What will happen if America attacks Iran? | Jerm Warfare

我的名字是Jerm,這是Jerm Warfare,

《The Battle of Ideas》

Trump gave his very big state address,

I think it was yesterday

And I gave it a very big ignoring

All of course, of course, it's the same every year

But the thing I want to point out is that

he again made threats about Iran

Now, how dangerous do you think

this whole American Iran division actually is?

Is it just wordplay?

No, no, it's very dangerous

I mean, everybody that I know

is off the view that this is not

just wordplay, this is serious

and he is going to do something significant

and the reason that it's taking so long

is because as was discussed

on Wednesday's news program with Vanessa

it's apparent that they are intending

that this would be a multi-faceted strike

so not just weapons from the United States

but also proxies deployed

from Syria through Iraq

from Azerbaijan, from Pakistan

even and incursions across the border

from people that have been funded

and armed as usual by UK, US, EU

So basically internal strife

plus the bombings plus external agents

of the state of the US

all heading the Iranian government

at the same time

But now just before we get into

any kind of confusion

because when you get into the details

you can very quickly lose sight

of the big picture

Let's just go back a few steps

Why?

What is the issue with Iran and America?

Are you on first Charles?

Well, I think it depends

how far back we go

I mean, as it does with anywhere

but that is an extremely big question

Well, put it in these terms then

What is the United States issue

with North Korea?

What's the United States issue

with Iraq?

What's the United States issue

with Libya?

What's the United States issue

with Syria?

What's the United States issue

with every country

that the United States has carried

out some kind of regime change

Operation Venezuela, Cuba

I mean, the list goes on

They have geopolitical aims

and we don't necessarily know

what all of those are

We hear we get a narrative

in the mainstream press

for what they would like us

to believe the reasons are

and what did Afghanistan do?

Well, we know what Afghanistan

was said to have done

but the truth is

what Afghanistan did was

they stopped the production

of opium and that's why

following 9-11

the United States

and Britain invaded Afghanistan

for no other reason

and as soon as they got into that country

they started the drug trade again.

Now, in more recent years

then you say, well, why did they leave

Afghanistan?

Well, they left Afghanistan

because opium is not relevant

anymore because artificial opiates exist.

And so, you know,

there are reasons

that are publicly made available.

Iran has been on the US

at list for what 30 years.

But openly, we need

regime change in that country.

But, you know,

there are many reasons why

the United States decides

that a country needs a different regime

and some of them are public

and some of them aren't.

Yeah, I mean, I think

where I was going

was concerning

the specific,

not quite factors

or all the blocks

that when put together

point towards a country

that has a degree of

stability and independence

and financial security

that threatens the

United States

paradigm

or the Israeli paradigm?

Well, yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, that, again,

is another big part of it.

But, sorry,

therefore, the history

what I think is fascinating

is to, especially,

if you consider the geography

of Iran,

what is it that has led

to modern day Iran

and what it is?

How has that been possible?

And that perhaps

is a question too big

to quite get to grips with today.

But, you know,

the meddling,

I mean, previously

by the British in particular,

but in that part of the world

has been going on for

millennia.

So, I think in some

many respects,

it's just completely fascinating

to see that

Iran in 2026

is, well, I suppose,

it's in a way able

to be somewhere

that is able to

present itself as a

challenge, a threat,

you know, a problem

to the United States,

to Israel,

to the United Kingdom.

Yeah.

So, I think that's

a bit that I find fascinating.

I had the great pleasure

of interviewing an

Iranian journalist,

well, the name of Storis

Deirky.

I'll try and get her back

on, actually.

And she said

it pretty much goes back

to 1979 when

the Iranian government

got rid of

the Western stranglehold.

You know, the Iranian

revolution now depends on

from which perspective

you are looking.

But from her perspective,

it was a good thing

because it returned

a degree of sovereignty

to Iran.

And I think that the

one factor might be

that the US just

can't handle this.

It doesn't like any country

that it can't have

a manipulative effect over.

I think, look,

the Middle East,

that part of the world

is from a strategic

and trade point of view

absolutely key.

Control of that is

absolutely necessary.

And, obviously,

what Russia, China,

the BRICS countries are doing

with the Belt and Road

is a threat to Western

Hegemony.

I think that

was it RFK talked about

Israel being America's

aircraft carrier

in the region.

This is absolutely

fair comment.

And Israel is there

to maintain control

through destabilization.

Let's put it that way.

It's divide and conquer

again and get

a base of operations

in that area,

destabilizing influence,

make sure that there can be no

real cooperation

between countries in the area

because some will

favor a Western

alignment, some will favor

an Eastern alignment

and keep the thing

from ever getting

to the point of

them from a unified standpoint,

the benefits of not being

Western aligned.

But what they don't want

is a competition

for trade.

And that is a key region

for that.

Iran is problematic.

Iran is working

with countries that the West

doesn't like.

But more than that,

Iran has managed to get

itself in a position

where it is

not reliant on

other countries.

It's not reliant on other

countries for its

self-defense.

It's got its own

military industrial capability.

It's got a very advanced

military industrial capability

or when the United

States actually starts

this action.

It's not going to be

a free ride like it was

with Iraq, for example.

So clearly,

that's why they're taking

this strategy of hitting a

run with pretty much everything

they've got.

That's clearly, you know,

based on what we're saying,

they've got internal

destabilization, destabilization

run in the borders, plus

whatever the United States does

because distracting

the Iranian military from

the big target, which is

those two aircraft carriers

has got to be, you know,

that has got to be

something that they want

to achieve

and we'll see.

But whether they achieve that

or not, I have no doubt

that if the United States starts

this, they will

suffer casualties.

This is not

going to be an easy ride for them.

Yeah, I mean, the previous attempt

just what a month or two ago

didn't end very well for

the US and for the UK.

Yeah, I mean, I think this is the bit

that I do find fascinating

because I mean, there's no way

in which they can't

know this. It's not like

where you can be sitting here

thinking Iran would

give a pretty good

account of itself.

And that the United

Kingdom armed forces

have worked that one out as well.

And I think going back to

what Vanessa was saying on Wednesday's

news program about

about the use of proxy

forces and this and the other.

Quite how this will be

conducted

will be

well sort of dreadful

but fascinating at the same time

to see because

compared with any of the engagements

that those countries

have had, the US and the UK

have had in the last

few decades, it would be

a totally totally different

thing. And therefore

they will have to think

very long and hard

about how they're going to try and make that happen.

Because the

you know, on the

on the one side of it,

the ability to maintain

any kind of combat effectiveness in the face

of that kind of a non-stop

would be a huge

challenge.

And then you've got the

public opinion.

And this is the bit that, you know,

going back to your opening remarks about the

Trump's address. I mean, again,

I covered a little bit of this on Wednesday

but what he

did use it to do was to

was to sort of grandstand

about the capability

the United States capability

and you know,

how much he's achieved

how much they've achieved in this

period. But I mean, again,

going back to Mike's point.

These were these

rule in

in engagements that

whether it was a sort of

wasn't really a contest.

I mean, and for a start,

they shouldn't have ever happened.

And the United States shouldn't have been there in the first

place. Okay, exactly the same in

any meddling in

in Iran. But

but you know, how to

they have set, but based on

in the interests of America,

it's very hard to see how they will actually

progress this without

a significant

deterioration of their own

forces and a massive

drop in public opinion.

But I, you know,

perhaps I will be proved wrong.

You see the thing that we haven't yet talked about,

but we did a while ago was the

the looming

sense that there was going to be a false flag

in Iran,

either on British or

American soil or both.

And that's absolutely.

It's almost as if that's gone off track.

I mean, that was, that was the case at the beginning of 2025

when they were, there was a lot of talk

and a lot of legislation and whatnot

about what was being called foreign influence.

And you know, they were very much setting the

setting the scene for a foreign

Iranian false flag. Now that,

that sort of, they tried a couple of things,

but basically that hasn't actually come to

parts. And of course, that would be the

one thing that would swing

it. Because now people are

clinging on by their

fingernails to the Ukraine narrative,

the sort of, you know, British security

is Ukrainian security. And the Russians

will be over here before we can say

Jack Robinson actually turns out

no one's really believing that

anymore. Whereas if suddenly

something goes bang and it's got

an Iranian label on it,

that would change things quite

dramatically. Well, that looks

as if there was foreign

interest in Mike's camera.

But it's nice to see that you're back.

That has annoyed me immensely.

So that's twice that's happened.

It is the browser that's causing the problem.

Okay. Well, at least you're back.

Sort of.

But you were shaking

your head there, Mike. Were you disagreeing

with Charles? Or were you just

checking it at the camera? Not at all.

I was just wanting to

lose control and swear

nicely, but I didn't want to

pull it. You're recording

with me complaining about the

problem.

Um,

what do you think

could happen

if it was a US strike

on Iran?

There's no doubt about what

will happen if there's a US strike

on Iran. This will escalate.

So, you know, because inevitably,

for example,

Hezbollah is going to get

involved. And Israel has already said

that if Hezbollah gets

involved in any way,

then they are going to attack

targets in Lebanon, for example.

But, you know, this,

this will undoubtedly expand

beyond Iran.

I mean, who knows where it will end,

but it's, it's, it is an

extremely dangerous

situation. But, but, you know,

even for Trump, though, for him

personally, it's going to be

hugely interesting to see, um,

how this affects his, um,

his personal brand

because he was elected on

I'm not going to start any

wars.

And he's busy at the same time

that he started wars in all kinds of

places, including, you know,

he's attacked Venezuela and other

stuff. He is busy saying,

oh, I've stopped it in a half

wars so far.

Well, is he going to, is this

going to be, if he,

if he obliterates Iran,

if it gets to that point,

and he succeeds in obliterating

Iran and destroying their

capability to defend themselves.

Well, he then say, I stopped

another war.

Yeah. Of course.

I mean, the guy's

office head at the moment, as

far as I can see.

Well, yes, but then again, he is,

he is learning how to play the game.

And, um, going back to the

false flag thing, you know, he,

I think he must have had dinner

with Alistair Campbell recently

because he did, he did, of

course, talk about, um,

they can do it, but, but basically

the sort of 45-minute claim, you know,

oh, well, Iran could be, could be

targeting the United States

with its weapons within,

well, I don't know if you actually

said 45 minutes, but I mean, he is, um,

he is absolutely

warming people up for this.

And I think with his, um,

with the family line

on Israel,

I don't think it would take

much convincing,

uh, for the public to, to be

absolutely on-site with, um,

I'm the president of peace,

and we're going to blast

Iran. I think people would be

very happy to go along with those two

things being true at the same time.

Uh, do you think Trump is

actually though in control?

What?

Um, no, no, no. No, Trump's not

on control. No, no. No, oh, no.

No, no, no, Trump's barely

in control of what comes out

out of his own mouth.

No, he's,

he's not on control.

And, and the thing is, the people

that arrived of, have clearly

worked out how to play him, very

well. Um, and, and ego

is, is 100%, the main mechanism

as far as I can see.

So, uh, no. He's, uh, he's

分析香港的問題,

我決定要交通驚奇的問題

。

I think another looking at this potential conflict

in Iran is,

who benefits?

因為,

I can't see the US actually benefiting.

那當然是一 matter of the US benefiting.

這 matter of Israel benefiting,

the first instance.

Israel benefits

because they get rid of their only real competition

而在印度推出原金

對

對

美國的

修理

因為

卻打擊了

而即使

連接

對

而

卻打擊

美國一動

一動

卻打擊

對

一動

而即使

連接

而即使

因為

並非

要在日本

對

而

當然

你光看

你以為

你需要

對, 他們會說他們會做甚麼,對嗎?

那些人會說自己是否被人弱

對,我認為他們是否能做甚麼

他們當然有責任

這是怎樣的事

就是他們不會知道他們會做甚麼

但他們有, 他們會想起

有一個發展物, 他們會說

他們會說

他們會想起

他們會說

他們會說

又是有一點接觸的

國際職業 以及我們的責任

在那裏面卻未熟悉

可是問題是

不明的意義

如果沒有那個事

就開始通出

它就能夠出席

而抽取也會變得比較原因

但是那這樣

那些部分

例如那些

那種地方

像भेग

我們也不能感受

因為阿卓相信

Impact is a capability.

Now whether that

is Whether that includes

nuclear weapons,

they say not

And, unlike Israel,

I have no particular reason

to disbelieve what they're

saying there.

Because certainly I haven't

seen any evidence that they

actually have nuclear weapons.

They have insisted that their

nuclear programmes through

civilian nuclear energy

purposes only.

And nobody has demonstrated

any credible evidence—I

indicated that it's

但 large market的 nous

是有幾原因

以及在哪兒搜索捩壩

這些東西

而且有兩瓶

遇上擒控資本

同樣可能不高興

而年輕而狀率

最終原因是

既邊壩買過

大距離

發生也不太成為

在中央有一个讯息的写讯

在南南平台

如果南南平台有什么写讯

什么写讯

有什么写讯

有什么写讯

所以

华人

协讯

华人

华人

华人

协讯

华人

华人

华人

华人

华人

华人

华人

华人

华人

Trump said that he won't allow Iran to have nukes

我聽到這個

2026, the U.S. has a total of 5,277 nuclear warheads

with 1,770 of those warheads deployed and ready for use

But Iran isn't a loud one

There's only works one way, all of this stuff

It is a very difficult predicament

that Iran is in and in effect

broadly the Russia has been put in the same position

and that's sort of where they've been for the last four years

I mean, in OK, the parallels are not complete

but the trouble is if they are to do anything

then clearly that's regarded as a green light

for unleashing absolutely everything at them

so, you know, which of course they will know

so the whole thing, the whole thing is a trap

in exactly the way that Russia has been trapped

and it is very difficult

but the, I mean, really frankly, bearing in mind

that it's us that pay for all this

it's the dishonesty that is just so utterly unbelievable

on all of this

I mean, the background to any of these stories

when you examine it is just one gigantic minefield of lies

from our side, from the West

it is absolutely dreadful

and I'm not saying that we have necessarily a completion

not really online

but I think we get told more lies per day than most

Well, listen to this

Israel's nuclear weapons status is more complex

than most countries because of its policy of nuclear ambiguity

Israel has never officially confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons

that probably means they do

it's more than probable

I mean, everybody it is an open secret

everybody knows that Israel has nuclear weapons

that's there's not really any debate to be had about that

they don't officially admit

but at the end of the day, this is the main issue

because did you say the United States has 5,000

whatever, how many could Iran possibly have

even if it had any, it might have one or five or ten

but this is clearly not a threat to the United States

the other problem is they don't have a delivery system

that can reach the United States

it does despite what Trump may have said

at the state of the nation

speech that Iran might have

a capability of reaching the United States

at some point a delivery capability

that can reach the United States

at this point it doesn't have

the only country that could possibly be threatened

by Iran and nuclear weapons would be Israel

and bearing in mind the prevailing winds

would they do that?

Anyway, I don't know

I don't think it's

you know, the whole thing is just a setup

a justification for the action that's being taken here

at the bottom line is the regime

Inverted commas is not

one that the United States and the UK

wants to be friends with

and so it has to go at whatever cost

and then anything else is just fluff

it's just excuses

Alex Crana was on my show for UK column

I think last year sometime

and he argued that Trump is in favor of

multi-polarity I don't know if I buy that argument

and this is an example of him not

favoring multi-polarity or maybe it is

what do you think?

Yeah, I mean I would do you remember

how it was that Alex sort of substantiated

that well he was making the argument that

that Trump does like the idea of competing economies

I don't see that

I have to admit I don't see any sign of that whatsoever

he's I think Trump is

forum and obli

he wants

he wants to be winning

the game every time he you know

and so if it's all about the art of the

deal for him the deal is that he wins

and the other person loses

there is no win-win concept in Trump's mind

at least I have not seen any evidence of it

Yeah I do agree it doesn't

I wouldn't have said it looks like I only

just disagree point blank with that point of view

but given what we've seen with all the

you know the tariff stuff just as a most

serious example and then and then

Greenland and Venezuela I mean it

I don't know to me that that's um that is

very much suggestive that he is intent on

gathering up all the various strings he can

and again the

well it's just you know the way in which

in particular the the Chinese and the Russians

are spoken about is not um

I don't know I really don't get the sense that

they're regarded as um competitors

certainly not in a um you know constructive

or positive sense it's always with a you

know that there is an element of threat

or menace more more than an element of

threat or menace and therefore it is important

that um that that America is dominant in order

to control not just the economic

conditions within which other companies are

countries are able to operate but but also the um

you know the sort of military slash security

situation too I'd I'd yeah I mean

yeah I think it's very little evidence of that

right now but um and and what you know

what would what would change that I know

no I mean in Alex's defense I would say the

situation has changed somewhat in the last

in the last year so so if he was if he was making those

comments at some point in the middle of last

year then then you know that's that's a

different world and it's it's incredible how

quickly situation is changing

yeah I mean it's not a steve at Alex's

by the way it's just a very interesting point

to view and and that's exactly it that's

why it's you know reference the the

tire of thing at all and indeed the other

things that have happened since because um

yeah again this is a crystal ball element

you know could could one have considered

that um that this would be uh on the cards

yeah actually some some of it definitely

I mean the I think I think well we've talked

about it before but the certainly the green

and canada piece that that that that is a

rehash of something's been going on for a

long long time and um so there are there

absolutely are things that keep coming

back to the surface but you're just not

quite sure when it's going to happen

and um here on is exactly one of those

if further u.s does unleash the cracken on

on Iran what what will the British

government do well this is an interesting

question because uh you know the last we

heard was that that stammer had refused

the United States uh permission to use

British bases uh to launch this from um now

whether that's still the situation or not

I don't know uh because I haven't seen any

update I don't know if you've seen anything

Charles but but that was that was the last

we heard um now in the past uh with

respect to Syria with other regimes well

actually maybe trunk one I can't remember

but in the past uh you know if if Britain

said no the United States didn't go ahead

and so so this again is is another

indication that um you know the the the

traditional British U.S. alignment on

geopolitics isn't there at this point in

time now my particular suggestion for why

that is isn't that um it isn't that on

long-term basis the U.K and the U.S. are no

longer friends or that they don't have a

special relationship anymore because I

think that special relationship was always

about the deep state intelligence agencies

and that kind of thing anyway but I think

this is more about um the effort to force

the European Union down a path and so uh for

the meantime um Britain and the United

States are presenting the idea that they are

not uh as close as they have otherwise

being I think it's fake and it's all about

driving uh try trying to drive the Europeans to

to um get themselves much more aligned

together on a war footing than they are

they're sort of still pushing back against it

a little bit okay but now you mentioned

Europeans so uh I mean I asked about the

British government uh what about NATO

what is NATO right because because what we

have is is the United the United Kingdom

regime and we have the European Commission

forget about the European uh member states

because it makes no difference what they

think it's what the European Commission and the

and the UK thinks and that's that's what's driving

NATO's policy at the moment so NATO is that

whatever happens in Iran isn't going to be a

uh effort because because it's not going to be a UK

effort at this point and the relationship

between the US and NATO I can't figure out

what's going on there no it's completely

fake this this this supposed split is

completely fake Jarm this this is something

that Trump started in 2017 was a 17 or 18

when when the new NATO headquarters was

opened in Brussels kind of remember the 17 or 18

and and Trump was already making uh you know

noises about NATO not being fit for purpose

but he still went there he still opened the

the place he still presented them with their

their uh big piece of so structural art

which was a uh a piece of metal allegedly

from the World Trade Center which is sitting

outside new headquarters and and they lined

up all the EU leaders there like like

naughty school children while while Trump

gave a speech which said you guys aren't

spending enough you're very naughty children

you're not spending enough on defense

and they and at that point they all laughed at them

they were all sniggering in in a line sniggering

behind their hands um but they're not sniggering

anymore right because because the United

States has in their minds provided the

the lion's share of the of the defense

capability of the EU US bases in the EU

in Germany and Poland and in other countries

have provided the protection that the EU

feels that it needs from from the east

and the United States is not guaranteeing that

anymore but but it's but it's it's all about

uh what Trump said in 2017 he said you know

you are you're taking away I can't remember the exact

language that he used but he basically said

you're taking the mickey because you're

expecting the United States to pay for this

you need to put your hands in your pockets

so I think that's I think that's what this game is

with the game between the relationship

between the US the UK and also the

relationship between the UK and the EU is

all about that

and just to feed into what you're saying the

Secretary General of of of NATO

congratulated Trump on his um

attacks on on your run and he seems to be

pretty supportive of the whole thing

but Rudd is a nutcase

but he is a Secretary General

he said he's a nut job but he absolutely is

he would blow up this world that man

yeah so yeah I mean which but yeah but my point

Mike is that it it's it's it's aligning with

what you said that it that it is theater

that there's no real there's no real conflict

between the US and NATO

no there isn't but Charles what are your thoughts?

no no I mean that's exactly what I see now you know

using router as an example I mean he has

he is saying he's always parroting

Trump word for word on um the you know the sort of the

requirement to spend this and deliver that but no

no I mean it's it any sent any um

messaging about there being discrepancy's all

differences are just that they're not really

born out by what one sees I mean the you know

whether it's just the civilly language that's used

peace through strength or deterrence of a

particular thing a particular place I mean

whether or not they're doing it under a banner

that says NATO on it all that says um

anyone else that they are all basically doing

exactly the same thing with critically you know

going back to who benefits with the same bits of kit

the same ammunition and uh the same

technical um capabilities inputs the same

data sharing and all that kind of thing and I

think that's the um that that's really where we

should worth sort of what one should look at in

order to determine um what's going on and uh

and yeah who who benefits um and and there is

you know this this is what has changed so much

over the years and we've talked about this a

lot with regard to uh other

industries but but actually the the way in which

military activity is conducted has has has evolved

or has changed it just uh absolutely hugely

because of the way uh everything has become

technologically enabled and I know I've talked about this

a little bit before I mean obviously this is something

Mike in particular has been concentrating on I think on um

UK column a lot over the years but the uh the way in which um

control of various elements of hardware and

communications capabilities and what not

gradually governments and militaries have

lost more and more and more control over

what they use how they use it and um what information

they have compared with or they have to themselves

you know the sort of the the partnership or the

the overlap or overlay of a military capability

with the you know with a with a sort of civilian

dimension I mean that it's it's just it's a totally

different thing now it really is and I like it

yeah gone yeah I was going to say France and Germany

are wanting to you know throw sanctions on your

own you know when you think about this right

you have a population in this country that is just going to suffer

and I would I would also argue that Americans are going to suffer

yeah yeah let's let's let's let's be realistic about what it is we're

facing at the moment we have we have a Western

the Western nations economies are at the end

that that is a fact right the death blow forget about 2007 2008 that was

that was bad enough but the death blow was was the COVID

tyranny as Charles put it on the news program on Wednesday

right that that that has absolutely pulled the rug out from any

possibility of of building a new economy but on top of that we have

systematically destroyed our manufacturing capability over the last

decades and what are we doing instead we're we're trying to use

the massively massively over leveraged banking system and the banking system

is now as bad as it was in 2007 in the run up to the financial crash

right we are there are more and more voices starting to talk about this

now we are staring at a major banking collapse

but we in the meantime we have roads that we can't drive on

we have power systems that don't can't deliver enough power with food systems

that we can't feed ourselves with right we have

situations which are unrecoverable without money and we don't have any

money because we're so leveraged in debt that we can't pay for this

and now on top of that we've stuck this war policy

on the over the over the top and now we're expected to spend greater and

greater amounts of GDP what GDP there is no real GDP left in any of our

countries right so so what options are there

at that point because the backers are not going to allow for any kind of

restructuring of that because that means they lose everything

so what they're doing is just playing another shell game here

if you think about what happened during the COVID-19

we had the we had economy shut down

we had more and more debt being taken on and where did that debt money go to

it went straight into pharmaceutical companies

and the pharmaceutical companies got huge quantities of profits

for nothing I mean even if you believed in the vaccines

the jobs what if you want to call them even if believed in that

a significant proportion of what was manufactured is still setting on the

shelf somewhere it was never used that's probably out of date now

so most of that money was wasted it was all it was all debt

then the track and trace systems what much is Britain spent on track and

trace 30 billion pounds right all debt

so debt debt debt debt were leverage the health

there is no option at this point but to go for a war policy

right now what are they actually doing in the meantime because everybody

knows we've been talking about this for long enough everybody knows that

the the UK and the EU in particular the US still lesser extent because they

spend huge quantities trillion dollars a year whatever on defense

on war I should say

but there's no way that that that Britain or the EU can

prosecute a war with Russia but but what we're doing is we're creating the

environment whereby they can demand more and more taxpayers' money

just gets funneled straight into defense companies so they're effectively

playing the same shell game with defense companies now that they were

playing with farmer companies in 2020 and 2021

and this all our money all our futures is just being pushed into

profit and inverted commas for for war mongers

well that's that's just more assets stripping of

you and me and assets being moved into the hands of a fewer and fewer

number of people at the very top people who have

if they haven't already built their underground bunkers they're in

construction at the moment right because we you know we've seen

how many stories have we seen about these wealthy people building their

underground bunkers so what are they intending

now it's not too late to stop what they're intending because it

don't think it's going to happen this year but it might happen it might

who knows because because the game that they're playing is

is dangerous and it could go anyway but I don't think their intentions

to start anything major this year

but you know so they're still potentially time to stop it but people have

got to recognize the situation we're in before before they can

consider what they might do to to change the direction of travel here

well you've just answered the question earlier about who benefits

and you've also kind of highlighted the great taking that David Webb has

has so eloquently spoken about

the bankers the early gocks the bankers are one

one part of it yes for sure but it's not just them it's it's it's this

entire oligarchical class that we have

running across the banks across the corporates

and and politicians are just the the middle managers for this

and not even very good ones because they can't sell their

their rubbish narratives nobody's buying it

I do I do wonder though what I mean you said you don't

think anything big will happen this year but the way Trump has been talking

I mean I suppose it's typically Trump though

yeah it's not just him I think he's he's the obvious

he's the obvious one because the way he says stuff

it does get more attention I mean he just is

delivery alone but I think he's not really saying

things that other people aren't absolutely pointing towards and and I think

just to just concentrate on what

Mike has just described I mean I think this is the this is the critical point

that a lot of people are probably not understanding is that these

the sequencing of this is um is absolutely very

deliberate to to have set the set the financial system

sort of sort of overturned it from 2020 means that the

you know war is is a logical conclusion at that point or after that point

you know the push towards and then the the delivery of

because first of all if you're when you're

controlling and communicating with your population war I mean

let's say an invisible illness is a pretty good one but war

is a very very good you know perhaps the best tool for

controlling people with I mean the most obvious

well this would be the time you know identity cards for example

during the second world war of course people you know people in the

United Kingdom carried identity cards so to all this

discussion we have now about digital identity you know well you know it's

sort of happening by itself and this and the other yeah it would be but but

were um were there to be uh a state of war entered into

sort of formally then then that would be that could be one of the sort of

the overnight switches so I think I think the uh some of the reason that this

being held back to a sudden extent is because there is just more

there's more groundwork to be done and you know this goes across so many

things all the those things that do have dates on them like the 2030 you know

all the stuff that's supposed to happen by 2030 which obviously

isn't happening and we look at the what it is that's the Russian I mean

you know the the again look at the timing the

it's funny to think back now because it's you one sort of forgets these things

but uh the February 2022 I mean wasn't it

what I can't remember in terms of COVID regulations or something didn't

something end in um in that very month 2022 I mean it was literally

it was almost the day before and then and then the Russia Ukraine

thing kicked off the following day I'd have to check I can't remember

yeah I think it was the coronavirus act is that what it was yeah I think it's

into your appeal yeah yeah yeah so something something like that um

you know you think oh well it's a coincidence yeah um

not really uh so yeah so all of these things do

do have um a traceable line in both directions

I think to to project what happens you know you when you have your war you

you set the conditions for a complete rehash of your

financial system if you want I mean you sort of you have to do it but also it

is the perfect excuse for oh gosh sorry there isn't actually any more

money left um and it's not because of that it's it's because of this it's

because of the war uh so I think there are there are

so many elements of warfare either in prospect or in um

practice that just relate so absolutely to all the other things that we talk

about which is why I think it's really important that we do

concentrate on it and we and we do make people think

about it because like I said a

a short while ago this is done with our money

and um and you know in simple terms obviously we're not surrendering our

money to do this then um then it's much harder

for it to happen but similarly with with people

it is it is necessary that people go forward to take part in these wars

and if that is um if that call is not responded to in the way that it has

been in the past then again that that creates a very big problem

and we were talking well yes actually again on Wednesday's news

Vanessa was talking about the USS Gerald Ford which has had problems with

its um with its um sort of sewage system on board

and but the point is that there was a you know sort of um what's

described as a mutiny to try to stop these things from working in order

that these guys get sent home so it's just a demonstration of what

people can do when they uh when they decide they've just had enough

or something so I do I think to to sort of

derail a war effort whilst apparently difficult

certainly not impossible I mean the United Kings was hardly got anyone in the

armed forces now so if no one else turns up then that that is sort of that

put in really simple crude terms is China that kid sitting on the

side of the playground watching the brawl unfold

no because China's uh China's on the target list

so so you know this this this is problematic for for

Russia and China they are they are um

clearly and well my assessment of it is that they are um

trying to find a way to avoid what they know is coming

because they know they're on the target list so Russia is doing things which

is resulting in Russia getting criticism from

certain people and and uh I absolutely understand why and

amongst others talking about Vanessa here for example um I understand why

that criticism is forthcoming um I'm going to say I

have some sympathy with the position that countries find themselves in

because because they are dealing with a bully who is a very big bully

now uh and and and so they're trying to

placate or they're trying to make deals with

uh and and but I don't think that's going to work

I think I think that uh that the the the decision was made a long time ago

that Russia has to be dealt with and the China has to be dealt with and

and I don't think anything's going to stop that

um so uh yeah but the reality I think I think I think it would be

I think it would be much better for for those countries

Russia, China, Iran, India, stand up a lot in American countries

uh it would be a much more sensible thing for them to do exactly what

Mark Carney was suggesting at the world economic forum

and consider themselves as middle countries and actually get together

in a much stronger way than they are at the moment because they might

they might uh say that they support

you know Russia might say it supports Iran and okay Russia has

has run some military exercises with Iran in the last couple of weeks

and Russia seems to be perhaps maybe sending an

an oil tanker to Cuba for example at the moment

but you know what Trump is doing to Cuba at the moment is

absolute disgrace and nobody's even noticing

right and and uh so you know but the thing is uh if Russia sends this

tanker if this tanker is on its way you know what's going to happen the US

or the UK simply going to say oh shadow vessel and they're going to

seize it if they think that it's actually going to reach a

destination in Cuba so uh you know we we are

absolutely in a lawless from international law point of view in a lawless

situation um and uh uh

these countries to a certain degree recognize that

but i'm not sure that they have an answer at this stage

now i was going to say that i think that China's

defense is probably a lot more powerful than what

than what we perhaps think

i mean they work in long-term strategies

yeah i mean Russia and China are doing uh a lot to develop their

defensive capability uh Russia's doing a lot to develop

offensive capability as it's demonstrating in

in you create it at the moment but uh

you know the point is germ that that should it come to actual kinetic

conflict as you create is demonstrating at the moment

doesn't matter whether you have the capability to provide some kind of

defense or not it's going to be hellish for the people on the ground

and who wants that right so so uh you know

Russia and China don't want to see their own populations

decimated or worse

i'm trying to think of a way to come in for a final

apier with some kind of upliftment

i mean let's let's just talk let's just finish with

abstain then because because there is an opportunity

if if if is significant proportion of western populations

because there's how many hundreds of thousands of emails are there there's

information there that that we absolutely could see

all our governments brought down plus the oligarch plus as well

there's sufficient there probably if if if enough people

actually got engaged with that topic it's there it's it's a gift

it's sitting there in front of us we need to we need to get uh

to grips with it as as populations not as individual

media organizations or the occasional journalist we need to get it to

grips with it as populations and we need to get rid of the people that are

driving the war agenda that are driving the surveillance agenda the

digital idea agenda it's all the same people for going to sick

it's only a couple of hundred people probably

that we need to actually get rid of put them in bloody presence excuse my

language but that's that's uh let's use the information that's in front of

us and get get that job done

yeah i was in thought from the very point well no i i would sort of uh i would

go along with that and um you know because there is a genuine

sense of panic it's it's unusual that one sees this but i think people have

have absolutely had their have their have had their feathers

ruffled by this um i mean the only other thing i would say is just uh

you know we've talked a lot about sort of military

capabilities and um and they're sat in the other i mean i i think

what to me again is fascinating uh perhaps particularly about Russia but i

mean china as well it's just how how much of a contrast there is between

what is said in western countries but the united kingdom i would say in

particular uh i was reporting on the um

environment secretary's address to the national farmers union on wednesday

and it's just pathetic it is just it's just one sort of dreary

load of sort of vaguely connected sound bites and none of it really means

anything and then you look at the the the way in which

Russia has responded to i mean okay sanctions but but to to all the

all the various obstacles put in its path and it's just you know they've

just got on with it uh from a from a um self-sufficiency point of view

and we we're here to talk about this sort of arming themselves and this and

the other but you need much more to it than that and and food being such

critical element and that that just it it does demonstrate something that um

that we are absolutely lacking here i mean first of all it totally failed

narrative but the the action uh it it's just not there and um and again

going back to the point of what where where we fit in what we can do

these are the areas in which we need to to to make sure that we are actually

sorting ourselves out um so i think so much can be learned from

these countries that are supposedly in the crosshairs of the united states

united kingdom uh NATO and all the rest of it because after all they are

they are under intense pressure they do actually have to do something

about it and um in most cases they do respond and i think we can all learn

from that all right mike and charles looking forward to uh having you

joining me in the trenches next week

hopefully