Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter Episode 23 — Why It Is Okay to Be Pro-China

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter Episode 23 — Why It Is Okay to Be Pro-China · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. It's it's it's it's that day of
0:41
the year when they are very thankful, I believe for the
0:45
British who had caused a lot of bloodshed with the Native
0:49
Americans and then created a romanticised history of how they
0:52
all ate together and had a wonderful time.
0:58
You sure have I been to cynical are.
1:01
You sure it's the British in this case?
1:03
Is it? Was it Windows?
1:06
The Pilgrims. Yeah, but but I mean, we're
1:11
talking about Christopher Columbus here, aren't we?
1:14
In the states I can't remember now I'm I'm sure it was the
1:16
British. Thanksgivings.
1:18
But Christopher Columbus isn't it?
1:21
I don't know. I mean, I frankly, I don't care
1:23
either. All I know is well, I'm clearly
1:27
ignorant about exactly exactly which historical event is is
1:31
being celebrated on on the the last Thursday of November.
1:36
But I, but I wonder, I mean, I, I would imagine that people who
1:41
have considered the matter are as horrified by what
1:45
Thanksgiving has become as people in other countries are by
1:49
what Christmas appears to have become.
1:53
And effectively, it has absolutely nothing to do with
1:58
what it's supposed to. I think in, in the United
2:01
Kingdom, I mean, we, we reached peak irony several decades ago.
2:07
But yes, it, it does seem to just get worse and worse and
2:10
worse every year. I don't, I don't mean to
2:12
deliberately steer the conversation onto Christmas when
2:15
we're still in November, but but it the, the, you know, the
2:20
commercialisation of absolutely everything.
2:23
It's, it's, it's, it's more rampant.
2:26
I mean, you know, if it can be believed, it is more rampant now
2:28
than than ever before. It's it, it is.
2:33
I, I still find it like a slap in the face.
2:36
I really do. I mean, whether it's people
2:37
trying to flog Christmas stuff in August or, or, or the fact
2:43
that the vast majority of people can go through the entire period
2:46
believing they're completely entitled to celebrate the
2:49
holiday of Christmas and calling it Christmas and apparently
2:52
celebrating Christmas without any regard at all for why that's
2:57
come about. I find that peculiar, to say the
3:00
least. I, I'm not quite so pessimistic
3:04
about the, about the commercial aspect of it because I think the
3:07
fact that we are being bombarded with Christmas messaging from
3:11
about September or August is demonstration of the people who
3:15
are rejecting that. And I whether that's because
3:18
they've had enough or whether it's because they can't afford
3:21
it, we can have a conversation about that.
3:24
But, you know, certainly in the last 20 years, I think people
3:30
are becoming very jaded with the, you know, how many more
3:34
stupid Knick knacks can be given to each other at Christmas time.
3:38
It's nobody, actually nobody that I'm sort of associated with
3:43
particularly wants useless Christmas presents every year.
3:48
And you know, for, for us, if setting aside whatever belief we
3:52
might have, it's, it's the getting together, the family,
3:57
the, the, the, the, the sort of just the, the social aspect of
4:01
it, which which is vastly more important than, than any kind of
4:05
commercial consideration. Yeah, of course.
4:08
Sorry. So you you're saying you think
4:10
the marketing of stuff has been extended because people have
4:13
become more resistant to it? Is that?
4:15
Is that what you mean? Because no, because nobody's
4:17
playing. And, and you know, if you think
4:20
back Charles 3030 years or so, you know what, what did we have?
4:26
We had maybe a New Year's Day sale.
4:31
Now the sales are constant, you know, because, because you know,
4:37
that's the only way that anything can be sold at the
4:39
moment is, is to, to vastly cut back on it, you know, cut on the
4:45
cut the costs. So at least that that made OK
4:48
increasingly that is a marketing ploy.
4:50
You, you, you produce something for nothing.
4:52
And in a low wage economy, you, you pretend that it costs £200
4:57
and then you take 75% off. That's, that's often a, a
5:01
marketing ploy. But nonetheless, the, the, the
5:04
idea of you, you know, when I was a teenager, whatever it was,
5:09
the, the sort of new year sales was a, was a sort of presented
5:13
as being something that was, that only happened once a year
5:17
was a special event. You get your get your great
5:20
deals now, whereas you know now it's just constant from about
5:24
August. Yeah, no, it's true.
5:26
It is. It you know.
5:27
And, and by the time we get to the 15th of December, they'll be
5:30
starting to have Easter eggs on the on the shelves again.
5:33
It's it's, it's ridiculous. It is.
5:38
But does the message get lost in all of that?
5:40
I mean people. Say that, Sure.
5:43
Well, yeah, this is it. That's what that's what I mean.
5:45
I mean, what, what, what is it? What has it become?
5:48
And and how does that relate to Thanksgiving or indeed any of
5:52
the other festivals that are celebrated anywhere else around
5:55
the world? Are any of them still sort of
5:59
true to what they were supposed to be, what they were supposed
6:04
to celebrate without an ever creeping sort of encroachment by
6:08
commercialization? I mean, maybe some are.
6:11
I don't, I, I, I don't know, but but I would have said the
6:14
western, all of the western ones have been completely subverted
6:18
for, you know, not just for commercial gain, but also the,
6:22
the, the absolute warping of people's minds as to what
6:25
anything does or doesn't mean. I always find it interesting
6:28
actually looking at the government departments, the
6:30
British government departments, because because you know,
6:33
everything now obviously comes out via Twitter or X.
6:36
So if you haven't put it on X, it doesn't exist.
6:39
And the and the British government departments trip over
6:42
themselves to celebrate all the religious festivals that are not
6:47
Christian. And they apparently very
6:51
grudgingly will put out one miserable Easter or Christmas
6:56
message. But it's I I have actually kept
6:58
sort of record of I mean the home off is particularly
7:01
interesting that any of the Islamic or Jewish festivals
7:04
they, they have really, really ornate graphics with lots of
7:06
text and how delighted they are that people should be
7:09
celebrating this. But with with, with Easter, it's
7:12
just, it just says something like Happy Easter and it's just
7:15
a really, really boring picture of an egg, but presumed a
7:20
chocolate, a chocolate egg and that's it.
7:23
It's just, it's quite illustrative.
7:25
But yeah, I, I think the, the whole thing has been, has been,
7:30
well, I mean, you know, the idea of celebrating and indeed the
7:33
way that we do celebrate because because again, that has been
7:35
sort of perverted. Like exactly like Mike says, you
7:37
know, if we're to think about the meaning of anything, then
7:43
it's it's to do with the people rather than as it's become
7:47
certainly in the West to do with the indulgence, it's to do with
7:50
responding to that marketing. So it doesn't matter whether
7:52
you're giving tat, you know, plastic tat from wherever that's
7:56
going to be in the bin within a couple of days or whether you're
7:59
eating or drinking yourself silly.
8:01
But it's but, but that is what has crept in as though that is
8:05
the correct way to acknowledge a significant moment in one's
8:11
history or, or indeed religious calendar.
8:13
It's completely extraordinary. It's absolutely I would say in
8:16
almost all instances, totally contrary to to what it should be
8:20
about. Nassim Taleb, who whose books
8:26
I've I've read, or at least some of them, and I have found them
8:30
particularly insightful. And paradoxically, he got the
8:35
whole COVID thing, you know, utterly wrong.
8:37
But nonetheless, he talks about the is it the dictatorship or
8:41
the tyranny of the minority? Yes, I mean, I I think that that
8:47
is part of what I'm saying with the yeah, the way in which non
8:53
Christian, sort of non traditionally British things are
8:56
dealt with. But I think that that affects
9:00
itself in, you know, every area of life.
9:04
Now look at look at the things that that constitute sort of
9:09
responsible behaviour by corporations, or at least so
9:12
they would have you believe, you know, the IT is absolutely
9:16
still, even though it's become a sort of mainstream topic, it is
9:19
still a minority concern that so and so or such and such an
9:23
activity produces carbon dioxide.
9:26
I mean that, that there are really very few people in the
9:28
world who get up every day and think, Oh my goodness, all this
9:31
carbon dioxide, What are we going to do about it?
9:34
But but people will still be prepared to go along with the,
9:37
the narrative because the way it's dressed up and it's made to
9:39
sound like, you know, well, you're a good person if you go
9:42
along with this one. And, and it's become the same
9:44
with absolutely very much minority things, whether they
9:47
pertain to, you know, all the classic things like race,
9:51
identity, gender, all of those things.
9:54
But but absolutely you, it's a perfect tool if you, if you
9:59
galvanise and create a, a sort of a, a shrill minority who is
10:06
prepared to act in a fashion that can, you know, sort of
10:10
stimulate the genesis of a, of a movement around it.
10:16
And then you can try to Chuck that one over the majority.
10:19
The, the effects are, are astonishing.
10:21
I mean, all these things we talk about, that's essentially sort
10:23
of how it happens really. He, he, he actually goes on to
10:27
talk about the sort of asymmetry, asymmetrical nature
10:30
of, of how the minority, let's say, even if it's three or 5% of
10:37
people who let's say are halal, right?
10:40
And they are unwilling to compromise, the majority for
10:44
some other reason feel that they need to completely accommodate
10:48
for halal food. And therefore every McDonald's
10:51
or every our food outlet or whatever, everything must now
10:53
accommodate. It's a very strange phenomenon.
10:56
Sorry, I just need to stop you there.
10:57
Sorry, did you just say the word McDonald's and food outlet in
11:00
the same sentence? It's not acceptable.
11:08
But you, but you get the point that I'm making that that
11:10
there's this weird type of intolerance from a Shia
11:15
minority. Let's just say transgender.
11:17
Now, I don't believe that men can be woman and woman can be
11:19
men, right? And I think the percentage of
11:25
quote unquote transgender people is what, less than 1% or
11:28
something like that in any kind of Western society.
11:31
Why then must 1/3 bathroom be built in public places?
11:37
Well, that's a very good question.
11:38
And actually that goes back to appealing to people's better
11:42
nature and the the corruption of this whole idea of what sort of
11:46
being a good person is about because actually to go back and
11:49
and they'll be I, I, I would hope not, but I think there
11:52
might be a few people take issue with this.
11:53
Actually, the the precursor to that was lose that are designed
11:59
for people who have disabilities which have become of course
12:04
totally erroneously referred to as disabled.
12:06
Loos cause of course the the loo itself is not disabled.
12:10
That would be tedious and problematic for everybody.
12:14
But the point is that if you are not disabled, but you use a loo
12:19
that is fitted out for disabled people, that somehow you are
12:23
doing something wrong. And that's, that is not at all
12:27
the the point. The point is that those those
12:30
are designed so that they can be accessed by people who are
12:33
disabled. But but obviously there are a
12:36
very small minority of people who do require the use of that
12:39
loose. So it's not like you're
12:40
depriving anybody else from doing it.
12:42
Obviously, if you deliberately run ahead of somebody who is
12:46
disabled and you occupy that space when they are supposed to
12:49
be able to use it, yes, OK, that's a totally different
12:51
thing. But, and I know this sounds
12:53
incredibly mundane, but it but it is really interesting because
12:56
it absolutely does give an insight into the way in which
12:58
people can be nudged via thinking, being made to think
13:04
that their actions have a consequence on people in
13:08
situations when frankly, it absolutely doesn't.
13:10
I mean, you know, if you go into a loo like that, it makes
13:14
absolutely no difference unless there is somebody who cannot
13:17
access another loop actually trying to get into it the same
13:19
time as you. And, and that is it.
13:21
It's with that start point that the idea of, you know, 1/3 a
13:26
thirdly or indeed making people share all the same things that,
13:29
that that's how that's sort of how you get there.
13:32
And at no point have people challenged these utterly mundane
13:38
and apparently banal sort of changes.
13:41
And yet they are changes and they're changes in the way that
13:44
we are sort of being made to look at stuff.
13:47
Exactly the same with the, with the carbon dioxide.
13:50
You know, we were talking about on, on the Wednesday news, News
13:55
Extra this week, Michael Modestre and I were talking
13:57
about the, the absolute absurdity of a, well, a war
14:03
organisation saying in the United Kingdom the the Ministry
14:06
of Defence saying that it's got a, you know, it's monitoring
14:10
it's carbon footprint and it's trying to do XY and Z green
14:13
stuff and it's doing biofuel in, in armoured vehicles stuff.
14:16
Yeah, fine. All very well until one piece of
14:20
ordnance goes off and then, and then the, you know, the amount
14:23
of not just carbon dioxide, but all sorts of other things that
14:25
are, that are released utterly, you know, well, blows up that
14:30
message as well. And, and yet this, these are the
14:33
sorts of things that we are inclined or have been made to be
14:37
inclined to go along with. It's it's complete nonsense.
14:40
But you know, the question, the question that I think we all
14:44
should be thinking about is because Charles is absolutely
14:47
right and what he's just said, but who's providing the nudges?
14:51
Is it, is it the, is it the, the individual trans person or
14:57
disabled person or whatever minority person, whichever
15:00
minority it is, or is it campaign groups?
15:04
And if somebody has, if somebody is is campaigning for a
15:09
particular topic or a particular character trait, whatever it
15:14
happens to be, at what point does that campaign become
15:20
something which has been effectively be taken over by
15:22
somebody with a bigger, a bigger idea in mind?
15:27
And you know, but but actually, Jeremy, the question on on in
15:32
terms of toilets, if we're talking toilets there is, is, is
15:36
whether the third toilet is actually being built or whether
15:40
we're just simply taking the signs off the doors of of all
15:43
the toilets and saying just everybody use whatever you like
15:47
that that's also something else is going on.
15:50
I must say it is, it is a a very, very effective way of
15:54
making everyone feel deeply uncomfortable.
15:56
I do, I, I remember that from I mean, classic, of course.
15:59
Why wouldn't it be the when I was undergoing training in the
16:04
police, one of the buildings, one of the police wasn't
16:09
headquarters. It was a sort of training
16:11
facility that had been put up at great expense.
16:15
Had exactly that all the, in fact, not all, but almost all
16:19
the all the loos in that building worth worth everybody.
16:22
And it just everyone looks so sheepish going in and out of
16:28
those doors because there were men and women in the same space
16:31
and no one quite knew where to put themselves.
16:34
And the, you know, it was one of those places where the cubicle
16:37
doors didn't go all the way to the ceiling or all the way to
16:40
the floor. It was, it was, it was just
16:42
terribly, terribly awkward. And also there was absolutely
16:46
nobody in that environment who was supposed to benefit from it
16:51
in that there were no women pretending to be men and no men
16:53
pretending to be women. And yet we all had to play along
16:56
with it precisely as you say, Mike, because the, the sign, it
17:00
basically just the, the signs have been changed on the doors.
17:03
It's dreadful. Call and his and his great shows
17:07
that he's now doing for for UK columns.
17:09
So I just want to premise that by saying I travelled to China
17:12
with him and he is a smart, smart guy.
17:15
He's very balanced and he's got a phenomenal insight into
17:20
Chinese history and I think that's extremely valuable.
17:24
What what upsets me a little bit is the typical binary trope that
17:31
oh, because he's now not saying only bad things about China is
17:38
UK column is now pro China. I am pro China in in the sense
17:42
that China itself has done nothing to hurt me.
17:48
I believe that China is is a country like any other that
17:53
deserves its own ability to make its own decisions about its own
17:58
destiny. And I believe that China should
18:00
not be on the receiving end of a bunch of rhetoric from the
18:06
United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, which is
18:10
intended to create division, conflict and so on.
18:16
And you know, I, that doesn't mean that China gets off the
18:20
hook with any of any of the things that it's, that it does.
18:24
If it's, if it is, as I believe it is, digging up huge
18:29
quantities of Central African countries in order to, to obtain
18:33
cobalt and it's using child labour in order to do that, then
18:38
that absolutely needs, they need to be held to account for that.
18:42
But that doesn't mean that we have a blanket anti China
18:46
rhetoric that that's that is basically the the rhetoric of
18:51
the British government and the United States government.
18:55
OK, Well then sorry Mike. Well then, before you go any
18:58
further, sorry, but let's just then for the sake of clarity,
19:02
define what we mean by pro China and anti China, because we're
19:05
talking about a big country with a lot of people.
19:08
Well, well, precisely. And, and you know, the, the
19:12
problem that I have with much of the conversation about China,
19:16
and the reason that I was that I was so keen to, to have Carl
19:20
presenting what he's presenting is because, you know, there's
19:24
this, we're talking about a country of over a billion
19:26
people. And how can, you know, the, the
19:29
suggestion that this is just one homogeneous thing is, is just
19:33
completely ridiculous. And the suggestion that, you
19:36
know, the Chinese Communist Party is in total control of
19:40
everything that goes on in that country is ridiculous as well.
19:43
I mean, you know, China has all the same problems that we have
19:47
in the West. They have corruption.
19:48
They, they, they work very hard. I mean, as far as I can see,
19:52
they seem to work. It's very hard to try to deal
19:53
with the corruption that, that, that is there They have.
19:56
But, but you know, one of the reasons that, that I went there
19:59
last April was to see for myself as far as you can, we've said
20:05
this before, but as far as you can from a sort of tourist trip
20:08
to see for myself what, what it's like there.
20:11
And, and there there were things that I liked a lot about it.
20:16
There were things that I could be critical about.
20:19
As as there are with the activities of the Chinese state.
20:23
But, but the problem is, Jeremy, that we are absolutely 100% in
20:29
an information war at the moment that on one side, we have an
20:33
establishment in the West, which it, I believe is led by at least
20:37
the narratives are led by Britain in many ways, which is
20:42
100% anti China in the sense that everything that that China
20:47
is is, you know, they are projecting onto China their own
20:51
mindset in terms of their imperialist thinking and their
20:55
expansionist thinking and their we must rule the world thinking.
20:59
Now the same goes for for Russia as well.
21:05
We have this absolute narrative as well.
21:08
And the problem becomes then one of, well, if if you say that the
21:13
British government is doing this, that they are pursuing a
21:16
war policy against these two countries, then of course you're
21:20
going to see the, the, the people coming out of the
21:22
woodwork and saying, Oh, well, you're, you're just an apologist
21:25
or you're just, you're just pro that country.
21:28
And, and of course, I've, I've, I've made a qualified comment
21:33
about that a second ago. But what I, the other, the other
21:38
common thing that I'm noticing here, Jeremy, which is quite
21:41
interesting is that the people that are attacking Carl and
21:45
attacking us for having Carl on the programme are pro Zionist as
21:50
well. And, and this is a very
21:52
interesting dynamic because, because of course, the other
21:56
thing that we're doing at the moment is absolute criticism of
22:01
Israel and Israel's activities in Gaza.
22:04
And so it does not surprise me that we're starting to see some
22:10
voices suggesting that we have an agenda with respect to China.
22:14
It's not the case. If you look at what Vanessa is
22:17
doing with respect to Russia and China at the moment, she's being
22:20
extremely, extremely critical about their role in, in the
22:25
Middle East and, and other places.
22:28
So, you know, it's not, it's not correct to say that that we are
22:32
just blindly pro. Any country, every country that
22:38
that deserves criticism should receive the criticism for the
22:41
things that they do wrong. They should absolutely be
22:43
applauded for the things that they do right.
22:45
And, but, but we've also got to remember that we are in this
22:50
information war environment where there are there, there,
22:55
there's a, a, a, an establishment driven desire to
23:01
demonise certain countries around the world.
23:03
And, and we've got to, we've got to absolutely call our own
23:07
governments out for doing that. I mean it, it because if all
23:11
they, if all they have is the personal attack, you're a shell.
23:15
They have nothing right? The, the if, if, if what we're
23:19
saying is wrong at any point, then come back to me and tell me
23:22
why it's wrong and we can have a discussion about it.
23:25
If you're just going to say, oh, you're just a Russian mouthpiece
23:28
or you're just a Chinese mouthpiece, or you're a shill
23:30
for this or a shill for that, then go away because I'm not
23:33
interested in having a conversation with you.
23:35
You you don't have anything to bring to the table.
23:37
Bring your criticism that shows that what we've said about a
23:41
particular situation is wrong. And then we learn you learn, you
23:45
know, it's it's it everybody wins.
23:48
But but who cares? Let them.
23:52
But, but the other reason that I, that I was enthusiastic about
23:55
Carl doing what he's doing is that, you know, we there,
23:59
there's a lot of information floating around about Belton Rd,
24:03
for example, and, and activities in Africa and activities in
24:07
South America and all kinds of activities around the world.
24:11
I'm actually hoping that as this series develops, we start to
24:15
hear from people that are on the ground in these countries on the
24:19
receiving end of these activities.
24:22
And, and just to get some kind of perspective on, on, on what
24:28
China is actually doing or what Russia is actually doing.
24:31
Because, you know, the, the Sahel region of, of, of Africa,
24:35
for example, is clearly heavily contested.
24:37
The European Union, Britain view that as being their southern
24:40
neighbourhood, but Russia and China have massive influence
24:43
there. I want to understand that
24:46
situation a lot better. And you can't understand it just
24:48
by listening to what the British government says.
24:50
You can't understand anything by listening to what the British
24:52
government says. You got to, you got to expand
24:54
your horizons a little bit and, and hopefully that's what we're
24:57
doing. But if if people want to just to
24:59
hurl abuse, let them. Well, I think we consider
25:04
separating the wheat from the chaff.
25:06
I would say that anybody who begins an argument with the idea
25:13
that somebody or or something, an organisation can be pro China
25:20
is about as fatheaded a thing as I have ever heard in my life.
25:24
And that's to put it mildly, as we've talked about before on
25:28
many occasions, not least after you came back Germ and and as
25:32
you both just said, China is an absolutely enormous country.
25:36
So when when we say pro China or anti China, what on earth are we
25:41
actually talking about? Are we talking about the over 1
25:44
billion people that live there, or are we talking about the
25:47
state architecture that is supposedly running the country?
25:50
And even if it's the latter, are we talking about all of those
25:53
people who are concerned with state business and making
25:57
decisions that might affect children in Democratic Republic
26:00
of Congo or wherever else? Not forgetting that every single
26:03
other nation that we are likely to discuss on this banter
26:08
session has probably done the same, if not worse in years gone
26:12
by. So I think we have to be very
26:14
careful to judge by consistent standards.
26:19
But frankly, why are people not just taking situations on their
26:24
own merits? I mean, it's perfectly
26:27
extraordinary that in the same sense, you know, I mean, let's
26:32
take well, we've we've spoken about Russia, Iran and why on
26:38
earth, if you know, if people believe the the sort of terror
26:42
and nuclear narrative about Iran, why should that make them
26:48
think differently about the Iranian people?
26:51
In the same way that if we start to then look back at our own
26:55
countries. Now, I think that most of what
27:00
the British government does is irresponsible and morally wrong,
27:05
but that doesn't make me anti Britain.
27:08
It makes me disappointed, frustrated and and all the rest
27:13
of it that the British people are being put in a position
27:16
where their government is carrying out activities that
27:19
really are not being done in their name, certainly not in my
27:22
name. So I think there's a there's a
27:25
huge amount of nuance to it, particularly with China.
27:30
I mean, I think there's, I think people who are sort of putting
27:34
this front and centre are just, you know, falling into a very
27:37
dull and yet gigantic binary trap of considering that, you
27:45
know, you should really be. I mean, what's the inference?
27:47
If you're criticising somebody for being pro China, what do you
27:50
want them to be anti China? Or do you want them to look at
27:55
what the Chinese administration is doing in relation to XY or Z
28:01
and then judge each point on its own merits?
28:04
Because, you know, I've just made damning comments about the
28:08
British administration. But if I thought long and hard
28:11
enough about it, I would be able to come up with some initiative
28:14
or initiatives or things that I do like about the way in which
28:17
society runs in this country. But just to, just to take a
28:21
blanket position on, you know, whether one is pro or anti
28:27
China, and indeed what that's supposed to mean if you do
28:31
either as an individual or sort of apparently as an
28:33
organisation, because you talk about something that seems to be
28:35
not universally damning. I, I mean, I, I, I, I cannot see
28:39
the point. It's just, to me, it's, it's a
28:41
sort of, you know, it's a, it's a navel gazing exercise in the
28:44
extreme. But in any event, when people
28:47
say pro China, I think for the most part they're referring to
28:51
the government or like you said earlier, the state architecture,
28:54
Charles, I don't think they're referring to the people.
28:57
I, I don't know. I'm not, I'm not sure that I
28:59
necessarily go along with you there because let's say we talk
29:03
about the, let's say we talk about the, the policy on
29:08
infrastructure and resources in, in other countries, particularly
29:12
Africa, that that's not the, the government that are doing that.
29:17
So, and yet people are absolutely judging all of those,
29:21
you know, the Chinese people who are on the ground and the, you
29:24
know, what the Chinese are doing there and this, that and the
29:26
other without considering what it is that British, especially
29:31
British and American corporations are doing at
29:34
exactly the same time. So I think people are, I think
29:36
people are very inconsistent. And I'm afraid to say, I do
29:39
think that this does carry well beyond a critique of, of the
29:44
Chinese state. I mean, I obviously I could be
29:49
wrong and that's going to, that's going to vary by
29:52
individual. But I, but I think it's, I, I
29:55
think people are, are, are sort of lazy enough to, to, to not
30:00
spend the time delineating as they should.
30:04
It's, it's, it's really interesting.
30:05
China has, Carl said it in one of his reports recently from
30:13
China when, when he was over there, he doesn't care what
30:17
China's doing because China has no jurisdiction over his life.
30:23
And I think that whenever we look at what other countries are
30:28
doing, this is this is pure diversion in a sense, because
30:33
whatever they're doing, that's that's for them and for their
30:36
people to decide what kind of society they want to live in.
30:40
They've chosen, for example, because this is one of the
30:43
things I did ask while I was there, they've chosen to, to go
30:47
fully digital in terms of, of payments and so on.
30:51
Now, that doesn't mean you can't pay for, you can't pay cash for
30:55
stuff. Before we went, we were told,
30:58
you know, it, it, it could be problematic to pay cash because
31:01
you people will always accept cash, but they may not have the
31:05
correct change to give you if you're buying something and so
31:07
on because they don't hold cash. We, we, we didn't find out in
31:11
any of the places that we went. And OK, we didn't, we weren't
31:14
outside any major cities, but still that was the situation.
31:17
Cash was no problem. But for example, one of the
31:20
reasons that they that they would say that they are happy to
31:23
use digital transfers is that it is just completely obliterated
31:30
St crime because there is people don't carry cash.
31:33
And so there's no point in in trying and sort of bugging
31:37
people for their wallets because there's nothing there.
31:39
So, so that that is one of the one of the benefits that they
31:42
perceive. But the other point that would
31:44
make about this is that it is, it is simply wrong for us.
31:48
And it's totally arrogant for us as Westerners to look at what
31:54
goes on in countries in the East and try and say that we
31:58
understand the the way that they think or, or how they want to
32:02
organise themselves or any of that.
32:04
That's I don't think it's possible for us to understand
32:07
it. I, I think if you go and live
32:08
there for 50 years, I still think you probably don't really
32:11
understand the mentality there. But but as well as that there,
32:16
you know, in the whole China, particularly in China with the,
32:21
with the China issue, that the way people think about this is,
32:26
is internally inconsistent, shall we say, Because you'll
32:29
hear people talking about, well, there's no such thing as viruses
32:34
or COVID was fake, but it came from a lab in China.
32:40
And, and the same person will say this, take these two
32:43
positions at, at, at slightly different times.
32:45
And, and somehow they think that these two positions are
32:48
consistent and, and they're not. So, you know, what that
32:53
demonstrates to me, or what it seems to demonstrate is, is
32:56
that, you know, people are susceptible to certain
33:03
propaganda. And, and one of the bits of
33:06
propaganda that they are susceptible to is that is the
33:09
whole China virus thing. And that China did this as some
33:13
kind of attack on the rest of the world.
33:17
I think, I think we've got a, we've got a, if we're going to
33:21
try to understand what's going on around us, we got to first of
33:25
all try to understand what our government's doing.
33:27
But we've also got to try to understand the as best we can
33:31
the, the, the target of, of a lot of the propaganda that
33:37
we're, that we're being subjected to at the moment and
33:41
you know. Someone said to me the other
33:43
day, yeah, but you know, the Chinese are, they're, they're
33:45
colonising your continent, Africa.
33:48
And my response was yes, sure, OK, but at least.
33:53
But, but hold on a second, are they, because, because this is,
33:56
this is part of the now I don't have it.
33:57
I'm not saying that they are. They aren't at this point in
34:00
time. It's certainly something that I
34:01
want to understand a lot better. But is that not projection?
34:05
Again, is that not us in the West looking at what our
34:09
countries did in the past in terms of colonisation of, of
34:12
countries in Africa and then projecting that onto what
34:14
China's doing? Because because for example, one
34:17
of the things that the West did, as everybody will be aware, was
34:22
to absolutely tie African countries up in such a pile of
34:27
debt that, that, that they effectively, you know, it, it
34:31
kept these countries subjugated. What I'm saying is that China's
34:36
not doing that at all. And in fact, in many cases,
34:38
China's forgiving debt that that the West would never forgive.
34:42
But that's that's the point, Mike.
34:44
That's sorry. That's why I'm jumping in.
34:45
But that is the point that I was making.
34:46
So someone said to me, yeah, but they're colonising Africa.
34:49
And I said, OK, but what do you mean?
34:50
Well, they're building infrastructure.
34:52
So I said, OK, you're saying that like it's a bad thing.
34:55
I mean, I'm quite happy to have to have high speed rail and an
34:58
airport in Ethiopia that is now one of the the best airports on
35:02
the continent, particularly for international travel.
35:05
And that was built by, you know, Chinese companies.
35:08
You know, thank goodness that somebody is trying to speed up
35:12
some of the infrastructure developments that have been
35:14
wrecked over the last few decades by by Western interests.
35:20
Yeah, I mean, I, I think, I think in in all of these
35:23
respects, people are falling for various narratives.
35:29
That's first of all, conditioning them to think in a
35:32
way that I would say is, is disconnected and incoherent.
35:37
But but again, like, you know, like we talked about before,
35:39
it's a, it's a great big distraction.
35:41
You know, I mean, going back to where you started with this,
35:45
which is that people are having a pop at Carl, let's say.
35:52
I mean, why what, you know, who does that benefit seriously?
35:56
What you know, what is the result of that?
35:59
If you if you've got a, a specific challenge to make with
36:03
something that he has said on a factual basis, OK, that's a
36:09
that's a different matter. And that should be the basis
36:12
upon which all of this is judged.
36:14
You know, whether it's whether it's Carl or, or anything that
36:18
goes out on UK column. And this is what Mike and Brian
36:22
have said for absolutely years, which is, you know, don't trust
36:26
us. Go go and look for yourself.
36:28
I mean, we present in such a way that we hope makes sense to the
36:33
audience, but that's after having researched it's
36:37
sufficiently to be able to present that.
36:39
And it it doesn't, you know, it doesn't necessarily mean that
36:42
we're taking what might be described as a position on
36:46
something to be pro or or anti. It it's, you know, it is dealt
36:52
with in in an objective manner. And I think this is
36:55
unfortunately what I'm seeing specifically with the Chinese
36:59
issue and indeed the conflation of whether or not China, the,
37:05
you know, the, the state, the administration is up to no good.
37:08
And conflating that with whether or not people who are operating
37:13
in our, within our sort of media space are then to be judged good
37:18
or I'll it is, you know, it, it is ridiculous, but it is also a,
37:23
a great big distraction. Why are people getting so wound
37:27
up? You know, if like Carl says, I
37:30
mean really what what are the Chinese administration doing
37:36
that that is affecting us directly?
37:39
I don't think very much and especially not when we consider
37:44
what our own administrations, particularly in the United
37:47
Kingdom. You know what, what is being
37:49
pushed here is coming from here. It is not coming from China.
37:54
If anything, it it's coming from, you know, I mean, I think
37:58
we we've got much more to be concerned about with what's
38:01
going on in Europe, in Israel particularly and in the United
38:06
States. I mean, there in lie many, many
38:08
more dangers, I would say. So why are people getting their
38:11
knickers in A twist over what somebody like Carl who is very
38:16
well informed, you know, I mean, challenging him on specific
38:20
points, fine, but but to sort of start besmirching people and
38:24
organisations on the basis of this, you know, this sort of
38:27
proxy argument about China is, is a just complete waste of
38:31
time. And the I would say germ is, is,
38:35
you know, I, I'm encouraging you not to get upset by any of this,
38:40
but the thing that really does yank my chain is the sheer
38:45
hypocrisy of it, right? Because every single person
38:50
who's criticising China is probably has 50 products on
38:56
their person at that moment in time that were manufactured in
38:59
China, right? We, we were happy as as a
39:02
society to take advantage of cheap labour manufacturing in
39:09
China for decades. And now that China's a little
39:14
effectively taken over the world in terms of productivity and
39:17
production, then it becomes a problem.
39:20
It was a systematic policy decision to export and offshore
39:25
our production from the West into those countries.
39:29
And yet we're not criticising the people that made that policy
39:33
decision. We're now criticising China.
39:35
And this, this, this goes it just it, this really does yank
39:40
my chin because, because it, it demonstrates exactly why we are
39:47
in the mess we're in, because it's totally wrong headed
39:49
thinking, you know, if you think China's bad, stop buying
39:53
products that are manufactured in China, right?
39:56
But you won't do it because you want your iPhone and you want
39:59
your, your gaming platform and you want your other
40:02
entertainment, right? So, so if if you're not going
40:06
to, if you're not going to take a stand on, if you think China's
40:09
bad and you're not going to take a stand on China, then go away
40:14
and bother somebody else would be my my response to that.
40:18
People who who are, you know, wanting to heap criticism on, on
40:28
Carl or anybody who sort of can be described as saying stuff
40:31
about China that's not universally damning, of course,
40:34
are putting themselves in exactly the same position as the
40:38
security and intelligence services, which I find
40:40
hilarious. So.
40:42
So again, on this sort of inconsistency, you know, either
40:46
you, you do sort of mean it about the, exactly like Mike
40:50
says, you know, all the parts in your iPhone or whatever other
40:54
benefits you're directly receiving from China.
40:59
Or indeed, you know, on the, the sort of the mistrust of the, the
41:03
state, the deep state in the United Kingdom, although it
41:07
looks like you're completely aligned with their point of
41:10
view. So it is, it is a, it is a
41:12
strange, it's a strange ideological position to occupy,
41:17
I think in that respect as well. But that that again, doesn't
41:20
necessarily seem to be considered to be a factor, which
41:22
I'd I'm afraid to I I do find rather amusing.
41:25
Sorry, Charles, you have to remind me.
41:26
Is it which? Which is the Select Committee?
41:28
The Intelligence? What do you remember the formal
41:30
title of it, The Intelligence Select?
41:32
I think it isn't it the Intelligence and Security Select
41:34
Committee? Could be they that you know,
41:38
good place to go and decide and and look to see what which which
41:45
policies or agendas might be at work here is to go there because
41:50
they have published their their China report.
41:52
They've published their, their Russian reports and so on.
41:56
So you know it, we, we are, we are witnessing, we're, we're
41:59
living through a process in the West where the West has clearly
42:05
looked at, at Ukraine and said, well, this is a great business
42:09
model or even Gaza for that matter.
42:11
And, and so we are now in the process of total militarization
42:16
of our countries. And we're going to base, we're
42:20
clearly going to base our our whole economy on the production
42:25
of, of products which are designed for one purpose only,
42:29
which is to kill other people. And we're going to use Russia
42:32
and China as the battering Rams over the heads of people to
42:36
accept this policy shift. And then we're going to provide
42:40
people with jobs in the defence sector and which of course,
42:45
defence in this context means war sector.
42:49
And so, so they're going to manufacture consent by making
42:54
people reliant on the income that they receive from this type
42:57
of activity. And it, it just fascinates me
43:01
that that, that clearly, you know, we're going to, we're
43:04
going to kick off all these proxy conflicts around the world
43:07
is probably the outcome while maintaining this narrative that
43:11
we're, that we need to prepare for a long industrial scale war
43:16
with one of these big superpowers.
43:19
There's no way, as we were sort of more than hinting at on on
43:23
Wednesday's news programme, on Wednesday's extra the the, the
43:27
the idea of, of actually running a, an industrial, a long
43:31
industrial scale war with Russia or China, certainly for the
43:36
foreseeable future is totally pie in the sky because because
43:40
we don't have the capability to do it.
43:42
But we're going to put this, we're going to strongly put this
43:45
idea in peoples minds. We're going to convince them
43:47
that they've got to be afraid of these countries, that these
43:50
countries are sole purpose is to blow us up in our beds and
43:56
therefore we've got to. But in the meantime, we're going
43:59
to maintain the tension by making sure more and more people
44:02
die in Ukraine, more and more people die in the Middle East.
44:05
And maybe we think about Georgia or Moldova or some of these
44:08
other hot or Taiwan, perhaps some of these other hot places
44:13
that can be kicked off around the world.
44:16
This is a really dark and cynical policy agenda.
44:19
It's a really dark and cynical way to run an economy.
44:22
And, and if, you know, if, if we are pro China for calling that
44:27
out, then fine. I'm happy to be pro China in
44:31
the, in that context. But you know, I, I, I would be
44:36
very sad if at the end of the day, the British people or
44:41
French or the German or the United States people accept that
44:45
that future for themselves because it's, it's not a good
44:49
place to be going. Where should we be going then,
44:52
Mike? We should remember our we should
44:55
remember our history, right? Because because and I just, I
44:59
just going to mention this and if this if this makes me pro
45:02
China, then I'm, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm going to just going to have
45:05
to accept that. But you know, a lot of years
45:08
ago, I can't remember what it was 20/16/2017 Xi Jinping said
45:15
something. And but before I get to what he
45:17
said, I just want to remind everybody because we live in
45:22
nation states which were basically established after the
45:26
Peace of Westphalia. So we had a big war in Europe
45:28
and lots of people died and eventually there was a peace
45:32
came about and a treaty was signed.
45:34
And the first, the first clause of that treaty says that there
45:40
shall be a Christian and universal peace and a perpetual,
45:44
true and sincere amity, that this peace and amity be observed
45:49
and cultivated with such a sincerity and zeal.
45:52
And this is the key part, that each party shall endeavour to
45:54
procure the benefit, honour and advantage of the other, that
45:59
that's on all sides they may see this peace and friendship right.
46:03
This is a completely different position to take.
46:06
This was the, this was the, the basis of the modern Western
46:10
nation state and, and the idea of it.
46:13
It's not peace through strength, which is what we're being told
46:17
at the moment, that we've got to be prepared to be able to be in
46:22
a position to win a, a war with, with Russia or China.
46:26
We've got to be prepared to be in a position to defeat them
46:29
utterly. What the what the peace of
46:32
Westphalia represents is a completely different
46:34
relationship with, with our, with international, completely
46:39
different situation with international relations.
46:41
Now, several years ago, Xi Jinping said history tells us
46:47
the law of the jungle isn't the way of human coexistence.
46:50
Every nation should obey the principle of equality, mutual
46:53
trust, learning from each other, cooperating and seeking joint
46:56
benefits for the construction of a harmonious world, sustained
47:00
peace and a joint prosperity. And it seemed to me at the time
47:03
that that was absolutely he was clearly using the language of
47:08
the Treaty of Westphalia. He was saying to people, come
47:11
on, drop the drop the the of militarization and cooperate and
47:17
build, build a world which is the kind of world that we all
47:22
want to live in. And so, you know, if that, that,
47:26
that statement and has been utterly rejected by the West
47:31
and, and I, I think that's really a real shame in many
47:35
ways. Now, if that, if, if, if taking
47:37
that position makes me pro Xinping Xi Jinping or pro China,
47:42
if that's how you think about what I've just said, then fine.
47:45
But I would suggest maybe there's a bit of deeper thinking
47:48
required in our entire approach to how we're doing international
47:51
relations at the moment and whether we should be actually
47:54
dropping this whole concept of geopolitics in the first place.
47:59
You know, straight away we are into into the territory of.
48:05
Of. Suggesting that 11.1 item can be
48:11
said to speak for all behaviours and it can't so, so that you
48:17
know that that has been said. Therefore, it's up to the
48:20
remainder of the Chinese administration and indeed the
48:23
actions that Xi Jinping is able to influence to be consistent to
48:28
what he said. Now is that happening?
48:32
I, I don't know, probably not quite, I mean, you know, there,
48:37
there are so many examples of this.
48:38
What actually one interestingly, there's a minister in the Labour
48:44
government at the minute called Al Khant, who was a Royal Marine
48:46
for 24 years, left, became an MP and is now in government.
48:50
And he because, because he was, he was in the Royal Marines.
48:53
He's he's being put forward as the bloke to sort of sell the
48:56
change in legislation about Northern Ireland, which we won't
48:59
get into now because it's very complicated, but but effectively
49:03
making a very, very unfair situation in that British
49:08
servicemen may be tried, whereas anybody who was described
49:12
previously sort of as a terrorist cannot.
49:14
But, but never mind. But the point is that Carnes is
49:18
being hammered, I would say, quite rightly, for trying to
49:23
sort of have it both ways, you know, put himself forward, set
49:26
himself as being a a veteran looking after the blokes this,
49:29
that and the other at the same time as hanging out.
49:31
Anybody who stands to be pursued by legacy troubles
49:37
investigations to to dry. And and and he's been sort of
49:42
nailed for this and he's trying to to squirm out of it by being
49:46
by sort of, you know, saying, well, it's better to be on the
49:48
inside where you can influence things and this, that and the
49:50
other. But but actually what what has
49:52
happened is that he has been exposed for being incredibly
49:56
inconsistent. So he might be saying, you know,
50:01
some of the right things about veterans or about this and the
50:04
other, but he is being undone by one, one other thing.
50:08
And I think that's, you know, that's, that's a good sort of
50:11
example of the way in which we should consider things because
50:15
it is all to do with with consistently consistency.
50:19
You know, I mean, well, probably too late in the conversation to
50:24
get into this exactly. But, you know, are we really
50:26
going to going to say that one people, one state, one
50:30
organisation is always going to do absolutely the wrong thing
50:35
all the time or absolutely the right thing all the time?
50:39
I think that's a that that would be a hard position to hold.
50:43
But yeah. No, I I completely agree with
50:47
that, Charles. You know that.
50:49
That's of course, I would absolutely say that as I said
50:55
earlier in the programme, China is not entirely Russia is not
50:59
entirely consistent with that. Russia, for example, has been
51:03
has been complaining about the rules based order being the
51:07
rules of the West and that the rules change all the time and
51:09
all these kinds of things. And, and Russia has not been
51:13
entirely consistent in upholding international law and and so on.
51:17
And that of course, in a sense undermines their position.
51:20
Same with China. But if we're talking purely
51:24
principles, then I think what that statement represented was
51:27
quite a good way to look at the world.
51:29
And then we can have a conversation about the about the
51:33
the specifics of it. But once we've established that
51:36
that's actually a principle that we might want to, to, to run
51:39
international relations by and abandoned this geopolitical, we
51:44
got to beat the other guy over the head with even bigger bombs
51:46
than they have rubbish, you know, because because that that
51:51
way just leads to disaster. Then we can have, if we make
51:54
that that principled decision, then we can have a conversation
51:57
about, about the specifics. That would be my my response to
52:01
that. I totally agree absolutely.
52:03
And, and, you know, then it is up to them to, to cleave to
52:06
those principles and that, you know, that therein lies the, the
52:09
sort of interesting scrutiny and analysis.
52:11
I think one thing I was just going to say on the, on the sort
52:14
of never ending war and just just a statistic that I find in
52:19
terms of, you know, sort of what can we do?
52:21
It just is interesting. The actually, I haven't checked
52:25
from yesterday's budget what the, what the figure is, but,
52:27
but it will be slightly lower the, the defence budget.
52:30
So the, the figure that that is put forward by the British
52:34
government for war in order to be able to, you know, do
52:36
whatever it is, go into a protracted war with, with Russia
52:39
or wherever else, is a little over £60 billion in the year.
52:44
And that is slightly less than the turnover of the United
52:49
Kingdom's largest supermarket, Tesco.
52:52
I just, I just find that quite an extraordinary statistic.
52:55
Tesco lost accounts. It turned over £68 billion.
53:00
And that's, you know, that is a story in itself because the the
53:05
power that that organisation holds in terms of the ability to
53:10
sort of lead the British public a merry dance in terms of
53:15
nutrition and this idea of sort of fake food and everything
53:18
else. But still they are they are
53:20
recouping more than the entirety of the war budget on an annual
53:25
basis. I think it's quite something.
53:27
All right, guys, it's time to go look at the time I'm going to go
53:31
and test drive a Chinese car. It's not, it's not electric.
53:38
That's fine. No, it won't be electric.
53:41
All right, catch up with you guys, with you James next week.