Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 15

What happened to freedom festivals?

Jerm, Charles, and Mike dive into the decline of freedom festivals, the morale of the movement, and the battles of information warfare. From community skills to national identity, they ask what it will take to resist manipulation and rebuild momentum.

More Jerm Warfare: More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:30):
None. Charles, a few days ago, you and
I were chatting and you were telling me about this music
festival that you were at and how it seemed like nothing
really has changed in terms of the people that go there from,

(00:53):
let's say, 20 years ago. And The funny thing is, I can
relate because I remember in thelate 90s, early 2000s going to
music festivals. Today, they're largely dead for
for whatever reason. But when I have been in recent
times, the kinds of people seem to be precisely the same.

(01:13):
Yeah, well, I dare say that is the situation across the
festival spectrum. I mean, specifically, we have
recently returned from the Hope Freedom Festival and, and that's
the distinction to make, I thinkbetween what would be regarded
or what would label itself as a music festival versus what we

(01:34):
were at, which is specifically calling itself a freedom
festival. But the conversation that you
and I had earlier in the week was the sort of overlap between
the two. The, as far as I've seen so far,
the what are called freedom festivals in the UK.
You seem to use a similar template from sort of smaller

(01:59):
scale conventional music festivals.
And I just, I just find it interesting.
I just thought it'd be a good talking point because on the one
hand, let's say, you know, within the Freedom Festival set
up, you, if you're going to go to that, if you're going to

(02:21):
participate either as a performer, so you could be a
musician or you could have a stall there.
Or you could do what we did, which was go and talk in the, in
the talk tent and, you know, have your audience, you, you
know, that the people who've turned up the festival are by
and large going to be interestedin the same subjects as you.

(02:43):
They want to be listening to your sorts of presentations.
But in a, in a way that's just they probably agree with the
line that's going to be taken. So that there's that feeling of
security within the environment,both on on the side of the
performer or, or stall holder, but also that critically, the
people that actually go there, they, you know, you know, we

(03:05):
always talk about sort of being around like minded people and
all that kind of thing. The same is is by and large
probably still the case for say just a music festival of say
sort of small to medium sized people are, you know, maybe
ideologically on on similar ground.
I mean, I am guessing slightly here.

(03:25):
I'm out of touch to an extent with that side of it, but I
think it was for me, for me, it's just interesting that there
is there absolutely is overlap between the way these things run
and and I suppose the question is, first of all, in a way, why
is that? There are there are other ways

(03:47):
of, of making events work and drawing people in, but also what
do we think about the fact that by and large, the the people
that do go to say freedom festivals?
Because I think that's a bit that we want to concentrate on
our broad. Freedom.
Well, yeah, yeah, the the same, the same sort of people.

(04:09):
And it's just that it's that sort of two sides of the same
coin. But but by by creating that kind
of environment, which means thatyou know, it's going to be
really, really fantastic, reallyfriendly because everybody is
sharing to a certain extent somesort of belief structure that's
great. But at the same time, what it,
what it means is that there's a,there's a great deal of self

(04:30):
limiting because the message, such as it is, doesn't actually
ever get out beyond those confines.
And I just find that a sort of interesting almost paradox
really. And, and it was just, it was
something that I, that I just mentioned as a thought when we
spoke earlier in the week, whichis not to, I'm not in any way.

(04:53):
This is not to say, you know, the freedom festivals got it all
wrong or music festivals got it all wrong or anything's
necessarily got it all wrong. But it's just, it's just kind of
interesting the idea that with say, freedom in mind and
therefore wanting to change whatwe regard as a as a restrictive
status quo, that in actual fact,the ability to do that within

(05:13):
this environment is really compromised or actually that
there isn't any ability to do that.
So what happens afterwards? You know, what do people go away
and do? And going back to what you were
saying, you know, the people sayfor the last couple of decades,
can one plot a course that that intersects with these sorts of
events and see that they have been points along the way at

(05:35):
which people have been galvanised into action?
Or do we run the risk of sort ofmeeting up and, and realising
that actually not a huge amount has changed?
I don't, I don't know what, whatdo you what do you think?
I'll just jump in here if I can.My observation on this, Jeremy,
is that the the numbers at the 2the freedom festivals that we

(06:00):
went to this year, which sounds beautiful, and the Hope Freedom
Festival were significantly lower this year than than last
year. So even among the community that
would be the natural audience for that type of event, there's
been and particularly bearing inmind that that this has been a

(06:24):
spectacular from a, a sort of events point of view, this has
been a spectacularly good summerin the UK.
It's that still didn't get people out to go to go to these
things. So that there's, there's
something going on within the freedom community at the moment,
which is moving them away from, from attending these types of

(06:45):
events. I think that there are what
might be described as mainstreamfestivals around the place that
that offer opportunities and Charles, you're going to have to
help me out the the festival. That was the week before the
Hope Festival and held in Exeterin June.
Well, I'm I'm now confused because I thought you said it

(07:06):
was beautiful sounds but. It's yeah, that's that's
completely wrong. So, yeah, so sorry.
I've I've forgotten, I've forgotten the name of it off the
top of my head. And they, although it is a
mainstream event, relatively speaking, they had had a rebel
tent which was quite a bit away from the.

(07:30):
Beautiful days. Beautiful days.
Thank you. Yes, beautiful days.
And it was beautiful something. So they had they had a rebel
tent, what they called the rebeltent, which is and they have
that every year, which was, which is quite a way from the,
the sort of music stages and on the top of the hill.
And it was actually quite well attended this year.
And Patrick Hennigson was there along with a guy called Tim

(07:53):
Norman and Craig Murray to talk about the so called alleged
Novichok poisonings, the scribalaffair in Salisbury.
And, and this was a absolutely mainstream audience that had not
come into contact with this typeof information before.

(08:13):
And the, the response was generally very good.
So, so you know, this again, I think comes down to, you know,
it's been a theme of the conversations we've had since we
began these discussions. Is it it comes down to to our
willingness to to engage with each other on one hand, but also

(08:37):
to engage with people that don'tsort of sit in comfortably in
the same kind of ideological space.
And you know, in in this case, Patrick and Craig and and Tim
did go into that environment to to pass on that message.
But equally it would have been it would be good if if if you

(09:00):
know people that are consider themselves to be in the freedom
space in inverted commas attended some other events just
as members of the public and started talking to other people
and and sort of cross pollinatedideas.
You said that there's something going on in the freedom
movement. That right there is what I want
to think about for a second. Yeah.
Because I I do wonder what is going on.

(09:23):
If this festival had occurred, let's say three years ago, let's
say four years ago, 2021 maybe, I think the attendance of
something like that would have been way greater.
I yeah, that that's absolutely true.
I think there's, there's actually quite a demoralisation
within what might be categorisedas the so called freedom

(09:44):
movement in the last, particularly in the last two
years. But, and in the last year.
And a theme that that I'm hearing often from people now is
I have switched off from the news completely or from current
affairs completely or from anything that's going on.
I can't handle it. And, and this is, this is to a

(10:07):
certain extent a dangerous stateof affairs because good people
therefore are not engaged in events and in trying to resist
events. Although perhaps you could argue
that that completely removing yourself from the situation is,
is some form of resistance. But you know, the truth is you

(10:30):
can't remove yourself from any situation because the
situation's there, no matter whether you're engaged with it
or not. And, and so, you know, if, if,
if, if things have got to the stage where individuals aren't
able to handle events and therefore they're trying to
withdraw, well, unfortunately that that isn't actually going

(10:53):
to work at the, in the at the end of the day.
So, so I think that's part of itis, is certainly a rejection of
everything at the moment. And and that's, I don't really
know what the, what the answer to that is or what the scale of
it is, but, but that seems to bepart of the story.
What, what else is going on? I'm not really sure.

(11:15):
I think it's very hard to know, isn't it because we certainly
from AUK column perspective, because of the way in which we
conduct our business or our relationship with the
membership, with the viewership,with the public and and what is
going on. We are of course only able to
deal with the information that we do have.
So when people do appear to withdraw or they do not maintain

(11:39):
contact either with us or with any of the things you're talking
about, we can infer certain things from that.
But ultimately we have absolutely no idea what it means
that those people are doing. And when we go back to the idea
that we were talking about, I think it was last week in
relation to getting organised, you know, organising oneself,
organising 1's community. If if people are putting all of

(12:02):
that to one side because they have after a certain period of
time, got the information that they think they require in order
to make the changes that they want to make to their life.
And that then becomes the focus.And therefore that necessarily
means switching off all the other things that might be
considered either a distraction or, you know, sort of not

(12:22):
necessarily expedient to what they're doing.
And I can understand that. The thing is, we have no way of
proving demonstrating that that that is the case.
I mean, I would, I would remain hopeful that it is.
And that for the sake of argument, let's say that that
that people are dedicating themselves to forming more
relevant and stronger sort of community ties.

(12:45):
That they are pursuing ways in which that they can source their
own food that they're putting effort into, You know, if
they've got children into sort of considering how to educate in
a different way, you know, all those kinds of things.
And I think if you if you are doing that, that is really that
that is a very, very involved process.

(13:08):
And I can see exactly why that would mean people would first of
all switch off. And also, if they had, I mean, I
am putting a positive spin on this, but if they had previously
attended what we describe as freedom festivals and found that
that kind of engagement with people there had been really
inspiring and had LED them to gooff and do what they do.
I can see that they would step back and feel that there was no

(13:29):
need necessarily to go back and and sort of revisit that same
environment until such point that they felt they were
completely on top of it. And they'd go back in to say,
you know, yeah, it's all workingand whatever.
I mean, I don't know. But but going back, you know,
because you cited Jeremy just you just said 2021.
And The thing is at the moment, yes, of course, I mean, UK

(13:50):
column has been going for as good as 20 years now.
So yes, people are at many, manydifferent stages along the way.
But I think there's still no, itdoesn't matter where people
began. I think there's no getting away
from the fact that the seismic change in 2020 in particular has
absolutely shocked people's sortof life systems in a way that

(14:14):
nothing previously did. Because the any of the things
that people had been engaged with prior to that didn't
actually have to affect the way they live their lives.
Whereas 2020 bang didn't really matter.
Where you were in the world, in some way, the way that you
wanted to live was affected. That means that to a degree,
we're all on the same, we're allsort of marching to the same

(14:39):
time in a sense. And I wonder if that has
something to do with it. Whether the first couple of
years were sort of startled, A startled period of information
gathering or as we have identified people thinking,
yeah, this is absolutely terrible.
And then by the end of whenever it was the end of 2022, when

(15:00):
it's sort of run out of path deliberately, it was
deliberately deflated so that people didn't have anything to
rail against. A lot of people, of course, just
thought, well, OK, that that's that's done now.
I'll just go back to my normal life as it was before.
You know, I avoided being incarcerated.
I avoided being injected with something possibly deadly.

(15:24):
And and that's that. So.
So I wonder whether to an extentwe are seeing just an expression
of the passing of time that happens to have some people in
similar places along that along that sort of progression, I
don't know. Yeah, I mean, Celia Father was
on my show a few nights ago and she said that the I hate the

(15:49):
term controlled opposition, but that tends to also be a thing.
Whenever something big like COVID occurs or similar, you
will find an infiltration into, shall we say, the opposing side
to make it either completely demoralised or broken or just

(16:13):
full of infighting. And so the official position
holds. And I think she's right.
And I wonder if some of this hasbeen happening because it
doesn't matter what you, you're shaking your head there, Mike.
No, no, I'm just going to say it's not a question of wonder.
It's absolutely demonstrable. And and it's particularly, I

(16:36):
mean it's much worse than the last couple of years.
But I think the, the organisation that I've cited in
the past is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, who have,
who claim to have something around 50,000 influencers on
their books, right? We, we are this, this, I

(16:57):
suspect, is a very big part of the reason people are tuning out
at the moment. And I'm, I'm not quite as
optimistic as Charles about perhaps about, about whether
people are tuning out because they're busy doing other other
making other changes, positive changes in their lives.
I think a, a, a, a lot of it is to do with exactly this.

(17:17):
It's, it's because as Patrick said this on, on during our, I
think it was during extra on Mondays, extra when we were
recording at the, at the festival that World War 3 has
already begun. And, and of course it's begun as
an information war primarily as far as we're concerned, there's

(17:40):
other kinetic wars going on in other parts of the world, but as
far as we're concerned, it's an information war at the moment
and everything is effectively being weaponized.
So, so we have YouTube, a platform which as we all know
was originally set up to allow ordinary people the opportunity
to talk about ordinary things. And as that has developed, it

(18:03):
has become more and more professional and inverted
commas. And particularly in the last
couple of years, we're seeing socalled influencers being
employed by Ng OS, like the Institute for Strategic
Dialogue, but also directly fromcentral government to, to pump

(18:24):
out narratives on one hand, to disrupt conversations in the, in
the comments sections on, on theother hand, to just bring as
much chaos as possible into the conversation in, in one, you
know, one of the, one of the goals of this is undoubtedly to

(18:45):
demoralise and 'cause people to walk away from what's going on
and, and, and stop being active in this.
So, so, you know, I don't, I don't think it's, I don't think
it's, there's no doubt that thisis going on.
It's absolutely verifiable and, and demonstrable.
It's not a question. There's no question around it at
all. That was why I was shaking my

(19:05):
head. Yeah, I mean, I've seen exactly
that. If, if, if I have any luck, Lucy
here, right? She was on my show and she'll
she'll have an incredible conversation with me and at some
point she'll talk about the virus.
Now suddenly you'll see commentsgoing, viruses don't exist.
I stopped listening when she said that.
OK, so now what? I mean, they've completely

(19:26):
missed the entire, the entire conversation, Mike.
Oh, look, look, this is this is something, this is something
that really winds me up. I really despise this, this
attitude. I mean, there's not much that I
really hate in the world, but but the attitude that because
somebody has said one thing thatI disagree with that I'm that
I'm going to tune out of everything they say.

(19:48):
This is this is just wrong. Also, you know, we've just
talked about the the fact and itis a fact that there are people
being paid and employed to, to push certain narratives and
whatnot. But the fact of the matter is,
and I realised how hard it is tosort of make these judgments.
But we should not be by default saying that because somebody

(20:10):
says one thing, that they're a limited hangout or that there's
some kind of controlled opposition.
We should be listening to what people are saying and we should
be rejecting the things we disagree with, but we should
actually be considering the things.
But we shouldn't just reject anything out of hand either, by
the way. We should actually consider it,
and I've said this before on in these discussions, we should be

(20:32):
challenging our own positions onour own ideology as just as
strongly as we're challenging anybody else's.
That's how we, that is how we come to a conclusion about
what's going on in the world. It it's not just about rejecting
everything that somebody says because of one point that I

(20:53):
disagree with at this moment in time, because next week or next
month or next year, actually, myopinion may have changed.
I mean, it drives me up the walltoo, Mike.
Like a guest. We'll talk about something being
global and then there's a comment.
Earth is flat. I mean, it's just insane.
And I see this all the time and it it's something that, that it

(21:16):
just makes you want to just block them, like because they're
not adding any value. It's just destructive.
It doesn't, it's not constructive.
It doesn't help any type of critical thinking at all.
Well, well, that's, that's absolutely right.
You, you throw a comment in there like that and it is not
constructive, It's not helping. I, I, I completely agree.
I would love to see every comment that's posted in our

(21:39):
chat box or in in the comments under any of the content that we
provide to be considered rather than just throwing out these,
these sort of tropes. And and yeah, well, I think you
should jump in at this point. People really won't want to hear
is that I regard that quality ifwe call it a quality of

(22:05):
immediately saying, oh, well, I'm that's it that they've
they've done it for me because they said that one thing or they
didn't say that one thing or whichever way it is.
And therefore there is a defaultresponse to condition yourself
totally against them. That's the BBC for you.
That is what the BBC has done topeople and look at it the other

(22:26):
way around. Try try inserting mild
anthropogenic climate change scepticism into a conversation
about anything else and see how see see how that's you.
Deny that, Charles, your climatechange denier.
Yeah, exactly. So, so all the things that the
BBC chucks out, whether it, you know, whether it's to do Andrew

(22:49):
Tate or something on gender or whatever, it's it's just the
other side of that exactly that same coin.
I'm afraid that that is this is precisely what the in
particular, most obviously the the British government.
I mean, this is not exclusive tothe United Kingdom, of course,
but the British government and the BBC in particular absolutely
do that. They, they condition people to

(23:09):
reject anything that somebody has to say if they've said that
one thing, or conversely to accept if, if they haven't, you
know, you do whichever way around.
So I, so I'm afraid to say I do absolutely echo your views.
I mean, I'm not, I'm not suggesting I, I would, I don't
get wound up by it. I'm just incredulous.

(23:30):
I just, I'm amazed that people would do it on the one hand, and
also slightly amused, bemused that I that I see that as a
absolute mainstream conditioningresponse.
And, and again, you know, if people think that's, that's

(23:50):
having a dig, I'm not obviously having a personal dig.
It's just that that's the way itseems to, that's the way where
it seems to have come from. And actually sorry just on that
because it's been annoying me for a whole week.
Towards the end of last weeks recording you made some remark
about wanting to punch a wall every time that somebody said

(24:13):
something in relation to her carbon credits with Angus
Mackintosh Farm. My my first comment would be why
waste energy punching only a wall?
But the second thing I was goingto say was that that is
absolutely case in point that the and, but this is deliberate
carbon credits is such a good example.

(24:34):
Angus talks about putting carboninto the soil.
He's not talking about carbon dioxide.
It is no accident that people talk about a carbon footprint
rather than a carbon dioxide footprint.
They are two different things and people absolutely on on both
sides of the argument, if we're going to call it that.

(24:55):
I mean, again, I'm, I'm creatinga false binary there suggesting
that it is one of the other. But, but, but the point is that
that is absolutely typical of it.
The moment somebody says carbon something, it's right.
Oh, why? Yeah, yeah, that's it.
I've had it. I've absolutely had it with
them. Doesn't matter what they say.
Or indeed the fact that without carbon, or indeed, of course

(25:16):
carbon dioxide, we'd all be dead.
So yes, sorry, I just, I just wanted to get that in.
It's it's been a week and every so often it just comes back into
my brain and I was so crossed with myself for forgetting to
mention it last week. No, but that's a good point.
Yeah. No, it's a good point because.
Because, I mean, without going into the discussion, carbon is

(25:38):
it's essential to life. So but putting it into the soil
is a good thing. There's nothing, there's nothing
that should trigger you about it.
Me wanting to punch the wall. It's just that I get so like
Mike, I get so frustrated at thethe fact that we, we go through
so much effort to put quality into these discussions and to
chatting and, and really trying to spread ideas, you know, that

(26:02):
are good ideas. And then you get these trolls,
who I get it, you shouldn't, youshouldn't worry about them.
But sometimes, Charles, sometimes I'm just human.
Yeah, No, you are, I mean my no,specifically what I mean, I
suppose I shouldn't really be advocating for violence against

(26:25):
the person. And perhaps this early on in the
recording, and I guess I'm not really, but but I think that
the, the, the more serious pointis, is the is people sort of
expending energy in a in a pointless way.
And, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have to blame for that.
And look what he said in 2020 about whatever he said, stuff
your freedom. If it weren't for him, people

(26:46):
wouldn't go and express their pent up energy in such a
pointless way. And I know this sounds over
critical, but to go and expend energy in, in a gym is, is
amazing. I mean, be like filling up your
car with fuel and you know what they try to do in Ferris
Bueller's Day Off and they're trying to take the miles back

(27:08):
off the clock and you're just putting it on the thing and just
letting it run and nothing. What's the?
What's the result? Sorry.
It's a bit of a sidebar, but I mean, but, but that is but, but
I think it just speaks volumes about the society within which
we live. You know, what skills, what
practical skills do we have thatare that our parents didn't
have? Probably none, except we can do

(27:29):
more stuff on computers. President Marcus Aurelius
Charles is. That is that good.
Bring, bring, bring some stoicism.
That's. Well, no anyway, sorry.
It's it's just. But I think it's a point worth
making because so much of what we do now has a has a zero.

(27:53):
You know, the result is 0. You think, you know, whether it
is sort of physical fitness or preparation or, or whatever, but
but I mean, how does that actually convert into anything
useful? And I think it's as much a
mental thing as a physical thing.
So sorry to, to, yeah, I mean, the, the, the gym thing is, is a
slightly pointless thing to say,but I, I don't think it is.

(28:15):
I mean, just just think of what people could physically do if
they use that energy, doing whatthe Amish do, for example, just
helping each other to build bonds, build houses or, or
whatever. So it's a it's a separate point,
But I do think it's very much related to everything that we
talk about all the time. If you're going to put on a
festival, a music festival or a freedom festival, or, you know,

(28:39):
like the, the the beautiful daysfestival, amazing discourse.
But how do you capture that? And then and then actually make
something of it? How how does how does, how does
the result come from that? And I think, I think that's how
much more stuff should be, should be viewed, which is
exactly actually why getting triggered by a reference to

(29:00):
carbon, for example, is such a problem.
Really, rather than considering the obstacles on, on the course,
why, why not think more about the, the good stuff and how you
use that? So yes, I, I, I do think all of
this is is very much related. Just just a couple of points

(29:21):
there, just to clarify something, you know, I'm, I'm
absolutely going to reject any notion that that I sit and get
frustrated by these kinds of comments and think about them
constantly. I see that, I see those types of
comments in the chat box and andyes, I I usually swear and
weirdly or something to myself, but but that's, that's, that's
it done there. There's no, I'm not going to

(29:42):
waste a millisecond actually thinking about that.
From that point forward. The thing that the thing that's
sort of is, is difficult about it is that that of course the
comments like that, not only arethey indicative of someone who
is demoralised themselves, but they demoralise other people.
So you're actually helping the state by posting stuff like

(30:04):
that. And that that that is something
that I think needs to be said. But for the festivals
themselves, Charles, I would love, you know, hope went some
way to it, I suppose, because they had, you know, art sessions
by by Jake Fern and so on and and other stuff.
But I would, I would actually, the thing that I thought that

(30:25):
was missing, that I think is missing absolutely from from the
freedom festivals that we've been to is the practical skills
training side of things. They should, that's just if I
were running an event like that,yes, the music is it should be
on in the from the evenings or whatever.
But but let's get some some people that actually know how to

(30:46):
to do things in how to, to, to run training on various topics,
whether that's community building or, or, or, you know,
self growing your own food or whatever it happens to be.
There isn't enough of that kind of that kind of activity in
these in these events as far as I can see so far.
And I think that would be a great step forward.

(31:08):
I, I totally agree. And I think that goes back to
the, the idea of cross pollination.
I mean, given my lifestyle, the type of first of all I'm much
more likely to go to is, is an agricultural show or something
related to that. But that but that is where those
things do excel because almost always you will have some sort

(31:29):
of demonstration, either something that's just a little
stall that you go up to where somebody is is doing something,
whether it's a a blacksmith at work or a Cooper or you know,
somebody who has a practical skill.
And I'm not suggesting that therefore we all need sort of
rural skills that we're never going to be able to use.
But you just never know who might be inspired to to do what

(31:51):
or what, what linkage you might find with with that particular
person or with other people thatare watching it, that are drawn
towards it. So I think that is absolutely a
thing. But also this is this is where
there are points of crossover because whether or not you have
you're aware of the full story on the Skripals or whether or

(32:14):
not you think that carbon or carbon dioxide is a big problem.
You can be in agreement with somebody that you want to eat
something that is good for you and that you don't want a
government that is oppressive. And and so I think as a way of
bringing, you know, bringing in this element of presenting

(32:37):
people of perhaps differing points of view with with these
points of convergence, I think is a is a really important one.
It seems like from what Patrick has reported back that that the
beautiful days event did do thatto a certain degree.
But although I would think that you would be absolutely right
that that there there's, I wouldhave doubted there would be

(33:00):
anything that would be akin to, to sort of learning something
that is in effect a, a practicalskill.
But I think that I, I, I, I totally agree.
And I think this is where not just in the festival context,
but but in life, and I know we've talked about this quite a
lot before, but practical skillsare in in really short supply.

(33:20):
And they are, they're an excellent way of bringing people
together in a, in a, in a sort of genuine fashion.
I mean, you know, because, because people feel that they
are actually doing something useful.
And I think going back to the sort of 2020 thereafter thing of
where have people gone now? I think a lot of people, yes, I

(33:40):
agree. I, I was, I was, I was
speculating, but I, but my, my sort of positive bent in terms
of speculation was, well, perhaps people are going away
and learning something. I think absolutely we have to
recognise that for a lot of people, it's just been far too
much doom and gloom and they've felt that the whole thing is
hopeless. And that's that which is why
they haven't resurfaced and theyhaven't learned the sorts of

(34:05):
things that are going to enable them to to change their lives
and indeed be further outside ofthat element of whether it be
state or corporate control. So, yeah, I think this is a
really important issue. And I think this in fact about
something that we should talk about with a view to to next
year and what we can start thinking about doing about that.

(34:25):
I wonder. I wonder if it's just big events
or as Matthias Desmond would say, sort of free floating
anxiety, which can be amplified by big events that capture in a
way people to aggregate or congregate around that say
festivals or other type of ways of thinking.

(34:48):
But when nothing really majors going on, they're kind of just,
you know, dissipate and go back into how they were.
John, are you saying that there's nothing major going on?
Well, there's always something major going on, but, but.
It's levels. It's levels, Mike, it's levels.

(35:10):
No, I, I, I think that's absolutely right.
I think this is this probably this does get to the heart of
it. I think for an awful lot of
people, they can't decide what it is that is going on because
there are so many different things and there's not one thing
that's head and shoulders above anything else.
And therefore there's not one sort of agenda item around which

(35:34):
people can coalesce. And that that is a problem.
And that that goes back to exactly what we've described and
what people have absolutely recognised, which was how when
the, when the COVID tyranny rug was pulled from under people,
they were completely left floundering because the sorts of
things that had been, let's say,predicted or projected, like

(35:59):
digital identity and central bank digital currency.
Yes, of course, those are still ongoing items, but they haven't
yet in, in in most places, they haven't yet come to pass.
And then it meant that that people's sort of get up and go
was was taken away from them. It was then too, it was too

(36:23):
difficult. And I think, and I think this is
again, absolutely part and parcel of the way in which the
news cycle, in particular by themainstream is managed.
Nothing dominates for a long enough period for people to
really get stuck into it. Charles, I'd be interested to
get your, your thoughts on this because I have to admit to

(36:45):
feeling a certain sense of failure.
Because whenever the COVID thingfinished, you know, we were
absolutely talking about what was coming next.
We were talking about the fact that, that the certain people
were using the term Poly crisis,that we were going to be

(37:07):
bombarded with multiple events which were going to make it very
hard to know which way was up. And, and somehow people, despite
the fact that that that would, that, you know, that was being
expressed, people weren't prepared for it, I think.
And in many ways. And, and part of the reason that

(37:28):
the people are turning off was because they didn't, they didn't
recognise what was coming next and see that as, as the next
stage of the same agenda. And that that, you know, they
didn't separate themselves from it.
Therefore it has actually affected them.
Do you say, do you say it the same way as this?
Have we have, I don't mean us specifically, but have, have

(37:52):
the, the, the commentators and the analysts failed to a certain
degree in in explaining that andand and giving people the the
sort of strength to resist. It's a very good question and I
think it's one that it's hard toanswer with any degree of

(38:15):
certainty, not least because of the incredible array of
perspectives that there'll be onthat on on both sides.
I would say what is absolutely observable on the commentator
side of it is that people who were apparently aligned very
much on what was going wrong between 2020 and 2022 have

(38:41):
turned out to have either small or in fact quite large
differences of opinion on a lot of what has happened since.
And I think people have there's been a a great tendency because
of the extreme focus of those two years.
I think some people have been drawn into a position of
thinking that there has to be similarly one thing that

(39:05):
requires focus, which means thatwhat you refer to in in the Poly
crisis scenario, which I believeis absolutely a correct
description that, that, that is therefore to in some ways to
wilfully ignore all the other things or, or make them seem
less significant in comparison to the one thing.

(39:32):
Or indeed, there's no real consistent agreement on how the
various things relate to each other or what the goals of those
things might be. So I, I, I think it's, I think
perhaps overly harsh or overly critical to think that those

(39:53):
commentating have necessarily failed.
I think it it it depends what sort of feedback.
They are getting from first of all, their audiences or from the
people that are around them. So without wanting to sort of
dodge a specific answer to the question totally, I do think

(40:16):
it's it's really hard to say andwe do see this with our with our
audiences. I thought yesterday was actually
quite, oh, sorry, Wednesday's news was, was kind of case in
point. The what I spoke about at the,
at the start of the programme was the basically the sort of
confection of a response of national fervour to, to the, the

(40:43):
political topic of what's being described as mass deportation.
And it my feeling on it is that people have made their minds up
about what they think of it, what's right and this that and
the other and that to a large extent, people don't really want

(41:07):
to hear the the potential pitfalls.
And, and the specific one I was describing was a campaign that
seems completely innocent, whichis to fly flags, fly the flags
of the, the Union Flag or Saint George's Cross sort of anywhere

(41:29):
and everywhere in England with which one would hope that there
was absolutely no issue. Why on earth should there be?
But the reason that it to me sticks out as being a potential
trap is that, first of all, lookhow flags have been used over
the last five years. We had the the NHS sort of

(41:52):
rainbow flag, the Black Lives Matter flag, the transgender Pro
Pride Progress flag, the Ukraineflag, the Palestine flag.
So it's as though if flags are absolutely used in a way to sort
of capture and manipulate people's minds.
To say that the flag that already exists for this country
could do that perhaps is a bit of a stretch.

(42:14):
But what I meant by it was that it's very easy to see how people
are being pushed into a positionof not just putting the flag up
in its own right because they'reproud to be British or whatever
it is. It's it's in reaction to
something else. So tearing down a Ukraine flag
and putting that up or tearing down a Palestine flag and

(42:34):
putting that up. And that is where you get into
slightly dangerous territory because then your focus is
against somebody else rather than just for being British.
And, and it's the being against something that is absolutely
weaponized every time and turnedinto a drama.
And then we get into scraps of the police and blah, blah.

(42:55):
And then, you know, focus against in particular the the
Islamic communities that are across the United Kingdom and,
and blah, blah, blah. So that I think is a good
example of part of this, this idea of, of Poly crisis.
But I go back to this point where people, people have their

(43:15):
own views on it and they and they and they don't want to
consider the idea that, you know, that there's sort of
anything wrong with it. Even if subsequently it turns
out that actually this whole thing does get subverted,
manipulated, twisted, as I as I'm afraid to say, I think it is
likely to do so, Yeah. Yeah, I, I would say it, it
already has been, Charles. And the, the, the danger here, I

(43:38):
think is that, you know, it was clear to people during lockdown
that the enemy was the state itself because the, the, the
enemy that the state was tellingpeople that they should be
afraid of was something that wasinvisible.
The enemy that the state is effectively telling people to be

(44:00):
afraid of through various convoluted means at the moment
is not invisible. It's, it's there because it's
got brown skin or it's whatever.It's, it's there.
It's obvious, it's in people's faces.
It's living in hotels. It's so that is, that is
something which is physical and is there and can be seen and
it's right in front of them. And because or at least partly

(44:24):
because of that difference, the idea that it's it's not the
brown skinned person, but the state which is attacking them is
is 1, which they seem to have forgotten.
At least the possibility that the state is that it's attacking
them that is the real enemy hereis something that they've
forgotten. Other things that people have

(44:46):
forgotten is that if you look back at, you know, the Arab
Spring or the Maidan or a whole bunch of these other so called
grassroots revolutionary movements that have happened in
other countries, we've been willing to acknowledge that
those to a greater or lesser extent have been manipulated

(45:09):
events. And yet we're not prepared to
acknowledge that something whichis happening in our shores is a
manipulated event. And part of this might be
because it's people perceive thepeople living in hotels is an
easier target than than the state, because the state's a big

(45:31):
thing. It's a hard thing and it's
difficult to to fight against that.
But I think that that what, whatis perhaps regrettable is it
that people are being drawn along on the, on the Crest of a
wave on this thing and they're not stopping to consider the

(45:54):
implications of what or of wherethis ends up.
And you know, we have been trying to make the point for
many, many years now that that if there is significant civil
unrest in this country or well, this is where we're talking
about, but in any of our countries that the state is just

(46:17):
sitting there waiting in the wings to step in and, and deal
with that. And we've been trying to make
the point that whatever we saw in 2020-2021, 2022 is really
pretty light touch compared to what we're going to see if we
end up on a, in a war footing, no matter whether that's civil

(46:40):
war or something abroad. And finally, to say it once
again, because I think it just needs to be repeated and
repeated and repeated. This country's military
doctrine, which we have exportedto Europe and the United States
to some degree, but this country's military doctrine now
is absolutely clear that the home theatre is no longer

(47:05):
considered a safe place. That home is as much and a
theatre of operations as abroad is.
And we've got to we've got to absolutely take this all into
account before we're tearing down a flag to replace it with
another flag. And you know, just to deal with
any criticism here. This does not mean that we

(47:25):
should not be proud of our flag,right?
Our flag, our country. These things should be things
that we are proud of. We've got to remember when they
are being weaponized against us.And you know, this proves I've
said, I said this on extra on Wednesdays extra.

(47:45):
But we'll just, it's worth just saying again.
This process began 40 or 50 years ago, whenever the
mainstream media began pushing the narrative that that somehow
English people should be ashamedof the English flag, that the
English flag had become a symbolof right wing extremism.
And that the only time that theywere allowed to bring the

(48:07):
English flag out was when England football team or England
rugby team was taking part in some kind of international
sport. That's when this fight should
have been fought. And that's when the the notion
of the flag being something which symbolised or there was to
be considered embarrassing should have been dealt with.

(48:30):
And now we're in a position where where that weaponization
is coming to full fruition. And that's in my opinion, is
really extremely dangerous. And and we need to take a step
back and and consider this. Yeah.
Well, reject the the out on the streets narrative and right

(48:54):
look, how do I put this? A lot of years ago, whenever the
issue of immigration was being discussed, Brian was in a
meeting with the BNP British National Party and, and this was
being discussed and, and the, the issue of people coming into
the country, there was a bit of push back from the audience and,

(49:18):
and somebody said something about immigration and, and, and
Brian made the point, well, how did they get in?
Did they fight their way ashore Now that at that time was
something that just wasn't happening.
Of course, now we have suddenly been getting lots of footage
from mainstream Press of people apparently doing something like

(49:41):
that. And of course we've got this
idea that we should have mass deportations now, which is
originated in the United States.Starmer has just done a deal
with the, with the French, whichsays that if 100 people fight
their way ashore, as it were, that those people are going to
be removed from the country and they're going to be replaced

(50:02):
with 100 other people that the French have decided are good
people and need to come into to Britain.
And I'm not saying any push backagainst that.
I'm saying push back against thepeople that are in the hotels.
I'm saying demonstrations outside the hotels and people,
you know, commenting on, on thatsituation.

(50:23):
But the, the, the policy that the, the, the, the parliamentary
decision making this government,I'm not saying the, the angst
being directed in that direction.
And it seems to me that, that everybody's pointing at a
symptom and they're not trying to deal with the disease.
And bearing in mind what we've just gone through and, and in

(50:45):
the early part of this decade, I'm struggling to understand why
people haven't been more equipped to, to, to reach the
right conclusions on this. It might be, as I say, just
because it's easier to to targetthe, the, the relatively
helpless people that are in hotels.

(51:06):
We've got to be targeting the right thing and that that is the
state. So.
So that's where I would start. The state, the state and the
stakeholders. Well, who?
Who do you mean by stakeholders?That means Ian Davis as, as Ian
Davis would argue, the the the private companies that are

(51:29):
aligned the the public private partnerships, so not just the
state. Yeah, but it's, but it's the
state. It's the state that controls the
borders, Jeremy. And and the state has the
borders absolutely wide open at the moment.
Yes, yeah. OK.
All right, I get. To this is not, this is not the
fault of the immigrant. This is the fault of the state.

(51:51):
And and if, if we, if we, you know, end up fighting on the
streets with immigrants, which is where we're going, absolutely
at this point in time, we are doing the state's job for it
because the state wants to closedown this country and all
opposition to what it's doing. This crisis is state generated

(52:16):
and you know, we got to we got to focus on that and we got to
focus on who the actual enemy is.
And, and lots of people are pushing back at at me and, and
us for saying this, because we're just apologising for, for
Islam or we're no, we're not. We're saying that that is that

(52:38):
problem is something that can only be dealt with with it it on
a on a level playing field. Let's say whenever people are
full of rage, they're going to make the wrong decisions when it
comes to how to deal with the problem.
We're going to stop the problem getting worse 1st and that lies

(52:59):
with the state. Yeah.
I think, I think also there are two, two separate things that
are being willfully conflated. And I should say at the outset,
I absolutely agree with of course there.
I mean, you know, what on earth could be wrong with being proud
to be British or proud to be South African or proud to be

(53:22):
French, whatever, that that shouldn't need saying.
But somehow it does need saying in this, in this climate.
So with that in mind, and again,considering the fact that yes,
the state is in charge of migration in, in, in every, in
every regard, but specifically the the the issue that has

(53:44):
become such a flashpoint for everybody is the in particular,
you know, the idea of sort of small boat crossings.
And, and exactly what Mike's just been talking about.
Now what one thing that really sticks out as a point of
conflation is this idea that say, Islam is replacing
Christianity as though the the the story goes that Muslims are

(54:08):
pushing Christians out of churchand then taking over church
buildings and making them mosques.
That that and the reason I prefix this with the there's,
you know, there's nothing wrong with being proud to be British.
We go back to the question whichis what?
What is it that is British, then?
If you are, if you are complaining that there is not a

(54:31):
British condition that is sufficiently strong to resist
the sensation that another culture has pervaded and taken
over, then why is that possible?And I can say with absolute
authority that there is absolutely no way in which
Muslims may push Christians out of churches and then take over

(54:53):
church buildings. That is not possible.
The only way in which that can happen is if church communities,
church congregations have dwindled to such a point that
the Church of England in particular has to go through the
very, very expensive and laborious process of getting rid
of that building as a church. At which point it can be turned
into flats or turned into a shopping centre or turned into a

(55:15):
mosque. But the first thing that has to
happen is that people have to walk away from that church and,
and, and, and abandon it. That's why it happens.
And if we're to start flying flags and talk about the United
Kingdom as a, as a Christian country and, and all this sort
of thing, well, then people haveto mean it.

(55:36):
So I know this sounds like sort of, you know, campaign for just
the church. And yes, there are many, many
issues with the church. But again, that goes back to
this idea of the right people supporting the right things.
And I've got to conversation with Alex Thompson that would
have come out yesterday or on exactly this issue about, you

(55:57):
know, how in a way the Church ofEngland has been allowed to go
off the rails. I, I know it's a bit late in the
conversation today to be openingup this, this sort of can of
worms, but it does all point back to the same thing.
And the, and the problem is thatthat in a way, this might sound
over critical, but you can't, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say that you're proud to be British and want to have

(56:18):
this idea of, you know, Britain,the United Kingdom, England,
whatever it is as being a particular place and then not
actually behave like it. So how many of the people who
are tearing down Palestine flagsand putting up Union flags or
Saint George's crosses and effectively demonising Islam

(56:39):
actually go to church? I mean, the only reason I'm
using the church is because it'sjust such an obvious one and
it's such a, it's such a well rehearsed line specifically
about churches becoming mosques.But it that cannot happen unless
people voluntarily stop going tochurch, leave it, abandon it, at

(57:03):
which point a community that does want to make use of it will
do so. There are there are many, many
problems with this. And and, you know, I appreciate
that that to a certain extent, this will create sort of
sensitivities and people might think that I'm kind of having a
go at them. I'm not.
What I'm asking for is for people to be consistent and also

(57:25):
to consider how this idea of sort of patriotism or whatever
it is can be weaponized. Because in my book, if you are
proud of being British, you're proud of your nation or whatever
it is that should stand in its own right.
That doesn't mean to say that you are British and therefore
you're against so and so and that, you know, so it's it's all

(57:48):
to do with with with being opposed to other beliefs, other
ideas, other cultures. That's that's an incredibly
insecure position to try to hold.
Why can't we simply have the secure position of thinking,
well, we are British, we do havea functioning culture and
society and we know that will thrive and endure.

(58:11):
And, and I think we know the answer to that because
unfortunately it's been picked apart and we have fallen foul of
all the various campaigns over exactly like Mike says over the
last 50 years that have absolutely destabilised this.
The only way to rectify that is to go back to start and start at
ground level, get out of the gymand actually develop practical
skills, do do stuff that does that does rebuild from the

(58:33):
ground up family, community and and then we and then we do have
a a proper British society. All right, well, look, this is
this is sorry, I just want to jump in here because this is a
vital point, Charles, because, you know, Brian was talking
about the the fact that, that atthe, at the Hope Festival during
his presentation, he was talkingabout the fact that so many

(58:56):
churches are now having to sharea single vicar.
And, and it doesn't, it's not just Church of England, it's all
denominations that are having this, this problem.
And part of the reason for that is there's been such a rejection
of the church, but the church was a core part of of community.
It was a core part of what it what it was to be British.
But this, the point I want to make here is this again comes

(59:18):
back to who is the enemy and what we have seen the systematic
destruction of the idea of, of Englishness, of Britishness,
Scottishness, Welshness, whatever it is, we've seen the
systematic destruction of what it is to be any of those things

(59:38):
by the state propaganda machine for the last 60 years, right?
And and we have to a large degree fallen for it.
Part of this is driven economically, part of it's
driven by the kind of so called culture that we're pumped that
are, that's pumped in our brainsthrough the television.
And, and, and so as a result, the British nation, the English

(01:00:02):
nation, the Welsh nation, the Scottish nation, they're weak,
they have been weak. This, this has happened because
we have been weak as, as a nation, I'm not talking about
the state here, but as a nation,as a cohesive nation.
And you know, the, the fact thatwe have had immigration for the
last 40 of years, 40 years should not have mattered. 2

(01:00:23):
hoods. If we had a strong cultural base
and strength in our own communities and strength in our,
but we, we allowed ourselves to be psychologically manipulated
over the last, through propaganda over the last 40 or
50 years to the point where the,the fact that we've had
immigration into this country has made a significant

(01:00:45):
difference to how this country is.
And you know, it, it, it always comes back to, to ourselves in a
sense. But the point I'm trying to make
here is who is the enemy and allthis?
And where does our focus need tobe when we're considering the
changes that need to be made? And, you know, we've got to

(01:01:06):
recognise what has been done to us.
That is actually a very powerfulpoint on which to to end our our
discussion. I don't think it's anything I
can add to that. Charles, do you agree?
I agree that I would not want toadd anything to it.
No, I think it's exactly the right note to to finish on.

(01:01:26):
Brilliant. All right.
On that note, Charles, you're going to be away for a little
bit, so the next few chats will be just you and me.
Mike, Sorry about that. Yeah, I'm sorry about that too.
All right, guys, I'll catch you.Catch you soon.