Latest / UK Column Radio / Is BRICS a globalist psyop? | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Is BRICS a globalist psyop? | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

• 0:30
  Speaker 1: My name is. This is Jim Wolfe. The Battle of Ideas. Okay,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: there we go. So did you catch anybody out on
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: April falls?
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: They mostly caught themselves outn't they? No? I mean we
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: had obviously Wednesday was the UK column news. I mean
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: that the only thing that sparks mind is the speech
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: by the Prime Minister given before midday. Therefore, very much
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: in April Foll's speech. Mike can probably talk a bit
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: more about that, but I couldn't resist producing a slide
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: referring to what he talked about with regard to the
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: Middle East. What was it moving at pace for peace?
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: And what was the other thing?
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: Piece? And something matter of stability?
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was a completely no nonsense, but I
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: put you know, prime minister said by the Prime Minister
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: on April Fool's Day. So yeah, no, I don't know.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure I really caught up with any any
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: of the big April fools that were out there, how
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: about you?
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: No, I didn't catch any actually forgot for the most part.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: But just out of curiosity, do you have any idea
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: what the history of April Fools is? I mean, how
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: did it come about?
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: You know?
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: Very good question. And it'll be there somewhere in the
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: in the archive. I can't remember. It's for the French.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: It's Posson, isn't it. But I can't even remember why
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: that is. This is not going each other on the
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: face with fish.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: I don't know, but that that that's a reference to
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: the Monty Python skitule was great. Yeah, by the way,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: just before we get into a conversation, do you know
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: that sketch I was just made up on the spot.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: I did not know that.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they didn't script that. I remember John CiCe being
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: interviewed about that, and he said that they had an
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: idea of what they wanted to do, but then they
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: just completely forgotten. They just stood there while the camera's
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: recording and then started slapping each other, which, by the way,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: often I ask you the question, what does it mean
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: to be British? I think a money Pythons as British,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: And for me, it's one of the greatest periods of
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: comedy ever that sort of you call it a sort
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: of absurd surreal comedy or whatever.
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I mean, i'd probably agree with you,
• 2:36
  Speaker 4: but I don't know that. I don't know that you
• 2:38
  Speaker 4: could actually give it a name, it was quite absurd. Yeah,
• 2:44
  Speaker 4: speaking of abisod Yes, a forced segue. But speaking of absurd,
• 2:48
  Speaker 4: I don't know if you've read that. That article on
• 2:50
  Speaker 4: geopolitics and Empire and.
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: Voye.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: He wrote an incredibly long piece, and it's very good.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's well researched, but he ultimately makes the
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: argument and while bringing this up is because he does
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: mention us a further downe. But why I think it's
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: a good article. It's because a it's well researched, so
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: he does at least make claims that can be backed.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: But to steal Man's position, he essentially makes the point
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: that bricks multipolarity is all just part of globalism, and
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a way to create a global
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: division West versus East, and so therefore if you're supporting
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: one side, you are still being captured by the globalist trap.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: I don't entirely agree with with everything he says, but
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: I think there is an element of truth to that
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: which which we can we can we can unpack.
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: I completely disagree.
• 3:45
  Speaker 4: Okay, look, this is this is a massively oversimplistic view
• 3:52
  Speaker 4: of the world. It's also extremely fatalistic in the sense
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: that it absolutely presents to people the idea that there's
• 3:59
  Speaker 4: nothing be done about anything because everything is so tightly
• 4:03
  Speaker 4: controlled and organized, and it's all we're we're just basically
• 4:06
  Speaker 4: all watching a play on fold before us, and therefore
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: we should just be non playing characters ourselves and because
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: there's nothing we can do about it.
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: So, I mean, this, this is massively over simplistic.
• 4:18
  Speaker 4: It's also massively Western oriented and First World oriented, and
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: and says that that nobody in the in the so
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: called global South is capable of, you know, deciding that
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: that maybe a different direction is the right way to go.
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: H It's also I.
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: Mean, my argument would be that what that when we
• 4:41
  Speaker 4: look at institution, if we want to call it an institution,
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: or organizations like BRICKS or the EU or any of
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: these pan national supernational organizations, there's there is a policy
• 4:53
  Speaker 4: behind them, of course, but once you get to the
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: implementation stage, you're bringing in, you know, tens of thousands,
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of people into the mix, and people
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: have minds of their own. Often people have their view
• 5:09
  Speaker 4: of the world framed in particular ways, and so they
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: tend to react in particular ways. But nonetheless, whenever you
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: have been on the receiving end of imperialist policy for
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: two or three hundred years. You know, it's inevitable that
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: you might be looking for some kind of alternative, And
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: so these alternatives aren't It isn't possible to wholly control them.
• 5:33
  Speaker 4: You might launch an idea as a matter of policy
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: that might be centrally controlled, but how does it get implemented?
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: And so you know, there's much more complexity to this
• 5:42
  Speaker 4: than just saying bricks is just another expression of the
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: same globalist mindset and we should just throw it out
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: with every other initiatives inside there.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And I also made the point to him that
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: if you are going to attack our position, which would
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: well what you just argued, you then reinforcing the the
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: status qua.
• 6:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I'm not I'm look, I'm not saying
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: that that we should all buy down to bricks, and
• 6:11
  Speaker 4: I'm not saying that we should all buy down to
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: China and Russia.
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: This isn't how it works.
• 6:15
  Speaker 4: Every every country has its pros and as cons Every
• 6:19
  Speaker 4: country has its people that we might consider to be straight,
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: and people that are absolutely as bent as it comes
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: in terms of criminality and and and corruption, and these
• 6:30
  Speaker 4: kinds of things. So we can't look at any of
• 6:34
  Speaker 4: these institutions and say that they are that we should
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: be worshiping, worshiping them as as the great savior that's
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: going to see the world at the end of the day.
• 6:42
  Speaker 4: That's that's also a massively simplistic view, right, So so
• 6:47
  Speaker 4: we've got to be realistic and pragmatic about what about
• 6:50
  Speaker 4: what these things represent. But also, you know, there's there's
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: no reason to be just as pessimistic as that article expressed.
• 6:58
  Speaker 4: Our opportunities come when ever we start to see these
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: types of these initiatives arise. And you know what, one
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: thing that I would absolutely argue is that the attitude
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: of Bricks too, you know, because China, of course is
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: heavily involved in many of the countries that are on
• 7:16
  Speaker 4: the receiving end of the Belton Road, but the attitude
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: of China to those countries and Russia for that matter,
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: is different to the imperialist experience that.
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: They've had before.
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: Now, whether it ends up different at the end of
• 7:31
  Speaker 4: the day, that remains to be seen, and that really
• 7:34
  Speaker 4: depends on how, you know, what direction bricks and the
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: global size take in the not too distant future. And
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: of course part of The problem here is that they
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: they are reacting to what the West is doing, and
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: they're not necessarily reacting in the right way. So, for example,
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: you know why is Russia is China implementing central bank
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: digital currency That to my as far as I can see,
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: is an absolute reaction to the fact that the West
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: threatened to kick them out of international clearing financial clearing,
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: and so they've reacted, and of course because we're in
• 8:09
  Speaker 4: the digital world, they have gone that direction. Now, is
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: that something that I please to see?
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: Of course not.
• 8:15
  Speaker 4: But so my point is that part of what we see,
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: undoubtedly is reactive to what the types of pressures that
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: they're under from the attack that's coming from the West
• 8:25
  Speaker 4: that perhaps takes them in the wrong direction. Nonetheless, to
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: just say that therefore it is an expression of what
• 8:31
  Speaker 4: we've seen before from the West is over simplistic.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: Yes, he's opening statement, So he said. It has been
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: my belief for years that bricks multiplarity is nothing more
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: than the next logical progression and iteration of Western directed
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: globalism toward the long plan and desired East West convergence
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: into a singular world federation, world government and or world
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: state by the transnational class which is principally stationed in
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the West but has long since penetrated the east. That's
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: ultimately his argument, Charles.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: I was going to make, I think a similar point
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: to Mike at the beginning, which is how much should
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: the individual care? And sorry that that's not the precursor
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: to saying that the individual should disregard this altogether. But
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: I do think that we have to take the position
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: of believing in what we can do ourselves and how much,
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: for want of a better word, how much sovereignty or
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: agency that we have, and I think making I suppose
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: people's opinions differ on how much of that one has
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: in relation to the position that a particular country takes, say,
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: on the world stage. I think it's I think it's
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: absolutely true that if you do look at the vast
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: majority of governments, I mean exactly like Mike has just
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: been saying, with what both Russia and China appear to
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: be doing with digital currency, if you take the view
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: that you're going to base your sort of vision of
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: your sense of self on what your government is doing,
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: that's probably not going to lead anywhere good. And it
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: doesn't really matter which club supposedly they're going to belong to.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: So I would say, is there should be a distinction
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: between the individual or critically smaller groupings and the world stage, because,
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: after all, we Mike and I are talking from the
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: United Kingdom, which is completely embroiled in and responsible for
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: much of what we see in the world today, and
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: indeed the other countries that have been prompted to respond
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: to that. We hold that responsibility. But does that fact
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: have to govern the way we think about our own
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: lives and the way we deal with particular situations. I
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: don't think so. I don't think it should. I think
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: it should absolutely inform us. But to suggest that the
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: lot of somebody that lives in a country that takes
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: a different view or that is doing something different on
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: the world stage, that their life should or could be
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: inherently different from ours, I think I would say it's
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: the wrong way to approach it. I think in so
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: far as the running of countries, I mean, I think
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: I would make the point that I have made on
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: a number of occasions, which is, I suppose, let's face it,
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: a philosophical one rather than the practical one, because there's
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: not really an example of it not being done like
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: this in recent times. But I just I don't see
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: that the running of what we would describe now as
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: a country is actually a practical way to make the
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: world work. For want of a better reason, I mean,
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: there are many examples, but what's going on in Iran
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: is a one we are We've talked about this a lot,
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: both on this Banter session but in the UK column
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: news program. The effects that the United Kingdom is feeling
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: because of what we believe is taking place in Iran
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: is a ridiculous consequence for the people of the country
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: to be paying. And therefore, why would we enter into
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: a system contract of sorts to have people put in
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: a position where they're paid money to make decisions that
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: have the consequence of destroying many people's lives. I means
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: it is an absurd position to put yourself in. And again,
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: on exactly like has just been alluded to, all of
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: this one may say is on a is on a
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: sliding scale according to time. Just because one country now
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: looks like it's taking a or sensible or pragmatic stance
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: on something that appears to be for the benefit of
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: their people, you don't know that that's going to maintain
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: its course. Something may well change. There is yet to
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: be an alternative in the modern sense that's presented itself.
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: But as in some ways as nation states do appear
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: to disintegrate, in the United Kingdom being very good example,
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: lost credibility, the economy is all over the shop. Militarily,
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: we are done for. Is this an opportunity for people
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: to start doing things differently and to marginalize the state?
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: One could say, of course, that has already been done
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: by corporations, which, let's face it, are much much more
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: powerful than countries in very many respects. So I'm not sure.
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure what the answer is. But I don't
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: know that I I don't know. First of all, I
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: don't think. I don't think I do go along with
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: the line that all countries are in effect sort of
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: pursuing the same thing. I think I think one has
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: to look at the history and also what they have,
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: you know, what is it that they have, what is
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: it they want? And how does that that affect what
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: it is they're doing and what it is that their
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: leadership is said to be doing. And again I'd point
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: back to Iran. This the you know, oil in particular,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: and the consequences for the sort of continued push for
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: so called renewables and all this kind of thing on
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: on the resources side of it. So I mean, okay,
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: it's an enormous issue, so many, so many factors. But
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: as I say, I think one of the main point
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: I would say is how should the individual be thinking
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: about it? Why would you take the view that your
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: country's government should should in effect speak for you. I
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: mean they don't BYLGE.
• 14:56
  Speaker 4: I don't think I agree with with that, Charles FM
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: me understanding what you're saying correctly, I think countries are
• 15:02
  Speaker 4: a good way for people to for for a people
• 15:05
  Speaker 4: to organize themselves. The issue that we have is that
• 15:10
  Speaker 4: people have removed themselves from from that organization process and
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: they have allied, we have allied corporate interests and and
• 15:21
  Speaker 4: external interests to take control of our representation. You know
• 15:28
  Speaker 4: that that has been systematically done, that sech you know,
• 15:32
  Speaker 4: so that people are absolutely disengaged from any kind of
• 15:37
  Speaker 4: concern about how their space on this planet is organized
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: and run.
• 15:43
  Speaker 3: You know the point that.
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: On Wednesday's Use program, Patrick Henninson Center report from from
• 15:53
  Speaker 4: well he's he's in Arizona, bus but he was Arizona
• 15:55
  Speaker 4: and Texas that he was speaking to people, and he
• 15:57
  Speaker 4: and and there was some fox pops and in the report,
• 16:01
  Speaker 4: and one of the people was talking about the fact
• 16:04
  Speaker 4: that you know, we all, for all Trump's rhetoric about
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: about not needing to worry about the straits of hormone hormones,
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: that the oil.
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: Market is a global market.
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: Why is that we have we have in the UK
• 16:17
  Speaker 4: here whenever Russia began their special military operation in Ukraine,
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: we had this massive spike in global oil and gas
• 16:25
  Speaker 4: prices which absolutely hammered everybody in this country with their
• 16:30
  Speaker 4: winter fuel bills that winter. And in fact, the British
• 16:34
  Speaker 4: government stepped in and placed a cap on what people
• 16:39
  Speaker 4: were going to have to pay, and the government paid
• 16:42
  Speaker 4: the difference between that cap and whatever the wholesale energy
• 16:46
  Speaker 4: price was. Well, this is insanity because this is this
• 16:49
  Speaker 4: is the taxpayer. Whether whether it comes in the form
• 16:52
  Speaker 4: of an energy bill or whether it comes in the
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: form of a tax bill, the money is still paid
• 16:57
  Speaker 4: by us as individuals.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: Now, we are a country.
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: That has our own oil supply in the North Sea,
• 17:04
  Speaker 4: and we have allowed because of globalist net zero policy,
• 17:08
  Speaker 4: we have that has effectively invaded this country and taken
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: over the minds of the of the puppets that are
• 17:14
  Speaker 4: running government. We have allowed those people to implement that
• 17:19
  Speaker 4: policy and to implement globalization of energy markets, and that
• 17:24
  Speaker 4: has screwed us both ways. And so that has happened
• 17:27
  Speaker 4: because people have a not recognized what was going on
• 17:30
  Speaker 4: because they and b because they have just become so
• 17:34
  Speaker 4: cynical about the management of the country that they don't
• 17:38
  Speaker 4: want to be involved in telling the managers what is
• 17:42
  Speaker 4: expected of them. So that you know this, this comes
• 17:46
  Speaker 4: back to again this conversation about about us as individuals
• 17:50
  Speaker 4: and our willingness to get involved in how we are
• 17:54
  Speaker 4: running the country. And the thing is that if if
• 17:57
  Speaker 4: if what we're talking about, if I understand what you're saying, Charles,
• 18:00
  Speaker 4: if we're talking about organizing at a more local level,
• 18:03
  Speaker 4: I'm totally in favor of that, but but not to
• 18:06
  Speaker 4: the exclusion of at the at the larger level, because
• 18:10
  Speaker 4: of course, larger projects can only be run at the
• 18:13
  Speaker 4: larger level. So the question is how do those happen.
• 18:15
  Speaker 4: Do we leave those in the hands of the huge corporations,
• 18:20
  Speaker 4: or do we actually use the power of the state
• 18:24
  Speaker 4: to support small and medium sized businesses to provide that
• 18:28
  Speaker 4: But that needs some kind of organization, and the problem is,
• 18:32
  Speaker 4: the fundamental problem is we've left that in the hands
• 18:35
  Speaker 4: of a bunch of idiots and we've said that's your problem,
• 18:39
  Speaker 4: I'm not involved anymore, and that we're seeing the result
• 18:42
  Speaker 4: of that more than anything else.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: Yes, no, I mean I do agree. I suppose it
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: depends on what we're talking, what we mean when we're
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: talking about smaller entities or the things being done on
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: a smaller scale. I think it's a really good example
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: because of course that was essentially a if we're if
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: to understand what I believe is the case, which is
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: that north Sea crude is too heavy for the refining
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: capabilities in the United Kingdom, which is why it needs
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: to be sent elsewhere to be refined, and vice versa.
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: So that's a situation that has better.
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: Mean, let's not beyond the British to build a refinery.
• 19:17
  Speaker 3: They could do that.
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: Indeed, this is what I mean. So therefore, were things
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: done on a smaller and more collaborative scale, Let's say
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: where the north Sea oil, you know, the idea was
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: that it should be a resource for this country, then
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: it would have made commercial sense for an operator there
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: to have developed a refinery in order to be able
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: to sell that product into the rest of the United Kingdom.
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: That would have made sense, I would have said, in
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: many many ways. I dare say, There'll be people with
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: experience in the industry who might disagree or might provide
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: a business case for that not making sense. But the
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: problem with going elsewhere to do that is that there
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: is an inherent vulnerability. Exactly like what we've been saying,
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: you just don't know how a relationship with say another
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: state is going to change. I think what I mean
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: is that, if, for the sake of argument, there was
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: a refinery in Shetland or Orkney that was able to
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: deal with that oil, it would be a much safer bet.
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: And obviously that that's all qualified because there are you know,
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: sort of independence rumblings and whatnot, But that would be
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: a much safer arrangement to enter into knowing that you
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: were going to be able to satisfy a local market.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: And then again you would also, one imagines, suffer less
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: damage from what has turned out to be an absolutely
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: disastrous national policy to go into what are called renewable energies.
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: And you can see that you know this were done
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: at a regional local level. Why would anyone ever have
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: suggested that that would be a good idea. They would
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: know it was going to destroy their countryside, They would
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: know that it was going to harm their ability to
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: produce food, They would know that it wasn't going to
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: provide the requisite amount of energy. It doesn't make any sense.
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, we're sort of talking about the same thing.
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: I'm all I'm positing is the idea that without a
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: national infrastructure or national government, that relationships between smaller entities
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: within what we describe as being a country now I would,
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: I think, would be more likely to produce better outcomes
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: because there would be in effect a spirits of competition.
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: I suppose it both commercially, but also in terms of
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: ideas and dialogue and everything else. I mean, again, I
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: can't I can't really substantiate this, but it just seems
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: to me that looking at it the other way, looking
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: at looking at the way in which a national government
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: may make decisions for exactly in this case, say nough
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: to oil, seems absurd.
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: That was.
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: What I said to to Uvoya. So I don't really
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: care that much about bricks. I think bricks, as he
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: points out, doesn't really have teeth. It's a very loosely
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: gathered collection of of of countries. And in that respect,
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: I can see what he's saying in terms of well,
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: it's a response to effectively NATO, But then you're creating
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: another I.
• 22:18
  Speaker 4: Don't agree term, no, because because how is it a
• 22:21
  Speaker 4: response to NATO. Neto is a is a war alliance.
• 22:26
  Speaker 4: Bricks is not a war alliance. There's no militarization of it.
• 22:30
  Speaker 4: It's not it's it's not it's not a response to NETO.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: No, but it is part of the Global South, a
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: response to the the NATO alliance aggression.
• 22:41
  Speaker 4: Is that a fair statement because because it's certainly a
• 22:45
  Speaker 4: response to to the World bike in the I m F,
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: I think it. I think that would be a fair comparison,
• 22:52
  Speaker 4: because of course that those two institutions have been used
• 22:56
  Speaker 4: to to you know, rip countries for a very long
• 22:59
  Speaker 4: time and and saddle them with debt that's never repayable.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: Yes, and of course, if you are going to fall
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: into a dead trip, broad fall into a dead trip
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: with a country like China that is at least building
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: the infrastructure, well.
• 23:13
  Speaker 4: Yeah, because you know, the world back IMF model has
• 23:16
  Speaker 4: been to say, well, yeah, you need a bridge, here's
• 23:19
  Speaker 4: the money for it. But by the way, you can
• 23:21
  Speaker 4: only spend that money with this Western corporation. And by
• 23:23
  Speaker 4: the way we're going to play, we're going to play
• 23:25
  Speaker 4: an exchange rate, currency arbitrage, things which you can never
• 23:30
  Speaker 4: actually pay this debt back. That is one area of
• 23:33
  Speaker 4: absolute distinction between what Western imperialism is and what I mean.
• 23:38
  Speaker 4: If you're really cynical about bricks and say that it's
• 23:40
  Speaker 4: another form of imperialism, well, it's a form of imperialism
• 23:43
  Speaker 4: that doesn't behave that way, at least not to this point.
• 23:46
  Speaker 4: And in fact, you know, significant tranchies of debt have
• 23:49
  Speaker 4: been forgiven already, so you know it's already better in
• 23:53
  Speaker 4: that sense. The question actually, you know, in terms of
• 23:57
  Speaker 4: its strength and it's it's sort of cohesiveness, people should
• 24:01
  Speaker 4: be more positive about the fact that it isn't as
• 24:04
  Speaker 4: tight and as strongly controlled as and it isn't a
• 24:07
  Speaker 4: cohesive as some of the Western institutions, because that that
• 24:10
  Speaker 4: is you know, part of the problem is once you've
• 24:12
  Speaker 4: got this absolute controlling elite into these types of organizations,
• 24:17
  Speaker 4: that that's when they that's when they tend to turn bad.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: Well, yes, that's what's my point. I was going to
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: say that I prefer the loose alignment rather than the
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: becoming too tight and w I was actually going to go,
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: Is I actually in principle like multiplarity. I like what
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: you said, Charles, competition. Competition is a great thing. It
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: creates accountability. Why must everything be based on the petro dollar?
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean again, we'll sort of wait and see
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: how this plays out, but I think it. I think
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: it will be very interesting. And again, I know we've
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: talked about it before, but the the deranged way in
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: which the United States is behaving at the moment, I mean,
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: you could say for quite a long time. I think
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: consequences are going to be I've felt and we've talked,
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: particularly about the comparison with China. So yes, I mean
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: that being a country that is not necessarily part of
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: a block, a trading block, or perhaps a military block,
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: I mean the two are absolutely related, then that there
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: are I think there are definitely advantages to be drawn
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: from that, but we have to you know, I think
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: this decade does look like one in which a lot
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: of this, or quite a lot of this will will
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: be forced to play out for both actually for both
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: economic and military reasons. It will be totally fascinating to
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: see what does happen. But yes, competition, if that's what
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: we call it, which I think we should, I think
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: is absolutely healthy and in the same way that any
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: relationship is subjects changed. I mean, I was in Portsmouth
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: last week, I went to the Royal Navy Museum and yeah,
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: it's just bizarre now to be entering into the Coalition
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: of the Willing with France and all, you know, all
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: these sort of our Yeah exactly, yeah, I mean, you know,
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: it's it's the same You go into any any museum
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: anywhere in the United Kingdom and it's all about slaughtering
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: all our European allies and all these glorious and noble
• 26:14
  Speaker 2: battles that we fought for hundreds of years and now
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: we're all allies. So again my point about well, you
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: just don't really know what's around the next corner, and
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: so entry. So going back to north Sea Oil, you know,
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: at the moment it seems like a great idea, let's
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: let's ship all the arl across the wherever because we've
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: got friendly relations with them. Now, well you just don't know,
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: so how to future proof against that of course, of
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: course very difficult, but exactly to your point, Mike looking inward,
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: and I think, without wanting to bring up a sandbag,
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: but this the standout example, I would say is China
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: in this respect. Okay, a huge land mass, incredible resources,
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: but the ability to match what you have with what
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: you're going to do in order to get to where
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: you want to go, and I think that countries have
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: rather lost sight of that. Of course, that's why empires.
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: One of the key reasons of empires starting the first place.
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: Because you had the idea of what you wanted to do,
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: you didn't necessarily have the wherewithal, which meant that you
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: had to go and seize it from elsewhere. No, you
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: could say that hasn't changed even one bit, and I
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: think that's sort of at the heart of what we're
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: talking about. But the fundamental difference now is that the
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: natives are more troublesome. Let's say, you can't you cannot
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: go and project with minimal engagement in the same way
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: that you used to be able to do, Thank goodness,
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: although the result is of course extremely complicated.
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: Natives are ristless. Isn't that the medium probably or the
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: other one the pisants are revolting.
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: Yes, not enough though very Indeed.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: Look, I'm in a country that's part of bricks, and
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: I pointed out to your avoid that I actually like
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: the benefits. There are obvious near benefits. At the moment,
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: our trade relations with China are very very good. We've
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: got zero tariffs on so much stuff, whereas the United
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: States are making it impossible to make it a friendly
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: trade relationship. Now one on Earth would I see that
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: as a as a bad thing. If I have a good,
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: good trade relationship with a fellow bricks country.
• 28:35
  Speaker 4: You shouldn't so long as that relationship remains equitable. And
• 28:42
  Speaker 4: that's that's of course up to up to South Africa
• 28:47
  Speaker 4: to make sure that it stays that way. I mean,
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: China is absolutely selling the bricks as the belt and
• 28:54
  Speaker 4: road as being when wet and so far.
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, where is the loss we I mean, if
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: you if you're going to.
• 29:02
  Speaker 4: Well those there are examples, There are examples of loss.
• 29:05
  Speaker 4: I mean, there are examples of loss. I mean, for example,
• 29:07
  Speaker 4: cobalt mining is an example of loss because because that
• 29:13
  Speaker 4: is one area where where there's a demonstration that bricks
• 29:16
  Speaker 4: countries and China are quite happy to to go into
• 29:19
  Speaker 4: a country and you know, use child labor and not
• 29:24
  Speaker 4: really care too much about health and safety for the
• 29:28
  Speaker 4: for the product that they're that they're pulling out of
• 29:29
  Speaker 4: the ground as cheaply as possible. So, I mean, there
• 29:33
  Speaker 4: are examples of where it's definitely not doing the right thing.
• 29:36
  Speaker 4: But does that mean that that that that you abandoned
• 29:39
  Speaker 4: the whole the whole content. No, I think you should
• 29:42
  Speaker 4: be focusing on that instance and dealing with that instance,
• 29:45
  Speaker 4: and and so. But why there are clear benefits for
• 29:50
  Speaker 4: country countries in the global size to to being part
• 29:53
  Speaker 4: of bricks are being involved with the Belton Road. I
• 29:56
  Speaker 4: think where where I perhaps agree with the with the
• 30:00
  Speaker 4: article is that that you know, there are a lot
• 30:03
  Speaker 4: of people in the West that are viewing bricks as
• 30:06
  Speaker 4: being the answer to all their problems. And it's again
• 30:11
  Speaker 4: back into this mentality of looking for this knight and
• 30:16
  Speaker 4: shining armor that's going to come and see if the
• 30:17
  Speaker 4: world this is This is where I would agree with
• 30:21
  Speaker 4: my understanding what Charles is saying that you know, we
• 30:24
  Speaker 4: should not be looking for somebody else to come along
• 30:28
  Speaker 4: and solver some other institution or some other system to
• 30:31
  Speaker 4: come along and solve the problem for us to do that.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there's an interesting nuance. Also in the article, he
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: makes the point that the whole bricks collective is by
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: design it's not a response. In other words, it's a
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: it's a proactive measure rather than a reactive measure.
• 30:50
  Speaker 4: I'm not sure I find green. But who's he saying.
• 30:52
  Speaker 4: Who is he saying that, sorry.
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: I will have effectively Western interests, Pentagon whatever?
• 31:00
  Speaker 4: And what evidence is provided for that? It's more correlation
• 31:05
  Speaker 4: based on a mult correlation. There's not equal causation for
• 31:08
  Speaker 4: me to accept that argument. I would need to see
• 31:11
  Speaker 4: you need to see actual evidence that brex is a
• 31:14
  Speaker 4: Western construct, because I haven't seen any evidence for that.
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: I also haven't seen any evidence for that. And I
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: think that the that the correlations, while they do exist,
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: I think they're quite loose. So and yeah, but I mean, look,
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: if you think about it, right, at some point, if
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: you're going to for centuries dominate, if you're going to
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: have a monopoly on something, there is eventually going to
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: be a response. And if you say, and Vanessa makes
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: this point a lot, which she's referring to sort of
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: Iranian response or Lebanese response or whatever they like, to
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: always say, you know, the Chinese helped, of the Russians helped,
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: and it removes the agency of those exact people, as
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: if they are just so helpless they can't respond. The
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: bridge country. Yeah, brick.
• 32:00
  Speaker 4: This is a massively western centric view of the world,
• 32:03
  Speaker 4: and it's actually discriminatory in a sense. Look, bricks could
• 32:08
  Speaker 4: not have happened forty years ago because China was not
• 32:13
  Speaker 4: in a position to drive it. So in a certain sense,
• 32:17
  Speaker 4: bricks is the result of Western policy, because the Western
• 32:21
  Speaker 4: policy was to export our productive capacity to China for
• 32:25
  Speaker 4: the cheap libor, and in the process we exported a
• 32:28
  Speaker 4: heck of a lot of intellectual property and we absolutely
• 32:32
  Speaker 4: gave China the opportunity to take advantage of that. And
• 32:36
  Speaker 4: I believe they have done that spectacularly well, because they've
• 32:39
  Speaker 4: come along and they've said, right, well, if these countries
• 32:43
  Speaker 4: are going to attempt to exploit us, then we will
• 32:46
  Speaker 4: be quite loose with our ethical response to that in
• 32:50
  Speaker 4: terms of our treatment of intellectual property and so on.
• 32:53
  Speaker 4: So they have absolutely, without question used the production of
• 32:59
  Speaker 4: goods for the West as a leg up, and they've
• 33:03
  Speaker 4: got some very clever people there. They've taken that that
• 33:06
  Speaker 4: leg up and they've they've amplified it with their own capabilities,
• 33:13
  Speaker 4: and so they are, you know, they have become one
• 33:16
  Speaker 4: of the biggest, if not the biggest power on the planet.
• 33:19
  Speaker 4: So in that sense, I suppose the West has created
• 33:23
  Speaker 4: this monster. And so now the question then is whether
• 33:27
  Speaker 4: once China have got to the point of having the
• 33:29
  Speaker 4: capability and being in the position to launch an initiative
• 33:33
  Speaker 4: like bricks, whether that could be argued therefore to be
• 33:36
  Speaker 4: a Western construct.
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: I wonder if Mike an underlying strada is anti Chima sentiment.
• 33:43
  Speaker 4: Well, there's there's no doubt that exists. I don't think
• 33:46
  Speaker 4: it's I don't think it's so much anti China sentiment.
• 33:49
  Speaker 4: There's a degree of of you know, thinking of the
• 33:54
  Speaker 4: world as being run by three hundred people and therefore
• 33:58
  Speaker 4: nothing that happens on this planet ever happens without they
• 34:01
  Speaker 4: say so, of those people. So, you know, if if
• 34:04
  Speaker 4: that's how you view the world, then then you know
• 34:07
  Speaker 4: that then you can only ever have a fitalistic you know,
• 34:11
  Speaker 4: I'm just I'm just an observer mentality, you can never
• 34:15
  Speaker 4: actually be a participant.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, then just sit back and enjoy the show.
• 34:19
  Speaker 4: And a lot of people do and of course a
• 34:22
  Speaker 4: lot of what we do is for a lot of
• 34:24
  Speaker 4: people simply entertainment, but we would hope that that a
• 34:28
  Speaker 4: significant number of people see it as more than that.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: Well, all I can say is I've got a Chinese
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: car and it's a third of the price of the
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: equivalent European car, So I'm heavy.
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: For now, for now. Yeah, yeah, well that's the thing.
• 34:47
  Speaker 2: But you know, the the on the aligance side of mkay,
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: whether how exactly it's formalized isn't neither here nor there.
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: But just to just to go back, because I think
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: current events are so pertinent to all of this. For
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: the United Kingdom, for example, it is alliances with the
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: United States and with Israel that are doing well several things,
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: but exposing our ridiculous level of unpreparedness with regard to
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: any form of conflict we've had. We've had a few
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: years now of discussions around mobilizing for conflict with Russia,
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: and when it comes to it, we can scratch together
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: about two warships to head off down to the Middle
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: East and that it with a couple of aircraft, and
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: apart from that, we see that our economy is laid
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: bare entirely because of our alliances with the United States
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: and Israel. We're allowing the United States to prosecute a
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: war with Israel, all the while sharing intelligence and capabilities
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: for their benefit. Now that that is not a good
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: outcome for the for the population of the United Kingdom,
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: it's not a good it's actually it's not a good
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: outcome for the government of the United Kingdom either. I mean,
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: they look they absolutely look stupid. They look stupid and weak.
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: And also they appear to have been totally devoid of
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: foresight because they spoke, they spoke a lot about having
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: prepared or taken actions that appeared to suggest that they
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: knew what was coming as well, whilst at the same
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: time not making any provision for the very obvious consequences,
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: which causes exactly what we're suffering now. So these alliances
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: are absolutely fraught with complication. And the you know, the
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: so called special relationship with the United States, what a joke.
• 36:45
  Speaker 4: Let me just because I'm not I'm just going to
• 36:49
  Speaker 4: act devil's advo good for a second here, of Charles,
• 36:51
  Speaker 4: because if we go back to the Defense Review of
• 36:54
  Speaker 4: the twenty fifteen was a twenty fifteen Defense review and
• 36:58
  Speaker 4: the twenty.
• 36:58
  Speaker 3: Eighteen I can't remember what the document was called.
• 37:03
  Speaker 4: They were talking about, you know, the idea that that
• 37:07
  Speaker 4: sort of legacy warfare was a thing of the past,
• 37:09
  Speaker 4: that we didn't need the big metal boxes anymore, whether
• 37:13
  Speaker 4: it be a floating metal box or a tank or whatever,
• 37:16
  Speaker 4: that we were heading to a world of hybrid warfare
• 37:19
  Speaker 4: with cyber and all these kinds of things. But as
• 37:24
  Speaker 4: the Ukraine war has been prosecuted, and as the Iran
• 37:29
  Speaker 4: conflict has gone on over the last several weeks, were
• 37:32
  Speaker 4: they wholly wrong in the sense that clearly warfare has
• 37:36
  Speaker 4: changed from being something which is where you're using big
• 37:40
  Speaker 4: expensive bess ales and big expensive armament to one of
• 37:46
  Speaker 4: using largely inexpensive drones. We're actually having a ship in
• 37:52
  Speaker 4: the sea is just providing a target. And I would
• 37:56
  Speaker 4: suggest that Ukraine has demonstrated the driving tanks and arm
• 38:00
  Speaker 4: vehicles right, is just providing targets. So were they wholly
• 38:05
  Speaker 4: wrong in the way that they have approached the situation
• 38:08
  Speaker 4: over the last ten years?
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: No, I mean I would agree with you. I think
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: the yes. I mean, I don't think they've articulated it
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: very well, because what's happened now is that they've been
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: found wanting at a time where they're trying to project
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: the idea that they have a credible force, and that
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: is true. Yeah, and I think that is the bit
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: that looks stupid because of course that falls in with
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: this idea that there's going to be a whole of
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: society approach and we need to be we need to
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: be resilient, self sufficient, and all these things that we
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: absolutely know that we're not, and yet nothing's been done
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: on any of them. So yes, I do agree that
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: times have moved on. But then again, it depends what
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: you want to achieve. And this is where the idea
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: of a defense review or indeed any any planning being
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: based on the defense planning assumptions, which are basically a
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: look ahead as to what capability might be required because
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: of the threats that you perceive to be on the horizon.
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: They've never got that right. And so you could say, right, well,
• 39:13
  Speaker 2: you just stepped back altogether and let's just not enter
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: into conflicts. Well, guess what, that's the line that the
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: government are trying to take at the moment in that
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: we're not entering into it. Oh, we're just defending British interests,
• 39:26
  Speaker 2: but we are doing that by and large with hardware
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: of one description or another. So yes, I do totally
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: agree with you that there are many, many things, and
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: I think this is absolutely what's being developed. And of
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: course we talked about early warning and use of space
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: technology and all that kind of thing. So yes, it
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: is absolutely changing. But we seem to be caught betwixt
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: and between because we're at the same time talking very
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: much about the big bits of kit and actually less
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: so about people. But the problem is, if you've got
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: the bits of kit and you don't have the people,
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: you can't make kit work. And if you haven't yet
• 40:05
  Speaker 2: switched over and trained people and you've got the systems,
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: robust enough systems to be able to conduct warfare differently
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: than what are you actually doing, So it's an odd
• 40:19
  Speaker 2: it's an odd halfway house, but it's one. It is
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: absolutely one that was initially until a couple of months ago,
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: predicated on the Russian threat. And Russia, of course does
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: have an enormous amount of hardware and people. So the
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: mismatch is terrific, but it's and it is odd because
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: the idea is, at least the mainstream idea, is that
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: Russia wants to hold grown, Russia wants Ukrainian territory, and
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: then wants to roll on through certainly the Baltic countries,
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: then Western Europe and eventually the United Kingdom. I mean
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: that quite wide believes that Russia would think that would
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: be good or desirable. I don't know. But the point
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: is that that requires holding ground, that does require people,
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: that does require hardware. So I think it does depend
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: what one is intending to achieve. And I don't think
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: anyone's really articulating that very well. That the Iranian incursion
• 41:19
  Speaker 2: so far is completely chaotic. There's not been any suggestion
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: that there was any strategy, either from the Israelis or
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: the Americans that just seem to have no idea what
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: they were dealing with. And the again, if it's hard,
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: obviously it is always hard to tell exactly what is
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: going on what has happened. But I think there can
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: be no doubt about the effect of the Iranian countermeasures,
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: particularly in destroying very very sophisticated communications and surveillance monitoring
• 41:53
  Speaker 2: equipment and very very clever.
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: And sometimes things are as they're pure, not everything is
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: not as it appears, which I think is a binary
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: trap it is.
• 42:04
  Speaker 3: Are we going to start talking about Artimus?
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: Hey, it launched? Can you believe it? After promising, after
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: promising for three months? I believe it launched, didn't it?
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: Last night?
• 42:18
  Speaker 4: All I could see in the YouTube chat was was
• 42:20
  Speaker 4: C G I A. I.
• 42:22
  Speaker 1: Well, I've got no idea. But apparently it did launch finally,
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: and they're going to They're going to hover around Earth
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: I think for a few days or something like that.
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: I don't know the full story yet.
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: They want they want to go and look at the
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: other side of the moon. Yes, apparently that's what we're
• 42:38
  Speaker 2: talking about this morning.
• 42:42
  Speaker 3: They ever have before?
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: Well, I was saying, Ozzy Osborne found the other side
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: of the dark side of the Moon decades ago.
• 42:49
  Speaker 4: No, No, that was that was Pig Floyd.
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: I am so sorry.
• 42:53
  Speaker 3: I mean that.
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: I'm not a huge Floyd fans.
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: So well for the word.
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: No, no, what I was gonna say? What I was
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: gonna What was I saying? Actually I would say something
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: about the false binary.
• 43:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, about whether things are as they seem yes or not.
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: And it is quite clear that Iran is responding in
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: a very specific kind of way, and I can't see
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: how that was planned by the West. It's just it's
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense to me.
• 43:31
  Speaker 4: Well, it's it's only if the Iranian leadership is in
• 43:35
  Speaker 4: the same club as Western leadership. But the first thing
• 43:39
  Speaker 4: that the West did was to kill the Iranian leaders.
• 43:42
  Speaker 4: If that's being part of the club, then the question
• 43:45
  Speaker 4: is is that what you want?
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: Like I said, Mike, I don't.
• 43:49
  Speaker 3: I don't.
• 43:49
  Speaker 4: Maybe maybe maybe he's not dead, maybe he's living at
• 43:52
  Speaker 4: a retirement home somewhere in business Stoke.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 43:56
  Speaker 4: I mean, you know, this is this is where this
• 43:58
  Speaker 4: is where the whole conversation gets very, very ridiculous, because
• 44:01
  Speaker 4: of course you can make.
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: Up all kinds of stories.
• 44:03
  Speaker 4: Yeah, but show me the evidence again, and and if
• 44:07
  Speaker 4: the evidence isn't you know this this actually germ comes
• 44:10
  Speaker 4: down to, you know, what is the journalistic standard that
• 44:15
  Speaker 4: you're going to live by, and if the journalistic standards
• 44:18
  Speaker 4: you're going to live by is based on supposition. I mean,
• 44:21
  Speaker 4: analysis is good up to a point you can you
• 44:24
  Speaker 4: can because obviously there's there's stuff that you that isn't
• 44:27
  Speaker 4: possible to actually prove. So you analyze and you you
• 44:32
  Speaker 4: look at things with certain and you decide, you know,
• 44:35
  Speaker 4: what kind of confidence level you have in a particular position.
• 44:39
  Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, if you're making
• 44:41
  Speaker 4: a definitive statement, which is what a lot of people
• 44:44
  Speaker 4: are in saying that what the global SETH is doing
• 44:47
  Speaker 4: is or even I mean even people that were I
• 44:50
  Speaker 4: mean lots of people were saying that taking the position
• 44:52
  Speaker 4: that that the Russian Ukraine conflict was a complete fraud
• 44:57
  Speaker 4: because because it's just you know, the same two sides
• 45:00
  Speaker 4: of the same coin, and it's a staged event and
• 45:03
  Speaker 4: these kinds of things. Well, if if you know, if
• 45:07
  Speaker 4: that is, if that is the situation in Iran, then
• 45:10
  Speaker 4: then as I say, you've got to absolutely demonstrate that
• 45:14
  Speaker 4: that I mean, he didn't die, for example, that he
• 45:18
  Speaker 4: that he wasn't assassinated. And if he was assassinated, then
• 45:22
  Speaker 4: are you really saying that that this was you know,
• 45:24
  Speaker 4: all organized and that he was an active participant in that. Well,
• 45:27
  Speaker 4: clearly that seems like a completely irrational.
• 45:30
  Speaker 3: Position to take.
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: So yeah, but then you can't really discuss anything. What
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: do you mean, You can't discuss anything if there is
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: no kind of conclusive claim, because then it's just anything
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: Oh well what if oh he didn't really die or
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: and then we can't you know its peers. Peterce Robinson
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: talks about this, he calls it it's the fog of
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: the fog of propaganda war.
• 45:52
  Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, because because you know what, there is no
• 45:56
  Speaker 4: truth under those circumstances. If you if you're, if you're,
• 45:59
  Speaker 4: if you're a journalistic standard is that that you don't
• 46:02
  Speaker 4: actually need evidence for the statements that you make, then
• 46:04
  Speaker 4: then anything goes. And you know, that's that in and
• 46:08
  Speaker 4: of itself, is part of the agenda that we're living
• 46:11
  Speaker 4: through at the moment, that the idea of the post
• 46:13
  Speaker 4: truth world, the idea that there is no truth and
• 46:15
  Speaker 4: that it's not possible to ever find out what's actually
• 46:18
  Speaker 4: going on, and that's only being amplified with the use
• 46:22
  Speaker 4: of generative I to create increasingly fake content.
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: So there is truth, I rejic to claim that there
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: isn't truth.
• 46:30
  Speaker 3: Well, of course there.
• 46:30
  Speaker 4: Is there is truth because because at the end of
• 46:32
  Speaker 4: the day something, you know, events happen and and there's
• 46:36
  Speaker 4: motivation behind those events. And but the only people that
• 46:39
  Speaker 4: genuinely know what the truth is for any individual event
• 46:42
  Speaker 4: is the person that commits the act. And so you know,
• 46:47
  Speaker 4: then anybody looking at that act from the outside, well,
• 46:50
  Speaker 4: they either relying on something which has been written down
• 46:54
  Speaker 4: or something that's being said as evidence. But truly, the
• 46:57
  Speaker 4: only person that knows what the motivation was for a
• 47:00
  Speaker 4: particular act was the person who could carry the act out.
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: Look, let's take that article to the logical extreme. What
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: what happens if multiplarity and bricks do become cemented realities?
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: They do actually become very very strong, shall we say,
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: opposition to Western empirism. Where does that lead us competition?
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that we can know?
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: No, it's a thought experiment. I like the idea of competition,
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: So I'm not asking the question because I'm opposed it.
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I mean one would like to tell me.
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: I suppose you know, you can take an optimistic or
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: pessimistic view. You can think, right, Okay, Well, perhaps this
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: is a good opportunity for there to be some slightly
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: more grown up decisions being made on the world stage
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: for the benefits of you know, I mean overlapping benefits
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: that those that are always going to be looking out
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: for themselves and elite and whatnot. I mean, do decisions
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: made by them always have to be only for their benefit?
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: Or is there ever any mutual interest with regard to
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: the populations of the countries or the customers of those
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: corporations or whatever. If wants to take a very optimistic view,
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: So is it possible that the sort of cementing of
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: bricks might lead to such an outcome, or does one
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: consider that there is a shift in the balance of
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: power and bricks simply fills the void of whatever it
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: is that falls first, and therefore becomes equally difficult to
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: deal with if you're not part of it, or equally
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: problematic within because of fractice relationships and competition occurring within bricks.
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: I think the I think the extent to which competition
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: or greed, let's say, can influence outcomes is huge, So
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: I think that's always something to be to be very
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: mindful of. But sorry, I was just going to.
• 49:08
  Speaker 4: Say, you know, the the the issue here that this
• 49:11
  Speaker 4: again is is Western mindset. That even the basis of
• 49:15
  Speaker 4: this question German is Western mindset in a sense because
• 49:19
  Speaker 4: because we we have we have used this idea of
• 49:22
  Speaker 4: geopolitics as a as a weapon, and but we've forgotten
• 49:27
  Speaker 4: our own history because the Treaty of Westphilia. I keep
• 49:30
  Speaker 4: coming back to this because it is the foundation of
• 49:33
  Speaker 4: every modern nation on this planet was the Treaty of Westphalia,
• 49:37
  Speaker 4: and and the first clause of that treaty was talking
• 49:41
  Speaker 4: about the benefit of the other, which is really what
• 49:43
  Speaker 4: Charles has just been mentioning here right. The idea was
• 49:47
  Speaker 4: that that treaty represented a shift in the mindset of
• 49:52
  Speaker 4: the countries involved in that war, that it ended to
• 49:58
  Speaker 4: the point where you know, they were basically saying, well,
• 50:00
  Speaker 4: we should not be running the world with a view
• 50:04
  Speaker 4: of just beating the hell out of everybody else. We
• 50:07
  Speaker 4: should be running the world with a view to looking
• 50:09
  Speaker 4: at our neighbors and saying, well, what can I do
• 50:11
  Speaker 4: to help, And that if everybody was operating in that way,
• 50:16
  Speaker 4: we would we would have a peaceful world. And you know,
• 50:20
  Speaker 4: no matter how cynical people are about China and Shishin
• 50:25
  Speaker 4: paying and bricks and so on, the fact is that
• 50:31
  Speaker 4: back in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, around that time, he
• 50:35
  Speaker 4: was absolutely making statements to the international community that were
• 50:42
  Speaker 4: invoking that sentiment from the treaty in Westphilia. And the
• 50:46
  Speaker 4: fact of the matter is that in response he got
• 50:49
  Speaker 4: more geopolitics from the West and so that has largely
• 50:55
  Speaker 4: driven the direction that the world has gone in the
• 50:57
  Speaker 4: last ten years and certainly is driving direction that the
• 51:01
  Speaker 4: world is going. So the question at the end of
• 51:04
  Speaker 4: the day is whether you have any acceptance of the
• 51:07
  Speaker 4: idea that the global South would like to see the
• 51:11
  Speaker 4: end of geopolitical machinations on this planet. I think that's
• 51:15
  Speaker 4: something we should all be wanting to see, and that
• 51:18
  Speaker 4: it's dropping that concept would be the first step to
• 51:22
  Speaker 4: humanity on this planet.
• 51:26
  Speaker 3: Evolving.
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: Yes, And I mean I suppose when you speak to
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: people in those regions like Iran and Lebanon, Syria, reality
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: kicks in. You know, it's no longer an article on
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: a website that you that's written by somebody in the US.
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: This is the real thing. Vanessa, for example, lives there,
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: so Satari Sideki lives in Iran, and she knows the
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: reality of what's happening with the US and Israel attacking.
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: But I think what I'm kind of hinting at you
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: is that there's a disconnect that's so often happens in
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: sort of academic thought, intellectual masturbation versus reality.
• 52:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it's also there's also there's also Western arrogance about
• 52:11
  Speaker 4: you know, we're better than we're better than these jungle buddies,
• 52:15
  Speaker 4: however they want to think about it. I mean, it's
• 52:17
  Speaker 4: it's ridiculous to take this attitude about about other countries.
• 52:21
  Speaker 3: But of course at the heart.
• 52:22
  Speaker 4: Of it is is the the idea that, you know,
• 52:26
  Speaker 4: we want what they've got under their feet, and and
• 52:29
  Speaker 4: so we've got to we've got to treat them as
• 52:33
  Speaker 4: as as badly as we can in order that we
• 52:36
  Speaker 4: can get that as cheaply as we can't. That that's
• 52:39
  Speaker 4: part of geopolitics that has to change.
• 52:42
  Speaker 1: All right, Mike Charles, great discussion. I'll catch up with
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: you guys next week.
• 52:54
  Speaker 4: H