Is Trump running scared of his own war?

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Chamba.

Jump in at chambacasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by mom.

CCNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino.

This is a global player, original podcast.

Mr. President, you've said the war is, quote,

very complete, but your defense secretary says,

this is just the beginning.

So which is it?

And how long should Americans be here?

I think you could say it both.

The beginning.

It's the beginning of building a new country.

But they certainly, they have no Navy.

They have no Air Force.

They have no anti-aircraft equipment.

It's all been blown up.

They have no radar.

They have no telecommunications.

And they have no leadership.

It's all gone.

That was Donald Trump last night at one of his golf courses

discussing the war in Iran.

And the thing about Donald Trump, he can both be inconsistent

in coherent and contradictory,

but yet be utterly clear about what he wants.

And it's clear he's worried of the war in Iran.

This may or may not have something to do with the fact

that yesterday the price of oil reached $120 a barrel.

The same day that Trump said that he thought

that the war is very complete.

A simple question.

Has Trump bottled it over Iran?

Welcome to the news agents.

It's John, it's Lewis.

And I suppose we've got used to the idea

that matters of war and peace

are most commonly discussed at one of Donald Trump's golf courses.

And so it was last night that he gave a news conference

that felt like he was trying to convince himself

as much as anybody else.

And there were times when it was rambling,

there were times when it was low energy,

there were times when it was low energy,

there were times when it was low energy,

there were times when it was bizarre.

But I think the through line, through all of it,

was this sense that he's taken fright

at what has happened to the oil price

and how that might transfer to ordinary Americans' lives.

And he's now thinking, oh Christ, time to stop this.

Gotta get out of it somehow.

And I'm getting ready to declare victory,

though what victory means is anyone's guess.

John, you and I said yesterday that we thought,

and we're not trying to sort of say that we're

so consistent with us.

No, it's not that, but the truth is

is that Trump is quite easy to predict.

And we said yesterday that the one thing,

perhaps the one thing that Trump has shown

sort of time and time and time again,

that he recognizes a true restraint on his power

and his freedom of action are basically market signals.

Usually, over the price of energy and oil

and the stock market, both of which

were in a state of extreme volatility yesterday,

particularly the price of oil.

And so what did he end up doing?

He made that press conference where he seemed

appeared to suggest, as we're saying,

that the war is very much complete or nearly complete

and lo and behold, the price of oil starts to stabilize.

Markets internalized it as precisely the idea

that Trump had been basically scared by them

into bringing the war into an early conclusion.

This was Trump, I think, yesterday.

At one of the, even by his standards,

the most confusing, the most rambling, and frankly,

the most downbeat, the most spirited,

the most punctured that I've seen him actually

for some time, exhausted, I think.

He's offered contradictory justifications for the war.

He's offered contradictory accounts for how it came about.

And he did all of that once again,

compressed into that press conference yesterday.

I think when you and I said yesterday

that he would get scared by the market sooner or later

and then just declare victory in short order,

I think you and I probably thought

that that would probably take place

over the course of the next week, not the next few hours,

but as ever with Trump, things happen

on double or triple or quadruple time.

And I think what yesterday was about was a clear signal

that he realizes, I think, on some level, that he lost control.

And I think on some level is perhaps regretting

at least an elements of this action.

I thought it was very interesting how he started to talk

about how many others had backed the idea,

had come up with the idea and had persuaded him of it,

including this exchange here where he talks about,

Steve Wickoff, his sort of foreign affairs guru,

Jared Krushner, his son-in-law,

and Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary,

or war secretary, listen to this.

The situation was very quickly approaching.

The point of no return in the United States

found that intolerable, in my opinion,

based on what Steve and Jared and Pete and others

were telling me, Marco, so involved,

that I thought that they were going to attack us.

I thought that if we didn't do this at the time we did it,

I think they had in mind to attack us.

So just think about that for a moment,

that they were about to attack us,

and they were very close.

In other words, they were close to getting a nuclear weapon,

which underscores what total bullshit it was

that we heard after the 12-day war last June,

when Trump said they had destroyed their nuclear ambitions

with those successful strikes at Fordo and other places

where there was a nuclear facility that Iran held.

So either he was talking absolute nonsense last June,

I think there is absolutely no evidence

to back up what Donald Trump said then.

And there was another point in the news conference,

and this is one of the points of contention

that will be re-litigated, I'm sure,

which is if the cruise missile that hit the school

killing 140 school kids,

and Donald Trump is saying,

well, that might have come from another country.

You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands

on a Tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school

on the first day of the war,

but you're the only person in your government saying this.

Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that

when he was asked standing over your shoulder

on your plane on Saturday.

Why are you the only person saying this?

Because I just don't know enough about it.

I think it's something that I was told

is under investigation,

but Tomahawks are used by others, as you know.

Numerous other nations have Tomahawks,

they buy them from us,

but I will certainly whatever the report shows,

I'm willing to live with that report.

Well, the only countries that have got

Tomahawk cruise missiles are America,

the British and the Australians.

I don't think we've been selling

Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Iranian regime,

which is what Donald Trump seems to be alleging.

And again, you just think,

there's no factual basis for any of this.

I sat there wondering,

is anyone taken in by this?

I mean, do the American?

I know Donald Trump is given a lot of latitude.

I know the mantra that we are to take him seriously

and not literally,

but this is over the stuff of war,

and you just feel, I don't buy any of this.

And at one point, he was asked by a reporter

that you promised the Iranian people

that you would help them.

He says, will I help them?

I'd like to if they can behave,

but they've been very menacing.

So again, something else that he's put forward

over the course of the last few weeks,

and a lot of the neocons in particular,

and the right-wing commentators,

have lectured the rest of us

about how much more caring they are

about the plight of the Iranian people,

which is profound and appalling,

and they've had to deal with his regime

for decade after decade,

this murderous Barbara's regime,

and then have portrayed Trump as the guy

who wants to finally liberate them

from the crushing yoke of the Ayatollah,

now replaced by his son, of course,

the 86 year old man,

replaced by a younger version of himself.

But in fact, it's very, very clear

that this isn't about the Iranian people.

Indeed, Trump has said throughout,

even in the run-up to the bombings.

He'd said throughout that if the Iranians had done what

he'd wanted,

the Ayatollah would still be in place now,

because he would have cut a deal.

So again, you know,

the endless mutating,

shape-shifting justifications of the war,

I think, basically, reaffirm the wisdom

of all of those, including Keir Starmer,

who were pretty skeptical about it from the first place.

So that bit, he said,

that kind of Q&A that you refer to there,

what about helping the Iranian people,

and he sort of said something like,

you know, if they behave themselves?

I thought he'd misunderstood the question.

I thought he was asking a question about the regime,

but it was just, I'm sorry,

it was just incoherent.

What he said, what does he think that the protesters

have been naughty in protesting against the regime?

No, I don't think, I just don't know what he meant.

It was one of those things where I just cannot fathom

what it is you're trying to say here, Mr. President.

But also, I mean, like,

just to go back to that thing where he said,

look, based on what Steve and Jared and Pete

and others were telling me,

Marco is also so involved,

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State,

I thought they were going to attack us.

Now, the way I see that is as follows,

there's only real two possible conclusions from that, right?

Which is that one, the four of them,

including these, you know, New York property developers

and a Fox News host,

are the genesis of this war and persuaded the president

that the Iranians were imminently

about to attack the United States.

Something that Trump himself told us, as you say, John,

was impossible only nine months ago

because they had, quote, obliterated

the Iranian nuclear threat.

So either they persuaded him of that obvious falsehood,

in which case he was basically being manipulated,

or they didn't really try and persuade him

and Trump is trying to shift and pass the buck

already probably perceiving that this is not gone

as he thought, i.e. Venezuela, mark two

and the political consequences are way worse.

He's already trying to shift the blame

and pass the buck as Truman famously said

he would never do onto those around him

in terms of the genesis of the war.

That's how I read that.

And I think that tells you something

about the psychology of Trump one way or the other.

Either he's been manipulated into something

that clearly, I think, was a mistake,

or he's already passing the buck.

So I think the manipulation,

I think the origin to this war are quite simple

to understand.

And they are who we should say, I did also that as well.

Yes, exactly.

And that is that Mossad probably had gathered

amazing intelligence on where the Iranian leadership

were going to be, what they were doing,

when they were due to meet and where and at what time,

the Americans were brought in on that intelligence.

They checked their own sources via the CIA,

found it to be true and thought, right,

let's take him out, roll the dice.

And they roll the dice and then he run fires back.

And it doesn't just fire back at Israel,

it fires at the Gulf States, it fires as a by John,

it fires at Cyprus, it fires at Turkey.

And suddenly you've got this spreading outwards

and you've got the state of Hormuz more or less closing.

And so America goes for more bombing,

and more bombing, and more missiles.

And so it goes on as it has done for the last 10 days

and shock horror, fuel prices have gone up.

And so what has started where Donald Trump thought,

oh, this is really simple.

We'll just take out the leadership

and just like in Venezuela, we'll get a new leadership

and there'll be a bit better.

No, the whole thing has been based on a miscalculation.

I think probably if you're Israel,

you're quietly satisfied that the neighbor

that had the power to really attack and destroy

via its proxies and via Iran itself has been weakened

very much so, but I don't know what America

has won from this.

Well, again, I think Israel, I agree.

I mean, on a short-term basis,

the Israeli government probably has the most to be happy

about this Netanyahu, probably has the most to be happy about.

With all of this, there are talks in Israel

of early elections.

Is Netanyahu thinks that in the immediate wake

of this, that elections were due in the autumn,

but there is talk, I read,

that Netanyahu might bring that forward to June or July

and then attempt to try and enjoy any kind of post-war haze

or sort of enjoy a sort of post-war glow

that you might get from that electorally.

I think there are some people who still think

that's relatively unlikely, but nonetheless.

It feels to me so often at the moment,

as if I'm seeing this in geopolitics

over the last 12 months or so, is that, you know,

we are reminded that we talk a lot about

the special relationship with the UK and the US.

There's only really one special relationship

and that's the US and Israel.

And in particular, under Trump,

we are seeing the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump,

which, you know, a lot of us thought

that Trump might use some of his muscularity,

which looked like it was possible in the early days

of the conflict with the ceasefire

to bring Netanyahu to here a little bit.

I think it's been shown that actually,

it's the other way around.

Time and time again, it is the usual,

your phrase on it is the Israeli tale,

which is wagging the American dog,

and not just the American dog, but the Western one.

I mean, the entire Western world,

the entire world, really, is being convulsed

as a result of the security needs of the Israeli state

as Netanyahu sees it.

Now, that might be legitimate or not legitimate,

but there can be no doubt that the way that Netanyahu

perceives the Iranian threat is driving so much of this.

Yes, look, Netanyahu is the most formidable political operator.

I mean, could anyone have imagined

that after October the 7th,

when the most shameful day in national security terms

for Israel, that Hamas was able to launch this murderous attack

in southern Israel and kill over a thousand Israeli

and take three or four hundred people hostage

in that dreadful, dreadful day,

that he would be back able to think about going to the country

early in a general election because this is my moment.

So, Netanyahu's ability to rebound is phenomenal.

Even if the last air strike is called off

by the time you listen to this podcast this evening,

we still don't know what the long-term implications

are going to be for the Gulf region.

Do Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar feel

that this has been a good operation by America

and it's improved the situation?

Or do they think that America has actually

led us down here, has kind of led us halfway up

and maybe it's time to re-evaluate our relationship with Iran.

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate our relationship

with Israel because, frankly, we had been getting closer

and maybe that's not a great place to be.

So, all these pieces are yet to settle.

The kaleidoscope has not kind of formed its shape yet.

And I just do think we don't know

what the consequences of this are going to be

and Donald Trump is just looking at the shortest

of shortest term thinking on this.

You know, what's the oil price?

Does this affect my prospects in the midterms?

Well, I mean, the thing is, of course,

is that Trump might declare victory and say that's it

and it is very complete, not you can be very complete,

but nonetheless.

But, of course, the thing is about a war

is that there are two parties to war.

Yeah.

So, Trump might say that it's over.

The Iranians might not agree that it's over

because the Iranians might think that right now,

yeah, they're back as against the war.

Yes, they've been degraded militarily,

but they might have some interest as the regime

in continuing to prosecute the war

and weakening the United States

in, as they've very successfully done,

spreading this conflict across the entire Middle East

and causing instability.

And I will just note this as well,

is that, look, if the aim of this,

let's just judge it on what Trump said

when this war began, which was,

he said it was about regime change.

Yeah, the Ayatollah is dead.

He's been replaced by his own son,

a young guy, as I say, version of himself.

And what have we seen on the streets of Iran

over the course of the last few days?

Yes, there's no doubt.

Huge as there always has been.

Distaste for hatred of the regime.

There've also been,

though the hardliners, the supporters of the regime,

turning out for the Ayatollah in the wake of his death,

you know, showing their support

for the new Supreme Leader.

I think there was a clear, again,

people who know around better than I do that you read.

They will say, you know,

there is a clear possible outcome of all of this,

which is that, yes, this is a regime

which is blooded, but it is not bowed.

And in fact, it has probably been fortified in place

to some extent by the Americans and by the Israelis

and by the aerial bombardment

because they have been able,

as so often happens in these situations

with aerial bombardments and with the ability to portray,

you know, foreigners trying to destroy you.

They have been able to wrap themselves in the flag

and be able to say that they are the true embodiment

of Iran and its people.

And of course, there'll be loads and loads of people

within Iran who disagree with that and continue to hate them.

But the domestic consequences of this in terms

of the regime's own standing remain unknowable

and there is a timeline where if anything,

they have been strengthened in place.

Who knows what would have happened

if the Ayatollah had just died

and what effect that would have had

without American intervention?

We'll never know now.

Yeah, and, you know, as you say, Louis,

Iran has to play ball as well here

and say, okay, you stop firing, we'll stop firing.

What if they don't,

what if they still threaten the straits for moves

through which 20% of the world's oil and LNG flows?

Well, there ain't gonna be a deal now, is there?

I think we can say that for sure.

Yes, maybe there wouldn't have been any way

but we'd say there definitely wouldn't be now.

So I think from that point of view as well,

do you think, well, have we ended uncertainty?

I mean, look, Donald Trump probably did

what he wanted to do last night,

which was to lower the oil price by the words that he said,

that, you know, we've achieved more or less

totally our war aims and this operation succeeded

and therefore we can move on.

But I still think there is,

this has still has so much uncertainty to play out.

You said earlier, Lewis, about Starma

and how this vindicates the position he took.

And if we are to say that there is a victory

for Britain in this, there is one area

where I think we've been made to look ridiculous

and that is in terms of our defense forces

and the fact that HMS Dragon is still in the naval dockyard

at Portsmouth, still unable to leave Port,

despite this being over a week now,

since we said we would deploy.

And you look at what the French are doing

in terms of the frigates that they have deployed

and talking about escorting, shipping through

the Straits of all moves.

We look pretty small and inconsequential

and that is not to decry or diminish the heroics

of our air crews who are out there

and trying to take out Iranian missiles and drones.

You're not going to be bad enough.

I know, but look at it.

I mean, it does look like our defense force.

You know, Britain rules the waves.

Are you having a laugh?

We can't even launch one ship to go and protect Cyprus.

Well, I agree.

I think the most consequential questions for Starma

remain about and the government remain about the preparedness

which just seems to have been flawed.

I mean, I do think that I said what I was saying yesterday,

I do think that with, you know, with every passing day,

the decision by Starma to delay access to bases,

politically has just been so sound.

Not least because I think that there's a truth is

that what you can actually say is that, actually, in the end,

Starma gave the Americans most of what they wanted anyway,

but I mean, this sounds a bit grubby, but politically,

he can say, I put my hands, I just said.

He appears more against it in some senses

than practically speaking that he is.

Now, that's had some cost in every direction

because Trump has clearly been pissed off,

but he's way less pissed off than he would have been

if we just said no access to the bases at all

under any circumstances as critics or Starma's left would have done.

So I think that, you know, and Starma, as I was saying yesterday,

doesn't own any of the economic damage that will happen,

which he would have done if he had been seen to back Trump more.

So I think that, you know, politically speaking,

at least I can see why he and his cabinet,

and it seems his cabinet will particularly

stride on this, were absolutely completely right

to be very wary of the political consequences of this,

not least because what is the gain for them anyway?

As we're discussing, what is the gain?

One other thing, just in terms of the geopolitical gain,

you talk about the oil price, John,

what happened yesterday as part of Trump's effort

to try and stabilize the oil price?

Well, he said that the US, the Trump administration,

will lift sanctions on some oil-producing countries

to keep energy prices down amid the US

in Israel's war on Iran,

which principal country would you call back?

Let me guess, is it a big country?

It's a big country.

Eastern Europe, yeah, and the rest,

Eurasia, Russia.

He had a three hour conversation with Vladimir Putin,

and after that conversation,

that is Trump, Trump administration announced

that they were lifting certain sanctions,

which have been in place since the start of the Ukraine war.

The big short-term winner out of all of this

is Vladimir Putin.

Another reason, another thing I'm sure,

which would have been weighing on the minds

of the British cabinet,

when they were discussing this a couple of weekends ago.

And you talk about the position that Starmer got himself in,

which, you know, and you say,

there is political upside for him

to have shown a certain reluctance towards the war.

What about the internal politics in America?

Because, of course, at the moment,

you've got Trump there, who's got, you know,

three years to go until he's out of office,

and you've got Marco Rubio,

hoping to succeed him, the Secretary of State,

and you've got JD Vance, the Vice President.

And Trump was asked this question

at his news conference yesterday.

Are there any points of disagreement between yourself

and your Vice President

when it comes to US action in Iran?

I don't think so, no.

No, we get along very well on this.

He was, I would say, philosophically,

a little bit different than me.

I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going,

but he was quite enthusiastic,

but I felt it was something we had to do.

I didn't feel we had a choice.

If we didn't do it, they would have done it to us.

So I guess what you're going to have now

is JD Vance thinking,

I've probably played this quite smartly as well,

because Rubio is the most closely,

identified with the war and JD Vance,

we understand a little more skeptical.

Yeah, I don't think that Vance will be remotely unhappy,

given what we know about the inclinations

on these matters of the megabase

that he is known to have been skeptical about this.

Someone else who's proven to be more skeptical

than perhaps when he started, at least,

is very interesting to have watched

this over the last couple of weeks.

We start off with this drumbeat of war,

particularly from the right of politics,

and on the right-wing papers.

It's very interesting to note that reform

have been on a bit of a journey on this,

where initially, I mean, I interviewed people

in reform that first weekend on LBC

about whether or not they backed the war,

had Richard Tyce telling me that it was disgraceful

that Starmer had not sort of fully backed the Americans,

and I note that since then,

Robert Generick, a Nigel Farage,

have made it clear that they think it's probably

a bad idea to be getting involved

in these foreign conflicts.

This is a Nigel Farage talking about this just this morning.

Keeping British people safe and secure

is any government's number one priority,

but if you can't even agree

a position amongst the leadership,

how do expect people to trust your national security?

Well, I tell you what,

given that we can't even send a raw naval vessel

to defend British sovereign territory,

and an RAF base, we certainly don't have the capability

to offer anything of any value to the Americans

or the Israelis.

So defending the base,

recognising the catastrophe

that is now the Royal Navy,

and by the way,

President Macron is really, frankly,

showing the humiliating state that we've sunk to today

with his very decisive actions

and his intention to help clear.

Quite remarkable, really,

turnaround in the space of a fortnight.

I think part of that is because

of the economic consequences which have started to flow.

I think part of it is because

even they have recognised

that the aims of the war are extremely unclear,

and also there's a certain political gravity

that has been a complete mismatch

between where a lot of elite political commentary

has been in this country,

a lot of where the papers have been

who have been deeply bellicose,

Starmer being accused of being a coward

on all this sort of stuff,

and actually where public opinion is,

something that, for Arjun particularly,

is usually very good at being able to sus out and assess,

actually the truth is

is that public opinions we were discussing last week

is highly, highly skeptical of this war.

In fact, since the polling started

at the beginning of the war

that 10 days ago or so,

it is hard and I think by another 10 points against Trump,

and whether we should be supporting him on it.

Can I give you some business news now from Florida?

Please do.

I just thought we'd have a little segment.

Are we invested in something?

Well, not me personally,

but there is a company called Power Us,

which makes drones.

Donald Trump has announced that

there can no longer rely on Chinese drones,

and he wants to support

the growth of an American drone industry,

which is understandable in the US.

Well, there's a company called Power Us,

which has now got a merger going on

with a publicly traded golf course holding company.

Do you want to have a guess

who the directors are of this golf course trading company?

Is it Jeremy Corbyn?

No, it's Eric.

Is it Zara Sultana?

No, it's Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

So they're going to be bidding for government contracts

to produce drones.

And the CEO of Power Us has said to the Wall Street Journal

that the drone market is certainly going to grow faster

than say golf courses are.

I think that's fair.

I think that is a market insight in fairness.

He can't knock it.

He can't knock it.

Where's that conflict of interest?

Oh, look, it's getting bigger.

So it is.

Oh, they've got a Pentagon contract up,

and we've got company called Power Us.

Does anyone know anything about it?

They seem very good.

I'm sure they'll do very, very well.

We'll be back just after this.

Woo.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Jamba.

Jump in at JambaCasino.com.

Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group.

Void we're prohibited by law.

CTNC, 21 plus sponsored by JambaCasino.

From a range of trusted voices and award-winning journalists.

Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari.

It's time to get to your calls.

Find out the latest news and hear every side of the story.

They have no Navy, they have no Air Force,

and they have no leadership.

We could call it a tremendous success right now,

or we could go further, and we're going to go further.

There is absolutely no pleasure to be derived

from predicting almost to the letter

how this sorry saga would unfold.

The conflict in the Middle East.

Follow it live on LBC.

Listen on our free global player app, or the LBC app.

The News Agents.

Right, we just thought we'd bring this to your attention,

discuss it a little bit.

We've talked a lot on the show.

I would say particularly over the last 18 months or so

of the what started as shifting,

but I think it's fair to say is now galloping

over to the window around questions of race and ethnicity.

And just a reminder, we talked about the over to the window,

we're talking about basically what is kind of acceptable

to say in politics.

The sort of ideas which are deemed able to contest

not beyond the pale.

And we have talked a lot about how quickly

those parameters have shifted.

How once completely fringe and conspiratorial ideas,

things like the great replacement theory, for example,

which were confined to the outer extremities

of the solar system of British politics.

Now sit at its very heart, particularly

on the right of British politics.

How these ideas have been normalized.

I don't think there could have been a better example

of that process than something that was seen on GB news,

I think, last night.

Just listen to this, this is a former consultant one time

to Boris Johnson, a man called Thomas Corbett Dillon,

who had some thoughts about the impact of mass migration

to the UK, just listen to the language that he uses.

Such as GB news, I'm sure.

And I think it's so funny that they seem to think

that GB news is this extremist channel

and I'd love for them to turn on Fox News once in a while

and see what actually, you want to hear

some extremist news, you're not getting on GB news.

GB news is actually really impartial

and I'm really good about this.

But yeah, I mean, why are these people coming?

Why do we have to listen to them?

And so they're the ones that say social cohesion,

it's going to be probably attacking the right wing

in the country, it's similar to what happened in Germany

where they've basically banned all the right wing parties

and you can't support them.

I'm sure they'll be going off to the restore party.

I'm sure reform will get some attacks too.

So yeah, I think you're right.

And it is interesting in America, as you say,

they don't really have as many isolated communities.

You know, in Birmingham and England,

you've got the Muslims, the Basis just live in there.

They all speak the same language,

they live in their own little world.

You don't get that in America when people move to this country.

They tend to integrate pretty well.

You kind of embrace America.

There's not been much embracing of British values

among these communities and I hate this idea

that England is just like a no man's land.

It's like, no, there is an indigenous population

who have lived on that island for thousands of years.

And if this was happening in any other place around the world,

everyone would be defending and saying,

well, there's a genocide happening in this island

because it is being taken over by different people

that are not indigenous to that land.

And I think that's a sad thing to happen.

So I think...

Genocide isn't a bit of a harsh word.

I mean, what grits are still the majority in the UK?

Yeah, currently give it 10 years, give it 20 years.

I mean, yes, if this was happening,

if there was an island of indigenous people in the Pacific

and all of a sudden a bunch of white people moved there

and we're having babies and the number one name

in that country became Tom.

All of a sudden the UN would be there and saying,

this is outrageous, that's an indigenous island

those people have rights.

But doing to England and no one seems to care,

I think that's a real shame.

What the actual fuck?

I mean, I'm flabbergasted, the idea, well, genocide,

isn't that a little bit harsh, a little bit far?

Well, how many...

How many... I mean, a little bit far?

I mean, how many tens of thousands of indigenous brits

have lost their lives in this slaughter that has taken place

which seems to have passed me by?

Maybe there's a conspiracy by all the conventional news channels

that we haven't been covering the mass murder

of Britons on the streets by foreign invaders.

We're sort of joking, but I mean, it's genuinely offensive.

I mean, not only that, but I mean,

I'm just surprised that we are at a point

where that sort of idea can be deemed respectable

and can be deemed to be part of the normality of debate.

I'm all for debate about all sorts of ideas.

I'm not one of these people who believes

that debate should be shut down and so on.

But for a channel regulated by off-com

to broadcast the idea that mass migration

equals genocide with the most gentle of pushbacks,

I think does show the extent to which

so much of the conversation on the right of British politics

in particular has become deeply, deeply radicalized.

That wasn't just great replacement theory thrown in there.

I mean, that was lurking at the very center of it.

They didn't talk about it in those terms,

but it was right at the center.

But then to go one further and say

that if this were happening in any other part of the world,

this would be a genocide is just the most extraordinary,

extraordinary radicalization and it is dangerous.

It's dangerous because it precludes the idea,

precludes the idea that people who are moving here

and become British and their children can become British.

It suggests that they are an invader

and they are trying to destroy native British culture

for which, by the way, despite the fact of course

we talk about it all the time,

there are pockets of the country

where there are integration problems

and you can talk about that.

We shouldn't be afraid of that.

But to suggest that that represents genocidal intents

is grossly extreme and it is grossly offensive.

I just hate the misuse of the English language like that

that you can describe immigration as a genocide.

I can't just actually give you the actual definition.

Yeah, do it.

Genocide is the deliberate systematic destruction

in whole or in parts of a national ethnic,

racial or religious group defined by international law

as specific acts including killing,

causing serious harm or creating the conditions

for physical annihilation.

I don't think that includes work visas just last time I checked.

It's beyond, isn't it?

It's beyond and people calling something a holocaust,

something a genocide.

Look, there are some terrible things

that happen in the world that have happened in the world

that rightly are in a category of their own

and the word genocide is being considered now

about whether that is an appropriate term

to use for what happened in Gaza

and there is a legal argument that is playing itself out

over that.

There is what happened in the Second World War

and the holocaust and the murder of six million Jews.

There are things that there is what happened in Rwanda.

There are terrible, terrible things.

But don't try and enlighten what has happened there

with an immigration problem that we've got in Britain.

And as you say, Lewis,

GB News is regulated by off-com.

Let me gently say that if that had happened

on the BBC or ITV or on Sky,

then it'd been hell to pay.

And yet we just shrug and say,

oh well, it's GB News, there are different rules

that apply, the same rules apply.

And you know, I like the fact that

this clown Thomas Corbett-Dillard

is holding GB News up as this ACME of impartiality.

I think the point about Gaza is also very well put.

I mean, look, there are people who get very angry

that more mainstream media organizations don't talk

more defensively about the genocide in Gaza.

I mean, I don't think that you will hear too much

about the idea of genocide in Gaza on GB News.

And yet I think we can say that if there is great credibility

to the idea of genocide in Gaza

or what is happening in the UK,

I think we can pretty, pretty safely say

that there is greater credibility to the idea

that the Israeli government have committed genocide in Gaza

than the British Home Office inviting care workers

or doctors or nurses or engineers or students

amounts to genocide in the UK.

It's just a fantasy, it's this dark fantasy

that somehow English identity or British identity

is being curtailed or destroyed.

It's not that what these people can't actually stand,

what these people can't stand is problems

that exist notwithstanding,

we ought not to be too do aware about it,

but what these people can't stand is that generally speaking

English and British identity remains strong.

Actually, very, very often as you've seen

in immigrant community, after immigrant community,

they are absorbed into the UK

and they become deeply British.

And actually, when they do really identify

as deeply British or deeply English,

for example, like Rishisunak or Sadeet Khan,

these bastards, these idiots, tell them, turn around

and tell them that you're not British and you're not English.

So, which is this?

Because what they're actually saying, of course,

is that they actually have a deeply ethno-nationalist vision

of what Englishness and Britishness is.

What they can't stand and can't abide

is that these people with brown faces or black faces

or with religions that aren't Christian

actually deeply identified as being British and English

and it fries their brains.

And so then they start talking about nonsense,

like genocide or replacement and conspiracy

because it's the only way that it can get through

their dull, dead synapses.

We'll be back in just a moment.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to chambacacino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group,

voidware prohibited by law, CTSC's, 21-plus,

sponsored by ChambaCacino.

The news agents.

And just before we go, I gave you some business news

from Florida about golf courses to drones

and the Trumps getting in on the act.

We're now going to give you some business news

about one Nigel Farage.

I'm SCMBC.

Well, I'm beating.

I've got a diversified.

Yeah, we know where he's going.

Yeah, exactly.

This involves Nigel Farage and quasi-quarting.

This is quasi-quarting.

I'm the executive chairman of STAC.

We all know that Bitcoin Treasury companies

are relatively new.

The next stage of growth requires

institutional credibility.

What we're building at STAC is a model template

for how these companies should evolve.

And it's very important that we manage

to build strategic partnerships and alliances

to really push this journey forward.

I'm delighted to announce the participation

of Nigel Farage and blockchain.com.

Nigel Farage is a great political disruptor.

But beyond all of that, he's someone who's championed Bitcoin

over many years.

And we're delighted to have him already

blockchain.com has established itself

at the center of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Made $3,000 of transactions in its history.

And we're delighted to welcome him.

I'm going to wake up one of these days.

Honestly, I'm going to wake up.

Is that real?

We're taking investment advice from Britain's worst

chancellor there.

Just it's a very glossary produced ad.

And you'd have thought that someone, and particularly

quite equating with his start first and eaten scholar,

would have known how to spell credibility.

I mean, that is the best bit.

Red-daw ability.

Yeah, I can't completely idea, is it?

On a very serious note, it is just quite an interesting thing.

I just can't remember any equivalent

of a company advertising a sort of leading British politician

and then peanut, but investing in a business,

particularly a politician who is leading in the polls

and tells us that they're likely to be Britain's next prime minister.

I mean, the obvious potential conflict of interest in that,

even if no wrongdoing is involved,

the obvious potential conflict of interest

is profound normally when politicians are preparing for office,

they divest themselves at their investments.

They put them into blind trust, or whatever it happens to be.

I just can't remember anything quite like it.

Well, there is a through line, isn't there?

From the Trumps and going from golf course management

into drone manufacturing, and crypto.

Now, crypto Trumps have become huge investors in crypto

and done very, very well out of it.

No one has shown how to monetize power better than Donald Trump.

I would say in all human history.

And here we have Nigel Farage, apparently a key investor

in this crypto venture being spearheaded by none other than quasi-quartic.

I can see them.

The Farage would be better.

I can see him selling gold coins, you know,

those ads you get on sky.

Sort of only $5,000 have ever been produced

of these special King Charles Memorial coins,

or whatever it happens to be, you know.

I think you need to diversify what you're watching, Lewis.

I can see you to the plug in those coins.

When Michael Burke finally decides to stop doing it,

I can absolutely see just for 99 pounds,

this five pound coin can be yours.

Who's the mug?

Not John Sopil.

We'll see you tomorrow.

Bye-bye.

This has been a global player, original production.