Mike Robertson. Charles Mallett, thank you for
joining me in what's going to hopefully be the weekly
trenches. Yeah, if we if we have the
stamina, which it's probably slightly too early to make a
judgement call on that, but I think it's a good idea, it's a
very good idea and we'll hope to to make it a good one for weeks
to come. Obviously we as UK column are
very pleased to to have you doing what you're doing.
But I think we, I hope we speak for the audience, which again,
we hope will be a, a burgeoning one, certainly as in the first
instance, it emerges the existing UK column audience and
your existing audience. But I think it's, I think it's
fantastic because it just it, it does bring something different.
And, and that is, that is absolutely superb.
And I think the, the response to what you're doing and the
variety that you've already put out is, is absolutely terrific.
And that's, that, that is of huge advantage to us, but but
enormously enjoyed by the people that are engaging with content.
And also it's very, it's very shareable now that we live in an
age where to transmit this sort of thing from place to place is
instantaneous. You know, it is great to have
this extra dimension. So I think, I think we really,
you know, we really do look forward to more and more and
more and, and indeed the, the, the audience response, which is
which is superb. So I'd like to know what the
what your what kind of response you've had.
And I'm actually quite interested to hear what kind of
response you had to last night's interview.
And I probably shouldn't say last night because I'm not sure
when this particular this particular discussion is going
to go out the Titanic one because I have AI have an
interest in that area. I mentioned on the news
yesterday, Jeremy, that my uncle, I don't know if you've
ever seen the, the skyline of Belfast, but the skyline of
Belfast, it in certain photographs is dominated by
these two massive cranes, big yellow cranes that are called
David and Goliath. And they, my uncle project
managed to build those in the 60s, seventies.
And, and so he was working in, in Harland and Wolf, which built
the Titanic. Uh, and you know, of course
there was no one or it's highly unlikely that there was anybody
still alive that, that was involved.
There was, they were certainly apprentices at 16 or 14 or
something like that. But, but certainly the, the, the
memories of the stories that we're told at the time, we're,
we're absolutely still being shared.
And, and so, you know, the, the, the idea of the, of the ships
being swapped was, was, was one that was absolutely part of the
Harland Wolf culture at that time.
And of course, we're talking 30 years before the Internet.
So this isn't an Internet conspiracy theory.
This is something that was that was in the culture of Harland
and Wolf at the time. Can I just leap in with a with a
quick Fact Check? Because I know that somebody
will already. Samson and Goliath.
Yes, Thank you. Yes, Sorry.
Yes. Like, yes, sorry.
You're absolutely right. That's yeah, Absolutely.
Yes, Yes, Sorry, yes. What did you think of it, Mike?
What did I think? Well, I haven't OK, hands up.
I haven't had time to watch the whole thing yet.
So, so I'll get I'll get time to watch it today, but but I mean,
so I'm going to be fascinated to see how the conversation ended
up. But yeah.
Well, to answer your question, so far from what I'm, I'm, I've
only had a brief look at some of the feedback and it's it's
generally positive. In fact, in fact, the feedback
overall so far has been, has been very positive, which which
worries me. I'm I'm not doing my job
properly. I need to, I need to ruffle some
more feathers. But but by and large, with the
Titanic discussion, it's it, it seems to be positive, although
there are one or two weird comments like why we're
discussing this. It's a sort of Ben Shapiro
mindset. Well, it happened long ago, so
who cares? But it does matter because it's
about rectifying or revising fabricated truth, you know, and,
and it, and it, it, it actually isn't just a random story.
It it involved JP Morgan, you know, a significant central
banker. So that that is, that is a
really key point. You know, I was, I was on a
discussion recently and it was involved.
I can't remember exactly what the what the context was, but,
but I was giving a little bit of historical background just to
in, in a lead up to describing events that are happening at the
moment. And, and somebody interrupted me
during the conversation and said, why are you telling us
this? We don't need a history lesson.
We absolutely need history lessons.
We've got to understand the context of current events,
sorry. We've got to understand current
events in the context of what's happened before.
And when we're talking about the likes of JP Morgan, he is the
precursor or he was the precursor to the exactly the
kinds of mindsets that we're seeing operating today.
And if we don't understand that what we're seeing today is, is
ideological in a sense. And we've seen it actually many
times in the past. If we can demonstrate from from
because you know how it is events happen and evidence
around those events tends not to come out for significant time
afterwards. So actually we can learn a lot
from looking at at historical evidence.
And, and if, if JP Morgan was prepared to to pull that
particular gag, then, you know, one of the comments that that is
often made is why would they do that?
Well, you've got to understand what, what has been done in the
past to understand why people would do things in a particular
way today. And, and without understanding
history, you can't understand current events.
I'm going to say, I'm going to say that, you know, one of the,
one of the things that surprises me most in, in in recent months
about people that are, that are saying that they are interested
in the truth is that actually quite often they're not.
And, and whenever a competing idea comes along, they find it
very, very challenging. And they're not willing to
consider that competing idea because it is in competition
with their established ideology. And I think this is a very
dangerous position for any of us to get into and, and we've got
to be absolutely challenging what our perceptions are, what
our inbuilt ideas about what's going on around us are.
We need to be challenging those every single day.
Am I right about this? And if we're not challenging
that, then then we are no better than mainstream media.
But that's exactly correct. And I mean, somebody asked me,
asked me the other day, why don't you bring on the other
view to let's just say now the Titanic, right, or the Apollo
mission. Why don't you bring on somebody
who, who, who disagrees with your guest?
Well, what you're effectively saying is bring on somebody from
the mainstream again. So no, because that's not what
I'm doing. I'm trying to present competing
ideas. I don't want to perpetuate the
established ideas because you can get those everywhere.
I think that's. Really important.
Yeah, it is. And, and, and I think it's, I
think we need to be careful not just not not to totally overlay
the mainstream with the suggestion that everything that
comes from the mainstream is bad and wrong or lazy or
compromised. But it's the I would say that
the fundamental part is that, like you say, the with the
opposing view, what, what really what they mean is simply
presenting or representing the paradigm.
And that's that's of no interest because it is the paradigm that
the the whole point going back to exactly what Mike was saying
is to challenge everything. And, and if the if the result of
that remains to be uncertainty, well, that's fine.
And that's what we have to accept because exactly like what
we were saying, you know, we're talking about the Church of
England going back well over 1000 years.
I wasn't there, you weren't there.
We don't know. But I think we have to be
absolutely prepared to introduce the element of doubt.
And if you think of in terms of sort of fables from the modern
era, and I don't mean fables as in they're completely untrue,
but the, the stories that get slung out at at very young age
to, to children. It's part of these sort of
building blocks of, of what it means to be dipping your toe
into the, the, the waters of history.
I mean, Titan, the sinking of the Titanic is absolutely
something that everybody knows about or thinks they know about
in the same way that the twin towers perhaps represent the
same thing for the earlier part of the 21st century.
And if, if you're not prepared to think, you know, like we
always say, think critically or just think at all about it, then
you're just, you're setting yourself up for a fall.
And also it's, it seems totally illogical to pick holes in one
thing and then imagine that everything else just stands up.
And, and also, I think particularly with the Titanic,
it is, you know, we forget how actually 100 plus years is such
a short frame of time. I mean, you know, there, there
would have been a period until quite recently where people who
would have even remembered the sinking of the Titanic were
still alive. So it, it's, you know, it's very
recent history. All those names, you, you, they,
they crop up all over the place now.
It's absolutely, it's directly relevant as indeed are, are so
many of the historical things that really are critical to our
understanding of, of what's happening now.
So I think we, we really, you know, to, to disregard history
to me sounds utterly insane. And I mean, and I mean both
versions of it, the, the, the official sort of paradigm
version of history is as important and as relevant as the
exposing of what actually may have happened.
Because it, because in being told the official version,
you're, you're creating your own understanding of what it is that
you're supposed to believe you're supposed to take away and
the way in which you're supposed to conduct yourself as a result.
And that's really important. Mike, you made a very good point
a few days ago on my show. And because we're talking about
ideas that sometimes seem over there, far away, distant, but
actually some of these are very close to home, like diet and
health. Right.
So how to put this? I am also now following a
relatively low, I'm not going to say no carbs, but I'm certainly
low carbs. And, and what fascinated me over
the years has been that I've have naturally sort of drifted
towards that kind of thing. I, I, I eat quite a bit of meat.
I, I will admit I don't eat very much fruit, if any fruit any, I
mean, I don't need any fruit anymore, but I just, that just
felt natural to me, that the kind of food that I eat just
felt natural to me. It was just something that,
that, that happened. And actually, as it turns out,
that was the that that that's the thing that works for me
best. Where I fell down over the last
few years was that I was eating way too much sugar and I was
basically self medicating. I was trying to use sugar as a,
as a mechanism for, you know, if I was, if I was needing to get
something done and I just needed an energy boost, I was just
consuming quantities of sugar that I just shouldn't have been.
And, and, and I, I definitely suffered for that for quite a,
you know, 3 or 4 years, I was well overweight.
And I think about a year ago I just went cold Turkey on it and
said no more, I can't do this. I'm killing this.
I was killing myself. I knew that.
And, and so, so I've cut sugar out completely in the sense of
refined sugar or any kind of, so I'm still eating a little bit of
carbs, but, but that's the only kind of sugar intake I would be
having. But I, I didn't feel like I
needed to be told that that was the right thing for me because
that was just what I naturally liked eating.
And, and it turns out that seems to be the best, the best stuff
for me. I'm certainly a lot better that
way now that I, that I was. But this is something, you know,
I look around, I mentioned this the other night, but I look
around on the streets of, of Plymouth and other cities in the
UK as a travel and whatnot. And, and, and I just think to
myself, why, why are people so willing to allow themselves to
get into the state that they're in?
I'm not, I'm not in any way criticising because that would
be hypocritical because I I allowed myself.
But at some point we've all got to realise this is not the best
thing for our futures and maybe we want to be reconsidering
that. But I mean, how do you how do
you expect an army to win a battle if the soldiers on the
frontline are all fat and sickly?
Yeah, well, I mean, Charles is better qualified than I to talk
about this, but my feeling is that wars aren't going to be
fought by human beings on battlefields in the not too
distant future, right? So.
So maybe it's maybe it's not so important anymore.
Yeah. I, I, I wonder, I, I, I would, I
would question that any. I mean, I appreciate that we
think we sort of are led to believe by all the various
announcements that the rate of change in the last couple of
decades in particular has been so quick that the nature of
warfare is, has to change fundamentally And, and basically
has, and yet, you know, the last item on yesterday's news was
absurd. But I, I, I referenced a video
that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory had put
out about underwater glue. You know, they, they said that
underwater glue would save lives.
I mean, so the, the whole, this idea of kind of innovation can
go in any direction. And I, I remember being asked,
you know, my first sort of interactions with the army over
30 years ago, being asked whether I believed that tanks
would become obsolete. And this was with a view to new
sort of range of armoured vehicles that the, the British
Army is going to introduce. And, and here we are 30 years
later. And you OK, some armoured
vehicles are now outdated, but ultimately they, they're still
there, they're still doing stuff that, that there are still
blokes running around on battlefield.
I think it is very hard to see how the this sort of man to man
kinetic pot would be taken out. Do you not think, Charles, that
we're seeing so much use of remotely controlled?
I mean, I'm not even talking about let's not go too far into
the future in terms of AI controlled swarms, but but
certainly remotely controlled drones.
This seems to be becoming increasingly the major kinetic
weapon of choice. But I will sorry, go on.
No, only, I mean, just to say a little bit like what we're
talking about earlier, to, to be able to assign a particular
result or effect to drones I think is very difficult.
I, I, I'm not aware of there being a, a mechanism by which we
can judge their effect. I think it's very easy to, to
talk it up. And I'm not suggesting that
they're, they're insignificant, but actually compared with, you
know, if one, they are sort, I mean, I, I regard them as being
a mechanism of indirect fire, but, but there are many other
ways in which you can fire indirectly at an enemy or, or at
people and still produce absolutely devastating effects.
So I, I, yes, I, I, I agree with you, but but I'm, I'm just not
sure that we really know enough about the effect and indeed the,
the symmetry of the of that effect in terms of cost,
manpower and and supply. I don't know, I just.
Don't know I was being metaphorical when I said
soldiers on the front line because I'm referring to the
information war. So, for example, you have people
sitting on the couch eating junk food while scrolling through
Telegram and forwarding things that they're seeing going, oh,
something must be done. Yeah, absolutely.
That that that is a, that is a mass thing.
I mean, actually, sorry, just to go back to the literal
consumption thing. It it does, it is, it is
staggering. I think just just to be an armed
forces bore for a little minute longer.
It is perfectly astonishing given what we do know.
We've just been talking about Tim Noakes, that kind of thing.
In actual fact, what are soldiers in particular sustained
by if they're if they're on operation, certainly when
they're on exercise, they're sustained by highly processed
ration, ration pack food which has a very, very high sugar
content as well as all sorts of very undesirable things that
should really not be in the diet.
And that and that's how they're expected to perform.
And again, I don't know statistics, but I can think of a
number of people that I know who have become diabetic whilst on,
you know, whilst active in the armed forces.
They, they pay absolutely no heed really to health properly
as it should be. You know that obviously there's
sort of medical support, but but it again, it's, it's allopathic
basic medicine that they're, you know, the number of people who
are not fit to fight is a scandal that should that should
never be the case. People should be properly looked
after and they're not. And that just, that is a bit of
a joke to think that you're, you're producing, you know,
your, your drains, your underwater glue, all this stuff,
cutting edge technology. You can't even look after your
own blokes. They, they, that bit, they still
have not got. And I remember, you know, years
ago talking to a friend who was then in Special Forces.
And I, I just thought it was such a joke that hay fever, for
example. Hay fever.
Absolutely was a massive problem because people couldn't deal
with it. They were then going down the
route of being injected with stuff or taking this, that and
the other. And actually, it's so simple,
you know, OK, there'll be other methods, but just simply
flooding your system with water basically gets rid of hay fever
because it dilutes the histamine that you're creating in response
to the pollen. And and they don't know that.
And I, I just these sorts of things are absolutely incredible
to think that this idea that we've leapt into the 21st
century and we know everything. It's this absurd sort of
arrogance and stupidity at the same time.
So sorry. Yeah.
That's, that's just on that, on the consumption thing because it
is so important and it it does. Come back to it doesn't matter
whether you're in the army or not, if you're not in effect fit
to fight, then you are in that same position.
You are sitting on the sofa scrolling through stuff, saying
something must be done, but it's not going to be you that does
it. Yeah, but I mean, you can bring
it right back and say, well, somebody breaks into your home.
Are you actually mentally and physically fit enough to fight
back if somebody attacks your family?
Or you just a fat slob eating McDonald's?
Well, This is why when we were speaking the other day, Jeremy,
that I said this, this fight begins with us as individuals.
And you know, I admit to a certain degree of frustration
when when people say, well, what can we do?
You start with yourself. And if you're not fit and you're
not healthy and you're not, then you're not going to have the
energy to, to actually be involved in the fight in any
practical sense. So it starts with ourselves.
And, and you know, if we're talking about resisting, we've
got to look at the whole picture of, of what we're being
bombarded with. And the, the, we start with the
fundamentals. And the first fundamental is
quality of food, quality of environment and so on.
Let's start with those two and start with the quality of food
and and consider what we're being, what's being shoved at us
by supermarkets and so on and all this so called hyper
processed food. In fact, the same stuff that
Charles just been talking about with respect to soldiers.
But we're consuming this every day.
I'm not, I'm not, but, but most people are.
And what you know, you know, they, they say, you know, if, if
we do not have the energy and the health there first, because
once you get unhealthy, you just don't feel like doing very much.
You just, and in fact, it becomes, it becomes a very
quickly becomes a downward cycle and, and you just don't want to
get off that sofa. And you know, at the end of the
day, the only way this we're going to we're going to win any
kind of fight that there might be here is if we get off the
sofa and actually start making physical relationships with
people again, because the virtual isn't going to cut it.
And and so you fight, you try to find the best quality food that
you can find that. So in other words, OK, you could
take the attitude. Well, what's the point?
Because they're spraying the fields and so on.
So I'll just eat this hyper processed food.
OK, you go ahead. That's your choice.
But but this is not this is not right headed thinking.
And you know, I mean, Charles can speak better than I can on
this because, you know, you, Charles, you are involved in
farming. So you know, there must be ways
for people to, with a bit of effort, find good quality food
still. Yeah, beyond doubt.
Yeah. I mean, I think, I think it's to
a certain extent it's harder in in an urban area in so far as
you're probably restricted on what you might be able to buy
there. And I think also there is a
tendency for sort of sort of so called farm shops in places that
aren't really that close to farms to perhaps I mean, this is
a huge sweeping generalisation, but perhaps to stock stuff that
is sort of dressed up as though it's perhaps organic or chemical
free or whatever. And in actual fact it isn't.
So I think that that's an issue. But then again, that's that's no
different from food that's labelled as being low fat, as
though there's some inherent suggestion that it's good for
you. And actually that means this
really couldn't be more bad for you.
So I think I think that's a that's a a problem.
But then again, you know, get depending on where one is
thinking. That's your Jim Gale podcast of
recent times. You know, everyone is able to
grow food of some sort now. You know, just because you at
the outset, you think, right, well, I'm not going to be able
to produce everything that I need to eat that that is not a
reason not to have a go. And and it's a set.
I was making the same point about rainwater last week.
You know, we're we're now from having gone to sort of flood
warnings and watch out, your electric car is going to
explode. We're, we're now doing, in fact,
you know, it's too dry and we have no water.
So, you know, look out. But the bit in between is, well,
if you, if you were able to harvest some rainwater, yes, you
might not have all the water that you need, but you'd have
most of it. And then, and then the
government would, or the water company or whatever would not
have such a hold over you in the same way that people do have a
hold over you if you're not healthy in mind and body.
But, but no, I mean in the, in the rural environment, I think
there are now plenty of places people who are supplying
chemical free food, pharmaceutical feed because I, I
think there's the other thing is particularly where meat is
concerned. And, you know, you, as you know,
Angus Macintosh has spoken a lot about this both to you and and
to me. But you know, the, the yeah.
And then and the, the, the amount of pharmaceuticals that
go into the food industry is absolutely phenomenal.
And then people sit here and and apparently wonder why the
domesticated bird population, poultry is susceptible to
disease. And it doesn't matter whether or
not you believe that the disease sort of went from a wild bird to
an elephant seal to a human to a chicken, or whether you just
think those chickens are kept perhaps not in the right
condition, which is why they get ill.
But the, the, the, the coincidence is, is there for all
to see. And it's the same with humans,
you know, people who live like poultry in that they are fed
highly processed food laced with all sorts of hormones and
pharmaceuticals. Lo and behold, they get ill.
It's it's exactly the same. And let's not talk about the
pharmaceuticals that are in the water supply, if you're talking
about harvesting water, I mean, right.
So, so look, it all begins with us as individuals.
We may, we have to make a decision about how we're going
to live our lives. And, and one of the key words
here, in my opinion, is inconvenience, because a lot of
the, a lot of the bad behaviours that we've developed over the
years have come about as a result of convenience.
So it's convenient to get the water out of the top.
It's convenient to buy the food from the supermarket.
And of course, getting the water out of the tap you've got no
control over. I mean, of course water that
falls out of the sky isn't always perfect either, but it's
better. And so that should be our
choice. But but the, the, the, the
giving up of our self determination, our, our ability
to decide for ourselves what we do for the sake of convenience
seems like a very bad choice to me.
And so you know, I would. But it's also, but it's also
about laziness. I mean, I'm adding to to the
all, I mean, convenience and laziness go together.
For example, Charles, you mentioned Angus.
Now I'm still going to get him on my show because he's got such
a beautiful insight into into food and soil and, and and
getting back to healthy living. If you see the way his chickens
live, you'll understand why he's so passionate.
His chickens are genuinely free range.
They can fly away but they choose not to.
And, and I asked him, does this affect the price of your, of
your eggs, for example, He says, yes, it's slightly more premium,
but then he says, but what is the price of your health?
Because because eventually if you keep eating low quality
eggs, it's going to potentially affect you and you're going to
end up having to medicate. So, so you have to kind of
figure out where that, where that balance is in terms of what
you're willing to pay for a better quality result.
And, and the laziness aspect is people are not willing to go and
look. So for example, we we get
delivered a literal basket of fresh vegetables from a farm
that's maybe 20 kilometres away. Yeah, absolutely.
And but I think in in the Uki mean obviously our population
densities between the UK and South Africa are quite
different, certainly in particular areas and and
obviously the way in which food is, is therefore produced.
But the principle is the same. And, and in fact, I would defy
anyone in the UK to find somebody producing the type of
food that we are talking about that isn't completely having
their supply outstripped by demand that they, they can't
produce enough. So, and, and one has to expect
that, you know, let's call it market forces will will dictate.
And so it's not that the supermarket industry or the food
cartels will collapse, but certainly they will have to cede
ground because I mean, in the literal sense, in that it, it's
not more and more people who hold land, particularly people
like Angus who have not OK his family backgrounds in farming.
But he he'd not grown up professionally doing it.
So he comes in with a new perspective and he sees what
needs to be done and sees how it can work.
And he's not hamstrung by the prejudice, for want of a better
word, that somebody might be particularly in the UK where
they've grown up with it. And this is, this is going to
sound overly critical, but it but it happens in every
industry. You know, if you've grown up
with it, you're far less likely to question it and challenge it.
And therefore you go straight into it and you're on the hook
with regard to subsidy here certainly and this, that and the
other. But actually those that have
seen that not only is there a, a business case and an
environmental case and a, let's say sort of practical farming
case for doing it, for working with nature.
Once you've seen that, you don't you, you don't go back because
you realise that it, it made the the whole system absolutely does
work. And again, for the, for the UK
audience, the, you know, Angus McIntosh obviously been doing
this a while in South Africa, but Julian Rose, who again, I've
recorded a couple of interviews with and he's, he's been, you
know, he's a long term supporter and correspondent with UK
column. He's done this for decades.
And, and he converted an 800 acre estate in Oxfordshire bit
by bit into, OK, what was then called organic.
That's more of a certification term, but but he saw that being
subverted in the same way that everything does in that it
started for exactly the right reasons, improving soil health
and providing something of sufficient nutrient density to
the person who's going to eat it, for which you pay a premium.
But then again, if the cost of that is to be weighed against
that, get that of your life really kind of reasonable to
spend a bit of money on it and indeed realise that it goes
further. But but he he made it work.
So he would, he would let out small bits of land to tenants on
the agreement that they would not introduce chemicals into the
soil. And then he was able to push on
and make a business of it. So, so he wouldn't have been
able to do that. And it wouldn't stand today if
there wasn't demand, if people didn't understand it.
The more and more people that do not just see that it is being
done and it can be done, but that they can have a meaningful
part in it, then the the better. And it absolutely is out there.
And also the idea that like going back to Julian's model to
approach land owners to rent out a field, a couple of fields and
start doing your own thing, you know, raising livestock.
It it really is not that it's not that difficult and, and you
should it work, but but it should be something that you're
able to derive pleasure from. And when you consider that
you're putting time in and that's time that you are
actually being paid back in, you know, with a product that in
many cases money can't really even buy.
So it's it's totally worth it there.
We, we are, we, we live in a world sort of like it or not.
And, and almost all parts of it there are, there are luckily
still some isolated and remote parts of the world where they
don't have to make that compromise.
But for the rest of us, we do live in a world where we are,
where we compromise with absolutely everything.
And and so to, to take the view that you are, if you, you know,
primarily you're, as Jason Kristof would say, progress, not
perfection, but but the idea that you're by and large eating
as much of the right stuff as you can and you should, and you
feel good for it. And I think, you know, just
think of all these sort of the, the old adage, you know, talking
about food that that either agrees with you or doesn't agree
with you. It's, it's such a sort of
grandparently thing to say. And yet it's absolutely true.
You can, I find if you, if you do, if you stop and think about
it, you can tell absolutely whether something does or does
not agree with you. And it should be the same thing
with, with drink. I mean, if you're, if you drink
to a point where either during the drinking session you are
realising that it's not agreeing with you, well then you've
overcooked it or you stop. And it's the same thing with the
with the following day. And if there's not, if you're
not getting that sense that your ability to function at A, at a
high level is being compromised, then then you know, and you are
deriving pleasure from it and you don't believe it's going to
sort of curtail your life or affect your friendships or your
professional or whatever, then yeah, it's OK.
You know, it exists and therefore that is that.
But I, but I think you just one does need to have a discipline
and you, you have to draw the line somewhere because
otherwise, you know, what about Coco pops?
You know, 2 packets of Coco Pops and, and then the next thing you
know, you're back on the sofa and you're not, you know, you're
not able to function at that level.
So, yeah, it's, you know, there is a, there is a, it's, it is
interesting. I mean, I find it really, it's
sort of intellectually fascinating, the idea, the sort
of the hair shirt existence and, and, and how, how bad is that?
I mean, you know, before we started recording, you and I
were talking about life in the Bush in Africa and how, you
know, how, how likes there's an elephant.
I don't know if anyone can see, but there's an elephant behind
me and and how entirely magical that is.
And and you know, I've been lucky enough to to travel to
parts of the world where people live in complete isolation in
still in caves with with nothing that comes in effect from the
outside world. They they exist on what they
have and that's that. And but if you, if you to say
right, we'll say, you know, what are you missing?
What are you unhappy about? The answer is nothing.
They've got everything they need.
And but but we have been exposed to all this stuff and it's like
sort of the tree of knowledge thing.
We know about all this this kind of stuff out there, but but
failed to ask the question of whether we actually need it and
whether it is actually good for us.
Yeah, but there. But there's an interesting
philosophical Segway there. It's which kind of feeds into
the purity test thing, which in a weird way comes back to what
we're talking about earlier, because the purity test I think
can also be very dangerous. For example, Oh, well, if you
have a low carb diet, but you drink beer.
Oh, therefore, I can't trust anything you say, right?
Or if you are Jordan Peterson, right?
And you happen to have an interesting history that was, in
my view, valid in, in many aspects.
And then when COVID, the COVID years came, he went off the
rails. But that doesn't detract from
what he said back then. But now what happens is you have
this purity test mentality that I've noticed, particularly with
people on, on shall we say, our side who just disregard.
It's getting worse. It's getting much, much worse in
fact. And you know, earlier on at the
beginning of this conversation, I was saying, you know, we've
got to be challenging our own viewpoints on a regular basis
and so on. And I guarantee that somebody
when they heard that will have said, but Mike, you're a limited
hangout because you don't cover this topic or that topic or the
right. And that doesn't mean that I
don't consider these topics, right?
Because we, of course we consider these topics.
But if I, I'm clearly not going to talk about something that I
am not confident that I'm qualified to talk about #1 So
don't expect me to talk about, you know, your pet topic
because, because that's something you know about.
And I'm, and the other thing is the expectation that any
commentator or anybody that's covering a news topic or so on
is there to, to reflect, to reflect, sorry, to reflect
people's own views back at them. Again, this is, this is, this
isn't what the job is. This isn't what we should be
doing. If people already have come to a
conclusion about something, well, that's fine.
They don't need validation from somebody else.
Or do they need validation from somebody else because actually
they're not that confident in their own position.
And if they're not, if we're not confident in our own position
that we need to be really challenging that position, But
we shouldn't be running out looking for people to validate
our positions and then criticising those people if they
don't validate our position. And, and the other thing, the
other thing is, you know, we, we have to be willing to accept
that other people are going to have different views to
ourselves. And if, if every time somebody
expresses a view which is different to our own, we turn
around and say, well, you're a government shell.
Therefore, then we can't, we can't ever actually get to the
truth because we're, we're not willing to, to, to have a
discussion. So that, you know, I'll tell you
what else is dangerous. And it's actually really if
people are talking about limited Hangouts, let's talk about why
the UK column might be a limited hangout.
And one of the reasons is because if we bring someone on
to have and you're discovering this with some of the guests
that you that you have on from some of the feedback, if we have
someone on that is taking a different position to the
position that the UK column is perceived to have, then that
results in US promoting the position that that person said
somehow, right? If if the BBC or any or Sky News
or any other media outlet, a mainstream media outlet has
somebody on that takes a different position to the
platform that they're on, the channel that they're on.
The BBC isn't accused of necessarily of promoting that
persons position. Because the BBC is allowed to
bring somebody on to find out what they think to, to challenge
what they think. We're not allowed to do that for
some reason, because every time we bring somebody on that that
is perceived as being on the wrong side of the argument, that
that becomes therefore we are promoting the wrong side of the
argument. And this is extremely dangerous
in my opinion. We should be able to to and
you're, you know, you're starting to push the boundaries
of the types of guests that we have had on in the past.
And, and that has certainly challenged in one or two cases,
some of the people that are that have watched without doubt, for
example. And I think this is great.
This is absolutely what we should be doing.
But but people have got to drop this idea that if, if, if a
platform has Person X on that, that platform therefore is
promoting Person X's opinion or agrees with person X's opinion.
We might choose to, to present an interview with person X
because we feel you need to know what Person X's view is for you
to help you come to your own conclusions about what the truth
is about a particular point. That doesn't mean that we agree
with whatever, with everything that somebody is saying.
And you know, I just feel that that that is, that is a problem
of that where organisations like us end up being limited by as a
result of criticism that that really shouldn't be a thing.
I don't know, Charles, Have you got a thought about that?
Well, I do agree. I think, I think the bit that's
always rather nebulous is, is trying to ascribe a reason and
it to me, it's going to be individual to a large extent.
But it does seem that if one considers say sort of late 2021
to be the to have been the the sort of high point of unity,
let's say against the mounting tyranny of all the pseudo health
lockdown nonsense that was then driven towards absolute division
of society by virtue of whether or not you'd had a novel
untrialed pharmaceutical product.
So, so basically, if you were at that point in one camp where you
felt like you were part of a, a unified body in that you had
you, you shared a common enemy, let's say it doesn't matter
whether that enemy was actually embodied by a person or an
organisation, but it but it but, but there was a sense that you
belonged to something. And I think that now that that
carpet has been whipped away and the the common enemy is not
there. It's it's now splintered.
And there are a multitude of things that's that are sort of
that are out there, like health, like, you know, climate, like
gender, like all these ridiculous narratives that
people do have different views on.
And, and and that's a that's a contrast.
It was, there wasn't really much nuance to the taking the view
that lockdown as an affront to liberty is simply not
conscionable in the same way that taking a pharmaceutical
product that you didn't need and didn't want just it it, it was
so it was so binary, whereas now there is nuance.
And so to go back to Kennedy, I think people had allowed
themselves to believe that that that that sense of unity meant
that we all agreed on everything and we never did.
We never did. But it was because those topics
assume such enormous primacy in the public consciousness and the
individual consciousness that people have struggled to adapt.
And for a lot of people who in effect jump the fence in 2020,
coming from, you know, what might have been they, they would
regard as as being a sort of different place psychologically
into, into a space. Now that they're not going to,
you know, to the hopefully to a great extent, they're not,
they're not going to sort of drift back into that other
place, although of course some have, but but they've, they,
they've found that actually, the reality is that we are, I I say
we, but I mean, those, those people that thought those things
and felt those things in 2020-2021 are in fact just as
splintered as the group of people that they may have come
from prior to that. And I think that's a bit of a
disappointing revelation because I think a lot of people felt
that they really were pushing on and, and, you know, it was all a
fight and this, that and the other.
Whereas now, you know, we've talked a bit about sort of the
evolution of warfare. Well, I mean, in a sense this is
similar. And if you can discombobulate
your enemy by by presenting multitude of, of targets that
are either, you know, very difficult to locate and strike
and whatever, then then you're doing very well.
And I think that that is sort of what's happening, which is why
we get the whole, we get this thing of, well, you didn't say
the one thing or you, you know, how can you not say this, you
know, all all these types of things.
And I think that's why it's happening.
And also I think that it that it relates very closely to the the
sense that people are still wanting Nigel Farage or Donald
Trump or even Kennedy or or somebody to stand, stand up and
punch the big guy for them, whoever the big guy actually is.
But nobody's going to save you. Indeed.
Now we've got to save ourselves. But, but I mean, just to to
finish that point, Charles, I mean, I'm not sure we agree on
everything. I hope we don't.
I mean, that would be so dull it it really would.
And also if we if we agreed on everything, we would learn
nothing from one another. You know, I think, you know,
Mike and I have now work together.
I mean, in the grand scheme things from Auk column history
point of view for a very short time, you know, a couple of
years. And I mean, personally, I I have
certainly, you know, I'm not, I'm not very single Mike out or
indeed below his horn just because he's on this thing.
Yeah, but but, but I mean, I've learnt a huge amount from him.
But but and, and possibly the other way, certainly a few
things he probably didn't think he was going to learn.
But, but I, I think that's, that is absolutely fantastic.
And to, you know, debate and conjecture should be used to
progress our thoughts and the way in which we develop.
And I mean that sincerely. I'm not talking about some mumbo
jumbo rubbish where we where we sort of have these abstract
concepts that don't really mean anything.
I I actually probably probably mean rigorous debate that makes
you think about stuff. And this is exactly germ what
your what your podcast is, is doing.
It is making people think and even if, even if, if it does
mean that ultimately you stick with the thought that you
originally had on an idea, fine, but you will have strengthened
that position in some way because it would have made you
think about something you hadn't necessarily considered before.
And that is very important. And we talk about having a
strong foundation from which to fight and this, and I bang on
about it all the time, but it, but it is as much mental as it
is physical or, or you know, and spiritual and, and all the rest
of it. It's all aspects and and this,
this is, this is completely a part of it.
So disagreement in in whatever way is, is is healthy.
And this, no, just just before we finish this point, this is
really important because because I hear people saying on a
regular basis, well, I try to engage with people out on the
streets and they won't buy, they won't buy into my argument.
And, and part of the reason for that is because we're not having
these conversations. We've decided that we know what
the truth is and we don't need to consider XY and Z or AB and
C, right. But the point is when we're,
when we're then confronted with XY or Z or AB and C in a, in a
discussion, we don't have an answer for it.
The only way that we can actually, the only way that we
can actually get to a point of being able to have a
conversation which might sow some seeds to help other people
move in the right direction is if we are able to respond to the
the counter arguments that are put to us.
And of course, if we never have those counter arguments put to
us, then we can't consider the implications of them and we
can't think them through and we can't work out whether whether
my response to that argument strengthens my argument or
weakens my argument. Well, so in other words, we
should not be saying to each other.
Basically, you can't say that. Or if you say that I'm, I'm not
going to listen to anything that you say anymore because I don't
agree with you. I mean this this is a common a
common response. What I I find sort of amusing
and ironic at the same times that in these stories of
exasperation of, you know, and he or she just could, you know,
just wouldn't just absolutely refuse to listen to my point of
view. What you're actually saying is I
completely refuse to listen to their point of view.
Yes, because the, the situation is the same.
It's not like you're just projecting onto a blank canvas.
You're trying to deal with somebody who has an idea about
the particular thing it is you want to talk about.
It's just not your idea. And so the, the situation is the
same. It just happens be that you are
trying to impose your will on theirs if that's the way in
which you're going to go about it.
And I think Fergus O'Connor Greenwood articulates it well in
calling it the backfire effect. And it, it, it's dangerous
because not only is it a loss in so far as that particular
instance is concerned, if you are trying to supposedly
convince somebody or sort of tell them the truth about
something, you, you fail on the one hand in that they go away
thinking, right, well, I didn't go along with that or I'm less
favourably displaced towards that person.
But actually what you're probably doing is up armouring
their defence mechanism against a similar approach in in future.
So it doesn't matter what the topic is, they will be even more
determined that their point of view is actually right, which is
it's totally daft and, and, and a total fail.
And I, and I think also the, you know, it, it, it fair's relation
to, I think a very, a very well, let's say a more neutral
approach. First of all, via asking
questions and trying to understand somebody's position,
you know, expressing a little bit of humility works for a
start in most cases. Because if you if you question
somebody who actually understand why it is, they believe
something, I mean, we all are guilty of making assumptions as
to why somebody believes something.
But, but in most cases, somebody will have come to such and such
a point of view because at some stage or other they will have
been told something that we perceive to be untrue.
And it wasn't just them that was lied to, it was all of us.
So we're all in the same boat. You know, we go back to the
beginning with the Titanic. It wasn't just one lot of people
that were told A-fib about the Titanic, if indeed it was a fib,
it was, it's all of us. And so, so it's not, you know,
I'm not banging heads with you. It should be that we're both
banging heads with somebody there who, who has lied to, to
all of us. And that does matter.
So in actual fact, we should be looking for the common ground
and to work with the bits that that we can make those
connections with, you know, that which is the fact that we are
manipulated and abused. The more time people spend
trying to put the boot on the other foot, the better.
And, and the, the thing that that always comes to mind in
this regard was, OK, we're, we're doing it less and less
now. But in the first decade of this
century that the tempo of operations for the British Army
in particular was very, very high.
And we were causing more than a nuisance in, in certainly Iraq
and Afghanistan. And there was huge public
support for it because of all the charitable stuff that was
going on. And, and this that and the other
and the, the line that was changed from it being a sort of
military campaign to a political 1, you know, keeping our streets
safer and, and a whole load of stuff that was fundamentally
untrue. But the, the bit that I always
found odd was that, no, I, I've never come across anybody who
imagined the situation in reverse in that the Taliban or
the Northern Alliance or, you know, let's say any, any force
body, whatever in Afghanistan to take an exception to the way in
which we were doing stuff in this country.
And they deployed blokes to Dover.
And there was a, you know, a company or a battalion or
whatever, patrolling the streets of Salisbury or, or Amersham or
whatever. How would we feel about that?
Would, would we think, Oh my goodness, this is what we've
been waiting for. Thanks so much for turning up.
Or would we think I I'm not sure we really want you here and
people never ever consider that. Why not?
They should because they should, because you know, they're
considering it in a certain sense with the immigration
issue. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
So I think I think people need to be consistent.
They they, they really do. And, and again, you know,
history migration, I mean, crikey, I know this is probably
the wrong time to be throwing a hand grenade, but this, this
island nation is, is 1 in which, you know, migration has affected
in, in one way or other, whether through means of violence or
not, has, has affected this place for as long as we think we
have a history of it. And, and, but people are not
consistent on that. No one wants to acknowledge the
fact that if you were to, you know, if it is about sort of
blood or whatever, you either trace yourself back to being a,
you know, what are you an Angle or a Saxon or a Celt or Norseman
or, or, or what. Because in saying that you are
British or English, you do in a historical sense mean something
that is quite distinct from something else.
So again, consistency and, and I think 1 can only really achieve
that from, from examining as much as, as you can possibly try
to understand about everything. But as I say, that's perhaps,
perhaps a bigger thing. Maybe we can get into that next
week. Yeah, gentlemen, I'm looking at
the time. So let's let's come in for the
final lap. This is the first of hopefully a
weekly round table to chat, an attempt to humanise you.
You can call them a bit, you know, show that we are real
people. It's not just text on a screen.
What do you I mean is give me some final thoughts.
Well, I think I think it's been really great start.
I've really enjoyed this and I hope it it sort of relates to
people that are listening because I think it it can it can
evolve to incorporate laws. I think I think what I you know,
as we progress, I think to relate this to particular
specific things that are that are going on in the world and
that we have been reporting on, I think would be would be really
good. But you know, it's kind of
setting down the a foundation of sorts.
Today has been fantastic. But I I did actually jot down
some notes beforehand of of sort of news talking points that I
would perhaps like to get into next time.
But yeah, because it's just it's crazy.
I think to be to go back to the the idea of discussing this
stuff with other people, to be able to introduce into
discussion things that people may not know about.
And you can simply pique their curiosity by mentioning them as
opposed to grabbing them by the scruff of the neck and trying to
ram them down their throats. I think are very useful.
And there are, you know, the, the, let's say that Mike's Ofcom
piece in which it became clear that three to five year olds, up
to 1/5 of that population have a presence on social media and
engage with the Internet on a daily basis.
That to me is quite extraordinary and needs further
discussion. So I mean, I, I hope that we
can, we can sort of work out a way of, of talking about some of
those things as well. We can do that, Mike.
Yeah, I mean, these kinds of formats are great.
And because we, you know, I suppose one of the other
criticisms that we get is we don't cover topic XY or Z.
We don't have time to cover all the topics in the news
programme. And if, if we can, you know,
expand on this format somewhat, we can we can go into those
those topics maybe to cover stuff that we actually haven't
had on the news as well in a, in a more relaxed way as well.
So, so you know, I'm looking forward to this.
We can't talk about that because we're a limited hangout.
All right, Mike Robertson, Charles Mallett, thank you for
joining me in the weekly trenches.
Thank you.