Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter Episode 20 — The Political Left and Right Are Basically the Same Thing

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter Episode 20 — The Political Left and Right Are Basically the Same Thing · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. All right, after some gremlins
0:40
in the system, we are finally recording.
0:45
Have you just seen this massive spat going on between Tucker
0:51
Carlson and Nick Pointers and Ben Shapiro?
0:54
And yes, in many ways you can say it's a distraction, but
0:57
there's something really interesting happening there.
0:59
It's showing some huge type of division that's occurring within
1:05
the American sort of political spectrum.
1:10
Or always just litter? It could be a tough 59 minutes
1:14
because. Because I haven't seen.
1:15
That first I've heard of it, but give a bit more detail.
1:18
Yeah, Yeah, No, I didn't know about that.
1:21
Go on. That Oh, OK, well, basically
1:22
what what basically Tucker had Nick on his show and Tucker
1:29
launched into Christian Zionists and how they are very, very
1:35
badly influencing American foreign policy in the Middle
1:39
East. Now, this is something that
1:41
we've touched on a few times in the past, and I think we'll
1:43
probably touch on this many times in the future because it's
1:45
an ongoing talking point. But as a result, there's been a
1:49
huge push back now against Tucker and Nick trying to cancel
1:55
them. And Ben Shapiro had a huge hissy
1:59
fit this week where he put out a video saying no to Tucker, no to
2:02
Nick. Israel first means America first
2:06
kind of thing. This is very, very worrying
2:09
rhetoric. I, I don't think the rhetoric is
2:13
the important thing here. I think the important thing to
2:15
consider is that what we're seeing from the so-called right,
2:22
And I absolutely say the so-called right is exactly the
2:27
same behaviour that we saw from the wet, from the so-called left
2:32
council culture. And this is this is the
2:34
important thing. You're saying something I don't
2:36
like so I have to shut you up. And this is, this is, you know,
2:41
that what this absolutely demonstrates is that people are
2:44
just people. And it doesn't matter whether
2:46
you're right or left, if, if somebody's saying something to
2:49
you that you don't think is correct, you know, at a, at a
2:52
smaller level, we get this all the time.
2:55
You said something I don't agree with, so I'm cancelling my
2:57
membership. Yes, this happens all the time.
3:00
And you know, it, it is, it is really in a in one sense
3:07
hypocritical because many of those people are the type of
3:11
people that that would have stood up and said, I have the
3:14
right to say whatever I like. I stand for freedom of speech,
3:17
but only if it's speech that I agree with.
3:19
It seems to be the the attitude of people.
3:22
And, and so I think this is indicative of this feature
3:29
within or this trait that humanity has.
3:33
We don't like hearing things that we don't agree with.
3:36
And our first response to it is to shut it up.
3:39
The the correct response is to listen and to consider.
3:45
And we may end up coming to the conclusions that we originally
3:48
had. But if we're if we're simply
3:51
living and wanting to live in echo chambers, what is the
3:54
point? But some of these talking points
3:59
seem to be very much more emotional than others for some
4:04
reason. It's a it's a, it's an
4:06
interesting psychological observation.
4:09
If we were to talk about what's going on in Sudan, we could
4:12
disagree and then go have a beer and nobody cares.
4:16
But. Well, I think, yeah.
4:18
Well, first of all, I think it's a disgrace that nobody cares.
4:22
And it is. It is.
4:23
You're absolutely right. That is the case.
4:25
There are conflicts. I mean, Sudan is quite possibly
4:28
the worst conflict that we've seen at any point in modern
4:33
history. And.
4:34
But nobody cares. Whether whether it's because
4:37
it's black faces or whatever, nobody cares.
4:41
I don't know what the reason is. Nobody cares.
4:44
Uh, perhaps nobody cares because they're, because, uh, the, the
4:48
media isn't talking about the conflict and, and therefore
4:51
they're not being told to care. Uh, I don't know what it is,
4:54
but, but that does concern me that we have an absolute
4:58
humanitarian disaster going on there and nobody gives a damn.
5:02
And that is also problematic. But, but you're right, What?
5:07
But what we're facing here is, uh, religion actually, because,
5:12
because we're, we're facing Christian Zionism, we're facing
5:16
an idea, an ideology that people have that the second coming of
5:21
Christ can be accelerated by making certain things happen in
5:25
the Middle East. And, and again, they're looking
5:28
for the hero to come and, and save them.
5:32
Trump was the hero that was going to come and save them.
5:34
And this is just another aspect of the same type of thing.
5:39
So for some people it's China. For some people it's Putin.
5:42
For some people it's, I don't know what it is, but but the,
5:45
you know, the, the, the, the point is because it, it reaches
5:49
deep into their souls and they're looking for some kind of
5:56
spiritual aspect to it or whatever it is.
5:59
They, they've actually got the wrong end of the stick there.
6:01
But because it's quite so deeply ideological, then they react
6:04
extremely violently in some cases.
6:07
Yeah, you just said ideological. I think that's the thing.
6:10
That's the, the, the, the, the tail on the donkey right there.
6:14
It's ideological. And that goes beyond sort of
6:19
rational thinking or sort of logical thinking.
6:21
Although I must be careful now because it's always the other
6:25
person, right, who's ideological.
6:27
It's always the other person who isn't logical.
6:29
So we have to also hold up the mirror ourselves, as we've many
6:32
times said. Yeah, it's it's an interesting
6:38
one. I think on the religion side of
6:42
things, I think I'd be sort of slightly more specific in saying
6:46
that not necessarily religion, it is.
6:49
It is a religion, and I know that sounds like I'm spitting
6:53
hairs slightly, but this very particular issue with not not
7:01
it's not the the Middle East because the vast majority of
7:04
people have no real comprehension of where the
7:09
Middle East even begins and ends, let alone what all the
7:12
various situations that sort of make up the the the confusion in
7:19
it. Are.
7:21
But specifically where Israel is concerned, I think there has
7:26
become a religion which really, as far as I'm aware, did not
7:32
exist until relatively recently in this country.
7:35
The idea that people would become sort of Christian, what
7:42
what we would describe as being Christian Zionists almost by
7:45
default. And there are, you know, that
7:49
there is a sort of Venn diagram of, of overlap with several
7:56
other things. I think to go back to what you
7:58
were saying initially, the suggestion that that Christian
8:03
Zionism influences American policy on the Middle East rather
8:08
than just is the policy on the Middle East is, is an odd
8:13
distinction to make. I mean, I don't know why they'd
8:15
be pussyfooting around that. It's, it's very, very obvious.
8:17
And it goes back for I think as long as the Americans consider
8:22
that they've been involved in that region.
8:25
But I think people here, certainly in the UK who've,
8:28
who've taken this on and found themselves kind of in that camp,
8:32
for want of a better phrase, is, is curious, curious as much as
8:39
it is very dangerous. And, and the, the fact that
8:42
people are so incredibly emotionally invested in it in
8:47
the way that they aren't in, it's not just Sudan, frankly,
8:50
anything else that's going on in the world.
8:51
There was sort of at the beginning of the Russia Ukraine
8:55
conflict. That was a very contrived
8:58
outpouring of emotion about Ukrainians because we were told
9:03
they're well, they're, they're so like us, They're they're so
9:06
close and we'll be next. Those were the the three things
9:11
from that. And therefore there was a sort
9:13
of an emotional response. But but it's not it's absolutely
9:17
not the same as what is happening or the way people are
9:21
are sort of projecting into the Middle East.
9:24
The specifically the the Israel situation.
9:27
Funnily enough, on Wednesday's news programme of this week, I
9:31
looked at an interview that had taken place with Yossi Cohen,
9:37
the former Mossad chap, which in itself is, I mean, we could talk
9:41
about that for quite some time, but but we won't.
9:43
The the reason I wanted to look at it was partly because of what
9:46
he said, but also partly because he was being interviewed by one
9:50
of the guys. There's ex army chap called
9:54
Andrew Fox, who who absolutely, I would say encapsulates what it
10:00
is you're talking about. Now, I, I don't know him, I
10:02
don't know where his ideas as we might describe them have come
10:07
from, but there's absolutely no doubt that his primary role in
10:12
life at the moment seems to be to promote the basically any
10:20
'cause that that Israel has. And, and the reason this is
10:23
concerning is because he is admittedly now ex army, but he
10:28
has in his capacity as a civilian being back to the Royal
10:32
Military Academy Sandhurst, where officer cadets are
10:34
trained. And he has been instructing them
10:38
in behavioral science. And he has very, very strong
10:43
views on the situation at hand. And I think that's a, I, I
10:48
really do think that is a, that is a concern.
10:50
OK, it's a, it's a microcosm and I'm just pulling one individual
10:53
out. But, but what I'm getting to is
10:55
that he subscribes to a religion.
10:57
Now. I don't, I have no idea if he's,
10:59
if he, if he considers that he does does have a strong
11:02
Christian faith, but he has absolutely taken on this mantle
11:07
of, you know, he must do all he can to protect Israel, the state
11:12
of Israel and, and everything that's associated with it.
11:15
It, it is very strange to me, but also it's, I, I think it's
11:19
very, very dangerous. And there's a total, total lack
11:23
of objectivity about it. And he thinks that he holds the
11:26
right position because he has been LED around Gaza by the IDF
11:30
and he's been told that this that and the other was done, you
11:34
know, with surgical precision and and, you know, there's been
11:38
no targeting of civilians and all the rest of it.
11:41
And he describes the situation completely the other way round
11:45
from how certainly the UK column editorial line has has been,
11:49
which is that, you know, the the genocide is, is working the
11:53
other way round and and all the rest of it.
11:55
But as I say that that is that is the religion.
11:57
And so people like Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Ben
12:01
Shapiro, they will have their groups of followers who I dare
12:04
say will only have had their own point of view, completely
12:06
reinforced by whatever's happening at the minute.
12:12
But then how do you how do you navigate this whole thing?
12:16
I mean, because you end up looking like that self
12:23
important, arrogant sort of hubris fold individual when you
12:28
go guys, guys, guys, you're all wrong, no?
12:33
No, you, I think, I think you've got to ask questions.
12:36
I mean, for example, one of the questions that that I think
12:38
people should be asking is how did it happen that if you go
12:43
back 20 years, the right, the the far right were completely
12:51
anti Jewish, anti Israel. How did it happen that that
12:58
ideology has rotated 180° to be up to being absolutely pro
13:05
Jewish and pro Israel? How did how did that happen?
13:09
That's the first thing you do. Yeah, it can be organic and, and
13:13
precisely. And then you have to ask, how is
13:16
it? And I realize this is this, this
13:19
one is a particularly tough one for many, many people.
13:21
But you have to ask, how is it that we have all been taught to
13:26
be so fearful of Islam when extreme Islam and violent
13:32
extreme Islam is a creation of the West, of our own
13:35
governments? So how is it that we have been
13:37
taught that all Islam is something to be feared?
13:42
So, you know, we've got to, we've got to Start learning a
13:46
little bit of our history and how the Muslim Brotherhood was
13:49
created, how Wahhabism was created, takfiri, whatever you
13:52
want to call it, how al Qaeda and ISIS were created.
13:55
And we've got to, we've got to actually consider the stories
13:59
that we were told about al Qaeda being the reason that we went
14:03
into Afghanistan and al Qaeda being the reason that we went
14:05
into Iraq. And we've got to then put that
14:10
side by side with the fact that we have been funding and arming
14:13
al Qaeda from the beginning. So you know that at that point
14:19
we've got to start questioning what are we being told who,
14:23
who's telling us that and we should should be coming to some
14:25
conclusions actually because there is no doubt that we are
14:30
being played. And as you say, it is not an
14:33
organic process that something which is.
14:36
So I was so ideologically determined that that Judaism and
14:44
Israel were an enemy of the planet because that was what
14:47
Hitler believed that they have done 180° in a very short time
14:53
that that that is not something that's happened by accident.
14:55
So you could say that that is the power of this, of the, the
15:00
Jewish lobby or this or of the Zionist lobby or you could say
15:04
that actually there's, there's a, a bigger deep state operation
15:08
going on. And you know, when we have been
15:10
talking about that the UK column, we and Charles has just
15:13
referred to it again, we have been talking about the use of
15:16
applied psychology, the use of behavioral sciences.
15:20
This is quite an advanced, quite a mature technology now and to
15:28
the point that that governments and intelligence agencies and
15:32
the deep state pretty much know how to play populations and get
15:37
a result. And and we we've got to start
15:39
questioning our own. It's not about me or Charles or
15:43
you telling anybody we're right and you're wrong.
15:46
It's, it's a question of encouraging people to actually
15:50
question their own ideas in their own positions because
15:54
that's, that's what we've got to be doing.
15:56
We've got to be, we've just got to be doing that first and
16:00
foremost. But whoever's doing the playing
16:03
is doing a very good job. I don't know if you saw what
16:06
what, what the pushback or the the response to New York's new
16:10
mayor has been. It's, it's remarkable just
16:14
looking at this, this chaos unfold.
16:17
Now suddenly everything's about 911 again, being an Islamic
16:23
attack. It's like we've gone back to
16:24
2001. I thought, I thought that we had
16:27
put that talking point to bed and now suddenly.
16:31
No, we didn't put that talking point to bed because because
16:34
what they what they did straight away was they got right in there
16:37
and created the division within the, within the so-called 911
16:41
truth movement. So, so because they, because
16:44
they split that campaign between the controlled demolition and
16:49
the, the, the Judy Woods crowd, because, because they split that
16:55
and got the, got them fighting each other, which is all they've
16:57
been doing for the last 25 years is fighting each other.
17:01
And they haven't been effective at getting the story out about
17:05
what actually happened that day. Doesn't matter what the specific
17:09
mechanism, in my opinion for the the the tires coming down was,
17:14
everybody agrees that it wasn't the aircraft that did it.
17:17
So, so if you can agree on that, focus on that.
17:22
Yeah, but now this week, this week, suddenly it's the Muslims
17:25
again. This is all because of New
17:27
York's May. And so now we're going backwards
17:29
even more. Yeah, yeah.
17:32
But but, but, but I would, I would ask you the question, is
17:35
that the case or is that but, but you look what was it?
17:42
Institute of Strategic Dialogue said that they have something
17:46
like 50,000 influencers on their books.
17:49
Israel Netanyahu is now talking about building up huge numbers
17:53
of influencers that are pro Israel and so on.
17:58
The what, what we are seeing in front of us is absolutely an
18:04
operation to to sign up, right? It is a sign up.
18:07
It is a sign up. And so part of that sign up, of
18:11
course, is making things appear to be something that they're
18:16
not. And so I would, I would, what
18:20
I've, what I've noticed over the last couple of years in
18:22
particular is that that there, there's a lot of vocal people on
18:29
the social media. There are a lot of bots on
18:33
social media which amplify some of the narratives that we see on
18:37
social media, but actually significant numbers of people
18:42
aren't engaging and, and, and don't hold the same view as it
18:47
might appear so. So I think we've just got to be
18:51
a little bit careful about about assuming too much about what
18:54
people are really thinking because a lot of the noise that
18:57
we see isn't real. That's also true I suppose, but
19:02
it is worrying when big names kind of parrot the stuff because
19:08
then they influence millions of people.
19:13
Potentially, yes, but because that's, that's always been the
19:16
way, isn't it? It doesn't, you know, the big
19:18
names used to be in the old days, BBC and CNN.
19:22
Now the big names are the Tucker Carlsons of the world and, and
19:25
the people that are running these huge podcasts on YouTube
19:28
and other platforms. Uh, we've just got to be, we've
19:34
got to be discerning. And this, you know, a lot of
19:39
people, I mean, the, the, the establishment has attempted to
19:42
use this statement against us, but a lot of people are
19:44
surprised perhaps by reading the about us page on the UK column.
19:48
And, and it's saying very clearly, we, we expect you to
19:51
not trust us. That that this this idea of
19:54
trust is is something which has been part and parcel of the
19:59
censorship slash disinformation industrial complex since the
20:03
beginning of this effort to to regulate speech on the Internet.
20:08
And the idea is that that you have trusted voices and
20:13
therefore you can switch your brain off.
20:14
It's like AI in in many ways because AI is, is encouraging
20:19
people to switch their brains off.
20:20
I was listening to a thing on Radio 4 last night on the way
20:24
home. I think it was the PM program
20:27
again, I can't remember. But anyway, they were talking to
20:30
school children about the, about the use of AI and, and they're
20:34
all using AI. They all recognize that if they
20:39
are set a task for in school, for homework or for a test, that
20:44
if they simply ask the AI to to respond to that, that test,
20:53
they'll get the right answer. But in the process, they're not
20:57
internalising the information and they're not, they're not
21:00
learning anything actually. So, so, but this, this applies
21:04
not just in schools and not just with AI, this applies with
21:07
influencers as well. We, we, we, we trust these
21:10
people and then we switch our brains off and, and I would say
21:14
this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
21:16
So, you know, I don't say that from the point of view that,
21:19
that you shouldn't trust the UK column and therefore not support
21:23
us. If you think we're doing a
21:25
reasonable job, then please do support us.
21:27
But don't do it blindly. Don't do it without absolutely
21:33
challenging every single thing that we say.
21:35
And that should apply to every person who is commentating or
21:40
analysing anything in the in the sort of political or
21:44
geopolitical space. Yeah, which I think is why if
21:49
you are a big name, you're only there because you're doing a
21:52
certain amount of parroting. I think you can, I mean, Tucker
21:57
Carlson is a very good example or Jerry Rogan stuff gets put
22:02
out there that appears to be sort of, you know, over a
22:06
particular line, but most of it's not.
22:09
And, and I, and I think that that that's a critical
22:14
distinction to make between what they're doing and, and let's say
22:18
specifically what UK column is and has been doing.
22:21
And I think the other thing is the, the common factor here is,
22:25
is the spectre of an enemy. So for Hitler, it was
22:29
politically expedient to create the Jews as an enemy, just as
22:35
now in certain certain countries, and this being one of
22:42
them to use Islam or or you know, the Muslims as as the
22:49
enemy is a is a a very effective political device because.
22:53
Projection. Yeah, it is projection, but you,
22:55
but you know, you've got you've got the sort of seen and the
22:57
unseen. I mean, it depends what you're
22:58
what you're wanting to achieve. But obviously with the benefits
23:03
of using people that actually exist is that they are there and
23:06
people see them and, you know, stuff.
23:12
It's it's easy with the various media tools that are available.
23:16
It's it's easier to whip up the sorts of frenzied activity,
23:21
rhetoric, ideological, sort of, you know, clinging to a
23:25
particular belief and, and, and everything that we're
23:26
discussing. If you have actually got a
23:29
specific and easily identifiable target, which in this case they
23:33
have. And that's that that is exactly
23:35
what's been going on for, I mean, obviously way more than 25
23:39
years. But most obviously in the last
23:41
25 years that that that Muslims are responsible and that that
23:46
narrative has just crapped and crapped and crapped and crapped.
23:49
And now, of course, it's used not just it was initially sort
23:54
of, well, problems in their country and they and they need
23:56
democracy to then well, there's now a risk of terrorism on our
24:00
shores. And now Israel is at risk
24:04
because of this. And, and of course, then there's
24:07
the migration issue, which sort of wraps a lot of it up
24:09
together. I mean, there, there are so many
24:11
ways in which you can use the same enemy, for want of a better
24:16
word, to cover off particular sort of points on your agenda.
24:21
But the but the result is, is, is always the same, which is
24:24
that people are distracted by finding that they are positioned
24:29
on on one side or other of what is drawn as a as a divide.
24:34
But it's a it's a fake divide. And yet, unfortunately, people
24:38
continue to fall into it, which is exactly what people are doing
24:42
with this. Carlson, Fuentes, Shapiro, you
24:46
know, whatever, Whatever exactly it is that they said to each
24:48
other. No, but Charles, Israel is just
24:51
defending itself. Yes, well, you know, and to some
24:56
people, even after this much time, even on the front page of
25:00
the BBC today is a is a picture of the you know, part, the part
25:05
of Gaza City absolutely levelled.
25:07
And I forget what the what the sort of headline text actually
25:11
is, but but you know, that is the national broadcaster making
25:15
it very clear that Israel has destroyed a huge swathe of
25:20
Palestinian land. And yet there will still be
25:23
people even listening to this now because I, I, I know that
25:27
this, you know, this issue is, is absolutely not.
25:31
It doesn't seem to be one with with much nuance.
25:34
I mean neither people do believe that Israel is justified
25:39
apparently to, you know, the the state of Israel can be justified
25:43
in absolutely any action that it takes from hereafter.
25:46
And this is something actually very interesting, the interview
25:50
I referred to with Yossi Cohen, the former Mossad bloke,
25:54
listening to him talking in such an incredibly glib way about
25:58
entering into a state of armed conflict.
26:01
And he gave 2 scenarios which were either effectively reactive
26:05
or proactive. And it, it was completely
26:09
amazing listening to him talk because it was, it was first of
26:12
all, it was just so banal. I mean, it was, it was like you
26:17
could have been deciding what you were going to have for
26:19
dinner And, and it was either why you were going to cook
26:21
something or you were going to get someone to cook it for you.
26:24
And the the fact that there, if there is to be any sort of
26:30
conflict at all, there, there will be, you know, significant
26:35
stages that have been gone through before considering
26:40
whether you're actually going to go into it.
26:41
But for him, it was just a given that you would, that you would
26:44
just do this. And, and this is exactly how he
26:47
spoke with regard to Lebanon. You know, they, if they want to
26:51
go to war with Lebanon, well, they just that's what they do.
26:53
And, and it's absolutely their right.
26:56
And that doesn't seem to be anything in international
26:58
humanitarian law or, or that anyone who either supports or
27:04
opposes that their policy would would have any bearing on it.
27:07
It's completely remarkable. And but, but the problem is that
27:13
as part of the sort of controlling entity of that, of
27:18
that state for such a long period of time, he, he, he
27:21
speaks for an awful lot of people who've been conditioned
27:25
by the same system and therefore a lot of people who've been
27:28
influenced from, from outside, you know, I'm assuming Ben
27:32
Shapiro for one. But yeah, it, it, it's amazing.
27:36
And, and I think it, it is, it is of course, like I said
27:41
earlier, you know, it is extremely dangerous because
27:43
there's no, there is no objective effort to be being
27:48
made to, to sort of understand it, not just understand it in
27:51
it's own right, but understand what the consequences of it
27:53
really are. And the fact that the fact that
27:55
the, the human element that, that, that lives aren't being
27:58
lost, it's just stripped away. And it's the, you know, it's
28:00
where we go back to the 9/11 thing.
28:01
Well, X number of people lost their lives.
28:03
So therefore, we can from now on just do whatever we want because
28:08
of that. It's the same, you know, it's
28:09
exactly the same way in which the October the 7th sort of
28:12
casualty toll has been used. I mean, he actually said, Cohen
28:15
actually said, yeah, well, there's a there's a menu.
28:17
You know, if you, they, they, they kill however many of yours,
28:20
you know, you can you, you go and do whatever you do.
28:24
Peculiar. This plays into the whole
28:28
controlled opposition thing that you I mean the the when you said
28:32
earlier, Mike, that a lot of this is not organic.
28:37
If you if you think about the art of war, it is about putting
28:42
a seed or a plant or something into what you deem to be the
28:46
enemy and let them, you know, beat themselves up until they
28:49
look like a clown show, which is precisely what happened with
28:52
911. Any, any opposition to the
28:55
official narrative looks like a joke now because it's nobody can
28:58
agree on anything and we all just idiots, you know,
29:01
conspiracy, tinfoil hat wearing whatever.
29:04
And it it helps reinforce the established narrative.
29:13
So control the position is a very effective tool.
29:17
But the problem also that I found is that now everything and
29:22
everyone is controlled the position.
29:24
And so again, we go around and around and around.
29:27
And so you end up trusting only yourself because or not
29:32
trusting, but you don't believe anything anybody says now about
29:35
anything because everything is controlled or everything or
29:39
everyone is a limited hangout. And so it's this constant battle
29:44
with with just critical thinking, I think.
29:47
No, I, I think, I think, I think that's anybody that's, that's
29:51
hurling the term controlled opposition around.
29:54
I mean that's not to say that there isn't any, of course there
29:56
is. We just talked about it the,
29:57
the, the various funded and and so on influencers that are out
30:06
there. But people that are throwing
30:11
this term around tend to do so because they are looking for
30:19
someone that is in complete agreement, I mean, in complete
30:23
agreement with, with their own thoughts.
30:25
And they're looking for someone to reinforce their own positions
30:29
on things. And this is this is a very, this
30:37
is a problematic place to be because you're not going to make
30:39
the right decisions yourself. The only person that that you
30:44
should be even nearly trusting actually is yourself.
30:47
But only if, as I say, you are prepared to, to put in the work
30:54
because you know, we have people out there that are producing
31:00
content that are analyzing events and putting the best job
31:06
that they can on providing that analysis.
31:10
Does that mean that that we or anybody else is right all the
31:14
time? No.
31:16
But the, the role of the, of the person who's consuming that
31:21
information should be 1 of analysis.
31:26
It should be a creative process in a sense as well, in the sense
31:29
that you're taking that information first of all, you
31:32
shouldn't be just consuming it and switching the program off at
31:37
the end of the 45 minutes of the hour, whatever it is and saying
31:40
right, that's a done deal. And I know something well, no,
31:43
you don't. You've you've heard something
31:46
and and the process of of actually processing that should
31:50
begin at that point. So, so it's a question of
31:52
confirming or validating what you've heard, but also actually
31:59
considering it and seeing how that fits into to the picture
32:02
that you have of the world. And, and so my view on this is I
32:07
don't care if someone's a limited hangout or someone is a,
32:10
a controlled opposition. I want to, I want to hear what
32:14
they've got to say. I want to analyze it.
32:16
I want to come to my own conclusion as to whether what
32:18
they're saying is correct or not and not based on some idea that
32:24
they are somehow trustworthy or that that I look up to what
32:28
they're doing or whatever. Just, it's just information.
32:32
And, and so, you know, we that we should take that information
32:36
and we should process it ourselves and come to our own
32:39
conclusions. And, and we should never be, you
32:43
know, I've said this so many times, we should never be taking
32:45
anything we hear on the Internet for granted.
32:49
And and so if and if you, if you approach it from that point of
32:53
view, it doesn't matter whether someone's a limited hangout or,
32:56
or controlled opposition at that point because it's just
32:59
information. But I mean that's the point that
33:03
I was making on my sub stack this week, that if the statement
33:09
vaccines are harmful right now. I haven't told you who said that
33:14
statement, but let's say Bill Gates makes that statement.
33:18
OK, No, it wouldn't be Bill Gates, but they'd say I don't
33:21
know. Because.
33:23
Whatever, like Trump OK says vaccines are harmful, but we
33:27
know Trump's history is all over the place, right?
33:29
But it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the
33:32
statement is still correct no matter who said it.
33:36
But the moment your attention correct.
33:38
Sorry, why? How did you come to that
33:40
conclusion? Oh, I'm, I'm projecting my own
33:44
conclusion on to that statement based on what I have decided and
33:48
concluded over the years of listening to other people and
33:50
considering all sorts of things, right?
33:53
So I, I'm, I'm yet to, I'm yet to find just on that.
33:57
I'm yet to find evidence that that any vaccine is either safe
34:02
or effective. That's the statement, right.
34:04
So based on that, I, I can conclude therefore, that no
34:08
vaccine is either safe or effective.
34:13
But now, and we can, we can go into discussion about that, but
34:16
that's not the point. The the point is the statement.
34:18
It doesn't matter who makes a statement, which is what you're
34:20
saying. The problem with our modern
34:24
culture is that people are so hung up on names of people that
34:29
they play the man and not the ball.
34:31
And as you rightly pointed out, play the idea like attack the
34:34
idea, not the person. No, I, I think, I think the
34:38
problem goes beyond that even you know, you, you have said
34:42
that you, and the reason I asked that question is because you
34:45
said that you have come to the conclusion that vaccines are not
34:49
safe and that vaccines are not effective.
34:52
OK, You've come to that conclusion correctly in the in
34:56
the process of coming to that conclusion, you have now opened
34:59
yourself up to influence because you will now listen to people
35:07
who also say that vaccines are not safe and that vaccines are
35:11
not effective. And those people may be placing
35:14
ideas in your mind which you're not considering in an objective
35:19
way, because those people may be talking about Israel or may be
35:22
talking about other things that that that are perhaps narratives
35:27
that you might otherwise not accept.
35:29
So, so actually, by the, the mere fact that you've come to
35:34
that conclusion leaves you open to influence if you are not
35:39
prepared to absolutely approach every piece of information that
35:44
you come across with with a certain degree of skepticism.
35:47
And but that's a. Good point though.
35:51
Yeah, so I jumped in there, but I'm but no.
35:52
No, go ahead. No, I'm just adding that that
35:55
we, we need to be able to compartmentalize the information
36:00
that we're we're being given. And, and as you pointed out, if
36:03
somebody says something that you like, but then they say
36:08
something that you dislike, suddenly everything that they
36:12
say now must be dismissed. It's it's one O 0 binary kind of
36:16
thinking with whereas the the complexity of the nuance means
36:20
that you should be able to listen to each idea and as Bruce
36:23
Lee said, you know, absorb what is useful, discard what is not,
36:29
but it goes. Beyond that, because again, it
36:31
goes beyond that because, because actually, if, if
36:34
somebody that, that, OK, so on one hand, you're, you're
36:39
potentially open to influence if you, if you listen to people
36:42
that that happen to agree with you on point A that you, you may
36:46
be influenced by point B. But equally, if you're a bit
36:49
more discerning, it may be that you completely disagree with
36:56
point B. But does that mean you should
36:58
discount the points that are being made?
37:01
No, because again, you got to also process information that
37:04
you disagree with. And, and the problem that I have
37:07
is that people that, that simply reject information that they
37:13
disagree with. Well, they're missing, they're
37:15
missing the point. They're, they are actually quite
37:21
manipulable in my opinion, if, if they, if they are not
37:25
prepared to, to listen to things that that they don't agree with
37:30
and apply the same rigor to that as to the stuff that they do
37:35
agree with. Because, because it suggests to
37:37
me that they don't apply any rigor to the stuff that they
37:40
happen to agree with. So my point is here, we've got
37:43
to, we've got to be absolutely applying equal rigor to
37:46
everything that we hear because we should be constantly
37:50
challenging our own precepts. Yeah, but that right there,
37:56
Mike, is why to echo something we said a week ago or two weeks
38:01
ago is why people then just give up because it's just, it's just
38:04
too much work. Well, then, then we're then
38:07
we're going to lose the war. That's as simple as that.
38:11
You know, people, people are constantly, I mean, we've we've
38:14
had this conversation quite a few times on this, on this
38:17
program, but people are constantly saying what can I do?
38:20
That's what you need to do. That first and foremost is, is
38:25
what you need to do. It's what we all need to be
38:27
doing. We really are our own worst
38:30
enemies. I've said it before, say it
38:31
again. We're our own worst enemies and
38:34
the fight is with us. Yeah.
38:36
But anyway, we've made that point before, so.
38:38
Yeah, yeah. I mean, just to just to beat
38:43
that drum a bit more, I saw comment in under one of my
38:47
recent shows, I think it was in the UK column forum or under
38:52
YouTube. I contribute where exactly
38:54
someone says, oh, how can anybody, you know, say that
38:58
about diet? Now the guest I think wasn't
39:00
really talking about diet, but I think it was in passing.
39:04
But now suddenly the entire conversation gets get scrapped
39:07
because of that one comment. And that kind of thing just
39:09
drives me, drives me up the wall.
39:14
It's this inability to go, OK, I don't agree with that comment,
39:19
but I can't agree with those comments there.
39:21
And it's, it's that kind of thing that just that just
39:24
grates, that just grates me because you put in so much work
39:29
to, to, to, to try and find the truth in something or to try and
39:33
find a, a nuanced view. Yeah, but do you see how you've
39:37
do you see how you've just been influenced?
39:38
You have been influenced. So one person has come along and
39:42
left to comment and and you have been influenced by that.
39:45
And you have no idea who that person is.
39:47
That person could be bought. That person could be a
39:50
government employee. That person could just be an
39:53
idiot. You don't know there could be.
39:55
Actually, the person might have a point.
39:58
You don't. You don't know who that person
40:00
is, but you have just been influenced.
40:02
So, so you know, you have to and we have to also recognize the
40:07
the power of a single negative comment.
40:11
Turn off the damn comments, it can.
40:13
No, no, I don't think you should.
40:15
But. But it can't be.
40:16
It can't be an influential thing, and it can.
40:19
And a negative, a single negative comment can be much
40:22
more influential than a single positive comment.
40:24
It has to be said. So, so that's that, that is part
40:27
of our role is to is to keep the comments in perspective and, and
40:34
and keep our momentum up as well.
40:37
I think as a rule, reading stuff that you don't instinctively
40:44
agree with or go along with or you don't feel you're aligned to
40:49
it, I always think it's a terribly useful thing to do
40:51
because it helps you to understand why people do think
40:56
other things. And so therefore reading,
40:58
particularly mainstream media, to read.
41:01
I mean, I always find it, I think I would have said this
41:03
before, but nowadays to read, I'm not reading broadsheets as
41:07
such, but to read a newspaper, to read a mainstream newspaper,
41:10
I find it totally fascinating because I really cannot believe
41:15
the way in which stuff is being reported.
41:17
The, the particular line that's taken on something, the bits
41:21
that aren't sort of disclosed or fleshed out or that are glossed
41:25
over or whatever. And it's, it's very, very
41:29
valuable because otherwise you, you make the mistake of thinking
41:32
that if you, if you do come to a different point of view on a
41:36
particular issue with somebody that you think you know why
41:39
they're, they've come to that point of view.
41:41
And of course you don't, but once you start to understand the
41:45
sorts of things that they've been exposed to and therefore
41:48
how it could have been reinforced somewhere that they
41:50
have been looking or listening or whatever, then then I think
41:54
that's extremely helpful. And if you can get back to that
41:57
point, effectively back to somewhere where there's a,
42:00
there's a convergence rather than divergent, then you can
42:04
start to build that that discussion from, from a level
42:09
that's no longer so contentious. So I think in finding out about
42:16
the sorts of things that we that we may disagree with is very
42:19
important. Also, of course, on comments, I
42:21
mean, in a very, very, very tiny amount of people who watch or
42:25
listen to something will end up commenting.
42:28
And, and of those, there will be a high percentage of people
42:34
intending to stir for one reason or another.
42:37
And, and look how well it works. I mean, it, you know, it's a
42:41
thing it, it just does. I agree with you.
42:43
I mean, it's a pity. And, and I think this is, you
42:46
know, this is sort of the very unfortunate effect that the
42:49
Internet does have or can have or has had in this.
42:53
If you were having this discussion around the table in a
42:55
pub, it's not like somebody in, you know, sort of 8000 miles
42:59
away could suddenly just lean in between you and just say, oh,
43:01
blah, blah, blah, because they're, they're simply not
43:05
there. And they, therefore they, they
43:06
don't have that ability to sort of stir things up 'cause that
43:09
trouble or whatever it is, or just make people look the other
43:11
way or totally distract and derail the conversation in into
43:15
another area. So that is, that is massively
43:18
regrettable. And I think that's all part of
43:19
the learning experience of how to, like I say, you know, how to
43:22
read newspaper, but also how to read the Internet.
43:24
What are you actually doing when you're looking at it?
43:26
Because you know, sort of probably over 90% of it is
43:29
complete. And that's a nonsense.
43:32
But I mean, Mike, there's an interesting undercurrent and
43:34
something you were talking about earlier when you mentioned me or
43:42
me coming to a conclusion or somebody coming to a conclusion.
43:45
Now, I know that one of the strategies for, I think the Art
43:53
of war was that the 48 laws of power or something is to
43:56
maintain a sense of liquidity in your position so that you can
44:03
always remain sort of psychologically powerful, right?
44:06
So in other words, if you don't ever conclude something where
44:10
you don't have a fixed position on something, you can't really
44:13
be attacked on it. But isn't that also, to some
44:18
degree, a weak strategy? I mean, it's good to have
44:20
conclusions about some things in life, surely?
44:27
I is it, I mean, are we, are we also certain in our, in our
44:33
position about what's right and what's wrong that we that, that,
44:36
that our positions are unchangeable?
44:39
No. No, no, I'm not saying.
44:40
I'm not saying I'm not talking about unchangeable positions.
44:44
But some there are some like principles, for example, tend to
44:48
be generally unwavering. Do they?
44:55
I, I don't. I don't know the answer to that
44:57
germ, to be honest, I don't know the answer to that.
45:00
Do I still live by the same principles I live by when I was
45:03
a teenager? I don't think so.
45:06
But you might have principles now, though, I mean, you, you
45:08
kind of knowing, you know instinctively that taking a
45:11
knife and just walking up to somebody and stabbing them is,
45:14
is a is a pretty terrible idea for no, I mean, for no reason if
45:19
it's in self-defense. And that's a different
45:20
discussion. But you know in principle that
45:24
just randomly stabbing people is not a good thing to do.
45:29
Yeah. True, but but then but but you
45:33
know, exactly that's a really interesting example because look
45:37
at the the incredible spectrum of views that you would kick up
45:40
on on at what point it does become acceptable to stab
45:45
somebody and you know, straight away you're saying self-defense.
45:48
Well, does it? I mean, let me give you let me
45:52
give you another example. You know, there's like an old
45:55
woman sitting on a train and you're not just going to go and
45:58
sit down next to her and swear it for no reason whatsoever if
46:01
she's just minding on business reading a book.
46:03
Now there are some things that that you are just wired to know.
46:12
Absolutely. I mean, I don't disagree with
46:14
you, but but the, the point is that that a principal will will
46:21
be expressed in slightly different ways by, by everybody.
46:26
So the idea of being kind or being polite or, or whatever
46:31
exactly the principle might be will find itself challenged.
46:38
I mean, let's take it doesn't you know, whatever any of these
46:41
big issues are, whether it be Israel, for example, I mean,
46:46
the, the, the, the way in which people have conflated the, the
46:54
sort of feeling of not wanting to be anti-Semitic and, and
47:00
indeed, what possible case could there be for being anti-Semitic?
47:04
I mean, it, it, it doesn't, it doesn't make sense to be
47:08
anti-Semitic, but to conflate that with thinking that because
47:13
Israel has largely Jewish population, that therefore it it
47:18
follows that you would support the actions of the state of
47:22
Israel is, is completely bizarre.
47:25
And yet for some people that will be adhering to the
47:29
principle that they're not going to be not just anti-Semitic, but
47:32
you know, that they're not going to discriminate on the grounds
47:36
of race or religion. And that could express itself
47:38
in, in, in support for destroying the lives of hundreds
47:47
of thousands of of people. So I mean, it's, it's hard to
47:51
know where one does go with this.
47:53
The COVID sort of theatre was, was exactly the same.
47:57
People wanted to express their kindness and love for their
48:01
fellow human beings in completely different ways.
48:04
Some of them wanted to take injections and wear masks, and
48:07
some of them absolutely vehemently objected to that, but
48:11
the principle was the same. So, yeah, I mean, I, I suppose
48:18
it, this is perennially sort of inconclusive, but I think you,
48:22
you see my point with the, with the, the knife or the old lady
48:25
on the train. I mean, yeah, I, I, I absolutely
48:29
agree with you, but but everybody will have a slightly
48:31
different take on it, just as everybody has a has a different
48:34
take on any information they're presented with.
48:36
But I think getting to the that that part, as I said earlier,
48:40
of, of understanding, at least in the first instance, what the
48:42
information is. You know, I mean, why you might
48:45
find with the sort of the self-defense thing or something,
48:49
the reason that somebody's going to have a different approach
48:51
from somebody else is because of their life experience that they
48:55
have seen, you know, somebody expressed a particular, whatever
48:58
it is or they know or they, I mean, you know, we, we, we
49:00
can't, we can't sort of guess it, but the point is there is
49:03
always a, there is always so much background that we cannot
49:08
in that snapshot moment understand.
49:10
I think we, this is exactly what creeps into everything.
49:14
The moment a new story comes out, everybody's response to it
49:18
will be in some way it's slightly different based on
49:21
their their life experiences and their their views of of other
49:26
things that sort of are associated.
49:28
Yeah. And just to add to what you're
49:29
saying, I remember a few years ago.
49:31
Sorry. Just by the way, has has your
49:33
lighting changed or am I seeing things?
49:36
No, you're not seeing things. Things, Yeah, a light has.
49:39
Just sat on the train next to our light and sworn it is.
49:43
Oh, OK. All right.
49:44
Yeah, it's on my screen. Just to just to add to what
49:48
you're saying, Charles, a few years ago I was chatting to
49:51
somebody on my show who was it? Now, don't think it was Peter
49:53
Bragan. Actually, I think it what might
49:54
have been. And I initially, I was so angry
50:00
during, you know, the early stages of the COVID era.
50:03
I could everybody just be blindly following all this.
50:06
Everybody's just wearing mosques.
50:07
They're all idiots. I think a lot of us said that
50:09
they look at all these morons. And I think it was Peter Bragan
50:12
who is he's a old psychiatrist. I don't know if you know who he
50:17
is, but he's such a great man. You must be like almost 90 years
50:20
old now. And he sat on my on my podcast
50:23
and he said, hang on, Imagine you were on an airplane and
50:27
let's say there's 180 people in that flight and they're all
50:30
wearing a mask. He said, in this thought
50:33
experiment, have you asked each one of them why they have a mask
50:37
on? And I said no.
50:41
And he said if you were to ask each one, in reality, each
50:46
person would give you a different answer.
50:47
They wouldn't give you the same answer.
50:49
Some might say, I just, I just need to get to the next city for
50:53
a business meeting. So I'm just wearing the mosque.
50:54
Somebody else might say I genuinely am scared of this
50:57
virus and so on. And that suddenly changed the
51:02
way in which I saw people wearing masks, that there isn't
51:08
an absolute or a, or a conclusive reason like they're
51:12
idiots. They they might just be trying
51:16
to get by or whatever the reason might be.
51:20
And that that just kind of adds to what you're saying is that is
51:22
that each person does experience these things differently.
51:28
Yeah, they, they absolutely do. I mean, I think the, I think
51:31
what would split people into broadly 2 camps there, and I
51:36
think this is an interesting 1, is whether people were doing it
51:40
because they were simply complying with a directive and
51:44
therefore they were just going to go along with it no matter
51:46
what, or if they genuinely thought that there was a, a
51:52
health benefit to doing so. And, and, and I think, you know,
51:57
I'm, I'm, I find it terribly tragic that there were people
52:02
who did think there was a health benefit to doing any of this
52:05
stuff. But, but equally tragic as a, as
52:09
a reflection on our society is the, the probably bigger camp of
52:15
people who knew perfectly well that there was no benefit to it
52:19
if they'd stopped and thought about it for five seconds.
52:21
Because if there had been, why was this not done in the very
52:24
first instance, but that they, they were just prepared to, to
52:28
go along with it. And that is, you know, that is
52:32
extremely disturbing And, and one wonders going back to, you
52:37
know, whether it's a old lady on a train or, or not stabbing
52:40
somebody. I mean, people's, you know, one
52:43
really does have to question what exactly people's principles
52:46
are, if that's the if that's what they're they are prepared
52:49
to do. I mean, OK, mask wearing is, is
52:52
but one example. But it was, it was a very good
52:54
one. It was a very good sort of test
52:57
because it it, it specifically because there was an out for
53:04
absolutely everybody. I mean, I, I know this differed
53:06
by country, but in the United Kingdom it was so very clear
53:09
written down in, in the, you know, the government guidance,
53:13
but that there was no requirement to do so and no one
53:16
could call you out on it and no one could make you do it.
53:19
And yet everybody went on with it.
53:21
Now that demonstrates a number of things, demonstrates that
53:23
people were wanting to just be compliant and to demonstrate to
53:28
others that they were being compliant.
53:30
But also it demonstrated that absolutely hardly anybody
53:34
bothered to just look. You know, if you're told to, to
53:38
wear a mask and you think that that sounds ridiculous, Well,
53:41
first of all, you could just say get stuffed.
53:44
I'm I'm not going to do that. Or you might just think, well,
53:48
OK, I, I wonder why they've said that.
53:49
And I wonder, I wonder what's written down about it.
53:52
You're just going to look. It's very easy to find.
53:55
And yet when you told people, I mean, I, I, I, I, yeah, this
53:59
definitely been mentioned before.
54:00
But when you did look at it and even telling people, you know,
54:05
the whole, the, the sort of cognitive dissonance of actually
54:08
telling somebody precisely what government guidance said and
54:12
they were inclined not to react accordingly, which is basically
54:17
just to take it off and know that there was no comeback at
54:20
all. So, so very, very instructive.
54:24
But it, but it does that in itself gives, I think a terrific
54:27
insight into exactly the sorts of religions to go back to the
54:33
beginning sorts of religions that people want to belong to.
54:36
Because to to, OK, you could say like with religion in the in the
54:42
faith sense to, to step outside of the parameters of what that
54:46
particular religion supposedly does or does not do is, is
54:51
certainly personally uncomfortable, but
54:52
professionally uncomfortable as well.
54:54
And and that seems to be where, you know where a lot of this
54:58
comes back to. But if principles are not rooted
55:02
in something cemented, then what is the purpose of having
55:09
principles? I mean principles in principle
55:14
should be unwavering. Not so.
55:17
Yeah, no, I mean, I agree. But I, but this is, I think this
55:20
is the point I'm trying to make is that is that they can be, but
55:24
it, it, it depends on the, the life experience of that
55:28
particular person as to how that principle, how or how the
55:30
adherence to that principle actually manifests.
55:34
So culturally, either culturally or by experience, your idea of
55:39
being such and such a thing, you know, say, say you don't want to
55:45
cause offence. You think it's a that is a
55:48
principle. Will it?
55:48
You know it culturally to how you deal with what we might
55:53
describe as the truth will vary according to people's
55:59
experiences and cultures. As in whether it's, whether it's
56:02
always the right thing to tell the truth and tell somebody what
56:05
has happened, or whether you, whether you're protecting
56:08
somebody in certain situations by not telling the truth or by,
56:11
you know, by telling something different.
56:14
So, so no, I, I, I think it's, I think it's entirely possible to
56:18
go through life adhering to the same principle.
56:21
But if the information changes that in relation to that
56:24
principle, then then so does your behaviour.
56:26
The principle doesn't change, but your behaviour might.
56:30
I'm reminded of Piers Morgan when he said my position changed
56:34
when the science changed. He was referring to vaccines.
56:40
Yeah. OK.
56:40
Well, I mean he's that, that was a gigantic backside covering
56:44
exercise. And I don't mean gigantic
56:47
backside, but but yeah, I think. He he is a gigantic backside,
56:53
isn't he? Well.
56:54
He did he did face Brett Lee in the Nets.
56:56
So he he does, he does get that. But I think but that but but you
57:03
know what's wrong with that? I mean, if seriously, if the, if
57:05
the, if you realise that you have got something fundamentally
57:09
wrong, well, how much of an ass do you have to be to not change
57:12
your position? I mean that, that that is
57:17
extreme bloody mind. Yeah.
57:18
He's. Talking about redemption.
57:20
Well, I don't know necessarily redemption, but I mean, let's
57:24
take let's take Israel, you know, after two years of what's
57:29
described as wondering how on earth Israel, the state of
57:32
Israel is now describing this. But but what has been going on
57:35
in Gaza for the last two years, people who, and I totally
57:40
understand it on the face of it, where it's presented by the
57:43
mainstream media that a, you know, sort of an indiscriminate
57:47
slaughter of a number of Israelis, yes, you can see that
57:51
there was sympathy for some sort of a response.
57:56
I mean, I, I use those words slightly reluctantly actually,
58:00
but but nonetheless, you can see how there would be sympathy for
58:03
that position. And, and I think it's amazing
58:05
that after two years, there are still a large number of people
58:08
who have not changed their position according to the
58:14
information as it's, as it's being presented that that is
58:18
extraordinary to me. But then equally, somebody
58:22
listening to this who does hold that position might think that
58:24
my position on, on something else or indeed that it's
58:27
extraordinary. So this is the trouble we all
58:30
have. You know, we all have our own
58:32
baggage and our own our own perspective.
58:35
But but you know, the, the important thing to do is to keep
58:38
reviewing that. And I fear, sadly, that we're
58:40
not doing that reviewing process.
58:42
And people like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro and Nick Fuentes
58:46
are of course towing along these large numbers of people who
58:50
therefore are probably not going to be evaluating their own
58:53
perspective simply for that reason, because their thoughts
58:56
are sort of by proxy given to them by by by other people.
59:02
My views have changed on a lot of things over the years and
59:07
that's thanks to, you know, listening and considering
59:10
etcetera, etcetera. But I think what I think what
59:16
what people worry about, Charles, is if your views just
59:20
keep changing, it makes you appear wishy washy, like you
59:24
don't stand for anything. Oh no, you stand for something
59:27
now, but next week you might stand for something else.
59:30
And I think it's that type of weak integrity that I think some
59:37
people are, are are are are pushing back against, if that
59:40
makes sense. Yeah, it does.
59:42
And actually, I think that's, that is exactly where politics
59:46
become such a, such a disgrace and such a model, because if you
59:52
effectively, if you, if you start with a lie, you are only
59:54
ever going to get into more and more trouble.
59:56
And so politicians or policy or legislation or anything that's
1:00:04
that in its first inception, it is not done correctly or not
1:00:09
done for the right reasons becomes incredibly problematic.
1:00:12
And then when there's information presented, that's
1:00:14
very, very obviously to the contrary.
1:00:16
And exactly like you say, to avoid the appearance of wishy
1:00:19
washy nurse, there is there is therefore a sort of doubling
1:00:23
down that that is that is absolutely totally disastrous.
1:00:27
But that's that is precisely what's happening.
1:00:29
That's exactly what's happening with the, the Starmer regime.
1:00:33
I mean, it's no different from any other, one might say, but
1:00:36
the, the, the number of issues that have been doubled down upon
1:00:39
or indeed that the the lie has just been deepened and broadened
1:00:43
in order to cover off the same, same issues is absolutely
1:00:46
repellent. One can only hope that that
1:00:50
people are seeing through this in more ways than we're
1:00:52
necessarily aware of. So I don't know, I mean, and and
1:00:58
actually going back to the what what might be described as sort
1:01:01
of surprising results in the New York mayoral election, it does
1:01:04
seem odd that that would happen. But that in itself is telling us
1:01:08
something that telling us something about what people are
1:01:11
thinking, which I think is very is very interesting.
1:01:14
OK, it's binary. Isn't 22 candidates really.
1:01:16
But but still the fact, the fact that notwithstanding what you're
1:01:21
saying about Muslims being presented as the enemy, the fact
1:01:26
that, but that's where the the victory has gone is, is very
1:01:30
interesting. Did you see that the the
1:01:34
responses to that piece by is it Miriam on UK economy when she
1:01:39
she wrote about Muslims are not the enemy and it's it's.
1:01:45
Well, well, it was more than that.
1:01:46
Is that not the enemy of Christianity, which which is was
1:01:50
quite that that that was that was not just as as open as just
1:01:56
as not the enemy. And and you know, the question,
1:02:01
the question of, of which is the closer religion between
1:02:05
Christianity, Islam and and Judaism, I think is, is one that
1:02:09
most people haven't actually considered.
1:02:11
Yes, I mean, she was on my show and she made very similar
1:02:15
comments and the responses are predictable.
1:02:18
That's that's the point that I was getting at.
1:02:19
So, I mean, it's a tough nut to crack, Charles.
1:02:23
Yes, of course it is it is very, very tough, but that but that is
1:02:26
an absolutely brilliant one of you know, for for people who
1:02:29
really do need to just stop and think first of all have to stop
1:02:32
and think of what what is their own direct experience.
1:02:35
You know, she has she has AI would say entirely valid.
1:02:40
Of course, of course it's valid perspective from her.
1:02:42
But but frankly, if you live in a, if you live in a country like
1:02:47
the United Kingdom where you're being pressured by the
1:02:50
mainstream media and now an awful lot of social media
1:02:53
influences into thinking that almost all the problems that
1:02:58
are, you know, besetting this country at the moment are the
1:03:03
responsibility of Muslims. I think you've you've really got
1:03:06
to wonder how on earth that's come to pass.
1:03:10
Can that really, really be the case, especially if you're going
1:03:15
to consider calling the United Kingdom or England or whatever a
1:03:18
Christian country? I mean, seriously, how does that
1:03:21
work? Whereas if you know, and also
1:03:25
have you been to a predominantly Muslim country and encountered
1:03:32
as somebody who might look obviously first of all
1:03:35
non-muslim, but perhaps even being taken as a as a Christian,
1:03:38
have you ever experienced any sort of hostility?
1:03:41
I haven't ever. I haven't even.
1:03:44
In travelled to a lot of countries with a with a very
1:03:48
very much majority Muslim population.
1:03:51
In fact, I've only ever experienced totally the opposite
1:03:54
and totally the opposite to the way in which one might get
1:03:56
expected to be treated in a, you know, in a city or a large town
1:04:00
in the United Kingdom. So, you know, it is a question
1:04:03
of perspective, OK. On that note, Mike, Charles and
1:04:07
catch up with you guys next week.