The Changing Face of the Left

Thoughts around the changing face of the left and socialism through time

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Good afternoon and welcome back to Flat Cap Nationalist. This is Sunday the 15th of March 2026, and today I wanted to speak a little bit about the changing face of the left. Before I do that, I just want to wish a happy Mother's Day to all the beautiful mothers out there and especially to my own incredible lady and I love you with all of my heart mum. So that aside, I'd also like to congratulate my fellow Christians on reaching the halfway point of Lent. Not long to go now, fellas and lady fellas. So I've given up coffee for Lent this year, and it has been a bit of a rough slog, but we're getting there, we're getting there. Now, as a lorry driver, I have many, many hours on the road, and one of my favourite ways to entertain myself is with head cannon. So it makes me laugh too whenever I see a bird, I imagine that thing's got no control over its wings. He's just taking nice little stroll, wind picks up and he is at the mercy of wherever the thermals and his wings want to take him. It makes me smile. One of the things I was thinking about recently was what would happen if, you know, a member of the old left were to run into their their their present day counterparts. So imagine like a Joseph Stalin meeting Starmer or Zach Polansky. You know, how would that go down? So that that's really where the idea for this episode came from. You know, the modern left seems to define itself by demonisation of the home nation and what is called ecophobia, and it associates itself with tolerance, internationalism, globalism, human rights, LGBT issues, and the fight against racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. You know, which is a very good sales pitch, and I I think it's very important before we go on to remember, and this is not just, you know, the Christian erity that I'm called to, but I I think it's genuinely worthwhile remembering that many people that are drawn to the left are genuinely good hearted people, you know, genuinely people that want to help and that w want to stamp out injustice, and these are all that's a good thing. You know, you cannot deny that. I think the the issue comes down to how it's interpreted and implemented, you know, I mean who among us wouldn't want to live in a more equal and fair society? I I think it's quite an admirable thing to aim for. The devil is in the details of what constitutes equality and fairness. And historically, the left has always had a cold, hard, bitter edge to it, you know, and it's engaged in the politics of envy, which of course one of the seven deadly sins. And that can be quite jarring, you know, when contrasted with the present day left, which is it gives itself a very cuddly, all encompassing, warm, collective personality. It's how it portrays itself. So I thought it would be useful to uh uh have a quick look at the the origins of the term left wing, right wing. And they trace their origins back to the French Revolution, um, where in the chambers the people seated to the right hand side of the king were people in favour of tradition, conservative values, hierarchy and support of the church and the monarchy. Now the people to the left of the king, they were more so I suppose they were more in line with the parliamentarians of the English Civil War. They wanted you know social reform, decentralisation of power, and essentially the beginning of progressivism as we know it. And a quick, you know, Google search regarding left and right will define leftism by the these standards, these metrics, you know, equality, decentralisation of power, uh, fairness, social change, welfare and the like. But I do find it interesting that now the the definitions have kind of shifted a little bit. Because if you were to look at what the left currently stands for, leftist governments across the world are centralising power within themselves. So it's kind of getting away a little bit from that original definition of left and right. We don't even have to look very far for examples of this. I mean, look at the Labour Party's intention in the UK to essentially expand the size of local authorities, you know, and do away with more localised councils in favour of bigger, more authoritarian bodies, you know, so instead of having so many small individual councils, they'll be grouped together in larger ones. And and the downside of this, of course, is it it removes the common man, you know, just one step further from authority, from being truly represented. Which was initially one of the objectives of the left, to make sure that the little guy is represented just as just as well as the bigger, you know, more obvious interests. However, the more you centralise a government and you you make those authorities bigger, the individual becomes further removed from the democratic process. And of course it cannot be denied that a lot of the motive behind doing this is ensuring that more Labour support can be garnered within the local authorities because if you look at the ones that they are looking to incorporate into bigger authorities, they tend to be the ones that are at risk of falling to more right wing parties. Although I myself wouldn't class reform as a right wing party. There is definitely an element of fear within the Labour government that things are moving rightwards, and so this is a rather cynical, if you ask me, a cynical step towards centralising power within themselves and not necessarily in the people. So according to these original definitions, you know, I mean a quick Google search now will associate the right wing with hierarchy and uh authoritarian structures. But is this the case? I mean, if we were to look at the Soviet Union, highly authoritarian, highly centralized and highly hierarchical, by the definitions sort of originally laid out that would make the Soviet Union, the Communist Soviet Union, far right. Another key feature of modern leftism. Um well it defines itself by high levels of government intervention, big government with lots of social and economic intervention, uh which leads to higher degrees of centralisation of power. So we can see there's been a change of definition there. You know, the modern right is associated more with tradition, belief in the markets, lower level of government intervention, lower levels of taxation, and according to Google, sometimes nationalism. Now nationalism is seen as exclusively a right wing belief. Now, if you Google were the Nazis socialist, the answer will come back as no, and the reasons given are because the Nazis were totalitarian, anti-Marist and used private industry to expand the military and they prioritised race over the class struggle. So the fact that they had support from wealthy conservatives and businesses who saw them as a buffer against communism seems to go in the face of them being socialists, right? So the argument there would be that the Nazis couldn't be socialists because they were anti-Marxist. So there's an equation there of Marxism and communism with socialism. So if we boil this argument down to its bare bones, the defining line between left wing and right wing is basically who you choose to uplift and who you choose to push down. So if you uplift the working class at the expense of the middle and upper classes, that is socialism. But if you apply exactly the same logical arguments and utilise the exact same methods, but along racial lines the way that the Nazis did it, that's far right Nazism. So by this metric then, South Africa, that darling nation of the left worldwide, is far right because we know what's going on there. They're trying to basically redistribute the wealth of the white farmers, you know, the boar, who they openly call for to be killed, by the way. They advocate for redistributing their wealth to the black majority. So they they they're very much socialist along racial lines. So why is South Africa not far right? South Africa for a long time has been the darling of the left. You know, it was seen as a sort of leftist project to remove uh apartheid and get rid of that entire system. Now I would I would agree with that. Apartheid and you know, I d I don't like racism. And apartheid was fundamentally racist. Uh however, South Africa is incredibly popular, it's sort of held up as a beacon of hope for leftists worldwide. But currently in South Africa, they they are employing the exact same methods utilized by those responsible for apartheid to suppress the white population of South Africa and reappropriate their wealth to distribute among the black majority. In what way then does that distinguish itself from Nazism? If the defining line between socialism and Nazism, which is far right, don't forget, the defining line is the fact that the struggle was based on race instead of class. I struggle to see how South Africa doesn't qualify for distinction as a far right Nazi nation. Well I don't know if anybody remembers, there was a feminist cafe somewhere in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, I think it might have been in Seattle or somewhere like that. And essentially, what it was, the price in this cafe, if you sat down, the price would be, I believe it was 18% higher if you were male compared to if you were a woman. And the reason for this was to compensate for the long debunked gender pay gap. The idea being women earn 18% less than men or 32% or 28%, it differs because honestly the the gap is mythical and they have to employ all kinds of mental gymnastics to make any cohesive argument for a gender pay gap. So effectively if you charge men eighteen per cent more than you charge women, this basically cancels out that that difference. So this would be a form of redistributing the perceived wealth of men to women, no? So is that socialism along a gender line? No, so we've seen that socialism along class lines, yes, that's left wing, and the you know, nose ring feminist running this feminist cafe, she was blatantly left wing. So gender, gender-based socialism is, yep, left wing and and socialist. If you do so essentially if you do it along any other line, uh except from race, socialism is accepted to be left wing. But if if the line is racial, then of course it's far right, it's it's Nazi. And I I just don't I don't see the logic of this. You know, I think if you if you were employing the exact same methods and applying the exact same logic, then it doesn't matter what line you define your socialism along, whether it's ethnic lines, religious lines, you know, class lines, gender lines, socialism is inherently left wing. Now, we come to a certain Mr Hitler. Mr Hitler described himself as socialist, which is roundly rejected by the left leaning academics of today, uh for the reasons that we have mentioned before, the fact that his socialism was based along racial lines. Now, according to the left wing academics, there was nothing socialist about Hitler in his social attitudes, his economic approach, nothing. None of it was socialist. Okay? No, Hitler, he was just far right through and through and that's it. But it was, prior to joining the Socialist Workers' Party, you know, there's that word socialist again. That's funny, it does keep cropping up. But prior to that, he was a member of the Communist Party. So I I know horseshoe theory is a thing where, you know, the extremes of left and right essentially begin to look one and the same. But I I don't buy into that. I think that is a perversion of perception that's been thrust upon us by left-wing academics seeking to distance themselves from the crimes of possibly the worst human that's ever existed in Adolf Hitler. But for the perceived crime of being irrevocably and incorrigibly right wing, Hitler's views and his beliefs have never really been we've not been allowed to discuss them and analyse them in detail. This is why a couple of years ago, when AI channels on YouTube started translating recordings of Hitler speaking, complete with the uh the cadence and the the sort of tone of voice in which he spoke them. When people heard these, I I remember seeing loads and loads of comments of people saying, he's got a point, you know. And a lot of these people didn't realise that they were listening to the translated words of Hitler. But this this is the this is the result, the consequence of banishing these ideas from the public sphere. We never got to discuss and analyse them in detail. You know, everybody knows the the Holocaust policies and you know removing the Jewish community from German life, you know, destroying their businesses, um passing them over to Germans, you know, a a kind of uh form of socialism, if you like, of redistributing the perceived wealth of the Jewish community to the Aryans. But because of because those ideas have been banished from the public sphere, people that are now coming across them for the first time are actually feeling some sympathy to them, and I find that absolutely sickening. It's something I've I've noticed in quite a few comment sections, which are, let's face it, the sort of modern day beer halls where ideas are debated and disseminated, and I've seen quite a lot of sympathy for the ideas, including up to the point that uh oh no, Hitler never wanted war with with England. No, no, no, we shouldn't have fought him in the Second World War. We fought the wrong enemy in the Second World War, namely because of how Europe has declined since the Second World War, because of the policies implemented in the wake of it, most of those policies being influenced by a desire to dissociate oneself from Nazism, from the far right. And as we've seen, the delineating factor, you know, the the defining characteristic of Nazism as not being left wing is the fact that the socialism was race-based. So this has naturally led to some misunderstanding of the beliefs actually held by the Nazis at the time. So I thought it would be quite helpful if we just read an excerpt of a book. Uh this is from the Seven Men of Spandau, uh, which relates to the seven men convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to varying varying sentences in Spandau prison uh following the Nuremberg trials, and one of those was Baron von Neurath. He was an aristocrat of the old guard of Germany. Um he was a lawyer, uh diplomat. He served in the Imperial German army between nineteen fourteen and nineteen sixteen, won the Iron Cross first class uh during the First World War. His conviction was conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So he was the Foreign Minister of Germany, he was also the protector of Bohemian Moravia, I believe it was, and he had this to say on Hitler. He really knew so little about his enemies, and still worse, didn't really want to be told. He preferred his own uninformed ideas and so called inspirations which utterly underestimated others. England he labelled our enemy number one, yet he hoped to reach some convenient arrangement with England to enable him to conquer countries with impunity. Early in the war, he was absolutely positive that the West was too feeble and decadent to wage effective war, and later he longed for a break in the alliance between the Western powers and Russia. At the start of our invasion of Russia, he calculated on them collapsing within a few weeks. For years he and Stalin rebelled each other as arch enemies, yet he never recognised how closely his policies paralleled Stalin's policies. Now, Baron von Nurath was a man of exceptional education, so he may not have had the most in-depth understanding of Stalin's policies, but I think it's very telling that he saw so many parallels between Stalin's policies and Hitler's policies, so this at least throws into some doubt the assertion of the academics that the Nazis were in no way economically or in terms of social policies socialist. They were, as we've already explained, far right Nazis, and there is no more to it than that. So in terms of the economics, Nazi economics, there is a fantastic book that I would urge everybody to read. It's called The Vampire Economy by Gunther Reinmann, who was a highly regarded economist that lived through Nazi Germany, and in his book he details some of the economic policies that would perhaps hint that maybe, you know, maybe in Nazi Germany it wasn't a capitalist economy, and there's more on that to come as well. It wasn't a market-led economy. So much like the Soviets, there was a centrally planned aspect to their approach to economics, uh, resulting in top-down price mandates, which the so-called free enterprises and capitalists in Nazi Germany were not free to deviate. They couldn't set their own pricing, for example. So the top-down authoritarian government would say you cannot sell, let's take an iron ingot as an example. You cannot sell a bar of iron for less than this many marks. And that that was handed down to them by the authorities. Now, if the production costs increased, if the price of iron or coal went up, so you could no longer actually make a bar of iron for that price, it didn't matter. You still were not allowed to sell it for more than that amount, so you would have to take a loss. And if you couldn't sustain those losses, then the Nazis would take over your business, and this is what they called privatization, so very different to the modern day idea of privatisation, and it ended up in some ludicrous transactions. So if I wanted to sell, you know, a load of iron to you, but I was only allowed to sell it for £100, and it cost me £120 to produce it, I don't want to sell it at a loss, and I don't want to turn my business over to the Nazis. So I might say to you, my customer, I will sell it to you for a hundred pounds. And uh by the way, do you like my dog? And this came to be understood as a way of saying I can't afford to sell it to you at that price. So you as my customer, you would say, Yes, I like your dog, and I would say, excellent, I will sell you the iron for a hundred pounds, and I will sell you the dog for thirty pounds. And you would agree to that as the customer, but then of course the dog being very loyal to me would run away after you've handed over the money, would ha it would run away, and it would find itself back with me, its rightful owner, therefore meaning I've been paid £130 for a transaction of iron and a dog, but the dog has returned to me. So I've actually I've sold the iron to you for £130, and that means I've been able to make a profit or at least cover my own cost on it. Now this doesn't sound like a free market economy to me. This doesn't sound like a market driven by capitalism. It sounds like a market struggling to adapt to ways to keep itself functioning in the wake of top down price mandates from a centrally planned economic standpoint. Another Nazi and also another man convicted at the Nuremberg trials, therefore spending his sentence in Spandau, was Albert Speer, the architect and later Minister for Munitions of the Third Reich. Now he was a favourite of Hitler because he was a very talented architect that would indulge Hitler in some of his grandiose ideas. Now in his book, which I believe he wrote after his release from Spandau, he admitted that by the time the war really heated up, many of the socialists had left the Nazi Party. Party, which to my mind would indicate that at least at the from the outset they were a socialist party, including the times where many of their policies went with i i into effect, such as you know Kristall Knight, you know, where the Aryans, the Nazis, forcefully reappropriated businesses from the Jewish community and gave them to loyal Aryans. So again, wealth redistribution. But think about Spears' words there. By the time things really heated up, most of the Socialists had left. That that really does imply that there was a socialist streak to the National Socialist Party, who would have seen that one coming? Now, after being a member of the Communist Party, uh Hitler fell in love with the rhetoric of Anton Drexler of the Socialist Workers' Party. These ideas included anti-Semitism, which is a problem that's plagued many left wing parties, including the Labour Party of the UK, so this can't be claimed to be, you know, the domain exclusively of the right wing. Drexler's policies were also anti-Marxist, which ties in very much with the anti-Semitism, as Marx was Jewish, even though he hated Gordon as Jewish faith. Drexler also stood against communism, again playing into that Marxist theme, anti-Marxism and anti-capitalist. So in that sense, yep, they definitely weren't a capitalist, you know, market driven party, were they? You know, and being anti-communist and anti-Morx doesn't mean you're anti-socialist. Again, this is the conflation of Marxism with socialism, of communism with socialism, and there are differences there. You know, one of the main things that Hitler and Drexler both disagreed with was the communist dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers. Okay, so this this would explain some of the animosity between communism and National Socialism, because they they disagreed in their methods of implementation, as well as who they were gonna, you know, uplift and who they were gonna push down as we explored earlier. Another figure I'd like to draw your attention to is one Mr Rudy Dutchke. I believe that's how to pronounce his name, maybe I butchered it, I don't know, I'm not a German, but he's most synonymous with the phrase that many of us will have heard now begins the Long March Through the Institutions. So Rudy Dutchke, or Deutschke, he was a student socialist activist uh in the 1960s and seventies, and uh essentially the Long March Through the Institutions was a call to create uh parallel systems of uh social, economic and political institutions. Uh he was a big supporter of third world liberation, uh which was in line with the communist thinking of both the Soviet Union and the Chinese communists at the time. He would advocate for people to take action now, to his credit, he he never tried to harm people, but he was not averse to using explosives to take out infrastructure to make a point. Uh to a point he also once transported a load of high explosives in a pram beneath his newborn child. Uh so I I can only have a limited amount of respect for the guy, of course, but at least he never advocated for violence against people. However, it does play into a recurring theme we're seeing, you know, especially in our times of left wing political terrorism. But in the 1970s, Rudy Dodgeka starred himself as a patriotic socialist, and he called on the left to re-engage the national question. Now the term reengage would imply that the national question had already been engaged by the left, indicating that at one stage, as we've seen with the Soviet Union, it was perfectly acceptable to be patriotic on the left, and that is one huge difference from the left of then and the left of today, which seems to reject everything that is patriotic or nationalistic. I mean, even at the time, once Rudy Dodge advocated for re-engagement of the national question, fellow socialists of the time, fellow leftists and student activists, um basically warned him, you know, be careful, national socialist, aka Nazi. So even as far back as that, that was in the 1970s, you know, anything approaching nationalism, even coming from a socialist, would be met with a chorus of Nazi Nazi, just like we see today. Funny that. Now, in 1972, uh philosopher Herbert Moore Hughes wrote a book called Counter Revolution and Revolt. And in that he wrote, with regards to Rudy Dutchka, to extend the base of the student movement, Rudy Dutchka has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions, working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by boring from within, rather by doing the job, learning, how to program, read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organise production, how to recognise and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, etc. And at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others. The Long Watch includes the concerted effort to build up counter institutions. They have long been an aim of the movement, but the lack of funds was greatly responsible for their weakness and their inferior quality. They must be made competitive. This is especially important for the development of radical free media. The fact that the radical left has no equal access to the great chains of information and indoctrination is largely responsible for its isolation. Now to me, that sounds that sounds eerily like what we have in place today, does it not? You know, think about it, think about how many of our institutions have come under the command exclusively of the left, like our media, our news reporting, our education, mass media, all of it. And I do, I do believe that part of this long march through the institutions and the capturing of the education system as an example is a tool to utilise to stifle the opposition. So if you think about it, following the end of the World War, the academics who typically lean leftward, they were in charge of what our kids are taught at school and the way that history is taught. This is a big thing, because anybody that's read 1984 will know he who controls the past controls the present, he who controls the present controls the future. So what what better way is there to ensure that moving forwards your side on the political left always has the advantage? Well, it's by rewriting history. And I believe that this has been done to such an effective degree that most people, even people that listen to my podcast that are right leaning or sympathetic to the right, they will have a hard time digesting the fact that I mean I believe the Nazis were left wing. Not in the current format of the left, which, as we've said, presents itself as very cuddly, very tolerant, and only trying to help uplift the little guy. And they they hide very well the fact that there is an uncaring and bitter edge to leftism. And this is because it is all built on envy. If you've done better than somebody else, you need to be brought down, is essentially what it boils down to. They just dress it up a lot nicer than that. But think about think about those parallel institutions that we've got. Okay, so I'm thinking in terms of the quangocracy, whereby the Blair government through the nineties and two thousands divested a lot of parliamentary powers to Quangos, which as we've explained before are quasi autonomous non-governmental organizations. Although I believe within the government, Quangos are referred to as arm's length bodies. So they are they are part of the government, but effectively they operate at such a range that they cannot be said to be directly under governmental control. And in fact, at many, many times the government appears to be under the control of the Quangos. They'll try and do something, and it's something they don't really want to do, and they can just say, well, the on the advice of this Quango or that Quango, we've decided not to do that thing that you wanted us to do that we never wanted to do in the first place. Or or think about the parallel legal systems that are in operation in the UK now that don't come under British law. Think about the Islamic courts, the Sharia courts that have been set up here. You know, these are the things that operate in parallel to our own legal system that go pretty great lengths to subvert our system in favour of their own system. And I I think these things tie in very, very well together because essentially we have seen that any other form of socialism is accepted as as left wing and is perfectly tolerable in polite society. But if the socialism is conducted along racial lines, then it becomes Nazi far right and it's just very convenient that there's such a you know an open goal, you know, to blast that ball into. There's such a scapegoat, you know, ready made in in the form of the Nazis. So anything now, anything approaching racial socialism is defined as Nazism. But it's very, very easy when people have such a a misunderstanding of what socialism is and isn't, it becomes very, very easy then to turn any conversation that focuses on race into you're a Nazi. No I'm not, yes you are, and the and the the conversation never moves beyond that. And it's been a long standing communist propaganda tool to smear political opponents as Nazis and fascists. You know, these are words that have already been eternally smeared. You know, that there is never going to be a world in which Nazi is used as a compliment, is there? You know, and r and rightly so, let's not get it twisted. But the fact that you can taint any political opponent with the word Nazi or fascist you know, with the with the full knowledge and the emphasis being on repeating day in, day out those phrases Nazi, fascist, Nazi, fascist. They will be believed, they will be accepted as facts, particularly by the left leaning academics who will in my mind would be quite desperate to distance their worldview from the Nazi worldview, even though, in all honesty they aren't that far apart, one of the main differences being the line along which you choose to conduct your socialism. Now this does of course create some very interesting, I would say, interplays between different ideologies, because socialism has largely been a darling of the middle class, but its intended beneficiaries, allegedly, are the working class. So when we come to an issue let's take Brexit as an example. Now, in Brexit, a large portion of the working class, which has seen its wages stifled by mass immigration, a large portion of the working class voted to leave the European Union, or was at least indicating that that was their intention. The middle classes that typically lean leftward, uh especially the ones that have been educated in the university system and the academics, they immediately seized upon this opportunity to smear working class as uneducated, simple minded, bigoted racists. Never mind the fact that they were simply advocating for something that might, you know, benefit their own people, might benefit their own class. No, because they were out of lockstep with what the middle class socialist elites wanted, which was to remain within the European Union, immediately out came the allegations of racism. Now because race has been invoked now, that opened up the floor to accusations of fascist and Nazi simply for wanting control of one's own borders, sovereignty over one's own homeland, and potentially pay rises when our entire workforce isn't competing with the rest of the world for wages, which does have the effect of stifling them. But I think it's been ingrained in society for so long that you know Nazis bad, Nazis right wing, therefore right wing bad, that many people didn't even stop to question this. But I think when you've got a system that is on its face, set up to benefit the working class, and the supporters of that movement refuse to listen to what the working class actually wants, I think there's a bit of a flaw in the system there, isn't there? You know, and th this is why increasingly it seems that the most vitriol is pouring out of the university system. You know, some of the most unhinged, deranged takes are coming out of the university system. Because while in that system, they're essentially not engaging with any true right wing ideas and are instead being spoon fed what the system wants to feed them. And for a long, long time, all major political parties in this country have been going left wing. Therefore, no action has been taken to curb the influence of leftism within the university system because it is producing loyal foot soldiers for the socialist cause. Now the main reason I wanted to approach this topic was because I've seen increasingly I've been seeing comments and remarks made about how there's nobody taking action in the UK and everything is sliding so far downhill and nobody's doing anything about it. And one of the reasons for this, one of the reasons we haven't just taken our country back, as I've seen some people implying, one of the reasons we are still fighting it out in comment sections and forums is because there just aren't enough people awake to these issues in the UK. So many people have been hoodwinked by their education and by the media, you know, and by sort of general knowledge things that you're absorbed by osmosis, that you can't you can't approach any any issue, any societal issue from a racial angle because that would put you on par with the Nazis. And as many of us lost, you know, grandparents or great grandparents fighting the Nazis, this would be seen as a massive kick in the face to our ancestral heritage. This is why a lot of people very, very reluctant to get on board with anything that they see as right wing. Now it has just started raining, so my apologies if you can hear the rain hitting the roof or the windows. I like the sound, but I appreciate it's probably not the best thing you want to hear during a podcast. But effectively we've got huge swathes of the British public that are in kind of limbo because they can see that the system we're living in is flawed and fallible and failing more and more every day, but the seeming solutions come from a place that they don't want to go. You know, they come from a place that they have grown up their entire lives believing is wrong and unethical. And I simply don't think that's the case. I don't think it's unethical and wrong to advocate for better conditions for the native people of these lands. I mean, after all, this is something we advocate for quite openly for virtually any other society. We want their quality of life to improve, we want them to be safe, we want them to be in a society that you know encourages excellence, encourages growth, encourages achievement and safety and cohesion. These are not bad things. But the s the the means by which we would arrive at those points are right wing means. No, the right wing methods would lead us to a more cohesive and wholesome society. But people are unwilling to get on board with that because of the level of propaganda that's been blasted at them from the cradle, you know, to believe that no no no, that's just wrong and racist. Anything, any indication that you might be racist, you know, immediately people will reject a notion that might imply that you are racist. But going back decades now, anything approaching nationality, discussion of nationality and identity and what it means has been completely taboo from our end. Now I believe that this becomes especially egregious when the leftist paradigm in which we currently live increasingly demands that we view everything through a racial lens. So if it's a case of employment, you want to employ that person, okay. Well, you have to apply this racial lens first to ensure that you're not biased against this candidate because of the colour of their skin. And oh, by the way, it seems that you've got you know a 80% white workforce that needs to be fixed because the country isn't 80% white anymore, and any pushback against that is of course seen through that racial lens as being far right and extreme, but I'm saying simply I want to employ the best person for the job. Okay, now if a if a company doesn't employ the best person for the job and they only employ based on the colour of the skin, so I could look at somebody and go, hmm, you would be you would be a great fit for my business, you'd be amazing, but you're black, so I'm gonna hire this person that's not black because I'm I'm a racist and I only like white people. Well my business is gonna suffer because of that. That logic also goes the other way though. You know, if I want to employ this person because they are the best, but there are pressures and there are you know things like the Equality Act to take into consideration, it means I might be forced to take on somebody less qualified for a role simply because they are black, and we've seen this through the implementation of DEI hiring policies from small businesses all the way up to the government, okay, and and even into you know the the military and special forces being forced to hire based on race, and if you push back on it based on race, you are a Nazi, and that there's no way to reconcile this. This is something that is being done to us. We are being forced to look at the world through racial lenses, but then told that we cannot look at the world through racial lenses, and this is how you effectively isolate the native people of Europe, for example, from participating in our own in their own democracies, and increasingly you have parties pandering to people that they shouldn't really be pandering to. You know, think about that, going back once again to the Gorton and Denton by election, where you've got people campaigning in Urdu because there's you know a sizable Pakistani community up there. You know, this is you know, if you if you were to push back against that and say, no, no, no, you are campaigning for a seat as an MP in England, you should speak English, this is immediately seen as racist. Yeah, and and this is such a psyop, this is such a deeply rooted psy-op that has been done against us for decades that most people don't even recognise it now, and they don't push back on it, they just accept it. And that's where you get this kind of defeatist attitude that no, nothing's ever going to change. This is just the way that it has to be now, because any form of defence you've got, when everything is put at you through a racial lens, your only form of defence is to defend yourself along terms of race. But we have seen, thanks to our left-wing academics and our media and our politicians, that this just simply will be met with accusations of Nazism and Fascism, and the discussion is shut down there. And the reason I think this is so bad is because contrary to the popular belief, the right at the moment are the ones that are trying to tone down the temperature and trying to avoid violence, division, and civil war ultimately, and the left, to their discredit, are utilising all these methods to stifle the voices that are calling for peace. Because the left eternally wants change and revolution, and then that that is a position they have to hold consistently because once once the revolution has been held, you know, it's it's taken place, and the left are in charge now, then there comes a kind of paranoia because they're they're constantly on the lookout for the counter-revolution. And and effectively, we've been under a leftist system for decades now, and they were afraid of the counter-revolution of the right, which is why they've been flooding the country since the mid-90s with foreigners that don't belong here, and Tony Blair's objective in doing this, by the way, was to quote the man himself, to rub the right's nose in diversity. Okay, and this has been done because it is a fantastic way of stifling our positions, our reasoning and logic, our beliefs, and demonizing us as terrible people. Now I know that's not the case, and you know that's not the case. So don't be dissuaded. Because we we know, we know, as we advocate for our positions, we're going to be called every name under the sun. And I would implore all of you to Learn to shake it off because I'm not a racist. I'm willing to bet you're not a racist. We have to we have to continue in our arguments anyway. We have to continue having these discussions and debates and stand firm in our beliefs. We know what we are, and it's time that we helped some of our fellow citizens to see what we stand for, and that is not violence, it is not division and destruction and demonization. We are on the path towards peace and stability, which should be the objective of everybody, I would have thought. Every rational person should be on board with those ideas. But unfortunately, there is a lot. I mean the the the level of misinformation and miseducation to which we've been subjected since birth makes it so difficult to have these conversations. And I think slowly people are waking up to the reality of what has been done, but unfortunately there's there's so few resources out there to show people that no, you have been lied to. You know, because at the end of the day, the left-wing academics they have control of the media, they have control of the education system, they have control of the quangos that inform the government. You know, the government is itself is packed with leftists, even the so-called right-wing parties are packed with leftists. And this is why discourse in this country seems so one-sided and seems to just never really get anywhere. It goes around in circles. It's because one side of the debate is entirely fettered and limited in what it can and cannot say by the perceptions of the masses. This is because we've all received the same education, so we've all been indoctrinated with the same beliefs, and if you don't believe me, just think once again about what that book said about how the left needs to develop its own systems of indoctrination. So to particularly to the Americans that I've seen speaking about it, because they are perplexed as to why we haven't taken actions against such a blatantly treacherous and treasonous establishment, I would say it is down to this level of indoctrination, this psyop that has been done on us for years and years and years. You know, we we have statues of pieces of shit, to be quite honest, like Nelson Mandela in you know very prestigious locations all across our country. You know, Westminster Abbey, I believe, has a statue to Nelson Mandela, a left-wing terrorist who is venerated for his opposition to apartheid, but whose party has then gone on to perpetrate the exact same apartheid against white people. But we ought to celebrate this because it's being done along racial lines? No no I'd because it's being done for the the benefit of black people against white people, I'm not sure, but either way, it would seem to be some kind of racial line along which people are being divided. So that's that's part of the tangle that people struggle with, because South Africa is a heavily, heavily socialist country. Heavily socialist. But according to the definitions put forward by academics, they would fit the mould for right wing extremism, fascism, Nazism. It's very strange. Very strange. So there's a lot of cognitive dissonance on both the left and the right, but it's been going on for so long now that it's effectively just accepted as orthodoxy. You know, much like the communists said it would be, if you apply the labels for long enough, they will be accepted as fact. So this is why I believe we should reject utterly these labels. Stand firm in our convictions. We're not racists, we're not fascists, we're not Nazis, we're patriots, we're nationalists, and we will get our country back. But I thought it worth posing the question has the left changed its face or just its makeup? That's all for me today. Have a great week, and I'll catch you on the next one. Goodbye.