Perversions of the State - Deification of Democracy

Part One of the Perversions of the State in which I identify the things about the establishment that I find to be particularly perverse, beginning with the deification of democracy.  Thank you for listening, I appreciate you all. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:02

Good afternoon and welcome back to the Flat Cap Nationalist. This is episode number nine. It's an episode I'm going to call the perversion of the state the deification of democracy. So over the next few weeks, possibly a couple of months, I don't know, gonna be doing a little series that I'm calling the perversion of the state. Where basically I'm gonna outline the things I see as being issues with our current system and the ways in which the state bastardizes everything that we hold dear for its own ends. So there you go. A short, sweet introduction, let's get into it. So I mentioned mentioned in the last episode that I'm not overly enamoured with democracy as an institution, uh or as a uh system of governance, and maybe maybe this series of episodes will help to explain my position on that. Um so let's I'm gonna take this from the mid-20th century, following World War II, when all the great powers really began to place a major emphasis on democracy as the highest form of government that there is. So we can see that the state began to deify democracy as early as the 1950s. So following World War II, you know, the most destructive and deadly combat the world has ever seen, within sort of five, five, six, seven years of that, West Germany was already being welcomed back into the fold. Alright, now bear in mind, obviously, as a as a country, Germany in the mid-20th century was responsible for untold horrors. Right? And within certainly within ten years of the end of that war, they were fully welcomed back into the fold because West Germany democratised. And we had the Cold War. You know, we had the Cold War all the way up until the essentially the end of the Soviet Union, you know, right at the end of the 1980s, early 1990s. So the the the fact that West Germany was willing to democratise meant it was worthy of being welcomed back into the fold. Now let's compare that to Spain. So Spain, um between 36 and 39 fought a very bitter civil war, and the outcome of that was a victory for Franco's right wing nationalist forces, and Franco remained in power up until he died, I think of 1975, when Franco died. So he was a strongman dictator in Spain, which is why Spain as a as a nation was left entirely out into the in i in the cold until the early early to mid-1970s, when they slowly began to democratise once the economic impositions placed on Spain began to really take effect and stunt their development as a country, they began began to democratise, and by the mid-1980s they were a fully fledged member of the European Union. This entire time the Soviets were kept in the cold. Now they were our allies during the Second World War. Spain had no real participation, although Spain's often lumped in with Mussolini and Hitler as being one of the three right wing European dictators. I'm going to do some content on that in the future because I think it's unfair to rope the three of them in together, but that's a matter for another time. Now I think part of the establishment infatuation with democracy came about in the basically immediate aftermath of the Second World War. So in Britain, before the Americans dropped the bombs on Japan, so before the entirety of World War II was over, Winston Churchill, our great esteemed leader, had already been voted out of office in favour of Clement Attlee, a Labour politician, and also a member of the Fabian Society. And we will be doing more content on the Fabians when I've got more time for more thorough, in-depth research and production, because that's a topic that's endlessly fascinating and horrifying in equal measures. And part of the reason for Attlee's success, despite the fact that Winston Churchill at the time was probably the greatest living leader that would that we had. But part of the reason for it was people just wanted social reforms, you know, and they liked the the vision of reconstruction of the country that the Labour Party promised. And a lot the social reforms that he was proposing also. You know, and and this is a common thing on the left. You know, society always has to be reformed. Massive, massive social reforms. It's essentially aimed at transf transferring power from one party to another party, or from one group, you know, one client group of the state to another. Typically, uh that's that's the nature of the reforms that they propose. But I think this is really where the deification of democracy came from. Was this end of World War II, end of the European strongman. People didn't want to see that anymore, you know, particularly in higher circles. So to circle back around to Spain, so during the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell, noted author of Animal Farm 1984, well he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the leftists, the anarchists, the communists, the socialists, the social reformers, you know, everybody against the Nationalists and the Patriots. He went to Spain to fight alongside the leftist coalition. And during his time there, he came to despise the tyrannical and authoritarian nature of government, and he became quite critical of the Soviet regime's tactics and methods for maintaining its control and dictating every area of everybody's life. And many of these criticisms were outlined in works like Animal Farm, and in 1984 the ruling ideology was inspired largely by Soviet totalitarianism. Now, many people think because he wrote 1984, and because 1984 is used today, you know, it's it's held up to the establishment as a kind of mirror, like see what you've become. You know. Many people think that Orwell was like a right winger or a conservative or something like that. Not the case in the slightest. Never repealed his socialist beliefs. He was a staunch socialist, he just didn't like authoritarianism. Now, if he'd had a crystal ball and he could have looked forward a few decades, he'd see that socialism inevitably slides into authoritarianism. So it's a little bit of a, you know, considering the genius that this man is believed to be, it's a little bit of a a weak spot in his in his vision. But we can't hold him responsible for that. I mean the man died in, I think it was 1949. So we can't, you know, can't expect him to predict everything. But contrary to popular belief, no, he he never renounced his socialism. And uh while he wasn't actually a member of the Fabian Society, he corresponded with them and he lectured on their behalf many, many times, although he expressed that he he preferred a more sort of democratic form of socialism. Now, if you check on the Fabian Society's website, they'll tell you they are for democratic socialism. There's definitely been a switch in their methodology because I I think the prevailing belief with them now is if people vote socialism in, then you know, that they can't be upset at the excesses of the regime, can they? You know, and this is the danger in my mind of democratic socialism, is you can vote your way into socialism, but you'll have to fight your way out of it. You know, it's not a good state of affairs. But that's essentially where Europe started to go down the democratic route, and I do believe that certain influential secret societies like the Fabians see democracy as a a sort of back door to power. You know what I mean? For for the longest time, their official emblem was literally a wolf in sheep's clothing. You know, so while they hold democracy to be the highest form of governance and it's it's the most fair way of running a society, the failing of the state in this regard is in their unwillingness or inability to jealously defend and protect who can partake in that democracy. And a failure of this kind ultimately leads to the exploitation of that democracy. So although they speak out of one quarter of the mouth, extolling the virtues of a system in which everybody has a vote and everybody's vote counts equally, they think nothing of opening the borders wide and letting people pour in from all parts of the world, parts that are friendly to us, parts that are not so friendly, parts that want to be, you know, welcomed into our society so they can integrate, and parts of the world that see us as a place to be conquered. You know, they look at us like the the the way that a a wolf looks at its meal, you know. And all these people are welcomed in and given the same vote as you or I. Now many of us, we've got ancestry going back hundreds of years here, you know, but we we have the same voice, we have the same voting power as somebody who might not even currently be living in our country, but they can come over and in five years' time they'll be allowed to vote, they'll have as much say as we do, yeah. And ultimately this creates an environment where you can, despite having democracy, where you are allegedly ruled by the people, if you just change the makeup of the people, you can change the outcome of democracy, can't you? And it begins to look a little bit like election rigging, when one party will have complete carte blanche to bring in as many people as they like, give them a vote, and then when the next vote rolls around, hmm, suddenly these people can't be defeated at the ballot box. So when we look at British politics today in 2026, we can start to see why, for example, when you have a cons a so-called Conservative government under the leadership of Indian Rishi Sunak, we can start to see why every move he made was designed at cramming more and more Indian people into the UK. Current leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badanok, Nigerian lady, well she spent the bulk of her political career trying to hold the door open to get more Nigerians in. Yep. We see it with people like Shibano Mahmoud or Home Secretary somehow. You know, she she'll talk tough on certain nations. You know, uh I think she's talking about reducing or or blocking entirely visa routes from countries like Eritrea. Uh not a word about reducing numbers coming from Pakistan. In fact, she wants to make it easier for people from Pakistan to come over here. Yeah? Because that's her group. And this is the problem, as I see it with democracy, is you can effectively create client groups, and as long as you you pander to that group hard enough, you are guaranteed their vote. You know, so i it becomes now not so much about what's good for the country as what's good for this particular community. And this creates situations that we should never be seeing. For example, there are currently more than one Member of Parliament who's elected primarily because they had the correct position on the Gaza conflict. Now, this is the UK, we're several thousand miles away from Gaza, you know, and whether or not there is war going on there has very, very little impact on day-to-day British life. You know, so people you would think would choose a politician that's actually looking to do right by the constituents. But instead what they've done is they've imported such massive numbers of Muslims who constantly feel solidarity with the Gaza cause, and they congregate in one area, or well, many, many areas now, but they all congregate in that area, and then their voice cannot be overturned by the people who still, believe it or not, make up the majority of this country, which is why if an MP or potential MP had the wrong opinion on the Gaza conflict or didn't want to accept Gaza and refugees, well, they were never going to get voted for, even if the things that they did stand for would have benefited the rest of the country. You know, how is that not a perversion of democracy? And this is made all the more galling by the fact that going back to the nineteen fifties, ever since we started getting enclaves of foreigners appearing in this country, at every single election cycle we have been promised that immigration numbers will be reduced, and we've always voted for that. And our democracy has flat out ignored us to a point where now there are so many people here that in many many areas of the country the native people cannot have their voice heard because they are completely drowned out by people who have been brought here against the democratic will of the country. So you see, when democracy is held to the status of deity, yet the rules of democracy are not followed, you know, ruled by the people, except when the people do, you know, or when the people vote for something that the establishment doesn't want, then they'll just ignore it. You know, I mean take take Brexit as a prime example of this. The people wanted it, yeah. More than half the people wanted it. Very, very few members of the establishment actually wanted it, which is why when we voted for it, you know, bearing in mind that, you know, democracy is God. Well, they immediately began to defy their God because it didn't serve their own interests. You know, we had people like Keir Starmer, like huge swathes of the Labour Party, but many Conservatives as well, that wanted us to remain as close to the EU as possible while being out of it in name only. You know, so they're willing to subvert democracy for their own agenda. Yeah, democracy is great when it's going their way, but when it goes against what they want, suddenly it's not so good. So then they'll just go out of their way to try and ignore the wishes of the people, you know. And I think that's a real problem. That's a real problem. Because i it's like playing a game where everything's rigged against you. Yeah, if if you're on the establishment's side, everything's in your favour. But if you're one of the people that's voting against what the establishment wants to implement upon you, well you're going to be ignored. Your voice doesn't matter at that point. Yeah, and then it quickly gets to a point where, as we have seen over the last few years, one side is completely excluded from the conversation. And this brings me on to sort of how I perceive the Overton window. Now the Overton window is it's effectively the spread of acceptable discourse from left to right. So within the Overton window are the parameters of what you can and cannot say, what you can and cannot believe, and what you can and cannot advocate for. Now the ends of this window are effectively open. Okay, there's the mirage of a door there, a mirage of a wall, a boundary to how far the Overton window can go. Okay, but these these boundaries are designed to retreat upon approach. So the closer you get to the furthest left position of the Overton window, the further left that extreme moves. Okay, the boundary moves with the people. And that's true whether you go left or right, which is why you know an entirely right wing society will go unbelievably far right, and an entirely left wing society will go unbelievably far left, because there are no checks and balances. Okay, now the the way that I perceive it is the left is permitted to go left, but the right in the form of the Conservatives, who were the main so-called right wing party for forever, essentially. They built an arbitrary wall in front of the right-hand barrier of the Overton window, which means that you could never actually approach the right wing extreme of the Overton window. It had been artificially shortened. So what this means, given that the Overton window can only stretch to so far, is as the left is allowed to progress leftward, that artificial barrier constructed by the Tories also had to move leftward, effectively taking the right wing extreme of the Overton window away from actual right wing politics, which is why we're we're now at a position where many so-called right wing policies were actually centrist positions maybe just a decade or two ago. Yeah, I mean the people that I've spoken to in the past and I've told them I don't see the Conservatives as a right wing party, and they've been shocked because to them in their world, you know, these are people that have been pretty far left. To them there is nothing further right than the Conservatives, and that's just a laughable notion to me and to any sensible person looking at it objectively. You know, the the the Tory party, the Conservatives, they're not right wingers. Yeah, most of them would have fit very, very nicely into Blair's Labour Party, would they not? But when the system has looked this way for as long as it has, you know, people on the left genuinely begin to believe that the Conservatives are right wing. And that serves the additional function of meaning that anything, anything, even a modicum further to the right than the Tories is beyond the pale. And that that keeps things locked within a very, very specific paradigm, you know, with very, very limited movement. Okay, so things have not been allowed to move further to the right for the longest time. And I can't help but believe that this may have something to do with the amount of fabians, you know, the the gain positions of control within our lives. You know, think about as well things uh mostly looking at America, for this one. It's things like think how many times you've heard the phrase repeated, we have to protect our democracy, our democracy, our democracy. They love the phrase our democracy. But quite often when they invoke that phrase, it's in response to something being democratically implemented by Trump at the moment, and they'll say, Oh, this is undemocratic. Is it though? Is it you know mass deportations were undemocratic? Well, I don't believe they are, if you were elected on that basis. You know, the democracy allows people to vote, and people voted for that. So if you are enacting the will of the people, I don't think it's fair to call it undemocratic, you know, unless we are referring once again to our democracy. That's usually leftists that say our democracy. So I would like you to next time you hear that phrase, just realise, you know, with democracy being rule by the people, when they say our democracy, it's our rule by the people. So it within the phrase our democracy, you can see the way that they interpret it. It's our democracy, it's our rule given to us by the people. Even if the people withdraw that consent and give it to somebody else, they still see it as no no no no, our democracy. You know, democracy once again falls down when they decide, you know, when they run on a platform, they run on a manifesto. You know, and you you vote depending on whose manifesto most closely aligns with your values, but then there's nothing tying them to actually carry out what they said on their manifesto, as we've seen with the repeated promises from the establishment, both Labour and Conservatives, to reduce immigration. Okay, they promised it and promised it and promised it, it's been on all the manifestos, yet they haven't done it. Yeah, but they have done a lot of things that weren't on the manifestos that nobody got to vote for. Things like signing on to net zero madness, you know, which is just economically suicidal, it's causing us so many problems, and not a single one of us voted for that. That's just something that the parties themselves decided we're gonna do this thing. And equally, you know, we we treat voters with the a kind of disdain, you know, and this is why I try and remind myself not to be too hard on Labour voters because yes, people should be aware of what Labour are like by now, you know, they've they've never left the country better off than when they found it. Never. It's never happened and it never will. You know and they never learn from their mistakes. But Labour voters, I I do keep having to remind myself a lot of them are just good-hearted people that aren't thinking too far ahead. You know, and in the short term, Labour's sales pitch probably sounds pretty good. Same as to a lot of people, some of the stuff the Greens are promising sounds pretty good. You know, and they are not responsible. The voters are not responsible for the things that Labour do while they're in power. You know, and I I felt this way. So I voted for Boris Johnson. Uh when he was up against Corbyn because I don't want to live in a communist country, thank you very much. Doesn't mean that I'm responsible for everything that Johnson did. You know, I heard people during the COVID lockdowns um saying, Oh well done, you know, anybody that voted for Boris Johnson, you voted for this. So, well, hang on, when we had that vote, we didn't know this was just around the corner, so we can't be held responsible for the response to a crisis nobody saw coming. I'd also just like to add that uh Labour's recommendation at the time was to lock down earlier, for longer, and in much harsher ways. So voting conservative instead of Labour, yeah, you know, it it doesn't mean that the response to the pandemic would have been any better, you know, and in fact it probably would have been a lot worse. Although this might be contradicted by the findings of the COVID inquiry that they had, where effectively the result of it was, well, the current government had the right stance on it. Who'd have saw that one coming? The current government, the Labor government, who wasn't in power at the time, yep, we should have locked down sooner and for longer and much more harshly. I don't agree with that, but this is the way that the establishment serves itself. It'll investigate itself and it will come to the conclusion that it did nothing wrong. Now, if in the meantime there's been a change uh a change of hands in power, they will find in favour of the current regime, yep, to to mitigate public anger, because the Tories have already been outed, so fuck em, basically. That's that's the way the Covert Inquiry looked at things, you know, and it's it's all about the establishment defending itself. I think it's very, very worthwhile paying attention to the the things that parties do that they didn't run on, the things that they weren't elected to do. I think it's very worthwhile paying attention to those things. So it's things like, as mentioned before, Tony Blair in the 90s, you know, removing prohibitions on teaching LGBT stuff to kids. Well, I th I think that's a pretty good indication that he intended to teach LGBT stuff to kids. Yeah. And when they removed the death penalty for treason, well, I I I think it was because they they wanted to incentivise a lot more treason. They knew what they were going to do. He also brought about legislation to uh basically make it impossible to prosecute politicians for actions they carry out in office. Yeah. And the reason for that being, well, he probably intended to do a lot of the things that he could have been prosecuted for. So i it's always worth paying attention to the things that they do that they weren't elected to do. Apply that. Apply it to Keir Stormer and the current iteration of the Labour Party, the things that they've done that they didn't say they were gonna do. You know, so things like sending all these billions of pounds abroad for different projects and bringing in these huge taxes, you know, and uh for farmers, you know, withdrawing their exemption from inheritance tax laws that's effectively within a couple of generations gonna destroy British farming entirely. Why? You know, they weren't elected to do that, they decided to do that. And they decided to do that because it ties in with future plans that they may have, and we're not always privy to these future plans. Yeah? Why would we be? We're just the little people, yeah, the voting idiots. They're the real people. Never mind that we are the demos part of democracy. We are the people in ruled by the people. Yeah. But no no no, we don't need to know that. We don't need to know that. And it's very telling as well that Kirst Armer will quite often invoke the mandate given to him by the people. Bearing in mind that he won about thirty per cent of the vote in an election where about forty per cent of the electorate turned up. So it's not a you know, not an overwhelming win. Now, in terms of parliamentary numbers, absolutely is, and it can be very, very hard to beat them in parliament at this time. But it's not it's not as if an overn overwhelming number of people voted for Labour because they they just had to have them in. You know, there was no clear mandate by the people. You you could speak to most people in the street and they didn't vote for Labour. You know, they they didn't vote for this. That's another failing of democracy, is you know, hardly anybody really wanted Labour in, but here we are and they have an overwhelming majority, which has enabled them to pass legislation and take actions that nobody would have signed off on. Nobody would have voted for them if they promised to do these things. Well, but he will invoke his mandate, yeah, and say, well, everybody voted for me, so clearly I'm okay to do this. Yeah, but people didn't know you were gonna do this. You you made no mention of this. Yeah, so democracy I mean it's only as strong as your willingness to preserve its integrity is. Yeah, I mean we see in America all the time, you know, they they're having this thing with the uh what is it, the Save Act, where they're trying to basically preserve the integrity of the voting system by requiring ID and able to vote, you know, basically prove that you are a citizen with voting eligibility to be able to vote. And for some reason, they just won't pass it. It should be the most basic thing. But even here, we see things like that. You know, we've seen it in the Gortland-Denton by-election. We saw family voting taking place where the head of a Muslim household would go in there and ensure that everybody within his household voted the correct way. You're supposed to go in alone, so you can have your own say. No, don't get me wrong, I'm not foolish enough to think that, yeah, no, there's probably thousands of Muslim women a and and you know, teenagers or whatever in these households that would have secretly voted for reform if only they were given the opportunity. I don't believe that. But the point still stands that you have rules on the books to put protect and preserve the integrity of elections, and then those rules are just not followed. Or another another favourite tactic that they use is changing the borders around where people vote. Now this might be a new concept to many people, but I've seen some of these election maps in the uh in the US, and what they do, they call it gerrymandering, and it's effectively tends to be the Democrats that do this, the leftist side, but they will try to reshape the electoral maps so that you know a predominantly white voting district will suddenly have an equal number of black voters in it, and those black voters will vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and it means that they can potentially stop that district from going to the Republicans just by changing the map and changing who is eligible to vote in which area. You know, and this is something we're seeing increasingly in the UK as well. Operation Scatter, I don't know if you're aware of it, but it's basically it's basically a policy aimed at dispersing illegal immigrants and new arrivals all across the country, so everywhere we'll have them. Then undoubtedly at some point they will throw an amnesty down the line, and suddenly every single area in the country, not just the immigrant strongholds, places like, you know, London and Birmingham, Leicester, these kind of places, Luton, no no no, everywhere. So even the the leafy majority white suburbs will be inundated with third world visitors with whose you know whose whose vote counts every bit as much as the natives. And these people will be present in every constituency, yep, so it removes our voice, it's diluting the strength of our democracy, you know, of the country's democracy in favour of the people chosen by the establishment. Yep, their democracy. We also see in their plans to expand local government, make the local authorities bigger so there are fewer individual councils, which means there are fewer white majority areas that are going to have adequate representation, their vote will be mingled in with a bunch of diverse areas diluting the vote and essentially guaranteeing the establishment what it wants. It's a bit of a perverse system, isn't it? You can see why I say while you're deifying democracy but failing to defend and protect jealously, who comes taking that democracy? Now it's bastardising the system. I hope you can see the point of view on that one, people. It's something I've seen several times this week actually, in uh different comment sections, different comments made usually by reform voters on why they can't go over to restore. Uh and one of the reasons given is that Rupert Lowe will never democratise the party. Now, I don't know whether that is true or not. But at the moment, with me, as you've seen, not being overly enamoured with democracy, I think he's making the right call by not democratising it. Because democratising it would mean watering down the message and compromising and thinking, you know what, we can bring these people into the tent if only we give up on this policy. And if we, you know, if if we don't got pursue mass deportations, we might be able to bring these people into the fold and vote for us too. And this is how you end up in the situation that we've been living through constant compromise. Because politics is a game of identity politics and compromise. Okay, now, unfortunately, under the system that we've got, this sort of blairite paradigm, there seems to have been some kind of tacit agreement between the parties that the Conservatives will never cave to their right, they'll never take a step to the right, and the Labor Party won't give in to their radical left elements. Okay, and I I think this manifests itself in the kind of pragmatism we see from people like Keir Starmer on certain issues. For example, the welfare bill. Now, you had Keir Starmer's initial position on it was that he was not gonna lift the two child benefit cap because the country simply couldn't afford it, okay? And effectively lifting that cap would accelerate the decline of the country to a point where Labor might be voted out before they could achieve everything that he wanted to achieve. So his initial position was the correct one. No, I'm not gonna lift that cap. Unfortunately, some of the left left-wing backbenchers in the Labor parties, they they really didn't like that. And they put an immense amount of pressure on him until he buckled and he lifted the two-child benefit cap. Yeah, so the the the agreement is beginning to fall apart. Okay, the the wall that I mentioned earlier that was that was built at the right hand side of the Overton window, well, that's been crumbling for some time and is now been destroyed. Yeah, and and the left, the leftist containment won't work anymore either, because Keir Starmer and the the Labour heavies are having to give in to their left. Okay, which is why many, many Labour voters are now moving to the Greens because Labour haven't moved left fast enough. Now, when we talk about politics being a compromise, to my eyes, the compromise seems to be to the left, you will get what you want, but not as quickly as you want it. And to the right, you can keep this thing you like, but not forever, not for long. Yeah, you can't keep it in it in its pure form um any longer. But you get to keep the majority of what you like for a little bit longer, uh, until it goes over to the left. And this has been the balance of power, so everything seems to be centrist. Yeah, you're saying no to the left, you're saying no to the right. But in actual fact, what you're saying is we're going to take everything away from the right and slowly give it to the left, and neither side is happy with that. And unfortunately, British politics at the minute seems to be a masterclass in making sure that nobody is happy. But then that gives you the freedom to play both sides off against each other and put your thumb on the scale to guarantee the outcomes that you want, which is why I'm not such a fan of democracy. And then effectively, we've ended up in a position where nobody will listen to the right. So though that half of the country, that half of the demos, will not be given a voice. Okay, so no representation there, and we're supposed to be just, yeah, okay, we accept that. Yeah, but then people on the far left, no, nope, there's no quarter given to them either. So they're excluded. So it seems as long as your worldview fits neatly within the Overton window, y w which is artificially established, by the way, um on in favour of the left. But as long as your worldview fits within those parameters, you can be part of the debate. But if it doesn't, you're out. Yeah, and then that that leads to a situation where you've got people bleeding out of the Labour Party to go to the Greens. I don't know if anybody heard a recent Zach Polansky interview where he was toying with the idea, you know, musing over the fact that he cannot change everybody's everybody's mind. Right he was saying that uh right-wing people, doesn't matter what environment you put them in, they'll always be spitting out their hatred and toxicity or whatever it was. And he he speculated, you know, can we change all their minds or should we build a society that doesn't include them? Yeah, that's the fruits of your democracy there. Everything's been moving leftward for decades, but the left, you know, they don't see it that way. They see as because things aren't moving as quickly as they would like, they see it as they are being shut out of the conversation. You know, dread to think how they would feel if like us everything had been slowly taken away from them for decades. But their gripe is that things are not being given to them quickly enough. Yeah, and that means that anybody that denies them what they're asking for is right wing. So people in the Greens genuinely believe that Keir Starmer's right wing. Keir Starmer's a communist, let's make no bones about that. He's a communist, he's just pragmatic. Yeah, he's as much a communist as Zach Polansky, but he's a bit more pragmatic than that, and he knows it's going to take time to lay the infrastructure. You know, rather than a revolution, it's gonna be evolving into that revolutionised state. Yeah, so no violent revolution has to take place in his worldview if you take things slowly and you boil the frog very, very slowly. Yeah. And this is where democracy gets us. Okay, it can be easily infiltrated and subverted, and the establishment, the government, whose role should be to preserve its integrity, has instead abandoned that pursuit and has stacked the deck in its own favour. And this has been going on for decades now. It's coming up to crunch time, and I think we all know that people. So next time you hear the phrase oh democracy, or something is accused of being undemocratic, or you hear Keir Starmer banging about his you know his electoral mandate, just think a little bit about this episode. And er I don't know, maybe you see things in a different light. But I would like to thank everybody for listening. Uh it really does mean a lot. There's a small following of you at the minute, and I I will I will make a way soon for you guys to get in touch. But I really do appreciate you guys listening. And when things calm down and I've got a bit more time for research and production, I hope to massively elevate the quality of the of the episodes. Uh but I I hope you're enjoying it, I hope you're finding some kind of value, and as ever, guys, if there's somebody you think might benefit from it, share it. Um keep yourselves safe, and until the next one, goodbye.