Latest / UK Column Radio / Why Woodstock was a Harmful Psyop | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter

Transcript

Why Woodstock was a Harmful Psyop | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter · UK Column Radio

0:05
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Jerm. This is Jerm Warfare,
0:32
Speaker 1: the battle of ideas. All right. Global warming, gentlemen, has
0:37
Speaker 1: arrived in South Africa. It's very, very hot today.
0:41
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
0:43
Speaker 1: It's springtime? Where you are. No, where you are. Well,
0:47
Speaker 1: it's global warming. I mean, that's the only thing that
0:50
Speaker 1: exists is global warming. When it gets hot, it's because
0:53
Speaker 1: I drive a petrol car and I use an incandescent
0:57
Speaker 1: light bulb. Didn't you know that?
1:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, don't worry. When I come over to visit, I'm
1:02
Speaker 2: going to be bringing back a whole boatload of incandescent
1:06
Speaker 2: light bulbs. But, you know, it's springtime, right, with you?
1:12
Speaker 1: Yes. Technically, I think the 16th of September is, what
1:16
Speaker 1: do they call it, the spring equinox, is that right? Yeah,
1:21
Speaker 1: 23rd it was. Or 23rd, somewhere there. And then summer
1:24
Speaker 1: officially starts somewhere in the middle of December here in
1:26
Speaker 1: South Africa. I'll tell you what. I've always wanted to
1:31
Speaker 1: have a white Christmas. I've never experienced it once in
1:34
Speaker 1: my life because we are in the middle of summer
1:36
Speaker 1: when we have Christmas. So all the movies and songs
1:39
Speaker 1: and everything about snow, I've never experienced. Is it worth it?
1:46
Speaker 1: It's a hard life.
1:48
Speaker 2: Well, we don't get snow anymore either because of global warming.
1:51
Speaker 2: I mean, surely you know this. Yeah, it is.
1:53
Speaker 1: Yeah. I do want to experience it just once. Like,
1:57
Speaker 1: I don't know, like apparently in the Northern, in sort
1:59
Speaker 1: of the Northern European countries, it's pretty beautiful at that time.
2:04
Speaker 2: There have been some pretty wonderful winters, Christmases, as I've
2:09
Speaker 2: been driving up to Northern Ireland. But they're relatively few
2:15
Speaker 2: and far compared to the 80s in particular, which were
2:20
Speaker 2: usually quite white, which is good. But no, these days,
2:24
Speaker 2: it doesn't happen so much.
2:27
Speaker 1: What's his name? Is it Bing Crosby, Dreaming of a
2:30
Speaker 1: White Christmas? I mean, I heard that growing up.
2:32
Speaker 2: It's a bit early for this, Jeremy.
2:33
Speaker 1: It's only September. No, no, no, it is early.
2:35
Speaker 2: I realize it's October now, but it's a bit early
2:38
Speaker 2: to be talking about Christmas.
2:40
Speaker 1: All right, I'll hold that thought for a couple of months.
2:44
Speaker 1: I know the shops have got the shelves packed, but,
2:46
Speaker 1: you know, come on. Actually, that hasn't happened yet, yeah.
2:49
Speaker 1: I think that'll only start around November, which I really hate,
2:52
Speaker 1: by the way. It's just consumerist nonsense. But we'll chat
2:57
Speaker 1: about that in a couple of months. I'm just making
2:58
Speaker 1: the point that it's really hot here now, and global
3:01
Speaker 1: warming is really here for the next six months at least.
3:04
Speaker 1: And then there'll be global cooling after that for predictably
3:07
Speaker 1: six months or so.
3:09
Speaker 2: Good. Glad you're having the normal weather cycles, seasons, I mean.
3:14
Speaker 1: Apparently not, though. We are expected to have an El Nino.
3:18
Speaker 1: Farmer Angus was actually chatting to me the other day
3:20
Speaker 1: about his concerns about the lack of rain that is
3:23
Speaker 1: predicted for this summer season. And he says that already
3:29
Speaker 1: he's had bad rainfall throughout this year. I mean, he's
3:32
Speaker 1: just one farm out of many. And I remember interviewing
3:36
Speaker 1: a woman by the name of– Valentina Zalkova, who, by
3:40
Speaker 1: the way, I'm trying to get back onto my UK
3:41
Speaker 1: column show. She's probably the leading solar physicist in the world.
3:46
Speaker 1: And she's actually, she's Ukrainian, I think, but she's based
3:49
Speaker 1: in your side of the world. And she argues that
3:54
Speaker 1: the narrative is completely inverted, which surprise, surprise, you know,
4:00
Speaker 1: we'll take you by surprise. But she says that we're
4:04
Speaker 1: actually in a grand solar minimum and what's going to
4:08
Speaker 1: be happening in the next 15 to 20, 25 years
4:11
Speaker 1: is an increase in heat. I beg your pardon, is
4:13
Speaker 1: a decrease in heat, not an increase, which is something
4:17
Speaker 1: that she's actually trying to lobby the UN now to
4:20
Speaker 1: include in its next IPCC report. Very, very interesting.
4:26
Speaker 2: I've heard this from a number of different sources. And
4:29
Speaker 2: I mean, it is without doubt a fascinating area of research,
4:34
Speaker 2: but something that, as she says, the IPCC ignores. And
4:39
Speaker 2: I think what certain people are very good at is taking,
4:48
Speaker 2: as we've talked about this before, taking things which are
4:51
Speaker 2: caused by one thing or a group of things and
4:55
Speaker 2: claiming that it's caused by something else and using that
4:57
Speaker 2: as a political tool for creating the.
5:05
Speaker 1: Legislation or the restrictions that they would prefer to see.
5:11
Speaker 1: I mean, I have nothing against sustainable solutions, right? I
5:14
Speaker 1: think there has to be a bit of reasonable discourse here.
5:19
Speaker 1: I was visiting a friend yesterday, and he's got a,
5:22
Speaker 1: dare I say it, a Chinese car. And it's a
5:27
Speaker 1: plug-in hybrid, right? So it's plugged in in his garage.
5:30
Speaker 1: So he uses almost no petrol for the most part.
5:34
Speaker 1: I have nothing against that. But what I do have
5:37
Speaker 1: something against, Mike, is when it's imposed on you. You
5:40
Speaker 1: must buy this because if you don't, you're going to
5:46
Speaker 1: kill granny. I really can't handle that kind of sort
5:49
Speaker 1: of politicization of the environment.
5:54
Speaker 2: But it's not just the environment. It's the politicization of us.
6:00
Speaker 2: the most blatant example was 2020 to 2023. But I mean,
6:05
Speaker 2: that was the best time, wasn't it? What are you
6:07
Speaker 2: complaining about?
6:07
Speaker 1: It was weirdly a good time because we had this,
6:11
Speaker 1: as we said before, we had a lot of unifying
6:14
Speaker 1: factors all over the world. Now everybody's just fighting with
6:16
Speaker 1: everybody and it sucks. And it makes our work much harder.
6:22
Speaker 2: No, well, that has been engineered and just look at
6:27
Speaker 2: what's going on in in France and in Spain at
6:29
Speaker 2: the moment, absolutely engineered because, you know, even if the
6:34
Speaker 2: people that are out protesting have legitimate reasons to be protesting,
6:42
Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is that what they are
6:44
Speaker 2: protesting about has been done to them and they don't,
6:47
Speaker 2: I think in most cases, don't understand that it was
6:51
Speaker 2: an intentional act in the first place and that what
6:53
Speaker 2: they're doing was is um an intended outcome of that
6:59
Speaker 2: we gotta we gotta start recognizing when we're being played
7:01
Speaker 2: and maybe finding other ways to to make our resistance
7:05
Speaker 2: uh known i.
7:07
Speaker 1: Think speaking of protest action uh you you guys know
7:10
Speaker 1: who george galloway is i do so warts warts or
7:18
Speaker 1: not he's currently in cape town uh and um he
7:22
Speaker 1: uh hosted or led a big rally yesterday uh and
7:27
Speaker 1: it got thousands of people and and i don't know
7:32
Speaker 1: mike you'll have to or charles you'll have to uh
7:35
Speaker 1: persuade me but i don't know if protest action generally
7:39
Speaker 1: is a good thing it seems to create more division
7:40
Speaker 1: than anything else I mean, this was for Palestine, right? Now,
7:47
Speaker 1: why are they protesting for Palestine here, the bottom tip
7:50
Speaker 1: of Africa? I mean, we know what's going on there,
7:53
Speaker 1: but what is the gambit? What is the intended goal
7:58
Speaker 1: of the protest action?
8:04
Speaker 3: Yes.
8:04
Speaker 1: I mean, that is always a question.
8:06
Speaker 3: What I was going to say, though, going back to
8:10
Speaker 3: 2020 onwards, that period, I think what that shows is
8:14
Speaker 3: very clearly is that people are in a way much
8:18
Speaker 3: happier and much better at being against something than they
8:25
Speaker 3: are being for it. Because what's come out of the
8:30
Speaker 3: aftermath is that people are not entirely sure what they're for,
8:35
Speaker 3: what they do actually want to do. If they're pushed,
8:38
Speaker 3: they can articulate what they don't want to do. But
8:43
Speaker 3: getting to a point where people agree on what they
8:45
Speaker 3: do want to do and then actually doing it seems
8:48
Speaker 3: to be an entirely different and much more complicated matter.
8:53
Speaker 3: I mean, again, made deliberately complicated.
8:56
Speaker 2: But I think you hit the nail on the head there, Charles, because...
9:01
Speaker 2: it is a question of agreement versus disagreement. It's very
9:04
Speaker 2: easy for a whole bunch of people to get connected
9:09
Speaker 2: around an idea that they disagree with because they can
9:11
Speaker 2: all agree that they disagree with this particular policy, but
9:13
Speaker 2: they can't necessarily agree what the correct policy should be
9:17
Speaker 2: to replace it.
9:19
Speaker 1: Yeah.
9:20
Speaker 3: And I think that's exactly it. Now, what I'm not
9:23
Speaker 3: sure about is whether that is generally reflective of human
9:27
Speaker 3: nature or of whether we as a society in the
9:33
Speaker 3: sort of broader sense have been pushed and pushed and
9:36
Speaker 3: pushed to react or behave like that and and i
9:41
Speaker 3: i don't really know i'm not quite sure where i
9:42
Speaker 3: do stand on that.
9:46
Speaker 1: Stand on on what exactly.
9:49
Speaker 3: Whether that's just the human condition whether people are have
9:53
Speaker 3: always been more susceptible not susceptible but more inclined to
9:58
Speaker 3: decide what it is that they that they don't want
10:02
Speaker 3: to do and that therefore they will unify or unite
10:05
Speaker 3: on a basis of something that they don't want to
10:07
Speaker 3: do or you know a bad direction they don't want
10:09
Speaker 3: to be pushed in as opposed to uniting for let's
10:14
Speaker 3: say a positive reason because we do what do you
10:16
Speaker 3: see what i mean.
10:18
Speaker 1: Yeah in other words Well, that's what I'm talking about.
10:20
Speaker 1: That's what I'm asking about protest action. It's a negative event.
10:27
Speaker 1: It's not a positive event.
10:30
Speaker 3: Yes.
10:31
Speaker 2: No, no, that's... Okay. Maybe that's about... I mean, for example,
10:38
Speaker 2: being anti-war, that's, on the face of it, a negative thing.
10:43
Speaker 2: I'm against... Well, I mean, that's something that the vast
10:47
Speaker 2: majority of people can get around. But pro-peace, that doesn't
10:52
Speaker 2: have the same impact because, of course... It's the war
10:58
Speaker 2: thing is the thing that motivates people. That's the thing
11:01
Speaker 2: that needs to be stopped. So inevitably, that seems like
11:05
Speaker 2: a negative protest.
11:08
Speaker 1: No, but hold on, Mike. So let's think about the anti-war.
11:10
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree with what you're saying, but let's
11:12
Speaker 1: think of that anti-war, the big one, Woodstock. Now, we
11:18
Speaker 1: can go into all sorts of issues around Woodstock, but
11:22
Speaker 1: it was for the people there. it was a good time,
11:27
Speaker 1: if that makes sense. They were enjoying music that they liked.
11:30
Speaker 1: It wasn't, the festival itself wasn't a bad thing. We
11:34
Speaker 1: can go into.
11:35
Speaker 2: No, no, I completely disagree with you.
11:38
Speaker 1: Do you?
11:39
Speaker 2: Okay, why?
11:39
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
11:40
Speaker 2: Because that, well... Jeremy, you were at our 20th anniversary event.
11:47
Speaker 2: You heard Mark Devlin's presentation about 1980s music. Now, I
11:51
Speaker 2: appreciate we're not talking about the 80s here, but that
11:54
Speaker 2: 1980s music that he was talking about is the follow
11:58
Speaker 2: on from all the stuff that began with the likes
12:00
Speaker 2: of Woodstock. And that was generated by the Deep State.
12:06
Speaker 2: through organisations like the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was
12:09
Speaker 2: a CIA operation, which had Russell as its chairman, and
12:13
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of other mechanisms. And in amongst all
12:16
Speaker 2: that was LSD and various other psychotropic drugs and whatnot.
12:20
Speaker 2: That was absolutely an operation run on a section of
12:25
Speaker 2: the general public to create... effectively to bring us to
12:29
Speaker 2: the point that we're at at the moment. So I'm
12:31
Speaker 2: afraid I cannot agree with you on your suggestion that
12:35
Speaker 2: Woodstock was a good thing.
12:37
Speaker 1: I mean, I take your point, I suppose, but I
12:39
Speaker 1: think for the people that were there... I mean, if
12:46
Speaker 1: you're driving in your car, you'll listen to the same songs.
12:50
Speaker 2: I'm not.
12:53
Speaker 1: No, I don't mean you personally. I mean the average
12:55
Speaker 1: person will enjoy 60s music. It was a decade of.
12:58
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's a contributory factor for why the world
13:02
Speaker 2: is so screwed up as it is. What was that
13:06
Speaker 2: music about? It's just, you know, what is that music
13:10
Speaker 2: actually about? What was it Bertrand Russell said in The
13:14
Speaker 2: Impact of Science and Society? He said, Verses set to
13:18
Speaker 2: music and repeatedly atoned are particularly effective at persuading people
13:22
Speaker 2: that snow is black. I paraphrase, right? If you want
13:26
Speaker 2: people to believe or think in a particular way... verses
13:30
Speaker 2: set to music and repeatedly intoned are particularly effective. That's
13:33
Speaker 2: what he said. That's why he led that particular grouping,
13:37
Speaker 2: the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This was a massive psychological
13:42
Speaker 2: operation at population scale in the United States and Western Europe,
13:47
Speaker 2: and we are living the result of it.
13:50
Speaker 1: There must be some kind of way out of you,
13:52
Speaker 1: said the joker to the thief. Look, I think some
14:01
Speaker 1: of those songs were still great. I mean, Mark himself admitted,
14:03
Speaker 1: you know, they're still good songs.
14:05
Speaker 2: No, no, just because we get caught up in those
14:10
Speaker 2: catchy tunes doesn't mean that they're great. And we've got
14:14
Speaker 2: to be absolutely, try to be somewhat objective about this.
14:19
Speaker 1: So your argument is that... Okay, sure. Okay, so without
14:24
Speaker 1: getting sidetracked, we're talking about protest action, sort of like
14:28
Speaker 1: a false positive. No, no, no, no, no, no.
14:30
Speaker 2: We're not. Hold on a second. We're not getting sidetracked.
14:33
Speaker 2: This was the fundamental principle. a claim that you made
14:37
Speaker 2: that Woodstock was a good thing. And you were suggesting
14:41
Speaker 2: that was an anti-war protest. It wasn't.
14:43
Speaker 1: So it was an anti-war protest.
14:45
Speaker 2: Okay. But it wasn't pro-war. It was billed as an
14:49
Speaker 2: anti-war protest. That's not what its purpose was.
14:52
Speaker 1: Yes.
14:53
Speaker 2: Its purpose was to get a bunch of people together
14:56
Speaker 2: and completely screw with their minds. That was what the
14:59
Speaker 2: purpose was.
15:01
Speaker 1: In which case... Can that be said then for all
15:05
Speaker 1: sort of anti-war protests? I can't think of.
15:08
Speaker 2: No. No, because, for example, the Iraq protests in London
15:15
Speaker 2: in 2003 was not like that.
15:18
Speaker 1: Was it legitimate, do you reckon?
15:21
Speaker 2: I think it was. I think no matter who organized
15:24
Speaker 2: it and who appeared at it, Jesse Jackson, for example,
15:28
Speaker 2: the people that attended were there for a legitimate reason, yes.
15:34
Speaker 2: I know that the people that went to Woodstock thought
15:36
Speaker 2: they were there for a legitimate reason, but there was
15:39
Speaker 2: definitely an agenda behind that.
15:41
Speaker 1: No, sure.
15:41
Speaker 2: Sorry, I've spoken too much.
15:44
Speaker 1: No, and I think what you're saying can also feed
15:46
Speaker 1: into Bob Goldorf's thing in the 80s. What is it?
15:52
Speaker 2: Live Aid. Live Aid.
15:53
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, that one. Yeah, same thing. Same thing, a
15:59
Speaker 1: big psychological operation. But then it does make you ask
16:06
Speaker 1: the question, can you effectively protest without that infiltration?
16:15
Speaker 2: Charles?
16:18
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, yeah, that's an interesting hypothetical. I would
16:24
Speaker 3: have thought in this day and age, probably not. Practically,
16:27
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, it depends where you are, what
16:29
Speaker 3: the nature of the apparent protest is and how it's framed,
16:32
Speaker 3: because I think that's exactly it. This is really what
16:36
Speaker 3: we're sort of talking around is that all this stuff
16:39
Speaker 3: gets framed as protest. And in simple terms, one might
16:44
Speaker 3: say you might be cynical and say, well, that's because
16:48
Speaker 3: you can You can legislate and you can write policy
16:51
Speaker 3: and you can write operational directives about how to manage
16:54
Speaker 3: protest and what concerns there might be about protests and
16:58
Speaker 3: all this kind of thing, which is to frame what's
17:03
Speaker 3: happening in a particular way. And so people, exactly like
17:06
Speaker 3: we've just said, you know, therefore, it is an anti-war
17:11
Speaker 3: protest as opposed to a pro-peace demonstration or pro-peace gathering
17:17
Speaker 3: or pro-peace protest. because that's much harder to do anything about.
17:24
Speaker 3: But whether that would actually... I mean, it's interesting both ways,
17:29
Speaker 3: I think, because the state, if we concentrate at the
17:33
Speaker 3: moment on the British state, the British state is... is
17:39
Speaker 3: making ground every day pretty much in terms of how
17:43
Speaker 3: it can affect the outcomes of any sort of genuine
17:47
Speaker 3: protest against anything and to set the conditions whereby it
17:52
Speaker 3: may shut that down or characterize it as this, that
17:55
Speaker 3: and the other. And it's just interesting when we talk about,
18:00
Speaker 3: in actual fact, people finding it apparently easier to unite
18:05
Speaker 3: with a sense of protest as opposed to a shared
18:09
Speaker 3: goal I know sorry that sounds a little bit like
18:12
Speaker 3: I'm talking about the same thing but I think you
18:13
Speaker 3: know what I mean you know the sort of movement
18:15
Speaker 3: towards something as opposed to away from something those things
18:20
Speaker 3: do harmonize exactly where we I don't know where we
18:29
Speaker 3: sort of end up going from here I'm not I'm
18:31
Speaker 3: not entirely sure.
18:33
Speaker 1: Yes a good yes a good sort of side parallel conversation.
18:40
Speaker 1: So earlier last week, I did a UK column episode
18:44
Speaker 1: with Des Bernard. I don't know if you saw it
18:47
Speaker 1: about the white project, the white cross project, which has
18:50
Speaker 1: got thousands of views already. It's attracted quite a large
18:57
Speaker 1: number of people from around the world. And the short
19:00
Speaker 1: story is, if you don't know what it is, 3,000
19:05
Speaker 1: white crosses were planted on Washington lawn in front of
19:10
Speaker 1: that monument that sticks up out of the ground. I
19:13
Speaker 1: forget what it's called now. I mean, that's pretty prime
19:16
Speaker 1: real estate. And then a private screening in the White
19:20
Speaker 1: House occurred with a documentary made here about farm attacks.
19:26
Speaker 1: So the whole thing was about farm attacks, 3,000 dead farmers. Now,
19:31
Speaker 1: The discussion was about whether or not that's a PSYOP,
19:35
Speaker 1: and I have a suspicion it is. Now, you could
19:38
Speaker 1: equate that to protest action because it is a kind
19:41
Speaker 1: of protest. It's to try and rally the U.S. government
19:46
Speaker 1: to do something, and I think it's a very bad idea.
19:48
Speaker 1: I don't think a foreign country … should get involved
19:51
Speaker 1: in domestic matters like that. We've already had too much
19:54
Speaker 1: of that and it never ends well for those on
19:56
Speaker 1: the other side. It will always benefit the U.S., not us.
20:02
Speaker 1: And all the people involved, which was discussed in the episode,
20:05
Speaker 1: are not farmers and all have links to the UN, NED, USAID,
20:11
Speaker 1: and all pro-Israel lobby groups. They're all connected, which raises
20:17
Speaker 1: a bunch of red flags for me and my guest, Des. Now,
20:25
Speaker 1: they would argue that that's positive protest action. And what
20:30
Speaker 1: I'm suggesting is exactly what you're saying, Mike, that it
20:33
Speaker 1: actually is the opposite. It has a completely non-beneficial consequence
20:41
Speaker 1: that can occur. Because what can happen as a result
20:44
Speaker 1: is that this can lead to what we saw in Venezuela,
20:47
Speaker 1: perhaps in Rwanda, other places where you have regime change.
20:52
Speaker 1: from being pressured from the US side. And I don't
20:56
Speaker 1: think that's a good thing. And that is not positive protest.
20:59
Speaker 1: That is very negative protest. Without the individuals involved even knowing,
21:05
Speaker 1: like Woodstock.
21:10
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know a huge amount about the
21:14
Speaker 2: specifics of the South African issue, the farmer issue, but
21:20
Speaker 2: just I'll just throw this out, that it looks like,
21:24
Speaker 2: it looks to me like South Africa has a major
21:30
Speaker 2: crime problem that inevitably some of the recipients of the
21:35
Speaker 2: criminality are going to be white farmers because they're the
21:39
Speaker 2: people that own the farms. And of course, it's very
21:43
Speaker 2: easy then to frame that, whether that's a real framing
21:48
Speaker 2: or not. as being some kind of white genocide and
21:52
Speaker 2: to create a pressure for regime change in South Africa
21:58
Speaker 2: in order to deal with that. But I think you
22:01
Speaker 2: hit the nail on the head. Who's behind that initiative? Well,
22:05
Speaker 2: it's the people that are on the receiving end of
22:08
Speaker 2: South Africa's actions in the last year or two, which
22:11
Speaker 2: is Israel. Yes, exactly. So this is typical of the
22:19
Speaker 2: type of, I mean, let's call it a false flag
22:23
Speaker 2: in a sense, because it is, they are taking something
22:27
Speaker 2: which is a result of, you know, the general level of,
22:35
Speaker 2: the general level of criminality in the country. And they
22:39
Speaker 2: are framing that in such a way as to help
22:43
Speaker 2: people believe a certain thing when in fact, Well, I
22:48
Speaker 2: suspect that if you actually look objectively at what's going
22:52
Speaker 2: on in the country, you'll find that those kinds of
22:57
Speaker 2: attacks are happening to a whole host of other demographic
23:01
Speaker 2: groups as well. It looks to me like a typical
23:07
Speaker 2: gang-counter-gang kind of narrative being built there.
23:10
Speaker 1: I think the moment you lobby the US government or
23:13
Speaker 1: any government to intervene, you're You're trading in extremely dangerous territory.
23:21
Speaker 1: I mean, can history not be our guide? Yeah, it
23:28
Speaker 1: should be.
23:29
Speaker 2: Sorry.
23:29
Speaker 3: And I totally failed to actually answer the question that
23:33
Speaker 3: you asked last time, which is about infiltration. Because I
23:37
Speaker 3: think that's, again, another key part of it. And the
23:41
Speaker 3: way in which people are managed around this is pretty fascinating.
23:45
Speaker 3: And I think, again, to go back to what we
23:47
Speaker 3: saw from 2020, it is interesting, but it's also so obvious,
23:51
Speaker 3: so easy to use, because I think anyone listening would
23:55
Speaker 3: be familiar enough with it. And, of course, what we
23:58
Speaker 3: saw happen was that there was, from 2020, absolutely a
24:01
Speaker 3: unified approach. action, as it were, or a sense of
24:07
Speaker 3: unity or a general agreement that people were on the
24:13
Speaker 3: same side in opposing what it was that they thought
24:16
Speaker 3: they could see very clearly. And that worked, but that
24:20
Speaker 3: worked because there was something to resist. There was something
24:23
Speaker 3: definable to resist. And what has been so cleverly done,
24:30
Speaker 3: one might say since, if indeed we do take the
24:34
Speaker 3: belief that much of this is being deliberately orchestrated. What
24:39
Speaker 3: has been so cleverly done is that that wall that
24:42
Speaker 3: people thought they were pushing against was just demolished. And therefore,
24:47
Speaker 3: there wasn't anything there. And that is far more difficult
24:53
Speaker 3: than finding that you are pushing against something. And that
24:57
Speaker 3: is where the sense that there is or maybe infiltration
25:03
Speaker 3: becomes part of it and becomes so destructive. I think
25:06
Speaker 3: that's exactly what we've seen across the piece. All the
25:10
Speaker 3: other events that have happened since, people totally lost sight
25:13
Speaker 3: of the fact that a so-called public health emergency was
25:17
Speaker 3: actually simply the genesis of, well, not new, obviously it
25:22
Speaker 3: wasn't actually the genesis, but in a lot of senses
25:25
Speaker 3: it was, of a movement towards a load of other
25:29
Speaker 3: technocratic developments, which have absolutely played out. But people have
25:33
Speaker 3: been sidetracked, distracted along the way, either by other events,
25:38
Speaker 3: and we've talked about it a lot, you know, October 7th,
25:40
Speaker 3: 2023 being one of them, And therefore, further destabilization. But
25:44
Speaker 3: I think the very suggestion that there is infiltration or
25:48
Speaker 3: that there are bad actors or this and the other,
25:51
Speaker 3: that you never need.
25:54
Speaker 1: To prove infiltration. This is the thing.
25:58
Speaker 3: And supposedly, this is what brought down the Black Panther
26:04
Speaker 3: movement because the suggestion was... was simply made that they'd
26:09
Speaker 3: been infiltrated. And so they just destroyed themselves in trying
26:12
Speaker 3: to find that. Now, I think a version of that
26:16
Speaker 3: has happened on micro and macro scales absolutely everywhere in
26:22
Speaker 3: amongst what was a broad, you know, sort of COVID
26:27
Speaker 3: tyranny resistance. So, yes.
26:31
Speaker 1: I think going back to George Galloway, I was finding
26:35
Speaker 1: myself asking the question, what is is the point. I'm
26:38
Speaker 1: not opposed to the message. There is 100% a genocide
26:43
Speaker 1: going on in Gaza, right? Israel's actions are atrocious and
26:49
Speaker 1: they should be held accountable. But I don't understand what
26:56
Speaker 1: is the goal of rallying together thousands of people with
27:03
Speaker 1: flags waving for Hamas and Palestine, all kinds of stuff.
27:07
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think, like, what is it that they want?
27:10
Speaker 2: I think you're not right here, Jerem. I think that,
27:15
Speaker 2: you know, where are you expecting this protest to happen?
27:19
Speaker 2: Are you suggesting.
27:21
Speaker 1: That people shouldn't? Well, what are they protesting?
27:23
Speaker 2: No, but what I'm asking is what is... They're protesting
27:25
Speaker 2: the murders of people in Palestine. Why should they not
27:28
Speaker 2: do that? Because I'm trying to think what the goal
27:33
Speaker 2: of the protest is. I just don't understand what is
27:36
Speaker 2: it that they want to happen afterwards. The goal of
27:38
Speaker 2: a protest is to have your voice heard by some
27:45
Speaker 2: people that might be able to do something about it.
27:47
Speaker 2: And in the case of South Africa, the South African
27:49
Speaker 2: government did do something about it. Now, has it gone anywhere?
27:52
Speaker 2: Not really, but that's not the point. They still drew
27:55
Speaker 2: a line in the sand and they brought a charge
27:59
Speaker 2: with the ICJ. Now, I don't know whether that would
28:03
Speaker 2: have happened or not without the protests, but the protests still,
28:07
Speaker 2: I think it's still absolutely valid for anybody in any
28:09
Speaker 2: country to make a demonstration, to make it clear to
28:15
Speaker 2: their regime that they either agree or don't agree with
28:19
Speaker 2: a particular policy. I don't have any issue with that,
28:22
Speaker 2: and I don't see why that should be a problem.
28:25
Speaker 1: What I see is a remarkably... intense pushback from, let's say,
28:31
Speaker 1: the pro-Zionist lobby. What invariably happens is that you get
28:36
Speaker 1: this huge line drawn in the sand, which increases tension.
28:41
Speaker 1: Does it make sense?
28:44
Speaker 2: No, I still don't quite grasp what you're suggesting. What
28:48
Speaker 2: are you suggesting is a better way to do things?
28:51
Speaker 2: Because at the end of the day, what we're talking
28:53
Speaker 2: about is tens, hundreds of thousands being killed. are you
28:59
Speaker 2: going to sit silent? Is there a difference?
29:04
Speaker 3: Can I just interject? Is this in any way a
29:07
Speaker 3: point about relativity? As in, there are things that even
29:15
Speaker 3: in terms of geography might be more immediate for Africans
29:21
Speaker 3: to consider. Is that any part of what you're saying? No.
29:24
Speaker 2: No?
29:25
Speaker 1: No, I'm not saying that.
29:26
Speaker 3: I mean, what is interesting is that Sudan never gets talked.
29:30
Speaker 1: About, even in Africa. No, I think it's just an
29:34
Speaker 1: existential kind of question. I'm observing the consequence of It
29:40
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if it's about Palestine. It can be anything.
29:46
Speaker 1: I sit and I question, okay, what is it that
29:48
Speaker 1: they want? Like the White Cross project, what is it
29:49
Speaker 1: that they actually want to happen? Because invariably you do
29:53
Speaker 1: that to incite a reaction. And you get a reaction.
29:57
Speaker 1: And it's a very, very strong reaction depending on what
29:59
Speaker 1: it is you're protesting. Like, for example, with the LGBTQ stuff,
30:04
Speaker 1: where they dress down and go crazy and all that
30:08
Speaker 1: in the streets. And I'm thinking, what is it that
30:09
Speaker 1: they want? Like, what is the goal of the protest action?
30:12
Speaker 1: What are they protesting?
30:16
Speaker 3: Yeah.
30:16
Speaker 1: It's more of a philosophical question because I don't know
30:20
Speaker 1: where it goes. What more can the South African government do?
30:27
Speaker 1: It took Israel to the ICJ. No other country has
30:31
Speaker 1: stood alongside South Africa, not even Iran. So we're on
30:35
Speaker 1: our own, and we've got this huge target on our
30:36
Speaker 1: back now, which is great for the US.
30:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's a different issue to the protest issue.
30:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying. So I'm just trying to think,
30:49
Speaker 1: where's the positive consequence? Well, I mean, that's a good question.
30:55
Speaker 3: And without knowing the specifics of how exactly South Africa
30:59
Speaker 3: might influence any outcomes, I don't know. But what I
31:03
Speaker 3: mean is that is there any way in which South
31:08
Speaker 3: Africa as a country conducts activities, mostly, I suppose, economic,
31:16
Speaker 3: that enable the state of Israel to do what it's doing,
31:20
Speaker 3: the act of protest? pushes this out into the open
31:25
Speaker 3: and does exactly what Mike says, which is it puts
31:28
Speaker 3: into the minds of those people who are able to
31:31
Speaker 3: influence or change outcomes to do so. And ultimately, that
31:37
Speaker 3: is where one hopes to get to. Because there's no way,
31:42
Speaker 3: I mean, this much is obvious, there is no way
31:46
Speaker 3: that the state of Israel would be able to do
31:49
Speaker 3: what it does without the support of so many other countries.
31:54
Speaker 3: And therefore, I would imagine that the aspiration of people
32:00
Speaker 3: who are actually out there physically protesting is that the
32:04
Speaker 3: country within which they are protesting will stop facilitating the
32:09
Speaker 3: activities of whatever it is that, you know, the country
32:13
Speaker 3: that's conducting the activity that they consider to be out of,
32:17
Speaker 3: you know, out of line.
32:21
Speaker 2: Let me ask you this, John. What ended apartheid?
32:25
Speaker 1: I don't think it was protest action, if that's what
32:29
Speaker 1: you're hinting at.
32:31
Speaker 2: Was it government? Was it the fact that South Africa
32:35
Speaker 2: was completely isolated? Was that what did it in the end?
32:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're asking a very loaded question because... Yeah, I
32:44
Speaker 1: know that. So, I mean, without getting into the complex... Okay,
32:50
Speaker 1: let me ask it this way. Did the fact that
32:53
Speaker 1: South Africa was isolated contribute to the final termination of
32:59
Speaker 1: that of that regime definitely i think definitely the isolation
33:03
Speaker 1: is is short-lived.
33:05
Speaker 2: Did the isolation happen in a vacuum or did it
33:08
Speaker 2: happen as a result of protest right around the world.
33:12
Speaker 1: Yes there was lots of protest action there was lots
33:14
Speaker 1: of resistance there was lots of negotiations etc correct so
33:18
Speaker 1: is that.
33:19
Speaker 2: Not is that not uh Or does that not justify
33:24
Speaker 2: people standing up no matter what country they're in and
33:27
Speaker 2: saying what's going on in Gaza is not to be tolerated?
33:32
Speaker 1: No, don't misunderstand. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just
33:35
Speaker 1: asking a philosophical question. What is it? that they want
33:38
Speaker 1: as a result. So in other words, if.
33:40
Speaker 2: But have we not just answered that? Because it's exactly
33:42
Speaker 2: the same as what people wanted with apartheid, because we
33:45
Speaker 2: are talking about another apartheid country here.
33:48
Speaker 1: Put more pressure onto the Israeli government as a result.
33:51
Speaker 1: And if more and more.
33:51
Speaker 2: People around the world... Yeah, I mean, for example, in
33:53
Speaker 2: the UK, we have Elbit Systems, of course, Palestine Action,
33:57
Speaker 2: famously attacking Elbit Systems, manufacturing weapons for Israel. We have
34:03
Speaker 2: all the arms export licenses in the UK that are
34:08
Speaker 2: permitting the export of arms to Israel. We have Palantir
34:12
Speaker 2: providing AI-driven targeting information for Israel. These organizations all exist.
34:19
Speaker 2: This is a point that Charles is making. These organizations
34:22
Speaker 2: exist in Britain. This is a British issue, therefore. And
34:26
Speaker 2: it is an issue for each of our countries because
34:28
Speaker 2: we all have some kind of relationship with Israel. And
34:32
Speaker 2: so if we're looking at what Israel is doing in
34:35
Speaker 2: its part of the world, and we're saying, actually, we
34:38
Speaker 2: don't think this is a good idea. And maybe we
34:41
Speaker 2: should be cutting ties with that country, isolating that country
34:44
Speaker 2: until it changes its behavior. I think that's absolutely legitimate.
34:48
Speaker 2: And that's the purpose of the protest. The fact that
34:52
Speaker 2: Israel has a very large lobby around the world, which
34:56
Speaker 2: is creating an opposition to that protest. That is also problematic,
35:02
Speaker 2: but that doesn't mean that you should not be protesting
35:06
Speaker 2: if you happen to feel that what Israel is doing
35:09
Speaker 2: is wrong.
35:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, just quickly, because you asked about it, just as
35:13
Speaker 1: a matter of interest, I don't know if you know,
35:14
Speaker 1: but for the longest time during apartheid, it was supported
35:19
Speaker 1: by the US, the UK, and Israel. They were the
35:23
Speaker 1: strongest supporters of apartheid until... until mid to late 80s
35:28
Speaker 1: when Thatcher famously changed her position on apartheid and Reagan also.
35:35
Speaker 1: Israel was quietly supplying arms to the apartheid government while
35:40
Speaker 1: openly stating it opposed it.
35:44
Speaker 2: And actually that is a really good lesson to learn
35:49
Speaker 2: and it's brilliant that you brought it up because of
35:51
Speaker 2: course that's exactly how we should be viewing the in
35:57
Speaker 2: the House of Commons by Ed Miliband two or three
35:59
Speaker 2: weeks ago when he's trying to suggest sanctions.
36:03
Speaker 1: What did he say? I didn't catch it.
36:05
Speaker 2: Well, he basically he basically said what Israel is doing
36:07
Speaker 2: is wrong and therefore we're imposing sanctions. But it's the
36:11
Speaker 2: same as they've done in the past where they've imposed
36:14
Speaker 2: limitations on arms export licenses. And it's just it's just rhetoric.
36:19
Speaker 2: It's just politics. It's not, you know, they say one
36:21
Speaker 2: thing and they do something completely different. And it's what
36:24
Speaker 2: he was saying was designed to try to take some
36:26
Speaker 2: of the heat off of the Labour government. But but
36:30
Speaker 2: no intention of actually following through with it.
36:33
Speaker 1: I actually just want to add, because it's very important,
36:36
Speaker 1: the reason why the US, UK and Israel changed its
36:40
Speaker 1: position on apartheid was not because it had a change
36:42
Speaker 1: of moral conscience. It was because they saw the direction
36:46
Speaker 1: of the wind changing. They knew the system was collapsing
36:49
Speaker 1: and they wanted to maintain control over various sectors. So
36:53
Speaker 1: the system changed, but Anglo-American maintained control of the mines,
36:58
Speaker 1: for example, regardless of... of what happened post-apartheid and the
37:01
Speaker 1: UK maintained its mineral kind of mining operations and Israel also.
37:08
Speaker 1: So the system changed, but the structures, the money-making structures
37:13
Speaker 1: and control stayed as is. And that's very important because
37:17
Speaker 1: people forget that. They think that governments act on moral conscience.
37:20
Speaker 1: They don't. I just thought I'd throw that in. Whoa,
37:28
Speaker 1: tough crowd.
37:28
Speaker 2: Well, I was hoping Charles was going to say something.
37:35
Speaker 3: I'm certainly not going to start protesting.
37:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good point.
37:40
Speaker 3: It is a very good point because that is sort
37:45
Speaker 3: of behind everything we're talking about is how things look,
37:50
Speaker 3: isn't it? And this idea that, well, you know, even
37:56
Speaker 3: that a protest is made. So, I mean, let's look
37:58
Speaker 3: at another example. Here we've had Extinction Rebellion and Just
38:06
Speaker 3: Stop Oil have been two of the prominent ones who
38:08
Speaker 3: have taken a lot of sort of very well publicised,
38:12
Speaker 3: very well choreographed direct action, apparently because they believe that
38:19
Speaker 3: we're not going far enough with our energy transition and
38:22
Speaker 3: all this kind of thing.
38:24
Speaker 1: Now, they, I mean, I.
38:27
Speaker 3: Know it is a minefield to even begin to talk
38:29
Speaker 3: about this, but in many respects, it has been made
38:34
Speaker 3: to look like their protests have succeeded because there have
38:39
Speaker 3: been further concessions to this, that and the other and
38:44
Speaker 3: pledges and whatever. Now, we can argue the toss as
38:50
Speaker 3: to what drove what and what part they have really
38:55
Speaker 3: played in anything. And so the point is that such
39:01
Speaker 3: and such a thing was going to happen anyway. They
39:04
Speaker 3: have been part of that journey is sort of how
39:08
Speaker 3: it looks. The people who've been involved in that, probably
39:12
Speaker 3: almost to a man or woman, think that they have
39:16
Speaker 3: been instrumental in a movement that has now yielded such
39:20
Speaker 3: and such a result even though of course they will
39:22
Speaker 3: still say well it's not it's not enough we haven't
39:24
Speaker 3: gone far enough we've got to do more and this
39:27
Speaker 3: and the other.
39:28
Speaker 1: I think Charles and Mike I mean look I will
39:32
Speaker 1: admit I have been royally schooled and let that be
39:37
Speaker 1: known but I've been asking a more sort of philosophical
39:42
Speaker 1: point because I see protest action for anything and everything
39:45
Speaker 1: these days. And it's almost like it's a fashion. And
39:49
Speaker 1: I mentioned the LGBTQ stuff because I don't know what
39:51
Speaker 1: it is that they're protesting. I just don't know what
39:53
Speaker 1: it is. And in many ways, a lot of that
39:56
Speaker 1: stuff is just disgusting in terms of like, they just
39:59
Speaker 1: take off all their clothes and it's just, it's vile.
40:03
Speaker 1: And I guess where I was coming from was, okay,
40:07
Speaker 1: I see that. I agree with the sentiment, but now what?
40:11
Speaker 1: That's what I was thinking, because when everything becomes fashionable
40:14
Speaker 1: and a trend, it dilutes the real thing.
40:18
Speaker 2: No, I think that what you're saying, though, Jerm, is
40:23
Speaker 2: there's two types of protest, as I think you're right
40:26
Speaker 2: to highlight this. There's two types of protest. Out there,
40:31
Speaker 2: there's protest, which is um politicized um designed to um
40:39
Speaker 2: create an effect in society and and i think that
40:42
Speaker 2: uh woodstock probably the original example of that um the
40:46
Speaker 2: lgbt uh demonstrations i would categorize in the same way
40:52
Speaker 2: i think that there are other protests which are absolutely
40:57
Speaker 2: a reaction to um what people see, whether that's over
41:02
Speaker 2: Israel and Gaza or whether it's what's going on in
41:05
Speaker 2: France and Spain at the moment. France over education standards
41:09
Speaker 2: in Spain, it's over housing. A lot of these are
41:16
Speaker 2: people who are hurting in some way that are enraged
41:21
Speaker 2: for some reason that are wanting to come out. But
41:25
Speaker 2: as I've said already, a lot of these reactions from
41:33
Speaker 2: people are as a result of deliberate intentional policy so
41:40
Speaker 2: if there's a housing crisis in Spain that didn't happen
41:43
Speaker 2: organically that happened absolutely through policy if people are protesting
41:49
Speaker 2: immigration in the UK for the same reason the immigration
41:54
Speaker 2: issue has been is a created problem And so people
41:59
Speaker 2: become enraged about it and they react in a particular way.
42:02
Speaker 2: So I suppose in that sense, I do take your point.
42:04
Speaker 2: I think that a lot of protest is either, I mean,
42:11
Speaker 2: if we take the immigration situation in the UK, There
42:16
Speaker 2: are definitely efforts to build a much bigger protest around
42:20
Speaker 2: that than has actually happened. So obviously, Tommy Robinson was
42:23
Speaker 2: trying to drive some of that, even Nigel Farage to
42:26
Speaker 2: some degree. We've now got this new guy, Tomo, who
42:31
Speaker 2: is currently sitting in prison, which in some ways is
42:37
Speaker 2: very similar to what happened to Tommy Robinson as well, because...
42:42
Speaker 2: by shoving him in prison like this they of course
42:46
Speaker 2: increase his credibility amongst his crowd and hopefully when he
42:50
Speaker 2: comes out they will hope that he is able to
42:54
Speaker 2: build momentum on that and he having done his time
42:58
Speaker 2: and had some you know risen in the eyes of
43:04
Speaker 2: the people that he is attempting to get out on
43:06
Speaker 2: the streets so I absolutely take your point that some
43:12
Speaker 2: response from people is as a result of some psychological
43:18
Speaker 2: engineering I think that it's dangerous when people are protesting
43:27
Speaker 2: venting rage when without having some kind of organization or
43:32
Speaker 2: direction to it but you know I could equally point
43:37
Speaker 2: at other types of protests like for example the I
43:40
Speaker 2: keep coming back to this because it's just such a
43:42
Speaker 2: great example, the anti-fracking campaign in the UK, where it
43:46
Speaker 2: was absolutely all done at a local level. And I
43:50
Speaker 2: think that if people can organize themselves around certain principles
43:57
Speaker 2: in the form of a, similar to the World War
44:02
Speaker 2: II resistance movements, this becomes very, very difficult to infiltrate.
44:08
Speaker 2: And you can end up with just as, if not
44:12
Speaker 2: even more effective campaign at the end of it, but
44:15
Speaker 2: done at a small scale at a local level as
44:19
Speaker 2: part of a larger effort. So in other words, you're not,
44:24
Speaker 2: there's no central organization planning things that is with a
44:29
Speaker 2: committee hierarchy that can be infiltrated easily. Instead, you have,
44:34
Speaker 2: you know, what is genuinely a grassroots organization I'm trying
44:40
Speaker 2: not to use the word frontier, but a grassroots situation where,
44:46
Speaker 2: you know, small individual local groups are willing to collaborate
44:50
Speaker 2: at a more national level or regional or national level.
44:54
Speaker 2: But their campaigns are run locally. And I think that's
44:58
Speaker 2: a much better way to get organized.
45:02
Speaker 1: I know that time is tight due to complications behind
45:07
Speaker 1: the scenes. So I will wrap it up. But I
45:10
Speaker 1: just want to say that we promised that we were
45:11
Speaker 1: going to talk about wind turbines in the ocean last week,
45:14
Speaker 1: and we didn't do that. So let's do it next week.
45:17
Speaker 3: That would be a worthy subject to protest on, I think.
45:22
Speaker 3: So let's whip something up for next week. Sorry, just
45:26
Speaker 3: as a closing thing, because you're going back to your
45:28
Speaker 3: point about the philosophy of it and really taking it
45:31
Speaker 3: back to the individual level, just anecdotally, but I think
45:34
Speaker 3: this does speak to where this is all going. I
45:37
Speaker 3: went to an event in a secondary school at the
45:39
Speaker 3: weekend and I was, I mean, I wasn't astonished, but
45:42
Speaker 3: it was just going down one of the corridors and
45:44
Speaker 3: there were, you know, sort of storyboard things on the walls.
45:48
Speaker 3: And one was of school children going out and having
45:52
Speaker 3: an adventure, but that was literally, that was one. There
45:55
Speaker 3: was then one on neurodiversity, celebrating neurodiversity. There was one
45:59
Speaker 3: on dyslexic heroes, so Hollywood stars that are apparently dyslexic.
46:05
Speaker 3: And then there was one on pride, on all the
46:08
Speaker 3: LGBT stuff. So the degree to which people, young people,
46:12
Speaker 3: whether knowingly or unknowingly, are primed to leap onto a bandwagon,
46:17
Speaker 3: particularly where protest is concerned, in order that they may
46:21
Speaker 3: be taken wherever that is supposed to go.
46:24
Speaker 1: Is fascinating.
46:25
Speaker 3: And this might just be rose-tinted or perhaps naivety from
46:28
Speaker 3: that period. I don't remember being sort of groomed in
46:32
Speaker 3: any of those respects during my school days. And I
46:36
Speaker 3: just think that that is a massive change when we
46:39
Speaker 3: think about why it is that people do it. And
46:42
Speaker 3: they are, with so many of these issues, whether it's
46:44
Speaker 3: climate change or gender or whatever, they are absolutely being
46:47
Speaker 3: primed through their youth to do that. And I just
46:51
Speaker 3: think that's a....
46:53
Speaker 1: Point to make.
46:55
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
46:56
Speaker 1: All right. All right. Well, let's protest wind turbines in
46:58
Speaker 1: the ocean.