Good afternoon. It's Friday the 27th of June
2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK Call News.
I'm your host Mike Robinson and my Co host in studio today's
Patrick Henningson. Welcome to the programme,
Patrick. Great to be with you, Mike.
And journalist Mark Anderson joins us by video link from the
United States. Now later in the programme,
Patrick is going to be covering Gaza.
Mark will be looking at support or otherwise from the people of
the United States for Trumps Iran policy.
And I'm looking at how Ofcom intends to fleece the social
media companies in order to finance its censorship regime.
But we'll begin today with the news that the British regime is
deeply happy that Operation Interflex, the training regime
which prepares Ukrainians for death, has passed its three year
anniversary yesterday. More than 56,000 Ukrainian
soldiers have been trained by the UK and 13 partner nations,
which I suppose is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of
Ukrainian casualties, I'll admit.
But when we take into account that Operation Interflex focuses
on equipping trainees with battlefield essentials such as
basic infantry course, leadership training and
instructor courses. In fact, the devastating effect
of this training is probably much wider once the graduates
return to Ukraine. Patrick.
But at a recent meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group on
the 4th of June, Secretary of State for War John Healey
announced that the UK will spend a further £247 million this year
on training the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
But don't worry, recent polling data shows that 90% of all the
trainees who've completed Interflex training since January
2025 feel more confident in their lethality and
survivability at the end of training.
Patrick, I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but but
that is a pretty disgusting comment I thought.
Well, 90% of who? How many of us?
What's the survival rate of Interflex alumni right in the
field? That's the We don't get told
this statistic. That's the stat I want.
Is that 90% of those who've survived?
No, that's just 90% of completed the training before they go on
to the battlefield. Interflex sounds more like a
club in Soho, but we'll get on to that later.
On, yes, but anyway, Minister for the Armed Forces, look,
Pollard MP said. From each Ukrainian soldier made
compound ready on UK soil to the £13 billion committed in
military support, we're proud of every element of our
contribution to Ukraine's fight against Russia's illegal
invasion. Must be very proud.
But in the meantime, the UK is going to boost Ukraine's air
defence with 350 missiles using funds seized from Russian
assets. And this is, as they say, could
help protect Ukrainians from Putin's attacks.
So these are Asram missiles which are going to be fired
using the Raven ground based air defence system supplied by the
UK to Ukraine, with five more Raven systems due for delivery
very soon. And that brings the total to 13,
perhaps a useful number for them there.
But anyway, initially this was used as air to air missiles
fired from fighter jets, but AF engineers have adapted these
missiles in just three months to be launched from the back of AUK
designed and built truck similar to vaccines.
They seem to be able to redesign these things very quickly.
But anyway, working with a British defence industry team
from MB MB DAUK in Bolton. Now let's just have a brief look
at the Ministry of Defence promo video for Riven, or at least
part of it. Good afternoon.
My name's Ollie Todd from Task Force Kindred and I'd like to
introduce you to the Raven Air Defence system.
This is an air defence system which was generated in 2022.
We went from concept to delivery of a capability within three
months. It's an amazing system which
combines the HMT 600 Supercat vehicle with an advanced short
range air to air missile, the Asram missile, which has turned
it into a one of the most effective short range air
defence systems in use in Ukraine at the moment.
The system is built upon a HMT 600 which is a high mobility 6
by 6 all terrain vehicle with a bespoke mount built on it to fit
2 ASRAM missiles which sit on rails that we have taken from
older and out of service Hawk, Jaguar and Tornado aircraft.
The system can be deployed very quickly, the missiles can be
moved into a position and can engage targets as required as
quickly as possible. The system can be operated from
both inside the cab as well as remoted to up to 50 away from
the vehicle, giving great flexibility for the operator
whether they want to be in the vehicle or away from it.
System uses a GamePad type controller so that they can
identify, track and then switch from the seeker on the on the
roof of the vehicle to the seeker on to the missile,
allowing it to engage quickly. The operator can then switch to
a secondary target and engage that as required.
So far, we've sent over 400 missiles to Ukraine and they've
conducted over 400 engagements, which we understand with a
success rate of over 70%. It's been very effective against
drones, cruise missiles and could also engage aircraft and
helicopters. I mean, Patrick, what a joke
Because, you know, on many levels it's, it's a joke.
So they've taken obsolete equipment from fighter jets that
aren't flying anymore and effectively sent it over to
Ukraine to get rid of it so we can buy some new stuff
ourselves. Is that what's going on there?
70% success rate. So this is probably the best
system in the entire world according to those numbers.
Well, is it because in a speech a few days ago, Vladimir Putin
announced that Russia will quote, will focus in particular
on the nuclear triad, The strategic missile forces we
equipped with the latest ER systems and the aviation
component of the strategic nuclear forces would be
reinforced with upgraded TU160M missile carriers this year.
These are not ground based. In addition, he said serial
production of the state of the art medium range missile or
Resnick is underway. It has demonstrated outstanding
performance in combat situations.
So look, let's just remind ourselves what a Resnick looks
like, because that silly little system that we are sending over
Ukraine isn't going to deal with this, is it?
No, neither is the Iron Dome or the Thad or the Arrow 2 or Larry
David's Sling. None of that is effective
against that level of hypersonic missile.
What is effective, Mike, is I know this is going to sound
crazy, Diplomacy. Diplomacy is actually probably
the best defence, but nobody wants to be called Neville
Chamberlain do they? No Appeaser, Appeaser, This is
Europe. They don't.
Well, look, we'll be coming on to missile defence again in a
second, but but I just wanted to continue with this article from
a couple of days ago by Hamish to Bretton Gordon, the British
Deep state's regular mouthpiece, Hamish to Bretton Gordon.
So he published this article in the Telegraph and then as he
made clear who he thinks the real target of the recent US
bunker Buster bomb attack on Iran really is, and that's, he
says, Russia. Of course, I'm just going to
take a couple of quotes from this because it is quite
incredible. So he said that Operation
Midnight Hammer, an incredible demonstration of U.S. military
power and Israeli operations before it, have made plain the
fragility of Russia air defence systems.
Putin will be quaking in his boots today.
Iran, Israel has shown he is vulnerable.
These events will be shaking the very foundations of the Russian
military. How does that work?
We'll look at this picture of Hamish to Britain gore and bring
that up on screen. I think it's more like hammered
by midnight like rather than midnight.
Absolutely. Well, look, he went on to say
this. The the Russian dictator and his
adversaries must not have realised that their defences
could easily be suppressed if the Ukrainians or other
opponents such as NATO had the right tools.
The comprehensive US and NATO intelligence networks that we've
seen in Iran, which even allow them to pinpoint and assassinate
key leaders and nuclear scientists almost will will have
terrified the Kremlin hierarchy. The more so as Ukraine appears
to have similar similar reach inside Russia.
Operation Spiders Web in which Russia's strategic air fleet was
decimated several times over stance as testament to their
effectiveness. And he went on to say it is even
not even clearer that America has total overmatch against
Russia's forces. And if Trump chose, he chose to,
he could inflict battlefield defeat on Putin or eliminate him
personally by equipping Ukraine with the same weapons that
Israel has. I mean this seems to me to be
really delusional stuff, particularly in light of Resnick
and and other advanced weaponry that Russia hasn't even brought
onto the battlefield. Yet, well, it's this
warmongering, hawkish rhetoric that we need to take out the
other countries head of state, take out all their political
leaders Israeli style, and somehow that's going to scare
the Russians. No, what that's going to do is
get us into World War Three, because if Russia or any other
nuclear armed state believes they're existentially at threat,
who knows, they might engage in a pre emptive nuclear strike.
If this is the way warfare is going to go, nobody wants to
talk to each other. They think that oh, it's it can
only be settled by lethal force. You're dealing with nuclear
powers here. Yes, and we seem to be doing our
best to convince them that they have no other alternative.
That's, that's, that's the rhetoric we're hearing.
It's completely insane. And it's going to bring, I think
it's going to bring death and destruction on a scale never
seen before in the human race. But that is that what these
people want or are they just talking tough and then coining
in the money on their European defence stock portfolios and
they really don't care or they're so deluded and detached
that they don't think that that will ever happen and they can
just carry on assassinating leaders.
It's. Yeah, it's hard to know what to
say about it. But anyway, on Wednesday we were
briefly talking about the NATO summit, which of course was
shortened because Trump wanted it shortened, apparently.
But. Daddy wanted a shorter
programme. Yes, but you've got more on that
now for us. Yeah, well, here's the the
conference here, Mike. I mean, you just take a look at
it, big production. Obviously they went to impress
Donald, so they pulled out all the stops on the the event
there. But so you can see some usual
suspects here zooming in on Emmanuel Macron, he and that
Mehdi Frederickson there to warmongering Eurocrats.
And there's Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister as well.
So all the alpha dogs are out in force.
As you can see. There's, there's daddy Mark
Rutte's sugar daddy Donald Trump and all the rest of the
nondescript European politicians.
I don't know, half of them are, there will be some few familiar
faces, Mike. But basically the, the whole
focus was around Trump, you could see.
And it was also around money, spending money.
And as we said, a lot of talk, a lot of excitement in the stock
market for European defence contractors.
And I think that's what it's really about.
I but the, the big, the big showstopper, of course, at least
from where as far as we're concerned, was Zelensky.
And we'll, we'll bring this up here.
Vladimir Zelensky was basically, Vladimir Zelensky was basically
unveiling. This is a big signal here.
This is a big signal. He is wearing a jacket for the
first time in three years. Zelensky is wearing a jacket and
no green T-shirt. There's a collar on that yet.
You see that, right? We'll check the shoes in a
moment. This is a signal he's wearing.
He's still got the high tech boots, but he he's basically
signalling. Is the war over?
Are we in a frozen conflict because Zelensky's wearing a, a
blazer? That to me is a huge story here.
So he's not wearing AT shirt for the first time in three years.
So he's he's also not the centre of attention, Mike.
He is. Trump is clearly the centre of
attention. So Burzynski has accepted his
role here as second fiddle, but we'll put that aside for the
moment. And I'm not kidding about the
symbolism that means he's not a wartime president, even though
he's unelected. Anyway, he's probably on the way
out, I would think fairly soon, but we'll see.
But Donald Trump basically took the opportunity to chastise
everybody in the world about what he did or didn't do vis A
vis Iran. And we'll talk about the
implications of this. Listen to this.
I just want to thank our pilots. You know, they were maligned and
treated very bad, demeaned by fake new CNN, which is back
there, believe it or not, wasting time and wasting.
And nobody's watching them. So they just wasted a lot of
time wasting my time. And the New York Times, they put
out a story that, well, maybe they were hit, but it wasn't
bad. Well, it was so bad that they
ended the war. It ended the war.
Somebody said in a certain way, you know, that it was so
devastating. Actually, if you look at
Hiroshima, if you look at Nagasaki, you know, that ended a
war too. This ended a war in a different
way, but it was so devastating. What bothered me about these
reports are with fake reports put out by the New York Times
failing. I call it the failing New York
Times because it's doing terribly.
Without me, it would be doing no business at all.
But and by fake news, CNN and MSDNC, all of these terrible
people, you know, they have no credibility.
You know, when I started there were 94% credibility the media.
Now it's at 16% and I'm very proud of it because I've exposed
it for what it is. But.
When Donald Trump started, his credibility was, you know,
marginal. And now it's fallen straight
through the floor, right? So I don't know who he is just
on. I want to get your comment on
his comparison to Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
But it's one thing to talk about the fake news with CNN, New York
Times, that whole stick. And a lot of people got behind
that because he was an insurgent candidate, he was a rebel, he
was a disruptor. He has just launched an illegal
undeclared war of aggression on fake WMD supposed evidence.
So the whole fake news shtick doesn't actually work.
And that's the problem with Trump.
He doesn't have any awareness, he's not able to read the room
and unfortunately he's surrounded by Euro sycophants,
so there's not much we can do about that.
Yeah, I mean, what what fascinated me about that comment
with respect to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it echoes what
Hamish to Bretton Gordon was saying.
He was basically saying, well, Trump dropped these bunker
Buster bombs and it was there as a signal to Putin that Putin
should be very scared. If we look at to Russia and
Nagasaki, the war was over. There was no need to do that.
That was a signal again to Russia at that time about what
the US capability was. And so I'm fascinated that that
Trump is basically echoing what is effectively the British deep
state mouthpiece and, and, and the language that he's using as.
Well, yeah. And just completely over the
top. And he the megalomania is we
comparing what he did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as if
it's even on remotely on the same scale.
But they're just constantly pumping themselves up or our
pilots or did this, our pilots did that and so forth.
It's it's kind of it's, it's sad, quite frankly, and it's not
impressive at all. In fact, it makes Trump look
weak. And of course, we know that
Trump has been taking orders from Benjamin Netanyahu, an
American president subservient to a leader who's indicted in
the International Criminal Court for war crimes and who's lording
over the size of a country the size of New Jersey that is
basically falling to pieces. That's how strong Donald Trump
is. But here's his defence secretary
Pete Hagseth, the most under qualified cabinet member in the
history of the United States Fox and Friends weekend host,
suddenly becomes defence secretary.
It's a Horatio Alger story for rags to riches for the, for the,
for the generations of. But here's Heg Seth again,
attacking the media and basically Pooh poohing any
accusations that they didn't completely obliterate Iran's
nuclear facilities. For a tactical reason with
President Putin. Let him answer this.
Hello, Mr Secretary. Yeah, there's a reason the
president calls out fake news for what it is.
These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air
defenders. The skill and the courage it
took to go into enemy territory flying 36 hours on behalf of the
American people in the world to take out a nuclear programme is
beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom.
And then the instinct, the instinct of CNN, the instinct of
the New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their
own political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our
country. They don't care what the troops
think. They don't care what the world
thinks. They want to spin it to try to
make him look bad based on a leak.
Of course, we've all seen plenty of leakers.
And what do leakers do? They have agendas and what do
they do? Do they share the whole
information or just the part that they want to introduce?
And when they introduce that a preliminary, A preliminary
report that's deemed to be low, a low assessment, you know what
a low assessment means low confidence in the data in that
report. And why is there low confidence?
Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by 12:30
thousand pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and
obliterated. So if you want to make an
assessment of what happened at Fordo, you better get a big
shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear programme
is obliterated and somebody somewhere is trying to leak
something to say. Oh.
With low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate.
Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place
know exactly what happened when that exploded.
And you know who else knows Iran?
That's why they came to the table right away, because their
nuclear capabilities have been set back beyond what they
thought were possible. So Pete Hegseth saying trust me,
bro, trust me bro, trust me. I'm going to tell you the truth.
We don't have anyone on the ground but but trust us.
Trump said that Israel put agents on the ground to go and
inspect the damage afterwards in Iran.
Completely insane. He completely made that up.
So they don't really have the credibility there.
Pete Hegseth trying way too hard.
I don't know what the old Shakespeare saying.
Is he? Does protest too much in there?
He does protest too much, too much, trying way too hard to
make his case. Mike, it's almost like that.
This is like the, it's like North Korea level kind of
politics. Not to knock Kim Jong Un,
because he's looking pretty good right now compared to this clown
show. But just this whole, the fact
they have Trump, Hagseth and Rubio standing there, it means
that neither of those people have the gravitas to hold the
stage by themselves. They need this show of force
again, completely weak and it just shows you a lack of
character in gravitas and then sitting there and basically over
explaining this thing for 2-3 minutes.
It's embarrassing, Mike, but I on that front, I think we'll see
what information comes out. We shall see, because I'll bet
you it's very different, the real story than what they're
trying to sell here. OK, so that takes us on to
European weapons. Well, this, this is the main
part of this conference, Mike, is was to drum up pressure and
support by the United States to get Europe to pay its fair
share, to pay for its defence. Well, here's one of many reports
here, this one by Politico. US dominates European weapons
purchases. So what Trump is doing is
getting them to spend 5% of GDP and spend it with Uncle Sam or
most of it. And how much are we talking
about in terms of percentages here?
Let's take a look at some of the numbers.
So Trump is basically panhandling for the United
States military industrial complex.
Let's take a look at the numbers, though.
This is according to the Stockholm Institute for Peace.
And look, look at this, Mike. It's not even close.
The United States towers over every other country in terms of
arms exports to Europe. Look at that.
And these are recent numbers, by the way.
And this is only expected to increase the US share.
So there are other people in there doing work and supplying
things, but you can just see the 5% GDP spend.
That's a huge payday, a huge payday for the Americans.
So what are we looking at here? Turkey backs NATO's 5% defence
goal here, planning a nationwide air shield, An air shield.
Turkey's planning to prioritise its steel Dome project.
So not to be outdone by the Iron Dome in Israel.
Erdogan wants a steel Dome. What are we looking at here?
Every country saying the same thing.
Golden Dome, Iron Dome, Steel Dome.
We're looking at an arms race. That's exactly what we're
looking at here. And take a look at the coercion
and bring this up on screen. Trump says Spain will pay more
in trade after the refusal to meet NATO's defence spending
targets. So NATO is determining what
government spent. And if you don't comply, Trump
will hit you with punitive tariffs.
This is outrageous. Everyone in Brussels should be
railing against this. This is the United States
imposing budgetary spending is as we said before, NATO is
directing European economic and political affairs here and we'll
bring on screen here, this is a Professor Carlo Masala from the
Bundesvier University here. And to look at what he says, all
the Europeans are looking at the US like the rabbit looks at the
snake, hoping that the snake won't bite them.
This is the German defence university as well.
So that's what that's the attitude there.
And again, this is echoed here, another influential think tank.
This is a Guntram wolf from the Bruegel think tank, economic
think tank in Brussels. This is what he says about the
5%. They will not get there.
If you are a highly indebted country, you can't issue more
debt. It means very difficult
budgetary choices. So that's what some of the
experts in Brussels are saying. But let's just look at the
methodology behind this. This is the defence reality.
OK, a lot of talk, but let's look at the reality in the EU,
why countries will not meet their 5% spending.
And here's the first one, the EU 0% GDP growth projections and a
recession. So that's 5% of a smaller GDP
and we'll go here. State budget constraints require
new laws, so in some cases there might be constitutional
amendments required for this as well.
And the deficit spending is hurting EU states credit
ratings. And we'll go on.
Government forceds, they're forced to bring in austerity
measures as a result of this and privatisation, more cuts in
public and social services. So that's what it looks like and
voter backlash it's coming. And they're not interested in a
war with Russia. So that's the reality of defence
spending here. And just to round this
discussion off a Germany is asking the United States for
Europe truth with troop withdrawal map.
This is the German defence minister here saying head sex
and the US counterparts are pushing to provide a road map
for AUS pull back from Europe and but the the French are
saying something different. An unnamed French diplomat
talking to the Financial Times. We must do nothing that would
encourage the Americans to leave because that's not in our
interest. OK.
And then I think the Financial Times is kind of taking the
Mickey on the Germans here. Germany floats return to
conscription if volunteer plans fails.
They want 80,000 volunteers in the next 10 years and they throw
up a photo here of literal pensioners in suits.
It's almost like an inside joke. I'm not sure if that's what's
intended. Yeah, not sure.
Anyway, well, look, on Wednesday, let's change topics
completely and come back to the UK because Wednesday I was
talking about the UKFCDO spending.
That's the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the
amount of money that they were spending on GAVI and other
vaccine initiatives. And if you remember, we were
looking at the top three recipients in the area in in
this sort of policy area. So Global Fund to fight AIDS and
TBA billion, GAVI a billion and 350 million to the IFFIM, which
is effectively is to Gavi as well.
Well, no sooner had that report gone out than the Foreign Office
announced a further 1.25 billion going to Gavi.
And this announcement was made by David Lammy at Gavi's Global
Summit in Brussels. Now this they say extends a
close 25 year partnership which has helped to vaccinate over 1
billion children globally against diseases like
meningitis, to prevent more than 18,000,000 lives being lost and
to improve countries economic prospects.
And they claim that the pledge will get help Gavi in their
mission to protect up to 500 million children between 2026
and 2030 and save up to 188 million more lives.
This is the same kind of numbers that we've heard many, many
times over the last number of years.
But then we get to the reality because it's actually all for
fun and profit, with the claim of 14,000 jobs supported through
the partnership with health companies like GSK in the UK.
And even better, they say Gavi helps strengthen the UK's health
security by preventing the spread of dangerous infectious
diseases before they reach our borders.
And this reduces pressures on our hospitals and health
workers, enabling an NHS fit to the futures, fit for the future.
So it's all good news. But Mark, let me welcome you to
the programme and tell us in a related topic about the Vaccine
Integrity Project. G'day, gentlemen.
Yeah, we've heard about integrity projects before on UK
column here. We have in a very liberal state
in terms of the state government, the state of
Minnesota, what is known as CID RAP, and they're launching the
vaccine integrity project out of the University of Minnesota as
noted. And what appears to be happening
is there's a kind of a coalition of physicians and Big Pharma
apparatchiks that are concerned about the way that the CDC is
being run under RFK Junior. And as it shows here, let's put
this one up. This explains it very
succinctly. Children's Health Defence came
out talking about this CIDRAP group and what it's doing to
challenge the vaccine approval process.
And what Children's Health Defence put out was this pharma
friendly. Public health officials launched
new project to shore up US vaccination policy.
The Vaccine Integrity Project may launch a committee that will
evaluate the scientific evidence supporting individual vaccines.
But this task get this is currently performed by the
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee
on Immunisation Practises. The Children's Health Defence
believes this is a move to usurp that advisory committee.
Probably somewhat of a medium to long term project As I
understand it so far, my report today is is preliminary.
We're looking at this since in terms of being aware of what
might be coming down the road later rather than waiting till
it's too late. But this shows in this next
slide Doctor Michael Osterholm, a regions professor and director
of CID RAP. And he said this this project
acknowledges the unfortunate reality.
He says that the system that we've relied on to make vaccine
recommendations and to review safety and effectiveness data
faces threats. So the the battle lines, you
might say, are being drawn. The Children's Self Defence
wants to see the standard advisory committee that's part
of the governmental infrastructure stay in place
under RFK. They believe this group is
trying to usurp that. So we'll see what happens, but
it appears to be so far, Big Pharma trying to stir the pot
and mitigate against whatever controls the government might be
exercising. That would push Big Pharma back
on its heels. Of course, RFK Junior made some
recent changes to that advisory committee and got rid of a lot
of people on there that he thought evidently were too pro
pharmaceutical. So lots going on there, much to
watch in the days, weeks, months and even years ahead, but a very
important development at this point.
So back to you guys. Thank you, Mark.
Thank you. OK, let's move on.
If you like what the UK column does, you'd like to support us.
We do need your continued financial support.
If you look in the UK front page of the UK column website, you'll
find the place to go to to do that.
All assistance is gratefully received and very much
appreciated. And thank you to everybody that
does support us in that way so far.
Now yesterday at 1:00 PM, we put out an interview between or a
discussion between Brian and Ben on the transition, which is all
about the transition of British society and governance.
The way that local governance is changing city regions, city
states being set up in this country.
Plymouth, not immune from that by any means at all.
So if you haven't seen that discussion, please have a look
at that and try to get an appreciation of how things are
being changed in this country. Tonight at 7:00 PM Jerem is
putting out the latest weekly banter with Charles and with me
and hopefully that is going to be a reasonably commercial 1.
So do join us at 7:00 PM for that reminder of the 18th of
October in York. The latest the next UK column on
location event tickets will go on sale in a few weeks time.
Please join us for that if you possibly can.
And finally Sounds Beautiful then is taking place as we
speak. And once this news programme is
over, Patrick and I will be whizzing down the road along
with Kenny to to meet everybody there.
We're looking forward to the weather is very pleasant so we
should be having a good time over this weekend.
Now, Patrick Gazza, people not having a great time there.
That's an understatement of the of the Millennium.
Unfortunately, we have to report on this as all eyes were on
Iran, all eyes were on what was going on with the US and Iran
and Israel. Everyone took their attention
off of Gaza. And what has come out in in the
last couple of weeks, especially in the last seven days is beyond
horrific. And we'll bring up, we'll start
with this very important report here and this is up at 21st
Century wire.com. And what we're doing is
serialising the highlights from the Harvard report.
This is from the Harvard data, the hidden numbers behind Gaza's
real death toll. Now the numbers being bandied
about. Mike, you're probably familiar
with 60,000 dead in Gaza, something along those lines
here. What we found here, the grim
arithmetic. IDF data.
IDF data reveals 377,000 Palestinians are quote,
unaccounted for, IE dead or missing.
Dead or missing 377,000 OK, this is by these numbers.
We're looking at a Holocaust here and we don't say that
lightly or casually. The report unequivocally
demonstrates that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, this
organisation we exposed a couple of weeks ago, compounds, they
were strategically placed and built to be inaccessible to
most, particularly to the 1,000,000 residents of Gaza
City. Hence the riots for food cut off
by the Nazarene corridor. This is by design, they're
partitioning Gaza. the United States and Israel are doing this
in concert here. And the current system fails to
support the 1.85 million unaccounted for accounted for,
let alone the 377,000 missing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Here let's take a look at some video footage of shooting where
people are starving. People cut off with food and aid
and water by Israel. OK, and they're going to collect
food at these feeding points. the US and Israel call them and
they're being shot at. Hundreds of people have been
killed trying to feed themselves and their families.
Take a look at this. So you get the idea.
It's, this is just, I mean, how this is acceptable by the
British Prime Minister, by anybody, the European leaders or
anybody in the US, how that's acceptable?
Who engineered this? How did this come to be?
the United States and Israel are fully responsible for it.
Here's the Israeli press, though.
Take a look at this. This is what they're saying.
This is Haaretz. It's a killing field.
IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately, deliberately at
unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid.
That's the Israeli press today, OK, That's the Israeli press.
That's not us. That is not the opposition
media. No, that's the Israeli press.
So they're starting to basically take wanting to take
responsibility for this. The New York Times has pushed
the boat out as well. It's dangerous to seek food in
Gaza here. This is what they're saying in
the New York Times. So again, if there's any
doubters out there, I think it's time to get real.
Since the since a new Israeli backed aid system which we
talked about began a month ago, hundreds of Palestinians have
been killed near distribution hubs in southern Gaza.
According to local health officials, the new aid centres
are death traps. This is AUN spokesperson,
spokesperson Yens Lyric. OK, so and they go on and it
gets worse. Gaza is the hungriest place on
earth. And just to round this
commentary out here, when we are able to bring anyone in, it's
getting plundered immediately by the population.
That's the level of desperation. This is what happens when you
starve 2 million people. So there we are and they go on
here, the Israeli backed system run by the Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation. Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. It was just given 30 million by
Donald Trump yesterday. And they'll be paid into the
accounts of private US and Israeli contractors.
OK, just so people know. And so that's that's the
situation. And we have Mike, we have
exposed this organisation here. We'll bring them up on screen,
the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and we did that couple of weeks
ago and we showed you some of these actors here, all Deep
State CEO Jake Wood resigned and you got a USAIDCIA operatives
and other sort of people that are under investigation.
I mean, this is as dodgy as it gets.
Again, CIA. So that's that's the long and
the short of that situation. So how this is even allowed to
happen in 2025 should shock everybody.
But but how quiet and supine our politicians are about it.
They they wax on about human rights all these years.
You remember that responsibility protect and oh, the Rohingya and
oh this and that. Whatever the cause is for the
Palestinians, nothing. Total silence.
Everybody's scared about speaking out against an ongoing
genocide and this is the result. And that's a 377,000 figure.
Just to clarify, that is coming from IDF data.
From IDF Data and I, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but
they're working with Ben Gurion University in Israel.
And this is done through Harvard's organisation called
Dataverse, published in their, their publication there.
So, yeah. So it's, it's about, as you
know, for, for sceptics, for people defending Israel, I'm
sorry, but this is credible information.
Yes, yes, OK. Well, Mark, let's welcome you
back onto the programme then and and let's talk about US people's
attitudes towards the conflict in Iran and what have you got on
this? This is coming from the Global
Chicago Council on Global Affairs initially.
Yes, it is. Let's put this up and I can kind
of launch this out. Recently in UK column, I did a
report on a Chicago Council survey that generally said that
US support for Israel was lukewarm at best.
Granted, that was earlier in the spring, but this same report now
the same survey, same sponsors, the Leicester Crown Centre on US
foreign policy, which is a Jewish family.
If so, say French based global marketing firm, and the Chicago
Council itself, a very recent one, including during the
conflict. More Americans oppose rather
than support US strikes against Iran.
It shows the authors there that those who want to freeze the
frame can look that up. Now, moving on from there,
there's been a lot of protests lately in Iran itself, and we're
seeing some footage from New York City.
I want to make it clear, of course, that this doesn't mean
we're all in with the think tanks.
The Chicago Council is the former Chicago CFR.
We often take a rather dim view of some of their globalist and
internationalist views. But the Chicago Council, for
example, gets AUS tax exemption. Therefore they have to have a
lot of their programmes, not all, but a lot of them open to
the public and they have to serve some public purpose.
So the Chicago Council conducts these surveys and they're fairly
credible. They do a better job than most
to their credit. And what's interesting is that
they they did a pretty detailed survey.
We'll show a couple slides in a minute, but a big perspective on
this is that if, if Americans knew more of the complete
picture, for example, if there was a more knowledge of of
Israel's nuclear programme, if inspections were allowed in
Israel's nuclear facilities, how then would Iran's very paltry,
as we understand it, nuclear facilities compare, imagine side
by side inspections allowed in Israel's nuclear facilities
compared to Iran's. Again, how much of A threat
would Iran's facility pose if you could make that comparison?
This is the big deficit, and I believe that deficit explains at
least part of the anomalies and oddities in the Chicago Council
survey of the June survey that we're talking about now.
I think you wanted to comment on something in that slide, Mike.
Well, yeah, just before we get onto the the attitudes
themselves, I just wanted to I saw during the course of the the
video clip that this is a still from it.
We see people there flying Israeli flags.
We've got somebody there on the left.
If we just put a ring around that one with AUS Israeli flag
mixed up and someone on the right here with a flag that
they've got wrapped around themselves.
And the question is, Patrick, I'd be interested in your
thoughts on this is whether these people are there as some
kind of kind of demonstration or whether they're they're actually
signalling that, that even though they are carrying Israeli
flags, they support the demonstration.
I mean, there's only two people there and amongst the crowd as
far as I can see. So it's first of all, it's not
much of A counter demonstration. Second of all, they're they're
putting themselves at risk if they're taking an opposing view
perhaps. Well, it could be both, Mike
being New York with a sizable and very active Jewish
population, pro Israeli population, certainly in within
the Jewish community. I think it could be a small
counter protest. But then again, there there is
solidarity that has appeared where Jewish groups and people
who previously supported Israel and including inside Israel are
now putting out videos making public statements condemning the
government of Israel and the United States for attacking
Iran. So there's some solidarity
coming together that is looks like a bonafide real anti war,
you know, universal sort of effort.
And that only stands to reason because Israel's never got a
taste of their own medicine, so to speak.
I'm talking about the public. They never been themselves
meaningfully attacked, not in the way that they have levelled
all the countries around them like Lebanon on like the
Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, etcetera.
They've never had to face that themselves.
And now they've gone out and hit Iran.
Iran struck back. And I think it's a wake up, a
big wake up, a big epiphany for a lot of people.
And Jewish Americans, Israelis, they see how the tide of public
opinions turning against Israel and also turning against Trump
as well. A lot of his supporters have
basically forsaken MAGA because of this.
It goes against every single principle he campaigned on, of
course. So that that's what I think is
you're going to see more of this.
I think more of this. Yes, OK.
And and Mark, So what are what do you think people's attitudes
are then with respect to Israel, Iran and US involvement in that?
Well, according to the survey, and this is an interesting one,
the the, the, the phenomenon of what's going on it, it lacks A
galvanising Pearl Harbour, Havana Harbour, 9/11 event that
would tripwire the US into this fervent patriotic war alongside
its greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
It it lacks that drama, that spark.
So this slide here from the Chicago Council's most recent
survey gives some insight. Those that oppose the strikes,
talking about them before they happen and afterwards.
The numbers of them were higher than those that favoured them.
See it, the dark lines are those that favoured before the strikes
and the the numbers are a little higher after the strikes in
terms of those that favoured them.
Those that opposed them were hired to begin with both before
and after the strikes. And one thing that's throughout
this survey is there's a lot of people, moderate and sometimes
high numbers that say, I don't know enough to say I don't know
enough to form an opinion. My take on that initially, guys,
is that if they would read, ironically the Israeli media,
they would learn a little bit more.
You'll learn a lot when you read the Jewish press, that's for
sure. And sometimes they do come out
against Netanyahu's government to a degree.
They put out some reality. But beyond being misinformed by
the Western media, I think a lot of this is just that there's
never been, as I alluded to, a actual substantive, published,
reported inspection of Israel's nuclear facilities.
And if people knew more about Israel's nuclear arsenal, just
like if they knew more about what happened with the USS
Liberty and Israel deliberately attacking that US ship and 67,
that being a bellwether event that would bring peace rather
than war. If these things were more widely
and commonly known, if these, these kind of surveys would show
very, I believe, very remarkable results and the Israeli state
would lose a lot of its credibility.
Credibility, because as I alluded to a couple minutes ago,
imagine if we knew the full range of Israel's nuclear
arsenal and put that up alongside Iran's.
Suddenly Iran's would look so insignificant and
inconsequential by comparison. But moving on, there's a couple
other slides we can just take a very quick, quick look at.
People can freeze these to look at them for more detail.
Were Israeli strikes justified in the first column?
In the justified column, those that answer justified, that is,
again, we see that big Republican spike, the Democrats
and independents much more lukewarm or saying basically
that, you know, they're, they're not justified because in the
unjustified column we see the Democrats and the independents,
the blue and the yellow being higher and of course the
Republicans being lower. So the duopoly, the the
Republican wing of the overall establishment, the evangelical
element within the Republican Party that we often talk about
is what puts this over the top. So moving on from there, there
was also a recent additional survey by the Chicago Council,
and we'll show this just briefly.
This is back in April, mid April.
But even then, six in ten Americans support US
participation in a nuclear agreement with Iran.
So it was leaning toward let's do agreements, let's do
something approaching diplomacy like what Patrick alluded to,
rather than rather than just leaping into kinetic war.
And the rest of this kind of explains that U.S. policy toward
Iranian nuclear development, to put it simply, continuing
diplomatic efforts. The top set of four horizontal
lines got the most response. Continued diplomatic efforts.
Then as you go down the the totem pole, impose tighter
economic sanctions. Again, no kinetic war, very high
numbers down again, conduct cyber attacks against Iran's
computer systems. And only when you went to the
bottom of that long survey do you get now to conduct
airstrikes. Very moderate numbers send U.S.
troops and so on. So over the course of the spring
and the summer, there has not been any appreciable war fever
in the United States, that's for sure.
And it's it's becoming a very tough sell to just go in and
arbitrarily bomb a neighbouring country without a declaration of
war and even without any kind of bellwether event like a Pearl
Harbour that would facilitate motivating the public to be all
behind the war effort. Lastly, this last slide just
recalls the third survey of the the most recent two that I
reported on today are in addition to 1 I did about four
or five weeks ago on UK column. And that was more general.
Americans are growing more divided on US support for
Israel. So all, All in all, the American
people are not real highly motivated to get behind all of
this. And it's an important trend to
to take a hard look at. Maybe you guys want to comment a
little more, but it's it's very interesting and I'll keep
following this stuff as it goes along.
Thank you, Mark. I would say if Mark's talking
about there being no bellwether event like 911 or whatever, we
got to add the word yet onto that.
Yet, yeah, because right after this, if you noticed on social
media at the talking points are being put out Iranian sleeper
cells, Iranian sleeper cells every all the influencers are
pushing it. I think that was a coordinate
campaign. And lo and behold, and we didn't
have time to include this in today's report, but Iran,
according to Tehran Times, supplied the United States with
intelligence of an Israeli false flag on US soil, which didn't
happen after Iran supplied intelligence to warn the US
government. That was yesterday.
OK, Now take that with a pinch of salt if you'd like.
But is there any coincidence all the talking points, Iranian suit
sleeper cells setting up the narrative for a false flag
attack. There's clearly something going
on. And so they went.
They're not going to let this lie.
Israel has plenty of tricks up their sleeve.
If you look at history and like Mark said, the USS Liberty, they
wouldn't do that, would they? Of course not.
OK, well look, let's move on then.
And on to online safety in the UK.
Ofcom has announced hired Intense to fleece the social
media platforms in order to fund its censorship regime and they
cite the Online Safety Act's reference to what are described
as qualifying worldwide revenues and say that it is this measure
that should be used to determine the level of fees platforms have
to pay for the privilege of being regulated.
They also pointed out that the same measure which could be used
or which would be used to define sanctions should Ofcom find any
platform and breach of online safety rules.
Now the question is what are qualifying worldwide revenues?
Ofcom defines them as, amongst a quote, amongst other things, a
firm's global revenue from relevant parts of the, of
regulated services rather than just all the revenue that is
attributable to the UK alone. So in other words, they're
looking at globally, but they're saying that it's on the basis of
relevant revenue. Uh, but what's considered
relevant is not defined. Now, they say that fees will be
equivalent to approximately 0.2 to 0.3% of company companies
qualified worldwide revenue each year.
And on the face of it, that might not sound like much, but
bearing in mind the global revenue of the Facebooks and
Twitters of the world, it's actually quite a lot.
So in Facebook's case, for example, that's certainly going
to be in the region of 10s of millions of pounds.
I'm estimating it at about 30 to £40 million for Meta as a whole,
not just Facebook. If we look at X probably around
the £1,000,000 mark, TikTok probably in the 5 to 7,000,000
LB mark, and Snapchat in the one and a half million pound mark.
And as you go down the list, it all starts to add up.
But don't worry though, there will be thresholds before any of
these fees have to be paid. And they think that somewhere in
the region of global revenue of between 200 and 500,000,000 lbs
is appropriate. In other words, if your revenue
is below that level, it's not worth their time to try to
collect the fees. Maybe they feel like they need
to send in the the the bailiffs. Perhaps it's too expensive for
smaller companies. But anyway, a week ago I was
reporting on the so called high effective, highly effective age
assurance aspect of the Online Safety Act.
In other words, the requirement to prove your age when accessing
certain types of content. Now the types of technologies
which they consider to be highly effective are listed on the
right hand side of this particular graphic.
Credit card cheques. Open banking, which allows
consumers and businesses to securely share their financial
data with third party service providers through APIs,
application programming interfaces, photo ID matching,
facial age estimation mobile network operator age cheques,
digital ID services and email based on age sorry email based
age estimation. Now of course, in order for
these age cheques to be done, you've got to make it clear to
the your mobile operator, for example, that you're visiting
Pornhub or whatever the the website is that's wanting to
estimate your age or get some verification of of your age and
so on. But yesterday Ofcom announced
that the major porn, the major porn providers have actually
signed up to this now and they have decided to do this in time
for Ofcom's deadline next month. Now, I'm not going to list the
sites that have agreed to comply with the regime at the moment,
but if you're really interested in that list, it's on the Ofcom
press release, which would be listed in the show notes.
Now, Ofcom claims that monitoring compliance with these
new duties is a priority, and that any company failing to
comply will be subject to fines. In very serious cases, a court
order to prevent the site or app from being available in the UK.
So they're already building the Great Firewall of Britain and
they've already launched investigations into four porn
providers. And as I say at the time, or as
I said at the time, all the focus from Ofcom is on verifying
that someone is over the age of 18.
At no point did they comment on any requirement to make sure
that someone who is under the age of 18 or make sure that
someone was under the age of 18 for access to site, a site aimed
at children. Umm, so, you know, this is all
the focus is on children accessing pornography initially
because porn is always the, uh, the sort of leader in this and
whatever happens with pornography has rolled out to
other services later on. Uh, but you know, as I say,
they're not worried about perhaps older people accessing
websites are specifically into children.
That is just not on the radar at the moment at all and quite
incredible. This is an amazing shakedown
operation by Ofcom, isn't it? Shaking down these big global
corporations to fund a new bureaucratic censorship?
Joe versus the Volcano Department of Information
dispersal. Why?
Why don't they just get rid of social media in Britain and have
the BBC do our social media? Then all our problems are
solved, aren't we Patrick? We can have a licence that we
pay to use our phone, just like the TV.
Is that not where things are headed?
That is exactly where things are headed, I see.
Oh, we're too far ahead of the Overton window there, Mike.
Yes, got to be careful. We shall keep an eye on this and
keep reporting, but I think that's absolutely the case.
Mark. Let's come back to you then and
Chatham House, which of course everybody knows, or at least
everybody should know, one of these globalist policy making
organisations that is very British.
Oh indeed, I decided recently not only to cover the Chicago
CFR, which is the Council on Global Affairs.
We talked about their surveys, Trilateral Commission,
Bilderberg, the original New York CFRI wanted to branch out
to Chatham House. I literally was thinking about
it a week or two ago. All of a sudden I get an email
for the first time ever. Somehow one of my emails got on
their email list and they sent me this notice.
Maybe not like on a personal basis, but maybe part of a mass
email, I'm not sure. They're having a programme July
2nd entitled How should Britain build influence and impact on
the Korean Peninsula? And that's something we hear
about all the time, reassessing the UK's role in security,
security diplomacy and engagement on the Korean
Peninsula. So as of July 2nd, noon my time,
I'll cover that in real time and we'll see what that's about.
So that's an advance announcement, plus I'm kind of
branching out to cover Chatham House a little bit more.
And a quick footnote is it appears that UK column, when
they have the public open, open programmes could send someone to
10 Saint James Square where they're located and actually go
in and cover it in person. It appears to be that way
anyway. There's also an interesting move
I picked up on this as I was looking into this programme.
Let's look at this. There's a little bit of a
changing of the guard. Evo Dalder, the former US envoy
to NATO under Obama, is stepping down as CEO and president of the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
And Leslie Benjamuri has been named president and CAOCEO of
the Chicago Council to replace Galder.
She comes to the council from the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, known as Chatham House in London,
succeeding succeeding evil Dalder, who's shown to the right
there. So we have a Chatham House
apparatchik going over to the Chicago Council to replace its
president. Here is the person doing the
replacing Leslie Benjamin Murray as Chicago's new global leader.
She directs the US and America's programme and shares the faculty
of the Queen Elizabeth the Second Academy for the
Leadership in International Affairs at Chatham House.
That's what she's been doing there.
She's also a professor of international relations at SOAS,
University of London. And like many a Council on
Foreign Relations member, that's sort of a commonality.
So as they're doing this programme, there's, there's this
changing in the Guard. It shows there's a very
horizontal relationship between all these think tanks, revolving
doors, the whole 9 yards. And as we know, the, the main
things the think tanks do is they, they form a bridge from
plutocratic and financial interests into government by
supplying the personnel, the study papers, in depth studies,
white papers, you name it, recommendations for government.
That way the, the main constituent of government is the
plutocracy, not the people. That's the main function of
these, of these particular think tanks.
But that's the latest of what's going on in Think Tank Land, you
might say. And my, my question always is,
Mark, why does the mainstream press never look deeper into
these types of organisations and what they actually do, what the
kinds of lobbying lobbying that they actually do is?
It's amazing. And and the Financial Times, the
Chicago Tribune, on my side of the pond, they collaborate with
these think tanks and we've talked about this before.
They'll be a moderator at one of their discussions, They'll be
part of a panel discussion, but they never actually step outside
and objectively outside looking in and report on it.
I've talked about before. I went to an October 2017
programme where Rasmussen, then head of NATO, was speaking in
Chicago, The head of NATO speaking in Chicago.
I was the only reporter there. Why?
Why wasn't the Chicago Tribune there?
Where's the Sun Times? They're only there when they
break bread with these people. They don't actually report on
them, even though there's plenty of ample reasons to report new
people stepping down or new people coming in, other people
stepping down that might get a little blurb, you know, a
little, a little couple lines in the business section or
something. But it, it's a strange
phenomenon that extends to Bilderberg reporters.
They drop their in, in journalistic integrity at the
door. They leave it at the door.
They go in, they collaborate, but they don't report.
They're betraying the journalistic code, you might
say, but I could go on. But it it's a frustrating and
and sort of inexplicable thing at times.
Yes, I know why. OK, You don't want to bash your
potential future employer. Everybody is a potential
employer in the land of the press and think tanks and
government. It's one big revolving carousel,
that's why. OK, well I'm sure we'll talk
more about that an extra in a couple of minutes.
Amongst other things, we'll have a short extra today because we
do need to hit the road, but join us in a few minutes of UK
column Member four extra. Otherwise have a great weekend.
We will be back on Monday at We Pay at 1:00 PM.
See you then. Bye bye.