All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2019 - David Icke
01:20:35
NBE Talks To My Vitriol Frontman Som Wardner About Brexit & The Grown Of The Marxist Left
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm a non-binary elephant.
Podcast.
you Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Non-Binary Elephant Podcast.
I'm Gareth Icke with me, my brother Jamie.
Today on the show we've got Son Wardner, lead singer of British alternative rock band My Vitriol.
Formed in London in 1999, their debut album Fine Lines reached number two in the UK Indie Charts.
He's going to come on to speak to us about a variety of things, including his music career and his political views.
Son, welcome to the podcast. Hello.
I didn't even know we were number two at the Indie Chart, but thanks for that.
Well, there you go. You've learned something new today about yourself.
I have to put it out of there early doors.
I know Son, but I was a massive fan of My Vitriol.
Oh, that's amazing.
I like your music too, Gareth.
We did some stuff together.
Didn't you play with us at some point?
No, I was meant to play with you and then it didn't happen.
So that's got to go in the diary at some point then.
Yeah, my virtual Wicked Band was still out because you're still doing stuff, aren't you?
We do once in a while. Yeah, we were away for a long time and then the last couple of years we've been a lot more active.
Last year, not as much, but the year before That we went out with Muse across Eastern Europe, which is incredible.
Magic. Yeah, and then we did the most shows we'd done for over a decade, like in 2017.
Like last year, we just did that really great festival called 2000 Trees.
It's in the Cotswolds, and we headlined one of the stages there.
It was really amazing, like genuine music fans.
It felt really nice to be... Back in that sort of environment where it wasn't just about your Instagram photo or something, you know?
Yeah, absolutely, yeah. The Cotswolds are gorgeous anyway.
They are, yeah. How did it come about, your first album in 2001?
Yeah. And then looking at the studio albums, nothing again until 2016.
What was the reason for that, kind of the hiatus and the gap?
Yeah, it's a long one. But like, it's a case of be careful what you wish for or you don't.
I mean, you know, the plan wasn't exactly to be like a top 40 band, you know, nobody would name themselves my vitriol if that was the master plan.
Every time I tell somebody, like, especially in America, it's like my vitriol, my what?
I mean, you know, it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but we ended up having a few top 40s, which I'm extremely grateful for.
I mean, it's way more than I ever thought we would achieve, like Top of the Pops and all that stuff, you know.
I kind of saw it as a genuine alternative band.
The design wasn't necessarily ever to be a chart band of sorts, you know.
Right. So we were kind of playing catch-up with ourselves, all that.
I mean, we got signed after only having done seven gigs.
We only had seven songs, and And it was only seven months into us even jamming together.
We hardly even knew each other as musicians.
We were just getting to the chemistry and all that was only still developing at that stage.
How did the band come about?
Did you guys know each other? You obviously didn't know each other from what you just said before the band then.
So how did you all meet? I did because we lived next door to each other in a hall and he was a great drummer and I was like okay so we should jam and all that and we would actually jam across the hall.
Like he lived next door to me so he would play his drum kit and I would play the guitar.
And I think, you know, the, what would you call her?
The lady that ran the show kind of wasn't too keen on that.
The landlady. Yeah, I bet the neighbours love that.
Amusingly enough, when I went back to pick up some mail, she goes to me, oh, I always knew you were going to be famous.
And I said, I'm like, I'm not quite sure, but I saw you on top of the pops.
And I was like, well, I guess that counts for something.
But, yeah, so we were just, we were jamming and We didn't even listen to the same sort of bands, really.
He listened to a lot more technical prog stuff and whatever.
But we were friends and we got together.
And Carolyn actually happened to be at UCL as well.
And we saw her play with one of her 12 bands she had or whatever.
And she decided to make us her 13th band or whatever.
And then Seth, the guitarist, he was in Mint 400.
I saw him I was kind of like looking for my Johnny Greenwood, so to speak.
And I went to see his final ever performance with Mint 400 before they split up.
And I kind of went, whoa, you know, this is kind of incredible.
He had these like textures going over like kind of heavy music.
And that's exactly kind of what I had the vision for with our band.
So it all kind of fit together.
But I guess, you know, we would definitely push in the deep end.
And then we were learning how to swim.
Yeah. Do you think being in the industry, because obviously you're quite political now and quite openly political, which is I think what the conversation is generally going to be about.
Yeah. Did you, being part of the music industry, touring America, seeing bits and bobs, and like you alluded to with be careful what you wish for, do you think that was the reason you kind of got into having a political opinion?
I definitely think it's a part of it because, you know, one thing you do realise is how much the media can deceive.
For instance, you give an interview and then you'll be quoted in a completely different way or out of context and you realise how much the narrative can be controlled.
That definitely broke down this whole illusion that I had towards the music industry.
And, you know, I guess...
As you grow up anyway, you know, you definitely get a lot more political as time went on.
I mean, it's kind of in my blood to a degree.
My parents aren't at all political, but my grandfather's on a stamp over in Sri Lanka.
I mean, he ran for office and all that.
He didn't win, so you can't blame the country on us.
But, you know, I only met the man like three, four times before he died, but it's quite remarkable, like, looking through his works and stuff, because, like, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Some of this stuff might be quite genetic, really.
But yes, I think the experience in the band and how people treat you so different when they, you know, see you in a different light and all that stuff, you know, it really can make you wonder how much of this is just deliberate manipulation.
And, you know, I think that I'm very grateful for that, you know, and the politics stuff is, I really don't want, I don't want to do it publicly to such a great degree.
I almost feel like It's a duty, really, because there's so much unfairness.
I mean, I was very ardent leftist, really.
I despised the right growing up because I felt that they were so intolerant and they were...
Very dogmatic in their views.
It was almost like they had their indoctrination and they wouldn't shift from it.
And I was very liberal in my views towards things like gay rights and things like that, especially since a lot of my heroes growing up were people not from my demographic whatsoever.
A lot of my heroes were black, like obviously Michael Jackson, Jimi Hendrix, Prince when I was a kid.
I loved them. And then, you know, many of them were bisexual or gay, like whether it was, you know, Freddie Mercury or, you know, David Bowie and, you know, and, you know, some working class white.
I mean, I don't, I didn't really look to them to share my demographics.
I looked to them for their brilliance.
And I think it's really bizarre to look at the world through that lens.
But the, whereas the right used to be the dogmatic lens, Yeah, absolutely.
Actually, that's what I said in an interview just recently, that, like, David Bowie had it easy, you know, and Lennon, you know, saying those guys were fighting for equal rights for everyone, whether you're gay, you're black, you're white, you're female, male, whatever.
And I'm totally with that.
I'm a classical liberal in that sense.
But now the pendulum swung too far.
Now I find myself having to stick up for white males.
Yeah. Well yeah, they're the lowest of the low.
Speak for yourself.
Well no. Alright.
They're the lowest of the low in the eyes of people.
Yeah, no, that's a fair point.
Not only that, in terms of so-called privilege, this is nonsense because if you look at the entry statistics to universities and stuff, working class white males are fair by far the lowest.
They're like off the chart. So quite often minorities, you know, I do a lot better at universities for various reasons, cultural reasons, but also due to, you know, political reasons like affirmative action and things like that.
You know, for example, you know, if you're you never hear about the wage gap when it comes to ethnicities kind of for a reason, I guess, because if you look at Chinese versus the average or Indian versus the average, you know, they're much higher, you know, and Women tend to excel overall in education.
So eventually when you look at the demographics, you find at the bottom are like working class white males.
They don't make it into university as often.
No, but the narrative you hear in the media, and particularly from the left, is the exact opposite.
It just goes to show you can skew stats anyway.
Absolutely. Cherry picking is a very common thing from both the left and the right.
But it's just like, if you're really left, it's about fairness for all.
It's about equal opportunities, but not inverting things just for your own political agenda.
And that's where I think Marxism has really taken hold of the left to such a great degree that it confounds anyone
with common sense or logic.
You know?
Yeah.
And I think the main thing, I know it's mentioned a lot, so Jordan B.
Peterson mentions it in terms of this obsession with equality of outcome, which is impossible.
Absolutely. It's absolutely impossible.
You just simply can't have that.
Well, I'll give you a great example.
I was at a friend who runs a political show on RT, and it was his birthday, and He went to his penthouse, of course, and within it you have, you know, a bust of Marx and Chairman Mao painting greeted me as soon as I walked in.
And, you know, he's very intelligent and lovely and everything.
And he had a bunch of friends there and soon realized that a lot of his friends were actually communists, meaning they're actually self-proclaimed communists.
And so one of them was from Northern Ireland.
We were just discussing. And then, you know, I said, I'm disappointed with the left.
And then he kind of got on a, you know, he got his back up a bit.
And then he started talking about like, you know, wages and stuff.
And I totally agree. Like, it's really unfair how little people like carers and nurses and Junior doctors get paid because it's such a valuable role in society, but it's very hard to arbitrate what is fair.
You know, how do you determine what someone should earn, right?
So I said to him, so let's start with this.
Do you think nurses and doctors should get paid the same?
And he got outraged and he goes, of course, of course I do.
You know, only the right wing would think that's, you know, fair to pay them different.
And I said, well, but how about this?
If If you could be a nurse or a doctor for the same salary, then why not save yourself the five years of training or the extra years of training and just be a nurse instead?
Yeah, absolutely. And then he just looks stumped.
It's almost like nobody in his echo chamber had ever said it.
And I'm like, at the end of the day, what kind of society will you create if you take away that incentive?
And I'm really grateful to Dr.
Peterson, actually, for bringing that into the public discourse, the whole idea that Humans are not necessarily motivated by equality.
They're motivated by a sort of meritocratic hierarchy.
So, i.e. knowing that if you invest in more education, you'll earn more at the other end.
Or if you pick up more skill sets.
Or even forgetting that.
Even the basic fact that Uber is gender and colorblind.
You've got a license, you know, driving license, you go on Uber.
It doesn't matter the color of your skin or your gender.
If you work twice as many hours, you'll get twice as much pay.
So people are motivated by the fact...
If you tell someone that they're going to earn only 30% more pay for working twice as many hours, they're not going to do it.
No, and why would you?
Because it's human. The left, especially the Marxist left, completely ignores the elephant in the room, which is human nature.
I mean, it throws science and logical reasoning out the window.
No, it doesn't believe in it, does it?
It doesn't believe in human nature, basically.
It doesn't believe that there's 5,000 genetic differences between a man and a woman.
Well, the male and female thing is an important thing related to this Uber.
So what they found is that women who drove Ubers actually earned less than men.
So obviously the angle of discrimination came in, as always.
It's always about prejudice.
They ignore that there might be other multiple factors at play here.
So they got this lady called Rebecca Diamond.
She's a Stanford economics professor to dissect the data and work out what was going on.
Because was it really that people turned down a female driver or pay them less in tips or whatever?
And actually the tips issue turned out to be the opposite.
People pay... female uber drivers more in tips males as well as females and this this you've seen in homeless in the homeless stats because when like 90% of the homeless or something to that I give to some homeless charities we like the last ever Astoria that we did one of the charities we we worked with was uh center point so we do stuff with homeless chats anyway so I have looked at this stuff before and what you what you see is that Society feels a lot more sympathy for women than it does for men.
So when you see a woman on the street, especially if she's crying or whatever, you would give her some money or you'd try and find her a hostel or something like that.
People collectively help them.
But with a man, it's almost a default homeless person.
You go, what am I going to do about it?
Complain to the government and you just walk past.
Even waitresses have seen that waitresses get more tips, even from women, than men do.
And there's numerous studies to show that.
If there is sexism, there is definitely sexism towards men, and that's often ignored.
And the Uber study revealed that the gender pay gap, which has been debunked by so many various studies, but this is one of the best because it's gender-blind.
So not only did female Uber drivers get more tips, so they actually got paid more for the exact same work, but the reason that they actually overall earned less is because they were less willing to work in rush hour for longer stretches.
So in rush hour, it would surge and you'd get paid more.
But women had different choices.
And I think what you realize when you study psychology is that there are numerous traits that are different when you generalize about men and women.
For example, testosterone is an elephant in the room with this.
It makes men...
More risk, less risk averse, you know, the risk appetite goes up.
So if you ever look at like, investors, high risk investors tend to be overwhelmingly men.
And, you know, so if you don't take risk, you don't get reward.
That's a famous economic principle.
But you also don't end up losing as much.
So this is, you know, men die younger, men end up homeless, men do a lot of the lowest jobs, actually, you know, in most dangerous jobs like sewage work, you know, you don't get anyone calling for 50% quotas in sewage work or the front line.
More suicides of men, as you say, more people that die in wars of men.
But the suicide, male suicide is often pulled by the feminist Marxist narrative to substantiate the position that societal gender roles are what create the damaging existence we have.
And that's not quite true.
Suicide, I interpret it this way.
Testosterone makes men more violent.
We commit most of the violent crime, collectively, if you want to call us we.
We don't need to identify with all males, because we don't identify with criminals.
But yes, us men commit majority of the violent crime, and that's related to testosterone.
But that's why we also...
We kill each other and we kill ourselves more.
So the suicide rate might be just because men take more violent action, including on themselves.
If you look at the methods of suicide, you can see that, you know, women tend to use things like, you know, pills or whatever.
And men tend to use far more violent methods.
So the narrative that it's just because, oh, men aren't in touch with their feelings.
I'm not sure that's the primary narrative here.
And I think the gender pay gap keeps perpetually pushed on young women by like...
If I had a daughter, I would be really pissed at the BBC. Sorry, I'm not allowed to say pissed on your podcast, am I? You can say whatever the fuck you want, mate.
Great. So The Guardian, which I used to read the most actually growing up, The Guardian, and obviously the BBC, which I trusted as most people do.
Well, less so nowadays, which is a great thing.
I mean, because it keeps perpetuating these myths like the gender...
Wage gap based on prejudice.
Like if it's so, wait a minute, you know, if it's just based on prejudice, then it's a bad thing.
But if it's based on choices, then you can't call it a bad thing.
Because if I decide to, I don't want to be a CEO because, you know, that entails an enormous amount of lawsuits, you know, really late hours, you know.
A lot of stress. If I actively don't want to do that and I get paid less than the guy who does become the CEO, that's fair, right?
And it doesn't empower women either.
I think it weakens women to tell them that they're victims.
It creates like a victim mindset and it's blatantly not true.
I want my daughter to be empowered.
I'm not going to tell her she's a victim and that men oppress her.
I'm just not having that. Exactly.
I mean, that's actually before I veered off.
Because if I have a daughter and she reads The Guardian and BBC like I used to, and they keep telling her that she's worth less than a bloody man because society proves that because they pay women less for the same work, I'd be pretty damn angry.
How are you empowering them by telling them something like that and making them feel worth less than?
You're ruining their self-confidence.
And I think that's really irresponsible.
Absolutely. One thing that massively frustrates me as well is, throughout, obviously, human existence, women are the nurturing gender, they're the one that raise the young, that's kind of the, has been the role.
And I feel society has made them feel that's a failure.
If you stay at home and have three kids and your husband goes out and earn the money, you're a failure.
You should be, you should have a career as well, you should do this, you should do that.
Which... I completely disagree with.
Towards house mothers.
Do these people realise how difficult the job of being a mother actually is?
These feminists probably haven't even had children.
You're on 24 hours a day.
Right. And being a parent, whether male, you know, mother or father, is probably the most important and hardest job in the world.
And you get no training for it.
But of course, you know, the media love this because they've been indoctrinated by these Marxist values.
But also the government loves it, too, because the more women that enter the workforce, The more taxation revenue you get.
And then the child will never be homeschooled by, let's say, a bright lady who's working up the career ladder to make a corporation or bank she doesn't love richer and make a government that doesn't love her richer.
And then her kid's going to have to get indoctrinated by the governmental school that doesn't teach them how to even buy a house or start a business or any basic life skills.
Yeah, it's separating the family.
Also, one thing I always find interesting with the feminist movement is once upon a time, not that long ago, only one of a household had to work to earn enough money for you to live.
Now, unless whichever one of you is in a managerial position where you're earning good money, you both have to work in order to support a house, to support your family, to support your kids, all that.
But that's not looked at.
This was the plan all along, wasn't it?
When you research into this, you realise that this was the plan all along.
They love the house prices going up because 90% of the voter base is...
Is, you know, a homeowner, right?
But if you do the math and you think there's a few chess steps ahead, you realize where this is all headed.
So, obviously, they love it that the house prices are expensive everywhere, not just London, so that young professionals have to work, like, enormous amount of hours just to be able to afford their mortgages, you know, and pay enormous taxes along the way, you know, while they're, you know, doing all that.
So, But what happens a few generations, probably one generation or maybe two generations down the line, when only 50% of the electorate have a house because nobody could afford it.
An entire generation of wage slaves that they've created, you know, rent slaves.
So what happens at that point?
Then Marxism really starts to tip, you know, because you're going to get some extreme left wing movements that want to sort of take away private ownership and stuff appear at that point, aren't you?
So that's what they wanted all along because, you know, eventually they want a form of martial law.
And it sounds absolutely crazy when you say that.
But if you do the math on it, you realize where this is headed.
These house prices can't go up forever without eventually disenfranchising an enormous part of the population.
I think an enormous part of the population feels disenfranchised anyway, doesn't it?
Well, the fact that my generation, for example, the millennials, as you'd call it, or just before that, we're not going to live as good a life as our parents.
We're the first generation that are being told that.
Most of us will not have the same level of life as our parents have had.
And so many young people are going, well, fuck that.
That sounds crap. So when you have that...
When you have that as a prospect, a realistic prospect, then surely the government's job is to make sure that the people of this nation are taken care of first before agreeing to things like open border immigration.
I mean, I am an immigrant.
I came here when I was 10.
I love this country. I love the values and the opportunities it's given me.
I'm patriotic towards Britain more than a lot of my friends are, and it's really disappointing to see that because this is a great nation, you know, and it is a force for good in the world.
You always get people like, you know, Lily Allen and all that saying, oh yeah, of course everybody hates Britain slavery.
I'm like, wait, wait a minute. I've heard all this British Empire stuff before, but before we blame the white man for everything, like the Marxists love to, the biggest empire, the land empire, was Mongolian.
The Islamic Empire is huge.
Still to this day, it's not quite an empire like it used to be, but it was huge.
So, it's not like the white man invented evil.
In fact, Britain and America were very important in the abolition of slavery.
The Magna Carta was one of the most important...
Stepping stones towards that.
And it was Britain and America that banned slavery.
And Brazil was quite slow on that.
Saudi Arabia was extremely slow on that.
In fact, I think it was the 60s before it actually passed legislation that banned it or something.
Look, even the women's rights issue, having grown up in Sri Lanka, which is a primarily Buddhist country, you do see things through a very different lens.
We had the first female elected head of government.
Not that it should matter.
It should just be whoever's right for the job.
But anyway, we had the first female elected government head.
And of course, it was because her husband was the prime minister who got shot.
So the story isn't that simple.
But the fact that the populace didn't have this fear of being led by women, because we had queens anyway back in the day, and so did Britain as a matter of fact.
The two longest reigning monarchs are not only Elizabeth I, but Victoria, who was the empress, who happened to be the empress over my island too.
And forgetting Henry VIII and a few others, you've got another one of the most important monarchs was Elizabeth I, right?
And then you've got Queen Mary with the Glorious Revolution with William of Orange, which is a very interesting story, but I won't go off on that one.
So Britain has had numerous very powerful female leaders that shaped the country.
And even now, to this day, you have the government led by Theresa May, and then you've got Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister of Scotland.
You've got Leanne Wood and Arlene Foster.
And then you've got the House of Commons is run by Andrea Leadsom.
So literally almost every single position of power in politics of the nation is run by women.
So it's a very bizarre thing to keep harping on about sexism.
Especially if it's counterproductive.
Now, in Sri Lanka, when it came to the women's vote, which is a completely misunderstood thing, the chronology...
I mean, we're led to believe that, for example, working-class women, because obviously we know that wealthy women were doctors and writers and all sorts of things for many centuries, actually.
So... So we're meant to believe that working class women were repressed from working.
Are you telling me that the women in the paddy fields of Vietnam couldn't work down there until the Marxists showed up?
In fact, when the Marxists showed up, six million of them died.
So... So we had the women's vote in Sri Lanka in 1932, I believe.
The first in the whole of Asia.
And I think Thailand followed us very shortly after.
If you count New Zealand, of course, they beat almost everybody on that one.
So there was no Marxism there.
Marxism didn't win women the vote.
They claim it, but it's not true.
I was going to, because part of the chat we'd had before, in terms of what we're going to talk about today, a lot of it was focusing on Brexit, because I know you've got quite strong opinions about that, as I think everyone does.
What I was going to ask, but it links quite well into what we've been talking about already, your Brexit stance is the same as mine, which is to leave.
And I was going to ask if that's mirrored in the artistic community around you, or whether you're an absolute minority with that opinion.
Oh, I'm an absolute minority every single time and every single thing.
But the reason I speak up about it is because I've changed position.
Just like being a feminist or believing that feminism was about equal equality.
Right, but it's actually about equal outcomes because it's not liberalism.
It's Marxism.
It's derived in Marxism.
By the way, you mentioned about the targeting the family unit.
If you look at the Engels work on the family unit, which a lot of feminist doctrine is based on, it makes it very clear that the family unit has to be destroyed.
So just to end the feminism stuff, you know, when I realized that feminism was derived from Marxism and conflict theory, and it was re- It was basically seeing the world through that lens of the oppressor.
Systemic oppression is something you always hear versus the systemically oppressed.
And instead of using it like the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, etc., it was just re-envisaged into being men versus women and now so many other things, black versus white, etc., etc.
And the problem with these movements is it just divides society further.
It never actually... You know, Marxism never cured the patient.
You know, what it prescribed only killed it, as evidenced many times throughout history.
But yeah, so moving on to Brexit.
Yeah, I was Remain.
I was Remain and Reform.
I mean, everybody who's Remain kind of concedes that there are certain things which are undesirable about the EU. But the more you, you know, I was very glad about Brexit because it really forced people to research.
And a lot of people woke up politically at that point.
And it changed me politically forever, frankly.
I realized how much we had been lied to.
It's not just WMDs they lied to you about and used fear to manipulate you.
Because we saw that appear all over again in Syria.
And a lot of my friends fell for it.
And I'm like, we heard that story before.
How come you've forgotten?
And, you know...
But musicians, because I guess a lot of musicians are left, you know, and so are music fans, because you have to be in touch with your emotional side in order to be creative, I think, to a great degree, to be able to write something that, you know, can connect with people.
But then if you're checking your, you know, left brain at the door, you're going to make some really bad decisions.
With the EU, I mean, I realized that my position of Remain and Reform was fundamentally unviable.
I mean, I don't know even where to start with the EU, because it's basically, they're trying to...
If you read the treaties, you realize that their motives are clear in the treaties.
But many people who support the European Union haven't read the treaties, so they don't really know what they're supporting.
It would be like someone, you know, supporting, you know, Islam without having read the Quran because you cannot be a Muslim unless you agree with every single bit of the Quran because it's considered a divine revelation, unlike the testimony of man, for example, with Christianity or whatever, you know, testimony of saints.
So with the EU, it's very clear that they aim towards a super state with an army and they told us, you know, remember Nick Clegg and that whole...
Right-wing conspiracy.
Yeah, this is like Elvis is still alive, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, that video is hilarious when you watch him versus Faraj and Faraj says, what can you do?
I mean, it's true. What can you do when the guide hasn't even read the treaties?
You know, within the treaties, it actually says that The Commission can overrule the sovereignty of democratically elected representatives in order for the cohesion of Europe.
And the thing I came to realize that not many others have actually, well, nobody has actually pointed out yet, is that the EU is their weapon.
It's like the ultimate Hegelian dialectic in motion.
Because I was surprised that they would let countries like Greece, etc., into the euro.
Sorry, I probably didn't say the euro.
The euro is their weapon.
Because without doing the due diligence, when you let these countries into the common currency, they will suffer greatly.
And we've seen how this has happened before.
For example, when the ERM crisis, right?
So Britain joined the ERM, even though we had a very high inflation compared to Germany.
And good old George Soros, who is a europhile, That whole agenda was pushing us into the ERM, and he deliberately forced the hand of the Bank of England, breaking the bank, and now he spends that billion that he earned forcing us even further into the EU. I mean, it's the fraud of the century, and people still trust these advisors and philanthropists, experts, right?
Well, they don't even just trust them.
They openly attack anyone that questions them, especially with Soros.
Yeah, I don't get it. I don't get how the left...
I don't get how the left don't see the master plan here.
Have they not done the due diligence?
So what happens is you let, let's say, Greece into the euro.
And then when they suffer economically, the only trade-off they can to now get themselves out of this disaster is to concede certain fiscal economic policies.
Sovereignty back to the European superstate.
So basically what the IMF has been doing all along.
It says, oh, you're in trouble.
Well, if you privatize all of your industry, we'll give you some money.
We'll bail you out. So basically, this crony capitalism, let all the international banks like Goldman Sachs and stuff buy all of your assets.
And then we'll get you out of this trouble, which we created in the first place.
So they created the troubles in Greece in the first place by letting them into the euro without doing the due diligence.
And people think, oh, it was just an accident.
No, it wasn't. It was completely on purpose.
It was a coup, basically, wasn't it?
Well, it's war. So basically, the nation-states are willingly giving themselves up to this super-state without them having to ever launch any...
You know, military attack on them.
And the thing is, the media of those states and the political class of those states are willingly conspiring to basically let the super state take over.
And we're only in the midst of it now.
And I guess we'll be proved right in years to come.
But I guess the Internet has sort of Helped in this regard and that's why they try to pass through article 13 They're doing whatever they can to stop people like you guys talking about this in podcasts and Yeah, absolutely.
One thing that always struck me with the Brexit debate was after the vote had been read out and obviously leave won, there was this massive attack on the elderly.
It's the old people that have voted out, the young people wanting to remain.
But the question I've never heard asked...
A million old people have died since the vote.
I mean, come on. The question I've not heard asked by anyone on social media or in the mainstream media or anything is How many of those old people would have lived through things like the Second World War, or the following of the Second World War, where if you'd have pitched a European super state in the 50s, people would have gone, isn't that what millions of young lads just went and died in France to stop?
Absolutely. So that's why it had to be kept hidden, and it had to be kept so quiet.
And now, you've got so many young people, particularly on the left, that...
Just see Europe as the saviour, and that's the best thing.
If we come out, it's a disaster.
No way we can survive on our own.
It's the same old trick, isn't it?
Remember, like, so if you look at all the war propaganda, where, like, they had the Nazis with babies on bayonets and stuff like that, right?
So all the young men, you know, went to war to fight the Nazis because they believed they were doing the right thing.
And all the people at home supported them.
By the way, there's an interesting side note about how the suffragettes were very pro-war.
I posted that on my Facebook, actually, if anyone's curious about it.
I was, you know, it was bizarre that the suffragettes, who were, like, the smallest...
Feminist movement, not the suffragists like Millicent Fawcett, who were the peaceful ones.
The suffragettes are the ones that the media always talk to us about.
And they're turned into these heroes.
But they were pro-war.
And they used to go around giving white feathers to young men to shame them into going into war.
And sometimes these men were actually the men who'd already been into war and come back and recovered.
Or men who had children who weren't forcibly conscripted.
But they would go and shame them into going to war.
And I was like, this is bizarre.
Why would the suffragettes do that?
Because that's the one right that women had for sure that men didn't, not having to go to war.
In fact, the anti-suffrage movement were campaigning against equal rights under the law because they were worried that they'd be conscripted into all sorts of jobs within the military service.
So then you find out that they were sent to Russia to do the same thing.
The suffragettes were flown to Russia or whatever it was, like carted off to Russia in a boat to do the same thing.
I was like, who's paying for this?
And then you realize who's paying for it.
It's the international bankers, as always.
The same people that funded the Soviets and Hitler.
I mean, it starts to get very bizarre at that point, you know?
But yes, I won't go off on that tangent.
I mean, you're absolutely right to say that young men have fought for our freedoms and our generation is so spoiled we've forgotten what those freedoms really mean.
Well, yeah, I think so many people alive today, apart from the very elderly, have lived through a war.
They've lived through a war, particularly on home soil.
America have never had a war on home soil, for example.
Yeah, they had to fabricate the Pearl Harbor for that.
Well, yeah, when you were in America, I was over there in 2016.
It was Labor Day weekend and a big celebration in New York.
And I remember speaking to a guy at one of our shows.
He said, you know, the U.S. bombed seven countries yesterday on Labor Day weekend.
They bombed seven countries. And they wouldn't have a clue because they've never had it on home soil.
You lead me to a really important point.
Obama, I remember the jubilation in 2008 after two successive Bush eras.
That just made the people like me who just despise the right hate the right even more after what they did, after those two Bush terms.
So when Obama came in, we were really hoping for a lot of change.
You know, no way was anyone, one of my friends, going to be a McCain supporter.
So, the thing about that is, Obama ended up launching more wars than Bush did.
There was a war every day of his presidency.
Yeah, and the Drone Tuesday, as they call it, where he'd turn up and he'd decide who he was going to kill, including his American citizens, you know, without due course of law.
So, I mean, Obama really created Trump, and the left don't want to admit it.
But Obama promised us change, and he delivered us more of the same.
Because he lied to us about Syria.
And anyone who does the research can find that.
When Carla Del Ponte, the head of the UN investigators, she's a very respected individual who's done this for a very long time.
The Syrian government invited her to investigate.
And I mean, Bashar al-Assad would have to be the stupidest dictator alive to suddenly trigger off a bigger attack, you know, as the investigators arrived, you know, just because the first attack happened to kill 12 of his military and 12 of his sect of people as well.
Oh, shit. You know, slightly, you know, not along the lines of the narrative.
So Carla Del Ponte said that she was stupefied to realize the BBC ran this report and they couldn't retract it, to realize that the rebels did it.
Anyone who's studied this greater than the face value that the media will always present to you will find that almost every single major war has been essentially pushed on the democratic states using a false flag or a lie.
The Gulf of Tonkin, which Vietnam was waged using, was a false flag.
It was a lie. All the declassified reports show that that crook, Johnson and McNamara, completely invented something that didn't happen.
You know, the day of infamy, when the North Vietnamese fired on the Americans.
So this has been going on forever.
And I urge anyone listening to look up Operation Northwoods 2, which President Kennedy declined.
Yeah, in Cuba, wasn't it?
Yep, that was their attempt.
They wanted to take over Cuba.
In fact, you know, they were interviewing a lot of anti-Castro Cubans at the time to topple Kennedy.
And Trump actually allowed some of those interviews to come out eventually, which hints to who was behind You know, the murder.
But, you know, eventually in 2021, you know, all of the JFK documents are meant to be declassified.
I mean, who are they protecting after 50, 55 years of this?
You know, everybody's dead.
Well, they are now.
Yeah, George Bush Senior is now.
Yes, exactly. Operation Northwards actually, interestingly, ties in a little bit with 9-11 in the sense of the hijacking or fake hijacking, the idea of remote-controlled planes.
And Operation Northwards was...
Alright, so in 1963, yeah.
So the fact they were talking about having remote-controlled planes that they can detonate by radio signal in 1963, what could they do in 2001?
Eerily similar, that.
Yeah, I know. And the fact that it was JFK that opposed it.
It was 1962, yeah.
And this is... This is not conspiracy theory.
This has all been declassified now.
Yeah, absolutely. Those documents exist, don't they?
That does make me laugh with the whole conspiracy theory thing because all they'll do is they'll declassify that so everyone will go, yeah, yeah, that happened.
But then if something happens like 9-11 or something happens now with a false flag, no one thinks, well, hang on, we thought it was conspiracy theory in the 60s and then we know now it's true.
Hang on, this could be true. Do you know what I mean?
People seem to have, like...
Short memories. Yeah, it's bizarre.
Weapons of mass destruction with Iraq.
But then you say, did Assad really gas his own people?
You're a conspiracy theorist. Yeah.
Hang on, you were lied to five, like, ten years ago about this.
I find that extraordinary.
It's unfathomable. I've had these conversations with people on my Facebook, like...
People still believe that Assad did those chemicals, when every time he's winning the war, he seems to attack his own people.
And he was in government for something like 11 years without any incidents of this kind of thing.
And as soon as these jihadis try and take over his government, you know, that's when he seems to gas his own people.
Yeah, I'm sure it'll come in Venezuela any time now.
Oh yeah, I'm sure it will, yeah.
Yeah, no, I mean, the story behind Assad, he didn't actually want the presidency, did he?
It was his dad, or was it his brother, who was president, and they died.
And he was actually in England, wasn't he?
His wife's English. His father's name, yeah.
Asma is his wife, and his father's name is Hafez Assad.
They're from the Ba'athist movement, which is basically a secular movement, you know.
They're... Things are never this pantomime good guy, bad guy narrative.
There are aspects of Assad which are very productive for Syria.
Because Syria is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state.
It has Christians and it has Druze, which is like a small community that's unique there.
Well, it's the only country in the Middle East that had actually written into the legislation protection and equal rights for all ethnic minorities, wasn't it?
Yes, it's a proudly secular state.
And as Assad said in many interviews, I mean, before rushing to judgment, I watched a lot of interviews where he would get harangued by Fox News reporters together and stuff.
But by the end, you'd find that the kind of venom in their voice had kind of disappeared as he kind of knocked every single accusation out of the ballpark.
He's very calm, isn't he, as well, which helps, I think.
Well, he doesn't seem like, like when you watch interviews with Asma as well, who was, she's Syrian, but she's British educated, I think.
She may even have a British passport, you know.
There's no way you can imagine a woman like that, like, literally standing by as her husband just brutally, you know, brutally murders loads of children.
It's just, it's unfathomable.
But I guess you should never really judge the book by its cover.
So when you listen to the, what, the logical points Assad makes, you kind of realise that it doesn't actually make any sense Any logical, practical sense?
Why would he do that?
What's his gain? And then you've got the New York Times or something, because a lot of people did start going, well, what does he have to gain from doing this?
And they ran some bizarre piece going, the bizarre logic behind Assad's chemical attacks or whatever.
And I was like, oh God, here we go.
And are people really going to fall for this?
It's like the Naira testimony.
Remember that whole thing?
I'm not sure. No, no, go on.
So Naira testimony, you can look this up.
She was allegedly a nurse who cried in front of this tribunal.
About how Saddam's soldiers have taken the babies out of incubators.
Yes, I remember the video now.
Yeah, it's the famous babies out of incubators thing.
And George Bush Sr. just kept talking about the babies.
They took the babies out of the incubators, blah, blah, blah.
It turned out that she was the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter.
So they had a horse in the race, and she was a great actress, and she managed to cry and say how Saddam's men were killing loads of babies.
I mean, look. We're not sticking up for Saddam.
Saddam's hero was...
Well, it was the Mafia.
His favorite movie was The Godfather.
The guy was a gangster. We all know it.
He did loads of things.
But the point is, they spent two trillion of America's money.
A million Iraqis died.
And now the country's worse off.
It was under jihadi control until Trump cut off the funding, the covert funding that Hillary had put into place for ISIS. So...
The question is, why would you spend two trillion on making a country worse?
Well, yeah, that's the...
I mean, there's so many theories behind why the countries that have been attacked have been attacked.
One being the oil, one being the fact that Libya, Syria, Iraq have all dumped the US dollar.
Particularly Libya, Qaddafi was trying to do a gold-backed currency for Africa and did bypass the US dollar in transactions.
There's so many kind of reasons.
It was geopolitics, isn't it?
Yes, geopolitics, absolutely.
The game being played above our head.
you know there's there's the West and Israel who have their interests you know
and and the and everybody on that side opposed I mean you know Iran is on the
crosshairs next you know so I think yeah Israel is like you said used the term
earlier has got a horse in the race isn't it it seems to well take a horse
in every race at the moment particularly with Syria they want half of Syria
don't know for the greater Israel project yeah destabilize Well, one thing I have to remark about Israel, because I am pro-Israel to a degree, meaning that the whole idea that wiping Israel off the map is just, you know, this is just ridiculous, you know.
I think, you know, at the end of the day, we are where we are with it, and the borders of Israel should be recognized by Iran and everybody.
And if that's what Trump's trying to do by throwing out the whole Iran treaty, then maybe, you know, this will...
He tends to use some very ugly methods to get his...
His results, and maybe this is one of them.
But getting Iran to recognize Israel's borders could be helped.
But one thing I'll remark, a lot of my Israeli and Jewish friends do not support Netanyahu.
They do not support the Likud party.
Just like Americans never supported the Bush administration or the CIA, my Israeli Jewish friends don't really support Mossad and Netanyahu.
Yeah, I mean, I think every country comes down to mutual respect.
If you're going to ask the Iranians to respect Israel's borders, then Israel needs to respect Lebanon's borders, they need to respect Egypt's borders and Syria's borders and Palestine's borders.
But you don't get the same...
I think that's where a lot of people's frustrates.
It's my biggest issue with it.
You see daily, almost, they're firing missiles at Syria from Lebanese airspace, so you've infiltrated two countries and shown them absolute contempt.
You can't do that and then say, but someone fired a rocket from the Golan Heights, when technically the Golan Heights isn't theirs in the first place.
There's one... I will stick up for Israel in this regard as well, because coming from Sri Lanka...
I know how this stuff can get misrepresented a lot, right?
I'll give you an example. So, the Sri Lankan issue was probably the first thing that my first red pill I ever had because I come from there and I've seen how it works.
For instance, not even one newspaper reported that there are Tamils in the Sri Lankan army.
So, Tamils are one of the minorities in Sri Lanka, the biggest minority.
And I come from the majority, which is Sinhalese, which is like being English or whatever, I guess.
And my drama happens to be Tamil, actually.
In fact, the president of the time, his nephew and niece were Tamil or whatever.
I mean, to a lot of us, it doesn't matter.
We don't care. But to the Marxists, it obviously does.
And there was this terrorist group called the Tamil Tigers, who essentially wanted an undemocratic state.
They wanted part of the land.
So there were some similarities to Israel and Palestine.
The biggest similarity was the fact that the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka was fighting a prescribed terrorist group.
You know, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists, right?
I don't think they'll ever claim otherwise, okay?
So, there is a fundamental that the entire journalistic class missed in this.
When you're a democratically elected UN representative and you've signed the Geneva Conventions,
you're not allowed to fire at three types of buildings, schools, hospitals and places
of worship.
But if you're a terrorist group and you haven't signed a Geneva Convention, you don't have
that obligation.
So what does a terrorist group always do?
It goes into civilian areas, it goes into the hospital, the school, the place of worship, and it fires at the army because it knows the army can never fire back, right?
So there was this battle where they were doing this from a hospital, and then the government had fired back and destroyed the hospital.
By the way, this is a hospital that the government had built, and the government will have to reconstruct after the war, right?
So it doesn't make any sense for the government to just be doing this.
But obviously the narrative is that it's genocide, okay?
And that it plays perfectly into this narrative.
And the Marxist terrorists know what they're doing when they do that.
They know that it's a strategic advantage to fire from a hospital or use innocent civilians as human shields, which they did.
And Israel does have this problem.
It has a problem where Hamas or Hezbollah will deliberately fire at Israel from civilian areas.
I don't think there's such an area that's not a civilian area in Gaza, though.
It is literally one big civilian area, isn't it?
Well, my question with Hamas is, again, back to Assad, is who benefits?
If you're firing pot rockets, basically, at a country that you know have probably the best air defence system in the world, bar America and Russia...
And have got an advanced military to fire back.
What are you expecting here?
What you're expecting is more recruits.
I saw this in Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers.
You know, they gained the most amount of recruits after the atrocious pogroms in 83, which were partly orchestrated by them and the idiots in the government at the time.
So we know that, like, every time America bombs these countries, it creates more jihadis.
It's the same thing. So these divisive movements deliberately It's in their benefit to have as many civilians die on their side.
Sad but true. Yeah, I get that.
In terms of where Hamas came from, there's some quite interesting background there.
Same with ISIS. You need an enemy to fight.
America needed an enemy to fight and they found one in ISIS. Actually, if anyone's listening to this and they want a reference on this, there's a guy called Yuval Aviv.
He gave an interview with Oliver Stone's son, Sean Stone.
It's on YouTube. And he says that, yep, we totally funded Hamas as a method of combating the PLO. We wanted them to take out the PLO, basically.
But then we didn't realize that they were going to end up even worse.
And yes, you're absolutely right.
It's the same thing with America has deliberately funded jihadis in the Middle East.
I mean, of course, we know Saddam Hussein was on our side against the Soviets.
And so was Osama bin Laden in the Afghanistan war against the Russians.
So, you know, they're constantly playing with fire, you know, and they don't learn.
They really don't learn their lessons because you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
Yeah, absolutely. I think in terms of the general population in Palestine, though, there is such a point of such desperation that chucking a rocket is all you can do.
That is the narrative I hear, but Russell Brand said all that in his truth.
But that's missing the point that Hamas really benefit from the Israeli retaliation.
And yes, the Israeli retaliation has often been much disproportionate, as it's said.
I don't agree with Hamas, and never have.
And I don't think the Palestinians have...
Anyone to represent them and to be honest, I don't think they have had since Arafat.
I think Abbas is a front man for Israel and I think Hamas are a front for Israel as well.
There will never be peace for Gaza if they have Hamas in power.
There's no chance because Hamas don't want peace, you know?
I mean the problem is that there are all these hidden agendas anyway because so many people make money out of war and that's the big problem.
What was Vietnam really for?
Let's think about it. I mean, just follow the money.
Yeah, well, the arms dealer is going to be loving life with Trump, building up this new nuclear arsenal, trying to start a new arms race with the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans.
They're loving it. Well, they're probably loving it a little bit less than Hillary, frankly.
Oh, yeah, Hillary. Yeah, if you look at Hillary's...
I mean, I used to be a fan of the Clintons when I was much younger.
But until I did the research on it.
But then you look at how she, what she did when she was the foreign secretary and, you know, you dread what she would have done as the president because she would have had a lot more power.
Yeah, we would have been close to war with Russia now.
I think we would have been it. I think she'd have gone straight for Russia.
Well, a lot of people kind of go, oh, yeah, like they're never going to really have a war with Russia because, you know, we've both got nukes.
And I'm like, wait a minute. There's lots of countries that have nukes that have had conflicts.
India and Pakistan being a great example.
You don't have to use the nukes.
But I'm really worried about the Pandora's box that that will eventually show the world.
Because if you can, the whole reason that Europe kind of didn't battle, you know, there's many reasons.
But one of the reasons is nukes, you know, mutually assured destruction and all that stuff.
But if countries are willing to have the nukes and not actually use them, and you can go to war with them, you don't know what's going to kick off.
For me, that's what Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about.
It was giving people a visual representation of what a nuclear bomb would do.
You know, you tell someone...
You know, that whole thing is just, you know, I get the argument about, oh, you know, it ended the war quickly and all that, you know, but two cities?
Yeah. But you tell someone, you know, there's this new weapon, it can do this, it can do that, it can cause this devastation.
People, yeah, okay, alright then.
But when you actually have a visual representation of what it can do, and especially now, compare that to the nuclear bombs that exist today, it scares people shitless.
And obviously when, as we all know, all these plans are well in advance, so they would have known in 1945 that the Cold War was coming with Russia.
So that whole narrative of, you know, there's going to be mutually assured destruction, as you say, there's going to be a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
People knew what that meant, because they'd seen what it meant in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
And I think that is what fuelled that fear through that period of the Cold War.
And it's the same now. That and the fact that the Americans basically blew the shit out of the Pacific for about 30 years after 1945 as well.
And they're still paying the price for it in terms of diseases and cancers and all sorts.
Yeah, don't eat fish from Thailand.
Is that right? Yeah, I wouldn't eat any seafood from the Pacific at all.
Well, Fukushima is another reason for that too.
No, the cancer rates in Japan.
But then you say that and people will say, yeah, but it's a very technology-driven country, that's why.
Okay, well that's another reason to ask a question then, isn't it?
Yeah, exactly. This whole conflict with Russia, I think...
I mean... The Skripal stuff was all very odd, wasn't it?
You know, like, whenever media rushes to judgment, you've got to wonder if something's at play.
Like, because there is a due process of the law, you know, the innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff.
We're not... Just saying this doesn't mean that you're apologising for any regime.
No. In case anyone on the left is ready to call us, like, you know, apologists or whatever.
Russian spies. Well, Jonathan Pye is a Nazi now, so, I mean, that's the world we live in.
It's like the Twilight Zone. Yeah, I mean, look, our institutions are based around some tried and tested principles that we all really believe in.
And one of them is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you know, how the government behaved was contrary to that, wasn't it?
Because they threw out some, like, 142, you know, ambassadors and things like that.
And so what if it was somebody who wanted Britain to fall out with Russia?
I mean, are they that, you know, let's say it was somebody else.
A completely different agenda.
It wasn't Russia, it wasn't Britain, it wasn't America.
Let's say somebody wanted Britain and Russia to fall out.
The Ukrainians. We'll blame the Ukrainians.
It really could be so many people.
Yeah, sure. Yeah, sure, absolutely, with Ukraine.
Because, you know, don't get me wrong, I love Ukraine.
We actually played there with the chili peppers, you know, and it's a great place.
I'm talking about the...
There are political...
There's a huge political divide that goes down through Syria and Ukraine.
I mean, those are the fault lines that we really have to keep an eye on.
And it's a huge geopolitical battle.
And the shooting down of MH17 as well.
The Sun ran Putin's missile and all that.
Yeah, I remember. Whenever they rush to judgment, you have to wonder.
I mean, I know they want to sell newspapers and sensationalism always works, but...
When it's at a governmental...
The media will do this. The media will always do this.
But when it's at a governmental level...
Yeah, it's pathetic. And the thing that baffles me or frustrates me is the hypocrisy as well.
Because as you pointed out, May expelled Russian diplomats, as did a lot of other EU countries.
How many did we expel when it was proven that Saudi Arabia cut up Jamal Khashoggi at the embassy in Turkey?
How many did we expel then? And that wasn't even hearsay.
That was provable. They admitted it.
Yeah. Well, they first came up with a whole bunch of hilarious...
So they lied, and then they lied again, and they lied again, and then Ben Salmon's tried as hard as he can to distance himself from it.
But wait, even as regards that, we don't even know if it was MBS that did it, because there are often very complicated games at play here.
And the media was so on that, like big time, You know, there's been other journalists that have been killed that have been completely ignored, okay?
But this particular, this guy, obviously, Khashoggi, however you want to pronounce it, his, Adnan, his uncle, I believe, was a huge arms dealer.
And this guy, Jamal, I think, actually worked for the CIA a lot.
There might be a more complicated story at play here.
That's all I'm saying. I'm sure there probably is.
Same with the ski poles.
I don't buy either side of the story.
The two guys they got on RT. They're lying.
Yeah, they are lying. I don't think they're the people that Bellingcat said they are.
I don't believe that they are them.
Oh, bloody Bellingcat.
That guy's an asset. They leaked out his conversations he had with someone on Facebook and it was hilarious.
Elliot is an absolute asset.
He was willing to... He was willing to suppress the information that the rebels did the chemicals in Syria.
Someone gave him a heads up saying, oh, by the way, you'll find out at some point that, you know, the rebels had done some of the chemicals.
Yeah, but like both sides have done it.
But just don't talk about it.
And he said, OK, because he wanted some money from it.
Right. Yeah. Because he's basically, you know, he's he needed.
He's just working for them.
He's on their payroll. And in the lead conversation show that he is so.
If you look at the Skripal incident, what I think happened was probably this,
that they found out, because these guys went and gave their, you know, they gave their
finger, the fingerprints in at the embassy, they got their, their visa, the, you know, the,
the normal way they gave it. So if you're going to kill somebody, you sit in there and go and
giving your fingerprints, and it doesn't kind of make any sense. But so they weren't coming there
just to view the cathedral, as they claim, they were clearly lying. But they were actually coming
there to meet Sergei Skripal for sure. And MI6 or MI5, whoever they found out about it, they,
or whoever, whoever did this, they found out that they were going to meet Skripal, and that this
guy has been a double, triple agent loads of times. If Russia really wanted him dead, they would have
killed him while they had him or whatever, he would have had a little accident. They did it,
they gave, you know, it was a spy swap, they gave him, you know, over to the British. They knew that
he didn't have anything that could completely mess them up.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have given him over.
So Russia didn't have a huge motive in killing it.
Maybe some of the Russian gangsters that he was about to reveal, maybe they did.
Who knows? And also the timing.
Just before the World Cup, just before a massive presidential election.
And, you know, I remember seeing a meme which made me laugh, which was a picture of Putin who went, I need you to take someone out.
And it was an agent going, how do you want it done?
Silent gunshot? Overdose?
No, I want you to do it in the most high profile and stupid way possible that makes me look as bad as possible on the international stage, please.
It's again, who benefits?
I think your theory is exactly the same as mine.
Well, you said that around the time, didn't you? Yeah.
You mean like leaving a trail of polonium all the way back to Moscow like the other?
Oh, yeah. I think you're right.
And like Jace, as I said this at the time, I think...
You think he was still spying, don't you?
I think he was still spying, Schiphol.
I think he was spying for Russia and I think they were potentially his handlers and they were coming to meet him and like you say, the establishment got wind of it and thought...
Well, where are they now? That's the thing, where are they?
Him and his daughter? Well, exactly.
The daughter was seen, but wasn't, no, I'm not even near convinced.
She looked not better after the Novichok there, didn't she? Yeah, I was going to say, I'm not convinced it was her.
She'd lost about five stars. The Novichok makeover.
Available in boots. The transcript released of the conversation with the cousin, wasn't there?
Yeah, that's right. The media were hilarious at how they were saying it was the deadliest thing ever and how they would die such a brutal death and all this, blah, blah, blah.
And then, miraculously, there she is.
She'll be on the next series of Dancing on Ice.
If it was Nova Shock, then something like half the size of a pea on your finger and you'd die within like four hours.
That's it. Actually, wait. I've got something that really pissed me off.
You've got some of yours, have you?
No, no. I'm saving it up for you.
No, I've got something that really pissed me off about this narrative because...
The counterclaim from Sergei Lavrov, which is the foreign minister of Russia, was to actually state that there was BZ found in the blood samples.
Yeah. Which is a hallucinogen that the CIA had used in the past and all that stuff, right?
Which doesn't kill people.
So when he...
That was part of the counterclaim, the official Russian counterclaim.
When the BBC didn't even run that, and when it's been reported by an official, if they're going to be fair and impartial, then you should definitely run the counterclaim.
And hardly any of the media ran that counterclaim.
I checked it. And then I had a mental note of who to remember isn't objective about these issues.
Because that claim has to be run, because that would explain why Sergis Kripal and his daughter didn't die, right?
It's a legitimate claim, absolutely, yeah.
I think that the BBC headline one side and not even report the other.
I think a lot of it is to do with sort of maybe softening the belly of the public up.
And there's been a real attempt at doing that in terms of Russia for the last few years, whether it be the doping stuff.
MH17. MH17, which they blatantly had no involvement in.
Whether it's to do with...
Taking a crime out.
Also... On the lead up to the World Club.
I refer anybody listening to what Noam Chomsky said about that.
He makes a lot of sense on the issue.
Crimea had such a huge strategic advantage and NATO has been expansionist.
At the end of the day, this North Atlantic Treaty is out of date.
You know, Trump's right about that in that none of these states actually pay what they've signed up to.
So it is essentially American hegemonic dominance, right?
And it can cause more troubles than it's trying to solve.
For example, Turkey's in NATO and it shoots down a Russian plane.
Second biggest military in NATO as well.
Yeah, so what would have happened, let's say, if, you know, Ukraine was in a Eurasian alliance with Russia and it shot down an American plane.
It would have been World War.
Well, yeah, technically, if Russia had responded, NATO's pact is one at war, all at war, isn't it?
So we're talking about the Kamal Khashoggi incident, the murder, right?
That happened again in Turkey, right?
But then what about the fact that one of the diplomats was shot in Turkey?
Yeah, Russian, wasn't he? Yeah.
And then also a military plane of Russia's was shot down by Turkey.
So this is all sticking to facts.
And they're in NATO. And anyone in NATO is protected by the entire...
Yeah. So this happened in Georgia, too.
As soon as Georgia joined NATO, there was a lot of stuff going on in South Asetia and Abkhazia and stuff.
Essentially... It's provoking separatism there.
The whole idea of issuing them passports and all that stuff.
So, NATO has provoked the Russian beast many a time.
It has, but I think he's many things and I'm sure I wouldn't let him look after my house for a week.
Actually, I probably would, to be honest. But Vladimir Putin is clearly much more intelligent than a lot of the other leaders and he's not bitten.
Well, he was an intelligence operative.
He's not a Justin Trudeau, is he?
So this guy is a few chess steps ahead.
I wouldn't, you know, I do okay at chess, but I definitely wouldn't play like three people at the moment.
And one of them you won't guess.
Putin's obvious. You wouldn't really want to play him at chess.
You wouldn't want to play President Xi either.
And the other one is Trump.
And I know you guys don't like Trump very much, but I see his game.
And there are loads of distasteful things he does and says.
That's without question.
But the guy has game.
And most people don't see it.
And certainly the establishment of America didn't see it when he took out the Bushes, the Clintons, the entire mainstream media, and pretty much the CIA and FBI. I mean, I think I'm not one of those people that I don't have a massive political alliance with anyone.
I voted once and it was to vote out in the Brexit referendum.
Never voted before. Probably never vote again unless something comes around that isn't around at the moment.
So I think it's a good position to be in in the sense of standing back and observing all the sides.
Because you can say, right, okay, Trump's done...
A couple of things I agree.
For example, if they do end up pulling troops out of Syria, that's fantastic.
That's the exact opposite of what the warmongering lobby in America want.
They want to expand what they're doing in Syria, not pull out.
So that's good. But then some of the other stuff he's done isn't good.
You look at all those people.
Putin, some of the stuff he does is great, some of the stuff he does isn't.
And I think that's...
Half the problem, again, going back to what we were saying right at the start of the podcast about the left, is that to the left, it's black and white.
There's no shades of grey. Binary, yeah.
It's a good guy, bad guy, pantomime narrative.
Yeah, exactly. And Trump's the bad guy at the moment.
Yeah, I mean, I heard this when I voted Brexit after endless hours of tireless research and watching so many debates to make up my mind on it.
I moved from Remain to Exit.
And then I had someone actually say to me, someone quite high up in the music industry, say, he goes, do you like Donald Trump?
Do you like Vladimir Putin?
And do you like Nigel Farage?
Well, you're on their side.
And I went, oh my lord.
So Hitler was a vegetarian.
Your point is?
Yeah, Ricky Gervais said that.
Hitler was nice to dogs. Yeah, exactly.
But this is the thing, isn't it?
You know, if Hitler said that women deserve equal rights, would a feminist then go, no, they don't?
Because Hitler said it. Do you know what I mean?
If he says something stupid, say it's stupid.
If he says something great, say it's great.
It doesn't matter who's saying it. Listen to the words instead of who's saying them.
And that was Ricky Gervais again.
He said that, didn't he? He said that people don't care about what's said.
They care about who's saying it.
And that's so true.
Okay, so this takes me to a point that I... I've really been talking about a lot, but I haven't seen anyone in the public domain referred to.
And this actually comes down to brain types.
So, the left is increasingly becoming, you know, emotional, subjective, and idealistic.
Whereas, you know, those of us who might, we're not right, but we don't buy into the narratives that these people do.
Oh, who's saying it as opposed to what they're saying?
That's because we're more about, you know, rationality, objectivity, and realism.
So those form a poll.
You know, are you emotional?
Are you rational? Are you subjective or are you objective?
Are you idealistic or are you realistic?
And it actually...
So Simon Baron Cohen, who happens to be Sacha Baron Cohen's elder cousin, he's a psychology professor in Cambridge.
And he released this really pivotal study about brain types.
And he talked about how there are, you know, E-types, which is the empathizing type, and the S-type, which is the systematizing type.
So they do tend to fall along gender lines, but not exclusively.
So there's overlap, for sure.
You know, I'm not sure Margaret Thatcher was very empathizing.
No. Right? But this goes back to what we were talking about earlier about how evolutionary design and how you say that women choose nurturing roles and stuff because it's in their nature.
I mean, we work together well as complementary skills, yin and yang, so to speak, until all these divisive movements turn up.
So what it turns out is that...
That a lot of the population, something like 63% of the population is F-type, according to Myers-Briggs.
So Myers-Briggs is a psychology test that many, of course, many people debate that, but it's by a mother and daughter pairing.
And it uses, it's a personality test, so it uses things like extrovert, introvert, you know, rational, feeler, you know, things like that.
So the F-type is the feeler type, the one that bases its, makes its decision based on emotion, right?
And unfortunately, you know, majority of humans are F-types.
So they care more about who's saying it than what they're actually saying.
So they'll say someone like, I don't like Nigel Farage, so I don't want to listen to a thing he says.
And when you've got to that point, there's a huge danger to society at that point, isn't there?
At least we were willing to concede, you know, oh, that was before we actually went on air or whatever, but, you know, like the far right, that term far right is used by anyone on the hard left.
So if you say I don't agree with aspects of Sharia law, you know, or whatever, they'll be like, oh, you're like the far right then, aren't you?
Well, I'm like, the far right were the first people to say that, yeah, there's problems with certain aspects of Sharia law.
There's obviously certain parts of Sharia law which are perfectly fine.
Same with freedom of speech now.
If you say you want freedom of speech, you're far right, when it was the left.
But they've done well with that, and I think it's a conscious thing with that.
I think they've tied free speech to the far right, intentionally.
Well, no, anything they don't like is far right.
And there was even that funny...
Anyone listening to this should watch that on YouTube, the thing, the Blur cover called Far Right.
They did a parody using the Blur song Parklife.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was just brilliant.
I can't remember who did it, but it was just brilliant.
And it's so true.
As soon as you say something, they disagree with, you're far right.
And the great thing about this is it's now broken down all those stigmas.
Meaning... It's taken the power away from all these words that used to just shut down entire debates.
Sexist, racist, far-right, white supremacist, all of that stuff just doesn't mean anything anymore.
No. For anyone with half a brain, it's just like, oh yeah, whatever.
You know, like, it's not an argument, is it?
No, hold no way.
Being called a racist would have mortified me once.
I couldn't give a shit now because it doesn't mean you are one and you're called one for saying anything now.
Same. I don't care what they call me because I know I'm none of those things.
That's exactly right.
That's it. When I first went to Israel in 2009 to play beach soccer and I came back and I'd seen a few things that I didn't like and I was quite vocal about them.
And I got called anti-Semitic and I literally lost my shit about it.
I was so offended and upset and pissed off.
Now you can hear it three, four times a day.
I couldn't give a shit. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
So they're doing the same thing with anti-Semitism because if you call someone like Jeremy Corbyn, who's Mr.
Hippie Dippy, if you call him anti-Semitic, people are going to go, wait a minute, him!
Him! Right?
I mean, then you start to wonder why they're calling it what?
Because he criticises the Israeli government?
Okay, well then, if I criticise the Chinese government, am I a racist?
Or if I criticise the Indian government, or whatever.
That's the difference. You criticise a regime of any country, you're not having a go at the people of that country.
No, you should be able to criticise every single regime on Earth.
How many people criticise America?
How many people criticise the streets in May?
How many people criticise Russia?
I guess the counter-argument is that, you know, India isn't the only government for that particular ethnicity, but the Netanyahu government is the only government for that particular ethnicity.
And that's nonsense, because Netanyahu isn't liked by the majority of Israelis I know.
Even in the government, let alone the citizens of Israel or Jews outside.
He should get indicted, really, shouldn't he?
Well, hopefully he will do, with a bit of luck.
But then the problem is, who do they replace him with?
They killed Isaac Rabin.
Anybody who wants peace, you're going to die, aren't you?
Yeah, exactly.
And they killed Yasser Arafat as well.
They killed the pair of them. Well, Arafat was polonium poisoning.
It was very, like, done by Mossad.
Yeah, absolutely. He was murdered.
They exhumed the body, didn't they, to prove it?
And sure as day, there it was.
I still have people claiming that's not the case.
But, I mean, it's very interesting when you look at the parallels between, you know, they weaponized cancer a long time ago.
We know that from the Oswald stuff.
You know, he was actually meant to be on an assignment to use cancer in order to kill Castro, right?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah.
So, I mean, it's very, you know...
Heart attacks is another one.
Yeah, I mean, why would you use bloody Novichok if you wanted to kill somebody when you could have just, yeah, given him a bloody heart attack?
Exactly, like they did with John Smith.
And what about Breitbart?
Did they do that to him? Yeah.
He was 43. He died of a heart attack aged 43.
And when David Kelly, who obviously talked about the weapons of mass destruction being bogus, right...
They locked that away for 70 years.
So the British public cannot find out what happened to David Kelly.
No. Well, I think we all know, really.
Yeah, anyone that's done any research about it knows.
We don't. We don't know who did it.
Because the point is, like, did our own government do it or did an external government do it?
Just like JFK, that's been locked up.
So, you know, we need to demand answers.
We need to know who did it, right?
Absolutely, yeah. Freedom of Information Act was something Blair passed himself, for God's sakes.
Yeah, but just not when it concerns him.
Well, he called himself a nincompoop for doing it.
I used to call Tony Blair, you know.
Isn't it funny how people can really change, you know, but...
Only if you're open to new evidence.
Absolutely. That's the thing, isn't it?
People don't like admitting they were wrong, though.
I think admitting you're wrong is how you learn.
Yeah, absolutely. I'll go on the record saying this.
I don't care because I'm not a politician.
As a kid, when I was a teenager, I was wrong on almost everything because I only believed what the media, my peers, and the schooling system had told me.
And they lied to us because, you know...
They're owned by some very powerful interests and they don't really have your best interests at heart at all.
That's why they don't tell you how to buy a house.
They don't tell you how to start up a business.
They don't even tell you how to pay tax because you're meant to be an army ant where the PAY gets automatically processed, right?
They don't want to be self-employed, do they?
Because they don't know who's in their control.
No, and that's why they make it difficult for you.
Yeah, and all red tape for small businesses and all that sort of stuff.
We know about that, don't we?
Yeah, we certainly do. Right, anyway, we've been chatting for a long time.
How long? One hour and 27 minutes.
One hour and 27 minutes.
I really enjoyed that, Son. Thanks for coming on, mate.
And hopefully we'll be able to do it again because it feels like at least you've got so much knowledge in so many different areas that we could have discussed.
Well, today was meant to be about Brexit and I think we spoke for about 10 minutes on it.
But that's great.
We can talk about everything. Yeah, and I was actually going to wrap up by saying that it is good news.
The good news is that everybody's waking up.
I feel like we're in the midst of a revolution.
It's like the information revolution.
Yes, absolutely. If you want the rainbow, you've got to put up the rain.
Yeah, I mean, I think that all the weapons of mass destruction and all these kind of things in quick succession...
In this internet era and this social media era, which only has been really around for around 10 years, that you could share links and things like that and videos and stuff, I think it really has created a different dynamic.
And I'm actually really positive about the future.
I think the world will be a fairer place as a result.
Good. Let's end on that then.
Yeah, no, I agree. That's a nice thought.
Perfect. Cheers, Tom.
Cheers. Nice to speak to you.
And you, man. Take care, man.
Bye. Do you like how I've managed to get an office quote in the last two podcasts?
Which one was that? If you want the rainbow, you've got to put up the rain.
Oh, that's just generic. Who said that?
David Brent, probably. Dolly Parton.
People think she's just a pair of tits.
▲
Export Selection