Latest / UK Column Radio / Multipolarity is better than sliced bread | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter

Transcript

Multipolarity is better than sliced bread | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter · UK Column Radio

0:30
Speaker 1: My name is Jim. This is germ Warfare, the Battle
0:33
Speaker 1: of ideas. I have been seeing a lot of interesting
0:38
Speaker 1: articles and hearing interesting podcasts lately about multipolarity versus unipolarity.
0:44
Speaker 1: I want to discuss this a little bit because I
0:48
Speaker 1: am somebody who does support multipolarity, but apparently that makes
0:51
Speaker 1: me a globalist, and I want to just chat to
0:54
Speaker 1: you guys about why this is a terrible dichotomy to make,
0:58
Speaker 1: because I live in a third world kind and to me,
1:01
Speaker 1: it's very obvious that there are benefits to global competition.
1:06
Speaker 1: So right off the bat, am I wrong in saying
1:11
Speaker 1: that it's possible to separate multiplarity from globalism?
1:16
Speaker 2: Yes? I know it would be my initial reaction to that.
1:22
Speaker 2: A lot of years ago, Jerem We at the UK
1:26
Speaker 2: Column encouraged a group. We got together with a group
1:31
Speaker 2: of people to look at the way that the law
1:36
Speaker 2: in Britain was being subverted or twisted to suit certain agendas. Now, Britain,
1:45
Speaker 2: as you'll probably know, is a common law country. The
1:50
Speaker 2: constitution is not written in a single document. It's spread
1:53
Speaker 2: across multiple documents, multiple conventions and so on, and we
1:58
Speaker 2: felt that it was important that people had some understanding
2:02
Speaker 2: of the Constitution in the UK and what that means
2:07
Speaker 2: for our governance and so on, and so we got
2:11
Speaker 2: together a bunch of people and we organized that they
2:17
Speaker 2: would set up a thing called the British Constitution Group.
2:21
Speaker 2: I'm not going to get into the argument of whether
2:22
Speaker 2: it's the British Constitution or the English Constitution. For me
2:25
Speaker 2: coming from Northern Ireland, of course it should be British
2:29
Speaker 2: because because we're all should be all part of the
2:31
Speaker 2: of one country. But in these days people are being
2:35
Speaker 2: taken down rabbit holes and so on that are quite divisive.
2:40
Speaker 2: But anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is
2:44
Speaker 2: one of the techniques that was used, that has been
2:46
Speaker 2: used over the years to to subvert British common law
2:53
Speaker 2: is that you take a term writ of mandamus, for example,
2:59
Speaker 2: and you create a layer on top of that that
3:02
Speaker 2: has the same name, and so that when people get
3:06
Speaker 2: the form from the courts it says writ of madamas
3:08
Speaker 2: on it, they think that they may think, if they know,
3:12
Speaker 2: if they have any historical knowledge, they may think that
3:14
Speaker 2: it means one thing, which is the original common law
3:17
Speaker 2: writ or that, when in fact it has some significant
3:24
Speaker 2: changes and limitations and differences to the original intention, right,
3:29
Speaker 2: I could have gone into the details of that at
3:31
Speaker 2: this moment. But the same thing happens with international relations.
3:35
Speaker 2: And we take the term new world order for example.
3:37
Speaker 2: In international relations, that is a very generic, very generic,
3:44
Speaker 2: sort of non controversial term, because from time to time,
3:48
Speaker 2: historical events take over in the world, order shifts and
3:50
Speaker 2: you end up with a new world order. This is
3:53
Speaker 2: a term that's been used in international relations for decades,
3:57
Speaker 2: but of course in recent years this term has become
4:01
Speaker 2: something which means something quite different from the traditional international
4:05
Speaker 2: relations term, and that means that whenever you see somebody
4:09
Speaker 2: using that phrase in a speech or whatever, people immediately
4:15
Speaker 2: start jumping up and done and saying, oh, well they
4:17
Speaker 2: mean this. Well, actually, you have no way of knowing
4:21
Speaker 2: that they mean that, and you need to do more research.
4:23
Speaker 2: And this is part of the problem that we have
4:25
Speaker 2: with the use of these terms like multipolarity. I mean,
4:29
Speaker 2: what does multipolarity mean from an international point of view.
4:34
Speaker 2: It's it's something which describes the idea that it's anti
4:38
Speaker 2: colonialist in a sense. It's it describes the idea that
4:41
Speaker 2: that you actually pay attention to the needs of smaller
4:45
Speaker 2: countries and that you're not just trying to ramrod them
4:48
Speaker 2: into a corner and steal their assets. You know that there.
4:53
Speaker 2: But then there's the globalist meaning of a multipolarity with
4:57
Speaker 2: because this is an effort by the West to take
5:00
Speaker 2: over you know, what they would perceive as being a
5:05
Speaker 2: threatening to their world order. It is a threatening idea
5:12
Speaker 2: because the last thing you want is a bunch of
5:14
Speaker 2: jagaboos and jungle buddies coming along and actually having the
5:18
Speaker 2: assets that they own for themselves. You know, it's absolutely
5:22
Speaker 2: racist at heart. But the point is they use the
5:29
Speaker 2: same term intentionally in order to bring about confusion or
5:35
Speaker 2: division or whatever. It helps them with their narratives. So
5:39
Speaker 2: we've got to be very very careful about that. So
5:41
Speaker 2: I'm absolutely with you. I am absolutely in favor of
5:44
Speaker 2: multipolarity in a certain sense, but maybe not in the
5:48
Speaker 2: sense that certain people are using the term. And I
5:51
Speaker 2: guess the problem is that we've got to be careful
5:53
Speaker 2: about what sense we mean it in.
5:55
Speaker 1: It's the language, then the language has been hijacked correct
5:58
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. I often wonder if it's it's too
6:07
Speaker 1: binary when they go all multipolarity is just globalism because they,
6:11
Speaker 1: as you've just pointed out they are practical realities. Now,
6:15
Speaker 1: I would argue that it's not about who holds the power,
6:22
Speaker 1: what about how the power is structured?
6:25
Speaker 2: No, No, a whole on a second before we move
6:27
Speaker 2: past that point, because you've just you've just raised something
6:30
Speaker 2: which is equally important. The people that are the people
6:33
Speaker 2: that are up in arms but the use of the
6:35
Speaker 2: term are again looking at it from a very Western,
6:39
Speaker 2: first World centered perspective, and so they're looking at the
6:44
Speaker 2: documents that are being published by the people that are
6:46
Speaker 2: wanting to take over the term, and they're never looking
6:49
Speaker 2: at it from the point of view of the people
6:50
Speaker 2: in South Africa, or in India or in any of
6:53
Speaker 2: the smaller countries that are on that have been on
6:55
Speaker 2: the receiving end of colonialism over the day, over the centuries.
6:58
Speaker 2: They're never looking at it from those perspectives. They've never
7:02
Speaker 2: been there. They don't know what those countries are like,
7:03
Speaker 2: they don't know the issues that those countries are facing.
7:06
Speaker 2: And so they are absolutely coming at this whole argument
7:10
Speaker 2: from a Western, first World privileged point of view. And
7:16
Speaker 2: that color is there interpretation of what people in the
7:22
Speaker 2: developing world are saying. And I think that that is
7:26
Speaker 2: also to be taken into consideration.
7:28
Speaker 1: Well, definitely, because when we wanted to host Putin, we
7:34
Speaker 1: immediately got threats from the US saying that if he
7:37
Speaker 1: lands on South African soil, will impose sanctions. And I
7:41
Speaker 1: forget now who was it and what's his name? Lincoln? No,
7:45
Speaker 1: who was it now? I forget now? It was a
7:47
Speaker 1: few years ago. Who was one of the diplomats. Anyway,
7:53
Speaker 1: he said he flew YenS and tried to negotiate with
7:56
Speaker 1: the South African government saying, do not allow Putin. Now,
7:58
Speaker 1: that is uni polarity, right there, can't We can't oppose
8:03
Speaker 1: that because the US has just got too much Pastal.
8:11
Speaker 3: Charles, Yes, no, I think I think you're quite right.
8:19
Speaker 3: I think defining terms is where this stuff goes wrong,
8:24
Speaker 3: because just saying multiplarity and expecting everyone to fall in
8:28
Speaker 3: with your definition immediately is that's quite a leap. And
8:33
Speaker 3: also in terms of leaps, I think that I think
8:37
Speaker 3: the way in which this debate or discussion or discourse
8:41
Speaker 3: or conjecture gets colored is by the assumption of bad faith.
8:48
Speaker 3: And we talked about this to a certain extent relatively
8:52
Speaker 3: recently when we were discussing bricks and the what the
8:54
Speaker 3: potential outcomes could be over the next few decades, And
8:59
Speaker 3: it entirely depends whether you're going to take a either
9:03
Speaker 3: or not. Well, I suppose you could. You could broadably
9:05
Speaker 3: say an optimistic or a pessimistic view if you take
9:08
Speaker 3: the view that having one dominant power in the world
9:14
Speaker 3: is a bad thing and has bad outcomes, and that
9:18
Speaker 3: that balance could be redressed and in effect the world
9:22
Speaker 3: could be made a better place. If that was countered
9:24
Speaker 3: by other polls, other powers who appeared to be acting
9:30
Speaker 3: in good faith, then the outcome there is good. But
9:33
Speaker 3: if you assume bad faith in that anyone who's going
9:37
Speaker 3: to compete for a piece of the pie with that
9:40
Speaker 3: one power in order to enter into a state of multipolarity,
9:46
Speaker 3: but the only reason that they want to do so
9:48
Speaker 3: is in order to prosecute the same agenda, possibly even
9:54
Speaker 3: via the same control mechanism or sort of. You know,
9:57
Speaker 3: if you believe there's a central control source, then clearly
10:00
Speaker 3: that is a bad outcome. So it entirely depends. But
10:03
Speaker 3: I think where I do fall out with this is
10:06
Speaker 3: that it's just rampant speculation. Nobody I've seen commentating can
10:14
Speaker 3: go beyond saying this looks like that none of these
10:18
Speaker 3: people have sat inside these rooms where these sorts of
10:24
Speaker 3: things might be discussed in order to know for sure
10:28
Speaker 3: that what they're saying is actually what is happening. And
10:34
Speaker 3: I think that is a further problem. But on a
10:39
Speaker 3: very basic level, if you look at any grouping, it
10:44
Speaker 3: doesn't matter whether it's on a worldwide stage. Sometimes it
10:49
Speaker 3: will be practical to have let's say, one voice, one mechanism.
10:57
Speaker 3: Sometimes that will not be practical because it will it
11:00
Speaker 3: will lead to an abuse of that power control, whatever
11:08
Speaker 3: you want to call it. And I just, I mean,
11:11
Speaker 3: I must say I don't think the enough consideration is
11:15
Speaker 3: given to the absolutely enormous number of variables. And again
11:20
Speaker 3: we we did talk about this before. The thing is,
11:25
Speaker 3: with all of this, we are where we are.
11:28
Speaker 2: I know that.
11:29
Speaker 3: I mean that might sound a bit trite, but that
11:32
Speaker 3: is how we on a practical level, that's how got
11:34
Speaker 3: to approach everything, because otherwise what are you doing. You're
11:37
Speaker 3: just pontificating, And that is, I would say, to a
11:42
Speaker 3: certain extent, pointless if you're trying to suggest that your
11:46
Speaker 3: conclusions are in some way meaningful, because if you don't
11:49
Speaker 3: address the situation as it is, then how are you
11:52
Speaker 3: ever going to get to the sort of where where
11:54
Speaker 3: it where it could be, where it could go. And
11:57
Speaker 3: I don't have a good example, really really done very much? Yeah,
12:00
Speaker 3: go on, sorry, Charles.
12:00
Speaker 1: A good example of unipolarity is sanctions, luc who is
12:06
Speaker 1: imposing the sanctions for example?
12:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean indeed, and I think I think the
12:14
Speaker 3: view I would go along with is that nobody wins,
12:16
Speaker 3: and certainly those imposing sanctions just just end up looking
12:19
Speaker 3: like idiots. I mean that the how better how how
12:23
Speaker 3: you know is there a more effective way of inviting
12:28
Speaker 3: other people, individuals or nations to to cooperate and coalesce
12:35
Speaker 3: against that? I mean, you know you're doing your You're
12:38
Speaker 3: effectively creating exactly the opposite condition from the one that
12:41
Speaker 3: you say that you're setting out to deal with in
12:43
Speaker 3: imposing this action. I mean, it is the most daft
12:46
Speaker 3: thing that I can really think of in terms of
12:49
Speaker 3: language hijacking. Sorry, the one that springs to mind just
12:52
Speaker 3: because I know that this because this is so macro,
12:56
Speaker 3: I think it's I think it can appear to be
12:59
Speaker 3: a bit intangible because there's just it's so so big,
13:04
Speaker 3: so many elements. The obvious example to me in terms
13:07
Speaker 3: of hijacking language is regenerative farming, And I'm I'm not
13:12
Speaker 3: trying to switch the conversation onto something else, but regenerative
13:15
Speaker 3: farming is such a good example when when one person
13:17
Speaker 3: says that they think they know what they mean by it,
13:20
Speaker 3: that could be that could have not exactly an opposite meaning,
13:23
Speaker 3: but a very very different meaning from somebody else. And
13:27
Speaker 3: if you're listening to this and wondering where is it
13:30
Speaker 3: going with this, what do you mean? Regenerative farming is
13:34
Speaker 3: founded in its genuine, sincere sense, is founded on five
13:38
Speaker 3: principles which involve using the land only really in order
13:46
Speaker 3: to better the entire food system. So you're you're improving
13:50
Speaker 3: the quality of the soil through using animals and subsequently
13:54
Speaker 3: developing and enhancing human health and all the rest of it.
13:57
Speaker 3: So it's a sort of it's an upward spiral, and
14:00
Speaker 3: it doesn't critically, the whole point of it is it
14:03
Speaker 3: does not involve the either chemical or sort of industrial inputs, fire,
14:10
Speaker 3: machinery and all the rest of it. Basically, it's low cost.
14:14
Speaker 3: Now that has been subverted and jumped upon by the
14:18
Speaker 3: corporate sort of big big agriculture, still called still labeled
14:23
Speaker 3: as regenerative, and they say that it's going to improve
14:28
Speaker 3: this thing, but actually when you look at it, it's not.
14:30
Speaker 3: The model is totally different, and it's just had something
14:33
Speaker 3: else superimposed that is going to enable prolonging exactly the
14:39
Speaker 3: same conditions where basically people are slaves either to government
14:43
Speaker 3: subsidy or to some sort of corporate death. I mean,
14:47
Speaker 3: you know, so, that is a really good example of
14:50
Speaker 3: how how language gets hijacked, and it just mudies the waters.
14:54
Speaker 3: It means that the entire conversation is very very difficult
14:56
Speaker 3: to have unless you really really strictly define terms at
15:00
Speaker 3: the start. So I think that's going back to your
15:01
Speaker 3: original question when when people, you know, so we are multipolarity,
15:07
Speaker 3: you cannot just assume that everyone knows what you're talking
15:11
Speaker 3: about when you say that, and and I think that
15:13
Speaker 3: is a problem. And then and then you do just
15:15
Speaker 3: you know, you just get into a sort of an
15:17
Speaker 3: endless chasing your tail.
15:19
Speaker 1: Just to feed into what you're saying. A great example
15:22
Speaker 1: of language hijacking is my recent spate of Kim trail
15:27
Speaker 1: discussions with Jim Lee and James. Example, people don't know
15:32
Speaker 1: what a kim trail means that I mean, we kind
15:35
Speaker 1: of have a conversation until we actually agree on a
15:38
Speaker 1: definition of a word and not just all words, because
15:41
Speaker 1: others will never have conversation if we you know, defining everything.
15:44
Speaker 1: But certain words are deliberately used to hijack and derail conversations.
15:52
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, actually sorry that that that is I I'm
15:55
Speaker 3: wasted everyone's time. That is a much better example than
15:58
Speaker 3: the one I just gave, because it it does, it's
16:02
Speaker 3: a it's a trigger. And that's the other thing that
16:04
Speaker 3: we mustn't forget, the way that the way that the
16:06
Speaker 3: debate around multiplarity is being used. It is, it is
16:09
Speaker 3: and I'm sorry to use this word, but it has
16:11
Speaker 3: absolutely been weaponized. You know, if you if you think this,
16:15
Speaker 3: you're an idiot or you're you're this, that and the other,
16:19
Speaker 3: which is that I don't think that's ever a constructive
16:22
Speaker 3: way of framing a debate. Is a chemtrails thing, It
16:24
Speaker 3: is exactly the same. Or just look up as though, yep,
16:27
Speaker 3: they go ten nil, that's it. I've won and this
16:32
Speaker 3: is just it's daft. How you know, Let's just be
16:35
Speaker 3: a little bit more sorry human about it, treat each
16:41
Speaker 3: other with respect, go through this in slow time, and
16:44
Speaker 3: actually understand what you mean and and and this is
16:47
Speaker 3: the other thing. I mean, seriously, are are the the
16:51
Speaker 3: sort of oh my goodness, you're a multipolarist, you fool.
16:57
Speaker 3: You must be thinking this, that and the other. You
16:59
Speaker 3: want digital ID for example, I mean that that's the
17:02
Speaker 3: sort of is that really where this goes? It's so
17:05
Speaker 3: it's so basic, it's so lazy. Why not go through
17:09
Speaker 3: it step by step and find out, like with all
17:12
Speaker 3: these things, that actually the ground between your positions is
17:16
Speaker 3: is much much smaller than you think. But but people
17:21
Speaker 3: don't want to do that because everybody now wants to judge.
17:24
Speaker 3: You know, this is this is absolutely manipulation. It's psychologue,
17:29
Speaker 3: you know, applied behavioral psychology. People want to be They
17:34
Speaker 3: pigeonhole themselves. They want to be either known as oh,
17:38
Speaker 3: I'm this, that and the other, or I'm not. No,
17:40
Speaker 3: I'm definitely not the multipolarity supporter. You know. It's just
17:46
Speaker 3: I'm afraid all these people saying this, I think sort
17:49
Speaker 3: of blanket judgment that there they are, they have all been.
17:53
Speaker 3: You know, there's the subject of a psychological operation. You've
17:57
Speaker 3: got to be seen to be either really dismissive of
18:01
Speaker 3: something or really supportive of it, and you cannot tolerate
18:04
Speaker 3: the opinion of anybody else that appears to conflict with you.
18:07
Speaker 3: That's a really psychod to me, that that, yeah, what
18:10
Speaker 3: it is, and it's a really it's a really sorry
18:12
Speaker 3: state of affairs, especially when actually what we're talking about
18:15
Speaker 3: are people who, on the face of it, are really
18:21
Speaker 3: all talking about the same sorts of things that you know,
18:25
Speaker 3: what is it about this idea of global control that's
18:29
Speaker 3: actually bad? You know, the things that the things that
18:31
Speaker 3: manifest from it, There is there is a universal opposition
18:36
Speaker 3: to I mean, we can easily identify, we can point
18:38
Speaker 3: to all the various things. So actually we are all
18:40
Speaker 3: in agreement. But because we're lazy in defining terms, and
18:43
Speaker 3: we're lazy in so far as not really thinking about
18:46
Speaker 3: whether we care about sort of supposedly sort of making
18:50
Speaker 3: friends or enemies, so the whole thing becomes, you know,
18:54
Speaker 3: just sort of messy and ultimately exactly like we on
18:58
Speaker 3: the news program this week on Wednesday, or maybe it
19:02
Speaker 3: was an extra, you know, we talked about how exactly
19:05
Speaker 3: the same thing has happened with protest whilst the sort
19:10
Speaker 3: of high level debate has been about the threat to
19:15
Speaker 3: the right, let's say, the right to protest, to associate
19:19
Speaker 3: freedom of expression all that. Actually, what's been going on
19:21
Speaker 3: underneath that, which people have not been nearly so cognizant of,
19:24
Speaker 3: is the fact that every single time people turn up
19:26
Speaker 3: to apparently protest something, there's always a kind to protest there.
19:30
Speaker 3: The whole thing gets politicized, and the result of that
19:33
Speaker 3: is just, you know, infighting, and we don't get anywhere.
19:36
Speaker 3: And I would say that the multiplarity thing is doing
19:40
Speaker 3: exactly that. So in effect, it is yet another psychological operation,
19:44
Speaker 3: by which I'm not saying or you know, someone there
19:46
Speaker 3: in the CIA twiddling is oh, you know I've done.
19:50
Speaker 3: I've there's my multiplarity plan. But it becomes a psychological
19:53
Speaker 3: operation because people fall into it and it becomes a
19:55
Speaker 3: trap of their own making. And I think this is
19:57
Speaker 3: just yet another example on it, and they'll be something
20:00
Speaker 3: else around the corner as well. Somebody someone else will
20:02
Speaker 3: just pipe hop and say, I'll tell you what, I'm
20:04
Speaker 3: cleverer than all you. I've thought of this thing. You
20:06
Speaker 3: haven't thought of that. I'm right, you're wrong.
20:09
Speaker 1: Good Daffy is another example. We wanted to break Western
20:14
Speaker 1: dominance across the African continent as well as Zionism and
20:19
Speaker 1: what happened.
20:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but another you know, we we as usual
20:25
Speaker 2: forget our own history, European history. You know, we we
20:29
Speaker 2: have had some pretty thirty years war here, one hundred
20:32
Speaker 2: years war there, and so on. We've had some pretty
20:35
Speaker 2: heavy conflict in Europe in the last couple of thousand
20:38
Speaker 2: years or these thousand years anyway, and at the end
20:44
Speaker 2: of one of those we we created a treaty. I've
20:47
Speaker 2: mentioned it many times before. I'm going to keep mentioning
20:49
Speaker 2: it because because at the end of the day, if
20:50
Speaker 2: we're if we're looking at principles about how we manage
20:54
Speaker 2: international relations and so on, and if we're it's absolutely
20:57
Speaker 2: part of the unipolarity, multipolar the conversation. You know, the
21:02
Speaker 2: entire principle of the nation state was founded on the
21:05
Speaker 2: Treaty of Westphilia, and people have got to read it.
21:08
Speaker 2: They've got to read the first clause of it. The
21:10
Speaker 2: whole principle that you said you organize yourself around a nation,
21:15
Speaker 2: and that that you manage your international affairs by considering
21:21
Speaker 2: the impacts of your behavior on your neighbors and putting
21:25
Speaker 2: your neighbors needs first. Seems like an absolutely reasonable way
21:32
Speaker 2: to run international relations, and that that is not only forgotten.
21:37
Speaker 2: I mean Tony Blair specifically when he left, when he
21:40
Speaker 2: left politics specifically said that the piece of Westphilia, the
21:45
Speaker 2: West Philian principle, was outdated and that we just need
21:48
Speaker 2: to forget it. Well, if Blair is saying we need
21:50
Speaker 2: to forget something, we should be taking notice. If he
21:53
Speaker 2: specifically calls that historical event out as being something that
21:57
Speaker 2: we need to forget, then then I think, in fact,
22:01
Speaker 2: that's something we need to be looking at very very
22:03
Speaker 2: closely and considering whether there's a principle there that that
22:08
Speaker 2: is something that we want to embrass rather than throwing
22:10
Speaker 2: in the bed.
22:12
Speaker 1: A popular phrase is regime change. Okay, so let's consider
22:16
Speaker 1: that for a second. Which countries have received regime change? Well,
22:22
Speaker 1: we can think of perhaps Iraq, Sarria, the attempt on Iran, Libya.
22:29
Speaker 1: Have any of those countries attempted regime change in others?
22:34
Speaker 1: If we turn it around, which countries are are attempting
22:39
Speaker 1: to change regime in let's say Unipolo or First World countries?
22:44
Speaker 1: I don't think.
22:44
Speaker 3: Any No, I mean what you mean, Venezuela. There's another one, Yes,
22:52
Speaker 3: do you mean why why aren't the people of Bolivia
22:55
Speaker 3: desperate to change the regime in Russia? Is that what
22:57
Speaker 3: you mean?
22:58
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying is look at who's got the power?
23:00
Speaker 3: Yes, No, absolutely, no, I just want to make sure
23:02
Speaker 3: I understood what you meant. No, Well, this is in
23:04
Speaker 3: and this absolutely strikes back to what Mike was saying about.
23:07
Speaker 3: This just sort of terrific ignorance and arrogance in considering
23:11
Speaker 3: things only through the through the lens of a of
23:14
Speaker 3: a westerner, sort of you know, spoilt westerner, and exactly
23:19
Speaker 3: that and this, And I've made this point many times,
23:22
Speaker 3: having spent time on operations in Afghanistan. Let's say it, before, during,
23:31
Speaker 3: and afterwards, always has always struck ass completely extortinary. I mean,
23:36
Speaker 3: why why is it that people never considered it the
23:39
Speaker 3: other way around? Why did people never think? Why did
23:42
Speaker 3: the people have Barnsley in England never think? Gosh, I
23:47
Speaker 3: wonder what it would be like having a brigade of
23:49
Speaker 3: Afghans coming through the town telling me that I can
23:52
Speaker 3: or can't do this, that and the other. So yes,
23:55
Speaker 3: I think that is absolutely a point worth making. Sorry,
23:58
Speaker 3: the other thing, just to go back to the treaty,
24:01
Speaker 3: and in considering other nations and whatnot, I think I'm
24:04
Speaker 3: sorry to shatter the illusion. Today we're recording, in fact,
24:11
Speaker 3: on the twenty third, which of course is St. George's Day.
24:14
Speaker 3: And this can't go unmentioned because in you know, how
24:20
Speaker 3: far we've come off the rails, let's say, because here
24:24
Speaker 3: we are where the level in the United Kingdom, even
24:28
Speaker 3: amongst the four nations, there is terrific vitriol and vindictiveness
24:35
Speaker 3: about all sorts of things, but the idea that you know,
24:39
Speaker 3: I'm English or I'm whatever, I mean, particularly I would
24:43
Speaker 3: say English, and yet here we are on Saint George's Day,
24:47
Speaker 3: and I've been absolutely laughable because has anyone really bothered
24:52
Speaker 3: sort of looking into it, and they're flying there Saint
24:56
Speaker 3: George's cross, and especially those that have been weaponized by
25:01
Speaker 3: I would say, the Israel lobby in order to consider
25:04
Speaker 3: that their foe is the you know, the Muslim down
25:07
Speaker 3: the road, or the Muslim that's not even down the
25:09
Speaker 3: road yet but might be considering coming to this country.
25:11
Speaker 3: Because of course Saint George was not British or English
25:15
Speaker 3: or from anywhere near the British Isles. It's slightly hard
25:19
Speaker 3: to pin down exactly where he may have been from,
25:22
Speaker 3: but possibly Turkish, possibly Palestinian, certainly not Christians, certainly not English.
25:28
Speaker 3: And you know, the irony there is absolutely biting. But
25:33
Speaker 3: of course going a little bit further than that, and
25:35
Speaker 3: then this is why we have to consider the timeline,
25:37
Speaker 3: especially going back to multipolarity, because where are these polls
25:42
Speaker 3: even existing at a particular point in time. England as
25:47
Speaker 3: we recognize it now as you look at it on
25:49
Speaker 3: the map, was not that far back a series of
25:52
Speaker 3: different kingdoms, and there weren't any you know, there was
25:58
Speaker 3: a point before that there weren't any Saxons, there weren't
26:01
Speaker 3: any angles. So really, what what is it that people
26:06
Speaker 3: want to be and why are we still so selective
26:10
Speaker 3: about you know, this particular point in time. That's the
26:14
Speaker 3: bit that we have to stick to. That's it's that No,
26:17
Speaker 3: it's not that bit before, it's not that bit afterwards.
26:19
Speaker 3: As that bit I think there is. There is a
26:23
Speaker 3: terrific rigidity inserted into people's thoughts on all of this.
26:29
Speaker 3: And look at you Germ you know South Africa, I
26:32
Speaker 3: mean absolutely incredible mixture of people. So what do you
26:37
Speaker 3: do do you do? You stand there beating your chest saying, oh,
26:39
Speaker 3: I despise all these other people. I don't want them
26:41
Speaker 3: to be here, or do you could consider what Mike's
26:44
Speaker 3: been saying, and you accept it, and you make the
26:48
Speaker 3: best of it, and get This goes back to whether
26:50
Speaker 3: or not you're going to assume good or bad faith?
26:52
Speaker 3: Are you always going to assume that because somebody is
26:55
Speaker 3: either different or has a different point of view, that
26:56
Speaker 3: they're sort of they're up to no good and they
26:58
Speaker 3: intend you harm. If that's where you start, then I
27:01
Speaker 3: mean the chances of securing a good outcome for future
27:04
Speaker 3: relations are seriously compromised.
27:07
Speaker 1: The rules based order is another one who follows that.
27:12
Speaker 3: Well, I know doesn't.
27:16
Speaker 2: The rules based order is an invention of the unipolar world,
27:19
Speaker 2: and of course the unipolar pars do not. They're the
27:27
Speaker 2: first people that break the rules. The rules based order
27:30
Speaker 2: is there for everybody else to follow. It's not for
27:32
Speaker 2: the United States of Britain or the EU.
27:36
Speaker 3: Indeed, actually, sorry, I tell you what, just just going back,
27:38
Speaker 3: I just thought of a slightly batter parallel with the
27:40
Speaker 3: assumption of good or bad faith, the analogy I made
27:44
Speaker 3: with regenerative farming. So for me to say that I
27:49
Speaker 3: would hope for future in which regenerative farming succeeds. What
27:53
Speaker 3: I mean by that is one that is devoid of
27:56
Speaker 3: chemical industrial inputs, one that does improve the soil, one
28:01
Speaker 3: that does improve human health, trading relations, and you know,
28:05
Speaker 3: all the positives that I absolutely believe can be achieved
28:09
Speaker 3: and are in certain environments achieved. I would look at
28:14
Speaker 3: multipolarity in the same way and say that I would
28:17
Speaker 3: like if a situation of multipolarity is attained or achieved,
28:23
Speaker 3: I would like it to be a situation in which
28:26
Speaker 3: no one party is able to act with a sort
28:31
Speaker 3: of undue, unwarranted control in order to subvert the wishes
28:38
Speaker 3: of others, for people effectively to just be decent toward
28:43
Speaker 3: one another, not just at the individual level, but at
28:45
Speaker 3: the national level. If people did assume good faith and
28:49
Speaker 3: did trade on that basis, and if that sounds like
28:52
Speaker 3: part in the sky, then I think people are too cynical.
28:55
Speaker 3: I don't see why that can't become the case. And
29:01
Speaker 3: I think there have been instances over the course of
29:04
Speaker 3: history where where those sorts of relations absolutely have been
29:10
Speaker 3: a part of the way in which societies operated. I
29:13
Speaker 3: think we're I think in a lot of cases. The
29:16
Speaker 3: debate now is it just always harks back to colonialism
29:21
Speaker 3: and the way in which from at least that point.
29:25
Speaker 3: And I'm not suggesting this hasn't happened before, because obviously,
29:27
Speaker 3: you know, empires have existed for for forever in a way,
29:31
Speaker 3: so there have always been instances of this. But I
29:34
Speaker 3: don't think we can write off absolutely every relationship between
29:38
Speaker 3: a nation or a state or any grouping with another's
29:41
Speaker 3: but as always being sort of wrong or one sided.
29:44
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the Keys nuance right when you get
29:48
Speaker 1: caught up in one zero thinking, yeah, you you end
29:55
Speaker 1: up dismissing the world as it is right now, You
29:57
Speaker 1: end up ignoring reality. I mean, look at what's going
30:01
Speaker 1: on in Iran right now. I think in many ways,
30:05
Speaker 1: on a macro level, this is an attempt to maintain
30:08
Speaker 1: a unipolar order. This is this is a way to
30:13
Speaker 1: to to preserve Western hegemony.
30:19
Speaker 2: I think that's absolutely right, And I mean, what what
30:23
Speaker 2: what is the effect of You know, many of the
30:27
Speaker 2: people that are run effectively running campaigns about about multipolarity
30:36
Speaker 2: do so in a way which leads people to believe
30:39
Speaker 2: that there's nothing can be done about it. Actually, so
30:43
Speaker 2: it becomes that they they tread themselves on particular narratives
30:50
Speaker 2: and but but you know, for them, it's absolutely everything's
30:55
Speaker 2: done deal and at the end of the day, whatever
30:59
Speaker 2: they say is the is the final outcome is what
31:02
Speaker 2: is going to happen. But of course, by by presenting
31:05
Speaker 2: it in the way that they do and presenting it
31:09
Speaker 2: as something which cannot be fought because it's too big
31:12
Speaker 2: and too centrally controlled and nobody has any agency and
31:16
Speaker 2: so on, then inevitably that is the outcome that is
31:19
Speaker 2: going to It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because because
31:24
Speaker 2: nobody ever develops the the determination or the or the
31:33
Speaker 2: the desire even to get involved in in the discussions.
31:39
Speaker 2: You might call it the fight if you want to,
31:41
Speaker 2: but it doesn't have to be a fight. Actually, it's
31:43
Speaker 2: it's about influencing outcomes. And influencing outcomes is something that
31:50
Speaker 2: happens when you know, people sort of join together and
31:54
Speaker 2: and have a have a present a different view of
31:58
Speaker 2: where the destination might be, and before you know it,
32:03
Speaker 2: the world is heading in that direction if that's really
32:07
Speaker 2: what you're determined to to do. But but the way
32:12
Speaker 2: that this is presented as being a fit a complay
32:14
Speaker 2: and and something which is which is you know, impossible
32:17
Speaker 2: to influence. It pulls everybody's teeth and therefore that inevitably
32:24
Speaker 2: is going to be the outcome.
32:26
Speaker 1: It's the equivalent to doom scrolling.
32:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're there. You know that these people are
32:32
Speaker 2: trading of that, and and you know, building careers of that.
32:38
Speaker 2: And unfortunately many many people are are helping to are
32:44
Speaker 2: contributing to those types of voices. And you know, the
32:48
Speaker 2: outcome is is is set under those circumstances. It doesn't
32:53
Speaker 2: think for me.
32:54
Speaker 1: The thing for me, Mike, is that there is a
32:58
Speaker 1: this theory and this real and a lot of this
33:02
Speaker 1: is just a chattering classes, it's just academic. And while
33:07
Speaker 1: there is a lot of truth, I think in the
33:11
Speaker 1: criticisms of multipolarity, there is also equally a dismissal of
33:18
Speaker 1: day to day reality. Many many people in my country
33:24
Speaker 1: and across the continent, and just let's ignore Africa, I'm
33:27
Speaker 1: sure Latin America and other countries that don't have any
33:32
Speaker 1: power yet on a global level would love to see
33:35
Speaker 1: more competition. They would love to see the choices that
33:41
Speaker 1: come with not having, you know, a monopolistic system. And
33:51
Speaker 1: I've noticed that most critics of multipolarity come from those
33:58
Speaker 1: exact environments where they have everything already built up, and
34:02
Speaker 1: it almost appears to me as if it's a kind
34:05
Speaker 1: of like it's a cat in the corner that's lashing
34:07
Speaker 1: out now it sees it sees something that's happening, and
34:11
Speaker 1: it's trying to take other people down with them.
34:16
Speaker 2: I think that's there's absolutely that going on. But of course,
34:23
Speaker 2: one of the other down sides to this entire conversation
34:26
Speaker 2: and the amount of time that's spent discussing multipolarity is
34:33
Speaker 2: in this you know, I'm not talking about it in
34:36
Speaker 2: this particular conversation, but but more generally, the focus remains on,
34:43
Speaker 2: you know, a development of the system as it as
34:47
Speaker 2: it sort of is at the moment, and you know,
34:49
Speaker 2: I would very much like to see a much more
34:52
Speaker 2: local conversation happening at the same time, and in many ways,
34:56
Speaker 2: the whole unipolarity versus multipolarity conversation drawing side any conversations
35:03
Speaker 2: that are going on about what countries can do for
35:06
Speaker 2: themselves within themselves with it, perhaps with their direct neighbors.
35:10
Speaker 2: But but you know, the bigger conversation about international affairs is,
35:16
Speaker 2: you know, should we be shipping goods and services around
35:21
Speaker 2: the world, and the way that we are at all,
35:23
Speaker 2: never mind the unipower polarity, multipolarity conversation. You know, there's
35:29
Speaker 2: there's we're limiting the conversation and the fight about one
35:34
Speaker 2: particular topic. I'm not again, not talking about this specific conversation,
35:38
Speaker 2: but I'm talking about the bigger discussion. All that focus
35:44
Speaker 2: is on that one issue, and and we should be
35:47
Speaker 2: perhaps considering, you know, some of the other topics that
35:51
Speaker 2: we that we have discussed on this program, and and
35:54
Speaker 2: many others do discuss, but they don't get the same
35:57
Speaker 2: traction or focus. And maybe that but there's there's a.
36:00
Speaker 1: Kind of but there's a kind of intellectual asiness going on, then,
36:04
Speaker 1: MICUs is what you're saying, because you have you have
36:07
Speaker 1: very real things going on, and when you and it's
36:11
Speaker 1: fine to zoom out, but when you constantly zoom out,
36:14
Speaker 1: you then dismiss the details entirely, and and it becomes
36:20
Speaker 1: difficult then to have any kind of meaningful discourse if
36:22
Speaker 1: everything is dismissed the whole time. Yes, look, I think
36:40
Speaker 1: that it is inevitable that unipolarity is starting to crumble.
36:47
Speaker 1: It is inevitable you can see it. It's happening, and I.
36:51
Speaker 2: Would like hold second, but why why is that? I mean,
36:54
Speaker 2: you know, because earlier on I can't remember what we
36:57
Speaker 2: were talking about, but it occurred to me. I think, oh, yes,
36:59
Speaker 2: we're talking about sanctions. The sanctions is one expression of
37:05
Speaker 2: of what happens when a unipolar world starts behaving badly,
37:11
Speaker 2: because it's because you know, we've discussed this, but let's say,
37:16
Speaker 2: because it precedes a threat from up and coming competitors
37:20
Speaker 2: and wants to keep those competitors suppressed. But it's the
37:26
Speaker 2: it's the monopoly in the system that that is a
37:29
Speaker 2: real problem and also a driver of multipolarity because because
37:35
Speaker 2: the Western world, the Unipoli unipolar worlds, is behaving like
37:40
Speaker 2: such bullies and the the the example that I'm thinking
37:45
Speaker 2: of here is is the International Payments Clearing System SWIFT,
37:49
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call it. You know, they the
37:53
Speaker 2: fact that somebody can come along and say this is ours,
37:57
Speaker 2: You have no say in how it is run, and
38:00
Speaker 2: actually we don't like you anymore. So we're going to
38:02
Speaker 2: deep platform. Well, you know, at an absolutely micro level,
38:07
Speaker 2: those of us who've been speaking out and have found
38:09
Speaker 2: ourselves deep platform from YouTuber from Facebook or whatever. We
38:13
Speaker 2: haven't found that a terribly pleasant experience. Just scale that
38:19
Speaker 2: up then to the international level. When you're trying to
38:22
Speaker 2: do some kind of international trade and you find that
38:25
Speaker 2: you're not able to pay your counter party because the
38:30
Speaker 2: bully boy in the corner there has said, bog off,
38:33
Speaker 2: you're not getting to use the international payment system. Russia
38:37
Speaker 2: is absolutely existential for countries, and so the irony in
38:43
Speaker 2: this is that the bully boys switches off the ability
38:47
Speaker 2: to use their platform, and so the other countries develop
38:53
Speaker 2: their own platform, they start trading and other currencies. You know,
38:57
Speaker 2: the United States has absolutely itself in the foot by
39:02
Speaker 2: by behaving this way, and this of course then leads
39:06
Speaker 2: to a downward sparreal because once other countries start developing
39:10
Speaker 2: their own parallel systems, and you know, it's not a
39:14
Speaker 2: coincidence that when Michael Gove redefined the definition of extremism
39:21
Speaker 2: in the UK again local example, that he included the
39:26
Speaker 2: idea of developing parallel systems as an example of extremism,
39:31
Speaker 2: right because because that is a threat to the monopoly
39:35
Speaker 2: on violence and the monopoly on control that the that
39:39
Speaker 2: the British state has over the British people don't set
39:42
Speaker 2: up a parallel system because that is a threat to us.
39:46
Speaker 2: This is happening on an international skill as well. But
39:49
Speaker 2: once people do develop in parallel systems, that the monopoly
39:54
Speaker 2: gets broken, and you know, you've you've ended up with
40:00
Speaker 2: losing the the power and influence that that that you
40:03
Speaker 2: had as as a unipolar par in the first place.
40:07
Speaker 2: So you know, it's it is kind of productive on
40:11
Speaker 2: a long term basis for the US, the UK, the
40:14
Speaker 2: EU to say, yeah, Russia, you're not allowed to use
40:17
Speaker 2: the international payments platform anymore because because we don't like you,
40:21
Speaker 2: so so they'll go and do their own thing. And
40:23
Speaker 2: that's that should happened at the local level as well,
40:26
Speaker 2: by the way, and we should be seeing much much
40:29
Speaker 2: more of that kind of thing, but we're not yet.
40:32
Speaker 2: So you know that that's it. It doesn't work at
40:36
Speaker 2: the end, and that the danger then, of course, is
40:39
Speaker 2: that that that the the bully becomes frustrated and starts
40:43
Speaker 2: striking out. And that's what we're starting to see with
40:45
Speaker 2: Iran and and uh, and we'll see it with other
40:48
Speaker 2: kind of venezuela and we'll see it with other countries
40:50
Speaker 2: as well.
40:51
Speaker 1: Hmmm. Well, I mean I jumped in the earlier and
40:53
Speaker 1: I said Russia. I mean, for example, I can't receive
40:56
Speaker 1: or make payments between here and Russia because of the
41:00
Speaker 1: Swift model that is being sanctioned in Russia. So you
41:05
Speaker 1: have to find out another way around. And that's you know,
41:08
Speaker 1: in some way that's a good thing because it creates
41:10
Speaker 1: the parallel, that creates the competitive aspect. But Swift has
41:15
Speaker 1: a monopoly. And that's that's the point that you were making.
41:19
Speaker 1: There needs to be a collection of choices, which there isn't.
41:31
Speaker 1: I'm guessing the answer is yes, yeah.
41:37
Speaker 3: I mean, well, I suppose. I think it comes back
41:39
Speaker 3: to just the way in which you should treace others,
41:44
Speaker 3: and I mean that on a national or state level
41:49
Speaker 3: as well. I know, I know this is a very
41:51
Speaker 3: difficult one to make any absolutes about it because when
41:54
Speaker 3: you look at the behavior, or at least the behavior
41:57
Speaker 3: in the way in which we might consider it, of
41:59
Speaker 3: certain nations, then you it's it's sort of hard to
42:05
Speaker 3: suggest that they should be dealt with with respect. But
42:08
Speaker 3: the problem is if you if you don't start at
42:10
Speaker 3: that point, then there's not gonna work. You know, this
42:14
Speaker 3: just goes back to the to the good faith thing.
42:17
Speaker 3: But yes, I mean I I think in principle, just
42:22
Speaker 3: having one way to do something, Yeah, I mean that
42:25
Speaker 3: that's that's not necessarily such a good idea, but that
42:29
Speaker 3: but I have to be careful what I say, because
42:32
Speaker 3: I'm also the same person that can never understand why
42:37
Speaker 3: there was ever more than one type of blinking charger
42:41
Speaker 3: for a mobile telephone, or one more than one way
42:44
Speaker 3: to do something on it. I mean, it's perhaps trivial, but.
42:48
Speaker 2: Look, hold on, that's that's a pretty dangerous ruld to be.
42:52
Speaker 2: I absolutely do I agree with you. You know, it's
42:59
Speaker 2: who does who makes it decisions about which which is
43:01
Speaker 2: the one way? And and and I think part of
43:05
Speaker 2: the problem there is also a UNIPO polar thing because
43:11
Speaker 2: the whole pitting system, for example, sort of makes it
43:17
Speaker 2: that basically, Okay, I've DoD I've designed the one way,
43:20
Speaker 2: and therefore you've got to pay me money. And and
43:23
Speaker 2: even if it is only one cent per per USB connection,
43:28
Speaker 2: that that that ends up being a lot of money
43:30
Speaker 2: very very quickly. So so yeah, it's it's it's absolutely
43:34
Speaker 2: about how we you know, because I also don't have
43:37
Speaker 2: a problem in principle with with there only being one
43:40
Speaker 2: payment system, it seems like duplication of effort is is
43:43
Speaker 2: not such a great idea. But who who's who's in
43:46
Speaker 2: charge of it? What? You know, And that's that's the
43:50
Speaker 2: main problem. If if it, if it's in the hands
43:52
Speaker 2: of one vested interest, then uh and and then then
43:57
Speaker 2: we're into the whole discussion about Globe will infrastructure again.
44:01
Speaker 2: And you know, so if there's only one payment system
44:03
Speaker 2: then that's a global payment system. Is that really a
44:06
Speaker 2: wise thing to do? So you know, there there are
44:10
Speaker 2: there is absolutely discussion to be had around that. And
44:14
Speaker 2: you know, you could be said that that again, competition
44:18
Speaker 2: brings innovation and so having multiple options for payment systems
44:24
Speaker 2: might be a good thing. I don't know the answer
44:27
Speaker 2: to this. That that's something that absolutely needs to be
44:30
Speaker 2: hash shot. But so I'm not I'm not going to
44:33
Speaker 2: propose an answer to that at all.
44:36
Speaker 1: And the other thing also is I don't think all
44:42
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest can be faked indefinitely. It's just think
44:49
Speaker 1: about what's going on now with the US and China
44:52
Speaker 1: and Taiwan and semiconductor supply chains. This is a real thing.
44:59
Speaker 1: This is a real, real issue, and it can't they're
45:04
Speaker 1: certainly not all sitting around a table having cocktails together
45:07
Speaker 1: and going, well, we're going to fool the world.
45:21
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
45:23
Speaker 1: Jerem I say, I think, well, okay, let's so let
45:27
Speaker 1: me help a little bit in my thinking. You've got
45:30
Speaker 1: the US sending more and more naval presence to Taiwan. Now,
45:36
Speaker 1: why would it be doing that?
45:40
Speaker 2: It's well, right, I don't want to I don't want
45:44
Speaker 2: to oversimplify, and I think where do we go with that?
45:57
Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't think there's any simple answers
45:59
Speaker 2: to that question of why would they be doing that?
46:02
Speaker 2: Because there are multiple motivations for it. I think in
46:09
Speaker 2: the in the modern context, the main motivation for it
46:12
Speaker 2: is because regime change in China is something that the
46:19
Speaker 2: unipolar world is desirous of, and Taiwan is the opportunity
46:25
Speaker 2: to get to get a wedge in and create a
46:30
Speaker 2: crisis which which can then be used at a later date.
46:35
Speaker 2: And I don't know how much later date that is
46:38
Speaker 2: going to be. That's the desire of certain elements within
46:46
Speaker 2: the establishment of the West. The reality, of course, is
46:51
Speaker 2: quite different, and so so the cyber rattling that's going on.
46:56
Speaker 2: I don't think it can lead to anything at this
46:59
Speaker 2: point because US we have spent all our capability in
47:06
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Iran already. What what what actual prospect is
47:11
Speaker 2: there of of the West taking on China in the
47:15
Speaker 2: next twenty years, Charles, do you see do you see
47:19
Speaker 2: any prospect of the West taking on China in the
47:23
Speaker 2: next twenty years aside from nuclear right.
47:27
Speaker 1: Well, it dovetails with the the the issue around European
47:33
Speaker 1: energy and NATO expansion also in what sense, Well, it's
47:42
Speaker 1: yet again an attempt to maintain unipolar dominance.
47:50
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, there's certainly you could. I mean, I
47:56
Speaker 2: would imagine that I am not living in China and
47:59
Speaker 2: I'm not remember the Chinese Communist Party, despite the rumors
48:03
Speaker 2: you might see on the internet. The point is high.
48:09
Speaker 2: The point is that everything that we're seeing at the
48:13
Speaker 2: moment has got no substance behind it in terms of
48:16
Speaker 2: the saber rattling that's going on. It is it is
48:20
Speaker 2: more a psychological operation on these countries, you know. And actually,
48:26
Speaker 2: as we see Trump's behavior with respect Iran and his
48:31
Speaker 2: behavior on social media and whatnot, if I were, you know,
48:36
Speaker 2: the leader of Russia or China. I would be sniggering
48:40
Speaker 2: behind the Panama hand and saying, these guys are no
48:43
Speaker 2: threat whatsoever from the West point of view. They are
48:48
Speaker 2: trying to imply or suggest to these countries that they
48:52
Speaker 2: are still the dominant force and that those countries should
48:56
Speaker 2: therefore do what they're told. I think that is increasingly
49:02
Speaker 2: an empty threat, and short of the use of nuclear weapons,
49:07
Speaker 2: I don't see that actually the United States, despite its
49:13
Speaker 2: the immensity of its defense in verticoma's budget, is any threat,
49:19
Speaker 2: any serious threat to the other major powers in the world. No.
49:27
Speaker 2: Then there's the issue of nuclear and I've said this
49:30
Speaker 2: before as well. We have no evidence that the West,
49:35
Speaker 2: that any Western nuclear weapons function. We don't know what
49:40
Speaker 2: state they're in, we don't know how well have been maintained.
49:43
Speaker 2: We don't know if they've been maintained at all. We
49:45
Speaker 2: do know, for example, that Britain's nuclear deterrent is utterly
49:53
Speaker 2: useless in the sense that the last two test firings
49:58
Speaker 2: of the Trident messile system delivery system failed. So you know,
50:05
Speaker 2: we're pushing the We're pushing one or two nuclear submarines
50:09
Speaker 2: around the world at any point in time with zero
50:13
Speaker 2: capability of delivering a weapon that we have zero knowledge
50:17
Speaker 2: of whether it actually functions or not. So under those circumstances,
50:24
Speaker 2: is that any threat. I don't know the answer to
50:26
Speaker 2: that question, but I certainly have some major duds. I'd
50:30
Speaker 2: be very interested to know what your thoughts are on that, Charles.
50:35
Speaker 3: I don't want to see sort of optimistic for the
50:40
Speaker 3: sake of it, and without reason, I cannot foresee a
50:47
Speaker 3: nuclear war, a nuclear attack, and I think for a
50:52
Speaker 3: whole reason it's actually not least because I think even
50:56
Speaker 3: those who might be tempted, or we think might be
50:59
Speaker 3: tempted did to take that course of action, cannot have,
51:03
Speaker 3: for exactly the same reason, cannot have confidence in what
51:06
Speaker 3: effect would actually be delivered. I don't think they know
51:08
Speaker 3: what would happen as a result, and the element of
51:12
Speaker 3: the unforeseen consequence, surely with the projected result, would be
51:19
Speaker 3: reason enough to deter you from doing that. And that,
51:23
Speaker 3: as I say, is is perhaps might be perceived as
51:27
Speaker 3: an optimistic view. I mean, yes, I would like to
51:31
Speaker 3: remain optimistic about it, but I think it is also realistic,
51:34
Speaker 3: so I think it will remain there as a sort
51:38
Speaker 3: of you know, something that's always discussed something that's always
51:42
Speaker 3: in the background. It can be a bargaining tool to
51:44
Speaker 3: a certain extent, but I can't see that that that
51:50
Speaker 3: in terms of conflict is actually going to come into it.
51:55
Speaker 3: So whether I'm right or wrong than that, I think
51:57
Speaker 3: what I would say though, with regard to the United
52:02
Speaker 3: States activity in relation to Taiwan, but not just Taiwan,
52:06
Speaker 3: in many other parts of the world, and China's position
52:09
Speaker 3: on that. I think we've talked about this a lot before.
52:14
Speaker 3: Chinese history, certainly the bits of it that we do
52:17
Speaker 3: think we know about over the last say, two thousand
52:20
Speaker 3: years is suggested very much of an approach that allows
52:29
Speaker 3: others to make or take actions that the Chinese can
52:34
Speaker 3: review and make a judgment on, as opposed to reacting to.
52:41
Speaker 3: And I would say that what is consistent about the
52:46
Speaker 3: failure of empire or big organizations or businesses, or campaigns,
52:54
Speaker 3: especially military campaigns, is that they are undone by over extending.
53:00
Speaker 3: And I think that is my view, is that that
53:04
Speaker 3: is what China is looking at the United States as
53:08
Speaker 3: doing to itself. And this is I cite him quite regularly,
53:13
Speaker 3: but I just do enjoy his analysis. Warwick Pearl, who's
53:17
Speaker 3: one of Karl's regular guests on the Silk and Steel
53:20
Speaker 3: podcast talks about exactly this, and America has become, I mean,
53:29
Speaker 3: probably has been for a long time. It has sort
53:30
Speaker 3: of become a caricature of itself, this big, bold, brash
53:34
Speaker 3: bully who makes all this noise and very seldom is
53:41
Speaker 3: actually called out and has to deliver on the promises
53:50
Speaker 3: of whether it be you know, I mean usually it
53:53
Speaker 3: is sort of lethal force. I'm not saying they have
53:55
Speaker 3: no military capability, of course they do. But what we
54:00
Speaker 3: I'm not really in a position to understand is how
54:02
Speaker 3: quickly that could be exhausted or indeed how they might
54:06
Speaker 3: how easily they might in fact end up overextending, over
54:09
Speaker 3: committing and so engagements, either diplomatically or militarily. I mean,
54:15
Speaker 3: at the moment, just the obvious ones, Well, what are
54:18
Speaker 3: they trying to do. They're trying to exert influence in
54:20
Speaker 3: the High North and the Arctic, with Greenland and sort
54:25
Speaker 3: of northwestern Russia in mind and control of that region.
54:29
Speaker 3: They're also trying to exert control over Venezuela, over Iran,
54:34
Speaker 3: and in South China Sea. You now, that is a
54:38
Speaker 3: lot of different things to be doing. Just straight away,
54:40
Speaker 3: there's immediate things. There's a lot of different things to
54:43
Speaker 3: be doing at the same time when your economic circumstances
54:49
Speaker 3: are questionable, when your alliances with other countries are absolutely
54:55
Speaker 3: very questionable. And the other point Warwick pal May makes,
54:57
Speaker 3: which I think harked back to the multiple a discussion
55:01
Speaker 3: that we've sort of started with, is that countries move slowly.
55:05
Speaker 3: So I think, on the one hand, we are seeing
55:09
Speaker 3: the decline of the United States as a unipolar force,
55:15
Speaker 3: but we don't see all of it yet, and it
55:18
Speaker 3: may it may only really be exposed by a mistake
55:22
Speaker 3: of greater proportions than any mistakes that we've seen to date.
55:25
Speaker 3: But also at the same time as that, running in
55:28
Speaker 3: parallel are the changes in direction of other countries in
55:32
Speaker 3: response to this, because they have seen over a number
55:35
Speaker 3: of years. It's not just the last couple of insane
55:38
Speaker 3: years of trumpsm but they've seen for a long time
55:43
Speaker 3: America looking like a less sure fire bet, and therefore
55:47
Speaker 3: they will have It won't be visible to us perhaps
55:50
Speaker 3: right now, but they will have been making provision for that.
55:53
Speaker 3: And the failure of sanctions is a really good example
55:57
Speaker 3: of that. Those individuals and country, particularly countries that have
56:01
Speaker 3: been sanctioned have still continued to be able to trade. Well,
56:05
Speaker 3: that wouldn't have been able to happen if unipolarity really
56:10
Speaker 3: was a credible thing, as it were. So I think
56:14
Speaker 3: there is a lot going on beneath the surface which
56:17
Speaker 3: we can't see, and that rather than there being a
56:21
Speaker 3: nuclear cataclysm, I think that the undoing will be more
56:25
Speaker 3: of an implosion in that the United States in particular
56:29
Speaker 3: will simply become unstuck because they cannot match their rhetoric
56:36
Speaker 3: with their action. And you know, we see this all
56:40
Speaker 3: the way across the so called developed world. We talked again,
56:45
Speaker 3: Mike Spoke on Wednesday's news program finished off the program
56:49
Speaker 3: with a very interesting poll that had been conducted with
56:52
Speaker 3: people who were what age were they up to twenty
56:55
Speaker 3: the age of twenty two.
56:56
Speaker 2: Twenty nine nine, Yeah, yeah, and you.
57:00
Speaker 3: Know their view. Okay, I know we always have to
57:01
Speaker 3: take these things with a pinch of salt and whatnot,
57:03
Speaker 3: but the results of that were very, very interesting, and
57:07
Speaker 3: and I would imagine that the results were it conducted
57:11
Speaker 3: in the United States would be would be broadly similar
57:13
Speaker 3: in that basically people are saying, yeah, I mean, my
57:16
Speaker 3: country is not looking out for me. I'm not being
57:18
Speaker 3: looked after. Why on earth would I go and put
57:20
Speaker 3: my kit on and go and fight in Iran or
57:23
Speaker 3: Venezuela or you know whatever. So I think that the
57:28
Speaker 3: you're going back to the two thousand years of history.
57:29
Speaker 3: China as usual are playing a long game, sort of
57:32
Speaker 3: circumspect game, where in effect, if they just have to
57:35
Speaker 3: wait it out, they just sit there, just wait for
57:38
Speaker 3: America to to fail all on its own. So that
57:42
Speaker 3: might I might be sort of over optimistic, because let's
57:45
Speaker 3: face it, one has to check this with a bit
57:48
Speaker 3: of reality, and that in fact, if America does fall apart,
57:51
Speaker 3: baring in minded is it is a significant trading past
57:54
Speaker 3: partner for many, many many countries in the world, it
57:56
Speaker 3: would be it would be an absolute disaster if it
57:58
Speaker 3: did fail to it. So it warns American to fail.
58:00
Speaker 3: But I certainly don't want it to be a big
58:03
Speaker 3: idiotic bully to the rest of the world.
58:05
Speaker 1: But Charles, China and America are actually in on it together.
58:10
Speaker 1: It's all just the attem.
58:11
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, there we go. I mean, yeah, just it
58:15
Speaker 3: doesn't stack up. And again I come back to the
58:17
Speaker 3: human nature thing of simply greed. I mean, you know,
58:20
Speaker 3: even in the in the White House, how many people
58:23
Speaker 3: are there sharpening their metaphorical daggers to plunge into Donald
58:26
Speaker 3: Trump's back. I mean, look a look at what's happened with.
58:31
Speaker 2: Oh. I don't think so. I don't think so. I
58:32
Speaker 2: think I think they think Donald Trump is the best
58:35
Speaker 2: thing since sliced bread. Because somebody, and as probably more
58:39
Speaker 2: than one person, is making an absolute fortune at the
58:42
Speaker 2: moment on the so called markets trading on the basis
58:46
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump and his activities. He can be played,
58:50
Speaker 2: he could be said in that direction, and that has
58:53
Speaker 2: one effect in the markets will trade on that. He
58:56
Speaker 2: said in another directions He's he is.
58:58
Speaker 3: All right, no, no, that's fair, that's fair. Okay, all right,
59:00
Speaker 3: I'll tell you all right that okay, I'll take that absolutely.
59:03
Speaker 3: But the point you've just brought out, which is the
59:05
Speaker 3: one I was actually trying to make, is about greed.
59:08
Speaker 3: These they're they're I mean, how on earth are people
59:11
Speaker 3: seriously able to believe that they are all in it
59:15
Speaker 3: together and they're all on the same side and it's
59:17
Speaker 3: all joined up, because they they cannot be. People are
59:20
Speaker 3: so flipping greedy and selfish. I just don't see that
59:25
Speaker 3: as being at all realistic.
59:30
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm going to end the conversation by pushing back, Mike,
59:34
Speaker 1: slash bread is not the best thing. It's a carbohydrate
59:37
Speaker 1: and I get hard when I have breads.
59:40
Speaker 2: So I completely agree with you, Ja, I completely agree
59:44
Speaker 2: with you.
59:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think that expression is a corruption.
59:48
Speaker 3: It's one of many many corruptions, and and the the
59:52
Speaker 3: way we should look at it, which is exactly what
59:54
Speaker 3: happened to having your cake and eat it, which would
59:56
Speaker 3: really which should really be said as eating your cake
59:59
Speaker 3: and having it, because that's the only way it makes sense.
1:00:03
Speaker 3: Slice bread is the same. It's the it's the machine
1:00:06
Speaker 3: that slices the bread. It's not the result. It's not
1:00:09
Speaker 3: the bread. Because actually, if you've I don't know, if
1:00:11
Speaker 3: you have, you ever watched a bread slicing machine. Yes,
1:00:13
Speaker 3: they are They are actually incredible to watch. It is
1:00:17
Speaker 3: a real, uh you know, a proper sort of advancement
1:00:21
Speaker 3: in technology. Is very very clever. So but but of
1:00:24
Speaker 3: course it's just been changed over time so that we
1:00:26
Speaker 3: think that it's that horrible slice loaf of duct bread
1:00:30
Speaker 3: that that is that's the answer. No, it's not. It's
1:00:32
Speaker 3: the clever machine well, now that.
1:00:36
Speaker 1: Is the note on which we will in this conversation.
1:00:39
Speaker 3: Really significant, From multipolarity to bread slicing.
1:00:45
Speaker 1: All right, my Charles, I'll catch up with you next
1:00:48
Speaker 1: week at a different time.
1:00:49
Speaker 2: And that's that's the title, by the way, From multipolarity
1:00:52
Speaker 2: to bread slicing, that's what that's the title for this
1:00:55
Speaker 1: All right, all right, but