Was having a chat this week with somebody I like to quip saying
that I'm neither left wing nor right wing, I'm the middle
finger. And the gentleman responded by
saying, but labels do matter, you know, you can't erase
language. And I found that quite
interesting because to a degree he's got a point.
Like a gardener is somebody who's a gardener and you, it's
his descriptor or doctor. But if you're talking about
something abstract, like an ideological worldview, then
labels become less important. No, I think labels become really
problematic. I think they're very important
because they're still problematic.
You know, we like to compartmentalise people, we like
to compartmentalise things. And but the problem is if, if
you decide for yourself that you're left wing or right wing,
then you've automatically got to believe certain things.
I mean, I, I'm quite proud of the fact that we've been equally
accused of being right wing and left wing and so on, because,
because this isn't, this shouldn't be how the world
works. You know, that, that, OK, I'm
right wing, therefore I've got to support Israel or I'm right
wing, therefore I've got to be anti this or that.
That's, that's not how it works. We should be looking at each
issue as as it is and and having a conversation about each issue
and set this ideological nonsense aside.
Well, I think it's up to us really as to whether they do
create division. I mean, I think that's, yeah,
it's a, it's a related issue. But you know, OK, let's take
the, the obvious right, right or left wing.
Why aren't we grown up enough to just consider that somebody who
describes themselves as either right wing, if you're left wing
or left wing and you're right wing, that they just have a
different point of view ultimately?
We've talked about this a little bit before You're.
You. You would label yourself as such
because you believe that you're pursuing ultimately probably the
same ends, but just by different means.
And I think that I think division is or the sowing of
division. The way that division manifests
is, is slightly a separate issue, but but of course, of
course, absolutely related. I, I think also the, you know,
one of the massive problems with labelling, whether it's of
people or of things or of concepts or, or whatever is it,
it means different things to different people.
And that is in some ways deliberate.
But, but I think I, yeah, again, I, I think that that adds, sort
of adds to the confusion. The term left and right wing, I
mean, I think most people should know by now that they come from
the French Revolution, which was a few centuries ago.
They had a reason to exist then because it was literal division
of the parliamentary structure. You know, those who were trying
to revolutionise the system set to the left of the parliamentary
speaker and those who wanted to preserve the monarchy set to the
right. The terms now don't mean
anything. And I have asked numerous people
over the years, will you call me far right?
This is not even better. Please define that.
What do you mean by that? And every single person you ask
has a different definition. And I would say that there are
all the definitions are wrong anyway, because, because if we
look at the so called political spectrum and we look at the the
absolute extremes of that and we look at, you know, extreme
socialism slash communism on one side and extreme right wing
slash national socialism on the other side.
What what is the difference between them?
So, so the better paradigm perhaps might be a circle that
that once you move too far to the right, you basically end up
in the same place as moving too far to the left.
But you know, at the end of the day, as I say these, these as,
as you've said, these labels are there to divide.
And you know who's who? I think the question that we've
all got to ask, no matter what part of the political spectrum
we might think we exist in, the question we've got to ask is who
is it that wants that division? That seems to me to be the, the,
the best starting place. And perhaps then you discover
that that that that person that you're hollering at who who you
say is on the opposite side of the political spectrum to
yourself actually is wanting to consider exactly the same issues
that you're wanting to consider. And in fact, the enemy isn't on
that political spectrum at all. Yes, well, that was the point I
was making. I I said, so I was at a
gathering of cartoonists a few days ago, some of South Africa's
top cartoonists. And the irony is that they all
were impressed that I pitched up because they said, well, that
was very brave because, you know, you're you're the only
right wing cartoonist. And I found that so odd because
I said to them, what do you mean though?
Like, what does that actually mean?
We both want a better society. We both want a better world,
right? We just have perhaps different
views on certain things. And they and they they still
stuck in that sort of ideological paradigm.
And I've it's bizarre. Well, I, I don't think it's that
bizarre when you consider the amount of effort that goes into
maintaining that particular status quo.
Because exactly like Mike says, you know, if, if, if people are
busy fighting with each other and, and, and only ever looking
sideways, not up sort of figuratively, then then then
that's, that's ideal. That, that is absolutely ideal.
So, yeah, I mean, inserting of labelling is, I would have said,
you know, when it is done deliberately has it, it is for
that very reason. And, and I totally agree on, you
know, I mean, on the, the sort of continuum thing.
I can, I can remember one of the few things I remember from
school that seem to absolutely make sense, you know, looking at
whether one was told it was extreme left or right,
ultimately it is exactly the same thing.
And certainly for the people within such a system that
describes itself or one or the other, the yeah, the outcomes
are more or less identical. And I think we're we're seeing
in in a lot of so called sort of Western civilised societies,
we're seeing those points being reached, if not for everybody,
certainly sort of in principle that that the push the drive for
those spaces, those points on that continuums absolutely
playing out now I think. I think the the, the major issue
here is that that from bottom to top, we have this political
division of doesn't matter what country you're in either.
You've got 2, basically two major parties or two major
ideologies at work here. But if we, if we look, you're
just taking 2 examples, the, the creation of the Soviet Union and
the creation of Nazi Germany. And, and you find the same, when
you actually do a little bit of digging, you find the same
financial interests supporting both efforts.
And, and so, you know, that's, that's OK, that's an extreme
example, but but this is, this is how it works.
We've got the same financial interest supporting both so
called sides of politics in all our countries.
And, and so we end up with a false choice between in the, in
the UK, between Labour and Tory and, and increasingly it's a
false choice because increasingly it's obvious that
it's a uni party because they pursue the same policies.
And and so you know, the quite the question that that we've got
to, I think if we've got to persuade anybody, if anything,
it is to to look a bit deeper at, at who is actually where,
you know, who is supporting and originating these ideologies in
the first place. The one gentleman was chatting
to me about it doesn't really matter too much, but it was
about hunting. And he said, but I, I completely
oppose it. You know, that's it's
predictable that, that you would, that you would support
hunting. And I said, how is that a
political? How's that a political thing?
OK, I asked him, do you eat meat?
He said yes. And then there was a moment of
silence. And he goes, yes, I understand
that that what you about to say is that it's going to be a
double standard here. But somehow this has been
encapsulated into political ideal, ideology and of course,
division. Of course, that's because it's a
mechanism of control. And so the fact that the fact is
we can't have those conversations because, you know,
let's put ourselves in the shoes of, of that person you were
speaking to. We can't have that conversation
because he's already without thinking about it.
And this is the key point. Without thinking about it, he
has already decided that he is against hunting and he's pro
abortion because he happens to, to exist in that particular
political space. The, the, the main issue is
that, that once you find yourself in that kind of reality
and that kind of thinking, you're immediately switching off
your brain. At that point, you don't need to
think anymore. And this is, this is part of the
attraction of it. Of course you can just, you can
just consume a whole swathe of policy areas and say, yeah, I
support that. And you don't actually have to
consider any of the implications.
You just get on with it. So that's, that's part of the
problem. The problem is that for most
people they don't play in the game that they're not playing
characters to use that right so called right wing term and and
they don't think we've got to start thinking.
Just as well for the people who do get stuck in these
conversations, because otherwise you have to confront the rather
unfortunate reality that if you say that you oppose hunting and
therefore you don't want to see animals being killed, but you
support abortion and therefore you do want to see unborn
foetuses being killed, then that puts you in a slightly tricky
position. But of course, that's not part
of it. You're not supposed to think
that much about it. Because you've outsourced your
critical thinking. Yeah, yeah, totally, totally and
utterly. But, but, but it's you know,
it's it's it's brilliantly done. And also you see how how the the
sort of the drawbridges drop at the appropriate moments when
people it's slightly different, but how when people are primed
for such and such a thing. And, and the example now, I
think we might have talked about this before, but the, the, the
Labour government via what has been referred to as a think tank
that is in effect, the Labour government has said that they've
just cracked it. You know, they've, they've
worked out how to stop this terrible scourge of illegal and,
or the problems with legal migration, which is via digital
ID And, and the way that the ground is prepared for it means
that people of all creeds, as it were politically should for it's
sort of the trap is designed for everybody to fall into.
And that, and that again, is another, is another gift of the,
of the sort of labelling thing, because you can, you can sell,
you can in effect, sell the same product to different people by
just calling it a different thing.
It's, it's wonderful. And it just never.
It never finishes. But I think a great counter
response to the whole are you a left winger or are you a right
winger might be something along the lines of, well, if you can
give me a definition of the term, then I'll tell you if I
am. Yes.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I I think, I think that should
be should completely be the first response with with any of
these things. Exactly.
So to, to define, you know, well, rather than saying, am I
whatever, Yeah, say, well, what, what is it exactly that you
think you mean by that? And, and then you and then you
do, I mean, frankly, that should actually, if, if people are open
minded enough and sort of can remain calm enough that that
does lead into an interesting discussion.
Because I mean, after all, what we're talking about now is not
I, I can't see that anyone would find this offensive, whether
they consider themselves to be of the left or of the right,
just to examine what that does mean and why they think that
such and such a thing conforms to it.
And it reminds me actually of the conversation that you had
with Vanessa Bailey, uh, within what I come.
It was a couple days ago and she was talking about the
differences, you know, the imagined differences between
between say Donald Trump and Joe Biden with regard to to war or
indeed Obama or, you know, any of them.
And, and it is incredible that there are an enormous number of
people who will believe that because somebody has been sort
of labelled as a, a peacemaking anti war president, that
therefore there won't be war and they won't remember that there
was war. And then you, you look at what
has happened and you see that the, the way in which this
person is described and their administration is described is
totally at odds with what actually happened.
But people will continue to believe it because that's the
that's the packaging that the story has had.
You mentioned emotional response.
Why? Why do you think people get so
worked up? Yeah, I mean that that that's a
good one that that is, that is quite some conditioning because
exactly why, why would you, why, why do people feel.
And you know, again, Donald Trump is an interesting one.
People, a lot of people do seem to behave sort of like they know
him. And we we get this on UK column
after the news. Not that we, you know, we, we
don't at all make a, a practise of playing the man and not the
ball. But sometimes it, it is very
much the case that you can look at one individual who has for
whatever reason, influenced the situation in, in a, a way that
deserves scrutiny. And this is not meant to be a
generalisation, but there there are invariably a number of
responses to such a such a sort of talking point, especially in
the news about something that's perceived to say critical of the
person, you know, negative about that particular person.
And it is, it's really interesting because often it
manifests all the way it expresses itself is as though
the the UK column viewer who's who's sort of written in about
it takes it personally, as though, as though somehow
you're, you know, savaging a member of their family or, or
even them by extension. And, and it is, it is
interesting, but I think this is, this is one of the things
that has been done very successfully is, is perhaps
through all these incredible and and non stop forms of media,
people's personalities have sort of been imprinted upon those
that are absorbing the content. And therefore they do seem to
have what what they perceive to be almost a personal
relationship with that person. I think there's a number of
issues here. The first is to follow on from
what Charles is saying. There's because there's so much
chaos and so on at the moment. There's definitely a need in
people for some kind of hero to come and save the day.
There's no question about that. But but on the more general
point, you know, there seems to be some kind of ingrained
fundamental desire requirement in humanity to be a member of a
club. It doesn't matter whether it's
support for a Sports Club. You think of the of how how
motivated people get about football, for example, and how
partisan they are. So it doesn't matter whether
it's sports or whether it's politics or, or whatever it
happens with, whether it's gender or whatever it happens to
be, people want to belong to to a club.
And, and this is, This is why it makes us so manipulable because
we have that strong desire to be amongst people that think the
same way and, and behave the same way and so on.
And, and this, this makes us suckers for this every single
time. They just they, they the people
that are, that are sort of managing societies, recognise
how to manage societies and, and giving strong brand identity to
the various clubs is is a, a mechanism for doing that and we
fall for it every time. It's the Messiah syndrome.
And no question about that. And but also it's because people
perceive events locally, nationally, globally, whatever
it happens to be, they perceive events as being so big that
there's nothing that they as individuals can do about it
because they're just little people.
And and we, we, it's, it's natural for us to all have this
kind of concern and so on. But but somehow because Trump
has given the perhaps false perception that he's somehow
something special because he happens to own some real estate
and and a couple of golf courses and has said some things in the
past that people agree with. And nobody seems to they see,
it's been people seem to switch their brains off at this point
and say, well, OK, he said stuff that I agree with in the past.
I'm going to support this guy because he's going to save the
day. And he said he's going to drain
the swamp and he's going to do this.
And the other thing nobody has ever considered the possibility
that he's, he has lied all this time.
I mean, I'm not saying that he has, but because I don't know
the man and I don't know, you know, what his thought processes
have been over the years. But nobody has considered the
possibility that he has lied his way into the position of
President of the United States. And that actually the, the, the
faith in, in that individual or any individual is, is falsely
placed. And this is, this is dangerous
because we're effectively giving up any agency that we have.
But, but the, the fundamental problem here is that people
refuse to believe that they have any agency of their own.
I. Think I think it was Catherine
Fitz who made a great comment about a a way to look at world
leaders. You know that they're
effectively just middle management.
I think, I think that that's a good observation, but I, and I
think that this is, this is also, this is another aspect of
the problem that people have is that they're always thinking
about who's at the top of the pyramid and that's the target.
Well, no, that's not the target. That should never be the target
because the fact of the matter is the people at the top of the
pyramid, they hold the purse strings and so on, but they,
they have no direct control over what happens on the ground.
And so they need this layer of middle management.
If you can disrupt that layer of middle management, you can
disrupt their plans. And that's, that's that I think
is where people make a mistake. They're always trying to target
the top of the pyramid. They're always worried about
who's at the top of The Who cares?
Doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, you
know, those people are invisible, but the people that
are visible, the people that are in middle management, they are
there. They're the target.
And that's who we should be targeting, in my opinion.
You know, we, we should also, I think they should be much more
lampooning. I mean, the idea of a one world
government is just so utterly preposterous that it's
laughable, frankly. And yes, you know, all right,
there are, there are many, you know, well founded concerns that
come with the idea of it and the and the sort of movement towards
it. But it it does come down to the
choices that you make and what you're able to put in place to
make sure that you can deal with the situation as it as it
presents itself, I think. Ian Davis actually makes a good
point about that one world government narrative.
I I mean, I agree with you. I think it does seem quite
preposterous. The world's a very big place.
But he argues that one world governance is more plausible.
And one world governance, for example, can occur through
systems like the UN, which has, you know, almost 200 countries
basically agreeing to everything that the UN says.
I'll just make the jet. I'll just gently make the point,
Jeremy, that we've had a one World Governance series on the
UK column website since 2010 or so or 2011.
So, so this is this, this has been our point from the
beginning. This, this isn't about one World
government because of course that is simply not possible.
Even if you have some kind of Politburo Bureau in the UN or
wherever, where whatever organisation is supposed to be
at the top of that particular pyramid.
Of course there has to be government at, you know, various
strata and, and in various parts of the world, various regional
assemblies and, and so on it. But it's the governance
framework which is the important thing.
And of course, you know, we would categorise digital ID and
CBDC and these types of policy areas as being part of the, that
governance framework. And, and it's, it's the idea
that, you know, that that is decided at, in one location on
the planet. And that therefore at a local
level, we basically have no say in how that framework is created
and what, what that framework is that that I think is, is a
dangerous thing. And, and you know, it, it this,
this comes back to whole other raft of issues.
For example, the issue of diversity, which is presented as
being some mechanism to protect minorities or make sure that
people that are, you know, immigrants to a country are
treated fairly or that women are treated fairly or whatever it
happens to be. But in fact, I think we may have
mentioned this before, but, but diversity is about breaking down
the differences between, between peoples and between whatever
part of, you know, section of society we're talking about.
And that, that in the process of doing that, you actually break
down the, the strength of, of the human, because strength
comes from having different ideas and debating and, and so
on. And we end up with, with better
answers when we, when we actually approach problems from
different points of view. If we all think the same and
that then we're weakening ourselves as, as, as a, as a
species. And, and that's dangerous.
But you know, it's absolutely governance is the and the
governance frameworks are the things that we should be
focusing on, not the idea of, of, of some kind of single
government which can never exist as, as Charles is saying.
The three of us are quite diverse.
We have different views and we have overlapping views.
That in itself is diversity. We aren't all zombies with
precisely the same outlook on everything.
Yeah, that's because that's because, again, these are points
of division that that that certain people take advantage of
for, you know, at at multiple levels.
I mean, the the people at the top of the pyramid absolutely
take advantage of that for as a mechanism control.
But but equally people at the bottom of the pyramid take
advantage of that just because it gives them some kind of, you
know, public persona or whatever.
And they, they stand and they shout at certain sections of
the, of, of the town or city that they happen to be in and,
and start shouting about enemy combatants and this kind of
thing. So, so you know, this, this is
something that can be exploited in many, many ways.
Now, I'm not going to say that I like everybody.
I reserve the right to to dislike anybody I like, but I'm
not, I'm sorry, dislike anybody I want rather than yes, but,
but, but I'm going to do that. I'm personally would would make
that decision based on what they say and what they do, but
particularly what they do not, not based on anything else.
I mean, what at the end of the day, why would I care what
religion somebody is? I mean, I, I grew up in a
society that told me that I had to care what religion somebody
was and that, you know, that was nonsense and, and that was
obviously nonsense for anybody that had a brain at the time.
And I mean, too much diversity in any event, is not a good
thing. South Africa on a macro level is
a good example of that. But on a more micro level, if if
you're on a tour bus and there are, let's say 30 people from
different countries and they're all speaking different
languages, you're going to really get nowhere until you
hear that one person speaking perhaps English.
And you go, there's somebody, there's somebody, and you want
to go and sit next to them so you can at least chat.
No, I don't think, I don't think I agree with that.
I think I think, you know, if, if how many countries do we have
in the world 170 something or whatever it is.
You know, each of those countries, some of them are,
are, have formed naturally. Some of them have formed
because, you know, various empires have said this is your
border. But nonetheless, those people
have different languages often, but they, but I think we made
this point as well before. There are concepts expressed in
some languages that are unexpressible in other
languages. If we, if we destroy those, if
in the name of diversity, we say, no, you can't speak your
language anymore because because I can't understand you, you've
got to speak English or you've got to speak German or you've
got to speak French, Then of course you lose the concepts
that that are expressed in that language by those people.
You lose, you lose that thought process.
And, and that, that's, that's what I mean when, when we weaken
ourselves, when we do that. So, so, you know, I take your
point that if you're in a, if you're a stranger in a strange
land, that it can be difficult because you don't speak the
language. But but that doesn't mean that
we should be all deciding to sort of lessen the the range of.
Yeah, that's not, Yeah, that's not what I was saying.
I was. That's why I thought OK.
Sorry about that. That's why I said on a on a
micro level, if you're on a tour bus, you you're going to have a
very, very boring time if you aren't able to communicate with
everybody around you. Yeah, OK.
But I think we've got to wait. I think we've got to get our
terms right here because because when, when you say diversity,
that doesn't, that doesn't mean the same as when they say
diversity, because when they say diversity, what they mean is the
removal of diversity. They, they mean that, that in
order to, in order to, you know, be accepting of, of other
cultures and so on, you've got to change your culture.
And so the aim of the game there is to turn everybody into the
same thing. It's like it's, you know, an
example of this. If you look through, look at any
city in the Western world, in Europe, let's just say Europe,
you will find the same shops in the same high streets that
everything looks the same. Now this is this at a certain
level is a great example of it. And it, it's, it's horrible
because you can't go to Paris or you can't go to Berlin or you
can't go to Frotzois or, or, or Warsaw and see something which
is in Francois for Warsaw. You can't see something which is
Polish anymore. You can't see something which is
German. And in Berlin it's all the big
multinational corporates. This is the effect of of their
meaning of diversity with a. Capital D.
Yes, and and it's it's destroying cultures and that is
the point of it. So because, because, because the
language that's being used at a certain, with a certain section
of society has been turned into something different.
So the words might be English, but they don't mean what you
think they mean or what I think they mean.
And that that's our problem with.
So we have to, the first thing we have to do is to try to
interpret what they're saying. And, and you know, it's, it's a
silly thing to say, perhaps, but, but often if you just
assume that what they mean is 180° out from what you think
they mean, you may be getting closer to the truth.
Yeah, but that dovetails to the start of this conversation with
understanding labels and definition.
So we need to, we need to also be clear with our language.
So when people speak like this we need to 1st ask them what do
you mean? Yeah.
Well, that's where you can come off the rails quite quickly
because basically people don't know and and that's
unfortunately where I think this sort of conversation that starts
out as well meaning and well intended can can turn into
something that becomes more contradictory and controversial
than it should because people are unable.
I mean, it's you know, it shouldn't be really regarded as
a challenge, but people perceive it to be a challenge as though
you're immediately trying to undermine their point of view.
But in actual fact, you're just trying to understand it.
And and you know, like you say, going back to the beginning, The
thing is that people by and large, they don't, they don't
understand, they don't they, they know that such and such a
thing equals far right or far left or what?
I mean, actually not really far left these days, mostly far
right. And that's enough.
That's, that's all you need to know.
You don't, you don't have to be able to qualify it.
It's, yeah, it's, it's, it's pathetic.
How? How disappointing to to have to
exist like that. Charles So I did a, As you know,
I did a conversation with Vanessa Bailey a few nights ago
and I got an very, very angry message from somebody after
that. Good.
This is just anti Semitic. How can you, how can you even
platform somebody like this? She doesn't know what she's
talking about, blah, blah, blah. I'm so disappointed in, in, in
you and UK calling blah, blah, blah.
And this is the problem that you were alluding to earlier, that
people get so emotionally attached to these ideological
world views. Yeah, I mean, on that specific
issue, join the club. You know that that's, that that
happens without fail when there's any, any suggestion that
that the state of Israel, which has nothing to do with Jewish
people or the Jewish faith, literally just talking about
the, the, the state of Israel. It is, it is absolutely seen as
somehow indistinct from criticism of, of, of Jewish
people. And therefore it's the inference
is that it's anti Semitic. And I mean, yeah.
And again, that term is completely mis misappropriated
anyway. So yes, I mean, it's, you know,
it's very sad because people do, people do get triggered by it
and they therefore don't think about what is actually being
said. And I, I'm not, I mean, I, I, I
remember exactly Vanessa's remark and, and, and I, I
completely agree with her within the context that she said it.
And, and saying, saying that because, I mean, you know,
again, are people inconsistent? I mean, you did, did whoever you
were communicating with have a view on Kashmir or Western
Sahara or, you know, any of the other many disputed territories
over the world And, and there, you know, how they sort of came
to be. So, yes, I, I think it's, it's
another excellent exercise in, well, let's say, labelling the,
the, the fact that people, an enormous number of people that
never have never really stopped to think about it.
And, and I don't mean I'm not talking about people that are
Jewish or have links to Israel, but but people across the board
are just conditioned into thinking of Israel as being the
only country on earth that is somehow absolutely to be
regarded as indistinct from anybody that is Jewish.
It's, it's a remarkable achievement to have have been
able to say that mental condition across the world.
But, but it's amazing because I, I mean, I, I don't know, can can
you think of anywhere else that falls into a similar category?
The other, sorry, the other point I would make about this is
of course that that that reaction from that person to
what Vanessa said was a first of all, a knee jerk reaction that
they, they reacted immediately without thinking based on I'm,
I'm speculating here, but probably based on ideological
lines. But they did so without
considering who and what Vanessa Bailey actually is and maybe
don't know anything about her. And so, you know, the fact that
she lived in Gaza for a while, the fact that she's lived in
Syria for so many years, the fact that she has been on the
ground on the receiving end of a lot of what Israel has done over
the last number of decades. But also her family background
as well. And the fact that she was, you
know, the daughter of a British diplomat who ended up carrying
the can for the Suez crisis and so on.
And so she has quite a bit of direct knowledge of the
situation that many of us don't have.
You know, most of us are reading about Israel from books.
She has lived actually quite a lot of that and and so has a
different perspective on on things.
And so whether we agree with her or not, and this is, this is the
point that I really want to make here, whether we agree with
someone or not, we, we should be prepared to, to consider what
they have to say. And you know, when by that I
mean, whether we agree with them as as an initial reaction or
not, we should be willing to consider what they have to say
and actually find out a little bit more about why they're
saying it. And, and you know, that that
helps to inform our future decisions.
But, you know, I've always said, Jeremy, that, that if we're
finding ourselves in an ideological situation and
somebody says something to us which causes that, that knot in
our gut and, and, and we just want to lash out and, and, and
say something unpleasant about them.
That's the point where we have to, in my opinion, actually
challenge our own perceptions and our own.
And we have to, we have to actually use that as a, as a
trigger for reconsidering whether we're whether our
position is correct or not. And, and this is something that
that most of us don't do often enough or at all.
We should be, we should be absolutely challenging our
positions on things every day, every time we have, we make a
statement or have a thought about it.
Am I right? Or have it, is there something I
haven't taken into account here? Because that, you know, if we
aren't doing that, then we don't really believe in the truth at
all. Mike, you're, I think you're
absolutely perfectly right to talk about, you know, a comment
from Vanessa should be seen as something coming from somebody
who has seen what she's seen, researched what she's researched
and you know, all the other factors.
But I think it's unfair on Vanessa to think that there's
the possibility that her view is in any way an emotional one or
one that's based on stuff that she's seen.
Because I think that takes away what the, the objective point
she was making, which was about just giving land that wasn't
British to somebody. I mean, the, the she was talking
about the, the creation of the state of Israel, which which is
complete a completely extraordinary thing.
And, and rather than giving people the, the possibility of
regarding Vanessa as being a sort of, you know, Arabist
sympathiser and, you know, having, having any sort of
interference with, in her view of the all the various aspects
of her life that you reference, I think is, is a, is a real
issue. And, and yet we see, you know,
we see this sort of both both ways, whether it be to, in
relation to Israel or, or exactly like you say, German
with the, the issue of whether Islam is or isn't compatible
with, with such and such a thing.
But I think it does, you know, the, because I, well, what I
would say with, with Israel is of course, the, the, the
conversation with Vanessa specifically was about Christian
Zionism. And, and again, that means that
people are not taking an objective view, that they're
basing their point of view on something that they believe is
the case from, you know, sort of historical biblical context.
And, and that strips away the objectivity.
So in in effect it becomes an emotional point of view, which I
think is a a dangerous thing. Asking the question actually is
not a very good question. Whether or not Israel has the
right to exist because a state exists or doesn't, nobody can
kind of enforce that right. I don't know whether it is.
I don't know whether it is, I think I think because just to
follow on from what Charles has just said, you know, the word
that Charles used there was extraordinary.
It's the way that that the way that that project was done
hasn't been done that way before or since.
And so I think, I think I think it, it is actually quite a good
question and and it's one that needs to be discussed much more,
not less would be my suggestion on that.
Yeah, I agree and I I think. Is it the right though?
Sorry. No, no, just just just to draw
out the the because the inference, you know what, what
does 1 infer from the question? And again, that's you have to
you have to ask yourself, well, what is it you're reading into
that question because it what you should mean, but sorry, not
what you should. But what I think you mean by
that question is, is, was the way in which the state of Israel
was created correct? What what was that?
Was that to follow a process that that that was, you know,
sort of Fair, legal, lawful or any of these sorts of things?
But, but ultimately, was it right?
As opposed to is, you know, does that question mean that all, all
Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth?
Well, what a ridiculous thing to to try.
I mean, you there, there are, there are Jewish people outside
the state of Israel and there are non Jewish people within.
So it it makes no sense on that basis.
But you can bet that people will infer from that question that
that is what you mean by it. And indeed an answer that
Vanessa gave in saying no, it shouldn't, that people will say,
oh, well, she, you know, she's saying death to whoever.
I mean which is which is just completely not fair or not the
case. It was that banned recently?
Was it in the UK with a sang death to the IDF or something?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, they are.
No, unbelievable. I mean, not sorry, not
unbelievable. They did it unbelievable that
people can't think further than the end of their nose because.
Or if did we not talk about it before anyway.
But, you know, just imagine if they'd said if they'd done death
to death to Russian armed forces.
Great. Well done, guys.
Well, you know, same place next year.
So yeah, it's just, it's it's pathetic.
By the way, it's your country that pretty much created the
state of Israel. Yeah.
Absolutely, but that but that's why but but that is why going
back to the specifics then that that's where it does come into
play. The fact that the fact that
Vanessa does know what she's knows and has lived what she has
and that her father was a diplomat, you know, during that
sort of period. If that is, that's where all of
this becomes significant because we look at how history as it's
unfolding in front of our very eyes is, is rewritten.
And anyone say, say teenagers now will believe stuff that is
absolute lies from anything that's happened over the last
couple of years. I mean, you know, or, or, or
look at, look at where we are with, with climate change, you
know, the, the big one, they are, people are absolutely
conditioned into thinking something that is, that is not
true. She she did concede, saying,
look, perhaps it's because she has an emotional attachment to
Jewish history and. No, I, I have much more time for
people that, that approach these issues in that way than I do for
people that have simply decided something because they, you
know, they actually have no historical attachment to, to
this, the topic in any way, shape or form.
They've, they've come to a certain conclusion because
someone else told them that that was the conclusion that they had
to have. So, you know, someone like that,
someone like that, I think you can have a conversation with,
but it's, it's much harder to have a conversation with someone
who has just taken a, a position without any kind of cerebral
process at all, you know, because there's no, there's no
discussion. Patrick Kennington and I were at
a a thing last night at Plymouth University and it was, it was a,
a documentary film that that was getting a showing.
It hasn't been sold in the UK. So at this point nobody else can
watch it unless there's another private viewing somewhere else
in the country. But at this point it can't be
watched. And it's all about the
militarisation of the Arctic. And, and the premise is that
this militarisation is happening because of climate change,
because the ice is melting. And therefore countries, there's
this massive race to, to, to get control of that, that neck of
the woods. There's, there's a whole raft of
of issues around that that that particular topic and and I've
completely lost the the thread of where I was going to go with
that. I'm enjoying your raft of issues
in the Arctic where of course there's no ice now, so it just
be floating, floating around with all your issues on it.
Right, right. So, so, so we go in, we sit down
and the first person who speaks is, is a senior lecturer at
Plymouth University who's a climate lecturer.
And so there's no discussion with him whatsoever about
anything. And then the guy who's made the
documentary has been working in the past on, on David
Attenborough's series and so on and, and whatnot.
And it's absolutely clear that, that, that he has managed to get
this documentary made by himself on his own with no support on
the production side, but with massive support on the NATO
side. And, and he so he has ended up
producing something which, which is an absolute propaganda peace.
But my point is this the, the, the whole premise of the thing
has come from this ideological standpoint that hasn't really
been thought through. And, and so, but, but it was the
reaction from most of the audience, which was really
amusing because because none of them had thought through the
issues either. And so they have been presented
with this piece of work which they have consumed and have.
And there was no, in the Q&A at the end, there was clearly no
thought process. I mean, for example, this is all
part of this militarization of the Arctic is all happening
because the ice is melting. And the bad guys in this are
Russia and China. But China is spending more money
now on building Ice Breakers than they ever have in the past.
And I'm thinking, well, hold on a second, if why are they
investing in Ice Breakers if the ice is melting, right?
So, so the whole argument is in turn, nobody in the room got
this. Nobody in the room could
understand this concept. On me just thinking ahead to
2030 when global emissions have dropped to below 0 and all the
ice comes back. I, I couldn't comment on that.
I mean, and, and Russia the same.
They're building nuclear, nuclear powered Ice Breakers,
right? So, so why are they doing this
if the ice is all melting? It's, it's, it's the, the, the,
the, the lack of of thought and consideration in that room for
what they were being presented with was off the charts.
It was amazing. And I'm not sure whether that
is, is the point that I was originally intending to make
anyway, but but I'll make, I'll make that point because it was
quite an incredible experience just to be in a room with, with
100 and 150 people watching this, this documentary and
listening to them speak afterwards.
Quite amazing. The further you go through life,
the more perhaps as a generalisation, the more evident
it becomes. It it is.
I think it is harder to change your responses to things or the
the way you do think about things or the OR your behaviours
the further you go through life. Again, I, I, you know, I know
there will absolutely be people listening who we'll reject that
out of hand at a personal level, which is fine.
But but yes, I, I think by and large, we are all conditioned by
our experiences very early on in life.
And I mean, OK, I don't know nearly enough about it, but if
you that there are people who speak very clearly about this in
so far as what's imprinted on a child's mind or behaviour by the
age of 7. And it's it, you know, it's
very, very significant. And I think this goes back to
the sort of the white hat thing or coalescing or what, you know,
what Jason Kristoff talks about with the, the, the well, but but
the, the idea that either you do grow up as you know, there,
there are variables here, but the idea that you do grow up as
somebody who is looking to be part of a group and needing
those sorts of life lines as you perceive them or you're not.
And I don't think that broadly speaking, people change in that
fundamental sense. And I, and I remember this
coming out, we, Mike and Brian and I went to a pub in Plymouth
a couple of months ago. And we, we, we were chatting to
people and, and these stories were being shared about how,
because I think a number of people there who certainly
described that they'd woken up during the COVID thing.
And, and, and there was a lady there who had she, I can't
forget actually, whether she was in, she was working, she was
either working in a care home or in a sort of medical setting, I
can't remember which it was. I think maybe she was a nurse
and she was talking about how she just conscience wouldn't let
her continue to do the things they were being asked to do.
And I asked her whether she was sort of surprised by that.
And could you think of other instances in life?
And it was something she'd never really examined.
And it was very interesting her response because she just sort
of thought back and thought that actually there were other, many
other instances in which she had effectively express the same
sorts of behaviour. But of course, it hadn't been
controversial because it wasn't largely out of kilter with what
the people around her were doing or thinking.
So I, I, I think that that who we are is, is shaped from from a
very early age and that, and that does inform the way that we
will go on to think about things, even if we're, we're
always learning stuff. But I think there's AI think
there is definitely a difference between learning, you know,
processing information and and then forming points of views,
all judgement. A friend of mine made a comment
about a year ago. He said to me, human progress,
the myth. I, I, I'm going to say I'm not
sure whether that's entirely true because, you know, the,
the, the fact of the matter is when, when we live in a, an
environment that's Neolithic times or so on, there's certain
things that we need to do to survive that we don't need to do
anymore. So you know what, what
proportion of people actually would know how to do something
basic like, you know, kill an animal and, and prepare it for,
for eating and so on. Is that pro?
Is that progress? I don't know.
But, but anyway, the point is, I think, I think the problem that
humanity exhibits is that, umm, we don't recognise the section
of humanity which, umm, whether we want to call them sociopaths
or psychopaths or whatever, which inevitably ends up at the,
at the top of the pyramid. I, I think there's, I think that
section of humanity certainly doesn't progress.
And, and because they effectively control the purse
strings and, and drive policy and drive societies and so on.
Umm, we find ourselves, we find ourselves unable to get rid of
that particular aspect of, of humanity and, and therefore we,
we, we perhaps maybe that's holding us back in some ways.
I think we progress in some ways and we don't progress in others.
I mean, I think it would be equally easy to argue that the
fact that that that many of us don't know how to how to survive
in certain circumstances anymore is a backward step and not a
progressive step. But anyway, maybe Charles can
say something about that. Absolutely.
Well, because I take a very literal view of it and and I
think, I mean, just imagine, you know, the the creator looking
down upon the creations and going through, you know, going
down the list. But, yeah, they can still fly,
pretty much. They're good at, you know,
catching. Catching the things they need to
eat. Fish up.
Still swimming. All right.
Monkeys. Yeah, they can still climb
trees. Humans.
Oh, no, hang on. No, they can't really run.
They can't bend down and pick stuff up.
They don't know what to eat. They can't climb stuff.
Yeah. So no, I mean, this is a really
serious point in my mind. I think at a species level, we
have regressed terrifically. And I don't just mean
physically. Yes, I, yes, I do absolutely
think that is a very, very serious point and why, you know,
we talk about conditioning when one's younger.
I mean, why, why do we just stop doing the stuff that that we
should be able to do? Why when people get to the age
of, I don't know, whatever it is, 15 if they've got a mobile
telephone or perhaps 20 if not, they just stop, stop running,
they stop swimming, they stop climbing, they stop doing all
the sorts of things that keep you active.
And I absolutely believe in healthy mind, in a healthy body.
And again, mental capacity. The problem is that we don't,
the physical stuff is easier to, to sort of articulate because
you can quite clearly see, oh, well, that person can't do that
or I can't run a mile in whatever.
The mental thing is harder to, to deal with because you don't
know what your mental capacity could be because it's it, you
know, it's not possible to, to regard that.
But, but I think we absolutely have failed.
When you think of the, the way in which people could recite
enormous volumes of poetry or song or, or whatever, we cannot
do that now. We have, So I, I don't regard it
as progress that we've basically outsourced all of our
capabilities. I regard that as a massive
vulnerability. Look where we are now.
We talk the entire time about the, you know, the system being
shut down, no money, no food, no whatever.
But but and the vast majority of people are totally stuck because
they cannot rely upon themselves or the small groups of humans
that they engage or operate with in order to achieve that.
So I know it sounds sort of basic and simplistic, but I
think it should be basic and simplistic.
And I think we are absolute fools to imagine that we can
sort of tech our way out of it. We can't and, and I'm afraid to
say, and I, I do take a really hard line on this.
I think that it is an absolute abuse of the, you know,
incredible sort of privilege of life to to squander that by not
absolutely making the best of all the capabilities that we
have. You know, we don't.
One of our dogs was barking in the night and I couldn't quite
think what what was going on. And I need to find that, you
know, there was a huge confection of feathers on the
lawn this morning. Evidently there was a fox around
the house. I couldn't hear it.
I couldn't sense it, but one of the dogs could.
So, yeah, we, we have lost ground and and we need to regain
it. It's it is not all it's not all
doom and gloom. I'm reading an excellent book
about Crete during the Second World War at the minute and the
incredible feats of, you know, sort of endurance and everything
else by those, by the credence. And I dare say that persists to
an extent to this day. Anyway, I know, I know we've got
to wrap it up. But yeah, we have not progressed
in many respects. We need to, we need to reclaim
that, that ground. Thank you for this week's
Mantel. Catch up with you next week.
Thank you.