All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 15, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:16:45
Where is the Left Going Wrong？
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, I'm I'm doing a chat with a Facebook group, the moderators of a Facebook group called and Page called The Alt Leftist Empire, which I've followed for quite some time.
And in the wake of the Labour collapse at the moment, I figure that now's an interesting time to talk about what the problems of the left are from a sort of less adversarial perspective, a more constructive perspective.
Because I mean, at the end of the day, if the Tories are going to have like a stonkin majority, there does have to be a credible opposition just to essentially keep the balance, you know.
So, um, so yeah, guys, did you want to introduce yourselves?
Yeah, hi, I go by the uh, I go by the name of uh Ernest Everhard.
Uh, my page's name is uh the alternative left.
We are affiliated with the alt-leftist empire, but it's not quite the same thing.
A lot of the same kind of discussion, though.
Um, I've gone through a number of phases politically going all the way back to the early 1990s.
Uh, through the mid-90s, I very much was the typical leftist.
There weren't nearly that many of those kinds of people back then, but I had that kind of ideological system.
I grew very disillusioned with that, though, in the late 90s and almost kind of went over to the other side.
I flirted quite a bit with neo-reactionary thought for some time into about the mid-2000s before I gradually came back to the left again.
But I just couldn't help but notice it wasn't the same to me after I came back.
There were a lot of things, a lot of things that just didn't fit well with me about the culture of the left.
And after a while, I really just came to the view that I couldn't really be silent about this anymore.
I went recently, say, Obama spoke out and he warned the left, or like the left wing of the Democratic Party, for example, against becoming a circular firing squad.
And it does seem to be that.
There is a culture of real ideological purism, an extreme sense of you're with us or you're against us.
They have an extremely Manichaean world view wherein they see themselves as pure good and everybody outside their little enclave as evil personified.
And it became apparent to me that we are not going to achieve anything remotely progressive politically if we go into it with this kind of a mindset.
So just to pick up on that thing, because that I find a really interesting point.
And I've been saying that this is what I perceive for quite some time.
What do you think causes this?
Because I'm honestly of the opinion that the right doesn't have this kind of purity culture.
And I think that's definitely to their advantage.
I'm not saying that it doesn't ever exist or anything, but as a general rule, the right is less puritanical in this regard.
What do you think the cause of it is?
I think, well, first of all, I think it's a myth to say that this is a new phenomenon on the left.
Certainly we saw it and it hit a lot of us over the head in the you know in the last maybe five to ten years with the with social media and we see that Tumblr, Twitter, SJL culture emerge.
I think there's always been an element of this on the left though.
It's yes, if I can intervene.
You were saying, Daniel?
If I can intervene, you know, we can see this same elements in the new left or in the Tanky left of, you know, Soviet.
You know that they always supported the soviets, no matter what they did, no matter which atrocities they did.
Yeah, it happens a lot in the left, it's true.
So, if I may actually um for a moment, so um, one of the posts I made on the UM UH facebook page this is approximately a year and a half ago but is one that uh seemed to resonate with a lot of people is a lot of uh.
The language we use on the UH page, uh on our well, on the Alternative LEFT page we have a few others in our networks is we'll speak very frequently about concepts such as the reg left, you know, the regressive left.
It's, you know, it's basically the idea that leftism has become something that's kind of opposed to social progress, as opposed to supportive of it.
But I but it's a question I kind of asked myself at one point um, what exactly defines the red left from just the left, as it were, and I kind of broke it in down into three uh categories uh, at one point and um, one of them was actually uh, actually what Daniel kind of just mentioned.
It's um, what we would call Tankyism, it's the authoritarian left, it's they, you know, that's the Soviet Union, it's the People's Republic Of China, so on and so forth.
But the second is what I call kind of neo, is what I guess I would always call neoliberalism or hyperglobalist uh capitalism, which is basically kind of woke culture taken on a hyper globalist form.
It's very capitalistic, it doesn't really believe in like nation states or anything like that.
And then the third is um uh I, I should uh, and.
And the third is the identity politics which is basically more dividing, um political preferences, more on the basis of say, for example race, as opposed to, you know, like actual ideology or and or material interests, or so, if I could uh again again interject just to, so I I, I agree that this has probably always been an element of the left, and the sort of um,
the regressive social politics of the SJW left at the moment, the sort of um, the creating classes out of attributes right, it's like black people must all be on the same team or in the same class because they're black women, you know, etc etc.
Um I I, I do find that to be um, probably the biggest problem with the left myself.
But I mean, that's not predict, that's not unpredictable for me to say that, but what one thing, one thing, I was thinking about this and I I got this from an objectivist philosopher called Stephen Hicks.
Um now, i'm not an objectivist myself, but I do think that they do have some uh, interesting insights.
Um his, his con assertion is essentially uh, that the left is chasing after platonic forms.
So the you know, you've seen many circles in your life, but you've never seen a perfect circle.
But it is conceivable That something that is a perfect circle could exist.
And so the left seems to do this with socialism.
And it seems that this is not all the left, obviously, but like, you know, there's a big strain of this in the left, of this desire to chase after.
And I think it's a problem.
Just to finish it, because I've heard the term perfect politics being used many times by leftists.
They're like, well, anyone can have the perfect politics, but if X or Y or whatever, you know.
And I'm just sat thinking, what the hell does perfect politics mean?
If there isn't a Plato's form that they can see just ahead of them, they're trying to chip out of the stone, you know?
They think they can get that perfect circle, like Archimedes drawing lines until he gets the perfect circle.
That's the way I think that they're looking at it without realizing it.
Well, I agree with you that the left, as you said, have a problem with platonic forms, circles, and everything like this.
They're indeed a problem with that.
But how I will say it, the problem can be in many aspects.
For example, I agree with it, and I'm trying to be as pragmatic as possible.
And my friends here are also trying to be pragmatic as possible.
However, I see the problem on the right when we speak about so-called free market capital.
Now, I just want to say for sure that our group is not for central planning Soviet Union economy.
We appreciate the market, we appreciate capitalism as a tool to increase our welfare and prosperity.
However, we also see that it's important to regulate, to use it in order to do it well.
I am a student of economics.
I really like history.
And so far, from all my research, I see that, let's say, the free market capitalism is serving two things.
It's serving a small, you know, speaking about, you know, less regulated or regulated by corporation.
It's a small elite, cosmopolitan elite, which is not part of the nation.
And it's smart individualism, which destroys our society.
The same way as socialism is authoritarian, it destroys society in other ways.
This also is a poison for society if it's not regulated well.
I think that that's a demonstrable reality after 30 years of neoliberalism.
There's no question that I think it's a particularly toxic combination.
I think the EU, in fact, has this kind of nailed down as the ideal, because it's often quite difficult to define neoliberalism off the cuff.
But if you look at the four freedoms of the EU, the movement of the free movement of capital, people, goods, and labor.
Was it?
Have I got this?
That's actually, you know, when I spoke, when I tried to define neoliberalism, when I did it some times, I say it's basically this: the four freedoms, as we call them, four freedom for enslavement of the working people is the free freedom of movement of capital, movement of services, of goods, and of people between borders under the idea of balanced budgets.
All the mix, yes, continue.
Yeah, just to be clear, I do think that the movement of goods and services is a good thing.
And almost universally a good thing.
Obviously, assuming that they're not doing any immediate harm to anyone, you know, the food isn't poisonous, the goods aren't polluting the earth or whatever.
But the general rules of free trade, I think, are genuinely universally good things.
But I do think that the free movement of capital and people is something that is packaged along because it raises the GDP.
I think there are loads of really important questions that are going unanswered with that status.
I mean, I'm trying to think of justification as to why Russian oligarchs should be able to buy up huge tracts of London.
Why should they be able to do that?
Well, we have the same problem with the Communist Party of China on the west coast of North America.
Absolutely.
No one knows how much of Vancouver they own now.
And Australia as well.
Well, I just want to say it's one of the problems which we see.
However, if I just, you know, I really like to read about economic history and research it.
When I researched it, I was surprised because, you know, I am also studying economics.
And, you know, when I study the economics, you know, I just want to say something quick and I will continue my story.
I see that there is also a lot of tests of purity.
If you don't agree with what's written there, they make you they make a witch hunt against you.
Like, you know, SGWs in fair, you know, in social studies.
So if you don't agree with the dogma that free market is almost perfect, free trade is almost perfect and everything else that exists, they will try to get you away from the road like SGWs and other social stuff.
Really?
No, no, I believe you.
I believe you.
I think it's very interesting.
Again, it looks to me, it looks like this is a response to people who've got like a vision of the perfect in their minds that they're chasing rather than a vision of better than yesterday, you know?
Yeah, yes, exactly.
I want to mention something here.
A fellow, back in the 1950s or 60s, a fellow named Norman Cohn wrote a book called The Pursuit of the Millennium, and it looks at utopian religious breakaways or attempts to break away from the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages.
And he explores the mindset that a lot of these types of very fanatical or religious nature.
And he puts it like this.
He says in their very sorry, can you start that again, please?
It just glitched just as you began.
so i didn't hear it okay like regarding this uh a fellow norman cone back in the 50s and 60s wrote a book called the pursuit of the of the millennium a millenarian or apocalyptic movements that arose out of the and were sort of splinters away from the catholic church in the late middle ages typically not long before the emergence of protestantism
And he looks at the mentality that these types of groups tended to have, and he sums it up this way: The world is dominated by an evil tyrannous power of boundless destructiveness, a power moreover, which is imagined not simply as simply human, but as demonic.
The tyranny of that power will become more and more outrageous, the sufferings of its victims more and more intolerable, until suddenly the hour will strike when the saints of God are able to rise up and overthrow it.
The saints themselves, the chosen holy people, who hitherto have groaned under the oppressor's heel, shall in turn inherit dominion over the whole of the earth.
This shall be the culmination of history.
The kingdom of the saints will not only surpass in glory all previous kingdoms, it will have no successors.
Now, when Cohn wrote this, he seemed to be implying that an element of this mentality has carried over into the modern age in secular forms in the forms of fascist and communist ideology.
Not just fascist or communism.
I mean, that to me sounded a lot like the end of history, as it was Fukuyama.
Absolutely.
You look at Marxism, it's an extremely apocalyptic doctrine.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
You know, capitalism, world capitalism is almost like the Antichrist, and it will tyrannize over everyone until the global workers' revolution, which is anogolous to the return of Christ.
Yeah.
I think, and I wouldn't be the first to point this out, but it seems to have picked up where this kind of apocalyptic religious philosophical, I think it is.
Yeah, no, no, I totally agree.
And it's very interesting how this appears to be like the Enlightenment's version, doesn't it?
This is the version of it that's created by reason.
Because I think that a lot of people forget that reason was genuinely like a revolutionary force when people first started applying it to like everything.
And it started shredding all of the inherited social constructs of the past.
You know, the things that weren't created by reason are very, very easy to take apart with reason because these things were essentially built on faith.
And I don't just mean religion either.
I mean like the nation-state, the national identity, you know, all of these things that are about how you feel rather than how you think so much.
Like, you know, the facts of the matter are less important than the belief in the matter.
And it's this is something I've been watching a lot of David Starkey's speeches recently, and he gave one recently that I'll send you across afterwards.
It's genuinely fascinating, where he explains all of this.
He's like, look, these are things that we didn't think about when they were happening.
But Edmund Burke thought about these, you know, the hyper-conservative types.
They thought about it.
And it seems that their predictions are kind of coming true with that kind of, you know, the whole social fabric is coming unmoored.
Because if you speak only of freedom, well, what is freedom?
That's freedom from everything.
That's loneliness.
That's no one having any having no duty or obligation to other human beings is the road that we're going down.
And do we really want to be that?
You know, that's going to be a really entitled, bratty person.
Like, these are things we have to consider, and we haven't.
And things have got so far now that it's like, you know, it starts making the Enlightenment look bad.
Sorry, go on.
That's actually also what we want to achieve on the alternative left page is that we don't, I guess I speak for everybody here.
We don't like these abstract ideologies.
And, you know, if we will go back to the origins, you know, I'm more into economics here.
Sorry, I'm not, I mean, I know history and economics.
I'm not that much good at philosophy.
But if we go into the 19th century, for example, there were three, you know, influential economic books.
There was the Das Capital of Marx, there was The Wealth of Nations of Adam Smith, and the third book, which is basically forgotten by today, it's called the Political Economy of the National System, which by Friedrich Liszt.
And instead of starting his book by abstraction of individual classes on separacists, he started his book about describing the economic history of nations, England, the Netherlands, Gansa, and others.
And basically, I think that the approach we should take is taken, you know, we should take about empiricism.
And for example, as I wanted to continue before, I hope it's okay.
Yeah, I will continue.
Yeah, that's what we're doing.
If we speak about trade and capital movements in historical terms, we see that most of the time the countries which were able to prosper went against the theory of free trade, open yourself and everything will be good, you did people rise.
No, it was the opposite.
If you look, for example, more recent examples, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, they basically put a lot of capital controls, of course, tariffs, strategic tariffs, not they don't close the economy for everything.
But for example, they tried to build industry and succeeded in it.
Like, for example, Toyota, Sony, Samsung, and other corporations.
But it's not only them.
I mean, if we speak about the United States, in the 19th century, it had like a basically tariff wall on manufacturing that helped it to build it properly.
Or if you speak about the United Kingdom, United Kingdom, first of all, put in by Henry VII.
I don't really remember the years, forget me for this.
Henry VII, he put export tariffs on wool.
And he invited artists, you know, that he would make clothes from this wool and will paint it and will sell it by 10 times more than you basically sell just the wool itself.
And or you can speak about the asymmetric contracts with India, asymmetric agreements, when basically England protected its textile industry, which actually allowed it to develop properly the steam engine later on and destroy any competition from India and China.
So basically, I just want to say that the situation with trade and of goods or services is also not so, you know, you can't be black and white, exactly.
By the way, that's why I was really like opposed to remain.
I was hard Brexiteer, and I'm still a hard Brexiteer for England.
And I'm happy that Boris won for this, at least for this thing.
Yeah.
Same here.
Same there.
Right.
So what do you think?
What do you guys think that the Labour Party is going to do next?
Because obviously you must be following this with great interest, right?
Oh, yeah, please.
So this is a conversation.
We've already had it.
I think you've probably noticed we've already had this conversation to a certain degree on our Facebook page.
And, you know, I think it's really going to have to be like, well, I've always said that the alt left as like a concept as we've been pursuing it for at least, I don't know, like a few years now.
There's always been like a bit of a high wire act between, you know, I mentioned during my earlier contribution what I consider like the three spheres of kind of the regressive left and how we have to avoid all of them.
Because one of them is, I'll be honest, I wasn't, not necessarily unconditionally, but by and large, I was supportive of Corbyn's policies.
And that's like a big thing we heard from like a lot of other of our own British followers.
We heard a lot of people say that, oh, his policies were good.
It was just, you know, like the leadership itself or something, you know, perhaps broken or deficient there.
Because like I consider myself, you know, like a democratic socialist.
And I was enthusiastic, at least to a certain extent, about Corbynism.
I'm still hopeful for Bernie's prospects in the upcoming American election.
So my fear is now that Corbynism has basically failed fairly comprehensively in your own recent national elections.
It's going to regress into either A, neoliberalism, basically labor is going to become Blayright again.
B, tankyism, whereas, you know, things are going to go further into like an authoritarian old left direction or C, you know, the id poll thing.
And we.
I think Ernest actually yesterday, he posted a really brilliant blog post where we saw, you know, the sort of nonsense that like people have been saying within like the last couple of days.
We might not be happy about the result, but it's just there are a lot of bad faith, you know, identitaries.
One example I'll give before others can jump in is I live in Ontario in central Canada.
And our premier at the moment is a right-wing populist by the name of Doug Ford.
He's actually the older brother of Rob Ford, the infamous crack-smoking mayor of Toronto.
But I remember the day after the provincial conservatives here in Ontario won their majority, which is about a year and a half ago.
I remember waking up to a bunch of call them what you want, rad lib, shit lib, reg left, people I knew on Facebook, not through like the alt-left stuff, just like people I met in like university and stuff like that, were basically like shitting their pants, you know,
like saying that like, oh, you know, like Doug Ford is like a white supremacist and all that, which is nonsense because his biggest support base is actually amongst, you know, like what you could call like new Canadian communities in like parts of Toronto and Greater Toronto.
And a big part of their motivation was kind of like a backlash against, you know, things I would call like Western progressive values.
And I think you're starting to see like a similar way, but right.
So I think, I think you may the sorry, the the Corbyn policies versus Corbyn, the leadership, I think is interesting because, I mean, there are some of Corbyn's policies that I would support.
Like, I really like the idea of renationalizing the rail.
I think that's a really great idea.
I don't see the point of nationalizing broadband because people's broadband seems okay.
You know, it doesn't seem to be a problem at the top of people's lists or anything like that, you know.
But there are definitely things that he could have done that I would have actually supported in isolation.
But the problem is it came out like a fantasy wish list.
Like, we're going to do all this stuff and it's, we're going to.
We're going to have the perfect platform.
Yeah.
And we're going to borrow hundreds of billions.
And every, I mean, you know, regular people are totally cynical when it comes to public spending.
You know, if you're not going to pay for this, some magical other person somewhere else, no one believes that, you know.
So it was quite foolishly handled, in my opinion.
You know, there's perhaps something to be said about Sorry Y, for example.
Oh, yeah, you can go ahead, Agas.
Okay, first of all, let's spoke also to Brilliant.
Look, with Corbyn, I have a complicated relationship.
First of all, I'm Israeli.
So, you know, his attitude to Israel is problematic for me.
I can't be objective about it.
But if I would try to be objective about his policies, as I spoke with, I have a friend who's just speaking about it.
The left is really obsessed with distribution, inequality, and poverty, but almost does not pay attention to two main things.
Production, how to ensure that it's happening.
And the other thing, it's inter-regional economic activity.
You can basically tell everybody, oh, you can't find a job, go to find a job in London.
You can do something like this.
It should be redistributed.
You should plan.
Yes, sometimes the government has to plan to redistribute economic activity more or less evenly.
Of course, it can be perfect, but so people in Cornwall will have some city that there is some kind of employment for them.
You can basically send people to say, if you are not in London, sorry for Melan, which fuck you.
You can't do something like this.
I think there's a strong understanding that that has been the attitude as well.
I've been watching a bunch of Conservative Party representatives on the news recently, and they have been articulating exactly what you've said there.
They understand that what were Labour voters in previous eras just feel that the Labour Party doesn't care about them at all and only cares about those minorities in the cities.
And it's like, well, that's not the heart of your vote.
You've got to pay attention.
Yes.
Part of the problem too.
This election was really all about Brexit.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of it was that Corbyn wanted to do up a soft Brexit kind of idea and then present it to the UK electorate in yet another referendum, in contrast with Johnson, who basically made a campaign slogan of just get Brexit done.
And my understanding is that a lot of the people in the UK are just sick to death of it.
And getting Brexit done is what they wanted.
Yes, correct.
But I think the question is, the question of it being the Brexit referendum, that's inevitable.
But Brexit itself is other questions combined into one single point.
There are things undergirding the reason for wanting self-determination that are nothing to do with economics, for example.
And yet, in fact, I think it was Starkey who actually said this.
These reasons pass like ships in the night and they're never engaged with on either side.
And I think that's true because I think the left has essentially uncoupled itself from ethnic groups.
And so they view like Muslims or Sikhs or Jews or whoever, like they view them as like minor pieces on a chessboard, you know.
And they don't understand that the chessboard itself is the ethnic group of the Brits, you know, and the subgroups that have made underneath it.
And I think they don't understand that these people are feeling stood on and they're feeling worn away and they're feeling like they're losing something that it's difficult to put their fingers on.
But that thing is definitely going.
And they realize that if we vote for Brexit, we're voting for Britain.
I really feel.
And I think that the Trump vote, it was vote for Trump was voting for America.
And I think that it's no coincidence that both Boris and Trump are like archetypal for the role that they're fulfilling.
They look like the stereotypes, you know.
So I think there's a kind of blonde hair that looks a bit like a toupee even.
It's weird, isn't it?
It reminds me of we have in Israeli great author.
His name is Garitau.
He's speaking about the conflict between the mobile, liberal, but anti-democratic elites versus the immobile, not so liberal, democratic population, which is going right now.
This is the interesting case, and I see it a lot in Israel, but I guess it's not only here.
The elites trick the people by, How to say by exchanging between the word liberalism and the word democracy.
Yes.
Liberalism and democracy is not the same thing.
Liberalism is ideology.
Democracy is a regime.
And when you try to mix these things together, you're basically lying to people.
You're saying that you cannot be not liberal.
I'm not speaking about being fascist, theocrat, or whatever, but you know, there is different scales of democracy, different variation.
There is no monopoly of liberal democracy, of liberalism on democracy, especially the kind that the elites want to impose on it.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree.
One of the things I've been addressing in some of my recent posts in recent months through the Facebook group is this idea of liberal authoritarianism.
And it's something that, for example, I'm 27 years old, so I was not yet born when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union was dissolved and all that.
So my entire life and the entire life of other guys like millennial men like me in our late 20s has been under hyper globalism effectively.
I feel like we haven't really been given a choice.
I felt like whatever criticisms we might have with Corbyn, I felt like Corbyn represented that choice.
And the point I didn't quite get to earlier is I'm worried that that choice would be taken away under a future, you know, reg left.
And not that Corbin didn't have like reg left facets, but like under like a more like Blairite liberal leader.
I feel like in America, they have that choice potentially with Bernie Sanders.
As a Canadian, that choice has never really existed in my life.
We have, you know, Justin Trudeau, who might as well be like the human embodiment of like neoliberal fakery.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He's, yeah, yeah, so I'm stuck with him for the time being.
But what I was going to say is I feel like, you know, like the, I guess however you call them, you know, the neoliberal gatekeepers, whatever they are, however you classify them, they've become more like authoritarian and reactionary in reaction to, say, like what I would consider, you know, like the fairly moderate, moderate common sense leftism of someone like a Bernie Sanders.
We saw that in spectacular fashion in 2016, where there was like a very, I think there was basically like a fix against him in the in the primaries and stuff like that.
I feel Corbin has kind of been through like a similar process.
Actually, one thing, Sargon, I wanted to address in one of your most, the recent things you were just saying is that you talked about like the British, I guess we'll call them indigenous Brits.
I don't know if that sounds organic, but like they're in a chessboard and chess is being played on them.
When you have members of the conservative and the Labor Party saying it's like anti-Semitic to criticize capitalism, that kind of sorry, I don't need to laugh.
I wasn't expecting that.
No, but has that not come out, you know?
I've not heard that yet, actually.
I've not heard that yet.
Really, I can possibly send links if people want me to corroborate that.
But does it not kind of, A, does it not kind of put a target on the back of like the British Jewish community, one they've been, you know, clamoring to say was, you know, there already.
And I understand, you know, Daniel perhaps legitimately has concerns about his position on Israel, understandably.
But I mean, so there's that.
So just to refocus myself a little and let others jump in, it's kind of like, A, you're telling, you know, the indigenous population of your country that they're not allowed to challenge the capitalist order because that's racism.
And on like the hierarchy of like British political discourse, racism is considerably worse than capitalism or something like that.
And B, is it not putting a target on the like 0.5% of British people who are Jewish?
You know, like a lot of them probably vote, like a good chunk of them probably actually voted labor in spite of the hysteria.
I saw some figures.
It was something like 92% voted against labor.
Not labor.
It was genuinely based on what I've been hearing.
It doesn't surprise me altogether as well.
But it seems like you're putting a target on, it seems like they're putting a target on themselves as a community by saying you can't challenge the status quo without being racist towards our poor, defenseless little communities.
I don't know.
I just wanted to say that as an Israeli Jew, I don't really want to comment about all of this.
I mean, you know, because maybe someone expecting me from someone will hear it.
But, you know, I'm not objective.
I realize that I'm not objective on it.
So I will not comment about the situation with the Jews.
To be honest with you, I think there's more truth to it than not.
The labor, the Corbynite opinion on the Jews.
I think I've seen enough that I'm just like, this is this is wild.
Like a lot of it looks like 4chan.
So I'm just like, okay, Hitler was right, all that sort of stuff.
And it's like, fucking hell.
Just the sort of labor anti-Semitism scandal, it seems there's meat to it, I think.
Well, there's an old saying I heard once to the effect that the Nazi hates the Nazi hates the banker because the banker is a Jew.
The communist hates the Jew because the Jew is a banker.
An old problem from that World War II era, but it kind of catches how, you know, one of the many ways, I guess, in which far left and far right can actually come together, you know, or suit theory, so-called.
I think that's accurate as well.
I think I've, I, after, after digging into it, it does seem that that is the issue.
I mean, they associate Jews with money.
I mean, that's not surprising.
Trevor Phillips did a series called Things We Can't Say About Race that was apparently he included that Jews actually and it was very well done.
Yeah, it's excellent.
It's genuinely excellent because it's just facts, you know, like Jewish people are five times more wealthy than the average population, something like that.
You know, it's like, well, that's true.
You know, you can't say things aren't true if they are true.
So, you know, what does that mean?
That's the question.
And they get resentful about this.
Here's another one I was thinking of just earlier today that might take things in somewhat of a different direction, but it was kind of like I find, you know, like the T beggers, like the Tea Party of the United States, I feel like kind of tell on themselves, as it were, when they say that their main problem with fascism or when they accuse people of being fascists, it's more about, you know, like the fact that they're statists as opposed to, say, like,
you know, like their genocide is genocidal or anything like that.
Whereas I feel like a lot of, I feel like a lot of kind of like Zionist groups similarly, they kind of tell on themselves by, you know, like, say, you know, conflating, you know, their beliefs with,
You know, they conflate socialism with anti-Semitism, whereas in, you know, like a lot of the Nazi ideology was more based on like race science and other nasty pseudoscience like that, you know, like well, in the in the defense of libertarians here, I think that their concerns about statism are fundamentally rooted in genocide, actually.
Um, I think that the libertarians I've spoken to tend to view the state as a very dangerous weapon, and it's the statists throughout history who think they can use the state to craft a perfect world who have done the genocidal actions and have killed all the people.
So, I think that when they say statist, they essentially are using it as a replacement for someone who will commit a genocide, you know.
Look, I just, you know, I have had a lot of discussions about and recently my dad started to read Locke with my dad together.
And maybe it's not, you know, typical libertarian, but you know, it's part of the liberal.
I see two big problems in it.
First of all, there is some kind of image that you know there was first there was the individual, and some individuals decided to go together and create a state.
Well, the problem with this is that unless we are creationists, we came from the monkeys, right?
Not apes, you know, of course, it's not exactly the monkey, but you know, our ancestors were pretty primitive.
They were closer to apes than to us, Chronicles.
And if we can see how they live, they live even in, you know, the chimpanzees live and everything.
They don't live as an individual.
They live in a pack with her he with a leader.
Yeah.
So this idea of individuals suddenly meet each other and decide to create a state is something that never happened.
The state was way before we even were conscious enough to understand all these abstract things.
Maybe not the state that we know today.
Yes, of course, but you know the situation.
The tribal hierarchy.
I mean, I completely agree with you.
Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, the sort of early Enlightenment thinkers, their idea of the state of nature was wrong.
You know, it was just obviously wrong.
You know, humans did not exist as perfect savages, you know, either, you know, wandering around picking fruits from the vine and being loving and dovey to each other, nor were they loners who had nasty, brutish, and short lives, although they did often have nasty, brutish, and short lives.
They weren't loners.
You're right.
I completely agree with you.
And I've been thinking about this a lot as well.
Because if the issue is to figure out where the Enlightenment is going wrong, I think you've got to start at the sort of fundamentals, the misconception of the world, right?
Because I mean, the Enlightenment obviously got a lot of things right about how to progress and discover and invent and create and build a world.
There's obviously a lot in there that was correct.
But if the roots are founded on something that is incorrect, I can't help but feel that this is the consequence of approaching a line of thought.
There is a truth there.
There is some usefulness there.
But I think that we're getting to the point now where we're being self-destructive.
And I think that's because the original foundations weren't moored to anything.
It was more to a fancy that just obviously was not true.
Well, yes, but if we're speaking about Locke and others, they were Protestant and they basically got the laws from God, nature, laws from God and everything like this.
And you know, in a world where the belief in God is fading, or at least it's becoming not relevant as much as before, the foundation for these ideas is also fading as well.
But if we would like to speak about the order which been more or less good, I mean, there was a problem, of course.
But if we look about the post-war economy of Britain, of America, of other nations, we see actually that their GDP growth being higher than nowadays, their average unemployment was lower, and the share of wages to GDP was ever growing, not ever falling, like nowadays.
And you know, it was even under people like Clement Attlee.
He was not a great capitalist.
I mean, he was not a communist Talinist, but he was not a great capitalist.
You know, the taxation was high, the unions were strong, and still the economy went better than after the promise of the end of history.
You deregulate everything, balance budgets, keep everything in this stripe jacket of the four freedoms and everything like this.
And what we see basically, the change, man, there was a change that, okay, there was staglationary period.
You know, it's painful.
I know.
Still, people which even never been born in the 70s and 80s still remember the great staglation.
But if we look about it, and of course I can analyze stafflation, but it's not for this time.
If you want, we can speak about later on.
But the situation is that the Keynesian consensus, even if it should have updates to real world, is the best compromise we can have between more socialist worldwide and more capitalist world.
It's like a capitalism which works for everyone.
Because I don't like the 1% versus 99%.
I don't think the economy should work as a clash between classes.
No, it will never work like this.
You will get Venezuela, you will get Chile, you will get mass.
The economy should work for 100% of the population.
So just I find that very interesting because I view Keynesianism as actually rather conservative in many ways and quite reactionary.
And I view sort of Hayek's ideas being rather more sort of liberal and revolutionary, the sort of constant creative destruction of capitalism, right?
If I understand this correctly, which I think I've got a fairly good bead in it.
I tend to prefer that, even if people lose their jobs and the economy isn't necessarily under tight, like necessarily under control.
I think that Hayek putting the faith in the individual to do the right thing, I think that's a much more enterprising and productive way of doing things.
Look, the situation with this is, of course, on the micro level, it's really beautiful.
But when we look at the macro level, we look that basically even if the individuals do everything right and the government doesn't manage to help the economy work right, the situation will go eventually to a zero-sum game when there will be more unemployment.
Even good factories will go bankrupt.
It will not be a situation where people lost one job and get other job or that a bad factory will fail but good factory will survive.
In a situation like this, we see basically a situation where all the economy goes down together.
I want to give an example.
I mean, you know, the Nazis didn't came to German power just from nothing, from the void.
But people confuse something.
The hyper-inflationary crisis of the hyper-invention crisis happened in 1924.
And after this crisis, for four years, Germany were prospering.
And this crisis was not so strong.
The crisis that killed it, it began with the Great Depression.
And when the Great Depression happened, the paradox is that actually the value of the money got higher and higher with time.
Deflation.
Yeah.
The negative inflation.
But basically what we see is that the government approached the economy with something that called liquidationism.
They said, let the companies go bankrupt.
The good will survive.
You know, the strong will survive.
The weak will go away.
Everything will go back to normal.
They put higher taxes.
They lower the spending.
They cut unemployment benefits in order to force people to work.
And you know, in the 30s, the benefits were smaller even than today, way smaller.
It's not that it was beneficial like today.
And eventually we see that Germany have 30% unemployment, 30%.
The Germany factories, the best, you know, they had strong industry, going bankrupt.
Every day, a huge amount of factories, small businesses, big businesses go bankrupt.
We see that basically the economic growth have double digits in the negative.
And only after this, of course, we see that when they pushed for this, you know, like free market without regulation and everything, we see that it's destroyed Germany so much.
So they basically were ready to adopt crazy ideologies like Nazism and communism.
Well, I'm not an expert on the economy of Weimar Germany, so I'd have to go and look up this to be able to formulate any kind of response.
I'd have to look up the surrounding situation to get a good bead on it.
But rather than just arguing stodgy economic theory, let's go on to what you guys think about the Labour Party at the moment in Britain, because I think it's really relevant.
Because specifically the thing about blue labor, are you guys aware of this?
Right.
Okay.
So as I understand it, Blue Labor is the sort of socially conservative working class movement, the sort of Tony Benz sort of style of labor that appears to be making somewhat of a resurgence.
But the intersectionals are not happy with this at all.
What do you guys make of it?
I would say that's largely dependent on how you define social conservatism.
If you define social conservatism as, say, like, you know, like an anti-SJW, anti-intersectional thing, as you kind of just suggested there, I would say like full steam ahead.
But if you mean social conservatism as in like North American style social conservatism.
Yeah, not evangelical.
That's not really the truck I would like to play.
And it's kind of well, let me quickly define then.
I think if you defined it just as pro-family, that would probably cover the bases well enough because it's not about religion.
It's just about the family being the core unit of Western society, right?
It's about to, what is of value to me, and I guess in contrast with a more typical brand of leftism is a strong belief in the need for social stability.
Yeah, basically that.
So the family is kind of part of that.
Religion is kind of part of that.
Patriotism, nationalism, group identity is kind of part of that.
That's kind of the signature difference between the alt-left and the mainstream left.
The earliest people to use the alt-left label, for example, it wasn't antiphon, people like that.
It was people of a more liberal and socialist bent who actually had sympathies with ideas like race realism and neo-reaction in some of its other forms.
I can mention a few of these guys if you want.
Uh, well, we can put like a bibliography at the end or something I can link on or something like that rather than go through a big list of uh names.
But we are race neutral, yeah, of course.
We are race neutral, we don't care about the systems of the first using the label to reject the idea of race realism as, say, the alt-right would use it.
Yeah, but the thing I think the thing that's the distinction here is that it's a realist socialist movement rather than the idealist socialist movement that the SJWs are.
That's the key difference, and that's that's the reason I've stuck around with the alt-leftist empire and various affiliates for years now.
You know, I've been with you guys for years because you are not liars.
You know, that's the thing.
I might disagree with you on things, but you don't try and pretend that reality is something counter to what it is.
And I think that kind of left-wing movement has to make a comeback.
We haven't heard from you much.
Do you have anything you want to say?
I just wanted to say that a good example is, as you know, sometimes they put on the page, I will give it now to speak Leon, a pro-nuclear post.
And you know how the left and environmentalist left is against nuclear energy.
I can't understand it.
They live like an alternative reality where their idea of small solar farms or I don't know, communitarian utopia is existing.
But in the real world, where people need more and more energy, available cheap energy.
And if we assume that what the scientists say is true, that the climate can change and everything, I will not argue with it.
I don't know about it enough.
So, why we can't use nuclear energy?
That's the million-dollar question, isn't it?
Because nuclear energy seems like a great idea.
And I've looked, just look at the stats, look at the number of deaths from energy generation and usage.
Nuclear is right at the bottom for the number of deaths.
I mean, like, by orders of magnitude, it is the safest and most productive form of energy we have discovered.
And for some reason, the intersectional left are acting like it's deadly, like it's dangerous.
It's like, what is wrong with you people?
Why, I mean, why would you deny this?
I just don't understand why you would deny this.
But the thing is, I saw a post, like a blog by someone, you know, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion or something like that.
And he said that for some reason, nuclear energy was not going to create a revolutionary movement.
And I guess that he's right.
You know, nuclear energy.
Yeah, it's going to provide for our needs, which won't create revolution.
Well, again, this speaks to this back-to-the-land romanticism.
And I think this is another thing that really ties into the status of the left now: it is a kind of a revival of this 19th century idea of idealizing nature, idealizing the other, whomever they may be.
Women are closer to the earth and have a kind of innate moral superiority over men.
People from foreign countries are, in a sense, better or more connected to nature or something more fundamental than us drab European white people with our businesses and all of that.
There is this romanticist thing that cropped up in the 19th century to be something of a replacement for religion as something to provide a meaning and an understanding of the world from.
I do think a lot of this lays on Kropotkin, to be honest.
I read The Conquest of Bread, and I was just like, this is A, ridiculous, and B, totally anachronistic.
Like, for them to call themselves bread to you.
So, what's the goal?
We're going to get our daily bread.
It's like, dude, how about you go on your daily run?
You know, we're all fat and dying of calorific intake.
We don't need to worry about bread.
Like, for the love of God, you know, wakey struggling from your hunger.
Yeah.
They want to go back to the philosophy of Russian peasants.
Something like 40%.
Do you know this, guys?
Food wastage.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
And obesity, poverty, like obesity and poverty go hand in hand.
The problem is not that we don't have enough food.
The problem is the food they have is shit.
Exactly.
It's full of sugar and salt.
This is the problem.
And it's something that is genuinely in need of addressing.
Like life expectancies are going down.
So it's actually worth thinking about.
But oh no, you know, we can't.
We can't talk about these things.
We've got to go back to how we're going to get a loaf of bread every day.
It's bloody ridiculous.
Yes, you're right about that.
But so, like, do you think the blue labor movement has any chance of succeeding?
That's the real question.
Well, I think that let's say like this: the left is really afraid of something like blue labor.
But if, for example, I give you a good example, they have a problem, they lost with Corbyn, which they tried to force him to run on an internationalist, more leftist socialist platform, and they failed.
If, for example, Biden will be against Trump, you know, the neoliberal version of the leftist, and he will also lose, they will finally get that the problem is not this economics, you know, economic message, but their internationalist message.
Yeah.
And then something like blue labor can finally arise in the West.
I think it has to.
I generally do feel bad for all of the ex-labor voters who now have no choice but to vote conservative because a part of this, like the part of voting labor is a part of their personal identity, you know, as working-class Brits.
You know, they're like, no, we vote labor because that's what we are.
And so it's really interesting watching the Ash Sarkars of the world try and claim that actually, no, this is all abstract and ideological.
So therefore, a student working in Pratt who's trying to get their degree is the same as a mining town and the miners in it in the north.
It's like, this is absurd.
You know, only an idiot would claim this.
And yet, you know, that's the cultural disconnect.
That seems to be the heart of the problem.
I'm not optimistic in the near future.
I think the issue we have is that these romanticists, these romantic revolutionaries, say, they're the ones that are organized and they're the ones that really have the eye of the tiger, so to speak, in terms of wanting to get out there.
They're always protesting and this sort of thing.
So in the near future, I don't know how optimistic they are.
Again, something like blue labor, as you put it, or like what we're trying to do, yes, I think it's going to have to succeed eventually, but in the near future, I don't think so.
See, well, the way we try to, sorry, as a way to try to tie kind of blue labor to alt-leftism, as it were, is one of the lenses I've always tried to take with like a lot of the material I've put out.
Well, until today, really, just through Facebook.
But I mean, it's the whole idea of, well, we kind of mentioned earlier, like the idea that the left is utopian and The left has, you know, like a problem with, you know, like political correctness.
And I would say yes, but also, you know, there are forms of, say, like right-wing political correctness that don't want people, say, criticizing the police military capitalism, their own preferred minority groups and nationalities.
And also, like, there's like a bit of a right-wing utopianism that you're seeing with, you know, like dark enlightenment types, you know, trad cat, if it means anything to you.
And it's something that like is really to it kind of drives like a lot of what I do because I kind of grew up in what I would say were like fairly like conservative Catholic circles.
So it's kind of ridiculous to me that people want to go back, would want to go back to that the same way people would want to go back to the Soviet Union.
And, you know, it's, and so for me, it's, you know, the alt left is, it can be an occasional bone of contention, but for me, the alt-left is like a little less about like going back to some other leftism that existed before, more about, I dare say, almost post, post-modern.
And what I mean is like, we have to acknowledge like the social progress we've made as like a civilization while also realizing where the false steps are.
And the right makes like a lot of the same kind of false steps.
One story that actually broke on Thursday, which is the same day Britain actually incidentally had their election, is a man by the name of Andrew Scheer, he was the leader of the Canadian Conservative Party.
He failed to defeat Justin Trudeau in our own recent election in October.
But the thing about him is like a lot of people thought the fact that he was like a practicing Catholic with like five children kind of work against him in modern Canada.
But what did him in was it was revealed that he was funneling party funds to pay for tuition for his children at like fake based police based school.
And based on my experience, having grown up in that kind of religious lens, is frankly like a lot of like right-wing religious people, that's actually what they really want out of the government is they just want the government to kind of fund their lifestyle and fund their own kind of little like parallel societies.
And that's why I was kind of asking earlier what you meant by social conservatism.
Like, you know, conservatism that's mostly just based around like kind of like getting your own big, like making sure like your church or your race or whatever is funded.
And, you know, that would be, you know, a significant issue, I would say.
But like, again, like there are other definitions of like social conservatism.
I know both Daniel and Ernest spoke about them at some length that I would say are perhaps more palatable.
It's just the reason I kind of spun you this kind of yarn is because like I think there needs to be, you know, like an idea of like, how do we, you know, blue labor alt-leftism, call it what you want, kind of has to still address, you know, the issues of today rather than, you know, because I think there's like a real risk of it lapsing into like utopianism or political correctness own way if it's just like a form of revivalism or whatever.
I mean, so I agree with you.
I mean, like the term social justice comes from Catholicism.
So there is definitely this idea on the right, especially the Catholic, right, as you say.
And I agree that like there's a there's a phrase in sort of military theory that generals always fight the last battle.
And that's really, you know, they're always what happened last time.
Well, we won't do that next time, even though next time might be a completely different context.
So, I think you're making some very strong points there, actually.
That is precisely the reason France got troused so bad in World War II.
They were really fighting World War I.
And how did that work?
The Magneo line was amazing, though.
You've got to give it credit.
It was really good.
But anyway, so what should we end on for this discussion?
Because I'll put this up afterwards.
What should we end on?
What topic would you guys like to end on?
Okay, I mean, I just wanted, I mean, if it's okay to speak about another economic matter, look, I mean, I think that, you know, in my page, in our page, sorry, Alternative Left, we also discuss, as I said, MT, modern monetary theory.
And I think that people like AOS make disservice to the theory because the theory is not speaking about, you know, to deliver freebies for everybody, just print the money and do it.
No, it's not working like this.
The theory, of course, saying something important: that money is a creature of the state.
And as such, there is no financial constraints on government spending.
However, there is real constraints on government spending.
There is unlimited amount of money that you can spend.
However, there is a limited amount of resources that you can use.
And as such, first of all, it's of course debunking the sound money theory that the government should behave like a household.
However, it also says that the government should manage the economy and manage its spending properly in order to create full employment, good growth environment, and everything else.
And I just wanted to say it because, first of all, I think it's important that people will know it, you know, that people will know that if someone says there is no money, he is lying.
However, if someone says because there is money, you can spend on whatever you want, he is also lying.
I think these sort of pie-in-the-sky economic theories have got to start.
The sort of pie-in-the-sky economic theories have to start, don't they?
It has to stop.
But also, we don't have money.
If there is many unemployed people running around and factories working half capacity, we don't have money.
It's also a lie.
You understand what I'm saying?
If there is capacity of production, you should spend more.
You should invest in the economy, build roads, do something good, build broadbands.
You don't even have to nationalize.
Just build more, help subsidize broadband for the private sector or build it by the government sector.
But don't say that you don't have money.
You can speak about resources.
We have resources for this or not.
And if we have the priority to make enough space, fiscal space to spend, is by resources, not by money, not just exactly by taxes.
It can be many other situations, you know, in many other spaces as well.
Okay, is there anything else anyone would like to say before I stop recording?
Ryan, you're the founder of the group.
You should say something smart.
Carl, I've been wanting to ask you this for as long as I've been following your channel now.
Are you familiar with a book called The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements?
Author's name is Eric Hoffer.
You're not.
I'm not familiar with that.
Oh, no.
If you take anything away from this, my man, bag borrower, steal a copy of that book.
It's absolutely fantastic.
Right, yeah.
Does kind of explain why groups like the SJWs are the way they are.
How does it compare with Soul's Vision of the Anointed?
I'm not familiar with that one.
I'm right, because I get the feeling that you've read the left-wing version of the book that I've read, which is the right-wing version of it.
Thomas Soul's Vision of the Anointed, again, it does the same thing.
So what was that one called again?
I'm going to put it in a browse window.
I'll look it up.
What was it called?
The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.
Author's name is Eric Hoffer.
His basic thesis is that certain kinds of people feel, I guess, a certain sort of frustration, restless, irritable, and discontent.
And then they project that onto the social order.
So this is this sort of psychological engine that drives a fanatical belief in something akin to social change or even revolution just for its own sake.
And that this is a thing that's recurred time and again throughout history, although it'll take different forms.
Sometimes it's religious, sometimes it's nationalist, sometimes it's a social revolution.
The really good thing about it is it's short and it's concise and it's not a lot of philosophical mumble jumble.
The language is really accessible and he's really direct and to the point.
I couldn't recommend it enough.
Give it a read.
Right.
I certainly will.
Thank you very much.
Right.
You had mentioned voices of the anointed, is it called?
Vision of the anointed.
Yeah, I'll look into that because it sounds like it's up my alley, right?
Totally.
That's politics sort of my thing.
The great thing about Sol as well is like this chat, he's not pretentious in the language he uses.
He comes from the sort of academic school of thought that you're trying to convey ideas to people that you want them to understand.
You're not trying to bamboozle them.
So you try to be as clear as possible, unlike the postmoderns who are trying to slip one past you.
He's trying to be clear in what he's saying.
So I think it's a fantastic read.
And I definitely recommend it to just everyone, to be honest.
Yeah, I'll have to check it out.
Yeah.
Anyone else want to say anything then?
Relatively small point in comparison, but it kind of piggybacks off the MMT point that Daniel mentioned.
And he's always made that a big focus in the group.
But one that when we talk about the discussion of how we're going to pay for things, now I'm not an economist myself.
So I kind of defer to his judgment on those sort of posts, even when I don't necessarily understand them fully.
But the whole question of who's going to pay for it is one I find like really interesting because it was something I forget what was said earlier, but I think it's kind of interesting how, for example, Britain has the NHS, you know, Canada has a national Medicare system.
Almost every major Western country has something like that, but the U.S. doesn't.
And they keep saying that, well, they don't have the means to pay for it, but they're always, you know, like spending that money on, you know, corporate welfare or, you know, like a bloated military or dare I say foreign aid, but like more specifically foreign aid to like hostile regimes or regimes that don't really exactly struggling to pay the bills, as it were.
So that's kind of my, you know, like final economic contribution at least worth considering.
Actually, sorry, this is where I was going to bring it.
I think honestly, like a lot of the Democrats running against Bernie Sanders, like a lot of them are also Rands.
There's still 15 people in the race, if you can believe it.
I think a lot of them are actually probably to the right, actually, of Boris Johnson, because at least Boris has, at the very least, a pretense of wanting to spend more money on the NHS when Britain stops sending it to Brussels or wherever.
So I just thought that was food for fraud.
I think Boris genuinely does want to invest in the North.
I think this is something that's been on his radar for quite some time.
And I think it's something he is serious about.
I mean, I could be wrong.
He could prove me wrong.
He could be some kind of radical high Tory who returns all the poor to work houses.
Who knows?
But I don't think that's going to be the case.
But I guess we'll have to see.
Well, I just wanted to say that maybe we'll see something quite interesting.
Not the labor, but something like something like, I don't know, Retor, how to say it, that the conservatives will abandon, let's say, Thatcherist free market absolutism and will come somehow to more to social democracy, especially that, you know, I think they are, though.
I think they're quite progressive conservatives these days, to be honest.
Yes, I see that they're abandoning, you know, the Thatcherist era ideas.
I think they're finally understanding that neoliberalism may, I mean, you know, like I was very, very young when Thatcher came to power.
So I haven't done a great deal of studying of the circumstance because honestly, there's enough to worry about now.
But I can imagine that it's easy to say with hindsight, oh, look how silly a decision these people made.
But I think that if we had the Soviet Union bearing down on us and we were going through this deep economic funk, then maybe you'd agree.
Maybe you'd say, well, this is obviously the best way.
Maybe it does seem like the best way from that perspective.
But 30 years down the line, it turns out that there are other necessary things that we weren't worrying about that have come to the fore.
And I think we have to worry about now.
So I agree that like the sort of full-on neoliberal open borders capitalism, that's got to end.
That's just got to end.
The GDP is just not that important.
There are other things that also matter.
That's what I think.
If you don't mind me budding in, maybe it's a final point.
I don't know if it's relevant.
But when you brought up the four freedoms of the EU, I really stuck on me.
So it's the freedom of goods, freedom of ability to provide services, freedom of capital.
I mean, you could argue about these things, but the freedom of labor movement, I mean, it's such a different level compared to the other ones.
And instantly, I thought of Lithuania and Russia.
If you, you know, Lithuania wants cheap bread from Russia, they can get rid of the tariffs and, you know, it's not a big deal.
But there was actually a deal in the 50s where the Russians and the Soviets said, would you like Kaliningrad?
You know, that piece of old German territory that Russians still have.
And the Lithuanian government, who were communists at the time, said, no, we don't want it.
And the reason was because it's full of Russians.
Having free movement with Russia of Russians is so different to having free movement of Russian vodka and bread.
Yeah.
It's, I honestly can't believe it's in there.
Like, it's, it's such a stupid idea.
Well, it's entirely pro-corporate as well.
I really hate just how pro-corporate it is.
It benefits the bosses and the bosses alone.
It's like.
Actually, one more point.
I believe I've mentioned this in one of the groups at least once more, but it always kills me that Britain has a perceived issue with mass immigration and it's kind of like a post-nationalist thing when it's like an island nation.
What do you mean exactly?
You guys, well, I guess technically with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the fact that like Britain is, you know, just simple geography, you guys are on an island.
Not connected to the rest of Europe, and yet you still have like mass immigration, and you still have post-nationalist liberals arguing for the end of the nation when you have a natural barrier surrounding your entire nation.
You know, I just kind of wonder, like, it's kind of weird.
And I understand like the channel tunnels of thing.
You do technically have it's all legal, it's all illegal immigration is a much smaller problem here than in America, for example.
But our problem is just no one's like America.
Yeah, ours is just legal immigration where our government is, for the sake of Tesco's and Aldi and all of the other giant shops, just letting in millions and millions and millions of people.
And they've been doing it for 20 years.
And like you say, we're an island.
We can't carry on like this.
It just can't go on forever.
And by Z, they hurt.
I just want to say, by Z, they hurt exactly the working class that they want to vote for.
I mean, the working class, which they want that it will vote for them, they hurt him with mass immigration.
Yeah, they do.
They absolutely do.
And this was the thing that Vosh just couldn't engage with.
Yeah.
And he was fine with it.
He was fine with knocking down their wages for someone else's benefit.
And it's like, I don't think I'm going to buy it.
This preoccupation with almost limitless immigration, refugees, so on, almost for its own sake.
No, obviously, America is a very different case because it's a very, like a lot of its immigration is unregulated, undocumented, and they're like a, they're, they're very much a continental nation.
But I noticed, like, it's the same, it's kind of similar to what Sargon actually just said here about this sort of immigrants they're bringing into Britain.
Like a lot of it, like, I remember even after like Trump started getting more bellicose and started arguing for a hard border, a lot of Hillbots even like quite unironically said, well, who's going to like pick our salad?
And like made like a bunch of weird remarks like that.
That just kind of proved that, you know, like upper class liberals just kind of like rely on immigration to do jobs that Americans, Brits, whoever else have you won't do anymore.
Well, but for higher payments, yeah.
So sorry to sorry to be rude, but we've gone for over an hour and I don't want to make it a manageable length.
But this has been a really, really interesting chat.
I'll leave a link in the description to any links you guys want to send me across just to the old leftist empire and wherever on Facebook.
So if people are interested in carrying on these discussions, they can do.
Thanks very much for joining me, chaps.
Really appreciate having you.
▲
Export Selection