Neil Oliver: Horror made NORMAL!

Hi everyone. Uh, I've got a lovely conversation coming up. I mean, the subject matter, you can imagine, it's the world as it is today. But, uh, the interaction that, that's coming up with me and my friend Gareth Ike, uh, I, I got a great deal from it. Uh, just one of those, you know, I, I hope all of you have people out there with whom you can chat, and no matter how, no matter the, the content, just the experience of sharing it with that person just makes you feel better. And that's, that's how I felt about the, the, the upcoming conversation. I hope you do, too.

Um, we'll get to it as fast as we can. Uh, as I say, just let me tell you how you can support what I do here, what we do here. Just go to patreon.com if you can, if you would. Part with a little bit of cash, and it keeps all of this going, makes all of this possible. We're talking about the price of a cup of coffee here. Uh, the whole wider experience. Well, the site's full of stuff. Uh, history, archaeology, comment, current affairs, question and answer sessions, light-hearted stuff, too, and a lot of feedback from, uh, from the regulars. Uh, I'm sure you'll love it. Uh, the link is in the notes below the video, and I'd love to see you there.

While I'm, while I'm on the subject of supporting the channel, let me tell you about our sponsors. They are Gold Bullion Partners. They're about buying, holding real precious metal, gold and silver. Uh, one thing they say is buying gold and silver is about wealth preservation, safety, and control, not speculation. If you're in the market, as it were, to hold some real gold, to hold some real silver, a mixture of both, they're the people to talk to, as far as I'm concerned. You get to talk to real people. It's not just an, uh, impersonal website. It's actual people. Uh, get talking to them, see if it's right for you, and if it is, go ahead.

Okay, now let's get to Gareth. Hi everyone. Thanks for joining me again. Uh, my guest this morning, who I barely need to introduce, Gareth Ike. Uh, we've just been struggling through technological problems, and the fact that we're still speaking to each other at all is remarkable, given the frustration that, um, wrestling with technology can induce in every sane person. Um, that said, Gareth, great to see you. How you doing?

>> I'm good, thanks mate. Great to see you. Technology failing is like, it's like road rage, innit? It's, it's, I think it's because its sole function is to work. So when it doesn't, it's like, what is the point of you? But we're there in the end.

>> I, I find, I find I, I can be very, I can be, I have a certain kind of patience, but things like the pots and pans in the pot drawer, if they don't cooperate with me immediately, I'm instantly ready to kick a puppy through a fan. I don't know what it is about inanimate objects. And likewise with technology and software, if it doesn't do what I want it to do when I want to do it, I just want to bring out my inner Hulk and smash. I don't know.

>> Yeah, I know that feeling. Although I am mellowing. I think my, my kids are mellowing me. So, as you can see where I am, like, I'm in the bedroom, 'cause I'm, I'm normally in the studio, but my eldest was up vomiting all night, right? And at one point, and apologies if you're eating, ladies and gentlemen, it splashed and actually landed on my lip. So once you get to that point, I'm just kind of just relaxed now.

>> It can't get any worse. It's fine. Today's fine.

>> Fine. You're in your, you're in the solitude of a bedroom.

>> Yeah. Um, you know, with everything I'm registering, audience out there, I, um, in these increasingly crazy and getting crazier all the times, all the time times, I, I turn to, uh, an increasingly small number of people who, who I feel as if I don't have to explain anything to. And Gareth is one of those. Gareth is one of those that I would put in the category of someone I could just go to the pub with and talk to without feeling the necessity to check what I can and can't talk about. And so it's a great relief to me, uh, uh, you know, to be in this space with you, Gareth. And what I would say is, as I say, with things being as they are, obviously what's happening in the Middle East, throughout the Middle East, focused on Iran and and Israel with with the US obviously blundering in there as per usual. Uh, we can get into all of it, but I suppose what I want to, to hear from you is how do you feel, Gareth? Because I, I feel as though someone somewhere is just shaking the ant jar, and that it doesn't matter to them if, at the end of the shake, just all of the ants are dead. I, that's, it feels like chaos for the sake of chaos. How do you feel?

>> I think that's exactly what it is, and I think that's what Donald Trump is and always was, is a chaos agent. He's perfect for it. You know, even when he came along in 2016 as this sort of fake outsider, he created a huge polarization where you either loved him or hated him. There was very few people I remember back then that would be like, "Well, Donald Trump, yeah, he's all right." It was like, you, you had Trump derangement syndrome in the love for him, or you had Trump derangement syndrome in the hate for him. And that was the sort of polarization. And I think he's just gone from strength to strength in terms of of that chaos. But what I find so strange at the minute, Neil, is, is it's quite confusing in the sense that us that would probably consider ourselves maybe anti-establishment for one of a sort of more in-depth term. Um, that would like to kind of destroy the status quo in a way because it's not great. And, you know, people talk about the new normal. Well, the old normal wasn't great, you know. So, we would like to probably bring down, um, the establishment, the Epstein class, and and build a better world for us and our kids and grandkids, whatever. But then the establishment itself also wants to destroy the status quo, but not for the same end goals as us. They don't want this, this, you know, beautiful world where we can all get along to a certain degree. They, they want, um, you know, a technological surveillance state, AI-run dystopia. But at the moment, we're aligned, which I find so confusing. And I think it creates this confusion within a lot of Trump supporters because they'll look at certain, not, not the Iran war, of course, but certain things before. They'll look at and go, "But I wanted him to do that." Like, that makes sense. And it's like, well, yes, because he's destroying the status quo, which I get you want as well. And it's like, it's almost like you've got this huge eyesore, a derelict building eyesore, and the people want to want to pull it down so they can build some massive homestead and and um, home education thing for the kids. And the establishment want to bring it down as well. They want to tear it down as well, but they want to build a, a flaming concentration camp on the spot. But at that point of pulling down the eyesore, we're aligned. And, um, and I find that

>> So you think we've made, have, have, have we, in the loosest possible term, we have we been made unwitting or, or unwilling accomplices to destruction?

>> In the way, in the mistaken belief that when we, when we get the brownfield site, we can build something better. But the, but the final sucker punch is that when the brownfield site has been created by total devastation, they're going to build something even uglier.

>> Exactly that. Exactly that. And, and I would say that politicians and democracy, for whatever that means these days, I think is, is on the chopping block as well. And I think they, they want us to almost demand it. So what they're doing is they've, on one hand, they've given us, not all the files, but a certain amount of files, which lets even the most, you know, ardent sort of head-in-the-sand person know that actually a lot of these world leaders and so-called elected officials are pedophiles and murderers and everything else. So that's not great. Um, and then on the other hand, particularly in the UK, but obviously you can apply Trump to this, you've got basically the most moronic among us elevated to positions of perceived power. So you think Ed Milliband, I mean, the guy's a [ __ ] David Lamb is a [ __ ] Rachel Reeves is a [ __ ] Like, all these people are elevated to a point where I think what they want to do is bring in the technocracy, but they want us to ask for it, 'cause that seems to be how it works. It's like we have to invite the vampire in. I ask myself that every time something dribbles onto my, onto my timeline like a stillborn calf in the form of Ed Milliband or, or, or whoever. I think, are they stupid? Are they elevated morons? Because on the face of it, say, Ed Milliband seems to be a very educated person, and he, he seems on, on the face of it to, you know, to have, have had at some point the potential to be a, a fairly, a fairly intelligent and sorted person. But, but obviously what he promotes and what he pushes to, to people like us, it, it makes him seem like an imbecile. So, so, so what is it? Does he believe what he's saying? Is he, is he utterly somehow MK Ultra brainwashed, persuaded of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth? So, is he genuine in so far as he believes he's doing right, or is he knowingly lying?

Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? How many of these people are just stupid but arrogant and narcissistic? I, I would put Lambie in that. I, I don't think Lambie's very bright, but I think he's, he's arrogant and narcissistic enough to believe he's really, really bright. Um, so I think there's that element. There's those that will be doing as they're told because of comp-promat, and the Epstein files have shown us enough evidence of that. Um, and then I think there's the other one where, you know, you get the likes of Tony Blair, for instance, who would work for Satan for free. Like, they know what they're doing every step of the way. Where Ed Milliband sits in that, I'm not sure. But either way, what it creates, even if it's just an illusion of, of being an idiot, is it gives them the, the cover of incompetence as an excuse. Oh, it's incompetence. So, so, so the population look at politics and they go, "Right, they're either in the Epstein files, complete wrongs, or they're so moronic and incompetent, they're dragging the country to its knees." And then someone comes along with, "Well, what about this? Have you thought about maybe a technocracy? Maybe actually we, we select officials that are experts as opposed to, to ever seeing a polling booth." And you have geared the population to get to a point where they go, "Well, that doesn't sound great, but it can't be any worse than these lot." And then in the end, you kind of almost ask for that in a way, or at least accept it. And even Reform have said, if they win the next election, then there would be a certain percentage of their cabinet, their, um, their cabinet that wouldn't be elected but would be selected and put into a position. And you're like, and that's supposed to be the alternative. Obviously, I don't believe Reform are the alternative, but you can see how this kind of stepping stone towards, towards that, you know, election-free will give you experts rather than, rather than elected officials could be, you know, people are being prepared for it. And I think a lot of people would, you know, probably accept it, actually. Like I say, because it's, it's an attitude of, "Well, it can't be any worse than this, right?"

We're, we're in, I, yeah, that's broadly where I am. Uh, where, in that, do you position what I sense is the growing, um, is it, is the word tolerance? Is it, um, blindness towards whatever, but the death tolls that are entailed and entrained in obviously what's been happening in Ukraine for years now, but more recently, uh, the genocide in Gaza, and then, and then you move on to Iran, and, you know, the, just as a, as a hellish, horrifying case study, what happened at the school for the girls?

>> There, there's this building tolerance, it would appear amongst larger and larger swathes of the population that this kind of horror just has to happen. You know, that the, the death of children and/or the the trafficking of children and/or the the torture and abuse and murder of children. I, is somehow normalized to the extent that if and when we get to the point where maybe the, the people have accepted this, uh, technocracy as being better than what we were made to witness before. Will that seeming tolerance of obscenity be, be somehow in that omelet as well? Um, I mean, it's certainly become normalized, hasn't it? I think what's done it a lot is it's, and it's been like it for a while where

>> It doesn't really matter what's happening. It matters who's doing it in terms of people's minds. The, the, the, the Trump supporters are great for that. You know, I, I've said for a while, you know, a red baseball cap with "It's okay when we do it" stitched on is what a lot of these people should be wearing. And, and so you, you can look at an instance. So you go, look at October 7th. So you have these Israelis were killed. That's, that's horrendous. You go, okay, well, what about the tens of thousands of children killed in Gaza? Well, well, whatever. And you're like, well, I don't know how, I don't know how people can square that circle. Like, killing is wrong. Period. Full stop. Like, I, I don't, for me personally, I don't see why there needs to be a caveat after that. But unfortunately, that's what's happened. It's like a, it's like a tribal thing. It's my team, so that, it's okay when my team do it. So when your team do it, that's horrendous. When my team do it, there's a justification for it. And, you know, I think as a society, we should, we should be at a point where there is absolutely no justification for murdering or trafficking children. Like, and that's weird to say that out loud, Neil, because the fact that you even need to say that, that there shouldn't be a caveat, which is unless, after a sentence like that. And it, and if we, as a, as a species, are at a point where we can justify them the, the death of the most innocent among us, then our, I fear for our, for our future. To be honest, I, I genuinely, you know, I, I don't, I'm not one of these people that's fear like mungry. I don't worry about a mushroom cloud landing on me. I just, that's not something I've, I, I open myself to. But I do fear for humanity if we get to a point where we can normalize pedophilia and normalize the death of kids and, and, and blowing up schools, not once, but twice, because the US hit that school twice in quick succession. It wasn't an accident. And if you can look the other way on that, then I, like, I don't know where we go from there, mate, to be honest.

>> Yeah. That, the, because, as I say, a case study in, in obscenity, that, that, that school was hit, and then someone, either, either automatically because it was a drone, or or involving, and/or involving human, uh, oversight. It, it witnessed the gathering of, of, you know, first, uh, you know, you know, emergency services and parents. It, it was, it was clear that some of the surviving children and teachers had run to an alternative building nearby, and then that was all hit.

>> Yeah.

>> The first responders, the parents trying to get there, and the children who hadn't been killed in the first strike, and the teachers that had tried to, whatever, shepherd them somewhere that was then hit by the second attack. And I don't see how anyone's behavior towards anyone could descend any further than that.

>> Um, exactly. And, and the thing is, when, when that, when it first happened, like, if you've, you know, been following these, this stuff and and Middle East wars and Israel and the US actions abroad and whatever for long enough, you see the same pattern. So, as soon as it happened, straight away, reflex action. It was the Iranians. They did it to themselves. It was an Iranian misfire. They did it to themselves. Every time a hospital was hit in Gaza, it by Israel, it was either a Hamas, you know, base, or it was a Hamas rocket that did it. It was, they did it to themselves. It's the same thing. And then, and then they try and keep that up for a while, and then all the evidence always points in the other direction. And they get to a point where they can't deny it anymore. So then they say, "Oh, we'll do an investigation." Which is the equivalent to marking your own homework. Um, they determine it was a mistake, even though, as you've said, in this instance, quite blatantly was was intentional. And then they'll eventually admit that, and, you know, action will be taken. Then the news cycle changes, and other things happen, and everyone focuses on something else. There's, and nothing ever happens. Like, we, we've found that in, in the genocide in Gaza for two years, you know, that they will investigate themselves. Yeah. But, but you look at the, the rape and torture of Palestinian prisoners that was going to be investigated. Now they've just dropped charges, even though the, the abuse was caught on film. Um, and what they did is they, Israel sacked the, um, the lawyer, the Israeli lawyer that leaked the footage, and didn't press charges against the rapists. So, that's the society we're dealing with. These, these are the mindset we're dealing with with with America and Israel and, and Britain and, and the West in general, to be fair, that actually these lives aren't important. And that's how they, that's how they view it. And, and, you know, when people say "never again" and all that sort of stuff, how, how did the Nazis do what the Nazis did? How, how did they dehumanize people to a point where they look the other way? People can't fathom that out. I remember as a kid learning about certain parts from history, and I couldn't compute, Neil. I was like, what? But why didn't anyone say anything? Like, you couldn't. And then you've got that happening now where, first of all, it was, we're going into Iran to free the Iranians. Yeah. Free them of their lives. Uh, now you've got Donald Trump speaking about how Iranians have got lesser genetics. And you're like, "Oh, we are going down the same path all over again. We, we are basically, as Israel has with with Palestinians, they're animals. They call them animals." So you, you literally dehumanize them to the point where they're no longer human. Therefore, oh, well, never mind. Dogs die all the time, don't they? And, and that's happening now.

>> And I, exactly that. I, you know, I'm a, you know, I'm a, whatever, a decade older than you or whatever, but I, um, uh, remember that all of that is school, "never again." And the, the lesson that I got, which I'm pretty sure I didn't, it wasn't subtle, was that in the future, the only way to stop this happening was for anyone to, you know, uh, if they could smell smoke, shout fire. And if it turns out to have been, you know, nothing, well, fine, don't worry about it, but at least you raised the alarm. But if it actually is a fire, then we can deal with the fire. That was what I got from "never again." That you, not be slow to point out that it was, be possibly beginning. You know, don't wait until it's a conflagration that you can't extinguish. Get to it while it's still smoldering. And then I found, uh, in my, in my adulthood, you know, I had occasion to be on television, and I, I said that, um, during the COVID debacle, that I thought that othering people on the grounds that they were full of disease and they were to be shunned, at the very least, if not rounded up and dealt with as some kind of, you know, unclean vectors of the bubonic plague. That has happened before. Othering people on the grounds of a disease was tried before in Europe in the 20th century in the middle years, and look where it ended up. And I, I was instantly labeled as anti-Semitic for that.

>> Because I was, I was told comparing what was happening now to the Holocaust, and that there's a law that says you can't suggest that anything is reminding you of the Holocaust, because if you do, you're an anti-Semite. And I, that, that was my experience. That was the point at which I became labeled in that way. And so I don't know now how to pro, well, from that moment on, I didn't know how to proceed.

>> Yeah. That's the point.

>> I didn't know what to do. I thought, well, I'm pretty sure that 40 years ago, I was told to do this.

>> Yeah.

>> Now I've done.

>> That's the point, though. I mean, yeah. The Holocaust has become an industry. Um, and anti-Semitism as a label has become an industry. Um, which basically acts as a, as a, as a protection racket for the state of Israel. That's, that's, that's what it is. And to be honest, I think that is more offensive, grossly offensive to the memories of of genuine victims of the Holocaust than than you comparing it in, in the COVID period. But, but for some reason, that, that isn't how a lot of people view it. It's, it's, it's the go-to thing. Although, to be fair, like, it's not the same. I mean, you, you would have got called an anti-Semite then, and, and I imagine that would have rocked you a little bit. And, and, you know, and that's how it used to be. You know, I, I've called out Israel since the mid-2000s. I went over to Israel, played against Israel, actually, in beach soccer, and I saw things that didn't align with what I'd been taught. And so I looked into it, and in the end, you know, came to my own conclusions. And I, I remember the first time I was called anti-Semitic, I was livid. Like, I was offended. I was upset. I did the usual, mate, I've got Jewish friends. You know, you know that one that just is almost like a meme now, isn't it? Response, but it's true. And I was going, hang on a minute. What are you talking about? Like, whereas now, if you get called it,

>> Yeah, right, whatever. Like, it, it doesn't mean anything anymore. And that in itself is not a good thing, because it's like, it's like through the period when everything was racist. Suddenly, when everything's racist, nothing is. And if everything's transphobic or sexist or Islamophobic or anti-Semitic, then nothing is. So in the end, you end up in a situation where you will have genuine situations and genuine, you know, grounds to be fearful or whatever, and no one takes them seriously, 'cause yeah, everyone's racist, aren't they? So it doesn't matter. And, and that in itself is, is, is a slippery slope.

It, what, what has, you know, has dawned on me, and it started to dawn on me a few years ago now, but it's still relatively new to me, that one, one of the problems with totalitarianism is, if, if one side wins, one group wins, and utterly, uh, neutralizes or destroys everyone else. There's nothing to keep that group, uh, uh, grounded in any way. There's nothing to inhibit that behavior. And, and you might think, if you're the one of the, in that group, that that's great, because now you've got the total freedom to impose whatever you want to impose. But what I've begun to realize is that what happens is that that group then just careers wildly out of control, because as it turns out, it was the presence of the, the, the opposition that was creating a tension that, in the manner of a big top in the circus, was holding up the whole thing that everyone was inside, happily or unhappily. It was the, it was the things pulling in all these different directions that actually created a structure. And if, at any one point, there was only one rope with any tension on it in that big top analogy, then it just gets pulled. It just gets pulled down and becomes just a rag with some broken sticks and, and tangled rope. And that's just one of the reasons to stay away from totalitarianism, because it pulls everything into the ditch, including the people that think they've won, especially the people that think they've won. And, and what we're describing this way in which, if, if we get to where we're going, it's going to, it's now going to include a version of humanity that, amongst many other things, is completely anathematized to horror.

>> Yeah. To, to, to all the worst things that you can, like, allow yourself to contemplate for a moment, and then you put all that darkness out of your head. And, but now you realize that the worst of the worst things, and worse than that, there's already people out there doing that. And that all of that is going to be in the, the version of humanity that presumably is going to be all that's left standing, if and when we ever get to the end of this period of ant jar shaking.

>> Yeah. I, I remember when we, when we met up in Stirling, and we, we filmed together. Um, we were walking, I think, near Stirling Bridge, actually, and me and you were just chatting. And this was at a time when wokeism and political correctness was still, you know, the order of the day. And I remember saying to you, we were talking about that, and you said that you didn't really fear the wokeism so much. What you feared was the inevitable pendulum swing that was going to come back. And I think that's what's happened. Now, what we've got now is largely in response to all that stuff, where there was a large group of the population that were against wokeism, that were pro-free speech, and, and what they've done is they've basically made free speech less abundant, but they've managed to neuter the opposition by telling them they're winning, for one, and that they're, you know, their team's winning, and therefore it's fine. But actually, what I'm seeing as well now is, is not only that, that pull over to the acceptance of of horrendous actions, but also actually wokeism is actually starting to look not that bad in the eyes of some. So you've got people like Pete Hegseth, who I swear that guy's like, he's, he's a lunatic, and he's talking about the fact that they're able to drop bombs in and do things in a way that they weren't allowed to before, 'cause wokeism was stopping it. And I'm thinking, well, okay, well, I'm anti-woke, right? I'm not into wokeism, but you're telling me that wokeism was stopping all these bombs getting dropped on kids?

>> You're sort of selling wokeism to me then, mate. And it's like, how much is that going to swing back? And when it swings back again, it always swings further, every time, doesn't it? And you have this, you know, this right foot and left foot, and that takes you in that direction. And then, and then there's there's a pendulum swing, as you've said, and then it goes off in that direction. But actually, the whole time, he's still walking the same path down towards a, a not very nice future, to be honest.

>> Yeah. I mean, full disclosure, I, I, you know, I don't know how long I've been aware of Pete Hegseth now, but years now. And when I first encountered him on, he was a, a talking head on on podcasts. I went so far as to, uh, acquire and read the book that he co-wrote that was called "The Battle for the American Mind," because it purported to be, and to some extent was, a consideration of the way in which, um, children were no longer being educated. They were being indoctrinated. You know, it was, it was a thesis born of that thought that we somehow moved away from education, as you and I would would want it to be, to some kind of, you know, brainwashing. And I got, and I thought, and then, and then, and then here we are now, and as you say, he's in charge of war.

>> Yeah. As you see. And, and I think the form of words that I heard him use in, in the context you're describing was, it was an end to what he called "politically correct war," which is a slightly vague expression, but clearly what, what he meant by that was, we're not going to bother about how this looks. You know, if, if children must be hit, and then as they're crawling from the burning wreckage with their hair on fire, hit them again. If that's what he means by an end to politically correct wars, then, then yes, you know, as you say, it begins to make it look as if the, the wokeism was better than what he offers, which is word coming out of my mouth that I never thought I'd hear. No.

>> But I live long enough to remember there was a, I'm not going to be able to remember either the British soldier's name, and I'm not going to be able to trot out verbatim what he actually said, but there was a speech made during the Iraq war, which was about, it was a British senior officer giving a speech to troops saying that they had to be, words to the effect of, magnanimous in victory, that they had, you know, that they had to remember humanity and their humanity and to behave accordingly. And it was front pages everywhere, you know, it was clipped out on the front of the Daily Mail, and the, it was the, it was the, the speech of the moment. And it, you know, and we all know what we know now about what happened in Iraq 20 years ago, and the devastation wrought, you know, as a result. But nonetheless, at least the optics were about saying things that on the face of it sounded noble.

>> Yeah.

>> But then you come forward, as you say, to now, and we're actually listening to a, you know, a commander say, "We're just going to, we're just going to flatten everybody. We could kill everybody. There's, there's not going to be any ethics. There's not going to be any morality. We'll stop at nothing until everybody's dead."

>> Yeah. And that's we progressed.

>> Maybe that's part of it, though. Maybe that is a, a conscious decision to say the quiet part out loud, because of what we were talking about earlier, in terms of the destruction of the status quo to try and bring in something else afterwards that, granted, will be worse, but that's not going to be the sales pitch to us. And so actually, maybe, maybe Pete Hegseth is being given a microphone on purpose. Maybe Trump is being given a microphone on purpose to say these things, because, you know, they're saying them in private, and you know, they're thinking them in private. But you can even apply that to our Home Secretary here, talking about the fact that she, she dreams of of a day when there's a panopticon that has the eyes of the state on every person at all times. Like, we know they think that, but they don't normally say it. And they normally say it on a podcast where everyone can access it. So I wonder how much of this saying the quiet part out loud, telling the people in no uncertain terms, this is who we are, and this is what we think of you, that actually that will, in the end, lead the people to react and say, as they always do, "Something needs to be done about this, this, this, um, this establishment, this political system doesn't work anymore. We need something else." And then, you know, like the old Blue Peter days, they come out and say, "Well, here's one I made earlier," and and sell it to the population like that. And as I said, maybe the population say, "Well, it can't be any worse." You know, if, if we've got this guy that's, he's not elected, but he's put in charge, he can't be any more of a psycho than Peter Hegseth, right? Or, you know, they can't be any more incompetent than David Lambie, right? And well, yeah, they can. I, I, I saw, um, Donald Trump, such a smorgasbord of horror that's out there, you know, you just, you can pick and choose any flavor you want, but he was on Air Force One, and I think Pete Hegseth was, you know, gardening in the background, you know, like, like a ventriloquist dummy. But, but in response to some other question, Donald Trump reheated the notion of, um, beheaded babies.

>> Yes. And now, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember all of that. I remember that being repeated and repeated and repeated, that 40 beheaded babies, 40 beheaded babies, 40 beheaded babies. And then, then by a slow process, it was gradually rewound up and up to and including the point where people speaking on behalf of the IDF had to say that that had not happened. There was no evidence of that, that that was, you know, that the 40 was suspicious from the get-go, because it, you know, it reeked of 40 days and nights, which is this kind of, you know, significant number, but essentially meaningless number that just means a lot. But they had to wind back and say, "No, we never, that never happened."

>> No.

>> And yet, and yet, like I say, that bit about, you know, living long enough to remember anything at all. Now, Donald Trump is saying it again, as though it were ever true. And Pete Hegseth was in the, was in the background nodding along to it. And you think, but I, I heard that the first time. I saw it and heard it repeated ad nauseam. Then I saw it canceled out, because apparently everyone had to admit that it had never happened, and certainly not in the, in the, in the way in which it was being described. And now it's back again.

>> Yeah. It's, it's in, it's one of those, if you say it enough, it becomes true. But this is the thing where, where age, one of the few times when age is actually on your side, is I'm old enough to to remember hearing all this before. You know, they're taking the babies out of the incubators. They're, Assad's gassing his own people. Like, all these things that they tried to use to manufacture consent for a conflict that then they just, like you say, they kind of wound down. And, and that, you know, the 40 beheaded babies claim can be traced back to one man who was an extremist settler who is a reservist in the IDF, um, I think his name is Ben Zion, is obviously not his real name, but that's the name he goes by. Um, he was the first to claim, as soon as there was a microphone put in front of him, he was the first to claim that they'd found 40 beheaded babies. That was then never verified by anyone, and as you say, even the IDF then had to say, well, there was no evidence for that. Um, and you, trust me, if there was evidence for that, it would be round the clock, obviously, because it would be used to, as it has been, to justify the genocide in Gaza. So for, for the sitting president to be coming out with that stuff is quite extraordinary, really, when you, um, when you look on, as just a reasonable man, as, as I, you know, this is what I regard myself as. I said recently, and when I was, when I did my training as a cub reporter on a local paper, my editor said, "You are the reasonable man. You, you just represent the other reasonable people. You ask reasonable questions. That's what's expected of you, because reasonable people just want reasonable questions asked." And, you know, and I, I think of you in precisely those terms. Just a reasonable man. And when you look at what's hap, at the enormity of what's happening in and to Iran, you, where do we end up? You know, where, where other countries that have been regime-changed and, and messed with, to put it mildly, destroyed, ripped to shreds, uh, in that part of, in that benighted part of the world during the last, whatever, our lifetimes. Iran is is different, in that Iran is genuinely, it's not some country that was that was produced as a, as a random shape drawn on a map with pen and paper in the aftermath of the First World War, or whatever. Iran, Persia, you know, it's an ancient civilization. It's, you, you, some, some people would still regard as one of the oldest civilizations that ever there was, you know, let's just put that out there. You know, other people would say, no, no, there are much older civilizations, and so on, and so on. But, but nonetheless, conventional history, for what it's worth, would say that Persia, Iran, is an ancient country. And now we've got a sitting president of the United States of America who, who, who has moved from saying that they're going to liberate people in Iran to just saying they'll destroy it to the point where nobody can can ever live there again.

>> Yeah.

>> That was, that was extraordinary, that comment.

>> You know, that we'll just bomb it. There'll be nothing. There'll be nothing there. And, and in what, in what universe are we supposed to absorb that, grow some kind of pearl around that grain of sand? Where do, where do we get to if we're supposed to entertain a president who, over the, over a period of time that might be measured in hours, really, can go from liberating people to saying, "I'll make it so that no one can ever live there again."

>> It's extraordinary. He is, I mean, he is a, he's, he's the kid at the, at the checkout whose mom and dad have just said he can't have sweets. Like, that's, he is like a spoiled brat, and so he lashes out. Um, and that's what he's doing now. I, I mean, I don't think the war is going, I mean, not the war ever goes well, but I don't think it's going to plan for, for him or for Israel, to be honest. And, you know, that comment was extraordinary to me because it was the added, it wasn't just, you know, we're gonna, I can destroy Iran, um, so that it can basically, you know, never be built back, but it was the fact that he said, "I can do it in an hour." So you're going, "Okay, well, then you're not referring to conventional weapons, then. You're not referring to what Israel did to Gaza over a period of two years. You're referring to within an hour. So, well, you're, you're referring to nuclear weapons, then. So now we're at a point where you've started this whole charade based on the fact that Iran can't possibly have a nuclear weapon, and now you're threatening to wipe them out with a nuclear weapon. 90 million people evaporated in an hour." That sort of rhetoric is, is quite shocking, really. I mean, that's, that's, you know, that's straightjacket stuff. And you did, you see, I'm sure you have, that the Newt Gingrich comment about, "Why are we bothering about the Straits of Hormuz? Why don't we just use 20 nuclear missiles to blast an alternative canal through and, I quote, friendly territory?" So, a question, what is, who, who is presently domiciled in this friendly territory? And, and B, are you seriously talking about unleashing 10 times what was done in 1945 for the purposes of creating a, a hole that you can move oil through? And this, this is, and that's coming from someone who was once a contender for the role of, for the position of president of the United States of America, as well. I don't know.

>> It is. It is strange that some of the stuff, like Lindsey Graham's comment as well, when he was laughing and he was talking about, "We're running out of bombs." He was like, "We didn't even run out of bombs in World War II," and everyone's laughing. You're like, "Well, okay, on one level, that's a real psychopathic statement to make, to be laughing about the fact that you're just dropping bombs everywhere." But you've also just told Iran you're running out of bombs. So I'm not sure how wise that is, to be honest. Like, the, the whole thing just seems to be an absolute chaos show, but I think that's what it's meant to be. Um, and, you know, when you look at it, you look at obviously Iran is a giant nation. It's 90 million people. It has a military. It's not Iraq. It's not Afghanistan. It's not Yemen. And they are the, the biggest regional power that that can hold the Greater Israel Project back. And so by trying to take out Iran, that they're, you know, obviously taking out that, that opposition to it. You, they're, they're in Lebanon now, annexing southern Lebanon because they're going to take that. They're obviously Syria, they need to be part of that. So they've got their Al-Qaeda, you know, puppet in charge there. They've already taken Gaza. They're taking the West Bank every single day. And so you look at that Greater Israel map and you look at all the places that they're going, you know, Iraq again is another one. And you think, "Oh, it's becoming more and more obvious now, and to such a point where now the Egyptian military has built up a military presence in the Sinai because they know they're next." And so, you can see all these things are are playing out. And I think, you know, I don't know if they were waiting for Trump, but they've, they've got their man in charge now in terms of going for it. And, and so I asked the question, you know, because I don't believe in coincidences. I'm not a coincidence theorist. So I don't believe that the Epstein file release and all this kind of stuff, or partial release, and the invasion and attack on Iran are are completely disconnected. I don't think they are. I think there is an intrinsic link between the two of them. And so you ask yourself, what kind of secret must you have that takes you from "no more foreign wars if you vote for me" to "I can nuke 90 million people in an hour"? How big does a secret have to be to take you from there to there in order to try and keep that secret hidden? And I, I don't know the answer to that, Neil. I don't, I don't know the answer to that question, but I would, but I would hazard a guess that it's a pretty big secret.

I, I find it increasingly difficult to just, to, to limit myself to, uh, what sounds like rational explanations for things. You know, that I find it harder and harder to even pretend to myself that I can, that I can create for myself, or that at the moment, I'm hearing anybody say, provide a, a thesis that that makes geopolitical sense at the moment.

>> Yeah. There's nothing, no foreign policy, foreign, uh, policy as we would have ever have understood it. There's nothing. We're not working towards any kind of rational end point. Nothing like it. And so inevitably, when all of that falls down, it's like that thing where, you know, nature abhors a vacuum. And in the absence of any rational explanation, you can't help but start to notice at least what might be categorized as irrational explanations. You know, so you, you do end up entertaining ideas that that what is unfolding now is not the product of, uh, 20th-century intent, far less 21st-century intent. That it's actually an intent that might have been with us for as long as the human species has had the power of speech. Do you know, you start, you start thinking, well, there, if it's not, if it's not about anything that makes rational sense in the way we've been, you know, taught history and taught economics and taught politics, then there's an explanation out there somewhere, however seemingly outlandish.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I think the idea is to destroy. I think, because you're absolutely right, there is, there is no geopolitical sense in in any of what's happened. And, you know, I've thought this for a while, like, there is the excuse of incompetence and greed and corruption, and of course, these things are part of it.

But I, I remember probably a year ago now. It was, it was probably wasn't long before we, we spoke the first time. We were talking about digital ID overwhelmingly. And I actually sat down and I, I wrote a list because I'd come to, I'd crossed the Rubicon of, "No, they, they are destroying Britain." And this was just Britain, but you can apply it to the world. They are destroying Britain on purpose, right?

And so then what I did is I went, "Right, I'm going to try and put myself in their mindset, right? So if I wanted to destroy Britain, what would I do?" And I sat down, I wrote a list of stuff, you know, this is just what I would do. And, and I literally looked down the list and it was like, every single thing I was like, "They're doing that. They're doing that. They've done that which has led to that." And I went through the list and I, and that was quite an epiphany. It was like, "Wow."

And, you know, even if you look at energy as an example, that was one of the list, like, you would destroy your energy infrastructure, which is of course what they've done. And where I am in Derbyshire, just across the Nottinghamshire border, you've got what used to be known as Megawatt Valley. Which was on the River Trent. You had all these power stations. Just blown them up. Blown them up. They blew up one at Cottam a couple of months ago. And, but this is at a time where we're relying on places in the Middle East and Russia and Eastern Europe for energy, whilst we're in a conflict of sorts with those regions. So why would you be blowing it up? It doesn't make any sense. And then, and then unless it's intentional to bring it to its knees.

And then I, I, I looked, um, 'cause I was trying to get the dates on, on the Cottam power station explosion. So I was searching about, because obviously they brought down the cooling towers, um, for something that I was doing on Iconic. Wanted to make sure I got the dates right. And, you know, how sometimes it just gives you suggested stories off of some of the keywords. I realized that there was a plot in the 19, late 1970s and then again in the early 90s or mid-90s, sorry, '96, I think. And it was a plot by the IRA to do exactly what successive British governments have done. And that was to blow up these power stations.

But these, these plots, so we're told at least, as history tells us, were, were foiled by the security services. And so they didn't happen. And you're thinking to yourself, if you are an IRA operative who was planning that and got foiled and maybe ended up in prison, you'd be looking at the television news now thinking, "Well, can I appeal, please? 'Cause I'm in prison for planning to do what you're doing to yourself. So actually, I would have done you a favor. I want a lesser sentence." But that then, that sheer madness of the fact that the British, and it's not just Labour, because it was the same under Boris and everyone else, that successive governments have done to us what a, you know, so-called terrorist organization was plotting to do to us. That in itself should be a red flag.

>> Yeah. I mean, yeah, again, I look, I look on it. I grew up very much through, I was the perfect age, really, to be traumatized by proxy by the Troubles in Ireland, you know, because it was never off the news, you know. You never have to wait long before something happened that was attributed to, you know, some other bit of, you know, the, the, the IRA or or whoever. Um, you know, so they, they were the absolute, uh, bogeyman, bête noire of my childhood and adolescence and whatever.

>> I saw all of that. But now, I, now I look at it and I think, how really was that really the case? Was it really that an organic opposition was right up until the, the close of play with the, with the peace talks, so-called, was really what it looked like? Or was it something else entirely? Because, you know, as I understand it, I'm sure I seem to remember that Sinn Féin means something like "Ourselves." And now you've got, in the face of whatever's happening in Ireland, to Ireland, in terms of immigration that's out of control. Well, it's made to look as if it's out of control, but it's, you know, it's some sort of coordinated, you know, replacement migration. And Sinn Féin are on board with it. You know, you think, how can the latest iteration of that be now on board with the very antithesis of, "Well, Ireland for the Irish"? How can that? So now I think, was, was the IRA really something else? However it started, I know at the end of the 19th century into the 20s, you know, a desire for, you know, for, for a, a united Ireland and, and an independent island and all of the rest of it, you know, there may have been a, a, an authentic grain of sand at the beginning. But, but, but by the time that Tony Blair and the rest of them were, were talking about peace, what was it really? I, I now look back on, on the things that seemed to, to, to form so much of the shaping of my childhood and adolescence and think, was that just a pantomime as well?

>> A pantomime in which women and children and, and men on, on all sides were tortured and murdered and all of the rest of it. I mean, I'm not underestimating for a moment or pretending that the bloodshed wasn't real, but the explanation for it, the, the, the what we were told about what was happening was that, which was such a shaping force in my understanding of Britain at that time, was that a sham?

>> Yeah, I think it's a legitimate question to ask. If you want to control the game, you control both sides, right? So, you control the bad guys and you control the good guys and you can interchange which one's which at whatever point. And, you know, at the end of the day, back then, I was the same as you. It was, it was, it was the Troubles in Northern Ireland. You had bomb attacks in, in London and Manchester, you know, going to a city, you know, you, you'd make sure you weren't stood next to a bin for very long. Like, I remember, I remember that.

>> Yeah. And then, and then Islamic terrorism came along. 'Cause that didn't exist. Like, in the 80s, there was no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Suddenly that appeared. And, and we know now how the US, Israel, UK, these people are were behind ISIS and ISIL and Daesh and Al-Qaeda, whatever they're called this month, and was funding and supporting these mercenaries in Syria and Libya. Um, and you're like, well, yeah, it's a good question. If I, if I know that they're just proxy fronts, yeah, why, why would I not question if the IRA were either? And, you know, you look into it for 5 minutes and you stumble into territory like Operation Gladio. And you, you know, they're thinking after the end of the Second World War that there were all these cells left behind in Italy and elsewhere to cause, you know, to, to intervene in a moment's notice if the, whatever, if, if Washington or, or, or MI6 or whoever needed it to happen, they already had the people on the ground ready to do it. And then, you know, that that developed over the years until you got horror shows happening in Spain where, you know, scores of civilians were knowingly murdered, you know, by the, by what had become of of Operation Gladio. And then you, you, you fast forward right up until and including having to watch the obscenity of, you know, the head chopper and chief out of Syria, Ghalani, being, being played with Donald Trump in the Oval Office in the White House, being described by the president of the United States as a "good-looking young guy with a strong past" and being given a bottle of Trump's own brand aftershave. When, when anyone paying any attention at all knows that Ghalani is the living embodiment of Al-Qaeda, which was the, the existence of which was the entire justification for the war on terror.

>> Yeah.

>> And now Al-Qaeda is someone to be played with like a, like a playdate in the White House.

>> Yeah.

>> Or within the working memory of everybody that saw both things happen.

>> Exactly. And it's just the, the madness of it. How you can say that this, you know, Shamima Begum shouldn't be allowed back in the UK, yet Ghalani's, he's had a beard trim and he's got himself a nice new suit and nice new aftershave now, I guess. And he's in the White House being entertained and whatever. Like, none of these things make sense. None of them make rational sense. And that's because there is no rationality to, to any of it. Like, I think Ghalani now is, is a, he's obviously a puppet of, of the US. He's a puppet of Israel. They wanted rid of Assad because, you know, he was very much like, you know, whatever people think of Assad, under Assad, like Syria was very much like Iran in that it, it was, it was a foe that that would, that would counteract, um, the balance of power in the Middle East, you know, counteract Israel and the US and stuff. And so he had to go. And, and obviously that's what they've done. But I also think that when they give you these bogeymen, like they did when he was in Al-Qaeda, then they give you a good guy 'cause he's had a beard trim and a suit and got some aftershave on, that doesn't mean that further down the line, Ghalani doesn't become a bad guy again. Suddenly he starts killing people in, in Syria and they go, "Oh, we have to go in and sort him out." Um, and then obviously, you know, they annex more land and build the Greater Israel and whatever. And I think that's what they do with these people. It's the same, same with the Taliban. You know, the, the Taliban were, they were great. They were great because they were fighting against the Soviets. So they were, we're on, on their side. They were on our side. Then, oh no, we need a baddie now. Okay. Well, 9/11, right? Well, yeah, Taliban. Osama bin Laden, bad guy. And then we spent 20 years, Americans spent 20 years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

Sometimes I feel as if now, it's not funny, but, you know, you kind of have to laugh because there is nothing else. Gallows humor and all that. Sometimes I feel the aspects of the behavior of people, up to including, you know, whatever Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Kamala Harris, whoever, Ursula von der Leyen, it reminds me of the feeling of The Office. Now, bear with me, you know, where like David, the David Brent character would do something like, you know, when the, there was the sponsored dance that was going to raise lots of money for good causes. And there was a, a successful, good-looking dancing couple in the office. And then Brent, Brent insisted that he could dance too. And he performed that thing that became a, a meme. It became an, an endlessly repeated clip on, on social media, David Brent dancing in that ludicrous way, which happens against a, there's a silent reception of it, as incomprehensible behavior. And the humor of The Office was, was very much that, that curated, choreographed, painful to watch.

>> Yeah. But it wasn't, it wasn't by accident that it was so painful to watch that the instinct was almost to switch it over. Even though you were just watching a comedy, a, a sitcom, it was so unbearable to watch. And, and now I feel that that translates across to watching somebody like Donald Trump on Air Force One talking to the assembled media. It's like watching, you think, "This, I can't bear to watch this."

>> Yeah. He, he must be embarrassed to the point of wanting to curl up in a corner and die. But no, he, he, he copes with the gag reflex and muscles on through it and keeps on going. Yeah. He, he is the reality TV show president. I mean, I, I find him awkward, but he's, yet for me at least, to go beyond his comments after Charlie Kirk was killed, where, you know, he described Charlie Kirk as like a son to him and all this kind of stuff. And the reporter who, you know, quite a nice question was like, "How are you holding up, Mr. President?" And he said, "Yeah, I'm fine. We're building a new ballroom. Have you seen?" And you're like, "Oh, wow. That, that's extraordinary." Like, that's next level. I mean, I don't know what stage of grief that is. You know, maybe a similar stage of grief to fireworks, which seems to be everything that is surrounding Charlie Kirk's death. It's extraordinary. But the awkwardness I felt watching that, it was very much like, yeah, The Office. Yeah. Does the same thing. Yeah. Just bizarre.

>> You, I mean, you know, you raised the spectre of, you know, Charlie Kirk, whatever on earth happened to that man in that place on that day. And all I know is that I don't know what happened to that man on that day in that place. Except that I know it wasn't that Tyler Robinson shot him from 150 meters away with a 3006. That's the least likely explanation of of the million explanations that I've heard. But, but then obviously you drift into the Erica Kirk territory and you watch that, you, like you say, the fireworks, everything about that, that memorial. We watched, we saw bits of that. When I say "we," I mean my wife and I and my kid. We saw bits of the immediate aftermath of what might have been expected to be mourning for a loved, uh, father and friend and dad and all of the rest of it, husband. And yet, it was, it was, it was what it was. Whatever on earth that was.

>> Yeah. It was a Super Bowl halftime show. It was extraordinary.

>> And we watched it and looked at one another and, and like, again, I had to, you know, the eyes to heaven and all that stuff. We, I can't watch this.

>> Yeah.

>> But we were simultaneously watching people watching it, thinking that it was moving. And you are, you are, we in parallel universes here? Are you watching the same spectacle that I'm watching and finding it authentic? Because that's the noises coming out of you. And I, I'm watching it thinking, "I need to reach for the remote control to just make this go, just make this go away. I can't bear this." And, and Trudy said, and, you know, she, she has said numerous times, my wife, that it's, it's because of, because we know that we're dealing with psychopathy, dealing with psychopaths, that the thing that we know that psychopaths can't really convincingly do is, they, they don't experience human emotion. So they're not good at doing it because they're not, they're only approximating it. They're not actually feeling it. You know, they, they actually don't have that empathy. They're not able to, they're not feeling what they're pretending to project.

>> No. So, they tend to go too far.

>> So, but, so we say to each other, why would you, why would you cast that person in that acting role? Because at the very least, if you're going to make it a performance, you need a really good actor. And yet what we seemed to be given, as far as I'm concerned, with with Erica Kirk, was, apart from anything else, a really unconvincing actor. So who's running this show? Who's the showrunner for this performance? Because this is a, this is the part, this is the, this is the acting job of a lifetime. This is a big part.

>> At least audition someone that can act.

>> Yeah. We needed Daniel Day-Lewis. We got, we got kind of Hollyoaks, didn't we? To be fair.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I agree. I think.

>> be that obvious. So, you play five-dimensional chess with it all the time. You're looking at it and thinking, well, I'm just this forementioned reasonable guy. I, I don't have, I don't have superpowers. I don't have any special abilities. I've just lived the life I have and I've watched what I've watched. But all the things that I have watched in my reasonable life so far have easily equipped me to think, that emperor is not wearing any clothes.

>> No. But then I, but then again, I come back to the same thing. Like, I, I wonder how much they care. It's almost like they, they know we know and they don't care that we know. Because there's an element of it which is, "What are you going to do about it, mate?" Um, and there's also an element of it where I think everything is a, is a contract, I think, between the people and, and, and these demons that basically, what we accept is, is exactly that. It's us accepting it. It's us signing on the dotted line, really. And so, what, what the contract we're offered is at the moment is basically, you work your backside off in a job you hate. The state will take a big chunk of your money and use it to blow up kids abroad. Um, all the while, people in positions of power are abusing children. And you know that, and we know you know that, and you're not doing anything about it. And as long as people aren't doing anything about it, then it will continue to go on. And, and that's why I think it's quite a, a crucial point at the moment. Like, all this stuff is bubbling away and it's coming out. And, you know, even with Charlie Kirk, I don't think his death is disconnected from the Iran war either. You know, he had the ear of a lot of young people in America, particularly conservatives, and he was very opposed to the war in Iran. And, you know, that was evidenced the last time. Well, now he's out the way. It's very different. So, you know, you suddenly people like Ben Shapiro have got the ear of the youth, and that guy, you know, he's never seen a country he didn't want to bomb. So, um, so, you know, the game's changed slightly. But I do wonder about that kind of almost that, that contractual thing between the people and the state of like, what we're willing to accept if we don't say anything or, or, or, or do anything, and we just go along with it, even if we don't want to. It's like, yeah, it's rubbish, isn't it? But, you know, apart from winge on Facebook, what are you doing about it?

>> What is the something that anyone's supposed to do? You know?

>> Well, that's the point. That's that's the toughest bit, isn't it? Is that people close to me say, "Oh, there'll be a civil war," or "there'll be what." And I don't think so because I think that's been too bred out of people. I think there's been too many generations of, well, certainly emasculated men that there's not, I don't see people taking purposefully and meaningfully to the streets for armed combat with, with the, you know, with the establishment. I just don't see it happening. I don't think they have the tools. I don't think they have they certainly don't have the weapons. What are they going to do? You know, you know, running for a bus would be beyond a lot of them. So, I think so it's not likely, you know, that, you know, it's not like, uh, you know, the Revolutionary War in, you know, in, in America in the, you know, it's not going to be that the people are not armed and equipped and trained from boyhood to do that. So, what, what is the something?

>> Well, I, I think in terms of that civil war, what's interesting with that is, is obviously if there was a civil war, then that would be, that would be perfect for the establishment because, you know, you could just bring in all kinds of draconian measures to deal with that.

>> Um, and I think that's what they want. And whether it happens or not.

>> Doesn't really make a difference because they can still tell us it's happening. They can still show us footage of things and make people believe them. Look at COVID, you know, the, the hospitals are war zones. They weren't, but people believed it. And so all you need to do is plant that seed. I think to be honest, you've got three, three, well, you probably got four groups within society. You've got psychopaths, which make up an absolutely tiny, tiny minority, thankfully. Most of them in positions of power, probably. And then you've got these three elements within society where, you know, I think you've got people that are kind of totally clueless to what's going on. And even if they did know, probably don't really care, to be honest. They're sat at home watching Cash in the Attic or Bargain Hunt or whatever. They're fine. They're dealt with. And then you've got others at the other end of the spectrum which are very angry and are willing to chuck a rock at a copper or throw a Molotov cocktail at a police wagon or whatever. They're great too because you can send the boys in and deal with them. And then I think you've got this large portion of society which, within different stages, is, is aware that something's going on. They might not, you know, go as far down the rabbit hole as others within that group, but everyone kind of knows this isn't right. And so it's, what, it's what that majority of people do. Do they bury their head in the sand and go to Bargain Hunt? Or do they get very angry and smash the place up? I think the establishment's happy with either of those. So, it's, it's what this large group in the middle do.

>> What would be the useful thing? What would be the most constructive and discouraging and problematic for that establishment?

>> Non-compliance. I, I, civil non-compliance. Peaceful non-compliance. Not going along with it. Not doing it. Not, not, not going to pay my, my taxes for you to bomb kids in Iran. Not doing it. And if enough people do that, because again, it's a numbers game all the time. But we've, we've been sort of had this apathy sort of bred into us of like, one, well, that can't work. And two, well, they'll do what they want anyway. Well, not really. Because if you just look at it on a base level, every time you turn on the TV, they are gaslighting you. They're propagandizing you. They're, they're like politicians, talking heads, that they are trying to get you to perceive the world in a certain way so you behave in a certain way and accept their version of reality. Well, if they didn't have to do that, they wouldn't do that. If they could just steamroller over the, over the people, then they would because it's a hell of a lot easier. But the numbers are against them. So, they have to hoodwink the population into basically either accepting or demanding what, what they want to introduce. So, if we can just take a step back and instead of reacting emotionally, you know, when something happens, instead of that fight or flight reptilian brain kicking in and suddenly, you know, "Do someone needs to do something, state more state powers." Um, that actually we take a breath and go, "Right, wait a minute. Okay, what's going on here, really? Okay, who gains from this? Who, why would someone do that? Why is, like, like now, now, for instance, they're talking about Iran sleeper cells killing British people in Britain, killing Americans. Why would Iran do that? They've got no reason to do it. That would gather support for the war on Iran. That's not good for Iran at the moment. There's no support for it. So, it's exactly how it, how it, how they would want it. So, there's no geopolitical reason for them to do that. So, if you go, "Right, well, I'm going to take a back." Who would gain from it? Well, the US would gain from it. Israel would gain from it. The military-industrial complex would gain from it. All right. Okay. Well, maybe we look in that direction. So, I think if people are a little bit more streetwise, a little bit more kind of, "Right, let's breathe before, you know, jumping to a conclusion or a reaction." And then non-compliance with the state. And I always go back to March 2020. You imagine when, when Boris Johnson messed all his air up on purpose and came out and said, "We're locking you down. Your businesses are closed." Imagine if, mate, imagine if 30% of the population, or even 20% of the businesses in the UK went, "No, I'm not doing it, mate. I'm not doing it." Like, simple as that. I'm not. You're saying that essential businesses can remain open? Well, my business feeds my kids, so it's essential, so therefore it's staying open. If 20% of the population's businesses in the UK did that, lockdowns wouldn't have happened. But unfortunately, at the beginning, everyone did and started following Tesco's around, um, arrows around Tesco, sorry, and suddenly we were on the back foot as terms of a protest movement trying to fight back from the beginning if people had said no.

Do you think because we're, you know, we're kind of agreed that we're all watching, uh, David Brent doing his robot dance, you know, now that that level of desperation, you know, so that the leader of the free world is is reheating, uh, 40 beheaded babies and he's, you know, he's the commander of his armed forces is is is saying the psychopathic, obviously psychopathic things that he's saying. Is that because there is, is that level of disarray a good thing for us because there's an awareness that they can't do the next thing or they can't repeat what they did before with COVID, you know, they can't lock down? That if they go for, uh, military-inspired lockdowns, martial law, that are they worried that they can't go to that move? Because this time people will go,

>> I don't think so. Or not. 'Cause it is the $64,000 question, isn't it?

>> I think, I think it can be two things at the same time. I think it's a good thing, but I think it's a dangerous thing at the same time. You know, I think it's good that the rats are being cornered, but that's when the rats are at their most dangerous because they lash out. And, you know, I use that terminology intently because intentionally, sorry, because, you know, Epstein even said in the files that when Trump is cornered like a rat, he will attack Iran. Um, you know, and, and it's there in black and white. Like, I feel like the rats are being cornered somewhat, and that is a good thing. People are waking up to stuff. You know, there's conversations that we have now, everyday conversations in the local shop that if you tried to have 30 years ago, they'd have wanted you in a padded cell. This conversation that you and I are having right now, you know, I can't, 5 years ago anyway, certainly, if not less. I could not have imagined being my half of this conversation.

>> No, that's the thing.

>> If you'd shown me in a dream, I would have said, "No, never going to happen." But that's where I am. I am now. I'm saying the things I'm saying. Never. And, and again, I, I say I'm a reasonable person.

>> So the number of reasonable people that must be having convers, they're not having their conversations in the form of a podcast, but they must be having these conversations saying, "This is off the charts nonsense."

>> Yeah, that's, that's the thing. It's, it's gone from, if you said certain things that we've said today, 5, 10 years ago, you'd have got called a maniac, conspiracy theorist, whatever. Whereas now, you have the same conversation and people go, "Yeah, I know."

>> So that's a good thing. Like, that's changing. But then, like I say, you know, when the rat is cornered, that's when it lashes out.

>> I, I, one of the great, you know, we, Trudy and I, we often, um, we, we watch, we watch. I love, we love the stuff that you do when you're in the countryside. And it's in, I mean, I know, I know it's inspired by the fact that you came from a place at, at whatever point in your life where you were just interested in history and interested in going to see history and walking among it, which is another of the common threads that you and I have together. You know, we're, we're both motivated by this, this, the same thing. Does it still work for you? I mean, do you do that where you walk around with your, whatever it is, a camera on the end of a stick, and you, and you point out, you point out the local and then you talk about the global? And,

>> and the two things, and, you know, the two things just become, you know, an extremely therapeutic cocktail for your audience. But do you, I know what it does for me, but does it still do it for you?

>> Yeah, it's my sanity, mate, to be honest. Um, you know, I mean, I still play ice hockey, like I still play sport and stuff, and that's still like fun. But I think just getting out into nature, disconnecting from, I mean, okay, I'm holding a camera, but it's still, you're still disconnected from the technology. You're not in a Wi-Fi field in, in your studio or house or whatever. And you just connect with stuff. And I don't plan any of those things. Like, I will just, apart from "Hello everyone, hope you're well," I don't know anything else that I'm about to say for the next sort of 15, 20 minutes. Um, you know, there's certain things that will be in my head in terms of what's happened that day, if, if something's happened in the news or whatever. But it, it, it is just a therapeutic thing for me to just have a conversation with, I guess, whoever's listening. Like, I don't know who's listening. Well, I know you're listening now. So now I'll be aware of having a conversation with you, which is great. Like, and, and that's all that is to me. But I find that, you know, well, that's what people say, isn't it? Talking, you know, talk things out. If you've got an issue, if you got a problem, if you're thinking some, you know, a problem shared is a problem halved, whatever, that whole thing. It's a little bit like that for me as well. Like, I, I'm just talking to the audience. And, and after I've talked for 15, 20 minutes, yeah, I feel better. Like, I've got that off my chest, some thoughts, and, and now I feel liberated by by expressing them. And the connection to, to nature, I find helps. I don't think I would get the same thing from it. If I, you know, pressed record now and said, "Hi everyone, how you doing?" and started speaking like this. Wouldn't feel the same. I tried to do that, like I did some stuff in the studio. And I, but I just feel more at home in the country. And from the comments on, from subscribers to Iconic and even on the YouTube, they agree. Like, you just seem more yourself when you're outside. I'm like, "Right, well, that's me then."

>> Yeah. No, honestly, it does. If, I mean, it, it's work. I'm pleased to hear it's working for you because it certainly works for me. Um, and I, you know, therapeutic is right. And we've been talking together for better part of an hour and a half. And for me, it's, it's gone by like 10 minutes.

>> Yeah.

>> You know, like we've just bumped into each other in the street, each on the way to our, you know, respective destinations. So, um, round at your place next time you.

>> Definitely.

>> I'll come. I'll come to you. I'll come to yours for the next one. But in the meantime, for that therapy session, Gareth, thank you very much.

>> Absolute pleasure, mate. Thanks.