Globalism's grip has gutted genuine grub | Jerm Warfare

So I'm busy eating bulltongue. You guys know what bulltongue is over there in the UK?

Well, no, not in the UK. Yeah, there's a bit of it here. There's more and more of it.

I mean, it's not going to be the same, but it has been something that's been going on for,

and I can think of somebody who started it up in the Isle of Lewis,

of all places in the outer Hebrides, at least 25 years ago, and I know there were South African

shops in London and whatnot who've been selling it forever. But no, by and large, it's still in terms

of sort of a cured meat. It's European variants that people are mostly eating with.

Yeah, it's weird though. Bulltongue is obviously a South African thing. The equivalent would be,

I suppose, beef jerky, but for some weird reason nobody can match bulltongue. I am biased

obviously because I think bulltongue is better, but most people that I speak to agree.

I'm not sure why though. It's not that difficult to make. Yeah, no, no, it really is very, very easy.

And yeah, I'm not quite sure why people think. I suppose if you're going to do it yourself,

people just regard it as being a bit of a faff, which I suppose today is depending on how you do it,

but once you've set it up, it's very straightforward. I'm only telling you that I'm eating Bulltongue

because I know that Tim Noakes and the low carb guys will agree and give us the thumbs up.

I'm trying to hit 2026 on a good note here, Mike.

Okay. I'll look for it then. Yes, absolutely.

It's a hyper process though. It's not hyper process. It's just dried. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that's all it is. Yeah, well, yeah, I suppose if it's going into a packet,

you can't retell, but that's it, but it would be, no, but I mean, it's fairly easy to make though.

No, there's feelings. I mean, you can, you can just cure it yourself and then hang it up in your

garage. Well, yeah, I mean, here, you wouldn't really get much effect hanging it in your garage

because it's just so cold and damp, but that's the only thing here. You do have to introduce heat,

so you'd either have to have a sort of an oven of sorts or the basic, the really basic method,

which I used to do years ago is to have a big cardboard box with a light bulb in it.

And that does, that's enough, but it's just really otherwise here. It would be all right. You

could do it in summer, but, but here, no, there's no way. It would just sit there soggy for months.

I remember when I was in Sydney, I was with some Australian friends and they said, well, because

you're South African, let us take you somewhere and we ended up going to, it's literally called

the South African shop. And I had no idea that some of those products in there are South African.

I don't know if it's the same for you. If you know what is a British product and when you go

somewhere else, you go, oh, I didn't know that that was British.

Yes, I'm not sure that happens so much now. I mean, I think in the grand sort of spread of

international dishes, I think stuff that has been claimed as British has either been rejected

by other cultures and cuisines or has been adopted or adapted, perhaps even by accident,

like like the advent of Worcestershire sauce. I don't know if you get Worcestershire sauce in there.

How do you say it? Worcestershire? Yeah, I mean, when it was first labelled, it was called

Worcestershire, but it's just become known colloquially as Worcestershire sauce.

But that was a mistake. That was a, say the story goes, that was a Victorian effort at

replicating a curry that had been very popular in a household in India and they'd moved back to England.

And the head of the household had asked his native cook in India for the recipe,

but I think it really only got the ingredients and had asked his cook in England to make it.

And it turned out to be absolutely nothing like it, and rather than being chucked in the bin for

some bizarre reason, it was kept in a ladder and the source sort of matured and became what is

now known as Worcestershire. So the story goes, I mean, who knows, that something else entirely

might have happened. And I'd say that's not how they make it now. It sounds like we're just talking

superficially, but there actually is a deeper treasure. And that is, I remember when I was

travelling through France and in Paris, I couldn't really find anything that was French. It was

just all international. And I only discovered French of anything really, when I went down to

the south, passed to Luse and all the way down to the canal, the media there by the bond and all those

all those places, because I didn't want to, I didn't want to have anything that was international.

I wanted something that was French, whether it was food or a restaurant or whatever it might have

been. And this is one of the major issues with, I don't want to say globalism, but globalisation.

I think those are two different words, but it's this idea that everything needs to be everywhere.

And it just, there's a sense of sovereignty and uniqueness that gets lost when you, when you just

have Burger King everywhere, for example. Yeah, but Burger King is not food. Let's just make that

clear. And McDonald's is not food. I'm not sure that I agree with this point because, you know,

I think if we're being honest, Britain is not the culinary centre of the world. I mean,

there's obviously, there are good chefs in Britain, but I'm talking about in terms of

traditional fare. And it would be very limiting to only be, and maybe I'm wrong about this,

but, you know, I don't think I could live without certain products from foreign shores.

I certainly, as a matter of principle, of course, would be enthusiastic that no matter what

form of food we eat, we source the ingredients where possible locally.

That is saying, though. No, not really. I mean, that is linked to what I'm talking about,

because then what you're talking about actually is localisation as opposed to globalisation.

It's just, well, I mean, no matter what label you put on, it's common sense because it's supporting

communities. It's about community at the end of the day. And, you know, we talked about this

before, but this is without doubt one of the reasons we're in the pickle we're in is because we

have allied ourselves to, you know, because families have, you know, families split up and move

elsewhere for jobs, because it's impossible these days for people to sort of live

where they were born, because inevitably there isn't the economy there for people,

then they move and that splits up families, splits up communities. And what we need to,

we need to relearn that. I think that's absolutely crucial to the future.

Charles, sorry, I interrupted you. No, I was only going to contend my ex-point

about needing things from further afield, unless you're talking about Northern Ireland,

in which case, I would defer to you. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

But, no, I mean, I think this actually does speak to a serious point, though.

We know the United Kingdom has definitely got a terrible reputation for food,

but I think that is largely because we have just yielded to corporates and international pressure

to turn out mass produced junk in the same form absolutely everywhere. And again, the point is,

it's not food. It's not that it's different. It's just not not actually food. So we've moved away

from food, but in doing so, we've completely forgotten what foods we do have here. And I mean,

even meat, you know, how often do people eat pigeon or rabbit or any fish that isn't cod or

haddock? I mean, the variety here is huge. Of course, we don't have stuff particularly in terms

of fruit and certain vegetables that you can import, but actually, again, this is an interesting

one, isn't it? And I know this is potentially going down an enormous rabbit hole, but if you go

back to what was being done at Chatsworth by Paxton, Joseph Paxton, in the 18th century and the

advent of the Cavendish banana and the something else. So growing conditions, and this is a very

divisive issue because you look at what James Dyson is doing now. He's made billions with his

hoovers and hairdryers, and now he's going into agriculture. He's the largest land owner

in the country, agricultural land owner in the United Kingdom. Yeah, he is, yeah. And you could say

that's, and I will qualify this. You could say that's a good thing because to a certain extent,

he has his head screwed on. He talks about reducing chemical inputs. He talks about not

taking subsidy. He talks about a lot of things that do make sense. But of course,

ultimately, exactly like with his businesses to date, he is driven by the necessity for profit.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But if that tips the balance in favor of doing things

that are not actually going to align with your chat about reducing chemical inputs and whatnot,

then you know which way it's going to go. But I mean, so far, I think a lot of what he is producing

is being done in a way that is significantly better than the model for the past nearly 100 years.

So, I mean, he certainly has made a difference. But sorry, I ve slightly from the point,

I think the point is that there is an absolutely enormous opportunity to be producing

really interesting diverse types of food and actually using what is there. I mean, nature does

provide a huge amount of food that actually you don't really even need to do anything about.

And people have just been conditioned and thinking, right, okay, it's time to go to the supermarket

again. You know, I wonder what they've caught for me this week. And that's, again, I know there

will be a lot of people sitting there will think, well, it's just not realistic for me. I'm in

X place. I can't do that. Okay, absolutely fair enough. But that doesn't mean to say you can't be

in touch with somebody that is doing that or you can't have a cooperative or you can't have a

syndicate that does go out and do whatever these activities are. So again, it's like with anything,

there is probably either more that you could do or something that you could do differently. And

that's I'm not sort of throwing down the challenge, but I'm just saying, you know, if you're,

if you are fed up with the with the global corporate influence and the way that's affecting either

the offerings that are available to you or the impacts that it has on the environment or health

or any of those things, well, you know, just have a head scratch and think about all the different

things that are out there. And you don't have to, you know, and a good starting point actually

is just go back through literature, just reading books that were written more than 100 years ago

and reading what people at is very interesting because of course they weren't getting stuff

shipped in from New Zealand that day. So yeah, I think I think we could be, you know, we absolutely

could have a renaissance in the United Kingdom, but there are so many, so so many forces driving

against that. So I'm not going to disagree with any of that, Charles, although you did, perhaps,

you know, the implication perhaps was that I was buying stuff from supermarkets, but anyway,

that's that's like that here and there. The issue, the issue for me, of course, is, you know,

things, things that would absolutely be considered luxuries, I would acknowledge, you know,

Parma ham, Parmesan cheese, red wine, these kinds of things. And I realized that there is a winery

not far away from you, but but my question is whether, and I'm sure the product is pretty good,

but it's not quite the same as it. It's not the same, but then again, that's um, but do you know,

do we have to be slightly less sniffy about this? You have a taste. You have a taste for whatever

such a thing is, you know, we just have to acknowledge that we're talking about something different.

I mean, that's the way grapes are. You get what you're given and say the wine that's produced

and it's not a quite, I would argue, it's not a question of quality. I feel confident, certainly,

the, the, the vineyard that you're referring to that's been well established in, uh, I think it's

just in Worcestershire, actually, um, it has, you know, it's been doing great wines for years and

that that's, that is the best possible result that you can create with those grapes. So it's just,

it's a taste thing, but I, no, I mean, I totally acknowledge it. Of course, that's absolutely the case.

Um, but haven't we been spoiled by this and sort of, you know, in a way, unconsciously thinking,

well, yeah, I suppose, you know, I prefer this so I should get that. I don't know, then, then wine,

wine keeps and, um, so actually, is it, is it such a bad thing that wine, in particular,

travels? I don't know.

We, so I mean, we are trying our best to support local, um, and this, a farm not too far from us,

I might have told you this previously, but they deliver every week, um, a basket of fresh vegetables.

You can't choose. They just bring a whole pile of vegetables because it's the way it grows,

it's video organic. Uh, and one sure sign of good quality vegetables is that it goes off

very quickly. Uh, you don't want it to, to, to, to hold. Um, but it does potentially become more

expensive unless you get creative with the, with what you do with it. And another, um, farm that I

discovered just a few days ago is, uh, on the other side of the country, which we're going to start

supporting. Uh, it's a guy who adds no chemicals, injections, vaccines, anything to his, um,

his, his cattle. And, uh, what he did was he imported, um, the Japanese black, wag, wag, you, um,

bulls, and he has interbred them with, um, angus, um, bulls, uh, cows. And so now he's got this at

those, they, they identify. Um, and so he's, and I've tasted his, his steaks and they are

incredible, um, absolutely incredible. And you can taste when something is more organic,

and when I say organic, I don't mean organic TM. No, I mean actually organic, but it does come

again at a bit of a cost. But I love what you said at the end of last year, Mike, you know,

you've got to embrace inconvenience. And so if something costs a bit more, um, it is more

inconvenient, but there actually is a long term benefit. This issue of cost is a really important

one. Um, you know, we, we have been taught that what we want in life is three holidays a year

and, uh, entertainment, going to the pub every weekend, all this kind of stuff. Uh, and we've

been taught, this is, this is something that we actually wanted. This is what we've been told

that we want. And, and for some reason, we've jumped on the bandwagon. Um, and, and so we've

been told that we've got to spend the minimum that we can on the, the, the fundamentals of life

and use the surplus as much as the surplus as we can possibly find for entertainment and all

these other kinds of things. Now, Charles was talking about what people ate in the past. Um,

but we also spent a much greater proportion of our income on, on food. And, uh, uh, at the end of

the day, these are lifestyle choices that we make. Do we want to maintain a healthy lifestyle

for longer? Uh, and therefore, where do we want to put our resources? Can we find, uh, forms of

entertainment that, uh, uh, perhaps are less propagandizing than going to the cinema or going,

uh, you know, or watching the latest, uh, marginally pornographic DEI inspired play, uh, or listening

to the buying CDs full of, of sexualized, hypersexualized, uh, content, uh, music, musical,

console, called musical content, right? So, so, you know, these are, these are the choices that we

have to make. And, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's sort of, uh, I always come back to this point

of, of people that say, what can I do? And, and these are the kinds of things that we need to be,

these are the kinds of decisions that we need to be making. And I think, and, uh, you know,

so I, I would say to you that, uh, uh, if you have the opportunity to spend more and get what

you're getting, then that's, that, that is a good decision, in my opinion. Mm-hmm.

Totally agree. And, um, if, uh, if nobody heard it the first 16 times, I mentioned it, then,

um, it goes straight to Angus McIntosh's point about nutrient density. And, um, and again,

it is a, it is a conditioning exercise. It is to do with being told, you know, three meals a day,

get your five a day, get a very balanced diet, a very diet, this sort of stuff. But, of course,

that, what that means is you're eating stuff, which puts you into that routine. And, um, and it's,

it becomes a cycle, hunger, it becomes a, well, semi-psychological issue. It's also a blood sugar

issue, largely due to the fact that people are eating a highly processed starch-based

products, which, which encourage that feeling. But, again, anecdotal, I don't have the paper

to back this up, but I'm sure Tim Nokes does. You know, if you eat a, a diet that consists of

stuff that costs more per pound in weight, but provides a much bigger hit in terms of nutritional

content, then, then you feel less hungry. And, and, you know, there is, there absolutely is a

psychological element to that in that it takes quite a while to adjust to eating what is by volume,

less, but in my own experience and, and certainly plenty of other people that I know who do similar

things, everybody arrives at the same point, which is that you, you realize in actual fact that

you're going through the motions of eating because it's sort of prescribed by societal norms,

that that's what you do. But, in actual fact, eating twice a day, or even once a day, and I

know, I remember your chat with, I've come in's, you know, he was, he was, he was talking about

exactly that, exactly like John Kirk, who I did interview UK column raw truth. He's a raw milk

dairy farmer, and he, he, he basically adopted his diet to suit that of his cows. In so far as he

took all the, all the grains out of it, and then, and then concentrated on just eating one very

protein rich meal a day. And yes, I know that lots of people are saying, well, they exist

perfectly well on a, on a vegetarian diet, fine, whatever suits, but the point is that it's the,

the higher the quality, yes, that is a higher price, but actually overall, my contention is that

you're spending less money. And that's the important thing. And also, you're spending less money

in the short term, you're certainly spending less money in the long term, because you will not be

fingers crossed, you know, all the circumstances you can't necessarily dictate over, but, but,

in large, you will not be in firm and unfit and unwell in the way that you might be if you,

if you persist with the cheaper, non food stuff. And even better, you'll be conscious of the

fact that you're not giving money to craft. Yes. And to Nestle and the Kellogg's and these types

of corporations. Yeah. And of course, that therefore with your dime, they're not going to be

polluting our very environment, you know, this, this, and I do find it's still, well, it will

forever rank, or you know, the way in which the legitimate, totally legitimate environmental

concerns about destroying the soil that we so vitally need has been subsumed by the climate

narrative is, is, it's just a disgrace. And the, and the, these people who are, you know,

claiming to take the sort of moral or ethical high ground and yet do not make that distinction between

those two things is, is, is flagrant dishonesty. It's absolutely reprehensible, because because it is,

it is in an effort to manipulate people for, for gain. I've been trying very hard for the last

couple of minutes to find a segue into a talking point that I told you I wanted to, to mention,

and I just cannot find the segue. Well, you're wanting to, you know,

you're wanting to establish some kind of farm, small holding on the moon or something.

I don't know if that's what it is. This, this is segue.

But yes, a couple, a couple of days ago, maybe a week ago, I saw the, the big news,

NASA sending four astronauts to fly around the moon. Now, I'm not particularly interested in

whether or not that is real. Or, I mean, that's a different discussion altogether. But I'm

wondering why now? Who benefits? What is the reason? You know, is this a, is this a deflection from,

from big talking points, do you think? Well, first of all, I would say that, of course, a lot of

people are going to take a conspiratorial view of these types of events. At the end of the day,

there are how many million people in the United States, 330 million or something like that.

Take any country, you've got, you've got large populations. Not everybody is, is aligned with any

particular agenda. So, some people have their own agendas. I'm quite happy to consider the

possibility that, that people within that organization are actually interested in doing what they're

saying that they're going to do. I'm not going to suggest for one second that there aren't people

in the political world or the media world that, that, that wouldn't take advantage of that,

or that there isn't infiltration, there isn't an effort to, to push certain efforts in certain

directions. These kinds of things, of course, happen. But, you know, the, the mid issue with, with

this type of discussion, Jeremy, that, that we're not there and we are not party to, to what's going

on. So, we can only look in from the outside and speculate and, and, and if we just take a very,

very small example at the people that are out there at the moment that are looking in at the UK

column and making certain decisions about it and saying these things publicly and they're so far

off the markets, unbelievable. Then, I find it really difficult to sort of look at an organization

like NASA or any other organization and, and reach a conclusion based on what I see on the internet.

So, so, you know, it's, it's, I don't know the answer to it and certainly I'm quite, I'm 100%

sure that, that, you know, for, and for a lot of people, it will be a diversion partly because they

are so concerned. So, troubled by current events and, and anything that that is offering any kind

of, you know, diversion is going to be grabbed at, but also because anything that's going on in

the world is going to be grabbed by, by people that, you know, that's the old thing. It's a good

day to bury, bury bad news or whatever that, that, that tactic is used in, in many, many ways,

not just, I mean, that, that, that, that phrase came to popular notice following 9-11,

but it doesn't have to be events like 9-11 that are good days to bury bad news. It can be stuff

that is just, as you say, purely that might grab people's attention and, and take their,

their minds in a, in a direction. So, so, I don't think there's an answer to your question.

It's basically what I'm saying. Okay. Well, give it a go, Charles.

May I have a different view? Well, first of all, when, when we have this, when we rehash this

conversation in, in years to come, there are two segues you could have used. One of which is that

there are, there are folklore, I mean, and I dare say, you know, all folklore is rooted somewhere,

but there is absolutely folklore that, that speaks to certain farming practices at, at a particular

moon state. So, you know, do stuff at night, and whether that has, in fact, on what type of weeds

will come up, or whether weeds will come up at all, and, and general sort of fertilization things,

and, and that kind of stuff, as well as obviously, sort of menstrual cycles of, of livestock.

And so, so there's that one. Then, then there's the, my preferred story, which is about the,

the rural folk of Wiltshire, which is the county to the south of Gloucestershire, where I,

in, in the UK, and years ago, when illicit booty in the form of, possibly actually wine, I can't

remember, drink of some sort was being moved around the, around the country without tax. And the way

that a particular Wiltshire village did this was that it would be, it would be hidden under cover

of darkness in the village pond in barrels, but waited down. And then, at a safe time, the villagers

would then go out, with their long rakes, and go into the, into the water to fish the barrels

out. And, and one night, they were caught in the act by the excise man, who found them

in the pond, and said, well, what, what the heck are you up to? And they thought, well, I mean,

we're known to be simple country folk. So they'll say, well, we're, we're trying to rake the moon

out of the pond, because you could see the moon's reflection in the, in the water. And they were

trying to rake it out of the pond. True story. And that, and that's, that's why people from Wiltshire

referred to as moon rakers. It, it's stuck to this day. So that's, that's where moon raker comes from.

So those are your segues. I, I think, on the moon thing, specifically, I think, and I'm not

suggesting that one, that I know which one drives the other. But in terms of mutual benefit,

and the synergy between the two, to me, this is all part of the war and surveillance

architecture. And if you look at the organizations that are involved with, say, the, you know,

the current NASA Artemis project, and what else is going on in the defense arena, but also

specifically, and, and SpaceX is the obvious one, the, the, the whole idea that these

lower orbit satellites are providing a capability that can be used by

twin, you know, sort of civilian and military organizations, intelligence and all the rest of it. And so

I think, as I say, whether the plan has been right, well, let's, let's make another go for the

moon and enthuse people in space and normalize the whole idea of, of use being space as a, as a

domain, whether it be for, you know, the gathering of sort of scientific evidence or, or whatever.

The point is that there then seems nothing odd about the fact that Elon Musk and, you know,

Lockheed Martin and all the rest of them are being seen to be driving what is all part of the

same effort and part of that as well as sort of this idea of exploration is, or, you know, we are,

we are also keeping you safe. And, and, I mean, I've, I've reported on space stuff quite a bit

for UK column over the last couple of years, not, not very recently, but I'm over due actually

because there is a lot more going on. But, and I would contextualize this. I, I mentioned it,

I think in news extra a couple of weeks ago, over just before Christmas, I, but take it by chance,

ended up having a face-to-face conversation with a, with a highly ranking officer in the NATO

command structure. And, you know, I didn't exactly put my cards on the table in terms of why I was

necessarily interested in asking, but then again, he wasn't holding back. There was absolutely

nothing confidential about the conversation. And, first of all, he was absolutely certain that

there will be war with Russia. And, secondly, in terms of how that was going to come about,

he was very explicit in talking about the effective reliance upon corporations in a way that has

never been done before. You know, previously, somebody makes you a rifle, you buy it, you take

ownership of it, that's the end of it. The, the, the, the manufacturer retains no control.

We've, we've absolutely moved a lot further on from that. And, the, the control exercised over

any equipment, particularly stuff that flies up into space or whatever people want to call it.

You know, we were entering into a, into a very, very different thing. And, and so he was, he was,

he was very simple in saying that, that space and cyber, all sorts of part of the same thing,

were in effect going to form the larger part of the battlefield. And, and I see that as being,

I see the, the, the space slash moon issue as being part of that. And, and in a way, as far as

the optics go and the, and getting people excited about something that then sort of leads into a

cold war. I mean, it, it is going back to the late 50s and 60s. In, in a way, I mean, not, not

absolutely the same, but, but I think there are great similarities.

I mean, what you're saying, Echoes, what Catherine Orson-Futts has spoken about. She's,

we're talking about the, the battle for space for, for years now. And, I mean, I think that,

well, both the United States and the UK have the respective space commands, sort of things. And,

and I was, you know, if, if we think that Trump's going to stop a Greenland, then we got, you know,

yeah, did, well, did you, no, I said, if you think Trump is going to stop a Greenland, then,

you know, we're, we're a bit naive. But I mean, I think the, the, the point that you're making

Charles is very well made. I mean, the, the fact that they are, quote unquote, flying around

the moon, that's all the great positive uplifting rainbows and unicorns. Wow, look at what we're

doing. Meanwhile, yeah. The, the, the, the, the cyber space control grid is being, uh,

advanced. Yes. Yeah. Look, I suppose part of the point of what I was, part of the point I was

trying to make, badly, perhaps was, was that, that within these organizing, even within space,

excellent. And, you know, we have been making the point to space access effectively a defense

company for a long time. But within space X, the people that are actually working there,

it's the same in the financial system as well. The people that are working within these

institutions think, you know, they're enthused by what they're doing. They're positive about,

what they're doing. They don't think about it in these terms. There, there are other people

absolutely with, with our question, think about these things in these terms. And certainly the,

as I say, the media will present stuff in a certain way while other stuff is going on in

the background. And I'm actually absolutely agree with, with Charles's take on, on that.

The, the fight for low earth orbit, I think we are going to come back to this,

issue of, of weaponry in space. And we're going to see huge amounts of defense, so-called

defense budget going into this type of, of operation. And, and, you know, I think Charles

pointed the, the Artemis and this type of thing will be used to, to, um,

enthuse people in that direction, I think is, is a real danger.

Yeah, I think it would be very interesting to see which way it does play out, because in actual

fact, one of the reports I gave on Wednesday's news program this week was about the, you know,

the, the, the conscription narrative, conscription war narrative, and a couple of stories from

the Ministry of Defense about, um, new programs to either provide space for a particular

regiment, but the one, the one I'm thinking of is the cyber. There's, there's going to be a new,

I think it was called cyber and electromagnetic command, a 240-odd strong regiment. And, um,

and again, talking about people, you know, a university degree in operating drones within a

military setting, but you see, people have to have some sort of a dream about that. You're not,

you're not, I don't think you're going to be considering, you know, whether you'd be a carpenter

or an artist or, you know, butcher, and then you think, oh, I tell you what, I've just

been a drone, a military drone operator. Um, so I think it does have to be a sort of Hollywoodisation

of all of this and that, you know, the top gun effect. So sticking, sticking people in a, in a

rocket and saying, you know, come on, that's getting involved in space. I know it sounds silly,

but I think it's, I think it has a monumental effect. And, um, and I think this, again, will be,

will be played upon massively. It's magic. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah.

We can, we can exclude the, the gaming industry from this, by the way, because, because that,

with our question, in my mind, has been about, uh, indoctrinating people into this remote,

this remote warfare agenda. And, you know, if we look at space, X's, and, and, uh,

Starlink in particular, that, that, of course, was sold to people as, as, uh, you know,

this great, uh, way for, uh, fast internet access from remote areas. That has already been deployed

in Ukraine and on a battlefield. Um, Charles, I'll be interested in your thoughts on, on where

this, this North, uh, orbits satellite, these, North orbit satellite nets go because, obviously,

the UK, uh, government bought into one web, uh, at the point that it was going bankrupt for

specifically the same type of capability to, to, to throw a load of lower orbit, uh, satellites.

Is this about building the, the, the, the communications network for a global drone,

your remote drone control system? I think that would be, that would be one application. I,

I have to say on the technical side of it, I'm, I'm not, I'm not very clued up as to what could

happen. But I think, um, I can't see any reason why there would be a limit. And I think the, the,

the sort of the object of specific concern, which I keep banging on about, is this element of, um,

all this, uh, this canundra really, you know, who is in control. If, um, if, uh, well, yeah, exactly,

well, you see, even GROC, the US, the, the DOD has, has, um, engaged GROC AI to, to do quite what,

I don't know. But I mean, that's, that's the direction where we're going in. No, but really,

what I was going to say was that these are, these are funded, you know, these projects are funded by

at government or, or specifically military, the military department of governments. But they

may have some control over them, but actually, by no means all. And so the, the, the data collection

and, um, dissemination is, you know, can go potentially anywhere. Um, and so I, I don't, I mean,

yes, I think the, I think drones and, and whatever's coming next, because the, the, the rate of

change in this area, I think, is absolutely phenomenal. I, I, I sort of, you know, in a way,

I feel like we don't, we don't really know the half of it. We might, we might criticize the, um,

the armed forces of the NATO countries for being completely behind the curve of their own

making in saying that they're going to defeat Russia without any of the things that they might

need to do it. But, but an actual fact behind scenes, going back to what's being developed

by the so-called defense industry, I think there's, I think there's going to be a lot of stuff

that's going to come out in a short space of time that would be pretty alarming. And, um,

well, as if it isn't already, but, but I, you know, and I'm sure that that will, that will absolutely

be tied into the, um, to the low earth orbit, uh, capability. I can't, I can't see how it wouldn't be.

Catherine argues that a lot of that falls under what she calls a black budget.

Which, which, which forms part of the missing trillions that she, um, always talks about.

Yeah. I mean, maybe, I, I mean, that could be the case. I, I think, uh, I think a lot of it

is quite overt. Um, but, uh, but yes, I mean, I'd just say that, that, that could,

that could well explain, uh, sort of certain amounts of, of missing money. Um, and, and even if,

you know, it's not missing, it's sort of been made up. It's created from nowhere. So, in a way,

same, same difference. Um, but yes, I mean, the sheer cost of, of these projects and the fact

that yet again, it is, I mean, you know, that Elon Musk is such an obvious example, but it is

just perfectly extraordinary. That, um, and his pockets can be lined to such a, to quite such an extent.

I don't think he knows. Um, but there's a tug of war happening between, uh,

styling and South Africa. So styling, styling is, is not available in South Africa at all,

but it's available in all our neighboring, um, countries. Yeah. And the reason for that is because

Elon, uh, Musk once his rules applied, if styling opens in South Africa and the South African

government says, no, no, you follow our rules. And so basically this is, this is, it's a standoff.

And it's very interesting to see, um, how that's going to play out. Um, it might be a good thing

that are, that, that our government is, is, um, is trying to, you know, um, not play on Elon's turf.

Yeah, I think it's a, it's a really interesting one. I mean, I don't know how it's progressed,

because he was trying to use Tesla as a lever with a, with a, yeah, we don't have, we don't have

Tesla either. Yeah, exactly, but that's what he was trying to do. He was trying to force his way in

on the, on the black, white company ownership thing. He was trying to bend the rules by saying,

right, well, I'll invest, you know, X into a, um, sorry, not X, because everything's X within,

Y into, um, X amount. Yeah, exactly. Into a Tesla battery capability. And I think he was,

you know, he was just showing the door for how much longer, I don't know, but it will be

interesting to see my mic. Sorry, I cut in. Yeah, I was, I was just wondering, because I don't know

enough about this particular story, you know, why, on what basis are they pushing back,

are they pushing back against them? Is it because he's not paying them enough money or what's,

what's the reason? Well, initially, it was because he was the wrong color.

That's the, yeah, so that's the outside reason or is that, is that the, the, the public? Well,

I mean, that was certainly on the, on the legal front that was, um, that was how it was reported as,

um, no, but it's obviously not true. It's obviously not true. No, I mean, because if, if that were

the case, yeah, so many other companies wouldn't have opened you. Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah,

yeah. So, yes, I mean, there will be, there will absolutely be more to it. I, I don't know,

I mean, looking at where else, um, Starlink isn't, is it, is it possible that it's been,

that the whole thing's been completely misreported and that it's not that South Africa, um,

won't have it. It's that mask won't put it there because he disapproves of South Africa's

position on, uh, I would have said most significantly Israel on Israel. I don't know. It's

interesting. With the South African, if that was the case with the South African government,

not say that. I mean, I don't know if there, if there's a generally an adversarial situation

going on there, and that was the reason, then perhaps they would, yeah, well, anyway,

I mean, yeah, it is, it's massive speculation, but I would say, I would say the South African

government comes out of it much better if they, if it looks like they've stood up to mask and told

him to push off, rather than him saying that, um, he's not going to do it because he doesn't like

them. On the other hand, on the other hand, we know that, that China is creating its own, um,

Starlink equivalent, and I suspect that that will, um, open here quite quickly.

Okay. Yeah. Well, they, they get that, that absolutely will be very interesting, then.

What's that called, you know? I've got no idea. Okay. Look, I have to say, I think people should

be absolutely opposing this and every, I don't care what country it is, it's doing this.

We should be opposing this in every way. I mean, what are we doing? We're shoving, you know,

uh, uh, uh, Cornflakes box sized bits of electronics in their thousands, tens of thousands into

lower earth orbit. What are we doing? Why are we doing it? This is purely as, as we've just said,

this is purely at the end of the day for war capability. Why are we not pushing back against this

as hard as we possibly can? We should, I mean, it was used against the Iranian people recently.

I don't know if you read one of, I mean, okay, I'm absolutely, absolutely. We've, we've reported

that on the news program. Absolutely. And that's why the Iranian government shut down

Starlink temporarily, but, but the media reports are differently.

Of course they do, because the media is, is for regime change in that country. But, but yes,

Starlink was absolutely being used to organize the, the full opposition. They're absolutely

100%. And, uh, yeah, it is, so the United States doing it, UK doing it, China doing it,

other countries doing it, shoving these things up into lower earth orbit. Um, is this what we want?

I don't think so. And we should, we should be recognizing what's actually going on. You know,

and some people are saying, oh, but it's great because I can get my internet connection in the,

it's not that great though. Well, why do you want this? You know, we, we got to,

we got to really be asking ourselves these questions. Yeah. And who benefits?

Well, it's not us, because, because they'll throw us a bone off of great internet connection,

while they're using the same technology to control us with their technocratic

surveillance state. So, you know, what is it you want?

It is, it is a strange concept though. I mean, if you've supposedly got these

styling satellites all over the place, you know, it would seem easy enough to connect to it,

no matter where you are. But there's some, I don't know how the technology works. I just,

I just don't, I just don't understand how you can't connect to it then from a certain country.

I'm not, I'm not interested in using styling, but I'm just wondering how the technology works.

I don't know if you know any, anything about that, how they can create a geofence.

Because there has to be, there has to be a signal that is transmitted from one point to another

point. And they can, they can, they can shape that, they can shape that signal quite

accurately. Because I mean, you're not connecting, you're not connecting to one satellite,

you say you've, you've got to remember, you're connecting to lots of satellites and that's

at the same time. And, and so it can triangulate your position, therefore.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, I can see them go across the sky at night. So, you know, they,

you'll, you'll see like a line of 10 or 15 of them, you know, in a line, whatever, but

it's just, it's just strange to me that you can't connect to them. I just don't know how it works.

Yeah, well, like so many other things and I might, might take a different view, but I'm just

constantly amazed at how so many things that are heralded as being so incredibly clever,

just didn't really work. I mean, yeah, still, I dare say in South Africa, it might be better because

it's a sort of younger, the, the, the way that communications have been established has been

in a, I don't know, what am I trying to say? The, the legacy networks in the United Kingdom,

when, when mobile telephony was set up, I think is very much different from what's happening now.

But, but still, I find, I find mobile comms now a joke. I mean, they, they, they are a joke. And

they're, the pity, of course, is that the landline infrastructure, which worked very well,

is, is being dismantled at a, at a great rate and a lot of, in a lot of places, you're, you know,

it's either not possible to have a proper landline because everything is, is internet based,

which means you're, you're vulnerable to all the same problems. I, I, perhaps naively, I am so

surprised, I am so surprised that this has been allowed to happen because I think that what we are

offered, which is so perennially vulnerable to shocks of any kind, it's just, it's such a poor

offering. But the, I mean, that's, I know, I know I'm skeptical and, and a sort of willful

luddite, and I absolutely do want to wind the clock back in a good way. No, no, no, no, no, no,

Charles, you're bang on, you're bang on, you look at, look, the, the, the internet, when it was

originally conceived, was intended to be an unbreakable network, communications network, it was intended

to be utterly resilient with multiple paths from one place to another, and what they have done

for commercial reasons, mainly is, is turn it into something which is fragile as hell. Yeah, you

know, Cloudflare goes down, the whole internet goes down, Amazon goes down, the whole internet

goes down. On top of that, we've got cyber attack after cyber attack with people's personal

information being stolen. I was, I was listening to, I had the misfortune of having to be in the car

last night, for one reason or other, and the, and the radio was on, and, but nonetheless, I was

listening to something where they were talking about, I can't remember which country it was New

Zealand or somewhere, where, where a bunch of people in the country had signed up to some kind of

online therapy session thing, right? This, this is really addictive of, of where we're going.

We're taking what used to be an analog conversation between one human being and another human being

in the same room, where, okay, they might have recorded the conversation, but in some form, but

you're, you're every, every syllable that you utter was not in a form that could be stolen,

and they've moved into a digital realm where you're giving your innermost thoughts and innermost

secrets to some therapist on the other end of a digital call, and that's being recorded as,

as part of that digital call, and then the hackers come along and they take your entire medical

history, your social security number, all the rest, and they then send you an email saying,

give us X amount of money and Bitcoin within 48 hours, or you're, this, this, you're, every recording

that you've made with your therapist is going to go online. How is this, how is this a step forward

in our, in our culture and our society? How is this a step forward? This is a step backwards.

And, and, you know, the, the human to human contact, which, where you could have a conversation

with someone, that you passed that information to that person, that was in their mind's eye,

but it was nowhere else, and no one, no one could, could use it as a form of blackmail later,

and suddenly we're, we're setting ourselves up, you know, with, with this, this, move towards

digital idea and, and, and our, our entire lives, our entire identities becoming digital,

therefore the picking, and there's not a single corporation or government or organization

that can protect anybody from having that information stolen and being used against us.

This is, this is a bad direction we're heading in and we absolutely need to be going somewhere

else. So I'm going to say to your Charles, we need to bring back analog telephone lines,

and, and we need to bring back human to human contact, and we need to shove all this digital

rubbish in the bin where it should be. Yeah, I mean, and I think what, what, what I'm amazed by,

and I've just been talking about James Dyson, who's got a bit more money than I have, and he,

you know, he could be doing any number of these things. And the reason I cite him is because he's,

you know, he's obviously taken a relatively awakened view on farming, which he's clearly

decided is a very important thing to him. And these sorts of things must be obvious to him, for

example, that, you know, they should be obvious to anybody. I mean, you cannot fail. It doesn't

matter what your worldview is. Nobody can say that data is secure. It's just, you know, can't,

can't be said. It's, it's an objective truth. But why hasn't anybody yet, or at least has anybody yet,

tried to set something up that is analog and simple. And I mean, I know, sorry, obviously,

this has all been done. But I mean, it's either to, to take out gigs here, the other example,

of course, in the United Kingdom is the post office, which is being driven into the ground. And

that is a, that is a disaster. I think we mentioned that last week, sort of jokingly, you know,

hi, I'll keep going, because they have to deliver pharmaceutical products via the post office.

Hold on a second, but you're talking about Royal Mill, not the post office.

Yeah, okay. Sorry. I'm talking about Royal Mill. But, but, but anyway, the systems are there.

Is anybody going to try to salvage what's there and, and go back to a point where it actually

worked? Or is, you know, is, is there going to be a movement where somebody just snaps,

who's got billions and says, right, this is just hopeless. We need, you know, we do need a,

a proper robust analog communications. I mean, I don't know, I, is this, is this unrealistic?

Yeah. So, I mean, I've started doing more solutions orientated shows around tech. I don't

know if you saw a few weeks ago, I had Hakeem Anwar on. And I'm going to get him on more regularly,

because he offers, sort of non-lied diet solutions in the digital sphere. So he sent me

a laptop, right? But why this laptop is different is that it's, it's run on Linux. Now,

the average person doesn't know what Linux is, but it really is a solution to getting into a privacy

orientated space. So in other words, you can still work and do all your stuff, but you are a lot

more sovereign and a lot more secure digitally. It even has, it even has, now you get, don't, don't

need joke, but it has localized AI on it. But why that is different is that it's localized. So

it doesn't connect to the internet, it doesn't connect to a central database. It's run

purely off the machine. So you can, you can access, you know, libraries without worrying about

spyware and people invading your privacy. So they are ways to adapt very successfully.

Charles. I'm sorry, I'm, I'm going to have to push back on that just a little bit, right?

No, I've been using, I've been a Linux advocate since 1995. I've, I've, I've used it all

the way through since 1995 to, to know. And I think you've got to be very, very careful in what

you say about sovereignty and privacy and so on. Because if, if you're using your computer and

it's sitting in front of you and you're not connecting to anything, then that's one thing.

You can do a lot to mitigate the dangers of connecting to the internet using Linux.

That is absolutely true. But it's dangerous to think that just because I've got a Linux

computer on my desk and I've done a couple of things that I'm nice if this is not the case.

Yes. Because at the end of the day, it's not your personal computer that's the issue here.

The personal computer is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with the fact that in order

to interact with YouTube or in order to interact with the government or in order to interact with

Amazon, you have to do certain things. And using Linux is not going to stop you from having to do

those certain things. So it, you can reduce your footprint. You can make it much harder for

you to be tracked. You can make it almost impossible for you to be tracked perhaps. But at the

end of the day, as soon as you engage with a website that has an ad network on it, if

soon as you engage with an organization that requires you to verify your identity as I discovered

when I was preparing for Wednesday's news program. And I wanted to look at a tweet from the

Iranian foreign minister and X is now telling me I've got to verify my age. As soon as you do

that, you're having to give something to that corporation. So you know, Linux is a step. I'm not

saying that what your guest was saying was wrong. It is a step. But the bottom line here is,

if you really want to protect yourself, you've got to be willing to do with it. You've got to

be willing to, as I said, embrace inconvenience. Can't use YouTube because YouTube wants to be

to verify my identity or my age or X or any of these platforms can't engage with the government

digitally because I'm not going to sign up to one login. And therefore, I've got to sit for four

hours or six hours or eight hours on the telephone while nobody answers, right? These are the kinds

of decisions that we have to make. So yes, you can do a lot to reduce the danger, but you can't

eliminate it. And I think it's really important that people understand that as soon as you are

connecting to somebody else, you are inevitably going to have to give away something. And that's

where the danger lies. I'll add though that this Linux machine of mine is 100% secure. Why? Because

the battery is flat. And it came with an American plug. It came with an American plug. So I

can't judge it. So I've had to, this is a joke in your somewhere, but I had to order an American

to South African adapter from China. Yeah, yeah, brilliant. So sales pictures go. I've heard better.

So that machine is secure. I can tell you that. But I mean, Mike, your point is well made.

I mean, nothing is absolutely secure, but I don't think there's any harm which you've pointed out

in building walls and certainly making things more difficult. I mean, creating more gridlock is

a good idea also. How to present all of the only point of really making here is don't think,

don't give yourself a false sense of security. Security is something which is at every level.

And it's also something that even people that have been in technology for decades don't necessarily

understand. It's a very specialized field. And the average one of us isn't going to

get ourselves in a position where we're actually secure in this world. I think I think what we've

got to be doing is fighting for a world where that we don't have to have these kinds of concerns.

I think that's a pretty good note on which to come to a close, coming for landing. There's

a segue taking us all the way back to the beginning of the conversation. I'll catch up with you

guys next week. Thanks, John. Thanks. All right. Cool. Cheers. Bye.