All Episodes
Previous Next
June 7, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:17:47
The Ideological Collapse of the Left
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You are doing absolutely no good for my stage, Fright.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
I've always been terrified about being on stages in front of people, and now I'm even more terrified.
But thank you for the standing event.
So yeah, how are you all doing?
Thank you for coming out.
Jesus.
Yeah, everyone's been great, actually.
Everyone's been really nice.
No, no, they have.
They have.
I swear to you, they have.
I swear.
If they hadn't, I'd say, and I'd name and shame now that I have this platform.
So yeah, I guess you all know what we're here to talk about.
Let's talk about how the left has fucked up, Sean.
Only two MAGA hats.
I was expecting more.
Oh, three.
Oh, sorry, I didn't see you over there.
But yeah, so yeah, I'm terrible at naming things, so I called this the ideological collapse of the left, understanding the progressive worldview and how it's diverged from observable reality, which I'm sure we've all noticed ourselves.
Basically, we're going to be talking about their belief system and how it's manifesting its own internal contradictions.
And once they've started doing that, they've got to start falling back on liberal axioms, not progressive ones.
So they're kind of basically they need us to be right at this point, which is mildly ironic given how they're trying to get rid of all of these white males.
Look at this.
I'm probably going to fuck up the click-through system as well, because it's actually not connected to my laptop.
It's connected to one up there.
I'm going to try and not mess it up though, so if I go, right.
Let me know if I start talking about something that doesn't appear to be represented on the screen, okay?
Right, let's start with the very fundamentals of the progressive worldview.
They start with, they've got a few axioms, but these are the ones that I think are the most important.
All people are equal.
Inequality is the consequence of discrimination, and discrimination causes oppression.
I'm sure you've all seen this.
You've probably been asked, do you believe that all people are equal?
And you've got to be like, well, kind of.
They're not, obviously, and demonstrably so.
And so basically their ideology ends up running through something like this.
They'll say, you know, this stems from the Enlightenment belief that all men are created equal, and the radical left takes this to the extension of all people have equal worth.
The differences are caused, therefore, by circumstance, not biology, we know as social constructivism.
And this, obviously.
Oh, yeah, I know Aries.
And if they're not equal in outcome, they should be made equal to offset discrimination.
Yep, we're good.
Right.
And then compare the ideological list they have to observable reality.
People are created with equal rights, but not equal in physical and material equality.
People are not the same and are not of equal worth, because what has value is a personal judgment.
You decide what has value.
They can't just say there is a universal value for everyone.
It's ridiculous.
The differences are the consequence of both biology and circumstances.
And a free society allows people to follow their personal interests that are unique to themselves, which will naturally have differing outcomes.
Inequality is the consequence of discrimination.
Well, ideologically, they think that all people have the same value, and therefore any differences in outcome are due to socialization and discrimination.
Discrimination leads to unequal and therefore unjust outcomes, and this is how discrimination is oppression.
The reality is that each person has a unique value judged by others.
Differences are the consequences of biological and social factors, as we just covered.
Unequal outcomes are inevitable.
In fact, the inevitable consequence of a fair system that treats people as the individual that they are.
And the inability to discriminate is actually oppression.
Suppressing one's ability to choose and to be different from other people is how you're going to oppress people.
I mean, was it Saul Hinitz and said, if people are equal, then they're not free.
And if they are free, they're not equal.
Something along those lines.
And I think that's an absolutely salient observation when dealing with far-left ideology.
And discrimination causes oppression.
The majority group always treats the minority group with prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment or control, which is a standard definition of oppression.
They actually, what's interesting is they don't have many interesting definitions of the word oppression.
They've got a redefinition for almost every word, but oppression is not one of them.
But they do.
Oh, no, no.
And almost every ideology is guilty of this, by the way.
Almost every ideology starts with, I have a new definition for a standard English term, and that's what we're going to work with going forward.
And that's why so many ideologies seem absolutely batty.
But obviously the second one is those who benefit from inequality have privilege.
One person's benefit is automatically another person's deficit.
Resources are finite, and systemic redress of imbalance is just compared to the reality that minority groups are quite capable of oppressing majority groups.
That's in fact what social justice warriors are.
A minority group that is oppressing the majority, the rest of society, making sure that if anyone steps outside of line, they get it.
They get it as hard as and fast as they can.
But I mean, I'm preaching to the choir.
You guys all have seen this happening on Twitter or in your social lives, at work, wherever you've been.
You all know this happens.
Everybody has benefits and disadvantages from inequality because people are all different.
And like, I can't remember who said it, but Jordan Peterson mentioned it.
It's a really great point.
Would you rather be an immigrant or would you rather be ugly?
It's like, oh, that's interesting, isn't it?
No one wants to be ugly.
No one wants that.
So, you know, if we're going to start talking about privileges and oppressions, let's start with the ones that we can all agree on.
But resources are effectively not finite.
Now, I know that sounds controversial, but it's true.
Have you noticed that there's a term called dematerialization?
The amounts of data that can be stored digitally effectively destroys the idea of a library, for example.
This is just one example.
This is something that is very interesting, a consequence of the sort of forward march of technology that we've been engaged in.
It's that you need less stuff to do more things with, that you can do more things with.
I mean, think of the capability of your phone.
That would have been like five or six different appliances 20 years ago to do something similar.
And the storage rates that we have now, like you don't need books, you've got a Kindle.
It's a tiny thing.
You've got hundreds of books in there.
It's and another thing that the progressives think, they're socialists.
So they think that wealth is effectively a finite Concrete system, whereas everyone knows that wealth is created.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are now.
And systemic redress of imbalances is unjust because, I mean, okay, I've put there are no just injustices to rectify.
There are individual injustices to rectify.
But systemically, I don't think there are at this point.
And I don't think that you can really point to anything.
Okay, maybe you can think of a few things.
I'll probably get called up on this at some point.
But essentially, for most people, there really isn't that much you can do.
So we get to our conclusions, at least from this first part.
The far-left worldview is dogmatic and does not reflect, does not model reality accurately.
Their predictions are wrong because of their faulty premises.
They will respond that the empirical claims to reality that we have demonstrated are also ideological.
They believe the scientific method itself is ideological.
And because of the contradictions between progressive ideology and reality, many problems are emerging that the progressives cannot actually solve.
And that's what we'll be talking about.
So, progressive problems, group inequality, not personal inequality, prejudice, not discrimination, and citizenship.
These are three major problems that they have, and they have no solutions to these.
But we'll go through that and I'll tell you why.
I've got the right slide, thank God.
So their solutions to these problems that really aren't problems for anyone else.
These are problems that they personally have.
But obviously, they want enforced equality of outcome, protection from offense, and open borders.
We'll see where that goes.
Who's a fan?
By the way, before I go on, who's a fan of enforced equality of outcome?
Who's a fan of protection from offense?
Who's a fan of Open Borders?
And they wonder why they find so much resistance from all of you racists.
Listen.
Listen, you Uncle Toms, thinking for yourselves, wearing your MAGA hats.
Have you not listened to your progressive white overlords who know better than you do?
Oh man, isn't he doing great?
I absolutely adore everything he's doing.
I love the, I don't want to be black, I want to be Kange.
That is the epitome of everything that we're trying to do here, isn't it?
And I'll tell you what, he's in such a visible position that it must take some kind of incredible conviction and fortitude for him to be able to do that.
I mean, he's got millions of followers, and all of the progressive talking heads are just, they hammer him every day.
And he's got to be a strong guy to be able to keep up with all that.
I wouldn't want to have to do that myself.
It is, it is.
And Elon Musk is going the same way.
I love it.
Who controls the media, Elon?
I mean, there is a certain number of red pills that is too far.
So let's begin with the snake eating its own tail and where it starts going wrong.
Let's talk about the gender pay gap.
It turns out it's probably a fiction, but I mean we've covered this more than enough, so I won't bother wasting your time too much with it.
But the bit I've got here is from what was it from?
It was the Washington Post, who basically found that after a more accurate assessment of the gender pay gap, adjusting for differences in employment patterns, it's close to 92% of women earning the same as men.
And even the remaining eight percentage points may not stem from discrimination, which is generous, isn't it?
May not.
I mean, have you noticed they've never proven the sexism that they assume?
It's basically the God of the gaps argument applied to gender relations.
But I mean, has anyone ever seen a feminist demonstrate that discrimination is responsible for that gap?
Just not one person.
That's a good point, actually, isn't it?
So yeah, men and women as a whole, as it seems, appear to value different things.
Men value money, women value time.
Assuming the gender pay gap is actually bogus, as Samuelson implies, will it soon be revealed as such?
This is from the article I'm quoting.
Or is it a myth that has grown so powerful that mere facts cannot refute it?
That's a hell of a good question.
Because we've been banging this drum for years and they're finally getting around.
Hang on, wait a minute.
Not really.
Not really.
And I'm tired of being a dead horse, but it just won't die.
It's a zombie at this point.
Oh, it's a Trojan horse.
What for Marxism?
I should have thought that myself.
But this was definitely one of my favorite solutions to the problem of inequality.
The question is, has it gone too far?
And I think when you're demanding that men take a pay cut just because they're men, you've probably gone too far.
But the worst part about it is there are actually men taking pay cuts willingly because there are women who don't earn as much.
And I love the, what's with the, yeah, I feel bad for this guy.
He's.
He's really well respected in my country and Game of Thrones has demolished his reputation.
But yeah, men are so stupid that they will actually take a pay cut because there are women who just don't do as much work as them.
He's actually not a really nice guy.
Well, yeah, that's a good point, actually.
What am I legitimizing Dyson's comment for by saying, no, no, this guy's a good one.
John Peterson is on the radio crying about the plight of young men and how they're failing.
And he's like, you're a mean, mad white man.
It's like, dude, he's one of the most empathetic human beings I've ever seen in my life.
You know?
Anyone, anyone who can get past the sort of, you know, like, concern for their own reputation and actually shed a tear for something that they find personally touching on TV like that, man, to just call that person a mean person is just, that's foul.
It's vile.
That's very true.
Dyson wasn't he just he was just exactly what he was claiming to be.
The thing is, I loved how it blundered into Peterson's argument, as in, you know, calling me a mean white man, that's everything I'm against.
You've just proven my point.
But anyway, I don't want to get off topic.
We can talk about all this afterwards.
But the best bit about the gender pay gap, this was a left-wing think tank as well.
This is a tacit admission that the gender pay gap is not to do with discrimination.
This is the left raising a white flag on the issue of the gender pay gap.
We don't know why it's happening.
We don't know what to do.
But I think if men worked a little bit less, it might be closed.
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.
Holy fuck.
That's it.
The gender pay gap argument is over.
The left has lost it.
We can now move on.
So it turns out that women are earning more money than men from a certain demographic.
Between 22 and 30 years old, young women are actually now out earning men.
But that's just fair, isn't it?
That's not discrimination.
There's no problem there.
Sorry?
No, no, it is fair, but isn't it ironic how they have to fall back on the liberal idea that you get what you earn rather than it must be the consequence of systemic discrimination?
Isn't that amazing?
They have to fall back on what we believe to justify their own nonsense and their advantages now.
Well, obviously.
But we'll talk about all this later.
I'll go through this and then we'll do the QA thing.
So right.
So yeah, women in their twenties now earn 3.6% more on average than men their age after narrowly overtaking them for the first time in 2015.
The rise of female breadwinner, it seems, was no blip, but the beginning of a social and sexual sea change.
Okay.
Before the fat studies departments descend on me and beat me to death with their bingo wings, I didn't say that.
I'm not in control of the projector, I'm afraid.
I have no connection to that at all.
It's the chap at the back there.
So he's fired.
Awkward silence, because I had no plan for this.
No one's shouting anything out now.
You know, I can't care on the show.
And everyone's like, well, okay, we're going to politely sit here and be quiet.
I was ready for this, actually.
I have a shirt underneath it, just in case.
Sorry?
I will do one day.
I haven't had the time, really.
I get a lot of people saying, I'm sure he's got a good reason.
I'm sure it wasn't his fault.
Come on, let's benefit of the doubt.
Ah, that's a very interesting question because yeah, they're definitely scalping people at this point, aren't they?
They're going after powerful men on purpose, just because they're powerful men, and they can.
They've got an avenue.
But anyway, so yeah.
In 2015, Science Insider reported about a new study showing that highly qualified women applying for tenure-track faculty positions in STEM were twice as likely to be hired as an equally qualified man, which kind of debunks the women are being discriminated against in STEM.
This would undoubtedly be called a pro-man bias if the results are reversed and be chalked up to sexism.
But we're not going to do that.
Actually, maybe we will.
it's obviously a sexist bias in favor of women and obviously women with you know all of these advantages are it gets better right Women earning more money means that more of them are becoming breadwinners and more of them are paying child support.
Uh-oh.
So today's mothers are the primary breadwinners in four out of ten U.S. households.
According to Pew, women have been responsible for paying spousal support since 1979.
It's just now that the scales are shifting in that direction that they're starting to find themselves with the burdens that men have always historically had as the breadwinners, which has led to the controversial rise of manimony.
And I love how they had to make that a gendered word.
They had to make this up because they can't just pay alimony.
Oh no, they have to be condescending about it.
It's manimony, which is alimony being paid from women to men.
And yeah, what I love about this is if we go by their own logic, this is punching down.
They are now the predominant earners.
They're the majority of the academy.
And they need to start showing men some respect.
I'm sorry, that's, I was going to say racist, but it's actually sexist.
But yeah, by their own logic, men are now an oppressed class.
So, you know, watch yourselves, ladies.
They're not happy about it.
They're actually really angry about it.
And it's not feminists who are angry about it.
It's successful women who are often not feminists.
But they're starting to see this come back and bite them.
But naturally, bread-winning women are driving alimony reform because it doesn't matter how many men have been complaining that their wives are good earners and they shouldn't have to pay them to sustain them in the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to.
When a man says it, it doesn't matter.
But now women are affected.
Oh, well, Christ, bring down the house.
Something has to be done.
Did everyone forget that women hate each other?
Like...
And that's not coming from me.
That's coming from women.
When being polled regarding their gender preferences for their boss, women are the most misogynistic people.
They really hate each other.
There's something called Queen Bee Syndrome.
Across three studies, we found consistent evidence that women reported higher levels of incivility from other women than their male counterparts.
So they hate their bosses, they hate their co-workers, and they hate the fact that they have to pay alimony to their ex-husbands.
You can thank the feminists.
They have done this to you.
At what point do they hate themselves?
Well, I'm not going down that road.
We've got an amazing example of this as well.
This is from 2009.
This was a British businesswoman called Samantha Brick, who's a feminist, obviously, decided she was going to run an all-female company.
Because what could go wrong with an all-female company?
It turned out that it collapsed because of the infighting and backbiting apparently made it a toxic space.
Quote, their selfishness and insecurities led to my company's demise.
Yeah, exactly.
They really need a restoration of the patriarchy.
I mean, this is so goddamn red-pilled, I feel like I'm being sexist just repeating it.
I mean, any husband could have told you that something like this was going to happen, just so you know.
But yeah, so women have become the dominant group on university campuses.
Men, if anyone at university here?
Yeah.
Europressed minorities.
Congratulations!
Yeah, right?
I finally did it.
But oh yeah, but despite this, as we saw with the STEM one, I probably should have changed the order of that now I think about it.
They're still discriminating in favor of women.
Such as one professor at the University of Akron who wanted to just increase women's grades just because they're women.
I can't think of a better example of female privilege.
The dominant group getting a free upgrade in their grades just because of what they are.
I mean, that's like, if that were men doing that, that would be determined to be patriarchy.
So can we legitimately call that matriarchy?
The professor who wanted to do this, what literally said, as part of, he wanted to do this as a national movement to encourage female students to go into informational sciences.
It's like, listen, man, if they're not doing it with all of the advantages that they have in a free society, then I'm guessing they're just not interested.
One student, and this is where we get to the sort of ideological meat of it, because one student said, they think it's a good idea, poorly executed.
How the hell else could you execute it?
On what grounds do you think, yeah, I think women should get an increase in their grades because they're women.
Just don't go about it the way he's gone about it.
It doesn't make sense.
Yes, I am, Miss Newman.
Did I change it?
No, I didn't change it right now.
But yeah, the university was actually forced to come out and said that there would be no adjustment because there's just no justification for it.
at least if they're playing by the liberal playbook, which the university is forced to because of the law, but obviously the professors aren't.
Just leave that on the screen for a minute.
that sink in so yeah it turns out the feminist dance studies isn't a massively well-paying career But yeah, so women being the majority of students, and we're talking in the millions here, they end up owing a lot more in student debts.
Thanks, patriarchy.
The pesky patriarchy that's giving them all of the advantages they could possibly ask for.
But yeah, they hold two-thirds of the student debt in the US.
Isn't that incredible?
And men, this is another thing as well.
This is fantastic.
So Yale is now being investigated for having a toxic environment against men because it turns out that the women taking over the universities haven't exactly been fair to men.
Yeah, who could have imagined this?
Right?
Men as a minority have noticed the feminist domination of the academy is creating a toxic environment against them.
And I mean, it's weird.
If you put a bunch of man-haters in charge of universities, you end up with something that people in the universities consider to be male hatred.
Weird.
So a male student filed a Title IX complaint.
Oh, I bet they're pleased they've lobbied to bring that in.
Against the university's discriminatory environment against men.
The English literature student complains about the culture of overall anti-male discrimination by providing benefits exclusively for women, the privileged majority group.
How is he wrong?
He is exactly using Title IX for what it's supposed to be used for, and this is what they get.
It really is a classic case of be careful what you wish for.
The Office of Civil Rights is investigating seven of the organizations accused.
A spokesman for Yale said: Yale is committed to non-discrimination on the basis of sex for all its programs, which is surely going to be a surprise to the Women's Faculty Forum, the Working Women's Network, Yale University Women's Organization, Yale Women's Campaign School, Yale Women Innovators, Smart Women's Securities, and Women Empowering Leadership Conference, all of which specifically exclude men, which is what the student's suing them over.
Absolutely, isn't it?
And this is where Liolinsky comes in.
Just bludgeon them with their own tools.
If they have these things in place, use them.
Make them regret them.
This is probably one of my favorite ones, too.
It finally happened.
a male student is accusing a female student of sexual assault claiming that he was too drunk to consent to sexual activity
well she like so many wrongly accused young men is now suing the university for violating her due process rights And it's like, oh, man.
Yeah, but no, no, no.
There must be so many young men who have been through this process who are just like, fucking told you so, you know?
I found the MRA.
But this case is unfortunately necessary to show how absurd the current campus environment surrounding sexual assault has become.
And that's not to say that sexual assaults don't happen, but they do happen at a much lower frequency than the surrounding cities in which the universities are actually located.
So, but I mean, obviously, if you poll feminists who have a different definition of what sexual assault is, then that's how we end up with.
What is it called?
One in three?
Well, I think it's now actually mandatory but the female student, referred to in the court documents as Jane Roe, is suing the University of Cincinnati.
And as an added twist, her lawyer is arguing the school also violated the Equal Protection Guarantee of the 14th Amendment because the university could just as easily make the case against the male student referred to as John Doe because they were both drunk.
He just got to the Title IX office first, which should be a lesson to you ladies.
men will out-compete you, and it keeps getting better.
I'm just, I, all of these are just so great for me.
Thank you, Facebook.
So, yeah.
Yep.
This is from, was it Gizmodo, like a Gorka ex-Gorka property.
And they're really angry that radical feminists are being banned from Facebook for attacking a protected characteristic.
Men.
You wanted gender to be something that you couldn't say naughty things about.
Well, be careful what you wish for.
This is something that's been happening quite a lot, actually.
But that's just something nice to look at for a minute.
Don't call it a grave.
It's the future you chose.
Only three days?
Only three days, unfortunately.
Yeah.
But I actually did have other articles about this where, I mean, there were feminists who were suspended for 30 days.
I couldn't find them when I was preparing this.
But Twitter's also cracking down on TERFs.
TERFs are, for anyone who doesn't know, trans-exclusionary radical feminists, which are basically feminists that realize that feminism is a supremacy cult for women and want to prevent men from gaining access.
I'm not joking.
They legitimately think that men can't become women, and that's why they're TERFs.
Jermaine Greer is, that'll come up, yeah.
She's the example.
But the funny thing about the term TERF, right, is in social justice circles, it's kind of used as, in the same way they use white male.
I mean, feminists have called me a TERF, and I'm just like, think it through.
I'm not.
I'm not a feminist.
Well, according to them, at least.
But yeah, Twitter's banning women who speak out against the dangerous dogma of trans ideology.
A feminist group has said, in a letter to Twitter director Martha Lane Fox, Fair Play for Women says the company is allowing a, quote, concerted attack on women's free speech.
Oh, are they?
Oh, does free speech matter now, does it?
Now that it's you being banned from social media.
Oh, well, let me see.
It's not the government.
You know, you've still got access to other platforms.
I've got a bunch of arguments that you guys have been making to us that we can now use against you.
God, this is...
It's funny how these things come full circle, isn't it?
And when we get right back to it, it's like, okay, so the people, the liberals who are advocating for free speech were right all along.
Wow.
Damn it.
I should have thought about these things when I was here.
See, that could have been my laugh.
But obviously, trans rights activists say that the group's letter seeks to whip up hatred against trans people, which, honestly, it probably does, considering what I know of the TERFs.
But anyway, isn't that nice?
So this transsexual writer, Miranda Yardley, said that she was banned from Twitter for stating, oh, oh yes, it's targeting the trans people as well.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that.
For stating that an LGBT party spokesperson, a trans woman, was a man.
Writing on her blog, she said, according to the rules of Twitter, it is now hateful conduct to call someone who is a man a man.
The implication of this is the concept of prescribed speech.
Things we are now not allowed to say extends to the truth.
It is fundamentally illiberal.
Well, wasn't Jordan Peterson right then?
Yeah.
And yeah, I have...
Oh, I have so little sympathy for these people.
i had a really great time putting this together by the way oh i like that that's very come on let's get That's very good.
See, I have a real problem justifying the ticket price when the audience is smarter than I am.
this is This is probably my favorite article of all time.
It's incredible.
Now, I'm going to be honest.
I come from a big family.
There are lots of very powerful women in my family.
And I have seen the deployment of strategic tears to get out of personal responsibility when something has gone wrong and it's their fault.
As a white man, as a white man, I wasn't capable of doing anything about this, but it turns out that black women can come along and really wipe the slate clean with white women on this one.
They know your games, and it's not going to wash with them.
Are you happy feminists?
This is the monster that you wet nursed.
It was inevitable that these people would end up using your race and gender against you.
Dry those strategic tears, because the gravy train of white female privilege has come to an end.
Look at the way they describe this, right?
They're weary of weaponizing white women's tears.
Fucking hell, that's almost like you can't say that.
Come on.
White women's tears are especially potent because they are attached to the symbol of femininity.
The tears are pouring out from the eyes of the one chosen to be the prototype of womanhood.
The woman who has been painted as helpless against victims of the winds of the world.
The one who gets the most protection in a world that does a shitty job overall of cherishing women.
Oh, shit.
Yeah.
What are you going to say to that white feminist?
Gets better.
We talk about toxic masculinity, but there is also toxicity in wielding femininity this way.
I just can't go over it.
I mean, this is upending thousands of years of female privilege in our societies.
Brown and black women, we know we are, as musician Miss Banks writes, imperfect victims.
That means we are always in the right.
That doesn't mean we're always in the right, but it does mean that we know that against the white woman's accusations, our perspectives will almost always go unheard either way.
So they are just the eternal victim of the white woman.
Like you're the eternal victim of men.
It's almost like victim hierarchies come with inherent problems, and we shouldn't have started down this road in the first place.
whether angry or calm shouting or pleading we are still perceived as the aggressors likewise white women are equally aware of their race privileges as equally aware of the race privileges them as surely as okay i didn't write this okay I'm quoting from this.
In this context, their tearful displays are a form of emotional and psychological violence that reinforce the very system of white dominance that many white women claim to oppose.
This is what you've created, feminists.
Thank you very much.
It's not black women coming after me, a white man.
Obviously, we've got to worry about the real problems in the world.
I don't have a license for this either.
Because, really, I mean, this is the essence of intersectionality.
It comes packaged with the spectrum of oppressions, and racial oppression ranks higher than gender oppression.
So this is why baseball being majority white is a problem, and basketball being majority black isn't.
Watch out, Latinos.
There are seven white people on the pitch.
I mean, what the hell?
This is from the Vox article.
What do they think this represents?
Yeah, but what do they happen to them because of it?
Like, it's majority white.
Okay, they're all playing baseball, you lunatics.
There's no problem there.
But there are cultural reasons for this, obviously.
They say when people say that baseball is a game that is supposed to be passed down from fathers to sons, they're not just saying that because fathers can be on the other end of a blull, other end of the throne ball.
And when people say baseball is supposed to look a certain way, they're not just saying that because it's in the rule books or because it will make you a better player.
Rather, it's a coded message that baseball is about being more white.
This is actually speaking to a genuine problem within black communities of fatherlessness.
But Vox can't elucidate this in a way that doesn't attack white people.
But I mean, yeah, okay, fine.
Okay, maybe, maybe professional major league baseball, maybe there is some kind of racial discrimination there.
Maybe they are systematically keeping black people out because it turns out that everyone who runs baseball just hates darkies or something.
I don't know.
Maybe they do.
I don't know any of these people.
Yeah, I mean, I've seen the Klan hoods, but I didn't want to make the connection.
You know.
How is this a problem?
What the fuck?
I've been thinking about this.
There's probably a problem with us collecting so many statistics because there are statistics that mean absolutely fuck all that are being used in completely inappropriate ways.
And this is definitely one of them.
So this is according to London's cycling chief, who says that there is a diversity problem in the cycling community, none of which are true.
Listen to what he says, right?
Apparently, too few women and minorities cycle in London, and there must be more done to promote diversity among the largely white, largely male, middle-class biking community.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You know, hey, talk about the be-all and end-all of absolute non-problems, right?
There is no biking community.
There are people who have no connection with one another other than they saw the bikes for hire and went and hired one themselves.
That's not a community.
Man, Sadiq Khan's probably going to get re-elected.
You know that, right?
He's, yeah.
Because out.
Yeah, yeah, tell me about that.
But seriously, though, in London, Sadiq Khan's popular, which tells you a lot about the.
It tells you a lot about London, doesn't it?
It's very progressive, very anti-Brexit, very labor-supporting.
London's the richest place in England, and they're basically run by socialists.
It's really strange.
Yeah, it really activates the old almonds, doesn't it?
I didn't hear that.
I'm sorry, man.
Yeah, so speaking to the independent, Mr. Norman, who's the man who did this, whose job it is to deliver, and this is Sadiq Khan's pledge, incidentally, right?
Listen to the words.
There is a problem with cycling and the way it is perceived of getting middle-aged men cycling faster around the city, which is not the objective at all.
What the fuck?
Okay.
So, would you rather they just don't use these services?
It touches on something which is a real challenge for London cycling, which is diversity.
He says that he wanted to tackle the gender divide amongst cyclists that had spawned the term middle-aged men in Lycra or mammals.
Can they not just not make up a word for something that's disparaging to men for five minutes?
I mean, we are a protected class now.
Thank you very much.
Naturally, there is no problem here at all.
There is only a mismatch between ideology and reality.
But this guy is literally being paid to worry about it.
And he probably makes six figures a year.
This is an industry that they are promoting when they're doing this.
Naturally, our universities are racist.
This is an article on the BBC, what I have to pay for.
Notice the context.
Notice the implicit statement within that.
It's not that there might be universities at racism at universities, it's that there is, and we shouldn't get complacent about it.
So, yeah, I mean, and these are our matriarchal universities, just so you know.
I'm not taking responsibility for this racism.
As a white man, I'm oppressed.
Thank you very much.
Like, let's point to the white women.
They're the new.
I'm with the black women on this one.
They're not getting out of this for some white tears.
No, no, no, ladies.
I'm sorry for any women in the audience.
This is not a representation of these feminists.
I'm really sorry.
Thankfully, there are no women here.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
But yes, so Baroness Amos.
It's an oppressed person, if ever I've heard one.
A Baroness.
The UK's first black woman university head said there are deep-seated prejudices and stereotypes which need to be overcome.
Not even 1% of UK professors are black, apparently.
Clear racism.
Universities must be staffed by the women's division of the KKK.
So, in conclusion, what have we learned about enforced equality of outcome?
The policies put into place to seek the desired outcome of equality did not work.
The outcome of equality is not desirable when achieved.
The system devolved into a hierarchy of caste-based predefined oppressed identities.
There are actually few structural problems, but many personal choices that have predictable consequences.
So, we'll knock the first one off, and that was the biggest one as well.
We'll knock that off the list.
So, on to protection from offence.
Now, this is a Sisyphian task, if ever I've heard one.
Prevent people from being offended as they become ever more sensitive to taking offence.
What talk about making a rod for your own back with this one?
So the logic is obviously causing offense is a victimization of a minority group by the majority, which is why I'm now offended by man-ill or man-spreading, man-splaining, whatever.
These are all racial and gender terms.
You've got to stop this.
Exactly.
Exactly.
It's 2018 and the men are finally oppressed and we're going to use it.
We're going to weaponize this oppression in exactly the same way they did.
We're never going to let them forget this.
But it's also why they can't stand the banter.
It can never just be a joke, because everything is the perceived power imbalance between groups, which is what I'm making fun of now.
And obviously, mockery undermines authority, and these people are totalitarians, and whatnot.
So let's talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You can boo.
Feel free.
One of the most reputable sources on hate speech, according to the progressive left, who use it as an oracle for who's evil, which is why people like Sam Harris, Ayan Herci Ali, Magin Nawaz, lots of white supremacists are on there.
Hey guys, Snopes is a great example.
What I love about Snopes, right, is that they know that people only ever read the top paragraph at the most, and so they've got their little icons there.
And it's like, no, this is false.
And then if you actually read it through to the end, they'll say, well, yeah, this is basically true, but it was a little bit exaggerated.
Anyway, so they say, bias is a human condition, and American history is rife with prejudice against groups and individuals because of their race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation or other characteristics.
Well, that hasn't changed, has it?
As a nation, we've made a lot of progress, but stereotyping and unequal treatment persist.
When bias motivates an unlawful act, it's considered a hate crime.
Most hate crimes are inspired by race and religion, but hate today wears many faces.
Bias incidents, eruptions of hate where no crime is committed, also tear communities apart and can escalate into actual crimes.
Now, that is why you can't have banter anymore.
Because they believe, unironically, that if you make fun of one of your friends for being a man, a woman, black, white, whatever, as a sort of symbol of trust between you, as an understanding that we're friends and anything I say to you isn't a personal attack and therefore I can make a joke, and you can do the same about me and whatnot.
That's why they have to get it.
And it really annoys me because I really think that banter between people, like ethnic banter or gender banter, banter, I think it's a way of normalizing these differences.
I think it's a way of, like, bringing people together.
And as soon as you prevent that, you turn the differences between people into chasms that can never be breached.
It can never be crossed.
And everyone's always policing one another about it, but I'm sure I'll get to it.
But the thing that's interesting to me is that they know that hate speech is free speech, and they will say as much.
But they don't care.
They do not care because it's offensive.
So although many associate the phrase hate speech with racist, homophobic, or misogynistic slurs, US courts have never actually defined the term.
Unless the expression falls into one of the narrow categories of exception carved out by the courts, which include true threats, incitement, really invoked fighting words, which is that's one of my favorite things about US law.
In fact, fighting words.
I am definitely going to invoke it at some point.
Next time Antifa Sharp.
There are essentially no criminal penalties for hate speech, which is how it should be.
This means the vitriolic rhetoric used by Trump and his supporters will likely continue unchecked through his candidacy.
Yes, it will.
This was from 2016.
Sorry, I should have been specific on that.
But not only is it offensive, but the prevalence of hate speech in public discourse challenges our ability to have civil debates about important issues.
Mildly ironic, given that everyone is a racist, but it's the other side that are preventing civil discourse.
It's the other side who are sending antifar to shut things down.
It's the other side that are telling people that they can't talk.
Right.
Okay, that's very interesting.
I like this one a lot.
The right has weaponized free speech.
It's time for liberals to fight back.
That's actually an incredible statement, right?
Because everything contained within it is the antithesis of what they think that they're fighting for, right?
She's not even saying that she's in favor of free speech.
She's saying she's annoyed that the right has managed to weaponize free speech and wants to fight back against that.
It's not that free speech is good.
Free speech needs to be stopped.
But look at what she's got written underneath this picture of Milo.
This is just a direct screen cap from the page, right?
Be warned, these people have appropriated a central democratic tenet and are now using it to break Western democracies and snatch away modern choices and rights.
They are trying to rescind abortion on demand to extinguish cross-racial friendships, love, and destabilize multi-ethnic societies.
You fucking crazy person!
Holy shit!
What the fuck are you talking about?
How can someone so have to be so evil?
How can someone so gay and miscegenated all the value of so much?
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
I'm not going to start making jokes about it because I could probably go on that.
I was with my injection.
All of these great jokes that I'm going to steal.
So freedom of speech is apparently, and I'm quoting her words, right?
Freedom of speech is apparently now a right-wing right or privilege claimed by xenophobic nativists and adamant sexists.
Those who defend freedom of speech are almost always selective in who should have access to it.
It's like, bitch, everyone can talk.
That's the rule.
Let's just have that as the rule.
Right?
But I love this.
Feminists are mercilessly trolled to stop them from speaking out.
Remainers cannot argue in their corner without being declared enemies of the people.
Racial minorities are demonized if they complain about racism.
Defenders of migration are horribly abused and trashed.
Right, okay.
Well, let me tell you about my problem with feminism in my workplace, shall I?
And let's see if I have a job at the end of that, shall I?
You know, it's rather ironic that the inquisitors are complaining that there's a backlash from the townsfolk.
You know, I'm so sorry that you're not very happy that people get to speak to you.
Maybe you should private your Twitter account.
Exactly.
She's complaining that discourse, the rough and tumble of public life, is somehow a violation of her freedom of speech, which is obviously not.
It's the sort of thing that they just do constantly.
Absolutely constantly.
It's unbridled hypocrisy because free speech is the new fascism.
New fucking fascism.
That's right.
Fascists well known for their love of freedom of expression.
Yes, of course.
Yeah, well, obviously.
I mean, like, this is the reality that these people inhabit.
This is what they tell each other on a daily basis.
And so when they see people like you, they're just like, holy shit, this is a Nazi rally.
And that kind of happened at my talk at PSU, basically, right?
So obviously, Portland State University, I'm there with Peter Bogossian, really large crowd, actually.
And it was a really friendly crowd.
It was a lot like you guys, to be honest.
And there was a far lefty who'd come in.
And after all the questions are taken, she was the last one.
And she came up to the microphone.
She was legitimately shaking.
And she was saying, oh, look, I'm actually hosting an event to come and talk about things.
And I wanted to invite people.
And she was so scared.
And I'm thinking, right, okay, what's her perspective?
Well, if she's from the far left, then she might legitimately think there is a fucking Nazi rally happening in PSU and that she's in the middle of it.
I mean, everyone applauded for it.
You know, everyone was really pleased that she was there and everyone was really kind to her.
And as soon as people started, because it was a room full of people, they started applauding.
And you could see she was getting really upset.
And I was sitting on the stage.
I'm like, I can't really say anything to her without making it worse.
But she was very brave.
And apparently a bunch of people did go down to talk to her, which is really new and really great.
But yeah, freedom of speech is the new fascism.
You do not have to tolerate the intolerance, which is instantly why we're all here.
Sunday's March revealed the influence of new fashion.
So they're talking about the Tommy Robinson Day for Freedom.
Absolutely.
Complaining they've got more officers patrolling fucking Twitter than in these no I'm not kidding Sadiq Khan hired 900 officers to police Twitter.
Yes, that's my tax money.
Well, actually, it might not be my tax money.
Thank fuck.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
They didn't think about that, did they?
But yeah, far fewer people than ever before turned up for the counter-demo.
One of them, Sharon, a student of fashion design, told me in tears that she felt like her relatives must have felt in Lithuania during the Second World War when the Nazis encouraged locals to get rid of the Jewish problem and decent people did nothing.
What the hell are they talking about, right?
But they literally think that 10,000 Nazis turned up in London to protest for freedom of speech.
And of course, oh, we're not against freedom of speech.
Claims that universities have been shutting down freedom of speech are exaggerated.
We're not against that.
It's like, well, okay, well, okay, for the first thing, I'll take it.
You're pro-freedom of speech now.
Great.
We need to have a conversation about Muslim immigration.
So it's going to be an uncomfortable one, too.
But what I love about this is the implicit acceptance of everything that we've said.
No, free speech is fine.
And in fact, you're going too far.
This is exaggerated.
Okay, fine.
Let's go with this, right?
But the thing is, we know that this isn't true.
Given the suppression of dissenting opinions at universities in the last few years, we know this is horseshit.
It's like, me, Milo, Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro, Jacob Reesmog, Jermaine Greer, Julie Bindle.
How many of these have to happen?
And the brass balls on these people say, yeah, okay.
You know, all those anti-far riots and demonstrations, yeah, that's, you're overplaying it.
Don't be silly.
Come on, come on.
It's not that bad.
Yeah, I would love two flags, actually.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not find the wholesale censorship of debates.
And you might think, well, then everything's fine.
Don't worry about it.
But the majority of this is in UK universities.
And they're complaining.
Obviously, the independents are quite a far-left-wing media organization.
And they're saying, well, you know, some media reporting is suggested.
They're referring to Breitbart.
And, you know, they found out through their studies that freedom of speech was valued by students.
It's like, yeah, that's our argument.
Our argument is a minority of far-left lunatics who are running in and shutting everything down.
You're agreeing with everything that we've said.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
But I love this as well.
The majority of student union officers surveyed by the committee said the restriction of free speech is not a problem in the university.
Yeah, I bet they did.
They're responsible for this.
They're the ones who did this.
They note two of the most high-profile examples of so-called no-platforming, even though this is literally in all of the literature that they use.
I should have included the anti-Milo toolkit, in fact.
The anti-Milo toolkit was something being passed around at Berkeley on the university website, and it was literally a set of strategies in order to no-platform Milo when he went there.
But yeah, the examples of no, high-profile examples of no platforming, such as Jermaine Greer at Cardiff and Peter Tatchell, who's a British gay rights activist, a gay man, obviously, at Canterbury, did not curtail the speakers' freedom of speech.
That's how they came to the conclusion that there was no problem about freedom of speech.
We're just going to define deplatforming you as not a violation of your free speech.
Oh, get fucked then.
All right, how about that?
Like, me punching you in the face isn't a violation of your bodily integrity.
Okay, we can all do this all day, you know?
But they say, and when things have gone wrong, like the protest at Jacob Rees-Mogg's speech at the University of West England last month, the difficulties can be caused by outsiders rather than students of the university.
Okay, at least we agree there are difficulties.
They also found that most students were in favor of free speech and it was a minority of students causing the problem, which is, as I said, our argument.
We know that it's a minority of students.
And they're really angry on Twitter.
So now at least we can accept they're totally in favor of free speech.
So when the campus meme police come for you, make sure you've got your meme license.
Can't say I disagree with the meme.
I think the meme raises a valid point.
Do you know what the best bit about this, right?
The best thing about this.
Oh, sorry.
Okay, so the meme is, do you have a history of mental illness in your family?
And the response is, I have an uncle who believes in communism.
this meme has caused an argument over whether likening communism to a mental illness is offensive to people with mental illnesses the answer is it is Most people with mental illnesses are still not communists.
But the arguments for this, right?
And this is an ongoing case at the moment, right?
This is really recent.
The arguments have been flying in both directions and it's unresolved.
The investigation into this meme is ongoing.
We're hoping to get an official verdict from the Progressive Police of Vice and Virtue as to whether this meme is halal at some point.
Because I'm not joking.
an investigation over fucking this meme man does someone want to come up here and do this for me So, in conclusion, progressives know that they oppose free speech.
Everyone's behavior must be policed at all times.
Jokes are not exempt, and free speech can be a weapon.
Absolutely.
Coming to the final one, which I think this feminists getting bitten by their own policies is a problem in my favourite, but I enjoy this one too.
Open borders.
This is the last progressive solution to the problem of citizenship.
And you might think, okay, why is citizenship a problem?
Well, it's discriminatory.
It's exclusionary, by definition.
It has to be.
Otherwise, it can't be what it is.
And they make lots of fairly bogstanded arguments.
I took this from The Economist just because it was the standard progressive.
I'll leave all the links to this when I upload it.
I'll leave them on the thing so you can go and read through them yourself.
But I took this from The Economist.
It's a pretty standard progressive case for immigration.
The arguments are basically that it's in favor of the immigrants because they can become wealthy here and they'll end up growing the economy.
That's good for theoretically everyone.
It's not true, but they're not terrible arguments, though.
They can be persuasive to some people, but they do tend to ignore the on-the-ground reality for the people who have to actually endure the immigration themselves.
It doesn't stop there.
Refugees could be given the right to vote in Scotland.
What the fuck could, like, what sort of fucking?
Honestly, it fucking is, it...
It really annoys me because it's like if you're looking at liberal theory of the state, okay, we're all citizens, we'll exercise power over our government.
For the government to then say, yeah, we're going to give loads of other people who don't really, who shouldn't be here specifically because they've got refugee status, we're going to give them the same right to vote on how we run your country because you elected us.
I mean, I can't see that as anything other than a betrayal of the voters.
The Republicans forced to elected representatives, not representatives get voted themselves.
Exactly.
Exactly.
They are deliberately gaming the system in order to make their lives easier.
Yes.
And it comes exclusively from the left.
And there was an autobiography, not an autobiography, a biography of Tony Blair that was written.
It was very controversial because basically it said that in the Labour Party during the early 2000s when they were in power and they opened the borders to mass migration, it was deliberately done to create a large, stable voting base for the Labour Party.
And he literally forbade them from talking about it.
So it was essentially a conspiracy.
And it's caused untold damage to the north of my country.
I don't want to quite.
I mean, that's a really strong word.
I didn't really want to use it, but I can see why people would use it, you know?
We have a friend in some.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
Oh, my God.
Man, I tell you, we need a fucking written constitution.
We so do.
Yes.
I mean, we've muddled along for hundreds of years with a sort of unwritten one and, you know, based...
Oh, oh, we...
Man.
Yeah, exactly.
We invented the idea.
I know.
And everything about your constitution comes from like it from English liberal tradition.
And it's like, and now we are just straying so far from it.
Anyway.
So the Scottish Minister for Parliamentary Business, Joe Fitzpatrick, a Norman name, just out of interest.
I don't know why I noticed that.
But he said the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring access to democratic participation for all citizens of Scotland and has led the way internationally by lowering the voting age to 16.
Which, I mean, that's.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I'm glad I don't live in Scotland, to be honest.
They actually have a devolved parliament, so this is actually not a problem for me.
But it is going to be a problem for Dankila.
But he's got enough problems, I suppose.
But no, seriously, they literally want to lower their voting age to 16.
So, okay, okay, all right.
Why not 10?
Why not?
They're citizens, they live in Scotland.
What's the argument?
And the answer is just pragmatism, I presume.
That we now seek to extend the opportunity to vote to all who are legally resident in Scotland.
It only seems fair that those who have the right to live here, whether from EU countries or elsewhere, have the right to vote.
And he said that there was a view that the current rules on suffrage did not reflect modern Scotland, and that linking citizenship with the right to vote is undemocratic.
It's like, dude, the right to vote comes directly from citizenship.
It's the foundation of democracy.
Politicians in my country think that citizenship is undemocratic.
Think about the magnitude of that.
But do they even know what democracy is?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
They should.
Dude, that video is going to be amazing.
I'll tell you what, right?
That video is basically going to end up being a political manifesto for Heinlein's ideas because he was a democratic politician.
And he essentially was putting forward his philosophy in the thing.
And it's okay, so I'm just going to address the, oh, it's a fascist thing.
No, no, no, no, no.
The term service-guarantees citizenship is the opposite of fascism.
A fascist credo is citizenship guarantees service.
If the state has control of you, which they do as you're a citizen, then you have to work.
But in Starstreak Troopers, it's the complete reverse.
It's like anti-fascism.
But anyway, I'll talk about that another time.
So we're not going to start shit posting Star Street Troopers because I won't stop.
So I think I've gone too far.
No, I haven't gone too far.
Right, so the rationale is, of course, straight from progressive rhetoric.
As citizens from a very wide range of countries come to live and work in Scotland, it can be considered discriminatory to deny the right to vote to resident immigrants who are neither EU nor Commonwealth citizens.
They do have the right to vote in their home countries, where they come from, where they are citizens.
They know that they're not voting in Scottish elections when they come to Scotland as resident aliens.
They know this.
This is all part of the compact that you have with the society that hosts you.
I mean, like, I can't imagine, okay, I've come to visit America.
I'm voting for your president.
How do you feel about it?
You know exactly it It's just lunacy and undermines the entire system.
Man, I know I can't just abandon my country.
I can't.
I can't.
I have to stay there and do something about it.
I'm sorry.
Well, then I go to jail, don't I?
Which is inevitable at this point.
Since we're on the subject of Scotland, right, it should probably come as a surprise to everyone that the Scottish National Party are opposed to the concept of British values.
I mean, you would think that that would be their bread and butter, their drum that they would beat every day.
But no, because the phrase British values is offensive.
As if a shared system of values isn't something intrinsic to a nation.
As if it isn't a vital thing to ensure community trust between neighbours, right?
But who's it offensive to?
Islamic values.
As you can imagine.
The problem that they have with British values is that they're in conflict with Islamic values.
And suggesting that there is a conflict between these two value systems is exclusionary.
So fuck your national values.
There are a bunch of immigrants who have arrived with very different opinions to you than on, well, women, transsexuals, homosexuals, English common law, the legitimacy of the British state.
Fuck our values.
Our values have to go.
These people have arrived and we don't want to offend them.
No.
If these people don't like it, the borders are open.
Unlike for women in the countries that they come from, incidentally.
Of course, the negative consequences of mass immigration have led the public to overwhelmingly believe that mass immigration has been a net negative for their countries because it has, yeah, demonstrably.
According to a left-wing think tank, and a lot of people always ask me, why do you, if you, if you hate like, you know, The Guardian, the Independent, all these left-wing sources, why do you use them?
It's because they can't just dismiss them out of hand.
I mean, this is Daily Mail, but this comes from a left-wing think tank.
And it's important to do this when trying to talk to anyone from the left, especially in the sort of tone that I do it.
If you're going to be a total dick about it, at least don't use Breitbart or something.
I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with Breitbart, but they will just dismiss it out of hand.
But according to the left-wing think tank, the nation's culture and traditions are being lost and supplanted by, surprise, surprise, traditions and cultures from the immigrant population, presumably because our government has done everything in their power to prevent the immigrants from integrating.
This has given us some interesting statistics.
So I'm sorry to talk about my country, but we are the canary in the coal mine here.
This is really, for the Anglosphere, we are the furthest along, right?
71% of Britons think that communities are more divided because of mass immigration.
And in areas of heavy immigration, that rises to 78%.
So when four-fifths of people think it's having a negative effect, I think it's time to start listening.
44% of people think that immigration has been negative, compared to 43% of people who think it's been positive and clearly don't live near the affected areas.
Only 36% of people actually think that we should give priority to foreign cultures, whereas 47% think that we should protect British values.
So that goes to show that about half of our country are full of racists.
But what it also goes shows how unbelievably out of touch our politicians have become with their actual electorate, with the voting base.
They don't represent their opinions.
They represent progressive orthodoxy.
And here's the kicker.
21%, only 21%, think that life is better in multi-cultur Britain than it was before.
With 63% on the side of things were better before we turned our country into a prostitute with spread legs, inviting all the world to come here at our expense.
It is.
And finally, most people do not believe the government is doing enough to protect British values.
Put simply, multiculturalism did not bring about the progressive utopia of love and peace.
It has created division and fear.
It has made neighbors suspicious of one another because of a lack of trust between them because they don't share the same values.
They have failed at almost everything they've tried to do.
And this is the absolute best part of this whole presentation.
They need to make a left-wing case for nationalism.
Good fucking luck.
Go on then.
No, no, the best bit about this article is she doesn't make the case.
She just says, We really need to make the case, because it really looks like the public are turning against the whole, you know, globalist open borders thing, and are starting to become a bit nativist and protectionist.
So we really, really need to do something about this.
Oh, absolutely.
It's a strategy.
It's entirely looking at the consequences of progressive ideology in our societies and realizing that they don't have a future, which honestly is fucking good to hear.
The question so, um, but yeah, it this is entirely in light of the direction that the British electorate is taking.
But also, this is another thunderous admission of defeat from the open borders left.
But they don't have an argument.
I mean, what could she say?
What could she possibly say to make a case for nationalism and national values?
Because borders and citizenship are discriminatory.
It would go against everything the left has become.
Good point.
Good point.
They absolutely will try.
But on the plus side, though, no, no, no, this is fantastic.
Now that we're all nationalists all of a sudden, oh yeah, being against the state makes you someone who's hateful and you have a hate symbol because we're a fence policing nationalist.
How dare you be against the glorious British state that the left have suddenly found themselves adoring because it occurs to them that they'll never win another election in their lifetimes.
So in conclusion, progressives do not value citizenship.
They do not care about the damage done to national cohesion by mass immigration, and they cannot make an argument for the nation state.
And so finally, the progressives have no solutions.
Progressive ideology is the cause of the current problems facing the West, and they are fueling directly the rise of right-wing nationalist, nativist, and populist groups by inhibiting the public dialogue surrounding crucial issues.
The progressive left is wrong about its base assumptions, and this is demonstrable.
They have lost the argument.
Thank you, it is.
It is amazing to get a standing ovation, but it's such an intimidating thing when it happens.
You're just standing there like, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do.
▲
Export Selection