This is London calling. Either way. Seven and a half years later,
we can point to the precise moment that Permanent Washington decided to send Donald Trump
to prison. Here it is. It's from the Republican candidates debate in Greenville,
South Carolina. We should have never been in a rack. We have
destabilized the Middle East. But it was the next line that doomed Trump to
today's arrest. They lied. He said there were no weapons of mass destruction
and they knew there were none. Welcome to London calling with me, James
Denibor and my very good friend mister Toby Young. I hope you haven't had
a week as boring as I've had. Now, I've had quite well,
an event filled week that could be boring, That can be boring, yes,
but now I wouldn't say it, And we've had quite a relaxing weekend.
I managed to spend in time with my family, cook some family meals,
do some odd jobs around the house, a bit of gardening. So
I feel like I'm all caught up but with domestic life and can now plunge
back into my career as an international man of mystery. All right, okay,
yeah, no, I always like getting in a bit of stuff like
gardening and lawnmowing because I get like, but you know, I get points
basically exactly the wife. One recovers a little bit from all the brandy points
you've lost during the week with one's wife. Yeah, I think. I
think it's the same for men the world over. I had a very boring
warning I had to do one of those speed awareness courses online. Now,
what were the circumstances heading up to this, James, How fast were you
going and where were you going? Oh? I was going down to have
a if you really want to know, I was going to have one of
those is it called eight past nine past twelve pass blood things where they where
they remove your luod oxygen ate it and then or put ozone through it and
then put it back in. And I was I was late for my appointment,
and I was so I was zapping down that road that goes from sort
of Oxford Way, I think is it a thirty four um sort of through
Hampshire um pass pass down to an abbey that'd passed high clear and then down
towards the south coast, and I got nicked by one of those police fans.
I think I was doing you know, eighty something in a okay okay,
and they gave it the option of either accepting the points and what a
fine or taking a speed awareness called yeah, because you see, you can
only you can only take the speed awareness option every three years. And luckily
my previous bit speed awareness thing had just run out, so it was three
years since I last got nick for speeding and I took the speeding awareness.
You didn't you did had it been within the three year window, So you
wouldn't you would you have tried to claim that Tiffany was driving at the time.
Well, I don't know. Look, I think one has a moral
duty to um to frustrate the Nanny Stage at every possible term. I mean,
i'm, I'm, I'm totally against lying generally, but I think that
when you are lying or cheating the devil, then anything goes. I believe
that the stage is fundamentally evil and against us in every every way. What
if you're a senior politician and former coalition party or rather coalition government cabinet minister,
as Chris Huan was when he lied about who was driving the vehicle and
made his wife take the points and was then later found out when his wife
confidentially imparted that Isabel Oak shot. He wrote about it in The Sunny Times.
I don't think these people are really human, Toby, that that they
they they have sort of they have. Um. I'm sure that some people
become politicians with the noblest of intentions, but by the time they get to
Chris Huhn's stage, they've lost any right they might have to public sympathy or
indeed to the status of being a viable human being. I think I think
that they're just they're just agents of Satan. Basically, I have no time
for politicians at all. I think, I think, I know this.
This is kind of one of the things that were one of our great dividing
lines, that that you think that these people are really fundamentally decent, and
I think that they are not. They are they are the very least corrupt.
Um probably, I think. I think. I don't think that all
politicians, yes, all of them, I think I think, um no,
No, I don't think that all of them are decent. Change I'm
just correcting your caricature of my position. I'm not trying to summarize yours.
But um, I I do think that probably a majority of politicians, at
least in this country, start out with good intentions and go into politics for
the right reason, because they want to make a difference, because they have
a sense of duty, patriotism, want to do some public service. But
I think many of them, not all of them, do become corrupt if
they ever attain any power. And I think it's it isn't just power that
corrupts. It's also, I think just the brutality of politics. Being surrounded
by people who are willing to sacrifice any personal integrity, any principle, in
order to advance their political career or the political cause they believe in. I
think that ultimately has a kind of brutalizing, desensitizing effect. That's my experienced
politicians are the compromats. Don't forget the compromat, you know, the photographs
with the kids and stuff like that. I mean that, it's just yeah,
I I don't want it even want to be in a room with these
people anyway. I was going to tell you about my my driving, my
driving course, and you distracted me by making it all serious. Sorry,
I was going to. I was going to. I was really tempted.
It was a zoom call and so there are about nine of us on the
zoom call and it's like, as you know, have you done one of
these courses I have? Yeah, it's like being back at I did.
I did mine in person. I didn't do it via zoom. If you
do do it via zoom, don't they watch you like a hawk. So
if you're sort of on your phone, if you tear your eyes away from
the screen, you have to do the desk. You get busted. You
have to do it again. Well, they ask you questions and stuff to
test whether you're whether you're paying attention and you and you have to you have
to gauge it right. You don't want to be the class swat um.
At the same time, you don't want to answer so few questions that you're
The guy in charge of the course gets upset and kinds of extends it because
he feels you're not paying attention. So you want him to get it over
as quickly as possible, which is why I had to suppress. In any
any situation where where there's there's more than one person present, I want to
well, even with there's one person present apart from me, all I want
to do is red pillham I want to talk about talk about the death jabs,
or talk about whatever. And there were there were various things I wanted
to say, like when this, when this figure came up that I think
it's it's only sixteen hundred people that die every year in road accidents. Okay,
I mean it's bad, bad if you're one of those sixteen hundred people.
But I was going to say, the government, the government is worried
about sixteen hundred people? Is it? When it when it? When it
killed at least ten times that with with with vaccines, and I would have
been the perfect, the perfect excuse, but I did. And then we
were talking about we were talking about ways, and I said, you know,
I love ways. I love the way it can get you out of
traffic jams. But isn't anyone else here feeling a bit uncomfortable about using something
that was developed spyware that was developed by the Israeli Intelligent Services. Always always
golden, golden moments where I knew that I had a captive audience, I
could have got them on board. And yeah, there was there was a
mixture of them. There was the sort of old school, sort of brummy
brummy lorry driver who was having a fag as he attended the thing. And
then there was a black person who worked for the NHS, and there was
a woman with a with a hijab type thing, and there was a you
know, it was all the all the different different types of you know,
there was the boy racer, there was was representative, there was the sulky,
the sulky girl. And I was thinking, yeah, I wonder which
ones would bite, But I never got the chart site and I did not
want to be the wanker that makes the class any a fraction of a second
longer than it needs to be. So you could you could tell which ones
were on my side and which ones weren't. At the in person speed awareness
course I did, it was in a hotel um just on the on the
north circular um and and it was on the south occit actually it's on the
eight four or six. And the people who were definitely not on our side
were wearing masks even though masks weren't mandatory, right, and those who weren't
weren't wearing masks. I mean in that way, mask is quite helpful in
immediately enabling you at a glance to sort people into you know, lockdown skeptics
and lockdown delots. But when I did it, interestingly, James, you
know they I initially, my initial sort of attitude was, you know,
I'm just having to go through these motions. It's entirely pointless. I'm just
doing this to avoid getting the points and paying the fine. I'm not actually
going to learn anything and in order to and they must be aware that most
people approached the course with that in mind, you know, out of a
sense of grim duty, not because they think they're going to learn anything useful.
So they initially pep you with these questions such as, you know,
if you're in a heavy goods vehicle in a fifty mile per hour zone,
how fast are you allowed to go? Questions like that designed to tease out
the labyrinthine complexity of the speed limit rules. And and of course you know,
I failed that test completely, and I suppose after that did think,
well, maybe I'm going to learn something here. So I didn't earn any
of that, But of course in retrospect, what it shows you is that
the rules are impossible to master. They seem almost designed to catch you out,
so you'll end up having to you know, I mean, you have
to pay for the speed Awareness courtness of course, and somebody's getting rich.
But if you don't, you know, if you if you don't take the
speed awareness course, you have to pay us sum of money to you know,
the government. And it's just it just shows you when when when they
give you this initial course, which I'm sure everyone fails, you know that
the little quiz, that little pop up quiz, It just shows you how
impossible it is to avoid being done for speeding. Yeah, and at the
end they say, well have you learned your lesson? And what what what
you're going to take to apply all the things you've learned today? And I
was thinking, yeah, well it's quite interesting you learn that that how little
difference it makes to your journeys at time, if you add ten miles an
hour to your journey, maybe I will, just for the sake of my
license, think about that. And then just before this podcast, daughter ran
from from from her place of work and she left her fags at home and
urgently needed the fags delivered to her because you can you can't get rolling tobacco
where she was. And I thought, well, this is an important mercy
mission. So I dashed off and it was a race against time to get
back for this podcast, and I found myself inadvertently speeding. So there we
are, and shows how how affective these courses are. I mean, unlike
you, you know, I'm very skeptical. There does definitely seem to be
a war taking place motorists, not just in this country but across the developed
world. And the constant duction of speed limits and the introduction of evermore complexity
into the rules of the road, and the amount of money the government is
now raking in from people having to pay parking fine speeding fines. It all
seems to be part of a global conspiracy to force to stop driving cars.
I don't know if you. The WEF has announced its target. It wants
seventy five. It wants a seventy five percent reduction in private car ownership by
twenty fifty. And of course, one of the reasons these authoritarian global bodies
dislike car ownership, it's not just because they brought into the kind of climate
change hysteria. It's also because owning a car is a kind of talisman of
individual freedom, of autonomy, makes you less dependent on the state. And
of course these authoritary institutions don't like Toby. This is a great moment.
This is this is the joy in heaven. They have a one sentence and
of that repents this. You finally admitted it. The global conspiracy is real?
Is that what I'm saying. I'm saying I'd I'd be probably, I'd
be willing to entertain the hypothesis that there are there is an organized international effort
to discourage people from driving and owning cars because they pay these or driven cars.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there isn't. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy,
but there is a coordinated international Why wouldn't you call on most risks?
Why why would I mean, if it's coordinated, Well, I suppose partly
because it's in plain sight, and they set out their reasons, and I
don't think they're going to I don't think they have anything. I didn't they
have any any kind of concrete financial incentive or other sinister incentive for promoting this
agenda. I mean, I think I think it. I think it is
largely because they believe that carbon emissions contribute to climate change, and that if
we don't do something about it, we'll soon reach a point of a return,
and sooths I don't think. I don't think necessarily um that for that
a conspiracy has to take has to be secret to counter as a conspiracy.
When we talk about conspiracies in plain sight all the time, and it just
means conspiring, doesn't it means breathing together literally, And whether whether they conduct
their their plan in mock us by showing us what they're doing as w e
F does, or whether they're doing it in dark, smoky rooms doesn't smoke
for rooms, doesn't really matter, does it. It's still a conspiracy.
It's still a bunch of people arranging the world in their particular interests. But
I suppose I think of if when I think of conspiracies, I think that
even though they could be unfolding in plain sight, I think that doesn't there
have to be an ulterior motive, a can see yield agenda. Even if
what they're doing they're doing in plain sight, you're making up the definition that
there is something more. Well, probably my my my criteria of what constitutes
a conspiracy theory is are kind of more exacting than you. Maybe maybe maybe
the thing is you've been totally agreeing with me all along, and the only
reason you thought you were disagreeing with me you didn't understand what a conspiracy was
because just because you didn't, because because I've noticed this coming cropping up quite
a few times. You say, yeah, but what's the motivation? And
I don't think it's necessary to know what the motivation is in order to know
that something is a conspiracy. I mean, like, for example, if
when Brutus and Cassius and the rest of the gang they all decide to to
kill Julius Caesar, regardless of what their motivation is, they're still killing Julius
Caesar, and so so I don't think you need that definition of I think.
I think, I think I think you perhaps likely misunderstood. Why I
do persist in asking you what you think the motivation of motivation is of the
people conspiring against us. It's not because I think that unless there is a
kind of coherent motivation or an ulterior motive that's discernible, then it's not really
a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's if you're going to persuade me that something
that's happened, such as you know, the pandemic, the rollout of the
vaccines, is the product of a conspiracy. As part of the case,
you need to make in order to persuade me. You don't need to.
It's not enough to kind of point to evidence that a conspiracy may have happened.
You have to also, I think, to persuade me that this is
the best explanation of what's happened, more more convincing than a cock up theory.
I don't want. I think you have to posit that there is some
kind of motive here that that that's why these people have been doing this.
Kind of it's part of making the your your explanation more credible than my explanation.
But I don't want to suppose it's a defining characteristic of a conspiracy theory.
I would much rather um that that you you didn't believe there was a
conspiracy, so that every week people could laugh at your your your delusions.
I mean, it would be a disaster for this, for this podcast.
If if if suddenly you became James Dalling poland saw and saw the truth and
saw the light. I mean, I think it really helps me that I
can see you sort of quickly absurd denial. Well when when for instance,
when I when I um, when I ask you about a particular conspiracy,
Let's say um, your your claim that dis are a hoax. Um.
In order to persuade me of that, yeah, I think you need to
be able. You need to have a story to tell. Not you don't
just point to you know, discrepancies in the fossil records or you know,
um, confessions of paleontologists, be very speaking evidence. You need to also
kind of I think, in order to persuade me, have an explanation for
why this hoax was perpetrated on the public. What do the people who perpetrated
the hoax stand to gain from perpetrating it? And that's the part you always
leave out. You will say I don't need to provide that. M No,
I don't. I don't know. Just still it reminds me a bit.
It's not very But if you don't, then you're going to have difficulty,
I think, persuading me and more neutral minded listeners that that's true,
that that true. I think I think in a way that that that your
insistence that one has to be able to im to psychoanalyze the people responsible with
this stuff. I think it's what I would call your cope. It's your
way of it's your you realize that there's lots of evidence out there that strongly
suggests that that I'm actually right, that there really are a number of conspiracy
that essentially the whole world that we experience is a is a is a siop.
Everything we've been brought up to believe is basically a lie. And it's
your last defense. It's your it's your Ziegfried line, if you like,
with your dragon's teeth, it's it's that. Yeah, but it can't be
real because I can't understand the motivation. Um My, my, my friend
Alexander Waugh, who who's made a brilliant case demonstrating that that Shakespeare, that
the the Man from Stratford was just another you know, kind of elizabeth and
Jacobean psiop, that he was actually written by His works were written by a
scriptorium headed by Edward de vere of Oxford. And he's got it very very
He's devoted hours of study to this and and his I think his case is
unanswerable, but whenever he presents all the evidence, all the kind of historical
evidence and all the codes that lead lead towards him, because of course the
Elizabethans and the Jacobeans were fascinated with gamatria and codes and symbols and so on.
He'll he'll make this case which is unanswerable. And somebody said, yeah,
but why would why would the Earl of Oxford? Why would he if
he was so good, why would he? But he not, you know,
put his name onto the works. Well, why would he mask raiders?
This this man from Stratford. And Alexander says, well, you can't
really psychoanalyze these people. You know that this happened four hundred years ago.
I cannot. I have my theories, but I cannot get into their minds.
I cannot present you with the definitive answer. And I think that's the
same with with with all these conspirators, for example, dinosaurs. I would
say that the dinosaurs were part of the in the same way as geology and
Charles Lyle and his dating off the Earth was part of it was part of
the massive siop to persuade us that there was this this thing called evolution,
that the evolutionary theory was developed in the in the nineteenth century. I think
Charles Darwin was a was a complete fraud. I think evel should I mean,
as he even admits in the origin of species. By the way,
you should, You've got to read that book that was sent to you,
to both of us um, because I still want to discuss it with you,
particularly the chapter on the elution the origin of species Um that the dinosaurs
thing was part of that, that sign up that the dinosaurs were not known
until we're not named. I didn't think until the eighteen twenties, I think
was the first use of the word. And so like what happened, what
happened before the nineteenth century? Why were no dinosaur bones discovered? That James,
you've you've just more or less done what you claimed you didn't have to
do, and I had no right to ask you to do, which is
to provide some kind of broad explanation involving motive for the dinosaur fraud. So
I can give hints of what what I think is what I think the motivation
was, and I think that they were they were sort of riding about the
bandwagon, riding a gravy tech train, profiteering at the same time promoting a
dishonest theory about and I think for a number I think I think the I
think it comes down to Ockham's razor um. It's a question, well,
what what's the most likely explanation for you know, the fossil record, and
one explanation is that these creatures really did exist, and carbon dating to suggest
that the fossils are genuine, and so on and so forth. Now,
I think in order to persuade people that your explanation is the simpler one,
and for that reason we should accept it in preference to what I think that's
the most obvious explanation. You do need to have a story to tell about
why you think some of this evidence would have been faked. And unless you
do, and you have just done that, But unless you do, I
don't think you're going to meet Just do that so comes raised a standard.
Well, now you've done it, I think then the question is, well,
if there has been this kind of conspiracy to perpetrate this hoax in order
to ultimately discredit the theory of evolution and maybe restore people's faith in genesis,
why haven't the conspirators, Why haven't Why hasn't the Why hasn't any kind of
information about this conspiracy leaked? Why haven't Hang on a second, take a
step back. You're not even familiar with the passage in Origin of Species where
where Darwin expresses doubts about his own theory. I mean, if we if
we're gonna can you at least do your homework first, will come back to
evolution. We can talk about this. But rather than you thinking up new
reasons why why the plethora of information I give you about the fraudulence of the
origin of species, you know you can't come up with some other new,
crappy explanation as to why you don't believe it. We'll talk about it when
you've read the chapter in that book, and then you can come back to
me and say what you find persuasive about Darwin himself saying that he could see
this massive flaw in his evolutionary theory. Otherwise there's no point discussing it.
It's silly, but but we would you sort of segued, You segued from
dinosaurs to the theory of evolution. Come on, James, let's part.
Let's part the theory of evolution for a moment. If you really believe that
that paleontologists are fraudsters trying to perpetrate a fraud on the British public or the
international public, why hasn't Why hasn't that, Why haven't why hasn't one of
them turned on another Why Why hasn't there been a leak? Why haven't Why
haven't Why hasn't Why haven't detectives determined that that these people are hoaxing us?
We see this with us. The world is the world is deeply corrupt.
I mean, look, we can we can give another example of this.
The world is absolutely corrupt people. People are corrupted by the what's the what's
the the? Um? Uh? It is hard to hard persuade a man
to understand something when when when his income to spend depends on it's not understanding
it. I mean that that that's given throughout every profession, including including ours
our trade. Um. Look, look, I can talk about this till
till the cows come home, and I'm really happy to do so. But
I think that if we're going to do it, I think you owe me
the courtesy of actually looking into the evidence for my conspiracy theories rather than just
dismissing them glibly as well. Why would they do that? I don't think
it's enough. You've got to do a bit of homework. Otherwise it's just
it's just silly. Because I have to do a homework into the fake Paul
McCartney conspiracy theory as well well. You can. You can. You're allowed
to make your you have to exercise, You're allowed to make clearly nonsense.
You can make your snarky little jokes about Paul McCartney, and I can ask
you to do a bit of homework before blithely dismissing stuff that you haven't loot
into just because you won't. All right, James, we should probably hear
from one of our sponsors. Think. Are you worried about parents or a
loved one who are finding it more and more difficult to take care of themselves,
or who may be living with a condition such as dementia or Parkinson's?
Are you starting to think about a residential care home? But the very thought
doesn't sit right At the Live in Care Company, we truly believe that home
is the best place to receive care from an expert care of your choice,
and on a one to one basis, home is always a calmer, more
healthy, and a happier place to be. For more information about live in
care, please go to the Live in Care Company dot co dot uk or
ring us for a no obligation conversation on zero one one eight nine four five
three double ow. We will be happy to help. Okay, So,
James, what are we What are we going to talk about that's been in
the news recently. Well, I wanted to talk to you about. Have
you seen any of Tucker's monologues since he left Fox and moved on to Twitter.
I've seen snippets. They're really good. I mean, I don't I
don't necessarily agree with everything he's with everything, And I'm still not sure whether
Tucker himself is not a form of controlled opposition, but he's he's very fluent,
and he's and he's kind of on the money about a lot of things.
I think his first I think his first monologue got something like one hundred
and twenty million views, which is not bad i'd say for a political Yeah,
incredible, m Yeah, And I think, yeah, it's interesting.
It'll be interesting to see whether Twitter becomes a rival to YouTube, which is
clearly Elon Musk's agenda. And you can, i think, monetize the videos
you put on Twitter, although I'm not quite sure how you do that,
and I don't think um Tucker's started to do that yet. But I imagine
Tucker's plan is to first of all, find an audience and then find a
way to monetize their huge numbers of eyeballs. But yeah, it's it's it's
an interesting model and something I've been thinking about what we're getting getting one hundred
and twenty million viewers one but but putting, putting, putting, the putting,
using using Twitter to publish videos of free speech, union debates, talks,
book launchers, etc. Maybe as well as YouTube, or possibly instead
of YouTube. I mean, the great thing about Twitter, obviously is that
it isn't sent in the same way that youtubeers. Well well so they so
they claim. I think probably shadow banning and stuff still does go on anyway.
But on the content of what Tucker said, I just thought I want
you to know whether how far you agree or disagree with what he was saying.
So let me just give you a couple of examples of his of his
his recent ones, one of them was was devoted to why it is that
he said, Trump's been arrested by by the US Deep State or whatever,
and he's and they want to put him away. Why do they want to
do this? And Tucker Tucker's theory is that it goes back to twenty sixteen.
He plays the speech in twenty sixteen where where Trump broke the rule you
can never break in US politics. Do you know what that was? Was
he critical of NATO? Well sort of, yeah. He Tucker's theory is
he called out the US military industrial complex. He said there was never any
need for for the Gulf Wars, that it was there were never any weapons
of mass destruction, that it was all that was all fake. And Tucker's
point was, look, you can you can make all sorts of points about
in US politics. You can always you can talk about domestic politics and have
violent disagreements between the Republicans and the Democrats on the on the usual issues.
But when it comes to war, Democrats and Republicans are united because basically that's
how they get all their money. That's how they they extract the money from
the taxpayer. They they decided to invade a Rak or Afghanistan or whatever it's,
it's it's it's it's basically their business model. And by by calling out
this corrupt system, which which yeah, that that that Trump signed his death
warranted, essentially you're with me or not? Um? No, Um,
that sounds pretty full fetched. Um. And I So you don't Iraq,
Iraq and Afghanistan. You think the war on terror was started off by,
of course, the false flag attack of nine to eleven. You think that
it was a genuine thing, that there worthy these terrible men with turbans and
head scarfs, and no, no, no, no, I reject,
and we had to go to war with them. Park all that, James,
Now, I reject the premise that the reason Trump lost the election in
twenty twenty and has been indicted of various federal crimes. I reject the premise
that that is that he's been the victim of a conspiracy organized at the behest
of the military industrial complex. The reason Trump has been brought low is almost
entirely due to his own shortcomings. In the case of the current indictments,
he made it. He really put the Department of Justice in an impossible position.
They gave him every opportunity to resolve this um, and he's simply arrogantly
ignored their invitations to talk about it, to cooperate with them, to return
these documents. Instead, he just, you know, assumed that he was
above the law. So he gave him no choice, no choice but to
prosecute him. James, You've brought into Trump's own victim narrative that he is
his own grievance, maggring, I'm the victim of a conspiracy. No,
he's not. He's he's he's he's he's the victim of his own shortcomings,
of his character. James, So you think, so, you think,
what so Trump should go down for having a few a few? Do you
know how many classified documents there are in the American system? You think you
think that the world, world peace was jeopardized by by by Trump taking home
a few, a few bits of paperwork. I think no, I don't
think he should go to jail. Do you not think the charges are trumped
up? I mean, just silly, I think, I think. I
don't think the trumped up though. I think he was given every opportunity to
avoid this blowing up in that's done, but he just arrogantly ignored those squandered
those opportunities. And so now he finds himself and the picking arrogance is a
is a prisonable offense. It's not. But it's not, it's not.
He's not, He's not the victim of a conspiracy, James's he's just a
you know, he's just an idiot. So its suppose suppose suppose I can't
imagine that it would be likely. But suppose anything you said or did was
was deemed to be threatening to the government, and the government decided to to
prosecute you because you you hadn't I don't know, UM paid your your TV
license and you just thought sob this. They're they're picking on me because I'm
such an outspoken freedom fighter. I'm not going to play their game. They
can just I'm not going to pay my TV license and you and so your
line on that would be, well, I deserve to go to prison for
this because I was given every opportunity to to pay my TV license and I
didn't. Because no, that's silly. If the charge is being brought against
them, frivolous, why should he take them seriously? To use your analogy,
James, what you're suggesting would be like me, me being given ample
opportunities to pay my TV license. Yeah, and only after persistently refusing,
even after it had been made clear to me that I might be fined a
thousand pounds if I'm found guilty of not paying the TV license. If if
after persistently refusing, after it being made crystal clear that there was a very
simple way to get out of this name me to pay my TV license.
If I was then prosecuted and given a fine, it would be my Let
me tell you around, the only reason I'm being fine for not paying my
TV license is because I criticized the government five years ago or in twenty sixteen.
That would be ludicrous. I don't think anyone goes to prison for not
paying their TV lives. No, I think you're you're my point. I'm
saying that that that that this is just a vinal vinal slip that he's been
there. They're indicting him for that. They're they're putting him for they're breaking
a buffly on a wheel. They've just just just picked any old thing that
they can get him on. And it's a joke. And I don't blame
him. I mean, I'm not even I'm not even a Trump fan.
I think he's possibly the Antichrist. But but but but but given that given
that, yeah, I mean, just on its own terms, I don't
really understand why you think it's acceptable for the president of the U of the
USA to be senile, incontinent, and in the pay of the communist Chinese
with with with with who said that, I don't think that's acceptable at all
that that well, well you you you seem to give him cover. You
don't. I never hear, I never hear having go at Biden. You
may get a choice, a little binary there, James, who is after
who is after all the presidents of the USA. But but let me speak.
The choice you're giving me is either I think Trump is the victim of
a conspiracy because he criticized the industrial that the military industrial complex in twenty sixteen,
or I'm a Biden supporter and there's no middle ground. Is that really
how you view this? If you don't believe in the conspiracy theory about Trump,
then you must be a Biden supporter. Well, what I'm what I'm
saying is that you're remarkably complacent about the myriad, very very serious crimes which
are being committed by by the Biden administration, and yet you are happy for
Trump to to go down for the crime of bringing hope, of having a
few memos in his possession which have got every other document in Washington is stamped
secret. Well, you're taking these charges seriously. That's what I don't get.
You seem to be You buy in to the establishment narrative so much it
makes me wonder what your what your motivation when you say taking them seriously,
it's not clear. It's not clear what you mean, James. Do you
mean do I think the charges are trumped up? The evidence has been faked
because he is the victim of a conspiracy involving the Justice Department and god knows
who else. Then then the answer is no, I do I think the
charges are silly and shouldn't result in him going to jail? Then the answers,
yes, but that but given that he should have dealt with them at
an earlier stage and not put the Justice Department in such a difficult position that
they really have no choice but to indict him. Whatever the official narrative is,
regardless of how absurd, you will buy it. You will accept it.
You'll never you'll never critique it, whatever, whatever it is, any
any given subject. That's your position. You are mister overson window. You
will not stray beyond ever. I know that's just simply not true, James.
It's a false It's a false binary. Either you believe Paul McCartney died
in nineteen sixty six the moon landings were fake dinosaurs or a hoax. The
pandemic was planned and that the vaccines are intended to kill us. I mean,
either you believe in all every single conspiracy theory promoted by the Light or
or you're in the Overton window. You're a studge. You're an establishment stude.
Every every every week I try and find areas where every Isn't there a
middle ground? James, can't be can't it be skeptical about some things,
just not everything. Well, that's that would be great. Times tell you
what you're skeptical about. I'm loving us because I tell you what I tell
you an not skeptical about at all. You run a site called the Daily
Skeptic, And yet I turned to the day, as I always do,
of course, eagerly to see what the latest article was, and I found
this bizarre piece by your your pet Zelensky fan Ian rowns. He's not my
pets Zelenski fan. He created the website explaining why, explaining explaining why,
bizarrely it was it was actually the Against all evidence, it was the Russians
what blew up the dam. Against the evidence that the Russians blew up that
dam is absolutely overwhelming. James didn't think it was the Ukrainians. Then I'm
afraid you really have to go down a rabbit. Okay, So so what
was interesting about I was going to ask you about this that you would I
read I read that you put posted a link to the article on Twitter,
and I would say that ninety nine point nine percent of the comments and you
were against you, saying things like this is so awful, this is so
wrong that I am thinking of canceling my subscription to The Daily Skeptic. What
is this man talking about? It's absolute drivel, you know, I mean
you were completely ratioed. Now, whether these people were right or wrong wrong,
you know, you can argue, but does it not puzzle you?
What do you think the motivation of these people is, these these these skeptical
people. Why do you think that you are completely the opposite side of them
on the subject of Russia Ukraine? Didn't they just they're all crazies or they're
all they're all gold by by Kremlin propaganda? Why this divine? Well,
that's an interesting question, James. I think that I think it is a
schism within the kind of community that grew up around lockdown skeptics. And I
think I think lots of people because they rightly questioned the official narrative around the
lockdowns became very suspicious of all official narratives. So they've therefore added two and
two and made five and assumed that if the official narrative is that the Russians
blew up the dam, it therefore must be false because the official narrative has
been false in the past. But that's flawed reasoning. It might be that
even though the official narrative was wrong on a previous occasion, it doesn't make
the establishment consensus view always wrong. It doesn't mean the opposite of that view
is always true. That's a kind of that's that's one possibility flawed n James,
and I do think that the evidence, I mean, just to take
that that particular question, that particular issue. That dam was built to withstand
not just a tsunami but a nuclear attack. It would have been almost impossible,
if not impossible, to destroy it with externally launched missiles from you know,
aircraft or helicopters flying past, or from missile sites far away. It
would have withstood megatonnage of explosives. The only way it could have been destroyed
would have been by placing dams in particular strategic fault lines within the dams.
So when these Soviets constructed these dams, they built these kind of fail safe
chambers within the structures so they could be blown up sabotage by the Soviets if
there was a kind of military reason for doing so, and that's clearly what's
happened on this occasion. There's no evidence at all that it was the Ukrainians.
And even if they had the capacity, which they don't, they wouldn't
have been able to do it. You know. And ian Ian ROMs,
who isn't my pet, He's the guy that created the Lockdown Skeptics now the
Daily Skeptic website. He has immersed himself in this particular subject. He knows
a great deal about weaponry, explosives, etc. And he I think made
an absolutely unanswerable case that it was the Russians. And that case has now
been reiterated by the New York Times in a very well researched, detailed piece
that was published by the New York Times. But yeah, you think because
it's in the New York Times, is it's therefore false that trustworthy newspaper.
I'm not saying take it on trust because it's been in the New York Times.
But it's not false just because it's been in the New York Times.
Now, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it's quite interesting hearing you
cite the New York Times as a kind of to bolster your case. Look
look at the evidence that the New York Times marshals to support its theory that
it was it was an act of sabotage by the Russians. And in due
course, I'm sure, I'm sure we'll establish that, you know, definitively,
there'll be a document or a confession by a Russian commander. So if
you want to pick on that, James, as an example of me being
credulous when it comes to the official narrative, I think you pick you picked
a bad one. Try. I think it's very very touching that you have
such tremendous faith, unquestioning faith in the expertise of your your colleague. But
why do you read his peace and say I did. I occasionally like it
like a good laugh. But listen, how do you how do you do
your argument that it's built to withstand a nuclear attack but it was destroyed by
the Ukrainians. How do you how do you deal with let's see your response.
I think that's wrong. I think the Ukrainians did it. How did
the Ukrainians do it? Why do you think the Ukrainians did it? I
haven't. You don't know anything about it, do you, James? You
just think it must be If it's the official narrative, it must be wrong.
James. I'm more curious as to you're prepared to put all your all
your money or piling it high on on on one particular number on the roulette
table, which is Ian Ronz's credibility, and you are happy to im I
not know, James, James, James, I'm not making the fallacy of
appealing to his authority or to his expertise. No, the reason the reason
I found it persuasive is because the evidence he presents, the evidence he presented
that it was evidence. James, you recited, you recited, you recited
a version of of in in Ron's is very dogmatic, dogmatically stated piece.
You didn't present any of that, no doubt about it, and said that
curious design. James, you just must you must have misheard me. I
did, I did. I did try summarize the argument which I think is
very persuasive, which is that it would have simply telling me to destroy the
damn other than by placing a box structure to Ukrainians didn't have the capacity to
do that. The other week you told me that you were equally persuaded by
the argument that these these aeroplanes brought down the twin towers and that that jet
fuel can melt steel girders. No. I mean, it's a point of
view, but it doesn't strike me as as as the thinking of somebody who's
actually help me with something. Help me. Why you have to believe in
every single conspiracy theory, including now that nine to eleven was. I think
it's very it's very important. Why every single one, James, If you
want to persuade people of a single conspiracy, don't say I believe in every
single one. I've never met a conspiracy of theoria I didn't like. Why
so many, James, Why do you have to embrace all of them?
There must be at least one you reject? This is this is this is
yours that you believed that. It's either that you believe in too many conspiracy
theories, therefore you're wrong, or it's that you've gone mad. And that's
fine. Tops as I say it, suits me much better that every every
week that you go out there and as the world goes to goes to helen
a handcart, you're sitting there going, yeah, but it's all a cock
up. It's it's not orchestrated, it's not planned. Trust me, it's
all going to be okay. If only we vote in the next the next
conservative person, maybe it's going to be kemmy bad knocked or whatever. It
ain't going to happen, because these people are just just puppets. That's my
problem. I find increasingly your complacency, or your your unwillingness to engage with
the possibility that all the stuff is planned is a bit frustrating. It's a
bit annoying because every week it gets things get worse and worse. So why
do I care so much about a Ukraine Russia, for example, Because I
can see so much. I look at the mendacious medium. I read articles
by by the various sort of conservative commentators at al urging us to get hotter
and hotter each week for war over this country, which is not even a
kind of sovereign nation. It's just a basically, it's a money laundering cess
pit, and we're being we're sending. Every week in the newspapers, I
read about how we're sending more and more materiel and secretly men to go and
bellured into this proxy war with Russia. And I'm getting concerned that we are
not asking hard questions about it. And I mean, how are your sons,
your your son's going to be then? They can't be far off the
age where they could get called up. And I wonder how you would feel
about it, whether you would feel there were sufficient cassis belly for us to
go to war with with with Russia and to send your sons and my sons
to fight over Ukraine. Because I don't think so at all. I think
there is that it's an absolute no. Now. I find that there's no
moral case, and I don't like the way that is being pushed. I
don't like the way that we are seeing blue and yellow flags in every every
village and flying from every other other flagpole on churches all over the country.
I think it is utterly and moral despicable, and is besidesly this war machine
that you find you find the flying of Ukrainian flags utterly immoral underspic I think
nothing to say about Putin's invasion of what is a sovereign nation. Stop just
repeating Kremlin talking points. It's not a money laundering. But you don't find
you don't find it. You can't find it within your moral compass to condemn
the invasion of another country by Putin. The wilthful murder of women and children
by Putin's armed forces using rape as an instrument of war, The torture,
the regular torture of prisoners of war as well as innocent civilians, the fact
that soldiers are released castrated when territories are retaken by the Ukrainians. I mean,
none of that you find nearly as morally despicable as a town hall flying
a Ukrainian flag. It's like you've gone. That does make me think that
something's happened to you. You're now shroud waving Toby. I mean, we
know that that terrible things happen on both sides in this war. That's that's
given. What I was asking you is, do you think do you think
that this is a war that would you be happy for your sons to go
and fight a war with Russia Third World War or not? Do you think
do you think there is sufficient cassa spelly because this is where we're headed.
Because I don't think it is where we're headed. I mean, you always
posit these do you think that it's all planned and it's in a particular direction,
and then when it doesn't end up in that direction, you say,
you come up with some ludicrous reason why to try and preserve your conspiracy theory.
I think it's very unlikely that British nationals will be conscripted to fight in
the Russian Ukrainian War, but certainly I would encourage if if my sons,
if my sons were interested, I would certainly encourage them to go to Ukraine
and help out in any way they can, whether by driving ambulances or delivering
food, or trying to trying to provide shelter to people who've been whose houses,
whose homes have been destroyed by Russian missiles. Yeah, i'd see,
I think, I mean, yeah, they might be risking their lives fanned
out. Recently, his son has gone to Ukraine to help a charity that
delivers pizza to people in conflict zone, people who've lost their homes, and
I felt, I felt, God, you know, I wish I could
persuade my sons to do that. That's that's fantastic. But you draw the
line that you wouldn't feel happy if there were a Third World War, you
wouldn't feel I don't know there's going to be a Third World War, James.
I think you know. And if there has, if third World hasn't
broken out in a year, will you accept that you've got this one wrong.
We start the clock nineteenth of June twenty twenty three. So if if
the Third World War hasn't broken out by the eighteenth, twenty twenty four,
will you accept you're wrong about all these all these things, that all these
things are our contingent. I think that what we're seeing now is a lot
of warm mundering. Look, we know, for example that you say the
West is for war, James. If the West didn't start this war,
it was started by Pootin. No, That's what the yes in details I
recognize is the mainstream media. Who's now an invention of the mainstream media.
I realized I see this, I see these stories being told in the papers
every day, Russian troops b and then James, I realized that you would
not get away with it. You know, you don't want to step out
of line but nevertheless that our alternative possible. It's because I don't want to
step out of line. It is because I'm I think is the right thing
to do. Stop attributing these stupid motives to me. Everything. I don't
like his hitlok. If you want, James, you can go back,
say James, Kremlin propaganda, if you if you keep attributing these ludicrous,
bad faith motives to me, Let's go back to saying, maybe the reason
you promote all these absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theories and not just one, but dozens
and dozens and dozens, it's because you're financially dependent on other crackpots who believe
these things and trending you money and paying you seventy five pounds to be photographed
with you. Let's go back to let's accusing you of having bad faith and
you of doing this self interested careeristic motives. That's how much did you believe
it? I do you the credit, James, of actually believing you believe
all this absolute how much do me the credit of attributing good faith to me?
Not thinking saying just because I want to save my career, I don't
want to be disapproved of by my dinner party companions. I am perfectly.
I'm absolutely if you want, if you want to believe that I am paid
per conspiracy and that my market value increases when I embrace more, I'm happy
for you to believe that it just doesn't work on any logical level. However,
that I am afraid it does work to me, whether subconsciously is yeah.
Yeah. But look at look at the money available to people that pushing
the for example, look at the look at the money available to people who
work for the various military think tanks. Well, there was far more money
for the war machine than there is for the anti war machine. Where's the
anti war anti war money coming from? Anyway, James, we better hit
from one of our sponsors and then move on to culture chorus. So we're
going around in circles on this all day. So this is a message from
Express VPN. Let me ask you something. What if there was someone out
there who kept a log of every single thing you did, every minute of
the day. I think that would be pretty creepy. Well what if I
told you that that's exactly what happens every time you go online? Your internet
provider is allowed to store logs of every website you've ever visited and can legally
sell this data to anyone. That's why I always use Express VPN. Express
VPN reroots your internet connection through their secure servers, so your internet provider can
seal log what you do online. Now, many of you might be wondering,
well, if I'm rooting all my data through a VPN, then doesn't
that just mean the VPN can see what I'm doing and log my data instead?
And you're right to think that. Many VPNs claim to have a no
logs policy but have been caught logging customer activity. Express VPN is the only
VPN I trust because they use trusted server technology. They were the first major
VPN provider to engineer all of their VPN servers to run in RAM. This
makes it impossible for their VPN servers to store any data, including logs,
of any Express VPN customer. And you don't have to take my or Express
VPN's word for it. Express VPN is so confident in their no logs claim
they even had one of the biggest assurance firms, Price Waterhouse Cooper's, audit
their technology. That's why Express VPN is rated number one by c wid tech
Radar and countless others. Stop letting people keep logs of what you do online.
Visit Express vpn dot com slash London right now and find out how you
can get three months three. That's e x p R e S S vpn
dot com slash London, expressbpn dot com slash London to learn more. So,
James, I want to tell you about a website I discovered over the
weekend which is right up bast Drassa. It's called worth it or woke dot
com. Now they aren't a paid sponsor of London Calling, but they should
be. So worth it or woke dot com evaluates films and television series new
releases according to whether they're woke or whether they're worth watching, and it gives
them a kind of woke score according to how woke they are. And it's
really it's really very entertaining, very funny, very well put together and exactly
I think exactly what you and me and our listeners have been crying out for.
It's like an aggregate. It it's like the kind of anti woke version
of Rotten Tomatoes. It essentially tells you whether a new TV sor is a
new movie is worth watching, or whether it's just irredeemable words. That is
so good. I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the well.
Okay, so I tested it, James that the guy who pulls this
together is a Christian Conservative. Highly recommended The Covenant. Guy Richie's latest movie,
which has just come out, Afghanistan, said in Afghanistan. So it's
about an American soldier who is essentially rescued by his Afghani interpreter and then does
his best to secure a visa for that interpreter and his family so they can
find safe haven in the United States. And the kind of broader, kind
of polemical point the film is making is that when Written and America withdrew from
Afghanistan, they left thousands of Afghan interpreters and their families behind, and they're
now in mortal danger because the Taliban have retaken control, and we had a
moral obligation to discharge our duty to them to look after them and bring and
issue them with visa so they can come to the United Kingdom, come to
the United States anyway. So it's very good. It's actually very good.
I thought it was was excellent and would highly recommend it, right, Okay,
well, I look, I thank you drawn to my attention. Worth
it a work? Yeah, I think that's a good one. And they
didn't even need to advertise for the worth or work dot com. Um have
you seen I don't think I talked about starswik Did I talk about the Tour
de France thing? Oh? The documentary about the Tour de France. Yeah
you mentioned it? Yeah, you like those sporting documents. Got it more
because I was thinking the thing about the Tour de France, apart from the
scenery, which is great, so I'd say it's it's as good as f
one drive to survive, but in a different Obviously. The thing is what
I like about um cycle racing, even though obviously I can't bear lycra and
all, you know, bicycles for people who aren't brain enough to ride a
horse. You shouldn't have used the word LCD. Now. Now, our
Emmy winning producer Brian will you will mock up a picture of each of us
in LCRA to uses the picture on Ricochet for this He's bound too unless he
does one of you and Likera and being my hunt coat. That would be
that would be acceptable the other way around. But anyway, but but the
um, you and you and I could become Tour de France winners, couldn't
we. I mean we're getting on a bit now, But the point is
anyone could do it. I always feel like there's no way I could ever
have been a professional KICKI baller. I don't have the hand eye coordination.
I'm not you know, I can't. I can't even gob properly. I'd
be useless at kababing whatever they're called, you know, the wags and stuff.
But I think bit roasting. I just wouldn't have it in me.
But I reckon that with a bit of training on a bicycle, one could
soon become the king of the mountains. That that it's it's it's a sort
of every man's sport, isn't it. Well, it's more of an every
man's sport than football in that I think you can obtain a certain level of
proficiency in cycling, regardless of you know what physical specimen you are, then
you can playing football. I think that's true, But I didn't think that.
I don't think that you or I, if we just dedicated enough time
to it, could have competed in the Tour de France. Well, it's
certainly true that grind. Um what's it called gront Evans who won the tour?
I rather like the cut of his jib. I think it's I have
to check. I don't know. He was a he was a Welshman and
and he won the Tour de France, and he in this episode he comes
back for his final shot and I think he's in his mid to late forties
and he he comes thir. I think, so, okay, sorry,
grind grind Thomas. He's got these he's got these nice sideburns. I like
the look of looking. I don't know. No, he's actually young.
He's quite a bit younger than he's only thirty seven now, and he's already
too old. You can only hope to get third when you're thirty seven.
Um, but um, I kind of like the look of them. They
look a bit like me. They're all Gault with his long sort of horsey
faces, and they've got they haven't got a scrap of fat on them,
And I look at them, I think, yeah, you're my people.
Almost apart from the fact that you wear the horrible like run you one bicycles.
They don't like all right, Okay, well, um, maybe i'll
check that it's it's very gripping. I took a step, James. Middle
of last week, I decided to subscribe to another streaming platform. I'm now
subscriber to Netflix, to Amazon Prime and Apple TV and Now Tv. And
yet I took the step, and I've subscribed to a fifth streaming Paramount Plus.
And yeah, actually actually is a it's a treasure trove of fantastic material.
Taylor Sheridan, who I'm a big fan of, seems to have done
a kind of, um, you know, a deal with Paramount Plus whereby
you know, Yellowstone and all the derivatives of Years and all the spinoffs are
now on Paramount Plus. But also the Tulsa King, which is another Taylor
Sheridan series. I remember you talking about that a few months ago and you
said it was not bad. Anyway, I've started watching The Tulsa King.
I'm really enjoying it. I mean, it's actually much much better than the
Schwartzerga series. Oh that's that's that's a that's a high bar you've set,
it, isn't it. I mean that well, you know, I bet
I guess in the eighties I was a bigger fan of Schwartzenegger than I was
of Stallone. I thought Stallone was kind of too earnest, too kind of
it was something something a bit gormless, and he was only sort of one
rung above John Claude van dem Buttenega was had a certain self awareness. He
was ironic, He made better choices. His movies were better. But actually
the TV series The Tulsa King is a lot better than than Food Bath.
Do you know how with Tulsa seems a nice place. It's it's it's Christian,
and it's got horses, and they're really into their horses and their God.
And then along comes Stallone and he's mafiosi and he wants to turn the
town in the city into every other kind of venal, devilish hellhole. I
don't that's my moral problem with it. I don't see how one can root
for a character who wants to corrupt somewhere which is nice. Yes, well,
I'm only into I've only seen two episodes, but already he does seem
to be experiencing some regret that he's chosen a life of crime. And I
think even in the first episode he says, you know, doing twenty five
years in jail because you're not willing to give up the names of your bosses
in the Cosa nostra is part of the price of doing business. This is
the this is this is the business we're in. Um and I'm an honorable
man. But was it worth it? He asked himself, you know,
should I have become a barber like my dad? You betcha? It wasn't
worth it? Um And that that's a kind of running theme. There's a
theme of regret about the life choices he's made, the relationships he's damaged,
you know, with his wife and his daughter, etc. So I don't
think it's sort of it doesn't seem to be a straightforward endorsement of okay,
you know, the life, as they call it. But one of the
reasons it's so much better than food Bar is is In Foo Bar, Short
Senegga plays a kind of retiring CIA agent who's this kind of incredible man of
action age. I think he's sort of supposed to be sixty five in reality.
I think Short snegg is a lot of them in the series supposed to
be sixty five, and it's just completely implausible. You know, this,
this, this, this geezer couldn't be you know, overtaking trucks and jumping
on the back and beating up all the occupants and wrestling guns from people's hands
and winning knife fights. It's just like, no, you should be in
a wheelchair, sitting on your porch and anyway, it's just that kind of
cartoonish violence is kind of now, it's kind of it's gone in a different
direction. It's gone in a kind of nakedly cartoonish kind of John Wick way.
And we can talk about Extraction two in a second, which is very
much in that mob, which you quite like too. But you know,
that old kind of true lives kind of cartoonish violence that's now seems a bit
outdated, and it's just it's just but but but I think Stallone as a
gangster, as a as as as you know, as a seven five year
old gangster. And you know, he's he's seventy five in the series,
he says he's seventy five. You know, he's quite, he's quite.
He's quite kind of credible, and were more credible in that role than Schwartzenegger
is over a kind of CIA action man. Yeah, no, I'm I'm
with you. Um, I just I want I need a cup of tea
before my I got to my platis. So tell me the other thing you
wanted to talk about. Oh yeah, well I just wanted. I watched
them also on Paramount Plus Star Trek Strange New Worlds, which is yet another
Star Trek series, um seemingly hoving more closely to the Star Trek reboot than
the original, and and had it got like very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes,
like ninety two percent or something, and and I thought, wow,
this is going to be good. I a big, big fan of the
Star Trek reboot. But actually it was rubbish. So I'm not going to
recommend that I watched another one. But I did watch Extraction too. So
Extraction is a film starring Chris Harmsworth's directed by this stunt director, and it's
kind of John Wick style video game violence, and Extraction Too is more of
the same, but it's actually pretty entertaining. It's kind of it's very pedestrian
until you get to the first proper action sequence, in which you know Hemsworth,
as a kind of mercenary, has to infiltrate this prison which is kind
of riven by gang warfare, and rescue this woman and child and then escape
from the prison with them as he's being attacked on all sides by the guards,
by the two different gangs and once and it's like the disconnect. It's
a bit like Gangs of London. So the disconnect between the kind of rather
pedestrian plot, the wooden dialogue, the one dimensional characterization, and suddenly this
kind of fantastically amazingly well choreographed, kind of dazzling, kind of twenty minute
action sequence the disconnected just extraordinary. Um. But yeah, it's worth watching
for the action sequences alone. Okay, cool, that's good. Well we
can have another um fight next week. Thank you, jebs. Have another
fight next week, James, kay, um, okay, good, have
fun, all right, don't do any speeding in the meantime. By yes,
it's London falling. Ricochet join the conversation.