All Episodes
Aug. 11, 2019 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin
01:02:56
Identity Politics, Brexit and The Road to Anti-Democracy | Brendan O'Neill | Rubin Report
Participants
Main voices
b
brendan oneill
47:04
d
dave rubin
15:32
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
brendan oneill
What we have now among the contemporary left is simply relativism.
So they tolerate things because they think they are equally valid.
dave rubin
Hey, I'm Dave Rubin and this is The Rubin Report.
Real quick everyone, don't forget to click that subscribe button and make sure notifications are turned on so that you actually get our videos.
Okay then, joining me today is a British columnist and the editor of Spiked Online and a former Rubin Report guest who we decided to welcome back, Brendan O'Neill.
Welcome back to The Rubin Report.
brendan oneill
Hey Dave, how's it going?
dave rubin
It is going well.
I'm glad to have you back.
It was about two years ago that we sat down for the first time and I kind of think that you're Political philosophy is pretty much in line with mine, but we're over the pond, so we're dealing with different issues.
But before we get into any of that, this shirt.
No one has worn a more flowery shirt on this show.
I can't believe it.
brendan oneill
It's so hot in LA.
As a Briton of Irish descent, this heat is just...
Unmanageable, so I had to put on the lightest, floweriest thing that I could find.
Hence the shirt.
dave rubin
Let's get into some flowery politics then.
So just quickly, for those that don't know who you are at all, we did about an hour and a half talk already, so they can check out that video.
We'll link to it below.
But let's just do like a little four or five minute kind of recap of who you are, who Spike is, and sort of just your general political philosophy.
brendan oneill
Yeah, so I call myself a left-wing libertarian.
I mean, it's not the most accurate term.
It has various failings, but I think it's probably the best fit for me.
dave rubin
A lot of people watching already, probably, antennas going up.
What do you mean, left-wing libertarian?
brendan oneill
Yeah, exactly.
So a lot of people think it's a contradiction in terms, right?
Because the left has become so incredibly authoritarian, so censorious, so divisive, so difficult to deal with. You know, there are so many problems with the
contemporary left that if you have the word left in the same sentence as the word
liberal or libertarian or freedom, people think that's a contradiction in terms. So, I
completely understand that. But I see myself as coming from a tradition where leftist people were
in favour of freedom.
They were in favor of freedom of speech.
They were in favor of countercultural experimentation.
They were in favor of allowing people to make jokes, to write books, to create art, however offensive it may have been.
So, there is a left tradition, which does value freedom, which does value liberty, which does value choice.
And I see myself as coming from that tradition.
Unfortunately, that tradition is fading away, so people like me seem quite eccentric, but I still think it's worth holding onto.
dave rubin
Yeah, so I hear you, brother.
I'm in that pool myself.
Do you find that sort of staying in that position and saying, I'm a left libertarian, to try to, say, fix it from the inside, as opposed to maybe working with people that you might not have worked with before, and I think this will be particularly apropos when we talk about Brexit, I've found that working with people on the right is much more fruitful these days.
But I respect the people that are still trying to fix it from the inside.
I don't see it happening, especially in the context of American politics.
It seems to be getting worse and worse.
But when you say left libertarian, is that because you're still trying to kind of fix sort of what's going on with leftism from inside the machine?
brendan oneill
No, I don't think leftism is fixable.
I mean, I spend my whole life in a state of kind of just Apoplectic fury with the left.
I'm so disappointed with what has become of the left.
I cannot believe that a movement that started out with the values of universalism has become this identitarian, divisive, hyper-racialist Outfit, which is constantly obsessing over whether you're white or black and defining everyone by the biological boxes that they spent so long trying to escape from.
I can't believe that a left which was traditionally pro-economic growth, pro-progress, wanted to industrialize the entire third world, has become this kind of environmentalist, save the planet, recycle your rubbish kind of middle class environmentalist movement.
So I spend all my time just feeling so disappointed with what the left has become, and I've reached the conclusion that I don't think it can be saved.
But having said that, I do think, and I do work with people on the right, I think alliances across left-right You know, from conservative to radical, whatever it might be, I think alliances are the key feature of contemporary politics.
And I think the great dividing line now is no longer left versus right, no longer capitalist versus communist.
The really important dividing line is now between, do you believe in freedom?
Do you trust ordinary people to decide for themselves how they should live, or do you not believe in freedom?
Are you an authoritarian?
Do you think people need to be controlled and cajoled and told what to think?
I think that's the key dividing line, and I'm willing to work with and align with anyone who is on the side of saying, we trust people to make up their own minds and to decide for themselves how they should live their lives.
dave rubin
So by the time we post this video, because everyone knows I'm going off the grid, I will have just handed in my manuscript for my book, and one of the things that I'm talking about in there is that perhaps there is a flaw within that tradition that you're talking about that I love so much, that perhaps within liberalism itself, and the nature of tolerance itself, and a removal of some of the sort of religious underpinnings that came before the Enlightenment, that there is something broken within liberalism.
It is something that I don't want to really think about, or even to have to analyze, because that's a scary thought for secular people to have to think about that.
This is, of course, what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson had been debating a lot for the last year and a half, and many others.
Ben Shapiro wrote a book about it.
Do you think there is something to that?
brendan oneill
I do think there's something to that.
I do think there's a God-shaped hole in contemporary society.
Lots of people have written about the God-shaped hole and how you fill it, and it's very difficult to fill it.
And nothing particularly convincing has filled it thus far.
But I'm an atheist.
I don't believe in God.
dave rubin
This is a tough one.
It's a tough one.
brendan oneill
It's a very tough one.
But I know, I was brought up a Catholic, so I was brought up very religious.
I was an altar boy until I was 16 years old.
And I know, so I've never been anti-religious in the way that some of the new atheists are.
I've always understood that religion can play an incredibly important role in people's lives in terms of providing a framework.
I've never had this kind of anti-religious, sometimes quite snobby, paternalistic approach to people who believe in God.
But at the same time, I think where the Enlightenment has gone wrong, where Enlightenment values have gone wrong, It's not necessarily because the Enlightenment kind of pushed God aside and said humanity is the centre and we should organise ourselves around the humanist ideal.
I don't think that's the problem with Enlightenment ideals.
I think the key problem The Enlightenment ideal of tolerance, which is so important, that you tolerate people even if you disagree with them, you tolerate people even if you think their values are backward, you value freedom so much that you're willing to tolerate people who wear the burka or who say outrageous things or who say racist things because you think freedom is the core overarching value of society.
I think the problem is that tolerance has transmogrified into relativism.
And so, if you look back at the Enlightenment value of tolerance, it wasn't only saying you have to tolerate everything and put up with it.
It was saying you should tolerate everything in the name of freedom, but at the same time you are allowed to criticize these things.
dave rubin
Right, so it was born as a two-way street, where in a weird way now it's become a one-way street.
brendan oneill
Absolutely right.
So it was a two-way street in the sense that you would tolerate even backward beliefs and stupid beliefs and wrong beliefs.
You would tolerate them but you would push back against them.
You would say that's wrong, that's inferior.
Right, no one uses the word inferior anymore.
That's a bad way to live.
What we have now among the contemporary left is simply relativism.
So they tolerate things because they think they are equally valid.
dave rubin
So is that, though, because of the God-shaped hole?
Do you make that direct connection?
Because this is, again, I come from a secular place on this, and yet I find there's almost no way.
I know many atheists that are the most moral, good, decent, generous people at that micro level, at the individual level, or small group level, let's say.
But I'm finding, especially in a time going against this radical, leftist, authoritarian monster, That's why liberalism is sputtering right now, because it has that tolerance piece that's now being used against it.
brendan oneill
Yes, I think that's a key problem of our times.
I would argue, and I say this as a secularist and an atheist, I would argue that you don't need God in order to be moral.
unidentified
Absolutely.
brendan oneill
But you need something.
And that's the key issue.
And what I think has happened in recent decades is that the shift from a God-arranged society to something else has given rise to this sense of relativism, this sense that everything is equally valid.
So, in the UK, for example, Boris Johnson, who's currently running to be leader of the Tory party and the next prime minister, he got into a huge amount of trouble for criticising the burqa.
He said that women who wear the burqa look like bank robbers.
They look like letterboxes.
They look crazy.
I wish they wouldn't wear this garment.
And it caused this huge, enormous fuss.
And people said he should apologize and retract.
And this furious, woke lobby was saying he was Islamophobic and all these other things, accusations that they throw at you.
What they overlooked is that in the same article where he made these ridiculing points, he also said we have to defend the right
of women to wear whatever they want to wear. So I actually thought that he
actually summed up the traditional view of tolerance which is that we tolerate
people who wear the burka even if we think it's a stupid thing to wear and I
actually share his view on that but we also push back against it.
We criticize it.
We say that it's not a nice way for women to live.
And so I think that's what's being lost.
The critical aspect of tolerance, where you don't only tolerate people's views and lifestyles, but you also criticize them.
That aspect is being lost.
And I think that explains a lot of why we're heading into this politically correct, woke culture in which you're not allowed to criticize anything.
dave rubin
How much of that do you think, then, is directly related to the media?
Because the way you just described his comments, and he says, you know, I don't want women to have to wear the burka, but they should be able to choose.
That's a big but, right?
brendan oneill
Yeah, absolutely.
dave rubin
This is the type of thing we see with Trump or almost anyone on the right all the time these days.
There's a headline That sounds awful and racist and whatever.
And then you have to dig into, you know, page eight, chapter, you know, paragraph 39, where then you see the qualifying statement and it's like, oh, well, actually what they said kind of wasn't that bad.
brendan oneill
I think that's absolutely right.
I think the media has an awful lot to answer for.
And so does social media.
Because what you have is a situation today where Anyone who makes a statement, even if it's a reasonable statement, social media and the media will latch onto it and say you're racist, you're Islamophobic, you're a misogynist.
Even if you are not criticising womankind, not criticising all Muslims, not criticising all black people, but simply... You might be a Muslim woman!
Right, exactly.
You could be a Muslim woman who thinks that it's wrong to ask Muslim women to wear the hijab and you will be branded Islamophobic for raising those points.
This happened in the UK very recently.
The Muslim Council of Britain issued a report on supposed Islamophobia in the media and one of its examples was an Iranian woman who refused to wear the hijab, which is required in Iran by the way, she refused to wear the hijab and she went on to the BBC and gave an interview on why she refused to wear the hijab.
She said it's an oppressive garment.
She doesn't like wearing it.
The Muslim Council of Britain in the UK held this interview up as an example of Islamophobia because they said it wasn't given the other side.
And you think to yourself, what is the other side?
The other side is presumably the theocratic Iranian Revolutionary Guard point of view.
unidentified
Right.
brendan oneill
Which is that all women must wear this garment or else they'll be punished.
So you're absolutely right.
Even Muslim women who raise questions about the way Muslim women live can be denounced as Islamophobic, can be denounced as misogynistic.
And what we're entering into is a society in which anyone who raises any questions about Cultural values or social tensions or religious tensions or anything else can be so swiftly demonized as racist and phobic and evil and beyond the pale and even as a fascist.
And what that does, it contributes to a sense where you just think there are certain things you cannot say, certain criticisms you cannot raise, and it's very cynically designed, I think, to stifle debate about the problems in society.
dave rubin
Right, and then it fascinatingly creates the sort of widest tent in politics, which is worldwide right now, which is the deplorables, which you're talking a lot about.
I mean, the example I would give is from London.
I was there about six months ago when I was on tour with Jordan Peterson, and I went to Harrods, which is the famous department store.
Yeah.
something like 70% of the women were wearing burqas.
Now, I'm not, look, they can wear whatever they want.
I take the liberal position on this, of course.
I would want them all to live as freely as they possibly can and all that.
But what I would say is it struck me as odd.
I wasn't in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't in Iran, but not only that, and having nothing to do with racism
or bigotry or any of those things, which is so stupid that I even have to elucidate
that point to you, if I had walked into Harrods and there had been 70% Amish women
or Orthodox Jewish women or something else, it would have struck me as a little odd.
This doesn't feel like...
Absolutely right.
whatever London felt like at one time.
And if you don't let people just think about that or talk about it, then you're gonna lead
to all sorts of other crazy things.
brendan oneill
Absolutely right.
I think Harrods and Selfridges, which is another famous posh shop in London.
dave rubin
Well, the reason, let me just wanna think, the reason it struck me so odd
is because I am aware that we live in a weird time related to terror and everything else,
and that when you're in a place that has, I mean, Harrods is just packed.
You're just sort of moving with a mob from room to room 'cause it's so packed.
Well, if there were groups of men that you could only see their eyes,
you would think it's alarming.
I mean, that just is.
It sounds whatever, but it just is.
brendan oneill
But you know, I think, I completely agree.
I think the burka is a ridiculous, offensive, horrible item of clothing.
I think the idea that a woman needs to cover herself from head to toe so that all you can see is her eyes is ridiculous.
It's offensive to women because it covers them in this black cloth, and it's offensive to men because the whole idea of it is that these women are so sexually attractive that men cannot control their impulses.
It's a deeply offensive garment.
I also happen to defend women's right to wear it, even though I know that's very complicated, because I know that lots of women don't exercise free choice when they wear this garment.
But my great concern is that if you were to say in the UK or France or Belgium, if you were to say you are banned from wearing this garment in public, my great concern is that most of those women would not go out in public.
So I think it would actually limit their freedom in a way that would be incredibly destructive.
But this is the problem we face in contemporary society, where it's become unacceptable to say, I absolutely defend your freedom to wear this ridiculous item of clothing, this backward, archaic, medieval item of clothing.
I defend your freedom to wear that, but I think you're wrong.
I think it's antisocial.
I think it makes life more difficult, because I cannot see your face, I cannot engage with you.
That's where I think political correctness is really causing problems, where it's no longer acceptable to say, fine, do what you want to do, but everyone else must have the right to criticize what you do.
Instead, we're all supposed to nod along obediently at all these various different ways of life, even if we know inside our hearts and minds that it's a wrong way to live.
So the expectation of political correctness that you must simply obediently accept All lifestyles, I think, is a serious problem.
dave rubin
Yeah, and you sort of hit this when you said antisocial, but it also creates this odd situation where you need to see someone's face to read cues.
That's right.
You can read a lot in the eyes, but there's things about someone's face and the way they lift their brow and their mouth moves and all of those things that allow us to actually connect a little bit more.
So then it creates a secondary level of disconnect.
That's right.
That's not just what someone's wearing.
brendan oneill
Well, you know, there was a case in the U.K.
recently where a woman who wears the niqab wanted to be able to wear it in a court of law where she was giving evidence, and the judge said, no, absolutely unacceptable, because we need to be able to see the movements on your face.
We need to see what you're thinking.
And in a court of law, that becomes a very pronounced issue, right, because you need to know, is this person telling the truth?
And you judge people by how they look, how their eyes look, how their face looks, the facial expressions they make.
So, I think I would be in favour of restricting the right of women to wear the niqab in a court of law, because you need to be able to see the face.
I also would be in favour of restricting the right of women to wear the niqab in a school, because I think young children need to be able to see their teacher's face, and there's currently big discussion about whether women should be able to wear the niqab in schools in the UK and also in France.
I think they shouldn't be allowed to wear it.
So there are some areas where I think the anti-social element of that clothing becomes so problematic that it's acceptable to say you can't wear it.
But in the public sphere, in everyday, walking down the street, going into a shop, I would defend freedom, the freedom of women to wear this religious garment.
And additional to that, I would defend the right of everyone else to criticize the fact that these women wear this garment without being branded Islamophobic.
Because that phobic accusation is used so often these days to brand anyone who simply raises questions about Islam or transgenderism or any aspect of contemporary Woke politics.
Anyone who raises any criticism of that can so swiftly and easily be denounced as phobic that it just becomes incredibly difficult to have an honest discussion about the society we live in.
dave rubin
Okay, so I think that's a perfect segue then when it comes to having an honest discussion about what's happening in contemporary society.
You've been one of the most outspoken Brexit supporters and sort of one of the people that I think is kind of giving it its intellectual backing.
So we touched on this a little bit two years ago, roughly, so it's hard to believe this is still being discussed, but for the layman who knows nothing about Brexit, what was Brexit about?
Let's just do that in two or three minutes and then we'll get caught up to where we're at now.
unidentified
Yes.
brendan oneill
So, in my view, Brexit is the most important political issue in the Western world.
What happened is in June 2016, which is so long ago now, 17... It's like another world already.
It's crazy.
17.4 million British people voted to leave the European Union.
That's the largest block of voters in the history of the United Kingdom.
That many people have never voted for anything.
So, they voted to – we, it includes me – 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union because the European Union is an anti-democratic, technocratic, bureaucratic, illiberal, PC institution which just drains the life out of democracy and freedom of speech and all these other key issues.
So, we were right, I believe, to oppose the European Union.
So, we voted against it.
The idea was that we would have this referendum, and whatever we decided would be acted upon.
We were told that again and again and again by David Cameron, who was then the prime minister.
Three plus years later, we're still in the European Union.
We haven't left.
And it looks increasingly like we won't leave.
So there is now talk of having a second referendum.
There is now talk of simply overriding the vote.
There is now talk of Parliament using its power to deprive the public of the thing that they voted for and simply preventing it from happening.
I think if that happens, it will be a really key event in the history of Britain, because what it will say is that we are no longer really a democratic nation.
We are no longer really a democracy.
We're no longer a nation that takes seriously what ordinary people think.
So I think a lot of people across the Western world really should be keeping a close eye on Brexit, because if Brexit doesn't happen, then the whole nature of democracy, the whole democratic era, which has only existed for a few hundred years, will be called into question.
dave rubin
Because basically at that point...
Plenty of other Western leaders who might have some authoritarian tendencies might go, well, it doesn't really matter if I win or lose an election because look what happened over there.
We'll delay and delay and delay long enough until the people either start flipping or we can make up enough lies or demonize enough people and then...
brendan oneill
That's right.
dave rubin
Congrats to me.
I'm still in power.
brendan oneill
That's right.
And, you know, a lot of people used to look to the United Kingdom for a democratic example.
And I was thinking about this recently.
It was recently the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, when you had hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens on the streets of Beijing and across China, in fact, demanding democratic rights, demanding the right to freedom, demanding the right to choose their government, a very basic right that people like you and I take for granted.
Which people in China don't have.
And when that massacre happened 30 years ago in 1989, British Democrats, British liberals, British humanists were talking about it all the time.
They were fully in favor of these people who were struggling for the right to democracy, for the right to a democratic say in their lives and in their communities.
On the 30th anniversary, however, there was a real sense of silence.
A lot of British liberals who would normally have made a big fuss about the Tiananmen Square massacre and the authoritarianism of the Chinese regime didn't say anything.
And I was thinking about this and I thought, OK, this makes sense.
It's because you are now on the same side as the Chinese regime.
Now, that's not to say you're going to drive tanks into Trafalgar Square like the Chinese regime did into Tiananmen Square and massacre people or kill people.
But you're on the same side in the sense that you think democracy is overrated.
You think people shouldn't have a free, fair say in how their community or their society is organized.
And I thought that silence, I think your point is absolutely right.
There are so many people around the world who looked to the UK and to other Western nations, America too, for an example of people having a real say in how their lives are organized, who now will no longer do that.
And you have foreign regimes around the world who will look at the UK and they'll see that there are Members of Parliament and government officials who are hell-bent on overriding the largest democratic vote in the history of our country.
And those regimes will say, let's do the same thing.
dave rubin
So let's just break down a little of the chronology of this whole thing.
So the vote is about two years ago.
You said June of 2016, right?
2016, yeah.
And then how soon were things supposed to be in motion at that point?
brendan oneill
Straight away.
It was supposed to happen very, very quickly.
And David Cameron, who was the prime minister, and George Osborne, who was the chancellor of the executive – he was in charge of the economy – these two figures, who were the leading figures in the United Kingdom, argued that it would happen straight away.
We will listen to you.
We will act upon what you say.
We will do it right off the bat.
So, everyone was expecting that it would happen in a matter of weeks or months.
And people went to the ballot box with that view in mind.
They thought, right, this is the first election in which I'm not simply being asked to choose between a party who will run the country.
We're all asked that in every single election we take part in.
This was a different election.
This was an election in which we were being asked to decide the political makeup of the nation, the constitutional nature of the nation.
Should we be entangled with the European Union or should we be completely independent of it?
So, a lot of voters I spoke to said that this is the first time they felt that their vote had real consequence and would change the country entirely.
So, people relished the opportunity.
Voter turnout went up enormously.
It was 72 percent.
Normally, it's around 60 percent.
So, there was a huge rise in voter turnout, especially in working class areas and poor areas where people don't normally vote.
And people came out in their millions and said, let's leave the European Union.
And they expected it would happen very quickly.
More than three years later, it still hasn't happened.
dave rubin
So what happened that caused the pause, the delay, and now the possible reversal of this entire thing?
brendan oneill
Well, the key issue is that the political class doesn't want to leave the European Union.
I mean, this is the great There's a lot of tension in the United Kingdom at the moment.
And I think it's actually reflected in American politics to a certain extent, too, and across Europe, in fact, as well.
In the U.K., a majority of voters want to leave the European Union, but a majority of the political class doesn't.
And that's the key tension.
Say, for example, 52% of people voted to leave the European Union.
That's a majority, 17.5 million.
But in the political class, 70% of Members of Parliament voted to stay in the European Union.
With the Labour Party, which is our version of the Democrat Party, it was 95%.
95% of Labour MPs voted to stay in the European Union.
I mean, that is how utterly disconnected the supposedly left-wing party is from public sentiment.
I mean, it is simply extraordinary that 95% of Labour MPs, as against just 48% of the
public, voted to stay in the European Union.
So, we have this difficult, historically unprecedented situation, where the people want one thing
and the political class want another.
And the great unfortunate thing is that the political class is getting its way.
dave rubin
So, I think the average person listening to this, at least from an American lens, would
go, "Well, wait a minute."
We have elections, and no matter what the result is, incumbents get booted and they gotta go.
We bring in this guy, this whole thing happens.
They keep telling us that Trump's never gonna leave office, but in many ways, we're Democrats that didn't accept this election, okay, all that.
So what actually is happening?
I mean, are they literally just that percentage?
That 70%, they're just saying we're just not going to put the processes in motion that would allow for, we're just, so they're not denying that they're denying the will of the people.
I guess that's what I'm asking, right?
Or are they?
Or they're saying you were tricked, right?
Doesn't that, it's a lot that you were tricked into voting for this, and we're doing what's better for you.
brendan oneill
That's the key thing.
So they would never openly say, we hate the will of the people, we think you're all idiots, so we're just gonna ignore you.
dave rubin
You've got to have a little better PR than that.
brendan oneill
Right?
So they put a bit of spin on it.
They put a kind of PC gloss on the fact that they are actually undermining the democratic process.
So what they say is, we were tricked, we were lied to, we're all a bunch of idiots, we're racist, we're xenophobic.
The phrase they use is low information, which is a fancy phrase for, you know, stupid.
But that's what they say.
You're low information.
You didn't have all the information.
You didn't understand the consequences of leaving the European Union.
You're not educated enough.
You're not switched on enough.
Even people like Richard Dawkins have been saying it was wrong and stupid to entrust such a big political decision to ordinary people because they think we are inferior to them.
dave rubin
I saw his tweet on that.
brendan oneill
But it's such an important moment because I think it really sums up where politics is going, where politically correct politics is going, where woke politics is going.
Because what it's doing is creating this neo-aristocracy, where you have this layer of people who think they know better than us.
They know how you should speak, they know how you should behave, they know how you should think.
And they are superior to us.
They are educated, they went to the right universities, they have the right attitudes.
And then down here, There are the throng, the masses, the idiots, who don't speak in the right way, who don't have the right attitudes, who aren't sufficiently PC, who aren't sufficiently woke, and they can be bossed around, they can be ignored, they can be told what to do and told what to think.
So, I think actually that the war against Brexit, which is fundamentally a war against democracy, actually speaks to the political culture of the Western world more broadly, where you have the creation of this two-tier political system.
At the top you have these switched on elites who think they know better than the rest of us and they have no concern at all about bossing us around and censoring us and demonizing us and telling us we're stupid and blocking the things that we vote for.
So I think at the heart of Brexit what we can see is the elites war against supposedly deplorable people.
dave rubin
So now that we're three plus years into this, Do you think the damage has been done regardless at a certain level, that even if somehow Brexit is pulled off and it limps out, that the faith in the system will have been so beaten?
And from my friends that are British, most of them actually were pro-Brexit, and they're so deeply depressed about how this whole situation has been dealt with, that it almost seems to me that no matter what happens now, that is going to be very hard to reset.
brendan oneill
I think that's absolutely a key question, which is whether they've already gone too far.
You know, I kind of, I flit from day to day about whether Brexit will happen or not.
But then I also think precisely that even if it does happen now, have we gone too far down the route of anti-democracy?
Because what—it's extraordinary.
And to a lot of American people and other non-British people, it will be difficult to comprehend just how extraordinary it's been.
But for more than three years, the majority of people in the U.K., the majority of voters, have been subjected to relentless daily abuse.
We've been told we are ignorant, we are stupid, we are racist, we are xenophobic, we are driven by a hatred of foreigners, we are driven by a hatred of immigration.
We've been told basically that we're scum.
dave rubin
And then, by the way, you have your police departments in London tweeting out that we should be watching people for hate speech.
That's right.
brendan oneill
That's right.
So, at the exact same time, there is this constant policing of what we say and how we express ourselves.
And so, there are millions and millions of people in the UK who just feel completely beaten down and abused and treated like crap, to be frank, by the political class, by the political elites, and they've had enough of it.
But the question arises of how they respond to that.
Will they respond to that by saying, we give up?
Or will they respond to that by saying, we're going to fight back?
And that's the key question of the moment in the UK, and I think across the Western world, in fact.
And Nigel Farage, I interviewed Nigel Farage on my podcast a few months ago, and he made the point that the two choices facing the British population at the moment is anarchy or apathy.
Do you respond to this non-stop abuse from the woke elites by being anarchist and saying, well, screw you, we're going to keep fighting for this thing that we want?
Or do you respond to it by being apathetic and saying, you win, we give up?
And I see that dilemma, that choice, repeated, in fact, across the Western world, which is, do ordinary people respond to the relentless harassment of them by the political class and the media class and the woke class?
Do they respond to that by saying, well, no, we don't accept this and we're going to keep pushing it back against your eccentric, crazy political worldview?
Or do they respond to it by saying, We're going to slink off into our own lives and give up on politics entirely.
That, I think, is the crossroads that the West is at.
dave rubin
Yeah, that seems to be it for everybody.
brendan oneill
Yeah.
dave rubin
Whether you're dealing with Brexit or even what's going on here, which are you going to get engaged and where does that lead you and how crazy will you have made those people in a certain way if you've treated them so deplorably?
So obviously I wanted to bring up Farage in this.
I've met him a few times.
We had lunch in London.
I found him to be exactly the way he is publicly, which is boisterous and passionate and all of those things
and sort of endlessly overjoyed, but yet he's dealing with all sorts of nonsense.
All I sense from him though, really sort of at the political level,
was that he wants his people to be free.
That was really all I got from him.
Do you think there is more to it than that?
Or do you think that that is enough?
And you know, he won the other election just in the last two months.
Where does this sort of place him?
brendan oneill
So, Nigel Farage, his most recent outlet is the Brexit Party.
So, he has set up a new political party called the Brexit Party, and they won the European Union elections.
dave rubin
I mean, this is how outrageous... They were formed, what, three weeks before or something?
brendan oneill
A few weeks before, and they won.
They got more than five million votes.
They beat the Conservative Party, they beat the Labour Party, they beat the Liberal Democrat Party, which are the three main parties in the UK.
Beat all of them and they won.
And they are now the largest political party in the European Parliament from across the whole of Europe.
They are the largest party.
That is how strong the sentiment is in the UK for Brexit.
People are still voting for Brexit again and again at every opportunity they get.
So, Nigel has set up this party.
I think it's a very admirable exercise.
I think he is someone who genuinely wants the U.K.
to leave the European Union.
And, in fact, he has devoted his working life to that for the past 20, 25 years.
He was originally a leader of the U.K.
Independence Party, and now he's a leader of the Brexit Party.
All along the way, he has been arguing that we have to leave the European Union because it is anti-democratic and illiberal and a really foul institution.
And he's absolutely right.
He organized a huge rally outside Parliament a few months ago called the Leave Means Leave rally.
i.e., leaving the European Union really should mean leaving the European Union, which I was
one of the speakers at that.
So I got to meet him, got to speak to him.
And I very much got the impression, firstly, that he is someone who is genuinely committed
to recovering Britain's national sovereignty and Britain's popular democracy against this
kind of encroaching oligarchical institution in Brussels.
And I also got a sense from the vast crowds who were there, thousands of people, many of whom came up to me afterwards to talk to me about what I had said, got a very clear sense that there are huge numbers of ordinary people who want the same thing, who want us to leave the European Union, who want Britain to go back to being An independent nation.
dave rubin
So it wasn't just a big party for racists and people who hate immigrants and hate gay people and the rest of it?
brendan oneill
It's so infuriating.
I think, you know, the thing that I think infuriates me most about contemporary politics is the way in which people are so casually written off.
It's a new way of saying you're scum, so we don't have to deal with you.
But instead of saying you're scum, which would be un-PC in itself, they say you're racist, you're xenophobic, you're Islamophobic, you're transphobic, you're – all these phrases that they've invented simply to demonize certain points of view.
And that's been used against Brexit voters, who are all written off as xenophobic.
It's been used against Numerous sections of society who simply want to defend liberal values or traditional values or conservative values or any view of life that runs counter to the politically correct elite.
Anyone who does that instantly runs the risk of being denounced as phobic in some way and that's such a dangerous approach.
dave rubin
How would you connect this to what's going on more broadly with labor in general?
So you mentioned that 90% of them don't wanna leave, or right,
that 90% of them don't wanna leave, which is against the will of the people, that's one thing.
But now there's all this giant anti-Semitic scandal with Corbyn, which now is starting,
I think we're seeing the seeds of it here with the Democrats.
I think this new woke class of Democrats, they're teasing out the very things,
and I see this from a lot of conservative British pundits.
They'll say, "Ah, that's the type of talk "that we started hearing about six, seven years ago,
"and now it seems like it's taken over Labour entirely."
brendan oneill
I completely agree.
I think you're absolutely right to draw that connection between the kind of prejudice that is growing up in the Labour Party in the UK under Jeremy Corbyn, who is this kind of supposedly radical Marxist leader, and the kind of prejudices that we're seeing expressed among the kind of radical wing of the Democrat Party, which is this increasingly anti-Semitic, world view.
And the conclusion I've come to is that identity politics is a gateway drug to actual racism.
Because what identity politics does, I mean it does so many bad things.
It rehabilitates racial thinking, it divides everyone according to their biological origins rather than the question of their character and who they are and what they believe.
So it's a very regressive form of politics.
But I think the worst thing that it does is the way it organizes every ethnic group and social group according to whether they're privileged or oppressed.
And it has this obsessive desire to locate every single group in this kind of hierarchy of victimhood.
And what that does, it's meant to generate sympathy for the most oppressed groups, which apparently includes, I don't know, in America it would include African Americans and Muslims and so on.
It's meant to generate sympathy for them, but what it does, by extension, is generate hatred and bile for supposedly privileged groups.
White men, straight men, cis people.
I don't use the word cis, but they They do use the word cis.
And Jews.
Because what these racist identitarians have done, they have decided in their infinite wisdom that the idea that the Jews are victims is over-egged and exaggerated and not really accurate anymore.
And in fact we have to relocate the Jews away from this good group, i.e.
victims, into this bad group, i.e.
privileged people.
And as a consequence of that, a lot of the bile that these people throw out, the racist bile, I would say, is targeted at not only white men and cis people and so on, but also at Jewish people.
So I think actually that contemporary anti-Semitism is not a product of the politics of racial superiority as it was in the 1930s and the 1940s.
It's a product of the politics of identity.
It's a product of woke politics, which has this kind of myopic urge to divide all these groups
according to whether they are deserving of our sympathy or deserving of our hatred.
dave rubin
It's so interesting, this idea that if you supposedly care
about this group that you view lower, that is lower in the hierarchy,
that it can't just be about that.
It has to then, just the way human nature is, it has to be about hating somebody else.
That's exactly right.
And what it mostly ends up doing, I would argue, is it's probably 80% focused on the hatred of that group,
whatever that group might be, and 20% ends up being left on these people,
usually with the wrong solutions.
brendan oneill
Absolutely right.
dave rubin
And we see this now in America, you know, we're having all these things and with Harvard and they didn't want a certain amount of Asian people there, so they start having quotas and we're literally punishing Asian people for working hard and focusing on family and education.
No one gave Asian people anything when they came here, just like no one gave Irish people or Italian people or Jewish people or anyone anything.
You get here and you're here.
brendan oneill
Good luck.
I think that's absolutely right.
And if anything, I think it might even be more than 80% as their focus of hatred.
You're being very balanced there, but I think that's right.
You know, everyone loses out as a consequence of the hierarchy of victimhood.
Obviously, the privileged groups, the supposedly privileged groups lose out because they are the subjects of hatred.
It's acceptable to hate them.
In fact, it's socially responsible to hate them.
It's socially responsible to hate white men.
dave rubin
Is it crazy, when you hear some of these people, what I see on the Twitter version of this is that what's coming soon enough, within 10 years, will actually be laws against these people that will punish these people.
And I think if I would have heard that three years ago, it would have sounded crazy.
Now it's starting to sound kind of right, that if really the ideas of labor and what's being born out of our Democrats coming now, it won't just be about, oh, we want, Everybody to you know take from some and give to others just for tax purposes, but it'll be about more proactive ways Yeah to punish certain people And now you know we're talking about reparations now and a whole slew of other things I think that's already happening in some ways where you have a situation where?
brendan oneill
You know on campuses on universities and in other areas of life you have affirmative action and other measures you know many of which started out with good intentions which are now being used as to elevate certain social groups and to demean or handicap other social groups.
I think we're already seeing the origins of that and I think it will go further and further.
One of my big problems with this culture of hatred towards certain privileged groups is that it's so Anti-intellectual.
It's so wrong.
So, for example, white men.
It's absolutely acceptable and, in fact, cherished to hate white men.
And you think to yourself, well, hold on, white men includes very poor people, hard-working people, the man who cleans your toilet, the man who fixes things in your house when they go wrong.
It includes firefighters who will save your life, you ungrateful idiots, if anything bad happens.
It includes soldiers.
It includes all these people.
And then it includes incredibly wealthy people, you know, the minority, people who run businesses, people who are bosses and so on.
So what the politics of identity does, I think one of the key things it does, it completely erases the question of class.
It completely erases the question of who has things and who doesn't have things.
And as someone who comes from the left, traditionally, I find that really worrying, where a whole swathe of people is just categorized as bad on the basis of the color of their skin, with no Discussion about the divisions within that group of people in terms of class, in terms of influence, in terms of work and everything else.
So to me, it's just as bad as when I was growing up and people would do the same in relation to black people.
They would say all black people are questionable by the basis that they have a certain skin color.
That was wrong.
That was wicked.
That was an evil approach to life because it didn't take into consideration the fact that there are vastly different kinds of black people.
The majority of them are good, hard-working, decent people, and if some are committing crimes, it tends to be a minority, it tends to be a specific problem.
So it was racist to suggest that all black people were a problem.
I similarly think it's racist, or it's racially charged, to suggest that white men are a bad thing.
It doesn't take into consideration the fact that there are vast moral, class, political differences in this wave of people.
dave rubin
So since this woke monster, that's what I always call it, it's a monster, it's sort of an amorphous monster that you can't quite shape or fully understand because it's always changing and changing the rules and all those things, but because it doesn't seem to really be going anywhere let's say, Do you think that the populist movements that are now rising up all over Europe are the only way to get out of this?
And are you worried about that, where that could potentially lead?
Because I think this is a little bit where every time you talk about populism, you start talking about nationalism.
The next thing you know, people think you're talking about ethno-nationalism, and there's this weird sliding scale.
So maybe if you could kind of break down and review those different movements.
brendan oneill
Well, I'm very pro-populist.
I'm very anti-ethno-nationalism.
And I don't think there's a contradiction between those two things at all.
dave rubin
Okay, so can you just lay those out?
brendan oneill
Yeah, so I think populism is an incredibly positive moment.
Now, that doesn't mean that all the populist movements around the world are good.
Some of them are good.
Some of them are very questionable.
Some of them have bad ideas.
But I do think all of them, in the round, represent a rebellion against The technocratic, politically correct elites that have risen up over the past 30 years.
And we can see this with the vote for Brexit.
The vote for Brexit was a very clear statement of opposition to the bureaucratic elites that run the United Kingdom.
We can see it with the gilets jaunes in France, who have been protesting on the streets every single week for about 30 weeks now.
I mean, for a long period of time.
They get virtually no media coverage.
dave rubin
Well, you certainly won't see that on CNN.
Right.
You won't see anything about Brexit on CNN.
brendan oneill
You won't see it on CNN, but we don't even get coverage of the Gilets Jaunes on the BBC, and we live right next door to France.
We live 26 miles from France.
It is our closest frenemy, and we don't get the coverage of what's happening there.
It's absolutely extraordinary.
But I think with the Gilets Jaunes, that's very clearly a protest against Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, who is an elitist, paternalistic, bureaucratic politician.
And we can see across Europe there are various left-wing and right-wing populist movements emerging, pushing aside the kind of traditional social democratic or right-wing parties and saying we need a new kind of politics.
I think you can also see in the U.S.
with the Trump phenomenon.
Now, I don't think the Trump phenomenon is uncomplicated.
I think it's very complicated.
I think there are many problems with Trump as an individual and as a politician and in terms of what he says and what he does.
But I think the vote for him through the Electoral College, everyone will say, he didn't win the popular vote.
We know this.
But through the Electoral College, the fact that he won is incredibly significant.
And I think it represented a rebellion, particularly among working class voters, where they were saying, we've had enough of the establishment.
We've had enough of establishment politics, woke politics, the kind of thing that Hillary and others were pushing.
The problem in the US, as far as I can see, I think the Democrats have gone completely nuts.
Because what they have done is they are going further and further down the route off the kind of politics that the people have rejected.
dave rubin
So let me pause you there for a sec.
So since we're saying that We should view what's going on with labor now in the UK as a sort of precursor to what's happening with the Democrats.
People always ask me this.
Well, is there any sign that it's going to stop?
And I cannot find a sign that at any moment over these last couple of years where the left went bananas and identity politics and all of these things, and Trump became president, as if that wasn't a big enough sign.
I've never seen a moment where the self-reflection kicked in.
Was there any moment in labor's dissent that you saw like a moment where suddenly there was a chance, at least, even if it didn't actually materialize, but a chance where you go, now they could kind of recalibrate and get back to saying, because we've seen, you know, they threw in Biden basically as the last chance, I think.
It was like, take this old guy who now is gonna try to play your woke game too, but he's the last thing we got.
brendan oneill
That's the great tragedy of Biden, I think.
He keeps getting attacked by these woke politicians, and he keeps giving in too much to them.
You think, stand up for yourself, Joe.
dave rubin
I don't even like him that much, but man, if he would just stand up to them, I would be all about it.
He could clean up.
brendan oneill
But, you know, in the U.K., that's a really good question, because I think there were a few moments where Labour thought to itself, where are we going?
And, in fact, there are still sections of the Labour Party, small sections, who are saying, we've gone too far.
We've gone too far down the metropolitan, elitist, kind of woke political route.
and we need to recover what we were traditionally about, which was about being a democratic party,
a patriotic party, a nationalist party.
dave rubin
Right, this sort of gets us back to where we started this interview, actually, because I was asking you,
can you stay in something and fix it from the inside or somehow? - Yeah.
brendan oneill
My view, and I've said this to labor-supporting friends of mine, my view is that labor cannot be fixed.
It's lost.
Because this has been a long time coming, in fact, and I think it's been a long time coming from the left across the Western world.
And they've made the wrong decision again and again and again, and they've gone so far down the route of this kind of elitist, distant, paternalistic politics.
But I think it would be very hard for them to come back from that.
So the point I make to Labour-supporting friends of mine who are still pro-Brexit, pro-democracy, who think ordinary people are decent and sensible rather than idiots, I always say to them, you've just got to leave.
You've got to set up your own organisation.
You've got to do your own thing, because there's a lost cause.
But I think, looking at the U.S., I'm just amazed at the mistakes that the Democratic Party are making.
And I just think they are making all the same mistakes that the British left have made.
They're going, you know, this is why I have this soft spot for Bernie Sanders, not in the sense of economics.
I think his economic program is like, oh, no, that's really not good.
But there's a really interesting tension between The traditional leftism of Bernie Sanders, which tends to be pretty much class-based, and the woke leftism of the new Democrats and the new left.
And you can see it when they keep firing back at Bernie, saying, well, you're an old white man.
You know, we don't need another old white man.
We need a young black woman who apparently is superior by dint of her racial origins.
dave rubin
But would you say that's karma in a little way?
unidentified
Because I've been saying it for about three years.
dave rubin
It's not that they're just gonna pass on him, and all the polls are showing that now.
He's lost all his mojo.
It's not just that, because he's yesterday's news and he's a straight white man.
unidentified
It's that they're gonna have to destroy him in the process, too.
dave rubin
They have to vengefully destroy him.
And watching that happen is going to be, well, it gets to what we talked about before about it's not about saving the 20%, how do you help them, it's how do you destroy the other thing.
And they're gonna have to do it, and it's gonna, in a weird way, I'm gonna sort of enjoy them doing it.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't inherently, that's not how I am really, but it's like, you sort of created this thing, I get it, you're not like the fully woke thing, but you kinda are, and now congratulations.
It's like them calling Pelosi racist, well.
brendan oneill
I completely agree.
I think when politicians like Sanders and Pelosi and others give in too much to the woke agenda, they sign their own death warrant.
I think that's a very clear case of what's happened with Bernie Sanders in particular.
You know, I think back to that turning point, in fact, when he was accosted by Black Lives Matter activists, and he invited them onto stage and let them speak.
And what he should have said is, no, shut the hell up, I'm talking, you can ask questions at the end.
And he would have got so much support among ordinary people if he had taken that approach to these arrogant people who thought that by dint of their origins and their beliefs that they had the right to swan on to any stage and express themselves.
I think he would have won so much public support if he'd stood up to that.
But again and again, that's one example, again and again he has given in too much.
So, he's kind of signed his own warrant in many ways, but I do think that if he were to break away, if he were to say, I don't care about your skin colour, I don't care about your sex, I don't care about your gender, I don't care about your sexuality, I care about what you believe, I care about where you stand on political questions and economic questions, and that's all that I'm going to judge you by.
I think he'd win a lot of support.
And in some ways, that's what Trump did.
dave rubin
Interesting, because I think that's sort of too late for him.
brendan oneill
It's too late.
Yes, I think it could be too late.
I think if he had done that, he would have won a lot of support, but he made the wrong judgments on so many different issues.
dave rubin
So basically that there was a moment maybe along the road before it went completely bananas where it's at now.
brendan oneill
But you know, I always find it fascinating that Trump has always been quite sympathetic to Bernie Sanders.
Clever move.
unidentified
Right?
brendan oneill
Very clever move.
I think actually, bizarrely, they have something in common, which is a desire to rise above the kind of Bullshit, woke, crappy PC politics, and to speak directly to ordinary people and say, well, what is really concerning you?
What are the real issues in your life?
Let's talk about those.
Trump has done that more successfully than Bernie Sanders.
I say this as someone who is not pro-Trump, but he has done it more successfully, because Bernie has given in too much to the other distracting authoritarian PC agendas.
But there was, I shouldn't say there is, there was a commonality between these two men, which was how can we go above this bad politics, which has taken the Western world by grip, and talk to ordinary people about what's concerning them and their everyday lives.
Both of those had that instinct.
I think Bernie has Jettisoned that instinct and has gone too far down the woke route.
So I think you're absolutely if you people want to take Kind of karma retribution in the fact that he's going to be destroyed.
I think that's fine because he made bad choices Yeah, it's just crappy.
dave rubin
It's yes.
It just is but okay, so let's link this back to to the populism that you're talking about so I understand that and then what what is either the connection or the disconnection between that and And then nationalism and what then veers into what we should all be worried about, which is actually ethno-nationalism.
brendan oneill
National populism is a pretty good thing.
Because I think the only way democracy can work in a real way, I mean meaningful democracy where everyone, regardless of their station in society, regardless of how much money they have, regardless of how much education they have, everyone has the right to an equal say in how society is organised.
I think that's an incredibly important political value.
I think in many ways it's the key political value.
The only way that value can be upheld is if you have a coherent nation.
A nation which is not interfered with too much by outside forces, which is not bossed around by a foreign oligarchy like the European Union, which, by the way, can write laws that us British people must live by, even though we have no direct mechanism for pushing aside the people who write those laws.
dave rubin
So it's fundamentally... You mean you don't want to outsource all your freedom to a couple of people in Brussels?
brendan oneill
Amazing, right?
So, we don't want to outsource our freedom, we don't want to outsource our democratic decision-making processes, but that's what has happened.
So, I see national populism as an attempt to recover the ideal of democracy.
Borders are actually central to the idea of democracy, because if a nation doesn't control its own borders, then it really isn't a nation at all.
And if it isn't a nation at all, then it cannot have democracy, which can only really, in any meaningful sense, take place within a nation.
Humanity has not thought of any other way that democracy can work, other than in a nation.
dave rubin
Right, so somehow people sort of think that borders are somehow against freedom, but actually they're the only things that ensure freedom.
brendan oneill
Absolutely.
And I think the right of a nation to police its borders and to control its borders is essential.
Now, as it happens, I'm very liberal on the question of immigration.
I would like a liberal policy on immigration in the UK and everywhere else.
But I think the onus is on me to argue for that in the democratic sphere.
Rather than having a situation where in Europe, for example, the European Union determines how many migrants countries should take.
So that's implicitly anti-democratic.
Or over here in the U.S., you have a situation where you have these kind of supposedly radical,
eccentric Democrats who just think everyone should be able to come to the U.S., regardless
of whether they come through the legal port of entry, regardless of whether they've tried
to do it in the reasonable way.
They think that people should be able to swarm into the country and do as they please.
What these two things have in common is a hostility towards the idea of borders.
But it's a hostility towards the idea of borders that's not based on freedom, but is based
on the idea that the nation is a bad thing and that democracy is a bad thing.
And that we should just throw everything open and allow other people to decide the fate of the country.
I think that's fundamentally anti-democratic.
dave rubin
I'm sure you're familiar with Jerome Harzoni and the virtue of nationalism, right?
brendan oneill
Yes.
dave rubin
Yeah.
So that basically, I think, you just summed up his book quite eloquently there.
That we need these things to protect freedom.
So what's the part then that we have to watch out for as these movements rise?
brendan oneill
Ethno-nationalism is a repugnant idea.
It's absolutely a disgusting idea.
And I say that as, you know, I live in the United Kingdom, but I'm not originally a British person.
My parents were Irish.
They came to the UK.
I'm a first-generation British person.
So, you know, all these people who say, go back home, you don't belong here, you've only been here for a few years.
I mean, that applies to me, right?
My family has only been in the UK for 45 years or so, in terms of when my parents came over.
So, we're very new arrivals.
The idea of ethno-nationalism would expel us instantly And it would expel so many of the people I grew up with, black people, Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people, all these people who I grew up with, who I know for a fact felt a real sense of attachment to the United Kingdom as a nation, as a political project, as a democracy.
So the ugly thing about ethno-nationalism is that it determines citizenship on the basis of race, on the basis of skin color, on the basis of the nativistic idea of where your family comes from.
The sides of the same coin, huh?
dave rubin
Sounds an awful lot like that identity politics.
brendan oneill
Exactly, and this is the great, that is such a key point,
'cause the great irony of contemporary politics is the kinship between these horrendous ethno-nationalists
who judge everyone by skin color, and these horrendous identitarians
who do the exact same thing.
And what both sides share in common is this racial obsessiveness, this hyper-racial awareness
where everyone has to be judged according to their...
Pigmentation or other kind of biologically inherited traits.
Whereas I think the really progressive thing to do, and I know progressive means something different in the U.S.
than it does in Europe, but the really decent thing to do.
The really decent thing to do is to judge people not by their skin color, but by their character.
I mean that famous phrase.
dave rubin
Somebody said that.
I can't think of who it was.
brendan oneill
Someone said it, but you know, holding on to that idea is so important right now.
Character is what counts, belief is what counts, your willingness to commit to the nation and to your community, that's what counts.
It doesn't matter what colour you are, it doesn't matter what sex you are, it doesn't matter who you sleep with.
It's the question of who you are as an individual.
And I think that is an incredibly positive idea, and it's under attack from both sides.
It's under attack from the supposedly alt-right, which I know is an overused phrase, but the ethno-nationalist, and it's under attack from the left identitarians.
And I think defending that idea, that you can be part of a nation regardless of where you originally come from, is so important.
dave rubin
We have our work cut out for us, which is why, unfortunately, I'm gonna let you go now, but we will do this again soon, definitely sooner than two years, because there's a lot more we could be doing here.
Brendan is wise enough not to be on Twitter, but you can follow Spiked Online at at Spiked Online, and don't forget to click the subscribe button right here on YouTube, and make sure to turn on notifications so that you can actually see our videos in your feed.
Export Selection