected and conferred by humans to other humans, which is
an extraordinary situation to start with, but but also it
means that the state as the arbiter is, is looked towards to
sort out and resolve these issues.
So, so straight away you're creating an imbalance or this
ridiculous situation where people feel that they have all
agency and, and sort of consciousness taken away from
them. You know, why can't people just
work this stuff out for themselves?
And, and in fact, I think that goes exactly back to what Mike
was talking about with Ofcom and with parenting.
And OK, they've given me many other factors over the years,
but it is it really does appear that the Internet in particular
has driven people completely mad because if you were to say 20 or
30 years ago, so, you know, to go into a household where two or
three small children live and say to the parents.
So just if you, if you could just tell me I'm, I'm just doing
a survey this week. How many stabbings and shootings
have you hosted inside your home?
And how many sex shows have you had between the hours of 3:00
and 6:00 in the afternoon in your kitchen?
And obviously the answer by the horrified parents would in most
cases be none at all. Don't be ridiculous.
Get out. Whereas with the Internet it,
it's, it's a total inversion of that people think nothing of
having all this stuff going on in the house.
But because it's the Internet somehow it's different.
And, and people, parents I think in particular are, are, it's,
it's as though they are absolved of that.
And I think that is all absolutely part of this idea
that the state is there to control and protect.
And if things go wrong, then it's the, it's the state's
problem, and it's only the state that can fix it.
And that's a terrible place to find yourself.
Yeah, I don't know whether the Internet in itself could be
blamed for that though, because it isn't.
I mean, I think this, this Rod said and actually a lot earlier
and, and it, the, the whole issue of individualism and, and
you know, why, OK, I've had a child now, but why, why should
that child occupy my time? I've got to, I've got to go and
play football or I've got to, you know, whatever it happens to
be. It's, it's, it's, it seems to me
it's, it's something significantly more fundamental
than than just the Internet. It's, it's coming back to, to,
you know, the, the idea of, of giving something to, to the next
generation. We've lost that somehow, you
know, children are, are perceived by most parents as
just being an inconvenience. Just shove a phone in their hand
because it gets them out of the way.
It's not, it's not that the, you know, I'm not sure if I'm
expressing this very well, but but it just seems to me that
that parents actually, for whatever reason, don't really
want to be parents anymore. They don't want to spend time
with children. They just want to stick them in
a room and let them entertain themselves, I think.
I think that the the fact that the Internet is there is is a
convenience, but if it wasn't the Internet it would be
something else. It might be, I mean, I think
again, I, I don't know how definitive one can ever consider
this sort of data to be. But, but there are, you know,
statistics which show that people's time, the, the way in
which people's time has been taken up over the years has
transformed so radically towards spending time on on the
Internet. So I'm not necessarily
suggesting that it's the Internet that's corrupted
people's minds behaviour in so far as what they're viewing, but
it's the sheer length of time or the distraction of the Internet
itself. But no, I mean, I absolutely
agree with you and it's a trend and it's, you know, you could
say this was been, this has been the purpose of television in
large part, etcetera. There are plenty of other
influences, but it does seem that the Internet as a driver
for this and you know, strictly relating to Ofcom, it is it is a
massive, massive factor. James, look at the time that's
coming from landing. Let's do the Ligatory Support UK
column and and watch and watch and watch my show and watch the
the news which soon will be daily.
That's that's the plan. But, but look, I mean, I mean,
look, we do need support and you know, we, we obviously need
financial support. We absolutely appreciate.
And just once again, thank everybody that is supporting US
financially. But equally important as far as
I'm concerned is, is just be willing to share and share and
share because, and, and try to promote what it is we're doing.
If you, if you like what we're doing, and then please do share
it because I mean, we are just, we just can't express how, I
mean, everybody knows how much, how, how big an impact the
censorship regime has. And there is no doubt that, you
know, when we, when we engage with people that haven't come
across us before, we often get a positive response.
But the, the, the fact is that still the majority of people, no
matter how many people were aware of us during locked down
and on the marches and so on. And, and the idea that lots of
people are aware of the UK column, actually it's still
quite a small proportion of the, of the, the population of this
country or any other country around the world.
So, you know, just encourage everybody to share as much as
possible. Yeah.
And I think just just do it which is 1 SEC sorry, just add
to that. Also share the things that you
are doing that where you have achieved effect.
Share that with us because we we rebroadcast it and that that
does show people that that changes can be made and that
people can make ground and do stuff.
So so it's a it's a two way St. Mike Robertson, Charles Mallett,
Thank you for joining me in the weekly banter, Strangers.