Pat Condell explains how progressive liberalism was infiltrated and destroyed by Marxism. There we were celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR, but those events simply allowed the virus to spread more rapidly.
Ol’ Karl was dead wrong, but that hasn’t stopped the Culture Vultures; having devoured the marrow of the West, they continue to pick over the remains…
Not Pat’s best I am afraid.
Long on abuse and short on precision.
Note how he talks of the “dull economic theories” of Marx and alleges that progressives are Marxist.
If dull, one can assume he means he has not read them out of dislike. But then Pat used to be a British Labour party voter.
This is an era of big corporations Facebook and Google and Twitter censoring patriotic and nationalist speech of “nativists” or “white supremacists”, including Pat, thereby doing the censorship work that NATO governments do not yet (openly) want to.
So we have an alliance between the State and Capital that operates internationally and finds borders to be artificial restrictions on Economies of Scale for its production and sales and wage paying. What does this signify and why and how is it proceeding and how to fight it?
The word “globalist” appears often at GoV and rightly so, because it is a word to do with the link between politics and economics, but never in Pat’s videos.
Pat would do well to go back and read all the progressive-type statements about a borderless world made by EU “conservative” ie business-friendly politicians these last few years. These people are the last to be described as Marxist.
Unfair analysis of the great Pat Condell. He is looking at the destruction of Western Society that is the desire of the cultural Marxists together with the rebuilding of “progressive” utopia, see his previous video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-VC74t7fubk
Pat is essentially a ‘populist’ – he as always been plain spoken ‘middle brow’ and focused. This is a piece that contrasts the classical liberal West that he (and I) grew up in with the ‘Progressive’ fascism that overwhelms us. His balance of emotion and clarity is his distinctive voice. He is truthful throughout and stays on topic and cannot say ‘everything’ in one short talk which is what you seem to blame him with here.
I agree. Its not as if he hasn’t condemned the EU and the globalist no boarders crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcltV7r-nM
I’ve always thought that a better term for PC would be “Cultural Stalinism.” It gives more light to the totalitarian impulse of the modern left.
This guy is absolutely brilliant and his sarcasm is deadly.
Argeed; one of his best. Like Pat, I used to be a Labour supporter, but as a supporter of the Welfare State have never been able to vote Conservative, though I’ve supported UKIP over the specific issue of Brexit. Given the appalling Labour leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, I may have to abstain next time, which really goes against the grain.
Mark H,
I’m curious. Does being an English “Conservative” mean that one must abjure ALL social safety networks? Isn’t it possible to have a primarily capitalist economy with SOME social safety networks in place?
No Plum, but the current Conservatives are dismantling the NHS.
@Dymphna:
it being your article about Pat Condell and not the Baron’s: so what bullet of mine in replying to Fitzroy rang your Daughter of the American Revolution Liberty Bell to stifle my echo? That is, to suppress my answer?
Was it my mention of your no doubt sanctified Sen. Joe McCarthy? The quote from William Lind?
Recently the Alt Right has quite justifiably been very big on freedom of speech against SJWs.
But not having come down in the last shower I have no illusions about what you like to suppress if you can; after all, lack of action in many jurisdictions by Rightists to have libel and slander laws – that go after investigative journalists – loosened or abolished serves the business interests of their financiers.
We both approve comments regardless of which of us puts up a post. For example, the B is resting his eyes after a lot of work and I just happened to come into the office to check on the status of the weather coming our way since the lights are beginning to flicker.
I don’t remember your comment. When the B gets back in his chair after supper, perhaps he will remember.
I’m not sure I understand all of what you’re saying here, either. A few inferences too far for me brain.
Was it my mention of your no doubt sanctified Sen. Joe McCarthy?
I thought he was a very flawed man who broke under the weight of his self-imposed problems, e.g., alcoholism. A political person once told me that when you’re in a position of power, your undoing is either punch or judy. That is, either booze or women.
But then again, I don’t “sanctify” anyone…though I do come close when I walk out into the kitchen and my beloved B has left it clean and spotless…
I was the one who deleted your comment.
Maybe you haven’t been reading GoV very much lately. I’ve said it over and over again, but I’ll say it again for your sake: I’m not having any more Jew fights in our blog. Been there, done that. I’m SICK of them. The arguments are always the same — I could type them out myself in advance, I know them so well.
And, yes, I know that my actions constitute “censorship”. I know that I am a “hypocrite”. And I know that I am ill-informed, or stupid, or a tool of the Mossad, or whatever.
But I don’t care.
One more time:
I’M. NOT. HAVING. ANY. MORE. JEW. FIGHTS.
@Baron: thanks for your honesty Baron.
However as I recall, I noted solely [redacted].
If Israel is such a third rail for GoV, I need not even make any allusions in reply to the influence of AIPAC as a lobby on Congress or POTUS or CONUS overall: I need only say that attempts to understand the state of the world suffer severely if mention of the only state in West Asia with atom bombs is to be excised.
No, that isn’t all you said. Or rather, your reiteration here (which I redacted) was less provocative — deliberately? — plus there was more. And I don’t feel like being more specific, because that might spark a Jew fight itself.
I’m not talking about criticizing Israel, or even being anti-Israel. And there are ways to discuss Jews without provoking a Jew fight. But there are certain statements that are guaranteed to start a Jew fight — after long, bitter experience, I’ve learned to spot them — and you made one or more of them.
This is blind at best, disingenuous at worst. Perhaps you don’t even see your own obvious prejudices.
@Dymphna: assuming your allegation of blindness, disingenuous -ness and prejudice is aimed at me, readers cannot judge it, as Baron has redacted what I wrote.
So be it. Ron Unz at Unz Review you are not.
Notwithstanding, it is a parlous state of affairs, given that [Jew-fight-bait redacted].
But no MSM scribbler will dare to put that question in print.
Ron Unz at Unz Review you are not.
Bless your heart. I read that fellow once, and once was enough.