Struggling with my political allegiance now and it's really bothering me

I hope that's true about all mouth and no trousers. I do think Islamists are definitely concerning in that regard, and potentially other groups.

Agree about populism. Obvs it has been used for ill by the 30s dictators, the Perons, other people etc but it's ofc v wrong to say that therefore giving the population what they want is intrinsically wrong.

That's interesting about the Lotus Eaters, I didn't realise they hated Farage. I listened to 1 episode (the Freya India one) once & from that thought they would like Farage. Clearly mistaken.

Probably one of the other reasons to read more books/history is to get a sense of ideological "movements", groups of connected ideas that become more or less popular over the years, rather than "sides" which are fixed forever.

e.g. progressivism replacing trade unionism on the "left" is just one example of many such shifts.

Implicit in statements like "I didn't leave the Left, the Left left me" is some kind of disappointment? frustration? that the ideology that was dominant when you first felt drawn to "the Left" is no longer the dominant ideology.

But I don't think it's a problem per se for ideologies to recombine and see if they can prove popular enough (to @SionnachRuadh's excellent point on populism!) to oust the previous one. The interesting question if you are disappointed is something like "why did my favoured ideology not have staying power after all? why could it not compete?" - certainly this is something I've thought about a lot in the context of liberalism.

I don't see conflict in your views. The issue, I think, is in the division of political views into different camps where one view must be aligned with and articulated to a whole series of other approved views. Then these are labelled 'left' or 'right' wing and social and personal identity becomes bound up with the chosen (or inherited) camp and isn't questioned enough.

There is no reason why a person shouldn't hold a whole range of views, attitudes and allegiances that don't fit in one camp, and also change their mind over time and choose different parties to vote for as it suits. I see this as normal, the vast majority of people I grew up with didn't have a political 'identity' but a load of different views, some of which aligned with some politicians at some points, who might then get voted for. No-one thought that wanting to stop pollution, or lower crime rates meant you had to vote for particular party all the time.

I believe it's important to consume as wide a range of media and information as possible, be slow to take 'sides' or categorise ideas as 'left / right wing' or whatever, to engage with a wide range of real people, in real life and avoid the trap of revering / hating political personalities. I mix and match my views as I please and the sky does not fall in.

@Shortshriftandlethal , But the 'expense' issue is purely down to the forces of global capital - with its porous/non -existent borders.
Maybe so, but those forces of global capital are so huge. One country cannot challenge them. Mrs Thatcher said "You can't buck the Market".. She was absolutely right.

Pretty much everyone on left or right who makes a lot of noise about revolution or civil war is all mouth and no trousers. There may be some people in Islamist circles who take it seriously.

And there's only so much you can get from ideology. On a theoretical level, I'm a bit of a James Burnham aficionado, so arguably my critique of the current system is a lot more radical than Carl Benjamin and his pals on Lotus Eaters, who, once you get past their edgy jokes on race, are really just a bunch of Tory boys whose main driving force is a hatred of Farage.

So much of what's painted as extremism and counter-extremism in the UK is just kabuki theatre.

If there's a threat to democracy it's from the regime itself. I know "populism" is a swear word around here, but democracy needs a certain amount of populism in the form of giving the voters what they want. But the high priests of the regime, the Rory Stewarts and James O'Briens quite openly say the point of politics is to protect the stupid voters from their own base instincts. To give voters what the regime thinks they need. We will eat our spinach and we will like it.

Rory's only criticism of the regime is that, when he was a minister, he couldn't get civil servants to do what he wanted. Well, duh. That's the system he supports working as designed.

Oligarchies become calcified and fragile over time, and I think we're at the stage of a feckless oligarchy that's incapable of solving the problems of government. Something will have to give.

I started spoiling ballot papers a few years back as there was no party I could vote for. But at the next election I may feel forced into voting for our current MP, who I detest, because the only viable alternative might be Reform. I was confident my vote at the last General Election wouldnt matter - and it didnt. But next time if things look tighter I may feel a have to vote for anyone who can beat Reform regardless of how much I dislike their other policies.

In local elections I no longer worry too much about the party and choose on the basis of whether they are a decent person or not.

I don't know anyone personally who wants to overthrow the government by force with their own arms/army, like storming Parliament or something. But I also don't know anyone personally who has put up a flag lately, for example, or been to a migrant hotel protest (I think), so my perspective is limited!

It's more like sometimes (men) seem like they're hoping "things will kick off and then we'll be able to move in". Not that they necessarily are hoping to start it.

I don't find it much different from when I used to be on the left and there'd be some bearded communist type making similar comments tbh, it just worries me more because I see the "widespread civil unrest" scenario as more likely in this case.

(Race/IQ is still a bit outside the Overton window even in those circles so I have too few examples to draw on.)

Didn't coal mining have a high fatality rate though, as well as causing health problems often? I understand the pride, self sufficiency aspects...but is there nothing else that could replace these, no other job..?

Not to mention the potential effects on the climate, though I know that is debated.

If it's ok to ask a little bit more : I'm assuming the race & IQ comment is about those believers in that 'human biodiversity' theory? Ie. That black people are naturally on average less intelligent so there is no point in initiatives to boost their academic performance?

But the 'expense' issue is purely down to the forces of global capital - with its porous/non -existent borders. Cost and expense can be measured in ways other than purely monetary. Self sufficiency, national pride, community and employment are worth a lot - which is largely what the 'Reform' agenda is now about and which is why they are now open to re-opening coal, oil and gas fields in the national interest.

Please this 🙏 I'm fed up with madness

I actually think that both now have an opportunity to become more pragmatic centrist parties of the Left and rRght.......now that the extremes are catered for elsewhere.

Thank you, please don't worry about taking a while to reply to the other post. Your post was v interesting & that's fine if it takes a while to reply, obvs a complex issue.

This is also interesting....if I could ask a couple more questions...

The people who want an overthrow of the state- presumably they're not actually planning anything? If there was some kind of unrest/riot/civil war, do you think they would join in? Are they armed?

And do they want an end to democracy? Or want to overthrow the government by force but then re- establish democracy?

@AliasGrace47 I feel guilty responding to this as I owe you a response on your other thread, which I have not been ignoring but have been trying to compose in drafts for 2 days... :)

But as this question is easier:

1. Points of difference (probably more of degree) - how far is too far on "remigration" incentives; eagerness for an actual revolution/overthrow of power vs targeted technocratic replacement of policies (this has a strong male/female divide I think); discomfort with some race/IQ stuff. In some ways I'm more of a cultural conservative than they are though on things like family/church/neighbourly relations. There are some who are more like... esoteric, like academic religious philosophers I consider a bit mad but harmless. (This is my entire wider circle not just my close friends I'm talking about.)

2. I agree with the second point and would add also that sometimes they were just wrong and their predictions did not materialise! Or were just very tied to some specific issue unique to their time/place.

Agree w this totally - except 2 points. If I can ask, what do your self-professed 'far-right' friends/acquaintances believe? And which of their beliefs do you find a bit extreme?

On why women opposed 'weird' stuff. I agree there could be female centric arguments for limiting abortion laws & others. However, it's important to recognise other motives too. For instance, some women were anti-suffrafge not bc they were particularly female-centric but bc they thought women mostly didn't know enough to vote, or sometimes bc they thought working-class women possibly being enfranchised was a bad idea

Ha ha Scuton and Chesterton as "influencers" is a hilarious image! I can just imagine what their youtube channel would be like.

But This does reference something that stuck out to me in the OP, and which I've noticed with others. The tendency among many regular left wing people to assume that the right is just full of stupid and uneducated people talking nonsense.

I've seen so many people through some recent issues like GI shocked to discover that they can watch or read someone like Douglas Murray, or even Jordan Peterson, and actually, they are clearly not stupid and make some pretty insightful arguments about various things. that in a public debate between Murray and Malcome Gladwell, the letter comes out of it looking like a bit of an idiot, not the conservative.

And then they find there are very serious intellectuals on the right like Scruton, and they have not only never read them, they may not have known they existed at all, they've never heard of them.

It's quite a shock to discover there is a whole serious intellectual edifice that you not only dismissed unfairly, but that you weren't even aware of the existence of, and most of your smart, university educated, left wing friends don't know anything about it either.

It's massively disconcerting.

I don't think Howie has very good reading comprehension.

You've conflated being more likely to be a victim of crime, being more likely to fear becoming a victim of crime, and being more likely to commit crime. The three are different things.

A poor person has less means to avoid criminals. They can't afford to take a taxi or bus and are at risk of mugging when walking. They are more likely to live in a rough area. A poor person subject to DV has less means to escape. The poorest women have to choose between being raped by a partner or sleeping on the streets because they have no means to afford a flat. All of this means that poor people are more likely to be the victims of crime and are more likely to fear crime.

You can't apply that reasoning to committing all types of crime. I'll grant that poverty makes someone more likely to steal. But there's no reason why poverty would make someone more likely to rape, because rape doesn't bring the rapist money or goods. We know from Saville and Epstein that rich men rape and will use their money to facilitate raping. Rich men have more resources to groom victims with gifts and pay them off afterwards. You've claimed a causal link between poverty and committing sexual offences and that causal link just isn't there.

It's really hard for me to put into worlds how problematic the left's embrace of gender ideology has been.

Its anti everything it was supposed to stand for.

Anti science, anti women, anti children, anti safeguarding, anti transparency, anti legal clarity. I could go on.

No kidding. Louise, you can turn exactly the same observation back on the right, too. That’s what real liberalism actually is (as Helen Pluckrose keeps tirelessly pointing out) - rules of law and society that apply to all, not just to who the winners want to punish.

Yaxley Lennon and his ilk don't want freedom of speech. They don't want you to have the freedom to disagree with them. They want the right for things they agree with to be said without challenge. They want to be allowed to say whatever they please and face no consequences for it. If they had power they would not be championing free speech and upholding your right to it. If anyone genuinely believes that this bunch actually care about freedom of speech and want everyone to have equal rights to it then I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

Of course it is - if someone tries to convince you that black is white, or that up is down, you would naturally question their ability to think critically about everything else.

The idea that men can become women or vice versa, is so absurdly ridiculous that the people who are peddling this can’t be trusted.

Around the time of the 2016 referendum I was reading an interesting book called The Offshore Islanders, (focussing on England rather than the rest of the UK), in which the Synod of Whitby in 664 is mooted as the origin of Euro-scepticism. Ostensibly discussing how to date Easter, it was really about who was in charge of Christianity in Europe (Rome won). The result was an ingrained distrust and dislike of being told what to do by those in far-away cities on the continent. This author thought it made it easier than it should have been for Henry VIII's Reformation, as people liked the idea of a home-led church.

I wish there were more locally-focussed sensible independent candidates to vote for.

Why not? The progressive worldview uses very similar ideological logic across several domains

• Everyone is equal
• Be kind and inclusive
• Lift up minority voices

Sounds lovely right?

But then you realise it's actually

• Close your eyes to noticeable and obvious differences that exist between categories of people (women/men)
• Sacrifice your own interests and comfort for the sake of people who demand entrance to your spaces, even if you feel unsafe (single-sex spaces)
• If you are a member of a majority group, you must never advocate for any of your own interests and you should be suspicious of those who do (cis people)

Once you realise this is insane, is it so hard to imagine the next step: realising you can replace what's in the brackets with, for example:

• Cultural values
• Large numbers of single migrant men
• British (English, ...) people

For someone who HASN'T gone trough that process, it looks like you're saying immigrants aren't equally human, we should be mean and exclude them, and we should deliberately crush minorities. But that's because you can't see how progressivism is not "just modern truth" but a motivated ideology like all the others.

That’s not exactly logical!