Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 8

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 8 · UK Column Radio

0:38
Was having a chat this week with somebody I like to quip saying
0:43
that I'm neither left wing nor right wing, I'm the middle
0:45
finger. And the gentleman responded by
0:49
saying, but labels do matter, you know, you can't erase
0:52
language. And I found that quite
0:54
interesting because to a degree he's got a point.
0:58
Like a gardener is somebody who's a gardener and you, it's
1:01
his descriptor or doctor. But if you're talking about
1:04
something abstract, like an ideological worldview, then
1:07
labels become less important. No, I think labels become really
1:14
problematic. I think they're very important
1:17
because they're still problematic.
1:20
You know, we like to compartmentalise people, we like
1:23
to compartmentalise things. And but the problem is if, if
1:28
you decide for yourself that you're left wing or right wing,
1:31
then you've automatically got to believe certain things.
1:35
I mean, I, I'm quite proud of the fact that we've been equally
1:39
accused of being right wing and left wing and so on, because,
1:42
because this isn't, this shouldn't be how the world
1:46
works. You know, that, that, OK, I'm
1:48
right wing, therefore I've got to support Israel or I'm right
1:51
wing, therefore I've got to be anti this or that.
1:54
That's, that's not how it works. We should be looking at each
1:56
issue as as it is and and having a conversation about each issue
2:01
and set this ideological nonsense aside.
2:05
Well, I think it's up to us really as to whether they do
2:09
create division. I mean, I think that's, yeah,
2:12
it's a, it's a related issue. But you know, OK, let's take
2:17
the, the obvious right, right or left wing.
2:21
Why aren't we grown up enough to just consider that somebody who
2:26
describes themselves as either right wing, if you're left wing
2:29
or left wing and you're right wing, that they just have a
2:31
different point of view ultimately?
2:34
We've talked about this a little bit before You're.
2:37
You. You would label yourself as such
2:40
because you believe that you're pursuing ultimately probably the
2:44
same ends, but just by different means.
2:47
And I think that I think division is or the sowing of
2:52
division. The way that division manifests
2:54
is, is slightly a separate issue, but but of course, of
2:58
course, absolutely related. I, I think also the, you know,
3:02
one of the massive problems with labelling, whether it's of
3:07
people or of things or of concepts or, or whatever is it,
3:12
it means different things to different people.
3:15
And that is in some ways deliberate.
3:20
But, but I think I, yeah, again, I, I think that that adds, sort
3:23
of adds to the confusion. The term left and right wing, I
3:27
mean, I think most people should know by now that they come from
3:30
the French Revolution, which was a few centuries ago.
3:33
They had a reason to exist then because it was literal division
3:39
of the parliamentary structure. You know, those who were trying
3:44
to revolutionise the system set to the left of the parliamentary
3:48
speaker and those who wanted to preserve the monarchy set to the
3:52
right. The terms now don't mean
3:55
anything. And I have asked numerous people
3:58
over the years, will you call me far right?
4:00
This is not even better. Please define that.
4:03
What do you mean by that? And every single person you ask
4:07
has a different definition. And I would say that there are
4:13
all the definitions are wrong anyway, because, because if we
4:15
look at the so called political spectrum and we look at the the
4:19
absolute extremes of that and we look at, you know, extreme
4:25
socialism slash communism on one side and extreme right wing
4:28
slash national socialism on the other side.
4:31
What what is the difference between them?
4:34
So, so the better paradigm perhaps might be a circle that
4:39
that once you move too far to the right, you basically end up
4:42
in the same place as moving too far to the left.
4:45
But you know, at the end of the day, as I say these, these as,
4:51
as you've said, these labels are there to divide.
4:54
And you know who's who? I think the question that we've
4:59
all got to ask, no matter what part of the political spectrum
5:02
we might think we exist in, the question we've got to ask is who
5:07
is it that wants that division? That seems to me to be the, the,
5:12
the best starting place. And perhaps then you discover
5:14
that that that that person that you're hollering at who who you
5:18
say is on the opposite side of the political spectrum to
5:21
yourself actually is wanting to consider exactly the same issues
5:26
that you're wanting to consider. And in fact, the enemy isn't on
5:29
that political spectrum at all. Yes, well, that was the point I
5:32
was making. I I said, so I was at a
5:34
gathering of cartoonists a few days ago, some of South Africa's
5:39
top cartoonists. And the irony is that they all
5:44
were impressed that I pitched up because they said, well, that
5:46
was very brave because, you know, you're you're the only
5:49
right wing cartoonist. And I found that so odd because
5:52
I said to them, what do you mean though?
5:54
Like, what does that actually mean?
5:55
We both want a better society. We both want a better world,
5:59
right? We just have perhaps different
6:01
views on certain things. And they and they they still
6:05
stuck in that sort of ideological paradigm.
6:08
And I've it's bizarre. Well, I, I don't think it's that
6:12
bizarre when you consider the amount of effort that goes into
6:14
maintaining that particular status quo.
6:16
Because exactly like Mike says, you know, if, if, if people are
6:19
busy fighting with each other and, and, and only ever looking
6:22
sideways, not up sort of figuratively, then then then
6:26
that's, that's ideal. That, that is absolutely ideal.
6:30
So, yeah, I mean, inserting of labelling is, I would have said,
6:35
you know, when it is done deliberately has it, it is for
6:38
that very reason. And, and I totally agree on, you
6:41
know, I mean, on the, the sort of continuum thing.
6:42
I can, I can remember one of the few things I remember from
6:47
school that seem to absolutely make sense, you know, looking at
6:52
whether one was told it was extreme left or right,
6:56
ultimately it is exactly the same thing.
6:58
And certainly for the people within such a system that
7:01
describes itself or one or the other, the yeah, the outcomes
7:03
are more or less identical. And I think we're we're seeing
7:09
in in a lot of so called sort of Western civilised societies,
7:14
we're seeing those points being reached, if not for everybody,
7:21
certainly sort of in principle that that the push the drive for
7:26
those spaces, those points on that continuums absolutely
7:31
playing out now I think. I think the the, the major issue
7:35
here is that that from bottom to top, we have this political
7:40
division of doesn't matter what country you're in either.
7:43
You've got 2, basically two major parties or two major
7:47
ideologies at work here. But if we, if we look, you're
7:51
just taking 2 examples, the, the creation of the Soviet Union and
7:55
the creation of Nazi Germany. And, and you find the same, when
7:59
you actually do a little bit of digging, you find the same
8:03
financial interests supporting both efforts.
8:07
And, and so, you know, that's, that's OK, that's an extreme
8:10
example, but but this is, this is how it works.
8:13
We've got the same financial interest supporting both so
8:17
called sides of politics in all our countries.
8:21
And, and so we end up with a false choice between in the, in
8:25
the UK, between Labour and Tory and, and increasingly it's a
8:28
false choice because increasingly it's obvious that
8:30
it's a uni party because they pursue the same policies.
8:35
And and so you know, the quite the question that that we've got
8:39
to, I think if we've got to persuade anybody, if anything,
8:42
it is to to look a bit deeper at, at who is actually where,
8:48
you know, who is supporting and originating these ideologies in
8:51
the first place. The one gentleman was chatting
8:54
to me about it doesn't really matter too much, but it was
8:57
about hunting. And he said, but I, I completely
9:00
oppose it. You know, that's it's
9:02
predictable that, that you would, that you would support
9:05
hunting. And I said, how is that a
9:07
political? How's that a political thing?
9:10
OK, I asked him, do you eat meat?
9:11
He said yes. And then there was a moment of
9:14
silence. And he goes, yes, I understand
9:16
that that what you about to say is that it's going to be a
9:19
double standard here. But somehow this has been
9:22
encapsulated into political ideal, ideology and of course,
9:27
division. Of course, that's because it's a
9:29
mechanism of control. And so the fact that the fact is
9:33
we can't have those conversations because, you know,
9:37
let's put ourselves in the shoes of, of that person you were
9:41
speaking to. We can't have that conversation
9:43
because he's already without thinking about it.
9:45
And this is the key point. Without thinking about it, he
9:48
has already decided that he is against hunting and he's pro
9:51
abortion because he happens to, to exist in that particular
9:55
political space. The, the, the main issue is
9:58
that, that once you find yourself in that kind of reality
10:04
and that kind of thinking, you're immediately switching off
10:08
your brain. At that point, you don't need to
10:09
think anymore. And this is, this is part of the
10:12
attraction of it. Of course you can just, you can
10:14
just consume a whole swathe of policy areas and say, yeah, I
10:20
support that. And you don't actually have to
10:22
consider any of the implications.
10:24
You just get on with it. So that's, that's part of the
10:27
problem. The problem is that for most
10:29
people they don't play in the game that they're not playing
10:33
characters to use that right so called right wing term and and
10:37
they don't think we've got to start thinking.
10:41
Just as well for the people who do get stuck in these
10:43
conversations, because otherwise you have to confront the rather
10:45
unfortunate reality that if you say that you oppose hunting and
10:48
therefore you don't want to see animals being killed, but you
10:50
support abortion and therefore you do want to see unborn
10:53
foetuses being killed, then that puts you in a slightly tricky
10:57
position. But of course, that's not part
10:59
of it. You're not supposed to think
11:00
that much about it. Because you've outsourced your
11:04
critical thinking. Yeah, yeah, totally, totally and
11:09
utterly. But, but, but it's you know,
11:11
it's it's it's brilliantly done. And also you see how how the the
11:15
sort of the drawbridges drop at the appropriate moments when
11:19
people it's slightly different, but how when people are primed
11:23
for such and such a thing. And, and the example now, I
11:25
think we might have talked about this before, but the, the, the
11:29
Labour government via what has been referred to as a think tank
11:34
that is in effect, the Labour government has said that they've
11:37
just cracked it. You know, they've, they've
11:39
worked out how to stop this terrible scourge of illegal and,
11:44
or the problems with legal migration, which is via digital
11:47
ID And, and the way that the ground is prepared for it means
11:53
that people of all creeds, as it were politically should for it's
12:02
sort of the trap is designed for everybody to fall into.
12:05
And that, and that again, is another, is another gift of the,
12:08
of the sort of labelling thing, because you can, you can sell,
12:12
you can in effect, sell the same product to different people by
12:16
just calling it a different thing.
12:18
It's, it's wonderful. And it just never.
12:20
It never finishes. But I think a great counter
12:24
response to the whole are you a left winger or are you a right
12:27
winger might be something along the lines of, well, if you can
12:31
give me a definition of the term, then I'll tell you if I
12:34
am. Yes.
12:36
Oh yeah, absolutely. I I think, I think that should
12:38
be should completely be the first response with with any of
12:42
these things. Exactly.
12:44
So to, to define, you know, well, rather than saying, am I
12:48
whatever, Yeah, say, well, what, what is it exactly that you
12:51
think you mean by that? And, and then you and then you
12:54
do, I mean, frankly, that should actually, if, if people are open
12:57
minded enough and sort of can remain calm enough that that
13:00
does lead into an interesting discussion.
13:02
Because I mean, after all, what we're talking about now is not
13:06
I, I can't see that anyone would find this offensive, whether
13:09
they consider themselves to be of the left or of the right,
13:12
just to examine what that does mean and why they think that
13:15
such and such a thing conforms to it.
13:16
And it reminds me actually of the conversation that you had
13:19
with Vanessa Bailey, uh, within what I come.
13:21
It was a couple days ago and she was talking about the
13:26
differences, you know, the imagined differences between
13:29
between say Donald Trump and Joe Biden with regard to to war or
13:34
indeed Obama or, you know, any of them.
13:37
And, and it is incredible that there are an enormous number of
13:40
people who will believe that because somebody has been sort
13:44
of labelled as a, a peacemaking anti war president, that
13:49
therefore there won't be war and they won't remember that there
13:52
was war. And then you, you look at what
13:56
has happened and you see that the, the way in which this
14:01
person is described and their administration is described is
14:04
totally at odds with what actually happened.
14:07
But people will continue to believe it because that's the
14:10
that's the packaging that the story has had.
14:13
You mentioned emotional response.
14:15
Why? Why do you think people get so
14:17
worked up? Yeah, I mean that that that's a
14:23
good one that that is, that is quite some conditioning because
14:25
exactly why, why would you, why, why do people feel.
14:28
And you know, again, Donald Trump is an interesting one.
14:31
People, a lot of people do seem to behave sort of like they know
14:34
him. And we we get this on UK column
14:39
after the news. Not that we, you know, we, we
14:42
don't at all make a, a practise of playing the man and not the
14:48
ball. But sometimes it, it is very
14:51
much the case that you can look at one individual who has for
14:55
whatever reason, influenced the situation in, in a, a way that
15:00
deserves scrutiny. And this is not meant to be a
15:05
generalisation, but there there are invariably a number of
15:09
responses to such a such a sort of talking point, especially in
15:14
the news about something that's perceived to say critical of the
15:18
person, you know, negative about that particular person.
15:21
And it is, it's really interesting because often it
15:24
manifests all the way it expresses itself is as though
15:27
the the UK column viewer who's who's sort of written in about
15:31
it takes it personally, as though, as though somehow
15:34
you're, you know, savaging a member of their family or, or
15:38
even them by extension. And, and it is, it is
15:41
interesting, but I think this is, this is one of the things
15:44
that has been done very successfully is, is perhaps
15:49
through all these incredible and and non stop forms of media,
15:54
people's personalities have sort of been imprinted upon those
15:57
that are absorbing the content. And therefore they do seem to
16:00
have what what they perceive to be almost a personal
16:03
relationship with that person. I think there's a number of
16:06
issues here. The first is to follow on from
16:09
what Charles is saying. There's because there's so much
16:14
chaos and so on at the moment. There's definitely a need in
16:17
people for some kind of hero to come and save the day.
16:22
There's no question about that. But but on the more general
16:25
point, you know, there seems to be some kind of ingrained
16:30
fundamental desire requirement in humanity to be a member of a
16:36
club. It doesn't matter whether it's
16:38
support for a Sports Club. You think of the of how how
16:42
motivated people get about football, for example, and how
16:45
partisan they are. So it doesn't matter whether
16:48
it's sports or whether it's politics or, or whatever it
16:51
happens with, whether it's gender or whatever it happens to
16:53
be, people want to belong to to a club.
16:58
And, and this is, This is why it makes us so manipulable because
17:03
we have that strong desire to be amongst people that think the
17:07
same way and, and behave the same way and so on.
17:10
And, and this, this makes us suckers for this every single
17:13
time. They just they, they the people
17:15
that are, that are sort of managing societies, recognise
17:21
how to manage societies and, and giving strong brand identity to
17:25
the various clubs is is a, a mechanism for doing that and we
17:30
fall for it every time. It's the Messiah syndrome.
17:34
And no question about that. And but also it's because people
17:39
perceive events locally, nationally, globally, whatever
17:43
it happens to be, they perceive events as being so big that
17:47
there's nothing that they as individuals can do about it
17:50
because they're just little people.
17:52
And and we, we, it's, it's natural for us to all have this
17:56
kind of concern and so on. But but somehow because Trump
18:01
has given the perhaps false perception that he's somehow
18:06
something special because he happens to own some real estate
18:09
and and a couple of golf courses and has said some things in the
18:13
past that people agree with. And nobody seems to they see,
18:17
it's been people seem to switch their brains off at this point
18:19
and say, well, OK, he said stuff that I agree with in the past.
18:23
I'm going to support this guy because he's going to save the
18:25
day. And he said he's going to drain
18:26
the swamp and he's going to do this.
18:27
And the other thing nobody has ever considered the possibility
18:32
that he's, he has lied all this time.
18:34
I mean, I'm not saying that he has, but because I don't know
18:37
the man and I don't know, you know, what his thought processes
18:41
have been over the years. But nobody has considered the
18:44
possibility that he has lied his way into the position of
18:47
President of the United States. And that actually the, the, the
18:51
faith in, in that individual or any individual is, is falsely
18:55
placed. And this is, this is dangerous
18:57
because we're effectively giving up any agency that we have.
19:00
But, but the, the fundamental problem here is that people
19:03
refuse to believe that they have any agency of their own.
19:06
I. Think I think it was Catherine
19:09
Fitz who made a great comment about a a way to look at world
19:13
leaders. You know that they're
19:15
effectively just middle management.
19:17
I think, I think that that's a good observation, but I, and I
19:20
think that this is, this is also, this is another aspect of
19:24
the problem that people have is that they're always thinking
19:27
about who's at the top of the pyramid and that's the target.
19:30
Well, no, that's not the target. That should never be the target
19:33
because the fact of the matter is the people at the top of the
19:36
pyramid, they hold the purse strings and so on, but they,
19:39
they have no direct control over what happens on the ground.
19:43
And so they need this layer of middle management.
19:45
If you can disrupt that layer of middle management, you can
19:48
disrupt their plans. And that's, that's that I think
19:51
is where people make a mistake. They're always trying to target
19:55
the top of the pyramid. They're always worried about
19:57
who's at the top of The Who cares?
19:59
Doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, you
20:02
know, those people are invisible, but the people that
20:04
are visible, the people that are in middle management, they are
20:07
there. They're the target.
20:08
And that's who we should be targeting, in my opinion.
20:11
You know, we, we should also, I think they should be much more
20:13
lampooning. I mean, the idea of a one world
20:15
government is just so utterly preposterous that it's
20:20
laughable, frankly. And yes, you know, all right,
20:24
there are, there are many, you know, well founded concerns that
20:29
come with the idea of it and the and the sort of movement towards
20:33
it. But it it does come down to the
20:36
choices that you make and what you're able to put in place to
20:41
make sure that you can deal with the situation as it as it
20:44
presents itself, I think. Ian Davis actually makes a good
20:49
point about that one world government narrative.
20:53
I I mean, I agree with you. I think it does seem quite
20:55
preposterous. The world's a very big place.
20:58
But he argues that one world governance is more plausible.
21:05
And one world governance, for example, can occur through
21:09
systems like the UN, which has, you know, almost 200 countries
21:13
basically agreeing to everything that the UN says.
21:16
I'll just make the jet. I'll just gently make the point,
21:19
Jeremy, that we've had a one World Governance series on the
21:23
UK column website since 2010 or so or 2011.
21:27
So, so this is this, this has been our point from the
21:30
beginning. This, this isn't about one World
21:33
government because of course that is simply not possible.
21:37
Even if you have some kind of Politburo Bureau in the UN or
21:41
wherever, where whatever organisation is supposed to be
21:44
at the top of that particular pyramid.
21:47
Of course there has to be government at, you know, various
21:53
strata and, and in various parts of the world, various regional
21:57
assemblies and, and so on it. But it's the governance
22:01
framework which is the important thing.
22:03
And of course, you know, we would categorise digital ID and
22:08
CBDC and these types of policy areas as being part of the, that
22:13
governance framework. And, and it's, it's the idea
22:16
that, you know, that that is decided at, in one location on
22:21
the planet. And that therefore at a local
22:23
level, we basically have no say in how that framework is created
22:27
and what, what that framework is that that I think is, is a
22:31
dangerous thing. And, and you know, it, it this,
22:34
this comes back to whole other raft of issues.
22:37
For example, the issue of diversity, which is presented as
22:43
being some mechanism to protect minorities or make sure that
22:48
people that are, you know, immigrants to a country are
22:51
treated fairly or that women are treated fairly or whatever it
22:54
happens to be. But in fact, I think we may have
22:56
mentioned this before, but, but diversity is about breaking down
23:00
the differences between, between peoples and between whatever
23:06
part of, you know, section of society we're talking about.
23:08
And that, that in the process of doing that, you actually break
23:12
down the, the strength of, of the human, because strength
23:17
comes from having different ideas and debating and, and so
23:21
on. And we end up with, with better
23:23
answers when we, when we actually approach problems from
23:26
different points of view. If we all think the same and
23:29
that then we're weakening ourselves as, as, as a, as a
23:34
species. And, and that's dangerous.
23:38
But you know, it's absolutely governance is the and the
23:42
governance frameworks are the things that we should be
23:43
focusing on, not the idea of, of, of some kind of single
23:47
government which can never exist as, as Charles is saying.
23:51
The three of us are quite diverse.
23:53
We have different views and we have overlapping views.
23:56
That in itself is diversity. We aren't all zombies with
24:01
precisely the same outlook on everything.
24:04
Yeah, that's because that's because, again, these are points
24:06
of division that that that certain people take advantage of
24:10
for, you know, at at multiple levels.
24:12
I mean, the the people at the top of the pyramid absolutely
24:14
take advantage of that for as a mechanism control.
24:17
But but equally people at the bottom of the pyramid take
24:21
advantage of that just because it gives them some kind of, you
24:26
know, public persona or whatever.
24:28
And they, they stand and they shout at certain sections of
24:31
the, of, of the town or city that they happen to be in and,
24:35
and start shouting about enemy combatants and this kind of
24:37
thing. So, so you know, this, this is
24:40
something that can be exploited in many, many ways.
24:43
Now, I'm not going to say that I like everybody.
24:46
I reserve the right to to dislike anybody I like, but I'm
24:50
not, I'm sorry, dislike anybody I want rather than yes, but,
24:55
but, but I'm going to do that. I'm personally would would make
25:00
that decision based on what they say and what they do, but
25:03
particularly what they do not, not based on anything else.
25:07
I mean, what at the end of the day, why would I care what
25:11
religion somebody is? I mean, I, I grew up in a
25:13
society that told me that I had to care what religion somebody
25:17
was and that, you know, that was nonsense and, and that was
25:21
obviously nonsense for anybody that had a brain at the time.
25:25
And I mean, too much diversity in any event, is not a good
25:29
thing. South Africa on a macro level is
25:31
a good example of that. But on a more micro level, if if
25:33
you're on a tour bus and there are, let's say 30 people from
25:37
different countries and they're all speaking different
25:38
languages, you're going to really get nowhere until you
25:41
hear that one person speaking perhaps English.
25:43
And you go, there's somebody, there's somebody, and you want
25:45
to go and sit next to them so you can at least chat.
25:48
No, I don't think, I don't think I agree with that.
25:50
I think I think, you know, if, if how many countries do we have
25:54
in the world 170 something or whatever it is.
25:58
You know, each of those countries, some of them are,
26:02
are, have formed naturally. Some of them have formed
26:05
because, you know, various empires have said this is your
26:08
border. But nonetheless, those people
26:14
have different languages often, but they, but I think we made
26:18
this point as well before. There are concepts expressed in
26:22
some languages that are unexpressible in other
26:24
languages. If we, if we destroy those, if
26:27
in the name of diversity, we say, no, you can't speak your
26:30
language anymore because because I can't understand you, you've
26:33
got to speak English or you've got to speak German or you've
26:35
got to speak French, Then of course you lose the concepts
26:39
that that are expressed in that language by those people.
26:42
You lose, you lose that thought process.
26:44
And, and that, that's, that's what I mean when, when we weaken
26:47
ourselves, when we do that. So, so, you know, I take your
26:50
point that if you're in a, if you're a stranger in a strange
26:53
land, that it can be difficult because you don't speak the
26:56
language. But but that doesn't mean that
26:58
we should be all deciding to sort of lessen the the range of.
27:05
Yeah, that's not, Yeah, that's not what I was saying.
27:07
I was. That's why I thought OK.
27:07
Sorry about that. That's why I said on a on a
27:09
micro level, if you're on a tour bus, you you're going to have a
27:12
very, very boring time if you aren't able to communicate with
27:16
everybody around you. Yeah, OK.
27:18
But I think we've got to wait. I think we've got to get our
27:20
terms right here because because when, when you say diversity,
27:25
that doesn't, that doesn't mean the same as when they say
27:28
diversity, because when they say diversity, what they mean is the
27:32
removal of diversity. They, they mean that, that in
27:36
order to, in order to, you know, be accepting of, of other
27:44
cultures and so on, you've got to change your culture.
27:47
And so the aim of the game there is to turn everybody into the
27:50
same thing. It's like it's, you know, an
27:53
example of this. If you look through, look at any
27:56
city in the Western world, in Europe, let's just say Europe,
28:02
you will find the same shops in the same high streets that
28:05
everything looks the same. Now this is this at a certain
28:08
level is a great example of it. And it, it's, it's horrible
28:11
because you can't go to Paris or you can't go to Berlin or you
28:14
can't go to Frotzois or, or, or Warsaw and see something which
28:20
is in Francois for Warsaw. You can't see something which is
28:23
Polish anymore. You can't see something which is
28:25
German. And in Berlin it's all the big
28:28
multinational corporates. This is the effect of of their
28:33
meaning of diversity with a. Capital D.
28:36
Yes, and and it's it's destroying cultures and that is
28:40
the point of it. So because, because, because the
28:46
language that's being used at a certain, with a certain section
28:51
of society has been turned into something different.
28:54
So the words might be English, but they don't mean what you
28:57
think they mean or what I think they mean.
29:00
And that that's our problem with.
29:01
So we have to, the first thing we have to do is to try to
29:05
interpret what they're saying. And, and you know, it's, it's a
29:10
silly thing to say, perhaps, but, but often if you just
29:13
assume that what they mean is 180° out from what you think
29:17
they mean, you may be getting closer to the truth.
29:21
Yeah, but that dovetails to the start of this conversation with
29:24
understanding labels and definition.
29:26
So we need to, we need to also be clear with our language.
29:30
So when people speak like this we need to 1st ask them what do
29:32
you mean? Yeah.
29:36
Well, that's where you can come off the rails quite quickly
29:38
because basically people don't know and and that's
29:44
unfortunately where I think this sort of conversation that starts
29:49
out as well meaning and well intended can can turn into
29:53
something that becomes more contradictory and controversial
29:57
than it should because people are unable.
30:01
I mean, it's you know, it shouldn't be really regarded as
30:02
a challenge, but people perceive it to be a challenge as though
30:05
you're immediately trying to undermine their point of view.
30:07
But in actual fact, you're just trying to understand it.
30:10
And and you know, like you say, going back to the beginning, The
30:13
thing is that people by and large, they don't, they don't
30:16
understand, they don't they, they know that such and such a
30:19
thing equals far right or far left or what?
30:21
I mean, actually not really far left these days, mostly far
30:24
right. And that's enough.
30:26
That's, that's all you need to know.
30:28
You don't, you don't have to be able to qualify it.
30:30
It's, yeah, it's, it's, it's pathetic.
30:33
How? How disappointing to to have to
30:36
exist like that. Charles So I did a, As you know,
30:39
I did a conversation with Vanessa Bailey a few nights ago
30:42
and I got an very, very angry message from somebody after
30:45
that. Good.
30:47
This is just anti Semitic. How can you, how can you even
30:51
platform somebody like this? She doesn't know what she's
30:53
talking about, blah, blah, blah. I'm so disappointed in, in, in
30:56
you and UK calling blah, blah, blah.
30:58
And this is the problem that you were alluding to earlier, that
31:03
people get so emotionally attached to these ideological
31:08
world views. Yeah, I mean, on that specific
31:11
issue, join the club. You know that that's, that that
31:16
happens without fail when there's any, any suggestion that
31:22
that the state of Israel, which has nothing to do with Jewish
31:27
people or the Jewish faith, literally just talking about
31:30
the, the, the state of Israel. It is, it is absolutely seen as
31:39
somehow indistinct from criticism of, of, of Jewish
31:45
people. And therefore it's the inference
31:46
is that it's anti Semitic. And I mean, yeah.
31:48
And again, that term is completely mis misappropriated
31:52
anyway. So yes, I mean, it's, you know,
31:54
it's very sad because people do, people do get triggered by it
31:57
and they therefore don't think about what is actually being
32:00
said. And I, I'm not, I mean, I, I, I
32:05
remember exactly Vanessa's remark and, and, and I, I
32:09
completely agree with her within the context that she said it.
32:12
And, and saying, saying that because, I mean, you know,
32:15
again, are people inconsistent? I mean, you did, did whoever you
32:18
were communicating with have a view on Kashmir or Western
32:21
Sahara or, you know, any of the other many disputed territories
32:26
over the world And, and there, you know, how they sort of came
32:29
to be. So, yes, I, I think it's, it's
32:35
another excellent exercise in, well, let's say, labelling the,
32:41
the, the fact that people, an enormous number of people that
32:46
never have never really stopped to think about it.
32:48
And, and I don't mean I'm not talking about people that are
32:52
Jewish or have links to Israel, but but people across the board
32:56
are just conditioned into thinking of Israel as being the
33:00
only country on earth that is somehow absolutely to be
33:05
regarded as indistinct from anybody that is Jewish.
33:11
It's, it's a remarkable achievement to have have been
33:16
able to say that mental condition across the world.
33:22
But, but it's amazing because I, I mean, I, I don't know, can can
33:27
you think of anywhere else that falls into a similar category?
33:32
The other, sorry, the other point I would make about this is
33:34
of course that that that reaction from that person to
33:38
what Vanessa said was a first of all, a knee jerk reaction that
33:42
they, they reacted immediately without thinking based on I'm,
33:46
I'm speculating here, but probably based on ideological
33:49
lines. But they did so without
33:53
considering who and what Vanessa Bailey actually is and maybe
34:00
don't know anything about her. And so, you know, the fact that
34:04
she lived in Gaza for a while, the fact that she's lived in
34:06
Syria for so many years, the fact that she has been on the
34:09
ground on the receiving end of a lot of what Israel has done over
34:15
the last number of decades. But also her family background
34:18
as well. And the fact that she was, you
34:21
know, the daughter of a British diplomat who ended up carrying
34:23
the can for the Suez crisis and so on.
34:25
And so she has quite a bit of direct knowledge of the
34:30
situation that many of us don't have.
34:33
You know, most of us are reading about Israel from books.
34:38
She has lived actually quite a lot of that and and so has a
34:42
different perspective on on things.
34:44
And so whether we agree with her or not, and this is, this is the
34:50
point that I really want to make here, whether we agree with
34:52
someone or not, we, we should be prepared to, to consider what
34:58
they have to say. And you know, when by that I
35:02
mean, whether we agree with them as as an initial reaction or
35:05
not, we should be willing to consider what they have to say
35:07
and actually find out a little bit more about why they're
35:10
saying it. And, and you know, that that
35:14
helps to inform our future decisions.
35:16
But, you know, I've always said, Jeremy, that, that if we're
35:20
finding ourselves in an ideological situation and
35:24
somebody says something to us which causes that, that knot in
35:29
our gut and, and, and we just want to lash out and, and, and
35:34
say something unpleasant about them.
35:36
That's the point where we have to, in my opinion, actually
35:40
challenge our own perceptions and our own.
35:44
And we have to, we have to actually use that as a, as a
35:47
trigger for reconsidering whether we're whether our
35:50
position is correct or not. And, and this is something that
35:54
that most of us don't do often enough or at all.
35:58
We should be, we should be absolutely challenging our
36:01
positions on things every day, every time we have, we make a
36:05
statement or have a thought about it.
36:07
Am I right? Or have it, is there something I
36:09
haven't taken into account here? Because that, you know, if we
36:13
aren't doing that, then we don't really believe in the truth at
36:16
all. Mike, you're, I think you're
36:18
absolutely perfectly right to talk about, you know, a comment
36:22
from Vanessa should be seen as something coming from somebody
36:27
who has seen what she's seen, researched what she's researched
36:31
and you know, all the other factors.
36:36
But I think it's unfair on Vanessa to think that there's
36:42
the possibility that her view is in any way an emotional one or
36:49
one that's based on stuff that she's seen.
36:54
Because I think that takes away what the, the objective point
36:57
she was making, which was about just giving land that wasn't
37:06
British to somebody. I mean, the, the she was talking
37:09
about the, the creation of the state of Israel, which which is
37:12
complete a completely extraordinary thing.
37:16
And, and rather than giving people the, the possibility of
37:20
regarding Vanessa as being a sort of, you know, Arabist
37:24
sympathiser and, you know, having, having any sort of
37:28
interference with, in her view of the all the various aspects
37:35
of her life that you reference, I think is, is a, is a real
37:42
issue. And, and yet we see, you know,
37:45
we see this sort of both both ways, whether it be to, in
37:50
relation to Israel or, or exactly like you say, German
37:53
with the, the issue of whether Islam is or isn't compatible
37:57
with, with such and such a thing.
37:59
But I think it does, you know, the, because I, well, what I
38:03
would say with, with Israel is of course, the, the, the
38:05
conversation with Vanessa specifically was about Christian
38:08
Zionism. And, and again, that means that
38:10
people are not taking an objective view, that they're
38:15
basing their point of view on something that they believe is
38:22
the case from, you know, sort of historical biblical context.
38:26
And, and that strips away the objectivity.
38:28
So in in effect it becomes an emotional point of view, which I
38:34
think is a a dangerous thing. Asking the question actually is
38:38
not a very good question. Whether or not Israel has the
38:40
right to exist because a state exists or doesn't, nobody can
38:44
kind of enforce that right. I don't know whether it is.
38:49
I don't know whether it is, I think I think because just to
38:53
follow on from what Charles has just said, you know, the word
38:56
that Charles used there was extraordinary.
38:59
It's the way that that the way that that project was done
39:02
hasn't been done that way before or since.
39:07
And so I think, I think I think it, it is actually quite a good
39:12
question and and it's one that needs to be discussed much more,
39:16
not less would be my suggestion on that.
39:20
Yeah, I agree and I I think. Is it the right though?
39:23
Sorry. No, no, just just just to draw
39:25
out the the because the inference, you know what, what
39:27
does 1 infer from the question? And again, that's you have to
39:32
you have to ask yourself, well, what is it you're reading into
39:34
that question because it what you should mean, but sorry, not
39:39
what you should. But what I think you mean by
39:41
that question is, is, was the way in which the state of Israel
39:48
was created correct? What what was that?
39:51
Was that to follow a process that that that was, you know,
39:59
sort of Fair, legal, lawful or any of these sorts of things?
40:04
But, but ultimately, was it right?
40:06
As opposed to is, you know, does that question mean that all, all
40:10
Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth?
40:12
Well, what a ridiculous thing to to try.
40:15
I mean, you there, there are, there are Jewish people outside
40:19
the state of Israel and there are non Jewish people within.
40:24
So it it makes no sense on that basis.
40:26
But you can bet that people will infer from that question that
40:30
that is what you mean by it. And indeed an answer that
40:34
Vanessa gave in saying no, it shouldn't, that people will say,
40:38
oh, well, she, you know, she's saying death to whoever.
40:42
I mean which is which is just completely not fair or not the
40:46
case. It was that banned recently?
40:50
Was it in the UK with a sang death to the IDF or something?
40:54
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, they are.
40:56
No, unbelievable. I mean, not sorry, not
40:59
unbelievable. They did it unbelievable that
41:01
people can't think further than the end of their nose because.
41:06
Or if did we not talk about it before anyway.
41:08
But, you know, just imagine if they'd said if they'd done death
41:12
to death to Russian armed forces.
41:15
Great. Well done, guys.
41:16
Well, you know, same place next year.
41:19
So yeah, it's just, it's it's pathetic.
41:22
By the way, it's your country that pretty much created the
41:25
state of Israel. Yeah.
41:28
Absolutely, but that but that's why but but that is why going
41:32
back to the specifics then that that's where it does come into
41:36
play. The fact that the fact that
41:38
Vanessa does know what she's knows and has lived what she has
41:42
and that her father was a diplomat, you know, during that
41:45
sort of period. If that is, that's where all of
41:48
this becomes significant because we look at how history as it's
41:52
unfolding in front of our very eyes is, is rewritten.
41:56
And anyone say, say teenagers now will believe stuff that is
42:03
absolute lies from anything that's happened over the last
42:08
couple of years. I mean, you know, or, or, or
42:10
look at, look at where we are with, with climate change, you
42:13
know, the, the big one, they are, people are absolutely
42:17
conditioned into thinking something that is, that is not
42:20
true. She she did concede, saying,
42:23
look, perhaps it's because she has an emotional attachment to
42:26
Jewish history and. No, I, I have much more time for
42:30
people that, that approach these issues in that way than I do for
42:36
people that have simply decided something because they, you
42:41
know, they actually have no historical attachment to, to
42:45
this, the topic in any way, shape or form.
42:47
They've, they've come to a certain conclusion because
42:49
someone else told them that that was the conclusion that they had
42:51
to have. So, you know, someone like that,
42:55
someone like that, I think you can have a conversation with,
42:59
but it's, it's much harder to have a conversation with someone
43:02
who has just taken a, a position without any kind of cerebral
43:08
process at all, you know, because there's no, there's no
43:12
discussion. Patrick Kennington and I were at
43:14
a a thing last night at Plymouth University and it was, it was a,
43:19
a documentary film that that was getting a showing.
43:22
It hasn't been sold in the UK. So at this point nobody else can
43:26
watch it unless there's another private viewing somewhere else
43:28
in the country. But at this point it can't be
43:30
watched. And it's all about the
43:32
militarisation of the Arctic. And, and the premise is that
43:36
this militarisation is happening because of climate change,
43:39
because the ice is melting. And therefore countries, there's
43:42
this massive race to, to, to get control of that, that neck of
43:46
the woods. There's, there's a whole raft of
43:52
of issues around that that that particular topic and and I've
43:59
completely lost the the thread of where I was going to go with
44:02
that. I'm enjoying your raft of issues
44:06
in the Arctic where of course there's no ice now, so it just
44:09
be floating, floating around with all your issues on it.
44:13
Right, right. So, so, so we go in, we sit down
44:16
and the first person who speaks is, is a senior lecturer at
44:20
Plymouth University who's a climate lecturer.
44:22
And so there's no discussion with him whatsoever about
44:26
anything. And then the guy who's made the
44:28
documentary has been working in the past on, on David
44:32
Attenborough's series and so on and, and whatnot.
44:34
And it's absolutely clear that, that, that he has managed to get
44:40
this documentary made by himself on his own with no support on
44:46
the production side, but with massive support on the NATO
44:50
side. And, and he so he has ended up
44:54
producing something which, which is an absolute propaganda peace.
44:59
But my point is this the, the, the whole premise of the thing
45:03
has come from this ideological standpoint that hasn't really
45:07
been thought through. And, and so, but, but it was the
45:11
reaction from most of the audience, which was really
45:15
amusing because because none of them had thought through the
45:19
issues either. And so they have been presented
45:21
with this piece of work which they have consumed and have.
45:26
And there was no, in the Q&A at the end, there was clearly no
45:30
thought process. I mean, for example, this is all
45:37
part of this militarization of the Arctic is all happening
45:40
because the ice is melting. And the bad guys in this are
45:43
Russia and China. But China is spending more money
45:47
now on building Ice Breakers than they ever have in the past.
45:50
And I'm thinking, well, hold on a second, if why are they
45:53
investing in Ice Breakers if the ice is melting, right?
45:56
So, so the whole argument is in turn, nobody in the room got
46:00
this. Nobody in the room could
46:01
understand this concept. On me just thinking ahead to
46:04
2030 when global emissions have dropped to below 0 and all the
46:08
ice comes back. I, I couldn't comment on that.
46:10
I mean, and, and Russia the same.
46:12
They're building nuclear, nuclear powered Ice Breakers,
46:15
right? So, so why are they doing this
46:18
if the ice is all melting? It's, it's, it's the, the, the,
46:23
the, the lack of of thought and consideration in that room for
46:27
what they were being presented with was off the charts.
46:29
It was amazing. And I'm not sure whether that
46:33
is, is the point that I was originally intending to make
46:36
anyway, but but I'll make, I'll make that point because it was
46:39
quite an incredible experience just to be in a room with, with
46:42
100 and 150 people watching this, this documentary and
46:46
listening to them speak afterwards.
46:48
Quite amazing. The further you go through life,
46:51
the more perhaps as a generalisation, the more evident
46:56
it becomes. It it is.
46:59
I think it is harder to change your responses to things or the
47:06
the way you do think about things or the OR your behaviours
47:10
the further you go through life. Again, I, I, you know, I know
47:13
there will absolutely be people listening who we'll reject that
47:17
out of hand at a personal level, which is fine.
47:20
But but yes, I, I think by and large, we are all conditioned by
47:28
our experiences very early on in life.
47:30
And I mean, OK, I don't know nearly enough about it, but if
47:32
you that there are people who speak very clearly about this in
47:37
so far as what's imprinted on a child's mind or behaviour by the
47:42
age of 7. And it's it, you know, it's
47:44
very, very significant. And I think this goes back to
47:48
the sort of the white hat thing or coalescing or what, you know,
47:53
what Jason Kristoff talks about with the, the, the well, but but
47:57
the, the idea that either you do grow up as you know, there,
48:04
there are variables here, but the idea that you do grow up as
48:07
somebody who is looking to be part of a group and needing
48:11
those sorts of life lines as you perceive them or you're not.
48:17
And I don't think that broadly speaking, people change in that
48:25
fundamental sense. And I, and I remember this
48:27
coming out, we, Mike and Brian and I went to a pub in Plymouth
48:32
a couple of months ago. And we, we, we were chatting to
48:34
people and, and these stories were being shared about how,
48:41
because I think a number of people there who certainly
48:43
described that they'd woken up during the COVID thing.
48:45
And, and, and there was a lady there who had she, I can't
48:49
forget actually, whether she was in, she was working, she was
48:51
either working in a care home or in a sort of medical setting, I
48:53
can't remember which it was. I think maybe she was a nurse
48:56
and she was talking about how she just conscience wouldn't let
49:03
her continue to do the things they were being asked to do.
49:06
And I asked her whether she was sort of surprised by that.
49:10
And could you think of other instances in life?
49:13
And it was something she'd never really examined.
49:15
And it was very interesting her response because she just sort
49:17
of thought back and thought that actually there were other, many
49:21
other instances in which she had effectively express the same
49:25
sorts of behaviour. But of course, it hadn't been
49:26
controversial because it wasn't largely out of kilter with what
49:29
the people around her were doing or thinking.
49:32
So I, I, I think that that who we are is, is shaped from from a
49:40
very early age and that, and that does inform the way that we
49:42
will go on to think about things, even if we're, we're
49:45
always learning stuff. But I think there's AI think
49:48
there is definitely a difference between learning, you know,
49:51
processing information and and then forming points of views,
49:55
all judgement. A friend of mine made a comment
49:59
about a year ago. He said to me, human progress,
50:02
the myth. I, I, I'm going to say I'm not
50:05
sure whether that's entirely true because, you know, the,
50:10
the, the fact of the matter is when, when we live in a, an
50:15
environment that's Neolithic times or so on, there's certain
50:19
things that we need to do to survive that we don't need to do
50:23
anymore. So you know what, what
50:26
proportion of people actually would know how to do something
50:32
basic like, you know, kill an animal and, and prepare it for,
50:36
for eating and so on. Is that pro?
50:39
Is that progress? I don't know.
50:40
But, but anyway, the point is, I think, I think the problem that
50:45
humanity exhibits is that, umm, we don't recognise the section
50:52
of humanity which, umm, whether we want to call them sociopaths
50:57
or psychopaths or whatever, which inevitably ends up at the,
51:00
at the top of the pyramid. I, I think there's, I think that
51:03
section of humanity certainly doesn't progress.
51:06
And, and because they effectively control the purse
51:09
strings and, and drive policy and drive societies and so on.
51:14
Umm, we find ourselves, we find ourselves unable to get rid of
51:22
that particular aspect of, of humanity and, and therefore we,
51:28
we, we perhaps maybe that's holding us back in some ways.
51:31
I think we progress in some ways and we don't progress in others.
51:34
I mean, I think it would be equally easy to argue that the
51:37
fact that that that many of us don't know how to how to survive
51:44
in certain circumstances anymore is a backward step and not a
51:47
progressive step. But anyway, maybe Charles can
51:50
say something about that. Absolutely.
51:52
Well, because I take a very literal view of it and and I
51:56
think, I mean, just imagine, you know, the the creator looking
51:59
down upon the creations and going through, you know, going
52:04
down the list. But, yeah, they can still fly,
52:08
pretty much. They're good at, you know,
52:10
catching. Catching the things they need to
52:12
eat. Fish up.
52:13
Still swimming. All right.
52:14
Monkeys. Yeah, they can still climb
52:15
trees. Humans.
52:17
Oh, no, hang on. No, they can't really run.
52:20
They can't bend down and pick stuff up.
52:23
They don't know what to eat. They can't climb stuff.
52:28
Yeah. So no, I mean, this is a really
52:31
serious point in my mind. I think at a species level, we
52:36
have regressed terrifically. And I don't just mean
52:40
physically. Yes, I, yes, I do absolutely
52:43
think that is a very, very serious point and why, you know,
52:47
we talk about conditioning when one's younger.
52:48
I mean, why, why do we just stop doing the stuff that that we
52:52
should be able to do? Why when people get to the age
52:54
of, I don't know, whatever it is, 15 if they've got a mobile
52:57
telephone or perhaps 20 if not, they just stop, stop running,
53:00
they stop swimming, they stop climbing, they stop doing all
53:02
the sorts of things that keep you active.
53:05
And I absolutely believe in healthy mind, in a healthy body.
53:09
And again, mental capacity. The problem is that we don't,
53:12
the physical stuff is easier to, to sort of articulate because
53:15
you can quite clearly see, oh, well, that person can't do that
53:18
or I can't run a mile in whatever.
53:21
The mental thing is harder to, to deal with because you don't
53:24
know what your mental capacity could be because it's it, you
53:28
know, it's not possible to, to regard that.
53:30
But, but I think we absolutely have failed.
53:33
When you think of the, the way in which people could recite
53:37
enormous volumes of poetry or song or, or whatever, we cannot
53:42
do that now. We have, So I, I don't regard it
53:46
as progress that we've basically outsourced all of our
53:48
capabilities. I regard that as a massive
53:50
vulnerability. Look where we are now.
53:52
We talk the entire time about the, you know, the system being
53:56
shut down, no money, no food, no whatever.
54:01
But but and the vast majority of people are totally stuck because
54:04
they cannot rely upon themselves or the small groups of humans
54:09
that they engage or operate with in order to achieve that.
54:12
So I know it sounds sort of basic and simplistic, but I
54:15
think it should be basic and simplistic.
54:17
And I think we are absolute fools to imagine that we can
54:21
sort of tech our way out of it. We can't and, and I'm afraid to
54:26
say, and I, I do take a really hard line on this.
54:29
I think that it is an absolute abuse of the, you know,
54:32
incredible sort of privilege of life to to squander that by not
54:37
absolutely making the best of all the capabilities that we
54:40
have. You know, we don't.
54:42
One of our dogs was barking in the night and I couldn't quite
54:46
think what what was going on. And I need to find that, you
54:51
know, there was a huge confection of feathers on the
54:54
lawn this morning. Evidently there was a fox around
54:57
the house. I couldn't hear it.
54:58
I couldn't sense it, but one of the dogs could.
55:01
So, yeah, we, we have lost ground and and we need to regain
55:05
it. It's it is not all it's not all
55:07
doom and gloom. I'm reading an excellent book
55:09
about Crete during the Second World War at the minute and the
55:12
incredible feats of, you know, sort of endurance and everything
55:17
else by those, by the credence. And I dare say that persists to
55:20
an extent to this day. Anyway, I know, I know we've got
55:21
to wrap it up. But yeah, we have not progressed
55:24
in many respects. We need to, we need to reclaim
55:27
that, that ground. Thank you for this week's
55:31
Mantel. Catch up with you next week.
55:33
Thank you.