None. I want to chat to you a little bit about the the G20, the summit that's coming up here in South Africa. But I want to premise that with something that has been grinding me up the wrong way. And right now in South Africa, what is dominating discourse right across the entire media spectrum. And I suspect that this is absolutely not organic, but it's race and racial conflict, right, Because Trump pulled out of his boycotting and then Argentinian president was in Emilay also
pulled out. So now it's you jokingly known as the the G18I think this is great that they've pulled out, but they've the reason why Trump pulled out is because he's saying that white farmers are being attacked and ANC government is doing nothing. Fine. I'm not terribly interested in that.
What I'm interested in is why the discourse is so intensely focused on that and the ANC rather than the immense damage that the G20 represents, because they're going to be discussing A sustainable development and more specifically digital ID, social credit scoring. Every Western country is
experiencing the same thing. So we have, we have tensions created within societies and those are being used to drive wedges between people and that's being used as diversion for what's actually going on and we are falling for it left, right
and centre. And so it's no different than South Africa. The question is whether whether it's possible for people to, to recognise, look, when we, when we are looking at the information space at the moment and we all recognise that, that we are in an information war, or at least we give lip service to the idea that we recognise that
we're in an information war. Lots and lots of people aren't prepared to set aside whatever prejudices that they have in order to sort of look at the information war and look, look at the, the, the players on the board. Because, you know, we've been talking about this since the censorship agenda really kicked off in 2017 or 2018.
Just take one organisation, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which because, and I only mention, keep mentioning them because they are the ones that have specifically stated what, to what degree they are funding influencers, that they, they have thousands, thousands of influencers on the payroll in order to do what? I mean, what, what, what, what could the possible reason be for, for, for funding and supplying to YouTube and the other social media platforms.
This number of people, it can only be to, to forward a particular agenda, a particular ideology. And, and so when we are in, but setting that aside, we're now entering a period where that the effect of those real human influencers is being amplified by increasingly automated systems and AI and bots of various types. So it becomes even more important for us all to be actually looking at the information space and looking at what we're being presented with and trying to work out what's
real and what isn't. So of course what we are saying is, is massive amplification of, of talking points which, which are controversial, which caused tension, angst, anger in people, which absolutely get people focused on the wrong target.
And that, you know, we, we've been heavily criticised, continue to be. I mean, I got an email yesterday, the day before from someone saying, yeah, look, I'm basically, I paraphrase, but basically saying that, you know, I'm still watching your stuff, but I'm not, I'm not paying for a membership anymore because because you're, you're too anti Tommy Robinson and you're too pro Muslim. And that's neither of those things is actually correct.
The point is we're saying to people, it's not a question of being anti one thing and pro another thing. We're saying to people, no, hold on. What we're witnessing here is someone who's playing an audience on one hand and we're seeing a a group of people on another, on the other hand who have all the faults of any other group of people. But they also have a section of their society which has been radicalised and funded and in some cases armed by the governments that are our
governments. And so they have a, a, a bigger problem than maybe other communities, but that doesn't mean that we have to, you know, take the entire and, and put a blanket blame culture on, on an entire community because that's falling into the trap that's been set for us. And, and that, that's the point that we're trying to make.
Now there's nuance in that and it's, but, but, but the way that this is being presented and the, the way that you're expressing this in South Africa, it's being presented the same way in every country is that it's black and white. And, and so that becomes a very relatively easy thing when people are under pressure economically, they're under pressure for a host of different reasons to just find a target and go with that target even though it's the wrong one.
It's a low hanging fruit. Well, it's, it's, but it's been, it's been laid out for people and that's the problem. And, and we've got to, we've got to start recognising that when something's laid out for us that maybe that's not the right thing we should be looking at. Yeah, it reminds me of that whole Antifa thing in we was at Portland. I mean, that was obviously not organic.
Well, you, but, but if you look back at, at, at most of the so called colour revolutions and, and the, the so called grassroots uprisings that have taken place right across the world, they have been artificial. And, and this is just another one. And, and what so we're, we're not learning the lessons of history again, in the sense that because it happened in that country over there. Well, it, it's, it's different here. Well, it's not different here.
It's exactly the same MO. Going back to the specifics of the G20, I mean it the, the way I would consider it is that it is, it is tossing out a, a classic false binary.
Because both of the things you're talking about, the business that is actually to be discussed by the G20 and the sort of apparent sideshow, they're both about the same thing, which is everybody look this way at all the important people who are making decisions about your lives and whether or not you can get drawn in by one thing or the other is neither
here nor there. It's still a win if you're drawn in as opposed to thinking, well, hang on a minute, do these people and the stuff that they're talking about and apparently stand for really have a legitimate bearing on my life? And if not, then what am I going to do about that? But, but there's always a sort of side job. It's a bit like the the Will Smith slap at the Oscars. It's, it's the sort of, it's the same thing.
It's just pulling people, pulling people's attention in and and being able to generate that media interest that ensures that people are going straight over the most obvious hurdle, which is do these people have any legitimacy? And the answer really in most respects I think should be no. I agree with with Trump's decision and I agree with me that his decision. This is a great this is a great thing. And imagine how wonderful it would be if all countries boycotted it and there was no
summit. Do you do you think that would change anything though? No, no, but. Right. So so so. It's a form of protest, though. But, but it isn't going to achieve anything, right? And, and this, this I think is, is, is one of the things that people should be thinking about here. Let's say, let's say we, let's say we deal with the migration issue. Let's say we, let's say we close the borders today and let's say we expel, you know, 2 or 3 million people from the UK.
What changes at that point? Nothing changes at that point that, that we haven't solved anything by doing that because what, what are they, what are the problems here? What are the problems that people are actually facing? No high quality jobs. They're facing an energy cost which is off, you know, off the planet that that's, that's as a result of the, the, the structural, the structure of the energy market, particularly in the UK and Europe. We're net 0 isn't going to go away.
Digital ID isn't going to go away. None of these policy agendas that, that that we all recognise are a massive threat to, to our very freedoms are going to go away. So what we're, what we're dealing with, what, what we've dealt with. If we win that battle, if people perceive that that's a battle that they should be winning at this point, if that's the most important thing for them at this time, if they win that battle, what, what, what changes? Nothing, right?
Nothing because we still won't have enough reservoirs to provide the water that we need. We still won't have clean water. We still won't have roads at work. We still won't have potholes filled in. We still won't have and you can go on with the list.
So nothing changes, right, Because the target's wrong and everybody's focused on, on the guy in the hotel or the guy in the, in the, in the temporary accommodation or the guy that's getting £500 to go back to France or whatever, whatever The thing is, that's, that's the focus. And yet the people that are actually causing us the trouble are just continuing on with what they want to do and nobody's
saying a word to them. It's, it is, it is fascinating to me that you know, that, that people are so caught up in, in one issue that, that they're quite happy for the rest to just progress. And you know, and they'll say that they're not happy. Of course, they'll say I'm against digital ID, but they're not, they're not focused on that issue. They're focused on the, on the
migration issue. And that's the only thing they're focused on. And they're looking for it for Tommy or for Raj to come and, and save the day for them. That's not going to work because neither of those guys is criticising in any substantive way the the bigger agendas that are at work here. I saw a, a sort of a microcosm of this expressing itself a week or so ago. And I thought, gosh, that absolutely encapsulates the incredible amount of time, energy and effort that goes into
something that yields nothing. And it was in, I was driving through Gloucester and there was a, there was a gathering outside the Ibis Hotel, which is being used to house migrants. I don't know if the entire hotel is used for that purpose or what. I'm not quite sure what the specifics are. But, but, but it was a classic. You had, it was on a sort of side road off, off of main road. So it's kind of visible from the main road.
And at one side, sort of cordoned off by a police line, were protesters carrying union flags and, and that sort of thing making a, making a din. And that is literally what they were doing. I mean, if anyone was absolutely be able to back that up, there's nothing, there was nothing sort of constructive or significant being said, as it were, or indeed done. And then there was a, there was a gap across the hotel frontage where there was nobody permitted to go. And then there was another
police line. And then the other side of the police line was a, a counter protest, let's say. And the only banner that was legible to me from where I was standing as I'd approached it was just a banner that said diversity is our strength. So basically 22 groups of people, two groups of brainwashed people determined that they are, you know, opposing the people on the other side of that police cordon with a, with a hotel full of migrants
in the middle. I mean, what possible result was either of the the two sort of protesting parties expecting and yet that had that was on AI think it was a Saturday afternoon. It had drawn in. I don't know how many 100, but I mean, quite significant number of people who who have presumably dedicated quite a lot of time and energy into organising it and getting banners and stuff made and and and all the rest of it, as well as the significant police cost. And they even had a helicopter
up for goodness sake. And, you know, and all this goes on and then at whatever time it just gets collapsed. I don't think there was any trouble. But I mean, apart from anything else, what are the, what are the people in the hotel supposed to think? You know, there was no sort of formal or direct communication
with them from either party. So are they supposed to sort of look out the window and think right, Well, those guys on the right sort of, I think, I think don't like us and those ones do. But actually what's going to be the material difference to our lives as a result of this event? Absolutely nothing. And and yet this is, you know, this is seen up and down the land and and you think of the the similar thing was happening in Epping at the Bell Hotel. OK.
That was triggered by a particular incident that would have was misreported. And then when the hotel was ceased to be used for that purpose, that was misreported. Or at least that was that was a bit of chicanery in a way, because in fact, that was nothing to do with the council saying, right, yeah, OK, this is just not on. We shouldn't be doing this. It was a planning issue. And that's that was what created the the court to make that decision. So it is it is completely
remarkable. I'm not, I mean, I'm not suggesting that none of these people have valid views, but the the problem that people have is knowing what to do. And so going back to your point about whether the G20 is boycotted or not, you know, you, you have to be able to plot that whole way through and think, well, what, what is the result of that? And my contention would be that people's efforts that day in Gloucester or wherever else.
And I'm absolutely not saying, oh, you know, there's no point in protest. I'm saying that you, you have to really, really think about it and identify what your objective is and how you're going to achieve that. But just making a din outside a place where you perceive there to be either a bad thing or a good thing is not in itself ever
going to change anything. And so, you know, the, the sort of the organic debate, I mean, certainly in in other places I have absolutely, definitely seen, you know, the, the sort of the antifa element or the the opposing side totally, totally confected. I mean that that is that is beyond doubt that it's absolutely just render mob. So so this whole thing, you know, we come back to it's sort
of it's on a weekly basis. It's just just look what look what they're making people do, which is just to scrap with each other and and completely miss the point of of everything, but also totally sort of get rid of their own agency by by engaging in these, I'm afraid to say, sort of pointless actions. So that there is, you know, there's, there's got to be
common ground. I mean, that's a good example on the, on the migration thing, people who say diversity is our strength and well, you know, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. I, I think you'd have to be quite bloody minded not to see the privacy and data issues with digital identity, digital currency, the centralisation of all that kind of information.
So, so it does seem like there, there really should be points at which there is a sense of unity found and that in turn could lead, lead to, you know, meaningful actions by significant rejection of a particular scheme. But I think we've, we've got a, we've got a long way to go before that. And I think that, you know, shenanigans around around the G20 articulates that perfectly.
You've just got a couple of people who are making a bit of a making a bit of a fuss and and that's where the attention goes rather than anything actually happening. Well, anything actually happening is related to a question that my wife asked me this morning when I was talking
about exactly this. And she asked me, OK, now if digital ID is coming via the banks and in the next couple of years you will need to scan your QR code when you enter a bank or even a restaurant or some sort of building or whatever, she said. So she asked me what can you do about it right now? Like what can you do? Well, like the, the answer isn't easy, but the answer is pretty simple. OK, it's not easy to to implement, but it's simple to express.
We've got to be already building the parallel structures. That means we don't need to engage with that system And and that means, you know, well, I mean, it should be fairly obvious to people what that means. It means what we've been talking about for the every time, pretty much every time we've been on this this programme germ. That means making relationships with farmers so we can get food. It means using cash, so and and building networks of people that
that can support each other. We'll have a need. To engage with that system. Hold on. Yeah, but Mike, that's that's correct. And I I agree with you obviously and I'll I'll promote that. But if the banks, they are retracting the amount of physical cash that's in the system. So every time you purchase something, a lot of that cash disappears because it goes back to the banks. So they can swap it out with digital. What eventually that that physical cash is going to run
out? So people find other ways. I mean, it's not like it's not, it's, it's not really rocket science. German people were trading before there was any such thing as cash. You know, this, this is not something which is well, but you know, even in a country like the UK where where we have this idea of, you know, a monopoly on, on cash because the Bank of England is the only bank which is allowed to print money, that doesn't stop people using some other form of token.
You know, you create your own money, there are local currencies around this country which, you know, we can have a discussion about, about who and what kind of people were driving the idea of local currencies in the past. But but these things are absolutely possible. It just requires people to be thinking these this way and, and, and getting organised. You know that that it is possible to trade with people without cash. If if without using sorry, the the government issued cash.
But the principle of cash is just an, an agreement between people that some that a particular token has has a value and, and that we swap this token for this this particular product or this good. And, and, and, and so you create
a parallel infrastructure. I mean this, this is the, the, the danger of this is, is recognised by government because, because the UK government has has made the issue of creating parallel structures and a part of the definition of extremism and terrorism effectively. So, so you know, they, they, there is a recognition at, at an establishment deep state level that, that, that people getting organised in this way is something which is undesirable
for them. So if it's undesirable for them and they're putting it in their documentation that it's undesirable for them, we should be saying to ourselves, well, OK, let's get on with it. Getting people organised is it's just an impossible thing. Everybody was organised during COVID because they had something about which to rally around. Right, right, right, right. But, but I'll just, I'll just,
yes, that's true. I'll just interrupt you there because, because the issue there, the difference there was the existential threat was right there in front of people. At this point in time, the existential threat, digital ID is still something for that which for most people is pretty
ephemeral. It's something which is starting gradually to, to impact people's lives, but people are still it, despite the, the lessons that may or may not have been learned from COVID ocracy, people are still unwilling to, to look ahead and see what's coming and act now. They want, they want to wait for, for the, the, the thing to be blattering them over the head before they're actually willing
to engage. So, so I think the, the what needs to happen is that the people that do have that, that foresight get themselves in a position that they can provide others with an answer when when the time comes. In other words, don't give up. No, no, absolutely. We can't give up. I think also one shouldn't regard this as being a necessarily a sort of macro issue for for all the reasons that we've been through. I mean ultimately you really just need to make your own plan.
So if you have got somebody that you know will accept something other than digital money for whatever it is that you want, let's say fuel for your car that's not supposed to be on the road anymore because it has a combustion engine. You only need to find one person that's willing to, to do a deal with you and then and, and that will in turn spark a network. I think that's how things, you know, these things start.
And to a certain extent, although yes, personally I am sort of paying cash, well, I suppose pretty much exclusively for things and and whatnot. I, I feel like there is, there is a pretty good network in, in the UK of people who do have skills and goods that would be absolutely willing if it comes to it to create another system, however informal. And I don't think, I think this is the other thing.
I think in the first instance, there doesn't doesn't need to be any great sense of sort of formality to it. We're, we're not talking about the necessity for a centralised national system, thank goodness. I mean, I also find it slightly ironic that that it is cash, which of course has no inherent value that we've become so, so wedded to. And yet, you know, we, we talk about gold and silver quite a
lot. But I think still everybody's a little bit reluctant to consider that you might actually end up spending or trading something that does have a value. But it's, you know, it, it is not that difficult to imagine. I mean, the way I look at this, I think now and OK, this, this is yet to be demonstrated by concept or proof of concept, but but I see this as an absolutely massive opportunity.
You know, if there there will be people out there who absolutely do have the skills and the wherewithal to create. Yeah. I mean, you know, either a parallel system, if that's what one wants, call it, or a template for, for doing something differently. I mean, in effect, not, not that I'm sponsoring this, but but cryptocurrency is a very, is a very good example of that. You know, somebody's just created a different system and anyone can do that. But but the point is, it can be
done. We don't need to look to governments or enormous corporations just to make plans for us. And equally, we don't have to have the whole country fall in line for us to think, Oh, right. Well, OK, now I can do that. Just you just make the going yourself, you work out what it is you need and, and how you can go about doing that. And I, I really do think that there is a way that you would not, you know, not in absolutely
every respect. Of course, I do concede that I'm not being, I'm not being over overly idealistic about it. I, I would hope are overly optimistic. I think, I think there is the degree of realism. But then again, do we, you know, if people really sat down there was sort of pencil and paper and went through every single element makes contribution to their live lives, do we really need all the stuff, all the things, all the, you know, accoutrements to our lives that we currently have?
Probably not. I mean that is the existential question though, because I think it comes down to convenience and ease of living. You know, if the, if the banks want you to be verified with a digital ID and you don't want that, then you have to, you know, not bank with them. But the problem then comes in, you will need those networks already set up, you know, in advance so that you can operate.
So for example, here in South Africa, there's no law requiring anybody to be vaccinated for anything, right? So you don't have to, you don't have to by law, get an injection in your arm for anything. MMR doesn't matter what it is, nothing. However, the private sector can implement, you know, vaccination mandates by proxy. They'll, the schools might say, you know, you don't have to be vaccinated, but they won't accept your child.
Yeah, But hold on a second. Who, who, who says that that this is the way to live The, the the convenience, the convenience agenda is, is laid down in front of us. It's it's convenient. You can, but but who says that is the the right way to be? Why, Why are we why are we as, as people looking at, at the world and saying this is not right, It's not being run properly. It's the what's being offered is something that I don't like, but I'm still willing to consume what they give me.
I'm still willing to. It doesn't matter whether it's media Hollywood, you know, I, I want the convenience of a mobile phone, a, a, a smartphone and, and all the stupid social media rubbish that I consume, right. How much, how much of what is, is, is consumed on social media has any value to any one of us? And yet so many people spend their entire lives. I mean, they, they even use terms like doom scrolling.
I mean, you know, it's, there's a recognition there that this is not healthy and we choose bad health. We choose it, we choose it and going to McDonald's, we choose it and going to KFC, we choose it and using pharmaceutical products, we choose bad health. You're talking about the, the worry that that your child not might not be accepted in a school. Why would you want the education that they're providing? Why would that matter to you?
So, so this is, this is about, we've had, we've had this conversation so many Times Now, Jeremy, this is about the choices that we make and, and our personal ideology, our personal morality, our personal view of the world. And and it begins. It begins there. Actually on that, sorry, just just to get because I think Jeremy, am I right, you've, you've interviewed Tom Cahan, is that right? Tom Cahan, Yes, a couple of times. Have you talked to him about
education? He believes in homeschooling and not and not being a part of the system. Yeah. Yeah, All right. The example that he that he puts in, I don't know how many books he's written, but a book of his about education, it's absolutely
fascinating. And and it's, it mirrors exactly, let's say the, you know, the correlation between the exponential rise in the number of pharmaceutical products and their consumption and poor health, poor health outcomes, whatever, you know, this is, they absolutely are running side by side, Tom Khan writes.
But this amazing discussion he has with somebody about the necessity for a formal education, and I will condense it, but basically it is to say that before any formal schooling started, the population of America by percentage had largely read the writings of Thomas Paine and now no one has.
And, and this was cited as being the the sort of the way in which you would determine whether somebody was sort of engaged with life and educated because, because they could actually understand what was being written and how important it was to the lives of people to have digested this particular text. So the point of it is that it's, it's just like spending money that actually is not worth anything.
We are so confined by our ideas that, you know, education does actually deliver what it's supposed to when in the vast majority of cases it simply doesn't. I, I mean, I, I consider that of, you know, of myself and, and I think it's very hard to look at, to look at education, certainly in the United Kingdom as being for the benefit of really anyone but the state and, and the corporate entities that, that need slaves to make the, to make the wheel turn.
So I think, I think the, that the scale on which we have to reconsider is so much bigger than than we're liable to do, because so often the flames do appear to be licking at the front door. And you, and, and therefore that's what you've got to concentrate on rather than stepping further back to, to, to sort of, you know, Crow ball,
the analogy yet further. And, and, and really think about all of it and going, you know, and, and again, the, the, the delight of doing that is that you can go back in time to points at which none of this stuff either existed or mattered. I went to the, I went down to Portsmouth recently to the, to the docks, the historic docks, which is where they've got, you know, some of the exhibitions
there are amazing. But the Mary Rose, which was brought up in 1982, I think they, they got it up off the seabed and found 19,000 artefacts. But, but in there are some newly minted coins, gold coins, you know, hardly ever in circulation. And you know, you just look at that and compared with a, with a coin or a banknote today, obviously it's crude, it's not sophisticated, but for the people that used it, it was that was enough. That was absolutely fine.
It meant something. They all knew what it meant. So for us to similarly create, whether it be currency or or whatever, it is a different system. As long as you have in your your own sort of supply chain for your life, you have an unbroken link of people that will do. You know with you that the sort of trade and interaction that you want to and that it makes sense to all of you, We're fine and to hell with the rest of them. I just realised that I'm coming across as a complete normie.
I'm obviously trying to provoke conversation. Yeah, I'm on the same side. A friend of mine says he's got two kids. He he he decided with the second child not to register his child's birth. All right. So in other words, no ID number, no ID book, nothing. Doesn't want the government at all to know that this child exists. Obviously won't go to school. Both kids will be home schooled. They stay in the middle of of the country, you know, in the
middle of nowhere kind of thing. And he calls it unlearning. All right, So that's what he's going to teach, teach his kids. But the reality is that that child is going to be incredibly restricted from general life. Sorry, this friend of yours lives. Yours lives in South Africa. Yes. Yeah, so, so just so as I understand this, your your friend lives on the biggest, the continent on the planet that can has has war to give than just about anywhere else. Is that really that they can't
get on a flight? Is that a problem? I mean, they could, they could spend their entire, they could spend their entire life travelling from from one part of Africa to the next and never get back to the starting point before they die. You, you, you could well, well, I mean, how do you cross the border without an ID? That's what I'm. That's what I'm asking. Are you suggesting that there's border guards on every point? On every. I mean, you're talking about. I get where you're going. Right.
So, so, so you know, the question, the question is whether, what, what, what restriction that actually provides at the end of the day, because it's only a restriction if you want to be part of of the system that that's being provided and and there there are opportunities outside of that. It's a brilliant example. The passport everybody we will a totally conditioned to think, I mean crack it sort of going full circle on the migration thing because look, look how that
works out. But but, but the idea that you do that you do have to go through a particular port to show your documents to make sure that everybody knows that you know, you're going into another country. I mean, that is a very, very, in relative terms, that is a very new system that we all think is the only way to do it. And then crikey, there are, yeah, crossing land borders in Africa. Not a not a bother. You do not need to go through an immigration base that I can.
But I mean, I mean without, without making it sound utopian, it's not easy. This is an incredibly difficult path. Well, I mean, you sort of have to qualify that really, don't you? Yeah, I I agree. OK, wait, wait, wait. Charles, Charles. Charles, can you you Charles, can you operate right now without an ID? Well, you see the the problem with that question just just to be difficult is of course I, I am where I am.
So, so let's say a lot of the stuff that I've sort of set up would have required, would have required the things that we're some of the things we're talking about or. Whatever, Sorry, I I say ID, but I yeah, no. No, no, I know what you mean. But it is. But it's, but it's very odd because the whole thing sort of comes from from nowhere. Because in the first instance, you know, if you do, if you register a birth and I I'm sure it would be the same in South Africa.
But if you register a birth in the United Kingdom, you get a birth certificate. But, but a birth certificate is not proof of identity. So the the whole thing is predicated on very, very flimsy nonsense. I can't, I actually can't quite remember how you do get to the stage of proving, as it were, your identity. You know, because because once here it's your if you have a passport or if you have a driving licence, then supposedly you can prove your identity with that.
But but you see, you don't. You're not obliged to have a passport or a driving licence. And since the birth certificate is not proof of identity, actually the whole system is. It is fake, really. It's totally fake and it's, it's predicated on, for example, the idea that you give a, an honest answer to your name whenever you apply for, yeah, an account with the electricity company in, in the property that you happen to
be inhabiting. And that that seems to be sufficient to to to identify you with a bank, for example. So, so you know the the whole identity thing in the in the 1st place is completely without foundation in many cases because as you say, your birth certificate is not proof of identity. It's often used as, as one of the elements in, in identifying yourself to, to an agency of some kind, but it's not. So it's, it may be taken as proof sometimes, but it's not legally proof.
So, so, so yeah, I mean, it's, it's, I mean, we all know that how easy it is to, to create a fake identity. The, the intelligence agencies do it all the time. The police, I guess do it for if they're going undercover. So it's not hard to create a fake identity. The question is, the question is whether we should be doing much more of that. Maybe that's another option for
for fighting back. Yes. In other words, rather than one person out of 100,000 not registering the kids, 100,000 people should not be registering the kids. I mean, what's actually going to happen? What will the state do? Yeah, quite. That's it. And, and you know, the whole idea of proving your identity is, is, is, again, it's, it's utterly sort of disingenuous. It's not, it's not because anyone needs to know who you are. They just need to know what
you're doing. And, and those are, those are two typically different things. I mean, I think I'm, I'm, I said before how ridiculous it is now that, you know, we're, we're sort of being led to believe that biometrics and stuff is so important because otherwise you just can't be sure. And, and the first time I travelled for any great length of time through Africa, it was on a passport that was just on the cusp of running out. So it was, it was nearly 10
years old. So I had a picture of a, you know, whatever it was a picture of an 8 year old child. And it was when they, when they used to record height in the passport. And I think I was, you know, whatever I was, I was nearly 50 centimetres taller than the than the thing. And yet no, at no point did any
of the many many. Border officials that I handed it to, no one looked at it and thought, OK, but that's just that's, that's a photograph of a short child and that's not who you are, but we'll let you through anyway. So, yeah, it's, we have, you know, that, that's what's being used to convince us that these technological advancements are for our, you know, for our, well, OK, convenience, but, but sort of security and safety. Well, it's absolute rubbish.
I mean, yeah, you've, you've, you've spoken to Ian Davis recently about specifically this on the, on the digital identity front. And it's just, yeah, you know, it's, it's marketing. The whole way in which this stuff is being sold is utterly, utterly disingenuous. Absolute rubbish. There's an interesting history behind digital idea. I don't know if you know who actually came up with the idea. It it'll be on one of my upcoming shows. I spoke to a guy who runs a tech
company, the states. I, I, I won't go into it now, but he was chatting briefly about the guy who came up with the idea was about 20 years ago and it was noble in its intent. And then it was quickly bought by Microsoft. The idea of of the state giving you an ID seems quite contradictory, but the idea of a decentralised personalised identification it does seem like a good idea. Sorry, you saying that's something there for that's not controlled by the state, Yes, right.
OK. Yeah, well, again, that's another another sort of element that again doesn't really get considered. Why should it be, you know, why should it be the state telling me who I am? In effect, by virtue of the fact that they that they issue the birth certificate or the passport or the driving licence to say yes, you are this person, surely it's up to me to decide if I am that person or indeed who I say I am. The original question was do we need to, or at least at some
point. The question was, do we need to engage with the system? We got into a conversation about how we might not, but of course we, we can still engage with the system and with a view to disrupting it. And of course, in order to do that, we've got to probably get ourselves fully engaged with digital ID and so on.
But you know what, I've, I've told this story many, many times, a lot of years ago, a guy in Plymouth here not paying his council tax and, and trying to establish on what basis he had to pay his council tax and what was the process that would he would go through if he refused to pay and, and so on. And he took it to the court and, and, and we attended as, as, as witnesses on the day just to see what happened.
And, and the first thing that that I realised was as I walked into the court was in the FOIA outside the actual courtroom, there were half a dozen council employees there to try to negotiate with anybody that turned up at at the court that day to, to try to set up a payment plan or whatever it was. But the last thing they wanted was anybody actually going into the court and offering any kind of defence they wanted. They they were effectively hiring the court for the day.
And they wanted to, to go in with their spreadsheet of non payers and to get a blanket order from the court that that they could proceed with, you know, you know, taking those, those names to, to bailiffs or whatever to, to recover the debt, the debt collection agencies and so on. So it was obvious that on that particular day, I think there were something like 1500 people on that list that a 1500 people that turned up to the courtroom that day that the entire system
would have collapsed on under. It's a weight, right. And, and you know, no matter what we think about the legislation that is in place at the moment with respect to digital to data protection, sorry, for example, the legislation is there. And one of the tools that is provided by that legislation is, is something in this as far as the UK is concerned, other other countries have similar
situations. One of the things in the UK that that we have at our disposal is, is the subject access request where we can make an application to any, any body, whether that be a corporate body or a public body and say what is the data that you hold on me? And they are required to within 20 working days provide you with a copy of everything that they have about you. Now if we if we do that in a systematic way, we bring the entire system to a halt.
Now, whether they can implement some form of artificial intelligence based mechanism for dealing with these at some point in the future, they can't do it today. So, so, you know, the, the aim should be if, if, if what we're if what, what we're saying is that we don't like this tech technocratic system which is being developed. The aim should be at the very least to slow it down.
And the way that we slow it down is that we keep it so tied up and knots responding to, to requests and, you know, similar sorts of things that, that, that it can't, you know, people can't progress the thing because they're so busy all the time.
You know, a lot of right back at the very beginning when, when the, the supermarkets in the United States and the United Kingdom started producing loyalty cards and they were, you know, you got your loyalty card, which allowed them to then associate your specific, the specific items that you were buying with your identity. People were, people were saying, well, this is, this is insane. Looking back on it now, it seems utterly tame compared to what we have at the moment.
But, but people were sticking those cards in the post to each other and, and deliberately attempting to, to make the data that was being collected worthless to the supermarket. Because, you know, one week I was buying stuff in Plymouth, the next week I was buying stuff in Manchester or the next week I was buying stuff in Washington, DC and it was buying different stuff every time. So, so you know, the, the, the principle behind that was to poison the database.
And, and this is, this is exactly the right approach. It's and it's something that that nobody is really doing at this point, I think. Because people are scared. People got to stop being scared, you know? People, people can be scared and and sit and shiver in the corner, but that's not going to stop anything, you know? So what are you scared of? Are you scared of what's coming? Well, it isn't here yet, so don't be scared of it now. Fight it. And then it doesn't.
Then it never arrives. I mean, you know, we've got to make a decision. It all comes down to us making individual decisions. We talked about this so many times. I think that is probably the ultimate solution, Mike, when when people say ah, but. No, the ultimate solution, Jeremy, is that we have to. We have to be fighting on every front. We can't, we can't just do the, I'm going to buy stuff from a
local farmer. I'm going to find a local way, a way to trade locally with, with like minded people. We can't just do that. We've got to also do the other thing. So, you know, I think in reality, to some degree we, we should be certainly working to minimise any interface that we have with, with the, with the system. But, but to some degree we've got to, we've got to make a decision, you know, how much interface we do have with it and, and what we're going to do
with that interface. And, and in the meantime, I think we should be using it as much as we can to to disrupt it as much as we can. Also, I think I think it is interesting to consider because sorry, we, we rather moved on, but you're the friend you're talking about who's going to, who's planning to bring up a child in effect with no, you know, sort of outside of the system. I mean, you know, ultimately I think it comes down to their sense of purpose and happiness, joy and love in life.
Why? Why should we associate being outside of all the control mechanisms that we want to get away from, be synonymous with having a sort of miserable, unfulfilling life? I don't see that that it should be at all. I think yes, OK, we have got used to being able to do whatever it is, buy something with a credit card and immediately get on a flight to the other side of the world or or this that and the other.
But to say that we derive a higher pleasure in life from being able to do that, I think is I think it's a hard one to argue. So I think just again, a re evaluation of, of what a fulfilling life may actually entail is, is, is something that we should do. It is interesting how frequently it comes back to the sort of rural urban divide, because I think a lot of, a lot of what we do talk about people are necessarily constrained by, by
where they physically are. And, and I'm, I, I'm, you know, I don't think anyone should be sort of criticising other people's life decisions, but I have a bias inherent just because I, I do live outside of urban areas and, and pretty much always have done. And therefore I can see for, for my part, I, I can see exactly how a life can work outside of
the urban environment. And, and to me really, you know, given certain, certain conditions, like if you, if you have got sufficient materials with which to educate yourself, your family, this and the other, and you've got a source of food and a means of transport, then, you know, you sort of are sorted. How that quite compares to or in an, in a, in an urban environment, I don't really know. I think I I think what would be? Very interesting. Sorry.
The other thing, Charles, is that there is a practical reality here. Other other land masses have better opportunities. But in the UK, if we've got 70 million people here and everybody wanted to live a rural life, that that ain't going to work. Exactly. Yeah, No, totally. I mean, and that's that's the thing. We we, we do return to the sort of where we are, where we are.
What I, what I was about to say was I would be very interested to hear from somebody who feels that they are in a way protected from all the things that we're talking about. But that they do live in a, in an urban environment, that they do have access to food. That they may not be growing on their own property, but that, you know, whether fire and allotment and this that and the other.
And that they are in in some ways perhaps bartering or entering into different types of trade agreements and are not, and don't, you know, don't feel that they're reliant on the sorts of things that I think in the, in the countryside, I don't feel I'm reliant on. It'd be really interesting. I mean, I there must be people there who who do sort of fall into that category, but I, but I'm not sure I really know any
interesting area. Well, we're coming in for a landing and just to horseshoe to the start of the conversation. This is the kind of conversation that I wish more S Africans were having rather than black, white, black, white, black white the whole time. Yeah, I mean, I'll keep saying
this. We got to stop thinking in terms of black, white, left, right and thinking about looking up and, and at who is actually pulling the the puppet strings on so many and, and actually working out that black, white. We're actually on the same side and and. There is no left, right? Precisely. Great chatting, Charles. Mike, I'll catch up with you next week.