Nice to be back hours away in the desert, in the in Abu Dhabi, in Dubai and suddenly realized that all this talk of global warming that comes out of the UK, the BBC has no idea. I'm going to disagree with you, Jeremy.
I'm going to say the BBC knows exactly what they're talking about when they, when they apply the 26° is, is life threatening as, as does the government and the the Health Security Agency or whatever they're called that you know, it's just, it's just incredible how they push this, this narrative and even more incredible how people believe it in many cases. So I would say that that it's not the BBC that we need to be considering here. It's it's people again.
And and whether whether we're prepared to accept the what is normal being dressed up as being abnormal in some way. I said Middle East. I am going to get fired shots at by some folks saying that the Gulf states are not Middle East and that it's they are actually, what did you call it, Southwest Asia? Well, not necessarily because, because are you talking about Lebanon OR are you talking about the Gulf states or which? States yeah. Yeah, sorry, Charles, I interrupted.
No, no, I, I, I I was just wondering whether we were going to start hair splitting this early on in the session. But. But perhaps we are What? Why not? Frankly, you know, it's the end of the week. Yeah. I think it's, it's wonderful to hear a tale of that and to, to discover that you have come back safely and you didn't drop into a heap on the pavement and indeed presumed you didn't see anybody else melting in the heat.
I think the other, the other thing on top of the being told that 26° is a heat wave or whatever we're supposed to believe these days. I mean, it is quite astonishing that people do do it. But it, but it is an observable thing because I think some people's mobile telephones tell them what the weather is doing where they are.
They will look at it and say, oh, it's, you know, whatever it is, it's raining or it's whatever, rather than either going outside and seeing what it is or looking out of the window. And, and, and incredibly, in this age, often the telephone is perceived as being correct. Rather. Than that's not what you observe. That's not the bit that cracks me up the most.
What cracks me up the most are the people who will who have been told that 26° is a heat wave and so they will complain bitterly about how hot it is and how they're so tired because of the heat and all this kind of stuff. While if while they're writing out the cheque for three grand to go to Turkey for two weeks holiday in 50°. It's amazing. How your own perceptions of the world change when you go somewhere, but it's this disconnect between reality and what people perceive as reality.
Well, I think not so much perceived, but but are told and, and that is what creates what we then interpret as a perception. I mean, you know, it's, it's the same as being told by the weather forecast that 26° is near fatal heat, when actually it's just a sort of warmish day. And it's and I think it's exactly the same with the there's a Islamic population in this country. They are all death mongerers and they kill each other and us all the time.
And then, and then you go there and you look and you see that that is not the case. And, and, and I would, I, I would absolutely echo what you say. I, I, I have been very lucky to travel and to work in a lot of different places in a lot of parts of the world. And I, I found it to be a totally enriching experience. And I don't mean that to sound trite in the sort of, oh, you know, I just love all the people that I encountered and this,
that and the other. What I mean is that one's character and perspective and intellectual concept of the world around you is is only enhanced by doing so in the same way that if you're going to buy a new pair of shoes, it's worth trying on more than one pair because you then have a frame of reference. And I think that the, that that rule can be applied to absolutely everything, but absolutely in terms of travel, experiencing other people,
experiencing other cultures. And I'm not, you know, that's, that's not exclusive to other parts of the world. I mean, let's face it, you know, germ by landmass, you live in a country that is far, far bigger than the United Kingdom. And yet in terms of population density, of course, the story is different above the equator this side. And yet, you know, travelling all over the UK is always worth it because you will see and you will learn.
And it, it, it, it does just qualify the information that you've been presented about a particular place. And, and nowhere have, well, certainly within the last 25 to 30 years in particular, has that been more acutely felt than the, the exactly like you say, the, the construct of Islam as a threat either here or even in the countries where it's practiced as the state religion or, or, or sort of de facto
state religion. And my experience is having travelled and worked in certainly well, well over 15 countries that would fall into that category. I have never ever encountered anything that corresponds to the scaremongering. I have only experienced the exact opposite. And I should say qualities that far outstrip the average experience that one has in the United Kingdom these days. And I'm not, that's not a, a, you know, I've just had it with Brits. They're all, they're all useless.
This, that and the other. That's not what I'm saying. But I, I don't live in Plymouth, but I come here regularly. Every time I go out on the street, I say good morning, good afternoon, whatever it is to people, exactly like I would in a foreign country. In another country, I will always be replied to. In actual fact, probably I would
have been greeted first. Very seldom do I get an acknowledgement here and and very, very seldom from somebody under the age of 50. Usually the sort of hierarchies you'll get, you know, people will actually look away if they're younger and that the elderly generation tend to smile and greet you sincerely. And you know, I don't do it just to wind people up. I do it because I mean it. I do it because human interaction is what we're all
about. If if we don't have that, what, what, what is the point of any of it? So yes, to go back to your original point, to experience these cultures, to create or widen the parameters of your own frame of reference, I I cannot see any downside to that at all. And I'm so glad that you've come back with that, with that thought in mind. Charles, just to add a little bit to the the greeting each other in passing comment.
This was something that was absolutely normal in in Northern Ireland. I'm back in Northern Ireland at the moment for a couple of weeks. And you know, if I was cycling along the tow path years ago or, or walking along the tow path, you know, or anywhere in the mountains, whatever it happened to be, and you came across somebody. It was absolutely normal for people to greet each other in exactly that way.
And even though that was sort of ingrained into the, the sort of normal normalcy of life in this country, that changed with COVID. And it's actually a lot less likely that people will, will react in that way now than it was in pre 2020. And I think that's, that's the case in, in England as well, that, that there's much less likelihood of people greeting each other because of, of COVID.
And so, you know, I, during COVID, when of course, we were supposedly only allowed out for exercise and so on, it became a almost an active resistance to go for a walk every day. And, and certainly, you know, I never wore a mask. Many other people didn't wear masks. It was generally the non mask wearers that were willing to say hello to each other in passing. Others walk to the other side of
the path. So, so you know, the, the point I'm making is part of that is, is something which has been done to people and and maybe hasn't been done to people in the same way in other countries. Yeah, I totally agree. And, and actually just to extend that a tiny bit, you know, it's really interesting to hear the Northern Ireland perspective. It reminds me of how life is on a motorbike. And if you pass another bike in England, you you sort of nod your head sideways towards the biker.
And I was delighted years ago to cross the border and find that bikes in Scotland, and I dare say this may be the case in Northern Ireland, but you wave at each other and it's, it's a, it's a, it might seem like a minor difference, but it's a really significant one. And, and, and similarly, riding a bicycle in Scotland. I, I've biked the whole way through Scotland and England in one go. Well, obviously stopping overnight, but, but, but the,
the same was true there. People, if you, if you bike through a village in Scotland, people will actually greet you, even if you're on a bicycle and England, pretty much nothing. It's a really interesting difference. The, the the whole thing about Islam is so sensitive because people have been so propagandized into thinking that
they are the enemy. What you're seeing in in in Europe is what my guest, if you not to go Miriam Cherubaiti was talking about takfir ISM, which is a politicized version of of, of Islam like ISIS and those those extreme groups that are they are designed to create all sorts of conflict. But if you go into those regions where Islam dominates, it's extremely peaceful and you get a very, very different sense of
reality. So there's a couple of points there, Jeremy. The 1st is takfir ISM as you're talk, as you're describing it, this is of Wahhabi ISM. Effectively it's this is something which is a creation of the British deep state. It's as is Muslim Brotherhood, as is Al Qaeda with the help of the Americans and so on.
Extremist Islam is something, I mean, we've been trying to make this point many, many times, but the, the extremist Islam is something which is, is a creation of geopolitics and a creation of particularly the British. And so that we've got to see that in that context. And you know, one of the, one of the most things, striking things that Vanessa said to me because she, as you know, experienced the collapse of, of Syria in December.
And she, I was speaking to her many, many times when the call to prayer would be, would be issued. And the sound of that in the background was actually something quite beautiful. The, the style of the singing and so on was something quite beautiful. When the extremists moved in, that was changed and it became harsh and it became unpleasant and it was actually something
extremely ugly. And just that, that one small change identified that something quite, you know, it it that, that was something that was representative of the extremism which had moved in almost overnight in her area of, of Damascus. And then of course she had to leave very, very quickly and through a very dangerous situation. But my point is that this is not what what what most people perceive as Islam is not Islam.
It's something, it's a creation. It's something which is beyond, you know, the experience of, of most people in these countries in that region. My real, I mean, I don't want to use the word fear, but my concern, let's say, is that we are, we are allowing ourselves to be radicalized in many, many ways. And this, this process has been going on for a long time. But I suppose the first time that we, that we really saw it overtly was with, with Brexit, with where, you know, we took an issue.
When I say we, I mean the British government took an issue and the British media took an issue and they managed to split the population basically in half and drive people towards the absolute extremes of the argument. And, and this is, this is happening right across the world in many, many area, in many areas, in many regions, the, the people are, are being radicalized in many, many ways, not just in terms of religion, but also in terms of politics.
And this is, you know, this is something that we've got to be aware of. You know, the UK column is, has been trying to highlight for 20 years the psychological, the, the use of applied psychology to, to control the minds of, of populations with the, the creation of the Mindspace document that we've talked about many times, the use of the behavioural insights teams and so on.
This is something which is really fundamental to Western society in particular, but not just exclusively Western society and it's largely not understood. And of course, if people don't understand the processes which are being used, then we can't understand why we're coming up with the OR why we're believing the things we're believing. And, and we're certainly not
challenging those beliefs. There is an increasing recognition in many parts of the world that have been on the receiving end of British and American diplomacy. And by that, of course we mean militarization and warfare and this kind of stuff. It's, it's it's recognized who the aggressors are on this planet. You know, we in the UK, our government, the United States government, the EU governments are busy saying, oh, put an authoritarian Xi Jinping authoritarian.
That's not how the the rest of the world is viewing Putin or she on one hand, but on the other hand, they're absolutely recognising the lies that are coming out of the mouths every single minute of every single day of British politicians, British media, British deep state operatives, think tanks,
others. They, this, this is something which is, has become, I believe, a part of the psyche of most ordinary people in these countries, because they've been on the receiving end of what we've been giving for so many years. And of course they're going to start reacting and at some, and it is dangerous because, you know, they, they are increasingly the, the majority population on the planet. They are increasingly the majority economic power on the planet.
And at some point something's going to come home to roost with, with W, There's no question about it. We got to grow up and, and recognise that geopolitics is not the way to do business, right? But our, our entire, our entire societies for the last several 100 years have been based on the idea of going into countries which have a lower techno, military, technological level, kicking the crap out of them, digging up their raw materials
and stealing them. That's, that has been our, our, basically our, our way of doing business for, for, you know, 2 or 300 years. And, and it's not going to work anymore because, you know, people are, are demanding the right to build a life, a life for themselves, which isn't based on slavery and, and poverty. So, you know, and they have a right to dig up their own raw materials, their own rare earths and, and make their own, build
their own economies. And, you know, the time of raping other countries has to come to an end. That's, it's as simple as that for me. And, and you know, that begins with us recognising and being honest about how we have made our our millions over the years. In, in, in so far as truth is concerned, it is very well obscured and the target is always people's emotions, people's soft spots, weak points. And this is the gift of so-called foreign aid and how
people are prepared. On the one hand, to consider that military intervention in a country may not be appropriate because the outcomes tend to be unfavourable in that people die and continue to die thereafter. Whereas foreign aid sounds benevolent, it sounds like it's going to bring about prosperity and improved conditions for humanity, when in actual fact
that is not the case. And it is intentionally there to obfuscate the truth, which is that really all it's doing is enabling the types of corruptions necessary to carry on prosecuting exactly the agenda that Mike describes.
And there are some very good pieces of literature from, I mean, I can think of Africa in particular from Africans writing about this very subject and the looting that's conducted under the, you know, under the, the blanket of, as I say, obfuscation that's thrown over the whole situation by this idea that foreign aid is either necessary or desirable or has positive outcomes, all of which are, I would say, not true.
And if a particular nation, country, whatever it is, wants to crack on in a particular way that we don't consider we would want to do things, that's absolutely fine because I always talk about this particular issue of, well, how about we put the boot on the other foot for a change? And you know, how many times do Nigerian politicians storm into the United Kingdom and tell us we're doing it all wrong?
And that, this, that and the other is to be imposed and, and then they're going to start extracting tin from Cornwall again. And, you know, whatever it is. So we, we are totally inconsistent, but also we are we are prevailing upon people's innate humanity by suggesting that foreign aid is a good thing, in the same way that protecting the environment has been hijacked by the climate narrative in order to deliver any of the net 0 cost restrictions, control, whatever else.
I mean, this is it's the same model every time, it's just dressed up in slightly different clothes. I think it was Alexander Dugan who wrote about something called the 4th Political theory in which he basically argues that just leave every region or country or nation to determine what's best for itself. Yes, I mean, if, if well, I do
well, sorry. All I would add to what I was going to say is that is that the, the, the sort of ancillary part to the, to the foreign aid, you know, foreign aid no good. If you do want to benefit the economy of that country, then then why not trade with it on an honest basis? If, if, if there's something there that you would like, well, fine, but but do a deal that actually makes sense for them rather than strong arming them into it.
In the same way that you would expect to be the case if you were doing business with somebody on your local High Street or with a neighbor or whatever else it is. Why should it be any different just because they're in a different country? Mike, sorry, go on.
Yeah, Well, I was just, I was just going to say, I was just going to add to that and say, you know, the, the, the concept of the modern nation state was based on the Treaty of Westphalia. And, you know, if, if anybody hasn't read the first clause of the Treaty of Westphalia, you should, you know, the idea of international relations being on, to paraphrase for the benefit of the other, you know, everything that that I do as a nation, I, I do for the benefit
of the other, because in benefiting the other, I'm benefiting myself because we can trade effectively and so on. We're not killing each other anymore. This kind of thing, you know, it, it was, it was Tony Blair that said that that concept was outdated.
And, and when, as he was, you know, I think in 2005 or 2008, I can't remember when it was, you know, so I think getting past the geopolitics and dropping this whole idea of the only way to succeed in the world is to, is to, you know, be kicking everybody else in the teeth. This isn't the right way to be doing business. And, and, and so I think that's where we've got to start changing our our views. But we can see that happening with China. I mean it, it just focuses on economics.
Whoever, whoever wants to buy their products, they're open for business. I. Mean, I think that. I think to a certain extent that's true. I think that, you know, it's not all a bed of roses with with what China's doing. There's still a long way to go. I think that China has done a spectacular job in raising the standard of living for for its
own population. I mean, just to correct what you said earlier, it was, it was I went to China on in in April and you know, I found, you know, you were saying that that Dubai was a very safe place. I found Beijing and Xi'an to be just the the incredibly safe. There was no St. crime effectively at all in that in those in those cities.
I didn't see any evidence of it. And, and kids actually out in parks, playing in the evenings, not sitting at home, you know, with, on computer games or whatever, but but actually outside and, and enjoying life and no sense of, of danger. Because, you know, a lot of the rhetoric that we hear from, from people is, well, we can't let the kids out to play because it's not safe. Well, it's absolutely safe in
those countries. And I think if we're, if we're seriously saying that it's not safe to let our kids go out and play in our own countries, then we need to be really looking at what's going on in our own countries and, and asking why that is. I just find it amazing that that there's basically no St. crime at all. I I felt safer walking through Beijing than I ever felt walking through Plymouth at night. Why do you think that is? Is it culture or is it because of a strong top down approach?
I mean, to be honest, look, I, I went there for 10 days. It's not possible for me to answer that question because, because I don't know as much as you sort of get a, some idea of what the country's like, you can't really know what it's like unless you live there for, for a longer period. And so I, I just, I don't know the answer to that question, Chair, it's. An interesting one.
I mean, I'd, I'd been to Hong Kong a few months prior to Mike's China visit and the situation is exactly the same. I mean, I think I've talked about this a little bit before, but, but though, you know, of course there are, there are changes to the place, which I've noted over the years. But fundamentally, the stability, the, the sort of safety on the street and the way in which people are able to manage their lives in the, in the areas that Mike talks about
are really exactly the same. You know, I mean, young children will happily travel on public transport unaccompanied with No Fear that anything might go wrong. I mean, which is obviously not to say that it can't. But I mean, as a frame of reference, talking to people that had lived there for decades, respectively, it was a, it was a major talking point that there'd been a burglary in
the house. This was something that I was talking to one particular person about who had lived there for over 30 years and he had never, ever known this happened before. And this was a house near where he lived. So I mean that that is pretty astonishing by comparison.
The very simplified sort of theory on Hong Kong is that the relationship between the police and the triads is such that the triads are effectively allowed to conduct sort of large scale crime and a blind eye will be turned as long as petty and violent crime that does affect the way people lead their lives or are able to express those sorts of freedoms is not compromised. And people are going to have issues with that. Of course they are.
But the fact of it is that the way it plays out for society means that they get to live their lives unencumbered by all the sorts of crimes that we do see, certainly in the United Kingdom, and I would say in the in the wider western world. And, and that just general sense of degeneracy that you see on the streets that is not evident in Hong Kong.
And that does seem to be still a culture of enterprise and people just getting up and getting on. And the, the I, I, you know, the, the interesting thing would be to know on a sort of chicken and egg basis how that works. I mean, I think in the United Kingdom it is very obvious that there is fairly early on in life. I'm, I'm afraid for people now. I think there's a binary option of whether you want to live off the state or whether you want to live off an income that you
generate yourself. And ultimately the results, depending on what sort of lifestyle you want to leave lead are similar. If you want a big telly, computer games, accommodation and all the rest of it, the state will actually provide that with you. That might sound overly cynical, but that really is the case. And for a lot of people who've grown up knowing that way of life, then there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.
And I'm, I, I mean, I'm not necessarily here to pass judgement, but I'm just saying that bearing in mind that is an option here, it is easy to see that that would be a driver of all the sorts of scourges that we do see or that we might regard as being scourges on the way that people do behave in the way that society relates to itself. I would suggest that the situation in China and Hong Kong is, is different and people don't therefore have those
options presented to them. And it this this is actually closely related to the, to the idea of foreign aid. I'm not suggesting you just turn the tap off immediately because clearly that's unrealistic. But but it would absolutely be preferable, desirable, I'm sure, for the society to run where people are able to make their own way in life. Yes, you want to have the ability to be able to help people where required. But but traditionally that was
done by families. And of course we've seen a very deliberate breakdown in the family unit with the dependence therefore on the state and which means the state can do what it what it likes. I just add to that, you know, my wife works in primary school with special needs kids in Plymouth and but it's in quite a poor area of Plymouth. But the attitude of the parents in that area is, you know, well, why would I teach my kids to to read?
Because, you know, we've lived on benefits our entire lives. They're going to do the same. It's become a multi general generational thing. Now why am I mentioning that? Because well, two things, 1 is a policy and 1 is what actually happened. So during COVID we had this idea of furlough where people were effectively being paid to stay at home and not be economically active.
And we have this future policy which is being trialled and has been trialled in many places called universal basic income, which is effectively to there or will be effectively there to encourage this. Just as Charles was talking about this lifestyle where you are effectively things are provided for you by the state and there's no need to generate any kind of income from your own, your, your own enthusiasm for any form of work or, or so on.
So, so you know, this is something which to me represents one of the real negative aspects of of Western society, because that reliance on the state makes us by default utterly controlled by the state. Because if we are reliant on the state for the things which entertain and the things which put food in our mouths, actually then we only get that if we do the right things, if we behave the right ways, if we say the right things, if we think the right things.
And you know, anybody that's ever been involved in the benefit system or the, the unemployment benefit system knows that when you go into the job centre in the UK, if you have not done the things that they consider that you should have done, they will sanction you as an individual. Just in the same way that it, on a geopolitical level, we, we attempt to sanction other countries or more recently, Donald Trump attempts to effectively sanction other
countries by imposing tariffs. If the, if those countries don't behave, this gets brought down to the absolute individual level. And and so my view is we've got to reject that Social Security system. We should not be demanding more benefits, We should be demanding absolutely less and we should be much more self reliant in terms of our income. In an interesting paradox, as far as I can tell, China has no welfare state.
So it encourages people to to make their own way, which is a good thing because it's exactly what you say, mark it. It sort of encourages self-reliance. Meanwhile, here in South Africa we have a pretty large welfare state and we have a very big poor population that doesn't seem to be getting any smaller and and we have an increasing dependence on the state as a result.
I'm afraid to say I, I think, you know, I, I, I say perhaps rather generously that it's that, you know, it's hard to know whether it's chicken or egg. I mean, I think, I think actually we can be quite certain this, this is, this is what is brought about by the mechanism described as the welfare state. It is not that it is a response to the burgeoning crisis of poverty or whatever else. It's being described as being it, it absolutely drives it.
It's, it's the other way round. An alternative is presented. And, and the problem is that what has happened, it's certainly in the United Kingdom and I dare say in South Africa and anywhere else that this has been rolled out, is that it breaks down. I've talked about the family, but also the other community structures that would traditionally have supported people who were in need of help
for whatever reason. And that's not to act as a deterrent at all to people making their own way as, as, as we say, it is simply to provide that level of support when it's necessary in order to get people back on their feet. Of course, there's a kind of rear guard action.
Now, there are obviously a lot of charities that do do this, but of course, that's again, a, a captured system because of the way in which charities operate and, and all the specifics in terms of financing that can be released at particular points. And essentially that is also a trap for the people who are within that system, which of course is enormously regrettable because one, if you give people that, that are running these charities the benefit of the doubt that their hands by and
large are tied by the state. But, but the, but the point is that the, it's, you know, this is no different in a way from the predicament that farmers find themselves in. And the moment you enter, say, an environmental scheme, not only are you not producing food, but also you have rendered the land that could be profitable to you in a time of need utterly useless. Because if the government turns
off that tap, what do you do? In the same way now that if the welfare tap is switched off, all those small scale structures and community networks that did previous previously exist based on the family unit or closely aligned to the family unit, they're not there. And this is the problem with state intervention. And you can apply that, I would
say across the board. And the other aspect of this, of course, is it, it's not only increases the population that are reliant on the state because because they're reliant on the state giving them the the money and, and the support that they need, but it generates this massive state itself in the sense that if you have this massive, overly complex benefits Social Security system, you've got to have 10s of thousands of people administering that and they're not really productive.
They're just shuffling bits of paper. But that they are therefore also reliant on the state for their incomes. And the same when you have a massively overly complex tax system as we have, because somehow you've got to fund all this stuff. So, you know, it, it, it, it actually is not benefiting anybody having the, the state the size of the days in order to administer a Social Security system, the size of the days in order to keep people unproductive.
That's, that is just leading people down the path of total control. And it's part of the technocracy that's on its way. Because of course, this is all being digitized and turned digital and turned AI. And of course, you know, as with most other jobs in 50 years
time. Well, actually, maybe the, the, the, the people that are reliant on, on administering the Social Security system for their incomes are going to find themselves in a position where they aren't able to find a productive job because they don't have any skills that can, that, that are actually productive. And, you know, AI will have taken over the administration of the whole thing. So, so it's, it's not really a
win for anybody. You know, humanity over the centuries has managed to be quite, what's the word I'm looking for, creative in how it generates or creates economies. And I think the way out is to abandon the reliance on this big nanny that we have. And, you know, we're not, we're not stupid. We are capable of of generating productive enterprise if we want to. And it's a question of motivation and a question of having some ideas and a question of not taking the easy way.
What we have to be mindful of, and, and I would include the audience listening to this in it, is that we, we mustn't forget that the way in which we discuss this is from a particular perspective or indeed a degree of consideration that the majority won't have run themselves through. And I don't mean that in the patronising sense.
I just mean that because we are considering these sorts of things like government being a scam, which a lot of people still haven't really cottoned onto, even if they might mistrust, you know, this Labour government only to think, Oh well, Reform would do a better job or the Tories would do a better job or, or whatever. It is actually the the number of people who have jumped that particular hurdle into thinking about the, the subjects that have come up on today's session
are still pretty small. And I would say therefore that for the people who are still receiving from the welfare state, I'm not, I'm not just talking about the United Kingdom, but but wherever this exists, for as long as people can in effect suck on that teat, they are going to be very much less inclined to do anything about it because it is still the
path of least resistance. I think amazingly as it might seem for us, I think it's still the situation has to get quite a lot worse before it will get better. It's really only going to be driven by the suggestion of there being a necessity to do something different. And yes, of course over time people will realise this. But I think for anyone who is trapped within that system and sees that for them it is still working, then they're not going
to consider the alternative. I am, of course, speaking generally. And one hopes that in a fairly short period of time, more and more people will become alive to this. And also the, you know, the sort of multiplier effect, even if it's only within one small community that, you know, let's say 5 or 6 people who have led a life like this are captivated by some new initiative there. Somebody has started a business and these people want to join in. And that has a knock on effect.
I mean, I think it's going to be small activities like that rather than a sort of widespread response to what we perceive to be a, a, a disastrous system. But I, I, I do think, I mean, I, I don't mean to sound negative in saying this, but I do think that we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which other people are not really considering the sorts of things that we're talking about in the way that we look at them.
That's a good point and I'm reminded of the lunch that I was having with Zooby and he made such a fascinating point. It's so obvious actually, if you think about it, he said. Right here in Dubai, this is a desert. It's the complete desert. It's hot, it's uncomfortable. And why on earth would you come here? Well, 0% income tax and now I think only 5% VAT on some products. It's a very welcoming environment in terms of business.
And the people, as we said at the beginning of the show, in my experience, are extremely hospitable and and warm. Metaphorically it. It's interesting how that system, which is a monarchy, it's not even a democracy. No voting can actually be very, very successful. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's a very unusual case study in that it's a, it's a sort of almost blank canvas project. You know, obviously it had there not been the that Creek there, it it wouldn't exist in that place.
And previously as somewhere that had really only hosted a little bit of Pearl. Yeah, yeah. But but, but, but what I what I mean is that in terms of settlement, historical settlement, it was, it was only related to Pearl fishing. That was it. It was, it was basically nothing, nothing there.
So to create something that has become now a sort of symbol of modern development and all the rest of it was, was really very straightforward because there was nothing there that had to creak and groan and be adjusted to make it work as it, as it does now. And therefore all the sorts of incentives that you're talking about were not so easy to, sorry, not so difficult to, to make work because of that way in which it, it was sort of started from scratch.
Whereas you take London for example, which has thousands of years of history. It's, it's very difficult to see and you, and you see this with say mobile telephone networks. The, the, my impression of the United Kingdom mobile telephone network is that it is absolute rubbish and has been ever since I started using it, it has not got one job better in how many
years it's been going. Whereas you go to countries that have started their communications network from scratch because it was too difficult topographically to, to roll out a landline network or whatever. And those systems work much better because again, within that compressed period of time, you're starting something from scratch and you're able to. So, so Dubai or to an extent probably Abu Dhabi are they're just weird, they're anomalous.
So I So what I'm saying is I don't know that you can necessarily take that model and applied anywhere else because you're not starting from scratch and that's a difficulty. It is a good point also about the history. I mean, if you think about some of those countries in the Gulf States, they don't have a very long history there. UAE what just a few decades old already at, at most with any kind of significant history, whereas the UK British history
is thousands of years. And, and that also in some ways makes it difficult for any progress to occur. If the trajectory is, is downwards like it is at the moment right across Europe. It's very difficult to turn that around. If you've got such a long, long history. It it kind of cements that that vector into One Direction and it's almost impossible to to to to change the direction of that vector. Don't know how to answer that. That might, that might be, that
might be a good observation. I, I think that I, I think that there certainly are no answers if you're expecting to turn the direction of government or the direction of big corporate
entities. I, I think that the way that this works is from the bottom up and it, it starts with people recognizing the need to rebuild community and, and you know, and I'm, I'm not in any way attempting to underestimate how, how hard that is. It can be extremely difficult even just to stick your head over the, the wall between yourself and the neighbor and say hello, that, that absolutely can be extremely difficult. But I think that that simple act is in itself an act of resistance.
And, and maybe that's where, that's where it starts. It just starts with having conversations with people and, and not necessarily, you know, beginning the conversation with, you know, something like, they're all out to kill us.
You just have normal, normal conversations with people and, and just take it one step at a time and see, see what can be built out of it. And, and, and being willing to, to reconsider, you know, maybe it is the case that we have shifted ourselves from where we were born or whatever in order to pursue a career. Maybe it, maybe it is worth considering reconstituting the families that we have and so on. Maybe that's worth the effort. You know that that might be the
way to start. I'm certain, I'm absolutely certain that that that is the way to start. Just to just to go back one on the history thing, I think it is absolutely a good point. I would say the the sort of stand out exception. Well, one obvious one is China, because obviously China has a, a well documented, very rich ancient history and yet it's undergone very, very profound changes in recent times and they appear from the outside to have
been top down changes made. I, I, I won't go on about that because obviously Carl Tsar has, has spoken to Mike about this in great detail. And I, I would encourage people to go to listen to that. So I wonder whether it, I, I don't mean to say we're oversimplifying and we're therefore we're going to get it wrong, but it, it's certainly an
element. I would say we're, we're probably closer to the mark with this idea that welfare or indeed intervention in the lives of individuals or in industries is in fact more of a significant factor.
If we look at in the United Kingdom, what's happened since in particular the Second World War, if not the first, and the meddling with education, with what's called health, but isn't with agriculture, with industry and with utilities, then I think I, I certainly would come to a different conclusion and that a natural fact. It's this idea of intervention. I don't think that our long it's to, you know, to describe the long history. I mean, just go back to the UE.
Of course there's a history, but it just doesn't, it didn't have a history that's either documented or that was one of large settlements being in the same place at the same time. We've talked about this sort of thing previously in terms of lifestyle being more nomadic than it is now and that kind of
thing. So I think there are a whole lot of factors that we probably can't bring in quite now, but but I would say that that really history and sort of outcomes don't necessarily have to be dictated by the the length of
that perceived history. It's rather more to do with the what has been allowed to happen along the way, and indeed the way in which the state has been able to confect and then utilise states of emergency to propagate particular results which have a very negative consequence for the population who are ensnared by them. I think the overarching comment here though, is that there isn't a formula that applies across
the board. It does definitely seem to be the case that different populations or different groups of people respond differently to to different ways of governance. It you can't say, well, we're going to take democracy there. If if they don't want it, they don't want it. I don't think it's even a case of, of taking democracy that if, if we were just taking democracy, you know, the, the way that the mission, you know, the way that missionaries took
Christianity or whatever. If we were taking it to other countries and we were, we were trying to sell it as a concept, that would be one thing. But that's not what we're doing. We're imposing it. We're saying if you, we're saying we will give you all this cash if you become a democracy or, or we're saying if you don't become a democracy, we're, there's, we're going to run a regime change war against you.
You know, it's, it's that, that in itself, the entire approach that we have taken on, on our exporting of democracy to, to developing countries should give us a clue about what democracy is. It's not what we think it is. And you know, really, if, if, if the entire basis of our selling to or or or of sorry, if our entire basis of, of installing democracy in another country is that you have no choice about whether you take it or not, then then you know, it. Does nobody see the irony in that?
So I was just thinking of your, of the reference there to to missionaries, for example, and thinking about David Livingstone, who is arguably the best known missionary of the Victorian era. And a couple of things of note.
First of all, in terms of his success at in his mission, it's it's reported that in actual fact, he only in all his time exploring the African continent, he only converted one person to Christianity. He he had converted to but one subsequently decided that actually it wasn't for him and he was a oh, sorry, I forget who he was. So, so so the result was that he converted one person to Christianity successfully during that period of time, which
extended for at least 2 decades. And, and also it's reported that one tribal chief found the idea of Christianity so hilarious that he stood on his head whilst laughing about it. So that was one thing, but, but look at where, look at where Christianity in Africa is now. And Livingstone could not possibly have foreseen that that was going to happen, although he would have hoped for it. So that has been a fascinating thing to watch play out nearly 200 years later.
And, and then the, the other thing, going back to perspective from exploring and travelling and seeing other cultures, it is quite remarkable to think the ground he covered and, and the astonishing things he saw. And it just, I mean, it's an anecdote and I'm not really sure why I'm bringing it in, but I just think it's so remarkable. He, he is reputed to have discovered in the way that only Westerners could because apparently nobody there could actually see these things.
But he, he was supposed to have discovered the, what's now called the Victoria Falls, Mossso, Ortonia in 1855. And yet he passed through that very area 5 years previously and was told about it. And he could even hear the waterfalls and he could see what is the smoke that thunders the, the spray that comes up off the falls. But he said, no, I'm sorry, I'm too busy.
I've got a crack on and I'm not going to look at it now despite being that close to it. And it wasn't until five years later that he went back and found it.
So I'm not sure if there's necessarily moral of the story there, but it is incredible to think that his perspective going back to the beginning of the conversation was such that he was focused on presumably getting to wherever it was, or indeed his mission to convert people to Christianity, that he ignored what is widely regarded as probably the greatest natural wonder of that region of of all of Africa.
Totally bizarre. To what degree one can attribute his explorations and efforts to what has transpired subsequently, I wouldn't know. And as I say, it's sort of humorous that that it's a bit like Jack the Ripper being the, the, the most notorious serial killer killer ever. But actually I say only, I mean, he killed 5 people. And I think if you straw poll, most people think it was many
more than that. And and Livingston having only successfully converted one person sort of seems ridiculous.
But actually then look now look at look at how how dominant the Christian Church in Africa has become and how interestingly, you know, they in particular have rejected, well, it was in particular Justin Welby. I know that seems like a bit of a sidetrack, but it but it, but the, the point is going like a bit like the sort of too early to tell with the French Revolution. We, we can't really know what's going to happen as a result of these sorts of actions, all
these sorts of things we're we're discussing now. But I think we have to remain hopeful and we have to continually talk about the the the positive benefits of exactly like Mike was just saying, you know, reinvigorating the family unit and making that the most important thing. Mike, it's coming for a landing. Let's close off with a concluding thought from you based on this conversation. You always do this to me. Concluding thoughts? What am I supposed to? I don't know.
Concluding thoughts? My goodness me. Look, I, I would, I would just say that, you know, we all recognize, I think we've had a good conversation here. We all recognize what the issues are. We absolutely lots of people find those issues to be completely overwhelming. And if, if that's the case, then maybe we just need to be going back to basics and thinking about how we how we build our own societies.
Again, this, as we know, according to the current definition, definition of extremism is an extremist view. I think that we should reject the forms of extremism that the British government and the British media are pushing us into and grab with both hands that definition of extremism and run with it. Mike Charles, I'll see you gents next week.