Stay Vigilant and Do Not Lose Focus in 2026 — Weekly Banter | Jerm Warfare

Hey, for the first time in 2026, Charles and Mike, it's nice to chat to you guys again.

Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Yes.

What is the road map for UK Column this year?

Good question.

I thought you were going to ask where the rest of the world was going.

You know, baby stips, Charles.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I think to be able to answer that, we have to look at 2025 for UK Column as well as the rest of the world.

I think our feeling from 2025 is that it was a really big success,

really big operational success because we set out to do a whole lot of new things

and do more of some of the same things and this is a great example.

You know, a year ago we weren't doing this and now we are and we've added plenty of other things as well.

I think the main thing, obviously the consideration, less so for me,

because I don't have the legacy in terms of time that Mike and obviously Brian have

been involved right in the start, but clearly the concern with anything like this,

whenever you've been doing one thing very well for a period of time,

is the moment you consider changing other things,

is there going to be a knock on effect and as far as I'm concerned,

no, I mean, you know, the core elements of what UK Column is all about,

what UK Column does and what UK Column delivers.

Well, actually, I think that's also been enhanced and improved.

So, I mean, my perspective, from the inside, but also attempting to be viewing objectively

from the outside is that what we're doing is both better and more,

and that's fantastic and so 2026 is going to be to carry on doing both of those things.

That's my sort of nutshell view.

Now we shouldn't forget, this is the 20th birthday this month of UK Column.

So one big event this year, which is in September, the 18th,

is the 18th, 19th and 20th is our 20th birthday party,

and so we'll be announcing details of that very soon.

Well, to answer your Segway question, Charles, about the world,

so let me read something that Trump said just before the end of 2025,

it says, you know, we had no wars for four years, we had no wars,

except we defeated ISIS, we defeated ISIS in record time, we had no wars.

They said, he will start a war, I'm not going to start a war, I'm going to stop wars.

And then it goes on, Mr. President, do you have a news resolution?

And then he said, peace, peace on earth.

Three days later, he sent 150 fighters to Venezuela.

And a whole bunch of people died.

Now, many of the, of the mega folks say, oh, there was no war.

That was, that was a, what's the word they use?

An operation, an extraction?

Yes.

I don't even know where to start with that, John, because, because, you know,

we are undoubtedly in a different, a different situation at the moment.

I mean, frankly, aside from what's going on in the United States,

externally, or with the United States externally,

and the fact that they are trampling all over international law,

it's also what's going on in the United States internally.

And, you know, lots of people are rightly concerned about immigration into, into countries.

And the effect that that's happening, having on many countries.

But Trump has unleashed a reinvigorated government agency known as ICE.

These people have set themselves up as a paramilitary organization.

They run around and unmarked vehicles.

They don't wear uniforms. They are fully masked up.

They're heavily armed.

And they're picking people up off the streets in something that, you know, really should not be.

This is all happening outside of the normal judicial process.

It's happening to United States citizens as well as the people that have come into the country potentially illegally.

But, you know, this is happening in a way that is reminiscent of the behavior of certain countries in the 20s and the 30s.

And, you know, the fact that the fact that people might feel that migration is an issue that has to be dealt with

shouldn't really be giving a past of this kind of behavior.

Because, you know, if, if, you know, the old, the old poem that's always, you know, it's always brought onto these circumstances.

But it's absolutely right.

Because if any government, any regime on the planet is prepared to behave in a particular way with a minority group or people that they don't like,

well, it's very, very easy to find yourself in a position that you're not liked by the government.

And so if they're going to do it to them, they're absolutely going to do it to you as well.

And we should be from 2026 deciding what principles we stand for set aside the specific issues involved.

What are the principles that we can agree about and, you know, live and campaign by those principles rather than by

letting anybody get away with anything just because we happen to not agree with, with the target of their action.

It's, it's really, really dangerous.

What's going on in the United States because it is a step along a road, which doesn't end in a good place.

And we're not far behind in the UK and the EU.

I mean, Charles, you were saying about repercussions.

And I mean, it's ridiculous to think that whether or not you are arresting, quote unquote, a dictator, there will be repercussions.

And it's not even about that.

I mean, Venezuela should be left alone.

You shouldn't, you shouldn't have license to just attack other countries.

And I mean, Trump is now saying it's about Greenland also.

Here's, yeah, I mean, I think I would say well before we start looking at meddling in other countries.

I think attacking anything or any one has repercussions is connotations.

And I think that's the, that is the massive obstacle that we've sort of leapt over.

It's like, I'm sure, I dare say they've all said it at one point.

But I think Stalin is most off-quated saying that one death is a tragedy and a million is a statistic.

And I think this is what has happened in that the actions, in fact, on Wednesday's news program, Mike was talking about the several effects, sort of psychological effects on people.

One of them being shot in the, sorry, shot the door in the face thing, which is where you're aiming for a particular thing.

But what you put out there is so much beyond what you're expecting that by the time the person accepts it, they think it's completely reasonable.

I might not have summarized that exactly in the way that you would articulate, Mike, but you can explain it better in a minute.

But the point is that when you see actions conducted via a state that are so outrageous, and in a way, if we don't talk about the specifics or what may happen as a result of Venezuela,

but we just simply deal with the fact that one country has, as you say, just charged into another and just said, right, well, yeah, we'll just do this.

It means that you look so far beyond all the very small scale, completely inhuman interactions that are conducted the entire time by all sorts of government and non-governmental agencies, not just in America.

I mean, this has been happening for years in many, many countries.

And I think this is, to me, this reminds me very much of what was happening at the beginning of 2020.

And it wasn't necessarily an interference from one country to another, but it was countries beginning to set the conditions to be able to interfere with their populations

in a way that they absolutely should never have been able to do, should never have done.

And it's simply the inhumanity of it that is quite remarkable.

And then, and now, you know, 60 years on, you listen to Pete Hegseth, for example, who just sounds, I mean, if he wasn't the Secretary of State for War, or Secretary of War, or whatever he calls himself,

then he'd probably be banged up because the way in which he talks is so, it is so unbelievably alarming and devoid of any sort of, yeah, I mean, humanity again is the word I think that I would have to choose.

It's completely remarkable, but what I mean is that by putting all this stuff out though, it seems that anything less than that, you know, if you're not being sort of shot bombed, gag tied up, beaten, whatever, then, you know, well, everything else is absolutely fine then.

And that's not the case at all. The lower level interactions.

And, you know, look at a lot of the, I mean, I'm not for one instant trying to suggest that sort of, you know, well, actually maybe the worker gender was right.

But when you look at some of the sweeping changes that the Trump administration has made in the past year or so, and look at actually what the consequences have been just because it has been sort of, you know, one day it was like this.

And then the following day wasn't that an example of that. Let's say USAID and the situation in northern Mozambique, which has been very unstable for a number of years now, no one's really quite sure why I may have mentioned this before, but, but a lot of funding was cut literally like that.

And, you know, one may not have agreed with the reason for the funding in the first place. And I'm sure there were all sorts of, you know, nefarious plots and plows and everything else and blah, blah.

But the fact is that an awful lot of, let's say, you know, sort of innocent civilians were effectively caught up in that micro economic effect of there being funding in the first place. And then that was stopped.

And so people who are miles away from Donald Trump and have, you know, nothing to do with him. Frankly, I've had their lives profoundly altered by what is effectively a decision that's completely devoid of any sort of humanity. There's no, there's no regard for the consequences of it. So I think those are the sorts of things that get completely forgotten about when we talk about, you know, yeah, and then we're just going to we're going to obliterate them with nuclear weapons.

And it's as though anything below that threshold is fine.

Just coming back to the Greenland thing for a second. I mean, that whole situation, if it wasn't so serious, would be absolutely hilarious because, you know, Trump saying, well, we need Greenland because we're not going to have Russia as a neighbor.

Well, Alaska, you know, it's, it's, this is, this is just, it's insanity. But what a lot of people have forgotten.

Well, a lot of people have forgotten is if you remember back a few months, he was talking about Canada becoming the 51st did.

Yes. And I think it's Canada is the target here because because what he's doing is encircling Canada. If I was living in Canada, I'd be getting very nervous at this point.

Right. So we've got Alaska, the United States to South and Greenland to the east and Canada is left fully encircled more or less.

And so he's definitely wanting to have control of the entire North American content content.

The question is, is he also wanting control of the entire South American continent? I think that is absolutely the goal.

They're talking about the Western hemisphere. They're talking about their their hemisphere. So I think that's, that's absolutely on the cards.

In the meantime, of course, you know, we're, we're staring down the barrel of further military operations this time in Iran with Britain and others closing embassies and removing staff from Iran and Israel actually in preparation for whatever the United States has planned.

In the meantime, Trump's saying, well, it looks like the Iranians are not going to execute anyone after all. So, so you know, he's publicly suggesting that the requirement to take some kind of military action has passed for the for the time being anyway.

But of course, he could say that in one breath and hit the button on the next. So, you know, it's, it's he is behaving outside of international norms outside of international law, behaving like the world's bully boy and taking the attitude, well, you know, we've got a trillion dollar a year defense budget.

We can do whatever we like. And of course, in Britain, it's, it's not, you know, we're, we're making significant preparations for major conflict as well, because the news just died is that we're extending the time that reservists are required or, you know, what is it?

What is the retirement date for reservists, 55 Charles, not going to be 65, something like that. So, so you know, although we're sort of typically half baked about things were clearly moving in a direction.

And frankly, I don't really understand why there isn't a heck of a lot more pushback from the general public on it than there is.

I mean, do you think I agree it is confounding, isn't it? Do you think Trump just makes it up as he goes along? Or do you think he's pretty smart?

Or do you think he's being directed? I think it can be both. I think it can absolutely be both.

I'm sorry to what I mean is that I think he, he understands, he understands the, the people around him, those who are basically who know that they're in a situation of complete mutual dependence.

Hexith, for example, there is no possible way he would be able to do what he does without Trump as president. Equally, Trump can't, can't have these absolutely absurd sort of, you know, expressions of, of lunacy without people like Hexith to, to, to do the, the sort of the hard yards.

Hexith, getting out there and, and telling everyone that they're, you know, they're all going to war and peace through strength and all that sort of stuff. So though, I think, I think he understands very well, the people around him, and, and his, his voting base as well.

So I think, I think that, that is a massive,

an enabler of being able to do what you want. But I think also he, so he is, he is sharp. I'm not saying that he's planned all this to the end of the degree and that he's following some sort of logical sequence.

But what I mean is that whenever he does do whatever it is, whether it is completely off the wall and whether he's only decided it within the last 10 seconds.

He knows that, that the way he articulates it, the way he describes it will work within the sort of inner circle of people he has around him and, by and large, the, the voting base.

And, and this is this exact point in some sentences came up on news extra last week. We're talking about the consequences of the action in Venezuela.

And Vanessa was talking about how actually, you know, the American administration is not really going to get what, what they appear to have wanted out of it and the same thing.

And while I absolutely take her point about this, my point was yes, but no one has actually stuck head above the carpet and said you just can't do that.

That's just not, no, it's just not on. So the point is that Trump has demonstrated not just to himself, but to the rest of the world that he can on the one hand say that he's playing for peace in Russia Ukraine.

And, you know, they're not to do that. They're not to do this. Whilst on exactly the same moment, make an extra territorial incursion into a foreign land and scoop up the president and his wife and no one says anything.

So he say he's just, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they come away with nothing. If he has to have Maduro back and any of that, because he can now spin it to his advantage and say, yes, well, this is my conscious choice to do that.

I'm now going to decide, you know, waste time. Actually, I thought I was going to get this at the other. I don't want it. And this goes back to it. It's just saying everything's just very, very simple.

And I mean, you know, on a sort of lighthearted, no, it does, it's ridiculous. He, he seems, it seems like his entire, the sort of basis for not just his character, but his, his sort of ability as a politician is just based on having played two board games his whole life, you know, from childhood, monopoly and risk.

It's like to him everything just looks like that. You know, you either, you either buy it or you attack it. And that's it. That's, that's, that's how it works.

But I mean, how much of it is Trump and how much of it is actually from higher up? I mean, in a way is Trump not just a placeholder.

I think that, I think there are plenty of people around him that know how to play him like a fiddle. He has an ego, the size of the planet. It's a very fragile ego.

And so, you know, I think also he doesn't have, I think it probably has an attention span of a, of a mute.

And he, is that long or short? Well, I'm not sure. But anyway, you know, the point is, the point is he is, I don't disagree with that.

I didn't think that Charles said there. But I think, I think there's, there's definitely, he's definitely being played.

And in, in many ways. But what's fascinating to me as well is that, at least one of the suggestions that he's being played

is how the, although the rhetoric from the UK and the EU is still one off, well, we can't rely on Trump. And so we've got to get our own stuff together.

You know, what I was going to say there, but, but, you know, they're not criticizing him, which I find very fascinating because they were absolutely criticizing him for every opportunity in the past.

So, so, you know, that he is, they may say on the, you know, in one breath, though, we support international law, but, you know, we understand why Trump did this and we supported in principle and all this kind of stuff.

So, so he's, he's, he's been given a pass by the rest of the G7.

And I think that, that should probably tell us quite a bit about who's helping drive this, this agenda that's coming out of the United States.

I was having a conversation a few days ago about him to some classic quote unquote conservatives. And they, they fall into the trap, Mike, they fall into the trap because it's Trump.

He knows what he's doing and they literally say, he's going to save us. He's going to change the world for the better. I literally heard those words.

And, and I wonder, like, you know, maybe we need to have the COVID era again, you know, just to rattle and shake some of these people.

I think the COVID era is maybe was maybe part and parcel of why people are thinking this way. People find that experience extremely disturbing, extremely scary in many cases.

And what they're dying for is someone to come along and save the day. And Trump said many of the right things at the right time to, to surf that wave of, of support.

And so it becomes very difficult and to have an objective rational discussion about him because, you know, this, this phrase Trump derangement syndrome was appeared.

Anybody that criticizes Trump is, is either woke or deranged. And now we're hearing, now we're hearing, you know, forage derangement syndrome or reform derangement syndrome being bandied about it.

And then we've, we carried a video clip of Alex Carp on Wednesday's news program. I think it was, it was kind of always him where the interviewer was, was talking about, you know, Israel derangement syndrome.

So, you know, this is, this is the new tactic for simply shutting down any, any attempt to have an objective conversation about what somebody's doing. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not.

Trump and his entire financial support base is the billionaire class. It's the same people that are pushing digital ID and AI and all the kinds of things that the people that came out the other side of COVID as a sort of freedom advocate are claiming to fight against.

But, but they can't, they don't seem to be able to separate Trump from, you know, they can't, they can't grasp the fact that he and everybody around him, all his financial support base is the same people that are pushing the types of agendas that they're fighting against.

So, so this, this cognitive dissonance, I don't, I just can't get to grips with because, you know, anybody that highlights that will get attacked.

Have you seen the same choice?

The same choice.

I mean, I think I'm from a, from a British perspective, I mean, it's been made very, very stark in the last couple of days because the equivalent and I'm not making a direct comparison, of course, but, but like Mike refers to the equivalent in the United Kingdom of the

the, the, the, the night on the white charger, who will save us all is Nigel Farak, which we share with his at the moment, his reform UK political party.

And of course, I can understand exactly why people are keen that there is a solution to the problem that doesn't require wholesale breakdown of

the system as we know it. So, so if there were a solution through the ballot box and we could just rock up at the general election and sort it out all then, you know, that, I mean, that would be so much easier.

So, I can totally understand why the sort of traditional route of thinking, well, you know, Labour, absolutely useless, conservatives even worse, you know, you know, you know, in his reform, they're saying, they're saying, they're saying a lot of the right things about this, that and the other.

And, and I think that's going to work. And the thing is that if you take that view, and this is, I think this is absolutely what's happened in the United States, what people are doing is then giving up on any further analysis of the situation.

So, it then doesn't matter what that personal, that organisation does. And the most stark example of this has been in the last couple of days, because let's say for the sake of argument that there's quite a big crossover in actual fact, this is pure speculation.

But I would have said that the people who were fed up with the sort of uniparty line from the successive conservative and Labour governments about, you know, policy on climate or digital idea, any of these sorts of things that are all again tied up in in the agenda and the sort of ideology that's described as woke.

I think there's quite a big overlap between those people who sort of reject that who also rejected what was being done in the COVID era and also specifically with the attempts to force people to take pharmaceutical products.

Vaccines specifically COVID vaccines, even more specifically. So, if you've got a relatively large overlap between, doesn't matter how you describe it, basically people who either didn't want to take a COVID jab or realise that there was an inherent danger in doing so.

And that they form a significant part of reforms base. They they have literally just taken on Nadim Zahar, who was for the conservative government, the vaccines minister during that COVID period.

So he was, okay, obviously he's just a bit part player, but I mean he was the mouthpiece for for the, you know, you have to take this drug. I don't know what's in it. I don't know whether it's going to kill you or not, but you have to take this drug. And if you don't, there will be consequences.

You know, that that was his persona and he's just been taken on by reform and yet still.

Okay, I mean, perhaps there has been a reaction against that, but but if that has, I think I can guarantee that it will have only been a fairly small reaction against it.

And that is, that is beyond that, and a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, specifically where this idea of a sort of a white hat or whatever, you know, however these ridiculous people are described, it is.

And that's, you know, that that is actually pretty alarming because it's it's showing that not just the people switching off their their ability to think critically, but they're also entirely switching off the idea that they have any control over their own destiny whatsoever.

And addendum to my question about whether or not Trump makes it up as he goes along is when you say such ridiculous things like we're going to take over Greenland.

I wonder if that is also highly strategic in the sense that even if it doesn't happen and something happens along the way that is more than what he began with.

Yeah, well, that that's exactly what Mike was talking about yesterday, Mike, sorry Wednesday, rather, what were the three things that was the shut the door in the face, the contrast, what was the other one.

I don't do that to me because I can remember the picture of the contrast one, the other one was the.

Well, the offer to the window was.

That's the second one. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, yeah.

And so, and then there was a third one that I can't remember the details off, but off the top of my head.

But I mean, basically what it boils down to is that you massively overstep your original intention and and a nine something, which is, which is going to generate a huge amount of opposition.

And then you pull back from that position and and people will accept the compromise in general.

And this is how they do it once, you know, incremental changes, but, but they do it using, I mean, it is using applied psychology at the end of the day to to achieve goals.

And, but it is, you know, this is the problem if we for the reason we were talking about this was because of the claim due turn by the by the summer regime on digital ID.

So, so, you know, he he announced originally that it would be mandatory for anybody coming into this country to have digital ID and that they would not be able to get employment until they had their digital ID in place.

And then he has pulled back from that and said, well, no, it'll be, it'll be just purely voluntary.

Now, purely optional. And of course, because because he's done that, there was quite a bit of momentum building in the campaigns against digital ID.

And for the majority of people now, they will go back to sleep because it's voluntary. I don't have to do it. I'll just not bother.

And then it's not a problem, but of course, that's not how it works because although there won't be a government mandate for for this, it will become a mandate through it's already becoming a mandate through age assurance.

By the online safety act, and there'll be other mechanisms, I mean, obviously we've company's house anybody that's a company director is required to identify themselves and effectively join the UK government's one login system, which is, which is a digital ID system.

And so this is a step along along the way, but because he's done this in the way that he's done it, and the same with inheritance tax reformers because he because he made a statement about who's going to have to pay inheritance tax and then he's pulled back from that to increase the threshold that hasn't actually taken effect yet.

So, you know, that that pulls the momentum out of any opposition and makes people relax and people should not be relaxing at this point.

They should be doubling down on the opposition to the entire policy because the policy hasn't gone away. Digital ID hasn't been scrapped. It is still a thing and it might take them a few more years to get to the mandatory point, but mandatory digital ID is coming.

I mean, sub-stack has begun with it, have you noticed?

Yeah, we've been talking about that over the last couple of weeks and a Wednesday's program, well, Wednesday's program last week, Vanessa raised this issue with sub-stack and then on this week's Wednesday news program, we had Alex Creel on who was the guy who raised the issue in the first place and and wrote the communication to sub-stack, which was signed by a number of firms.

So, yeah, absolutely aware of that, but it's not just sub-stack, it's many other, you know, YouTube, other platforms as well are rolling this side.

And this is absolutely indicative of what happens because the off-com at this point in their framework is requiring age verification for content, which is viewed as being for over 18.

So, that's pornography and suicide-related self-harm type content, but we're seeing platforms applying this to other types of content as a former censorship, which was inevitable.

It was what was exactly what was going to happen.

Yeah, but something that people, I've noticed, don't seem to get is they think that digital ID will come tomorrow morning, right?

Today we have digital ID, it doesn't work like that, it creeps, bit by bit.

And that's what people need to be aware of and when it's-

That's very every one of these policies happens.

Yeah, yeah, and it finds its way in and eventually you go, how did this happen?

Absolutely, and it has been for years.

I mean, I think this is the other thing is that if you look back over the last six years in particular, I mean, in other countries, even longer than that, but certainly in the UK.

This was, you know, this is again where it is so very regrettable that people have sort of switched back off again because this was so-

It was so very obvious that this was where everything was going from.

It was all other, it was made so obvious in 2020.

And one of the examples that, you know, I think just shows the sort of cynicism of it was in, I think it was July, June or July 2020.

There was, there was much fanfare about, you know, about the United Kingdom opening up again that people would be allowed back out of their houses.

I mean, I really still can't believe we're talking about it like this.

But anyway, as part of that, there was a sort of, you know, confected problem for teenagers, you know.

I mean, you're all going to want to go to the cinema, aren't you?

But how on earth are you going to prove how old you are?

Because, you know, sort of as though no one's ever had to do that before.

And the answer, of course, was, you know, it was just so much easier.

Why not just show it on your smartphone that you have been forced to stare at for the last six months because that's where life has gone.

And so, yeah, the contract for that went to Yoti.

What does it stand for?

Your, your, your online, something I don't see, I can't, I can't remember what it means.

Anyway, and they've, they then had a relationship with the post office.

And then, you know, and then the next thing was, was landlords and having to get biometrics for tenants to a, from overseas.

And then, you know, I mean, it just, and then just went on and on and on.

And, and of course, none of this gets reported.

And, but worse still, you know, we say the teenagers who'd been forced to stare at smartphones.

They're not, they're not smart, but smart phones for, for the last few months.

Of course, presumably, went in for it in, in quite big numbers.

And so there, that's it to them.

It's a, it's a done deal.

And, um, and so actually by targeting younger and younger people, then you, you get over the hill.

It's sort of numerically, you don't really have to worry about, um, about people of a, of a certain age.

I, I would, I would imagine.

I mean, this is, this is sort of how it works.

People, it's exactly like, you know, saying that it's not going to be mandatory.

Well, fine. People just get locked out.

Um, and that's, that doesn't need to be a government intervention.

It's just how the systems have, have worked because all the corporate entities that, that enable all this stuff have just made it a, a condition.

And, and then it's, it's done.

That's it.

The first time I came across guilty, um, a number of years ago, I think it was, uh, must have been early 2000s.

The, uh, the government of the day, um, created a savings game for children.

I mean, they were trying to encourage, they said they were trying to encourage savings for children.

Um, and, uh, they were, you know, there was, uh, the longest parents committed to putting a certain amount of money into that for their children each month.

There was some government money went into that as well.

Um, but then kids at the age of 16 were able to cash that in because they, because that was the age that they were no longer able to use that account.

Uh, and they were required at that, but they wanted to get that money that they had saved.

They had to, they had to sign up with Yuri for digital ID and, uh, just find that really, uh, really, really despicable.

I wonder if we're going to be having the same conversation in five years time.

If we're here, John.

Why would I be not all?

I don't mean I don't mean if the UK columns here.

Well, because we have a lot of cells up by then.

Uh, you know, uh, who knows, uh, well, I mean, that's, I think we'll be, uh, sorry, going, Charles.

Probably a variant of it.

I think, I think, well, I think it's hard to see now.

Um, it's, um, okay.

So actually, my position, I, I am still stunned just to go back to 2020.

We're talking about, you know, talking about the, um, if you want to voice something upon the population, you, you put out there something that's so much worse than what you want.

Yes.

I think what astounded, um, what astounded administrations around the world in 2020 was that, um, in suggesting a lockdown, which can't at all have been the thing they were aiming for.

That is what actually happened.

That was, um, it was very revealing that, that, that man, um, Neil Ferguson with his, um, with his dicky calculator, who was in charge of everything, because he can do some sums, but apparently nothing else.

Um, he, he said, you know, I mean, he, he was quoted in an interview saying we, we really had no idea.

I'm quite what he says, but to paraphrase, he said, they looked at Italy and to their absolute amazement, people did just comply and they stopped doing stuff and say that, so they then took that on.

So I think, um, I, I'm still sort of reeling from that. I can't believe that people did do is by and large.

Uh, but at the same time, I also, they can't believe that people like Boris Johnson, uh, weren't assassinated, um, or had some sort of, uh, reaction against them, because it was, it was such an extraordinarily dreadful period.

And when you think of the things that do happen to other people for far, in a way, far, far lesser, um, actions that that still, to me, is, is amazing.

I'm, I'm just surprised that nobody was driven quite so crazy as to, as to make some sort of action like that.

Um, by the way, that's not some sort of retrospective incitement.

Um, but, um, so that, that was really, that was really weird. But, but what I think is that, um, those people that did see it for what it wasn't,

I haven't taken their foot off the gas. I think now I'll just diverging, just going further and further away from the people who do think that Donald Trump or Nigel Farage is a good bloke.

So I think in five years time, it seems reasonable to assume that those pathways will be more and more divergent and that there will be a greater number of people who live properly outside of the system.

And I think, you know, the word that springs to mind is outlaw. I, I think we will live in a world in five years time where there is a, um,

where there is a sort of, when I say identifiable, actually, ironically, it probably, you know, not be so identifiable because it'd be people to totally sort of remove themselves in the system.

And yet are able to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible to work.

If you're prepared to live the type of life that doesn't include any of the supposed sort of comforts and guarantees of safety and security that we're promised at the moment,

I think there'll be a substantial number of people who've chosen that path, whether, whether that means that, you know, if I'm talking about the British population,

whether that means that people will remain in the United Kingdom to do such thing, I don't know whether they're sort of finding lands elsewhere.

But I, but I think people will be pushed to that because it, because why not? I mean, you know, seriously, I, I, I live a simple life and, um, and would happily live an even simpler one, you know,

but I, I'm going to say, Charles, I'm going to push back a little bit on that, Charles, because, because yes, I'm going to say you live a relatively simple life,

but you still require access to things that, um, that the outside of this simple life, you still require an internet connection,

you still require to use the public highway, you still require, uh, there's a whole host of things you still require.

And, and so, you know, I've been, I've been watching, um, a whole bunch of, because obviously in the United States, the, um,

the, the court system is televised in the UK, it isn't so much. And I've been watching a whole host of, of videos, um, that are laughing at the sovereign citizen movement.

And I'm laughing at the sovereign citizen movement as well, not because, not because I think they're not jobs, because I don't, you know, clearly they are people that,

that are doing exactly what you're suggesting. Charles, to a certain degree. Yeah.

Um, but it's, it's because the fact of the matter is case after case after case, they go into court and the, and the result is the same.

They go in and they try to argue this court has no jurisdiction. And the court says, yes, we do.

And the sovereign citizen says, no, you don't. And the court says contempt, go to jail. And that's, that's it. Every case after case after case, it's the same scenario.

And, and the issue here for me is that there is no escaping the system. There is no staying out of the system because the system doesn't want you to do that.

And the system will simply use its monopoly and violence to, um, deal with you. And, and so, because, because the, you know, this, for me, this goes back to the,

to Michael goes, uh, definition of extreme, extremism and him, including the idea of creating parallel systems. Well, this is clearly something that, that the state fears.

Um, they fear people removing themselves from this society that they have built.

Um, and, um, and they will act against those people, I believe. So, so, um, while I absolutely agree in principle, with what you're saying, I think in practice, uh, we're going to find that it is not possible for people to be outlaw, um, in, in this digital age.

Yeah, well, but, you know, we will see. I, I think I remain more optimistic. I'm certainly not talking about, um, I'm not, you know, I, I don't mean to suggest that, um, to do so to choose that path means that you're in conflict with the state or with anyone else. You're, you're simply choosing a different life. And, um, again, not knowing enough about it.

But I think, I think really what I'm talking about is a sort of say an arm-ish model, where you have, um, you know, you, you are two intense purposes, self-sufficient and, and just not, not reliant upon the state for the things that a lot of people are now.

So, well, well, well, dog, but, but the difference that I would argue there is that the amish and communities like that, first of all, their communities, they're in one place. So, so, you know, the people that are, the people that are thinking this way are, are individuals, they're, you know, or in small groups and they're spread right across the country.

Whereas the amish are in one place, more or less, and, and so they can support each other in ways that, that, that just aren't there at the moment in this country or in, in other parts of the United States even.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is the hypothesis. I mean, maybe it won't happen, but, but what I'm saying is I think the psychological effect of what is happening, um, and continuing to happen in this path of the world is such that I think people will, will be pushed further and further into doing something they probably never thought they were going to do.

Yeah, and that, to me, is the sort of the logical progression as opposed to just, you know, I mean, I talked about what I thought may have happened in, in 2020, for example, with, say, the, the people that appeared to be driving this absolutely horrid draconian situation.

So I mean, I don't think there'll be that sort of reaction. What would be the point, you know, why would you, why would you take on the, you know, the controlling forces with all the, all the guns and all the sticks. I mean, that doesn't make any sense. That's silly. So, so you just, you know, you do something else.

Yes, it appears to me though that, that this is happening, Charles, but it's happening in drips and draps.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, no, I mean, indeed. Yeah, I think so. And, and, and just whether there's, yeah, because I think the, you know, if we look at it the other way, five years time, what if, what if you do stay very much inside the system? I mean, you know, there was that guy who, you know, sort of, you know,

rather unpleasant conclusion. He would, what did he do? Rate a document, a rate of book and did a documentary on eating junk food. Did he call it super size me? I think any, he, he basically took every single offer that McDonald's made. I haven't read it or seen it, but I think that's why I'm really sad results. Actually, he died. But, but anyway, if, if let's say every single time there was suggestion, you know, that had the word safe effective or convenient attached to it and you, you took it up.

So you, you, you know, you went long had all the jabs, you took all the digital IDs, you did all the climate change stuff.

You know, where, where would that take you? Where in five years, where are you going to be? If that's what you've done.

So you will have, I mean, it is, it is the sort of you will have nothing very debatable as to whether you'd be happy.

So that's what I mean with the, with the sort of divergent path. And I think, if the rate of progress is what it looks like, it's going to be. And don't forget, you know, in this conversation, the big bit that we haven't talked about at all this morning is war.

And the five years ago, we had the, you know, the idea that there was a, there was a deadly little virus chasing us around the place. Well, yeah, fine. But when there are actually deadly, properly deadly things going on.

And, and the, the idea that an emergency situation requires this and the other to be done. I think it will be, I think the pace of change that people will accept could be absolutely staggering.

There were threats that something big was going to happen in 2026, another attempt at a quote unquote pandemic. I remember reading some documents about this during the COVID era of spars or whatever it was called a contramember, but they weren't coming from just, you know, random sources, they, they seem to have had some sort of clout.

Imagine if something like that were to happen again. And I don't think we should laugh that off. I think it's, it's plausible that a big event can be a realistic road map for for 2026 of some sort, maybe even a cyber war.

I mean, I think Trump has been threatening the cyber war with the run, actually.

We're in a cyber war. We're in an information war. We're in a, we're in a whole host of different wars. This is a hybrid war that we are in. There's no absolutely no debate about that. And, you know, what, what, one of the tactics, we're striving. Sorry, Charles, you're going to have to explain the different strategy and tactics here, but, but one of the mechanisms that they're using.

We talked about this because it was, it was in the documentation coming out of the COVID thing was, they started using this term, poly crisis. And, and so the aim, the aim is to keep people pressurized, to keep people destabilized, to force people into a situation where they are incapable of, of working out, which way is up anymore.

And of course, that helps reduce the opposition to whatever it is you're doing. And it's working. It's working because we're seeing division. We're seeing people not talking to each other anymore. We're seeing a lot of people absolutely withdrawing from the fight completely.

Switching off all news, not just not mainstream news, not they're switching off alternative news or switching off everything, switching off social media. And they're trying to pretend that none of this is happening. Right. Now, of course, by doing that, you are, you're not stopping anything from happening that whatever's coming is coming, no matter whether you're paying attention or not.

And so in the short term, you might get some relief from the pressure that's coming on. But in the long term, your, what you've done is your voice is no longer being heard in opposition to, to the policy.

I think in 2026, I'm sorry to say, but I think that we're going to see that pressure ramp up even further. And so I think it's not beyond the realm's possibility that they would attempt to play some kind of pandemic game at the same time that they're playing some kind of major conflict game.

And because this is this, this war, I think, is less likely to be generally kinetic. It's going to be kinetic in some, some places in some targeted, some target population. So going to be receiving very unpleasant, having a very unpleasant time as a result of kinetic warfare. But the rest of us are absolutely engaged in warfare for our minds.

And that, that is, that's how it's going to continue. And of course, for them to keep pushing their war agenda in certain parts of the world at, at a threshold that they feel happy with, they are going to need either, you know, overt public support for it, or they're going to need people to have because, you know, keep saying it, he is silent is taken to agree. So, so that agreement through silence,

is, is something that they will take to pursue their agendas. So, you know, I, I absolutely see the 2026 could be, I'm just very likely to be quite a bit tougher mentally and emotionally than 2025 was. And many people have not enjoyed 25.

So you don't have to be optimistic.

To go back to, yeah, yeah, but no, but we have to, we have to, this is, this is really good. Yeah, you've got to be realistic.

And the thing is the point about being realistic and the point about engagement with the subject matter and engagement with the news and all the rest of it is, is to be able to consider what is actually important. And, you know, this goes back to the question you asked at the start,

well, you're talking about Trump and the other and his sort of very outlandish actions on the macro level, ensuring that we forget to deal with the most important thing, which is just the very basic human interactions being done properly.

And so I think more than ever, there is the necessity to just be, be decent to one another and to do those things that mean that

when these potential changes take place, you are just better positioned for it because you've got stronger relationships with your family, with your friends, with your neighbours.

And people just know how to look after each other and the blitz spirit is always invoked whenever something terrible is about to happen or is happening or has happened.

As though, you know, if you say that people were nice to each other at a time where something absolutely ghastly was happening, it's sort of, you know, the ghastly thing doesn't seem quite so bad.

I didn't mean to talk about that and obviously I wasn't there. I don't know exactly what it was like. But I think people have absolutely got to buck up and just get on with one another.

And to put aside silly ideological differences because ultimately, you know, it doesn't matter what you believe about climate change or gender or any of that stuff.

If there is going to be a sustained attack on this country, basically by corporations and the government, I mean a continuation of it, taking Mike's absolute point, then it's going to affect all of us.

You can't think that if you go along with digital ID or getting the next jab or whatever, that life is sort of going to be better for you. That's not really how it works. You don't get rewarded for compliance at all.

And I think that's a massive sort of miss apprehension. I mean, look at what happened in the in the co videos, for example, you know, seriously going to tell me that life was better.

If you did wear a mask, if you did just get on with it and you did spend all your time in your house and then you went and got the jab is somehow to turn out better for you. I don't think so.

I mean, in actual fact, I know for sure it didn't. It absolutely worked the other way round. But I think just because people might be prone to making the wrong decisions, doesn't mean we cut them off and treat them as being any less human than the rest of us.

Well, I mean, just as we come into our landing, just adding to what you're saying there, Charles Scott Adams, who was on my show before I joined UK column. And by the way, was going to join me on UK column.

We were talking last year, but then he got sick. He said on my show that he had granted getting the jab. Now, I don't know if that had any effect on his death.

But it could have who knows. But he certainly said that he made the wrong call. So to feed into what you're saying, life was not better for complying.

Well, I mean, and also, you know, is there an example of it ever having been? I don't think so. It's just that it's as far as as far as the sort of demonstration situation goes, obviously, examples are always made of people who haven't complied and met a sticky end.

As though, you know, that means that, therefore, complying means it always works out better. But I'm afraid that that is not it. That is not right.

Okay, but it's the beginning of the year. We can't end the conversation with that, with that kind of darkness. There's got to be a little bit of a silver lining here. Come on.

The silver lining, the silver lining comes when people choose to fight back. And there are host of ways of people to can choose to fight back, you know, no matter what, what pessimism I might have expressed about, you know, removing ourselves from the system.

There are so many ways that we can live a better life ourselves and in terms of what we're eating, who we're buying our product from.

It's all about choices at the end of the day, Jerome. And I think, you know, there's a lot we can do to feel better within ourselves because of the choices that we make.

Never mind what's going on around us. So, so there's plenty of opportunity. And of course, you know, we are going to continue to do our best to make 2026 an interesting year from from a media standpoint.

So, and undoubtedly there's going to be a host of entertainment coming from, you know, there's going to be serious stuff, of course, on Jeremy Warfare, but a lot of a lot of interesting entertaining content as well.

So, you know, it's just having, it's just about having the breadth of experience and having a view of the world, which is, you know, relative.

I mean, I am not an unhappy person. I'm extremely happy person. So, you know, I enjoy what I'm doing a lot.

I feel like I'm, I hope I'm making some kind of contribution to what's going on. And, you know, maybe I'm delusional, but, you know, at the meantime, it is fun. So, so I'm, I'm actually not sitting here like a fearful wobbly jelly about what's coming in 2026 or 2027 or 2028.

I'm looking forward to it. And because it's going to be an interesting journey, no matter what happens.

Yeah, I mean, the reason why I was making that comment. So, I think I think it's a delay, yeah, guys. I think there's a delay. There must be a delay because we keep talking over each other. Yeah, there is a little bit. Yeah, yeah.

But sorry, Charles, I'll let you come back to that. But why I was saying that Mike is because I had a conversation with somebody just a couple of weeks ago, says, says to me, why would you want to have kids? I mean, it's just such a dark, negative world.

And that's what happens when you get consumed by only pessimism.

Yes. Yeah, I think I think that's really sad if that's it's really sad for that person that they don't get the joy of having kids.

But as well that they have that view of the world that they don't feel that they can bring kids into it.

Sorry, Charles. Yeah. Well, no, no, I mean, I was just going to reiterate really. I think this is exactly it. You know, we look at all these things we we are informed about them all, but ultimately all these guys Trump, you know, Elon Musk and Larry, I think they're just people. They are just people. They have no special powers.

And, and, you know, to sort of dismantle their absurd lives is part of the fun. And why not should we be fearful? You know, Donald Trump's not going to turn up here with his heavies.

And if he does, I mean, what a great story. I'd be absolutely priceless. So I was at a challenge. Yeah. I mean, I'm very happy to invite him.

But, yes, I mean, I think, I think we just, you know, we should always take that that detached view.

Don't, you know, you mustn't consider that absolutely everything is going to have a direct impact on you. After all, it is up to you what that impact may be.

And, and that's where we start. You start with your own mind. And once you're sure of that, you're in a much better place.

All right. Well, with that in mind, Charles, Mike, thank you for joining me. The trenches catch up with you next week.