Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 15

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 15 · UK Column Radio

0:30
None. Charles, a few days ago, you and
0:40
I were chatting and you were telling me about this music
0:43
festival that you were at and how it seemed like nothing
0:49
really has changed in terms of the people that go there from,
0:53
let's say, 20 years ago. And The funny thing is, I can
0:56
relate because I remember in the late 90s, early 2000s going to
1:00
music festivals. Today, they're largely dead for
1:04
for whatever reason. But when I have been in recent
1:07
times, the kinds of people seem to be precisely the same.
1:13
Yeah, well, I dare say that is the situation across the
1:18
festival spectrum. I mean, specifically, we have
1:21
recently returned from the Hope Freedom Festival and, and that's
1:28
the distinction to make, I think between what would be regarded
1:31
or what would label itself as a music festival versus what we
1:34
were at, which is specifically calling itself a freedom
1:37
festival. But the conversation that you
1:39
and I had earlier in the week was the sort of overlap between
1:44
the two. The, as far as I've seen so far,
1:49
the what are called freedom festivals in the UK.
1:53
You seem to use a similar template from sort of smaller
1:59
scale conventional music festivals.
2:03
And I just, I just find it interesting.
2:06
I just thought it'd be a good talking point because on the one
2:11
hand, let's say, you know, within the Freedom Festival set
2:18
up, you, if you're going to go to that, if you're going to
2:21
participate either as a performer, so you could be a
2:26
musician or you could have a stall there.
2:29
Or you could do what we did, which was go and talk in the, in
2:32
the talk tent and, you know, have your audience, you, you
2:34
know, that the people who've turned up the festival are by
2:39
and large going to be interested in the same subjects as you.
2:43
They want to be listening to your sorts of presentations.
2:46
But in a, in a way that's just they probably agree with the
2:49
line that's going to be taken. So that there's that feeling of
2:53
security within the environment, both on on the side of the
3:00
performer or, or stall holder, but also that critically, the
3:03
people that actually go there, they, you know, you know, we
3:05
always talk about sort of being around like minded people and
3:07
all that kind of thing. The same is is by and large
3:11
probably still the case for say just a music festival of say
3:17
sort of small to medium sized people are, you know, maybe
3:21
ideologically on on similar ground.
3:24
I mean, I am guessing slightly here.
3:25
I'm out of touch to an extent with that side of it, but I
3:30
think it was for me, for me, it's just interesting that there
3:33
is there absolutely is overlap between the way these things run
3:38
and and I suppose the question is, first of all, in a way, why
3:44
is that? There are there are other ways
3:47
of, of making events work and drawing people in, but also what
3:54
do we think about the fact that by and large, the the people
3:58
that do go to say freedom festivals?
4:00
Because I think that's a bit that we want to concentrate on
4:03
our broad. Freedom.
4:06
Well, yeah, yeah, the the same, the same sort of people.
4:09
And it's just that it's that sort of two sides of the same
4:12
coin. But but by by creating that kind
4:14
of environment, which means that you know, it's going to be
4:17
really, really fantastic, really friendly because everybody is
4:21
sharing to a certain extent some sort of belief structure that's
4:26
great. But at the same time, what it,
4:27
what it means is that there's a, there's a great deal of self
4:30
limiting because the message, such as it is, doesn't actually
4:34
ever get out beyond those confines.
4:38
And I just find that a sort of interesting almost paradox
4:43
really. And, and it was just, it was
4:46
something that I, that I just mentioned as a thought when we
4:50
spoke earlier in the week, which is not to, I'm not in any way.
4:53
This is not to say, you know, the freedom festivals got it all
4:56
wrong or music festivals got it all wrong or anything's
4:58
necessarily got it all wrong. But it's just, it's just kind of
5:00
interesting the idea that with say, freedom in mind and
5:05
therefore wanting to change what we regard as a as a restrictive
5:09
status quo, that in actual fact, the ability to do that within
5:13
this environment is really compromised or actually that
5:17
there isn't any ability to do that.
5:18
So what happens afterwards? You know, what do people go away
5:21
and do? And going back to what you were
5:23
saying, you know, the people say for the last couple of decades,
5:28
can one plot a course that that intersects with these sorts of
5:31
events and see that they have been points along the way at
5:35
which people have been galvanised into action?
5:38
Or do we run the risk of sort of meeting up and, and realising
5:42
that actually not a huge amount has changed?
5:45
I don't, I don't know what, what do you what do you think?
5:49
I'll just jump in here if I can. My observation on this, Jeremy,
5:53
is that the the numbers at the 2 the freedom festivals that we
6:00
went to this year, which sounds beautiful, and the Hope Freedom
6:04
Festival were significantly lower this year than than last
6:08
year. So even among the community that
6:12
would be the natural audience for that type of event, there's
6:18
been and particularly bearing in mind that that this has been a
6:24
spectacular from a, a sort of events point of view, this has
6:29
been a spectacularly good summer in the UK.
6:32
It's that still didn't get people out to go to go to these
6:35
things. So that there's, there's
6:37
something going on within the freedom community at the moment,
6:40
which is moving them away from, from attending these types of
6:45
events. I think that there are what
6:49
might be described as mainstream festivals around the place that
6:53
that offer opportunities and Charles, you're going to have to
6:57
help me out the the festival. That was the week before the
7:01
Hope Festival and held in Exeter in June.
7:04
Well, I'm I'm now confused because I thought you said it
7:06
was beautiful sounds but. It's yeah, that's that's
7:08
completely wrong. So, yeah, so sorry.
7:11
I've I've forgotten, I've forgotten the name of it off the
7:13
top of my head. And they, although it is a
7:18
mainstream event, relatively speaking, they had had a rebel
7:26
tent which was quite a bit away from the.
7:30
Beautiful days. Beautiful days.
7:32
Thank you. Yes, beautiful days.
7:33
And it was beautiful something. So they had they had a rebel
7:37
tent, what they called the rebel tent, which is and they have
7:39
that every year, which was, which is quite a way from the,
7:41
the sort of music stages and on the top of the hill.
7:47
And it was actually quite well attended this year.
7:50
And Patrick Hennigson was there along with a guy called Tim
7:53
Norman and Craig Murray to talk about the so called alleged
7:59
Novichok poisonings, the scribal affair in Salisbury.
8:02
And, and this was a absolutely mainstream audience that had not
8:09
come into contact with this type of information before.
8:13
And the, the response was generally very good.
8:17
So, so you know, this again, I think comes down to, you know,
8:22
it's been a theme of the conversations we've had since we
8:25
began these discussions. Is it it comes down to to our
8:31
willingness to to engage with each other on one hand, but also
8:37
to engage with people that don't sort of sit in comfortably in
8:42
the same kind of ideological space.
8:46
And you know, in in this case, Patrick and Craig and and Tim
8:52
did go into that environment to to pass on that message.
8:56
But equally it would have been it would be good if if if you
9:00
know people that are consider themselves to be in the freedom
9:03
space in inverted commas attended some other events just
9:06
as members of the public and started talking to other people
9:10
and and sort of cross pollinated ideas.
9:13
You said that there's something going on in the freedom
9:16
movement. That right there is what I want
9:18
to think about for a second. Yeah.
9:20
Because I I do wonder what is going on.
9:23
If this festival had occurred, let's say three years ago, let's
9:28
say four years ago, 2021 maybe, I think the attendance of
9:32
something like that would have been way greater.
9:35
I yeah, that that's absolutely true.
9:37
I think there's, there's actually quite a demoralisation
9:41
within what might be categorised as the so called freedom
9:44
movement in the last, particularly in the last two
9:47
years. But, and in the last year.
9:51
And a theme that that I'm hearing often from people now is
9:56
I have switched off from the news completely or from current
10:00
affairs completely or from anything that's going on.
10:02
I can't handle it. And, and this is, this is to a
10:07
certain extent a dangerous state of affairs because good people
10:13
therefore are not engaged in events and in trying to resist
10:19
events. Although perhaps you could argue
10:22
that that completely removing yourself from the situation is,
10:26
is some form of resistance. But you know, the truth is you
10:30
can't remove yourself from any situation because the
10:34
situation's there, no matter whether you're engaged with it
10:37
or not. And, and so, you know, if, if,
10:41
if, if things have got to the stage where individuals aren't
10:46
able to handle events and therefore they're trying to
10:49
withdraw, well, unfortunately that that isn't actually going
10:53
to work at the, in the at the end of the day.
10:55
So, so I think that's part of it is, is certainly a rejection of
11:01
everything at the moment. And and that's, I don't really
11:05
know what the, what the answer to that is or what the scale of
11:09
it is, but, but that seems to be part of the story.
11:11
What, what else is going on? I'm not really sure.
11:15
I think it's very hard to know, isn't it because we certainly
11:18
from AUK column perspective, because of the way in which we
11:22
conduct our business or our relationship with the
11:25
membership, with the viewership, with the public and and what is
11:28
going on. We are of course only able to
11:32
deal with the information that we do have.
11:34
So when people do appear to withdraw or they do not maintain
11:39
contact either with us or with any of the things you're talking
11:42
about, we can infer certain things from that.
11:45
But ultimately we have absolutely no idea what it means
11:47
that those people are doing. And when we go back to the idea
11:51
that we were talking about, I think it was last week in
11:54
relation to getting organised, you know, organising oneself,
11:57
organising 1's community. If if people are putting all of
12:02
that to one side because they have after a certain period of
12:05
time, got the information that they think they require in order
12:09
to make the changes that they want to make to their life.
12:11
And that then becomes the focus. And therefore that necessarily
12:15
means switching off all the other things that might be
12:18
considered either a distraction or, you know, sort of not
12:22
necessarily expedient to what they're doing.
12:24
And I can understand that. The thing is, we have no way of
12:27
proving demonstrating that that that is the case.
12:29
I mean, I would, I would remain hopeful that it is.
12:32
And that for the sake of argument, let's say that that
12:37
that people are dedicating themselves to forming more
12:42
relevant and stronger sort of community ties.
12:45
That they are pursuing ways in which that they can source their
12:52
own food that they're putting effort into, You know, if
12:54
they've got children into sort of considering how to educate in
12:57
a different way, you know, all those kinds of things.
13:00
And I think if you if you are doing that, that is really that
13:05
that is a very, very involved process.
13:08
And I can see exactly why that would mean people would first of
13:11
all switch off. And also, if they had, I mean, I
13:14
am putting a positive spin on this, but if they had previously
13:17
attended what we describe as freedom festivals and found that
13:20
that kind of engagement with people there had been really
13:22
inspiring and had LED them to go off and do what they do.
13:26
I can see that they would step back and feel that there was no
13:29
need necessarily to go back and and sort of revisit that same
13:32
environment until such point that they felt they were
13:35
completely on top of it. And they'd go back in to say,
13:38
you know, yeah, it's all working and whatever.
13:40
I mean, I don't know. But but going back, you know,
13:43
because you cited Jeremy just you just said 2021.
13:46
And The thing is at the moment, yes, of course, I mean, UK
13:50
column has been going for as good as 20 years now.
13:54
So yes, people are at many, many different stages along the way.
13:58
But I think there's still no, it doesn't matter where people
14:02
began. I think there's no getting away
14:04
from the fact that the seismic change in 2020 in particular has
14:09
absolutely shocked people's sort of life systems in a way that
14:14
nothing previously did. Because the any of the things
14:20
that people had been engaged with prior to that didn't
14:23
actually have to affect the way they live their lives.
14:25
Whereas 2020 bang didn't really matter.
14:27
Where you were in the world, in some way, the way that you
14:30
wanted to live was affected. That means that to a degree,
14:34
we're all on the same, we're all sort of marching to the same
14:39
time in a sense. And I wonder if that has
14:44
something to do with it. Whether the first couple of
14:47
years were sort of startled, A startled period of information
14:50
gathering or as we have identified people thinking,
14:54
yeah, this is absolutely terrible.
14:56
And then by the end of whenever it was the end of 2022, when
15:00
it's sort of run out of path deliberately, it was
15:04
deliberately deflated so that people didn't have anything to
15:07
rail against. A lot of people, of course, just
15:10
thought, well, OK, that that's that's done now.
15:12
I'll just go back to my normal life as it was before.
15:16
You know, I avoided being incarcerated.
15:18
I avoided being injected with something possibly deadly.
15:24
And and that's that. So.
15:26
So I wonder whether to an extent we are seeing just an expression
15:30
of the passing of time that happens to have some people in
15:35
similar places along that along that sort of progression, I
15:39
don't know. Yeah, I mean, Celia Father was
15:43
on my show a few nights ago and she said that the I hate the
15:49
term controlled opposition, but that tends to also be a thing.
15:56
Whenever something big like COVID occurs or similar, you
16:01
will find an infiltration into, shall we say, the opposing side
16:07
to make it either completely demoralised or broken or just
16:13
full of infighting. And so the official position
16:19
holds. And I think she's right.
16:22
And I wonder if some of this has been happening because it
16:26
doesn't matter what you, you're shaking your head there, Mike.
16:29
No, no, I'm just going to say it's not a question of wonder.
16:32
It's absolutely demonstrable. And and it's particularly, I
16:36
mean it's much worse than the last couple of years.
16:39
But I think the, the organisation that I've cited in
16:45
the past is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, who have,
16:49
who claim to have something around 50,000 influencers on
16:53
their books, right? We, we are this, this, I
16:57
suspect, is a very big part of the reason people are tuning out
17:02
at the moment. And I'm, I'm not quite as
17:04
optimistic as Charles about perhaps about, about whether
17:07
people are tuning out because they're busy doing other other
17:12
making other changes, positive changes in their lives.
17:14
I think a, a, a, a lot of it is to do with exactly this.
17:17
It's, it's because as Patrick said this on, on during our, I
17:25
think it was during extra on Mondays, extra when we were
17:29
recording at the, at the festival that World War 3 has
17:33
already begun. And, and of course it's begun as
17:37
an information war primarily as far as we're concerned, there's
17:40
other kinetic wars going on in other parts of the world, but as
17:43
far as we're concerned, it's an information war at the moment
17:47
and everything is effectively being weaponized.
17:51
So, so we have YouTube, a platform which as we all know
17:55
was originally set up to allow ordinary people the opportunity
17:59
to talk about ordinary things. And as that has developed, it
18:03
has become more and more professional and inverted
18:06
commas. And particularly in the last
18:09
couple of years, we're seeing so called influencers being
18:13
employed by Ng OS, like the Institute for Strategic
18:18
Dialogue, but also directly from central government to, to pump
18:24
out narratives on one hand, to disrupt conversations in the, in
18:29
the comments sections on, on the other hand, to just bring as
18:33
much chaos as possible into the conversation in, in one, you
18:40
know, one of the, one of the goals of this is undoubtedly to
18:45
demoralise and 'cause people to walk away from what's going on
18:50
and, and, and stop being active in this.
18:54
So, so, you know, I don't, I don't think it's, I don't think
18:56
it's, there's no doubt that this is going on.
18:59
It's absolutely verifiable and, and demonstrable.
19:02
It's not a question. There's no question around it at
19:04
all. That was why I was shaking my
19:05
head. Yeah, I mean, I've seen exactly
19:08
that. If, if, if I have any luck, Lucy
19:11
here, right? She was on my show and she'll
19:14
she'll have an incredible conversation with me and at some
19:16
point she'll talk about the virus.
19:19
Now suddenly you'll see comments going, viruses don't exist.
19:22
I stopped listening when she said that.
19:24
OK, so now what? I mean, they've completely
19:26
missed the entire, the entire conversation, Mike.
19:30
Oh, look, look, this is this is something, this is something
19:33
that really winds me up. I really despise this, this
19:36
attitude. I mean, there's not much that I
19:39
really hate in the world, but but the attitude that because
19:43
somebody has said one thing that I disagree with that I'm that
19:46
I'm going to tune out of everything they say.
19:48
This is this is just wrong. Also, you know, we've just
19:51
talked about the the fact and it is a fact that there are people
19:55
being paid and employed to, to push certain narratives and
19:59
whatnot. But the fact of the matter is,
20:02
and I realised how hard it is to sort of make these judgments.
20:06
But we should not be by default saying that because somebody
20:10
says one thing, that they're a limited hangout or that there's
20:13
some kind of controlled opposition.
20:15
We should be listening to what people are saying and we should
20:18
be rejecting the things we disagree with, but we should
20:21
actually be considering the things.
20:23
But we shouldn't just reject anything out of hand either, by
20:26
the way. We should actually consider it,
20:28
and I've said this before on in these discussions, we should be
20:32
challenging our own positions on our own ideology as just as
20:40
strongly as we're challenging anybody else's.
20:43
That's how we, that is how we come to a conclusion about
20:47
what's going on in the world. It it's not just about rejecting
20:51
everything that somebody says because of one point that I
20:53
disagree with at this moment in time, because next week or next
20:57
month or next year, actually, my opinion may have changed.
21:01
I mean, it drives me up the wall too, Mike.
21:03
Like a guest. We'll talk about something being
21:07
global and then there's a comment.
21:08
Earth is flat. I mean, it's just insane.
21:11
And I see this all the time and it it's something that, that it
21:16
just makes you want to just block them, like because they're
21:18
not adding any value. It's just destructive.
21:20
It doesn't, it's not constructive.
21:21
It doesn't help any type of critical thinking at all.
21:25
Well, well, that's, that's absolutely right.
21:27
You, you throw a comment in there like that and it is not
21:30
constructive, It's not helping. I, I, I completely agree.
21:35
I would love to see every comment that's posted in our
21:39
chat box or in in the comments under any of the content that we
21:44
provide to be considered rather than just throwing out these,
21:48
these sort of tropes. And and yeah, well, I think you
21:55
should jump in at this point. People really won't want to hear
21:59
is that I regard that quality if we call it a quality of
22:05
immediately saying, oh, well, I'm that's it that they've
22:09
they've done it for me because they said that one thing or they
22:13
didn't say that one thing or whichever way it is.
22:16
And therefore there is a default response to condition yourself
22:19
totally against them. That's the BBC for you.
22:22
That is what the BBC has done to people and look at it the other
22:26
way around. Try try inserting mild
22:33
anthropogenic climate change scepticism into a conversation
22:36
about anything else and see how see see how that's you.
22:41
Deny that, Charles, your climate change denier.
22:43
Yeah, exactly. So, so all the things that the
22:45
BBC chucks out, whether it, you know, whether it's to do Andrew
22:49
Tate or something on gender or whatever, it's it's just the
22:52
other side of that exactly that same coin.
22:55
I'm afraid that that is this is precisely what the in
22:58
particular, most obviously the the British government.
23:01
I mean, this is not exclusive to the United Kingdom, of course,
23:03
but the British government and the BBC in particular absolutely
23:07
do that. They, they condition people to
23:09
reject anything that somebody has to say if they've said that
23:14
one thing, or conversely to accept if, if they haven't, you
23:18
know, you do whichever way around.
23:19
So I, so I'm afraid to say I do absolutely echo your views.
23:25
I mean, I'm not, I'm not suggesting I, I would, I don't
23:28
get wound up by it. I'm just incredulous.
23:30
I just, I'm amazed that people would do it on the one hand, and
23:35
also slightly amused, bemused that I that I see that as a
23:42
absolute mainstream conditioning response.
23:46
And, and again, you know, if people think that's, that's
23:50
having a dig, I'm not obviously having a personal dig.
23:53
It's just that that's the way it seems to, that's the way where
23:56
it seems to have come from. And actually sorry just on that
23:58
because it's been annoying me for a whole week.
24:02
Towards the end of last weeks recording you made some remark
24:07
about wanting to punch a wall every time that somebody said
24:13
something in relation to her carbon credits with Angus
24:17
Mackintosh Farm. My my first comment would be why
24:20
waste energy punching only a wall?
24:23
But the second thing I was going to say was that that is
24:27
absolutely case in point that the and, but this is deliberate
24:32
carbon credits is such a good example.
24:34
Angus talks about putting carbon into the soil.
24:37
He's not talking about carbon dioxide.
24:40
It is no accident that people talk about a carbon footprint
24:44
rather than a carbon dioxide footprint.
24:47
They are two different things and people absolutely on on both
24:51
sides of the argument, if we're going to call it that.
24:55
I mean, again, I'm, I'm creating a false binary there suggesting
24:58
that it is one of the other. But, but, but the point is that
25:02
that is absolutely typical of it.
25:05
The moment somebody says carbon something, it's right.
25:08
Oh, why? Yeah, yeah, that's it.
25:09
I've had it. I've absolutely had it with
25:11
them. Doesn't matter what they say.
25:13
Or indeed the fact that without carbon, or indeed, of course
25:16
carbon dioxide, we'd all be dead.
25:18
So yes, sorry, I just, I just wanted to get that in.
25:22
It's it's been a week and every so often it just comes back into
25:26
my brain and I was so crossed with myself for forgetting to
25:28
mention it last week. No, but that's a good point.
25:30
Yeah. No, it's a good point because.
25:34
Because, I mean, without going into the discussion, carbon is
25:38
it's essential to life. So but putting it into the soil
25:41
is a good thing. There's nothing, there's nothing
25:43
that should trigger you about it.
25:45
Me wanting to punch the wall. It's just that I get so like
25:48
Mike, I get so frustrated at the the fact that we, we go through
25:53
so much effort to put quality into these discussions and to
25:58
chatting and, and really trying to spread ideas, you know, that
26:02
are good ideas. And then you get these trolls,
26:07
who I get it, you shouldn't, you shouldn't worry about them.
26:11
But sometimes, Charles, sometimes I'm just human.
26:16
Yeah, No, you are, I mean my no, specifically what I mean, I
26:20
suppose I shouldn't really be advocating for violence against
26:25
the person. And perhaps this early on in the
26:27
recording, and I guess I'm not really, but but I think that
26:31
the, the, the more serious point is, is the is people sort of
26:35
expending energy in a in a pointless way.
26:37
And, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have to blame for that.
26:41
And look what he said in 2020 about whatever he said, stuff
26:44
your freedom. If it weren't for him, people
26:46
wouldn't go and express their pent up energy in such a
26:52
pointless way. And I know this sounds over
26:54
critical, but to go and expend energy in, in a gym is, is
27:00
amazing. I mean, be like filling up your
27:02
car with fuel and you know what they try to do in Ferris
27:06
Bueller's Day Off and they're trying to take the miles back
27:08
off the clock and you're just putting it on the thing and just
27:09
letting it run and nothing. What's the?
27:12
What's the result? Sorry.
27:15
It's a bit of a sidebar, but I mean, but, but that is but, but
27:18
I think it just speaks volumes about the society within which
27:21
we live. You know, what skills, what
27:23
practical skills do we have that are that our parents didn't
27:27
have? Probably none, except we can do
27:29
more stuff on computers. President Marcus Aurelius
27:35
Charles is. That is that good.
27:38
Bring, bring, bring some stoicism.
27:40
That's. Well, no anyway, sorry.
27:44
It's it's just. But I think it's a point worth
27:46
making because so much of what we do now has a has a zero.
27:53
You know, the result is 0. You think, you know, whether it
27:57
is sort of physical fitness or preparation or, or whatever, but
28:02
but I mean, how does that actually convert into anything
28:04
useful? And I think it's as much a
28:07
mental thing as a physical thing.
28:08
So sorry to, to, yeah, I mean, the, the, the gym thing is, is a
28:12
slightly pointless thing to say, but I, I don't think it is.
28:15
I mean, just just think of what people could physically do if
28:18
they use that energy, doing what the Amish do, for example, just
28:22
helping each other to build bonds, build houses or, or
28:25
whatever. So it's a it's a separate point,
28:29
But I do think it's very much related to everything that we
28:31
talk about all the time. If you're going to put on a
28:34
festival, a music festival or a freedom festival, or, you know,
28:39
like the, the the beautiful days festival, amazing discourse.
28:43
But how do you capture that? And then and then actually make
28:46
something of it? How how does how does, how does
28:49
the result come from that? And I think, I think that's how
28:52
much more stuff should be, should be viewed, which is
28:55
exactly actually why getting triggered by a reference to
29:00
carbon, for example, is such a problem.
29:03
Really, rather than considering the obstacles on, on the course,
29:07
why, why not think more about the, the good stuff and how you
29:12
use that? So yes, I, I, I do think all of
29:16
this is is very much related. Just just a couple of points
29:21
there, just to clarify something, you know, I'm, I'm
29:25
absolutely going to reject any notion that that I sit and get
29:28
frustrated by these kinds of comments and think about them
29:31
constantly. I see that, I see those types of
29:33
comments in the chat box and and yes, I I usually swear and
29:38
weirdly or something to myself, but but that's, that's, that's
29:41
it done there. There's no, I'm not going to
29:42
waste a millisecond actually thinking about that.
29:45
From that point forward. The thing that the thing that's
29:47
sort of is, is difficult about it is that that of course the
29:53
comments like that, not only are they indicative of someone who
29:58
is demoralised themselves, but they demoralise other people.
30:02
So you're actually helping the state by posting stuff like
30:04
that. And that that that is something
30:07
that I think needs to be said. But for the festivals
30:10
themselves, Charles, I would love, you know, hope went some
30:14
way to it, I suppose, because they had, you know, art sessions
30:19
by by Jake Fern and so on and and other stuff.
30:22
But I would, I would actually, the thing that I thought that
30:25
was missing, that I think is missing absolutely from from the
30:29
freedom festivals that we've been to is the practical skills
30:33
training side of things. They should, that's just if I
30:36
were running an event like that, yes, the music is it should be
30:40
on in the from the evenings or whatever.
30:42
But but let's get some some people that actually know how to
30:46
to do things in how to, to, to run training on various topics,
30:52
whether that's community building or, or, or, you know,
30:55
self growing your own food or whatever it happens to be.
30:59
There isn't enough of that kind of that kind of activity in
31:02
these in these events as far as I can see so far.
31:05
And I think that would be a great step forward.
31:08
I, I totally agree. And I think that goes back to
31:10
the, the idea of cross pollination.
31:12
I mean, given my lifestyle, the type of first of all I'm much
31:16
more likely to go to is, is an agricultural show or something
31:21
related to that. But that but that is where those
31:24
things do excel because almost always you will have some sort
31:29
of demonstration, either something that's just a little
31:33
stall that you go up to where somebody is is doing something,
31:36
whether it's a a blacksmith at work or a Cooper or you know,
31:40
somebody who has a practical skill.
31:41
And I'm not suggesting that therefore we all need sort of
31:44
rural skills that we're never going to be able to use.
31:46
But you just never know who might be inspired to to do what
31:51
or what, what linkage you might find with with that particular
31:55
person or with other people that are watching it, that are drawn
31:57
towards it. So I think that is absolutely a
31:59
thing. But also this is this is where
32:02
there are points of crossover because whether or not you have
32:08
you're aware of the full story on the Skripals or whether or
32:14
not you think that carbon or carbon dioxide is a big problem.
32:18
You can be in agreement with somebody that you want to eat
32:21
something that is good for you and that you don't want a
32:25
government that is oppressive. And and so I think as a way of
32:32
bringing, you know, bringing in this element of presenting
32:37
people of perhaps differing points of view with with these
32:44
points of convergence, I think is a is a really important one.
32:47
It seems like from what Patrick has reported back that that the
32:51
beautiful days event did do that to a certain degree.
32:54
But although I would think that you would be absolutely right
32:57
that that there there's, I would have doubted there would be
33:00
anything that would be akin to, to sort of learning something
33:03
that is in effect a, a practical skill.
33:06
But I think that I, I, I, I totally agree.
33:08
And I think this is where not just in the festival context,
33:13
but but in life, and I know we've talked about this quite a
33:15
lot before, but practical skills are in in really short supply.
33:20
And they are, they're an excellent way of bringing people
33:25
together in a, in a, in a sort of genuine fashion.
33:29
I mean, you know, because, because people feel that they
33:31
are actually doing something useful.
33:33
And I think going back to the sort of 2020 thereafter thing of
33:37
where have people gone now? I think a lot of people, yes, I
33:40
agree. I, I was, I was, I was
33:42
speculating, but I, but my, my sort of positive bent in terms
33:47
of speculation was, well, perhaps people are going away
33:49
and learning something. I think absolutely we have to
33:51
recognise that for a lot of people, it's just been far too
33:55
much doom and gloom and they've felt that the whole thing is
33:57
hopeless. And that's that which is why
34:00
they haven't resurfaced and they haven't learned the sorts of
34:05
things that are going to enable them to to change their lives
34:08
and indeed be further outside of that element of whether it be
34:13
state or corporate control. So, yeah, I think this is a
34:16
really important issue. And I think this in fact about
34:18
something that we should talk about with a view to to next
34:21
year and what we can start thinking about doing about that.
34:25
I wonder. I wonder if it's just big events
34:29
or as Matthias Desmond would say, sort of free floating
34:33
anxiety, which can be amplified by big events that capture in a
34:39
way people to aggregate or congregate around that say
34:44
festivals or other type of ways of thinking.
34:48
But when nothing really majors going on, they're kind of just,
34:52
you know, dissipate and go back into how they were.
34:57
John, are you saying that there's nothing major going on?
35:02
Well, there's always something major going on, but, but.
35:07
It's levels. It's levels, Mike, it's levels.
35:10
No, I, I, I think that's absolutely right.
35:12
I think this is this probably this does get to the heart of
35:17
it. I think for an awful lot of
35:19
people, they can't decide what it is that is going on because
35:24
there are so many different things and there's not one thing
35:27
that's head and shoulders above anything else.
35:29
And therefore there's not one sort of agenda item around which
35:34
people can coalesce. And that that is a problem.
35:37
And that that goes back to exactly what we've described and
35:40
what people have absolutely recognised, which was how when
35:43
the, when the COVID tyranny rug was pulled from under people,
35:48
they were completely left floundering because the sorts of
35:52
things that had been, let's say, predicted or projected, like
35:59
digital identity and central bank digital currency.
36:02
Yes, of course, those are still ongoing items, but they haven't
36:08
yet in, in in most places, they haven't yet come to pass.
36:12
And then it meant that that people's sort of get up and go
36:19
was was taken away from them. It was then too, it was too
36:23
difficult. And I think, and I think this is
36:25
again, absolutely part and parcel of the way in which the
36:29
news cycle, in particular by the mainstream is managed.
36:33
Nothing dominates for a long enough period for people to
36:37
really get stuck into it. Charles, I'd be interested to
36:41
get your, your thoughts on this because I have to admit to
36:45
feeling a certain sense of failure.
36:50
Because whenever the COVID thing finished, you know, we were
36:56
absolutely talking about what was coming next.
36:58
We were talking about the fact that, that the certain people
37:03
were using the term Poly crisis, that we were going to be
37:07
bombarded with multiple events which were going to make it very
37:11
hard to know which way was up. And, and somehow people, despite
37:18
the fact that that that would, that, you know, that was being
37:20
expressed, people weren't prepared for it, I think.
37:23
And in many ways. And, and part of the reason that
37:28
the people are turning off was because they didn't, they didn't
37:32
recognise what was coming next and see that as, as the next
37:36
stage of the same agenda. And that that, you know, they
37:40
didn't separate themselves from it.
37:41
Therefore it has actually affected them.
37:45
Do you say, do you say it the same way as this?
37:48
Have we have, I don't mean us specifically, but have, have
37:52
the, the, the commentators and the analysts failed to a certain
37:58
degree in in explaining that and and and giving people the the
38:04
sort of strength to resist. It's a very good question and I
38:10
think it's one that it's hard to answer with any degree of
38:15
certainty, not least because of the incredible array of
38:18
perspectives that there'll be on that on on both sides.
38:23
I would say what is absolutely observable on the commentator
38:30
side of it is that people who were apparently aligned very
38:34
much on what was going wrong between 2020 and 2022 have
38:41
turned out to have either small or in fact quite large
38:46
differences of opinion on a lot of what has happened since.
38:50
And I think people have there's been a a great tendency because
38:54
of the extreme focus of those two years.
38:57
I think some people have been drawn into a position of
39:01
thinking that there has to be similarly one thing that
39:05
requires focus, which means that what you refer to in in the Poly
39:11
crisis scenario, which I believe is absolutely a correct
39:15
description that, that, that is therefore to in some ways to
39:21
wilfully ignore all the other things or, or make them seem
39:25
less significant in comparison to the one thing.
39:32
Or indeed, there's no real consistent agreement on how the
39:36
various things relate to each other or what the goals of those
39:41
things might be. So I, I, I think it's, I think
39:48
perhaps overly harsh or overly critical to think that those
39:53
commentating have necessarily failed.
39:56
I think it it it depends what sort of feedback.
40:01
They are getting from first of all, their audiences or from the
40:05
people that are around them. So without wanting to sort of
40:12
dodge a specific answer to the question totally, I do think
40:16
it's it's really hard to say and we do see this with our with our
40:20
audiences. I thought yesterday was actually
40:22
quite, oh, sorry, Wednesday's news was, was kind of case in
40:25
point. The what I spoke about at the,
40:29
at the start of the programme was the basically the sort of
40:34
confection of a response of national fervour to, to the, the
40:43
political topic of what's being described as mass deportation.
40:48
And it my feeling on it is that people have made their minds up
40:55
about what they think of it, what's right and this that and
41:00
the other and that to a large extent, people don't really want
41:07
to hear the the potential pitfalls.
41:11
And, and the specific one I was describing was a campaign that
41:18
seems completely innocent, which is to fly flags, fly the flags
41:25
of the, the Union Flag or Saint George's Cross sort of anywhere
41:29
and everywhere in England with which one would hope that there
41:34
was absolutely no issue. Why on earth should there be?
41:36
But the reason that it to me sticks out as being a potential
41:44
trap is that, first of all, look how flags have been used over
41:48
the last five years. We had the the NHS sort of
41:52
rainbow flag, the Black Lives Matter flag, the transgender Pro
41:57
Pride Progress flag, the Ukraine flag, the Palestine flag.
42:01
So it's as though if flags are absolutely used in a way to sort
42:07
of capture and manipulate people's minds.
42:09
To say that the flag that already exists for this country
42:12
could do that perhaps is a bit of a stretch.
42:14
But what I meant by it was that it's very easy to see how people
42:18
are being pushed into a position of not just putting the flag up
42:23
in its own right because they're proud to be British or whatever
42:26
it is. It's it's in reaction to
42:28
something else. So tearing down a Ukraine flag
42:31
and putting that up or tearing down a Palestine flag and
42:34
putting that up. And that is where you get into
42:36
slightly dangerous territory because then your focus is
42:41
against somebody else rather than just for being British.
42:45
And, and it's the being against something that is absolutely
42:49
weaponized every time and turned into a drama.
42:52
And then we get into scraps of the police and blah, blah.
42:55
And then, you know, focus against in particular the the
43:00
Islamic communities that are across the United Kingdom and,
43:04
and blah, blah, blah. So that I think is a good
43:08
example of part of this, this idea of, of Poly crisis.
43:13
But I go back to this point where people, people have their
43:15
own views on it and they and they and they don't want to
43:18
consider the idea that, you know, that there's sort of
43:21
anything wrong with it. Even if subsequently it turns
43:23
out that actually this whole thing does get subverted,
43:26
manipulated, twisted, as I as I'm afraid to say, I think it is
43:29
likely to do so, Yeah. Yeah, I, I would say it, it
43:33
already has been, Charles. And the, the, the danger here, I
43:38
think is that, you know, it was clear to people during lockdown
43:43
that the enemy was the state itself because the, the, the
43:50
enemy that the state was telling people that they should be
43:52
afraid of was something that was invisible.
43:56
The enemy that the state is effectively telling people to be
44:00
afraid of through various convoluted means at the moment
44:04
is not invisible. It's, it's there because it's
44:08
got brown skin or it's whatever. It's, it's there.
44:11
It's obvious, it's in people's faces.
44:13
It's living in hotels. It's so that is, that is
44:16
something which is physical and is there and can be seen and
44:19
it's right in front of them. And because or at least partly
44:24
because of that difference, the idea that it's it's not the
44:31
brown skinned person, but the state which is attacking them is
44:36
is 1, which they seem to have forgotten.
44:38
At least the possibility that the state is that it's attacking
44:42
them that is the real enemy here is something that they've
44:44
forgotten. Other things that people have
44:46
forgotten is that if you look back at, you know, the Arab
44:50
Spring or the Maidan or a whole bunch of these other so called
44:55
grassroots revolutionary movements that have happened in
45:02
other countries, we've been willing to acknowledge that
45:05
those to a greater or lesser extent have been manipulated
45:09
events. And yet we're not prepared to
45:11
acknowledge that something which is happening in our shores is a
45:14
manipulated event. And part of this might be
45:20
because it's people perceive the people living in hotels is an
45:28
easier target than than the state, because the state's a big
45:31
thing. It's a hard thing and it's
45:32
difficult to to fight against that.
45:37
But I think that that what, what is perhaps regrettable is it
45:46
that people are being drawn along on the, on the Crest of a
45:49
wave on this thing and they're not stopping to consider the
45:54
implications of what or of where this ends up.
45:59
And you know, we have been trying to make the point for
46:03
many, many years now that that if there is significant civil
46:09
unrest in this country or well, this is where we're talking
46:13
about, but in any of our countries that the state is just
46:17
sitting there waiting in the wings to step in and, and deal
46:22
with that. And we've been trying to make
46:25
the point that whatever we saw in 2020-2021, 2022 is really
46:32
pretty light touch compared to what we're going to see if we
46:36
end up on a, in a war footing, no matter whether that's civil
46:40
war or something abroad. And finally, to say it once
46:45
again, because I think it just needs to be repeated and
46:48
repeated and repeated. This country's military
46:52
doctrine, which we have exported to Europe and the United States
46:56
to some degree, but this country's military doctrine now
46:59
is absolutely clear that the home theatre is no longer
47:05
considered a safe place. That home is as much and a
47:08
theatre of operations as abroad is.
47:12
And we've got to we've got to absolutely take this all into
47:15
account before we're tearing down a flag to replace it with
47:20
another flag. And you know, just to deal with
47:23
any criticism here. This does not mean that we
47:25
should not be proud of our flag, right?
47:29
Our flag, our country. These things should be things
47:33
that we are proud of. We've got to remember when they
47:38
are being weaponized against us. And you know, this proves I've
47:43
said, I said this on extra on Wednesdays extra.
47:45
But we'll just, it's worth just saying again.
47:49
This process began 40 or 50 years ago, whenever the
47:53
mainstream media began pushing the narrative that that somehow
47:56
English people should be ashamed of the English flag, that the
48:00
English flag had become a symbol of right wing extremism.
48:05
And that the only time that they were allowed to bring the
48:07
English flag out was when England football team or England
48:12
rugby team was taking part in some kind of international
48:14
sport. That's when this fight should
48:17
have been fought. And that's when the the notion
48:20
of the flag being something which symbolised or there was to
48:26
be considered embarrassing should have been dealt with.
48:30
And now we're in a position where where that weaponization
48:33
is coming to full fruition. And that's in my opinion, is
48:36
really extremely dangerous. And and we need to take a step
48:39
back and and consider this. Yeah.
48:47
Well, reject the the out on the streets narrative and right
48:54
look, how do I put this? A lot of years ago, whenever the
49:02
issue of immigration was being discussed, Brian was in a
49:05
meeting with the BNP British National Party and, and this was
49:10
being discussed and, and the, the issue of people coming into
49:14
the country, there was a bit of push back from the audience and,
49:18
and somebody said something about immigration and, and, and
49:22
Brian made the point, well, how did they get in?
49:24
Did they fight their way ashore Now that at that time was
49:28
something that just wasn't happening.
49:30
Of course, now we have suddenly been getting lots of footage
49:35
from mainstream Press of people apparently doing something like
49:41
that. And of course we've got this
49:44
idea that we should have mass deportations now, which is
49:47
originated in the United States. Starmer has just done a deal
49:52
with the, with the French, which says that if 100 people fight
49:58
their way ashore, as it were, that those people are going to
50:00
be removed from the country and they're going to be replaced
50:02
with 100 other people that the French have decided are good
50:05
people and need to come into to Britain.
50:08
And I'm not saying any push back against that.
50:10
I'm saying push back against the people that are in the hotels.
50:16
I'm saying demonstrations outside the hotels and people,
50:20
you know, commenting on, on that situation.
50:23
But the, the, the policy that the, the, the, the parliamentary
50:28
decision making this government, I'm not saying the, the angst
50:33
being directed in that direction.
50:34
And it seems to me that, that everybody's pointing at a
50:37
symptom and they're not trying to deal with the disease.
50:41
And bearing in mind what we've just gone through and, and in
50:45
the early part of this decade, I'm struggling to understand why
50:50
people haven't been more equipped to, to, to reach the
50:55
right conclusions on this. It might be, as I say, just
50:58
because it's easier to to target the, the, the relatively
51:03
helpless people that are in hotels.
51:06
We've got to be targeting the right thing and that that is the
51:09
state. So.
51:10
So that's where I would start. The state, the state and the
51:16
stakeholders. Well, who?
51:21
Who do you mean by stakeholders? That means Ian Davis as, as Ian
51:25
Davis would argue, the the the private companies that are
51:29
aligned the the public private partnerships, so not just the
51:36
state. Yeah, but it's, but it's the
51:39
state. It's the state that controls the
51:40
borders, Jeremy. And and the state has the
51:42
borders absolutely wide open at the moment.
51:45
Yes, yeah. OK.
51:46
All right, I get. To this is not, this is not the
51:48
fault of the immigrant. This is the fault of the state.
51:51
And and if, if we, if we, you know, end up fighting on the
51:57
streets with immigrants, which is where we're going, absolutely
52:01
at this point in time, we are doing the state's job for it
52:06
because the state wants to close down this country and all
52:10
opposition to what it's doing. This crisis is state generated
52:16
and you know, we got to we got to focus on that and we got to
52:20
focus on who the actual enemy is.
52:23
And, and lots of people are pushing back at at me and, and
52:26
us for saying this, because we're just apologising for, for
52:31
Islam or we're no, we're not. We're saying that that is that
52:38
problem is something that can only be dealt with with it it on
52:46
a on a level playing field. Let's say whenever people are
52:50
full of rage, they're going to make the wrong decisions when it
52:53
comes to how to deal with the problem.
52:55
We're going to stop the problem getting worse 1st and that lies
52:59
with the state. Yeah.
53:01
I think, I think also there are two, two separate things that
53:05
are being willfully conflated. And I should say at the outset,
53:11
I absolutely agree with of course there.
53:16
I mean, you know, what on earth could be wrong with being proud
53:18
to be British or proud to be South African or proud to be
53:22
French, whatever, that that shouldn't need saying.
53:25
But somehow it does need saying in this, in this climate.
53:31
So with that in mind, and again, considering the fact that yes,
53:35
the state is in charge of migration in, in, in every, in
53:41
every regard, but specifically the the the issue that has
53:44
become such a flashpoint for everybody is the in particular,
53:47
you know, the idea of sort of small boat crossings.
53:49
And, and exactly what Mike's just been talking about.
53:51
Now what one thing that really sticks out as a point of
53:57
conflation is this idea that say, Islam is replacing
54:04
Christianity as though the the the story goes that Muslims are
54:08
pushing Christians out of church and then taking over church
54:13
buildings and making them mosques.
54:16
That that and the reason I prefix this with the there's,
54:19
you know, there's nothing wrong with being proud to be British.
54:21
We go back to the question which is what?
54:23
What is it that is British, then?
54:25
If you are, if you are complaining that there is not a
54:31
British condition that is sufficiently strong to resist
54:35
the sensation that another culture has pervaded and taken
54:40
over, then why is that possible? And I can say with absolute
54:45
authority that there is absolutely no way in which
54:49
Muslims may push Christians out of churches and then take over
54:53
church buildings. That is not possible.
54:56
The only way in which that can happen is if church communities,
54:59
church congregations have dwindled to such a point that
55:02
the Church of England in particular has to go through the
55:05
very, very expensive and laborious process of getting rid
55:10
of that building as a church. At which point it can be turned
55:12
into flats or turned into a shopping centre or turned into a
55:15
mosque. But the first thing that has to
55:17
happen is that people have to walk away from that church and,
55:22
and, and, and abandon it. That's why it happens.
55:25
And if we're to start flying flags and talk about the United
55:29
Kingdom as a, as a Christian country and, and all this sort
55:33
of thing, well, then people have to mean it.
55:36
So I know this sounds like sort of, you know, campaign for just
55:40
the church. And yes, there are many, many
55:42
issues with the church. But again, that goes back to
55:45
this idea of the right people supporting the right things.
55:49
And I've got to conversation with Alex Thompson that would
55:53
have come out yesterday or on exactly this issue about, you
55:57
know, how in a way the Church of England has been allowed to go
56:00
off the rails. I, I know it's a bit late in the
56:03
conversation today to be opening up this, this sort of can of
56:06
worms, but it does all point back to the same thing.
56:08
And the, and the problem is that that in a way, this might sound
56:12
over critical, but you can't, you can't have it both ways.
56:14
You can't say that you're proud to be British and want to have
56:18
this idea of, you know, Britain, the United Kingdom, England,
56:23
whatever it is as being a particular place and then not
56:26
actually behave like it. So how many of the people who
56:30
are tearing down Palestine flags and putting up Union flags or
56:36
Saint George's crosses and effectively demonising Islam
56:39
actually go to church? I mean, the only reason I'm
56:43
using the church is because it's just such an obvious one and
56:46
it's such a, it's such a well rehearsed line specifically
56:52
about churches becoming mosques. But it that cannot happen unless
56:58
people voluntarily stop going to church, leave it, abandon it, at
57:03
which point a community that does want to make use of it will
57:07
do so. There are there are many, many
57:11
problems with this. And and, you know, I appreciate
57:13
that that to a certain extent, this will create sort of
57:17
sensitivities and people might think that I'm kind of having a
57:20
go at them. I'm not.
57:21
What I'm asking for is for people to be consistent and also
57:25
to consider how this idea of sort of patriotism or whatever
57:30
it is can be weaponized. Because in my book, if you are
57:34
proud of being British, you're proud of your nation or whatever
57:38
it is that should stand in its own right.
57:40
That doesn't mean to say that you are British and therefore
57:43
you're against so and so and that, you know, so it's it's all
57:48
to do with with with being opposed to other beliefs, other
57:54
ideas, other cultures. That's that's an incredibly
57:57
insecure position to try to hold.
58:00
Why can't we simply have the secure position of thinking,
58:04
well, we are British, we do have a functioning culture and
58:07
society and we know that will thrive and endure.
58:11
And, and I think we know the answer to that because
58:13
unfortunately it's been picked apart and we have fallen foul of
58:16
all the various campaigns over exactly like Mike says over the
58:19
last 50 years that have absolutely destabilised this.
58:22
The only way to rectify that is to go back to start and start at
58:25
ground level, get out of the gym and actually develop practical
58:29
skills, do do stuff that does that does rebuild from the
58:33
ground up family, community and and then we and then we do have
58:36
a a proper British society. All right, well, look, this is
58:39
this is sorry, I just want to jump in here because this is a
58:43
vital point, Charles, because, you know, Brian was talking
58:46
about the the fact that, that at the, at the Hope Festival during
58:52
his presentation, he was talking about the fact that so many
58:56
churches are now having to share a single vicar.
58:59
And, and it doesn't, it's not just Church of England, it's all
59:01
denominations that are having this, this problem.
59:03
And part of the reason for that is there's been such a rejection
59:07
of the church, but the church was a core part of of community.
59:11
It was a core part of what it what it was to be British.
59:14
But this, the point I want to make here is this again comes
59:18
back to who is the enemy and what we have seen the systematic
59:26
destruction of the idea of, of Englishness, of Britishness,
59:31
Scottishness, Welshness, whatever it is, we've seen the
59:33
systematic destruction of what it is to be any of those things
59:38
by the state propaganda machine for the last 60 years, right?
59:42
And and we have to a large degree fallen for it.
59:45
Part of this is driven economically, part of it's
59:47
driven by the kind of so called culture that we're pumped that
59:52
are, that's pumped in our brains through the television.
59:56
And, and, and so as a result, the British nation, the English
1:00:02
nation, the Welsh nation, the Scottish nation, they're weak,
1:00:06
they have been weak. This, this has happened because
1:00:08
we have been weak as, as a nation, I'm not talking about
1:00:12
the state here, but as a nation, as a cohesive nation.
1:00:16
And you know, the, the fact that we have had immigration for the
1:00:20
last 40 of years, 40 years should not have mattered. 2
1:00:23
hoods. If we had a strong cultural base
1:00:27
and strength in our own communities and strength in our,
1:00:30
but we, we allowed ourselves to be psychologically manipulated
1:00:34
over the last, through propaganda over the last 40 or
1:00:38
50 years to the point where the, the fact that we've had
1:00:42
immigration into this country has made a significant
1:00:45
difference to how this country is.
1:00:48
And you know, it, it, it always comes back to, to ourselves in a
1:00:53
sense. But the point I'm trying to make
1:00:55
here is who is the enemy and all this?
1:00:58
And where does our focus need to be when we're considering the
1:01:02
changes that need to be made? And, you know, we've got to
1:01:06
recognise what has been done to us.
1:01:09
That is actually a very powerful point on which to to end our our
1:01:15
discussion. I don't think it's anything I
1:01:18
can add to that. Charles, do you agree?
1:01:21
I agree that I would not want to add anything to it.
1:01:24
No, I think it's exactly the right note to to finish on.
1:01:26
Brilliant. All right.
1:01:28
On that note, Charles, you're going to be away for a little
1:01:31
bit, so the next few chats will be just you and me.
1:01:35
Mike, Sorry about that. Yeah, I'm sorry about that too.
1:01:42
All right, guys, I'll catch you. Catch you soon.