Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Robert Evans here and I wanted to let
Speaker 1: you know this is a compilation episode. So every episode
Speaker 1: of the week that just happened is here in one
Speaker 1: convenient and with somewhat less ads package for you to
Speaker 1: listen to in a long stretch if you want. If
Speaker 1: you've been listening to the episodes every day this week,
Speaker 1: there's gotta be nothing new here for you, but you
Speaker 1: can make your own decisions. It happened somewhere else a
Speaker 1: while ago, and also somewhere else now ish several days ago.
Speaker 1: What a great title for a show. I love. I
Speaker 1: love how snappy and remember and memorable. That is that. Look,
Speaker 1: look we can we we can, we can go, and
Speaker 1: we can go into a tiny bit of pulling back
Speaker 1: the curtain, which is that you can't do too many
Speaker 1: good intros because if you do too many good intros,
Speaker 1: and everyone expects you to constantly have a good intro,
Speaker 1: So every once in a while you have to just
Speaker 1: make you have you have to lower the overall quality
Speaker 1: of the intro so that when you are truly desperate,
Speaker 1: I have just been dragged out of bed at like
Speaker 1: three am and you have to record a podcast, they're
Speaker 1: sort of atonal noises will be considered normal. That's why
Speaker 1: I script all my intros. But I'm just I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm just built. Yeah, different example that could happen here.
Speaker 1: What are we what are we doing here today, Chris um,
Speaker 1: we are talking about well, actually, admittedly we we had
Speaker 1: planned this episode before this happens. Yeah, we on this
Speaker 1: episode before the referendum in Cuba about the new family Code.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we're we're gonna be talking about the kind
Speaker 1: of bleak but sort of gets better history of homo
Speaker 1: sexuality in Cuba and how things went from very bad
Speaker 1: to getting a lot better, and then also how a
Speaker 1: lot of American leftists like picked up a version of
Speaker 1: the history of this that is just sort of nonsense.
Speaker 1: And here here with us talk about this is Andre's Petira,
Speaker 1: who is well doing doing many things, one of which
Speaker 1: is studying for PhD in Latin American history at the
Speaker 1: University of Wisconsin, Madison. On today's Welcome to the show. Oh,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here. Yeah, like,
Speaker 1: I'm excarted to talk to you about this. So Okay,
Speaker 1: I guess the place that I want to start is
Speaker 1: I want to go back to the sixties, and I
Speaker 1: want to go back to something that I I don't
Speaker 1: think a lot of people understand very well in terms
Speaker 1: of what happened in I just happened in various ways
Speaker 1: over a lot of sort of these new sort of
Speaker 1: revolutionary socialist states, which is that you get this attempt
Speaker 1: to like form of like a sort of like like
Speaker 1: a new revolutionary subject. Sometimes it's like, I mean, the
Speaker 1: Soviet one was like the New Man. They're they're sort
Speaker 1: of different versions of this across the sort of areious
Speaker 1: social revolutionary states. I guess I wanted to ask you
Speaker 1: to talk about how this kind of got really really
Speaker 1: homophobic in Cuba, like pretty quickly. Yeah, So, I mean
Speaker 1: and and and one of the interesting parts about the
Speaker 1: story in Cuba is that it actually is look in
Speaker 1: part imported from the USSR and ideas in the USSR.
Speaker 1: And that's actually one of the connections which in the
Speaker 1: literature isn't in the academic literature at least isn't always
Speaker 1: that well explored because Cuban is tend to be very insloyed.
Speaker 1: We don't really tend to learn Russian. I'm I'm kind
Speaker 1: of crazy. I actually am learning Russian. But but no
Speaker 1: so so um. You know, there was obviously lots of homophobia,
Speaker 1: lots of you know, all like lots of bigotry against
Speaker 1: LGBT people before nine, not unlike the United States of
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties, like you could live privately or maybe
Speaker 1: in certain safe spaces, you could live a kind of
Speaker 1: okay life. But you know, it was definitely very marginalized position,
Speaker 1: lots of bigotry and lots of personal danger in addition
Speaker 1: to a lack of basic rights. Um. After nineteen fifty nine, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you have this jettison, jettisoning of the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church and kind of religious reasons for being bigoted with
Speaker 1: the coming of the revolution, which is a secular communist revolution. Um.
Speaker 1: But what what ends up happening is they And this
Speaker 1: is something that Abil Sierra Marero's recent book on on
Speaker 1: Um on these policies talks about a lot. Is this
Speaker 1: kind of attempt to remake human men into the demand
Speaker 1: that's needed for this communist society in the future. And
Speaker 1: as part of this, they engage in a sort of
Speaker 1: social hygiene. We don't want people who are lazy, we
Speaker 1: don't want people who are degenerate, but you know bourgeois
Speaker 1: degeneracy by you know that kind of stuff. And within this,
Speaker 1: you know a persecution of people who were seen as
Speaker 1: either out, either as gay or at least as soft
Speaker 1: and they need to be made into real macho men
Speaker 1: for the revolution. And um, this started out in a
Speaker 1: very series of isolated things, right. You would have like
Speaker 1: Virgilio Pinieta was who was a dramaturge. He was, um,
Speaker 1: he was jailed, uh, and he basically he was being
Speaker 1: targeted because people wanted his house and so if he
Speaker 1: was jailed and his belongings were separated from him, then
Speaker 1: like someone could get to keep his apartment. Like that
Speaker 1: seems to be why he was originally targeted. And he
Speaker 1: was detained twice for basically walking while gay. That's how
Speaker 1: basically what the incident boils down. He was walking effeminately
Speaker 1: in people and he was detained by police and he
Speaker 1: was free because he had like he was an important person.
Speaker 1: He was you know, he had some protections. But then
Speaker 1: as the decade rolls on, as the nineteen sixties rolled on,
Speaker 1: that's like that's nineteen sixty one year after the revolution,
Speaker 1: you have the creation of a series of forced labor camps,
Speaker 1: and there's not really any way to get around that. Um.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly how many were sent there, um,
Speaker 1: but it seems to be in the thousands, maybe tens
Speaker 1: of thousands. We again, we don't know because the government
Speaker 1: hasn't classify that information. So it's still a conjecture. But
Speaker 1: it's not because people don't want to investigate the details. Um.
Speaker 1: And these are thousands and thousands of people who are
Speaker 1: being sent for all sorts of reasons. Jehovah's witnesses um. Uh,
Speaker 1: people who listened to rock, people who are seeing as
Speaker 1: hippies uh lvi spleanos, so Elvis presleyan's so people who
Speaker 1: listened to Elvis Presley because that was seen as too
Speaker 1: effeminate and too yankee. Um and and so they were
Speaker 1: sent to the camps and to forced labor. But the
Speaker 1: camps weren't just about forced labor. They were about remaking
Speaker 1: through labor, these men into your real men, because hard labor,
Speaker 1: proletarian labor, would you know, remake their spirits and their ethics.
Speaker 1: And aha, I mean it's kind of not unlike what
Speaker 1: we're seeing in the nineteen sixties in China. I think yeah, yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a very explicit like one one of the things
Speaker 1: well yeah, well one of the things that is just
Speaker 1: going on during the Cultural Revolution. Also, Yeah, it's like
Speaker 1: that they have that they have this sort of re
Speaker 1: education through labor. The thing that starts and it gets
Speaker 1: it does get. Yeah, Like I've seen conflicting accounts of
Speaker 1: the extent to which like people were directly targeted for
Speaker 1: being gay. It definitely did happen. And there's yeah, and
Speaker 1: you get a lot of this sort of same thing
Speaker 1: of like if people are like spiritually unpear and like
Speaker 1: they have to be like re educated and they have
Speaker 1: to be sort of like turned into like proper like subjection.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of especially like there's a lot of
Speaker 1: sort of like there's a lot of people like being
Speaker 1: forced to hold science to say sodomite and ship yeah,
Speaker 1: which is funnily enough. And the weird part about this
Speaker 1: is that like in the Chinese case, so the Cultural
Speaker 1: Revolution is like not a great time to be gay,
Speaker 1: but there's also this thing. There's this thing kind of
Speaker 1: like it's kind of like like Nies Berlin, where like
Speaker 1: there are there is some really bad stuff that happens,
Speaker 1: but there's also this sort of like there's a kind
Speaker 1: of general political chaos so you can get away with
Speaker 1: some stuff. Two that there's actually there's another campaign in
Speaker 1: China and starts about three Yeah, it's called the Strike
Speaker 1: Hard Campaign. Interestingly, there's there's actually two Strike Hard campaign.
Speaker 1: So there's there's one of the eighties that's supposed to
Speaker 1: be this campaign against like crime and stuff, and so
Speaker 1: like they target a bunch of people who are like
Speaker 1: suppsed to be like social criminals, and then that winds
Speaker 1: up being a lot of like there's this there are
Speaker 1: just mass arrest of gay people. They're in prison for
Speaker 1: a very very long time. Um yeah, under Although that
Speaker 1: one's also interesting because it's like you have very similar
Speaker 1: kind of reasoning, but it's like but it's in this
Speaker 1: sort of like dang like kind of revolutionary like phase
Speaker 1: where it's like instead of being instead of being a
Speaker 1: day to the revolution, they're like sort of a danger
Speaker 1: to like traditional Chinese values, which is interesting and bleak. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: because like this is one of the one of the
Speaker 1: things happens in China. Write is it like in in
Speaker 1: you know, there there is an attempt to sort of
Speaker 1: do more egalitarian like gender relations during the Dan culture
Speaker 1: revolution between the sort of like revolutionary period and then
Speaker 1: when Dane takes power, part of this thing is like no,
Speaker 1: we're going back to traditional gender relations, like all of
Speaker 1: this egalitarian stuff was a mistake and like this is
Speaker 1: part this is part of whether when child policy comes from.
Speaker 1: But then also you get a really homophobic crackdown in
Speaker 1: like eighty three, like like three or four years after
Speaker 1: sort of like he's actually, weirdly, almost exactly the same
Speaker 1: time that like the real sort of market reforms hit
Speaker 1: like like it's it's it's like a year later is
Speaker 1: when the package that's sort of like really brings the
Speaker 1: market back and trying to happens. Is I know, it's
Speaker 1: it's a very weird. Yeah, we we have gotten gotten
Speaker 1: very off topic, but it's it's a very weird and
Speaker 1: interesting sort of like social flip that happens. Yeah, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: and that definitely makes me want to read more about
Speaker 1: like China during this period. Yeah, well, I think it's interesting,
Speaker 1: Like everything you're talking about earlier that is interested, Like
Speaker 1: it's similar to me as I've talked to like people
Speaker 1: from Vietnam and they have a very similar story about
Speaker 1: like like, I mean, there was homophobia before, but they
Speaker 1: have a very similar story to the Cuban story about
Speaker 1: how like there is a sort of importation of like
Speaker 1: Soviet homophobia and how that made everything like when that did.
Speaker 1: This starts out between the eighties and it gets just
Speaker 1: like significantly worse. Yeah, no, it's uh and in Cuba,
Speaker 1: um what's it called? Like the whole idea that this
Speaker 1: is a form of bourgeois degeneracy and the gayness gayness
Speaker 1: is specifically bourgeois is like was really surprising to me
Speaker 1: as I dug into this, Like there's comics I in
Speaker 1: this thing I wrote, I include a couple of them,
Speaker 1: but it's basically like it's put up there with wanting
Speaker 1: to be in so leave it at like free society
Speaker 1: in the West, and so the West is it's it's
Speaker 1: almost like a factionary mean it is really, I mean
Speaker 1: it's like it's it's like a very weird, weird mirror
Speaker 1: of like far right discourse because it's like the degeneracy
Speaker 1: of the West. Meanwhile, here we have masculine values. I mean,
Speaker 1: did you even see that type of rhetoric with we
Speaker 1: were talking about Alexander Dugan recently and he he is.
Speaker 1: I suppose there's a lot of that type of stuff
Speaker 1: as as as well as someone who is you know,
Speaker 1: a fascist writer who's pulled on some of the national
Speaker 1: Bolshevik type stuff before. Um, yeah, you can attack attack
Speaker 1: gayness as it's like a sign of liberalism in the
Speaker 1: West as like this like almost like a bourgeois tendency. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I forget, I forget who it was. There was someone
Speaker 1: on Twitter who was talking about there's like it's it's
Speaker 1: very interesting thing like yeah like in in like in
Speaker 1: the US, like I don't know, like being like for
Speaker 1: a very very long time. It's so kind of now
Speaker 1: you get this ross like like being gay like is
Speaker 1: is you know, like being queer as a sign of
Speaker 1: like you're a communist and you're like like a degenerate communists,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And then you go to like Vietnam and
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, this prace is gay there. They're they're
Speaker 1: they're degenerate Western like kind of revolutionary and it's it's
Speaker 1: it's it's like it's always the same. The actual sort
Speaker 1: of like homophobic thing is the same. It's just like
Speaker 1: the signs are flipped of like what the other is
Speaker 1: and who you can accuse them most sort of having
Speaker 1: the values of I wonder if the unifying factor here
Speaker 1: is and this is something I'm thinking of a lot,
Speaker 1: a lot because of Other's book, which is that I
Speaker 1: mean greatness as a disease, Yeah, an illness and so
Speaker 1: like that. So it allows you to glump onto it
Speaker 1: anything you don't like from your own ideological prism. So
Speaker 1: I also wonder a lot about how nationalism plays into it,
Speaker 1: because that's one of the things that happens in a
Speaker 1: lot of these sort of revolutionary projects is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: like the sort of ideal of the new man is
Speaker 1: sort of like a communist thing, but it's also like
Speaker 1: very specifically something that you get with like with nationalist revolutions,
Speaker 1: where it's like, well, okay, so we like we we
Speaker 1: we have like like part of part of it, like
Speaker 1: the basis of our national identity is like we are
Speaker 1: these like incredibly sort of masculine hard man or whatever.
Speaker 1: And then this like I don't know, it strikes me.
Speaker 1: It strikes me. It's interesting that like the further that
Speaker 1: sort of nationalism becomes entangled in like these revolution ary projects,
Speaker 1: like the more you start to see this kind of stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And and definitely part of this is nationalism because it's
Speaker 1: it's not just homophobia in Cuba in this context of
Speaker 1: the sixties, it's not just homophobia for the sake of homophobia.
Speaker 1: So there is that too, but it's it's also that
Speaker 1: I don't think Fiddel Castro is entirely lying when he
Speaker 1: says that it was part of the need to mobilize
Speaker 1: as much of society as possible for the economy. What's
Speaker 1: happening in Cuba in the nineteen sixties is basically the
Speaker 1: economy is going into a meltdown. Um, the economic policies
Speaker 1: that they're enacting have not been working. They've earned through
Speaker 1: any surplus they had, including good will surpluses and a
Speaker 1: couple of respects. Uh. And I think that like some
Speaker 1: people point to like the new Man and people will
Speaker 1: work for moral incentives not material incentives, as just this
Speaker 1: naive thing. And then I think the most convincing counter
Speaker 1: argument is they didn't have anything else to incentivize people with. Yeah,
Speaker 1: people people make this this this is a this is
Speaker 1: like basically it's an identical like argument that you get
Speaker 1: about the culture Revolution, where like you start to see
Speaker 1: these like incentives are like MAO will like give you
Speaker 1: a mango or something, or like you have these like
Speaker 1: pins that you get and and like it. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just it's it's very it's like the same thing
Speaker 1: of like you have these rewards that are sort of
Speaker 1: like yeah, they're sort of like spiritual almost or sort
Speaker 1: of like spiritual ideological rewards, and then eventually like kind
Speaker 1: of just stops working because it turns out that's not
Speaker 1: actually a very good basis for economic system. Uh. Do
Speaker 1: you guys know the old joke about Shake Givada when
Speaker 1: he was given a sign to become the Minister of
Speaker 1: the Bank. I don't know the joke. I know the
Speaker 1: thing about like he was my my my vague memory
Speaker 1: is like the story that I hear was like he
Speaker 1: signed his name like really sloppy on it because he
Speaker 1: was piste off that like he had to put his
Speaker 1: face on money or something. But I have no idea
Speaker 1: that's that's that's that part's actually true. He did. He
Speaker 1: he hated money so much he refused to sign his
Speaker 1: actual name. He just signed his nickname as like just
Speaker 1: to show his disdain for for for economics. But at
Speaker 1: a meeting the old jokeos. And this is something that
Speaker 1: Chap apparently like to tell as well, even if it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily true that at the meeting where they were
Speaker 1: deciding who's going to become the Minister of what, uh,
Speaker 1: they said, uh, who here is an economist And he
Speaker 1: raises his hand and everyone goes to chat. But you're
Speaker 1: a doctor, You're not an economist, he says, Oh, I
Speaker 1: thought you asked for a communist staff, Like, so yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I mean cha. And and I think I've heard arguments.
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on chat, but I've heard that
Speaker 1: he was retually pretty heavily influenced by China compared to
Speaker 1: the USS are closer to China. Yeah, that actually that
Speaker 1: actually gets I make I think. I think I guess
Speaker 1: that kind of makes sense given his sort of like
Speaker 1: like the way his military strategy seems to have worked,
Speaker 1: which is very very much like a lot closer to
Speaker 1: sort of like nowas strategy than well, okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put Soviet strategy and quotation marks because oh
Speaker 1: my god, is there like I have I have a
Speaker 1: very negative, a very dim view of of sort of
Speaker 1: the military strategy of people who are of like guerrilla
Speaker 1: organizations who are taking their military trying directly from the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. It's a lot of like we're gonna build
Speaker 1: up one giant I mean in a place and one
Speaker 1: day they're going to roll into the capital and it's
Speaker 1: like this, okay state, Yeah, yeah, yeah, that makes that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Um, okay, yeah, raining raining myself in a
Speaker 1: little bit. We have these basically labor camps that gay
Speaker 1: people are getting put into. We have kind of a
Speaker 1: material basis for it, which is and this is one
Speaker 1: of the things that like people actually use as a
Speaker 1: defense of sort of like like, well, we had to
Speaker 1: put these people in these camps because of our material conditions,
Speaker 1: which I think, like I feel like that makes it worse.
Speaker 1: Like I feel like in the fact that there's a
Speaker 1: there's a material basis for your homophobia like makes it
Speaker 1: harder to get rid of and makes it like a
Speaker 1: more entrenched part of the system, which I don't know,
Speaker 1: bizarre defense to me, But yeah, can we talk a
Speaker 1: bit about like how how did this actually end and
Speaker 1: to what extent did it end and did it sort
Speaker 1: of like have this like half life afterwards? Sure? So,
Speaker 1: so these last for a couple of years, This is
Speaker 1: not like a flash in the pan like oops are
Speaker 1: bad kind of like you know, six months in. This
Speaker 1: is like a series of multiple work camps across the
Speaker 1: province of come Away, which is in central Cuba, and
Speaker 1: they last for three years, and there's pushback during this period,
Speaker 1: domestics back, international pushback, like people have been complaining about
Speaker 1: it for exactly what the definitive thing that got them
Speaker 1: the few mock closed specifically close or the UNI that
Speaker 1: is Meli, that is the IU, the Ala Prus young
Speaker 1: military units to aid production. So the Umak themselves, which
Speaker 1: are open from nineteen sixty eight, they do eventually get
Speaker 1: close and sixty eight people are free, you know, like
Speaker 1: you know, the camps are closed and uh people are
Speaker 1: sent home and um there are varying stories. I have
Speaker 1: looked through like trades, trying to trace as many stories
Speaker 1: as I can get um uh and even even people
Speaker 1: who like we're participants have different stories. So like I
Speaker 1: remember Carlos Franki, who was one of a position figure.
Speaker 1: He has one story that centers himself in the closure.
Speaker 1: Other stories say that it was the international pressure. Other
Speaker 1: stories say that it was the Right Writers and Artists Union,
Speaker 1: the official one the state on the NIAC, which filed
Speaker 1: enough complaints and that convinced Fidel to get it closed down. Um,
Speaker 1: that anecdote is actually from Maddie Glass Iglesias, Dad Josse Lexias,
Speaker 1: who wrote about Yeah, his grandfather, his grands his communist grandfather. Um.
Speaker 1: But he who actual who wrote a book about the sixties.
Speaker 1: He's an interesting guy. But anyway, so the camps get
Speaker 1: closed one way or another, and I don't think we're
Speaker 1: gonna ever know the definitive answer until like there's actually
Speaker 1: be classification. But they're closed. But the thing is, um,
Speaker 1: while the camps get closed, we have reports from different people,
Speaker 1: including some of the sources that are used as apologia
Speaker 1: for the MOP saying wait wait wait, social disgrace units
Speaker 1: he existing well into the early nineties seventies, and so
Speaker 1: we do have sporadic reports of things like this happening
Speaker 1: where seminarist or sense to religious people for for being
Speaker 1: atheists or started for not being atheists. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: gay people are being sent other people mighty wands. So
Speaker 1: people who spoke smoke pot, you know, anyone who's seen
Speaker 1: as like not conforming into this ideal new man, you're
Speaker 1: sent there and the labor is supposed to reform you.
Speaker 1: And that's that's a key part of this. It's not
Speaker 1: just labor as punishment's labor as ideological reform. There's even
Speaker 1: one of the people, some of the people who wouldn't camp,
Speaker 1: say that there was a sign that says work will
Speaker 1: make you men Jesus. Oh no, yeah, like work will
Speaker 1: set you free. Yeah, it's uh so, so the camps
Speaker 1: do contain seem to continue and um, it's it definitely
Speaker 1: seems to be the case that, uh, you know, gay
Speaker 1: people do continue to be arrested for being gay, even
Speaker 1: though the intensity of this does die down by the
Speaker 1: night and seventies. There's something pretty bad that also happens
Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies, but it's a slightly different project.
Speaker 1: It's not as centered on force labor. So yeah, and
Speaker 1: I guess so the yeah, the the thing that you
Speaker 1: wrote this piece about that I actually probably mentioned that
Speaker 1: is one of the things we're talking about. Is you
Speaker 1: you wrote a very long piece about um called factually Based,
Speaker 1: which is about sort of the kind of mythology that
Speaker 1: developed in the US about like how these camps were
Speaker 1: closed and the sort of like apology around it. And
Speaker 1: a lot of this is based on Leslie Feinberg, which
Speaker 1: is depressing in a lot. Leslie Feinberg, people who don't know,
Speaker 1: is like one of one of the most important like
Speaker 1: trans authors ever wrote Stone which Blues, which is like
Speaker 1: if you've ever been in like any sort of like
Speaker 1: queerer trand scene, you probably know about or possibly have
Speaker 1: read and she rout mm hmm, not a great account
Speaker 1: of this. Yeah, do you want to talk a bit
Speaker 1: about what what this was and how people have served
Speaker 1: used it in different ways? Sure? So, Like for years
Speaker 1: I heard like arguments from this book and I didn't
Speaker 1: know they were from this. I just saw people sharing
Speaker 1: online online and thinking, where the hell are people getting this?
Speaker 1: This is not this is not true, And eventually I
Speaker 1: find out that it's It dates back to this book
Speaker 1: called Rainbow Solidarity and Defensive Cuba by Leslie Finberg, was
Speaker 1: written mid to late two thousand's. Um. Really, it's not
Speaker 1: a book. It's a compilation of articles which Fineberg wrote
Speaker 1: for as part of the Lavender and Read series for
Speaker 1: This World's Workers World newspaper, which is like this Marci
Speaker 1: I sect which fine Birds have been a part of.
Speaker 1: UM real real Weirdos like they those people like they
Speaker 1: have positions that are like bizarre even by the standards
Speaker 1: of like modern tankies, like they're they're like the these
Speaker 1: are people who are like hard line on defending the
Speaker 1: DIRG in Ethiopia, which is like stuff that's weird enough
Speaker 1: that like most most modern like idea like hardline ideological
Speaker 1: stalinists don't know what this is, don't even know what
Speaker 1: this is or won't defend it because it's like because
Speaker 1: like most Ethiopian mark sister, like this was fucked, like
Speaker 1: it's it's Yeah. Also that this is every thing about
Speaker 1: these guys. So if you know about the PSL, the
Speaker 1: Party of Socialist Liberation, they emerged from a split with
Speaker 1: the WWP, Yeah, because the it was the w w
Speaker 1: P was too moderate or something. Yeah, my my my
Speaker 1: memory of it was it was a split about whether
Speaker 1: whether or not you should take money from North Korea.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a percent of that that that's my memory of
Speaker 1: the last time I about it. So these are who
Speaker 1: these guys are. Yeah, no, no, I mean there's a
Speaker 1: reason that PSL and WWP seemed to have very similar lines.
Speaker 1: Um so so anyway, so I'm I finally get this book.
Speaker 1: I ordered second hand, so not giving anyone royalties. Um,
Speaker 1: and I get the book and it starts like arguing,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to you know, defend the track record
Speaker 1: of the revolution. And really it's like, basically, it seems
Speaker 1: that this book and an article that came out before
Speaker 1: any of Finbers articles, an article by John Hilson in
Speaker 1: the early two thousands are kind of a response to
Speaker 1: how as the kind of like how LGBT rights were
Speaker 1: treated in the mainstream in like the United States was shifting.
Speaker 1: There was a like less homophobia movement towards more recognition
Speaker 1: of rights in the two thousands, and in that context,
Speaker 1: he was Cubist track record on LGBT rights, which is
Speaker 1: pretty pretty add you know, was getting hammered. And so
Speaker 1: they're writing this as a response to that. And Feinberg
Speaker 1: Warrens in the introduction, don't expect a criticism of Cuba
Speaker 1: in this book. It's factually based, but you know, then
Speaker 1: I put it in quotes factually based, but uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's factually based, but it's you know, where this is.
Speaker 1: It's basically meant his counter propaganda to the criticisms and
Speaker 1: the section that everyone quotes. I mean the book is
Speaker 1: the book isn't that long. It thinks like a hundred pages.
Speaker 1: I have it over here. Um, it's like a hundred
Speaker 1: pages long. It's all these different articles. Um. The section
Speaker 1: that most people quote is actually like two or three pages.
Speaker 1: It's this very short section on the map, and Uh
Speaker 1: Feinberg talks about the MOP and sites basically three people
Speaker 1: to talk about it. Basically, one one of those sources
Speaker 1: is Ignacio ramon It, who is this foreign journalist who
Speaker 1: interviews Fidel and gave Fidel the opportunity to give these
Speaker 1: explanations and defenses of his policies, where basically Fidel Uh, Basically,
Speaker 1: Fidel defends it as a part of the necessity of
Speaker 1: mobilizing the entire country in the face of the crisis
Speaker 1: that it felt that was facing in the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: from the United States, so it needed to mobilize everyone.
Speaker 1: It was part of the economic mobilization. And it was
Speaker 1: almost a favor to gay people because they couldn't go
Speaker 1: into the military because there was too much homophobian the military.
Speaker 1: So they almost did them a favor by giving them
Speaker 1: sending them off to do labor that wasn't with the
Speaker 1: military in these nice little you know, economic productive units,
Speaker 1: and then you know, oh there was some use, there
Speaker 1: was some stuff, so we shut them down. Um. And
Speaker 1: this is before Fidel actually admitted that there was persecution
Speaker 1: of LGBT people in Cuba under his watch, which comes
Speaker 1: in like interview. So this is like his version of
Speaker 1: things right before then, and that's what Feinberg sites. Another
Speaker 1: of the sources is Cardinal and Nest Carnal, who I'm
Speaker 1: happy to expand on him. The short version is that
Speaker 1: into gard Danel is going around Cuba in nine and
Speaker 1: nine one for two short trips, and he's just basically
Speaker 1: writing down everything and anything people tell him. Some of
Speaker 1: it's very critical, some of it's very supportive. He's not
Speaker 1: actually claiming anything is factual. He's saying, I am in Cuba.
Speaker 1: This is what people are telling me. Make up your
Speaker 1: own minds. Like that is his stense, but is presented
Speaker 1: as this, uh like it's not critically analyzed at all.
Speaker 1: And it's these two separate stories. One of them is
Speaker 1: that a hundred Communist youth members infiltrated the camps on
Speaker 1: hearing that there were abuses there, and they wrote reports
Speaker 1: saying that there were abuses, so the camps were shut down.
Speaker 1: And then there's the separate story, also source to Cardinal
Speaker 1: by Feinberg, that Fidel personally infiltrates the camps incognito. And
Speaker 1: then there is this like guard who was going to
Speaker 1: like cut the cord on his hammock to wake him
Speaker 1: up and get him force him to work, and Fidel
Speaker 1: revealed him elf and and you know, almost almost like
Speaker 1: why dost thou persecute me? Saul? A kind of deal,
Speaker 1: like very it sounds like a very biblical story, so
Speaker 1: it's it's a good yard, but it's not doesn't sound
Speaker 1: very serious. And also the two stories kind to contradict
Speaker 1: each other. Why does Fadel have to infiltrate if the
Speaker 1: hundred communist youth members have gone, you know, or vice versa,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't. Yeah, it's really weird, like like
Speaker 1: why why would there be both like both of them,
Speaker 1: you can't present both of them as true at the
Speaker 1: same time, like they they're they're they're mutually contradictory accounts
Speaker 1: of how this happens, very very weird, exactly, and and
Speaker 1: and in in Cardinal, they're not even presented back to
Speaker 1: back the hundred Communist youth members is literally a dude
Speaker 1: he saw on the street who told him this. It's
Speaker 1: a paragraph and that's it, Like, we don't have any
Speaker 1: other context. The other story that Fiddel infiltrating is shared
Speaker 1: is slight sounds slightly more credible if you really want
Speaker 1: to believe it, but then if you actually read into it,
Speaker 1: it's more like it doesn't. It also does no water. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like a guy heard from another guy. Like it's
Speaker 1: it's yeah, he's he he's a guard. It is a
Speaker 1: guard narrating this. But he like he talks about what
Speaker 1: he saw up until like half into the paragraph, and
Speaker 1: then the rest is clearly implied to be stopped stuff
Speaker 1: he heard about but wasn't actually present for. And Fineberg
Speaker 1: presents him as a witness of both. So anyway, so
Speaker 1: that's that's Fineberg's whole defense, Like basically, Fidel had no
Speaker 1: idea that we're abuses, even though the very existence of
Speaker 1: the camps themselves were abuses, and then but they were
Speaker 1: shut down and everything's hunky dory, you know. That's that's
Speaker 1: Fineberg's defense. And then of course the third thing is
Speaker 1: that she refers both citations to Hilson, which I can
Speaker 1: get into a second, but just I think part of
Speaker 1: the problem is that Finberg didn't actually read Cardinal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so Hilson. Hilson is another activists. I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: he's LGBT and not like that that front of me
Speaker 1: list clear, but he was another activist. He died very
Speaker 1: early in the two thousands, I think um from from cancer.
Speaker 1: He uh, but he wrote an article that cites card
Speaker 1: donal and cites both sections that Feinberg later sites and
Speaker 1: not more, not less. And I think what's what happened
Speaker 1: was that Fineberg basically goes to this article which basically
Speaker 1: makes more or less makes the kind of arguments that
Speaker 1: Fineberg is already making in her in her own work.
Speaker 1: But m what what when when she sees things that
Speaker 1: seem to exculpat the Cuban government, she basically does copy
Speaker 1: paste and a little parenthesis to give credit to Hilson
Speaker 1: and then moves on right, she doesn't actually read Hilson.
Speaker 1: Hilsen even like treats it a little more cautiously than Fineberg,
Speaker 1: even though not sufficiently cautiously. And I think that that
Speaker 1: explains why and the least this is a generous interpretation.
Speaker 1: Feinberg doesn't actually address the fact that in her your
Speaker 1: own exculpatory source, there's talk of other camps, like at
Speaker 1: the time Cardinal is like I am going to the camps.
Speaker 1: I'm visiting the camps. There are camps here, like you know,
Speaker 1: So it doesn't it doesn't make sense unless maybe Fineberg
Speaker 1: didn't read the book, like just like copied and paste
Speaker 1: and didn't really think about it, yeah, or or just
Speaker 1: like went and found the one session that that was
Speaker 1: useful and then just read that part. Yeah, which yeah,
Speaker 1: not not a great way to do history, as it
Speaker 1: turns out. Yeah, yeah, I will do my one return
Speaker 1: to marks moment in this interview, which is to say,
Speaker 1: ruthless critique of all that exists, things that you generally support,
Speaker 1: because otherwise you wind up with this stuff. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's done the round. This thing has
Speaker 1: been going around around and around on the internet for
Speaker 1: years and years. Yeah, and I guess we should also
Speaker 1: say that, like, yeah, this is this is the thing
Speaker 1: that happens with like any any like every one of
Speaker 1: these like every one of the social country you've been
Speaker 1: talking about, Like you will get people who basically are
Speaker 1: like like, hey, look at this bad thing. We're gonna
Speaker 1: But people who are like, I don't know, you get yeah,
Speaker 1: you get like Cuban right wingers who are like also
Speaker 1: unbelievably homophobic who suddenly like discover a passion for gay
Speaker 1: rights because look at these abuses and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's I don't know, it sucks it, Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I think it genuinely is a part of the reason
Speaker 1: why this version becomes like a memory that like like
Speaker 1: this for these sort of versions of the story, which
Speaker 1: like don't have are not like really credible, like become
Speaker 1: sort of entrenched in the sort of like socialist memory
Speaker 1: of of this period in the US because it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 1: so so on. On the one hand, you have a
Speaker 1: bunch of sort of like like incredible fanatical right wingers
Speaker 1: talking about what was going on, and then you have like, hey,
Speaker 1: here's another story from a socialists, like well, we're gonna
Speaker 1: believe the socialist version. It's like, well, neither of these
Speaker 1: people like not like but both of these groups like
Speaker 1: have an incredibly clear agenda going into what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and so you have to sort of like actually sift
Speaker 1: through the stuff yourself. Otherwise you weird wind up with
Speaker 1: very very weird and distorted histories. Yeah, and and people
Speaker 1: just really want to believe it. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that's that's my conclusion. Like I when I was originally
Speaker 1: researching for this, I was I was pissed, Like I
Speaker 1: was like, this is these are just not true. How
Speaker 1: could someone publish this? You know, it's really angry. And
Speaker 1: I kept trying to write that like a piece or
Speaker 1: based on that, and I keep kept stopping and like
Speaker 1: this is not the right approach, This is not the
Speaker 1: right Like I kept stopping myself, and then I finally like,
Speaker 1: try to, okay, put my shelf self in Fineberg's shoes.
Speaker 1: If I was you know, really loved you know, if
Speaker 1: I was like as enamored as Fineberg was everyone and
Speaker 1: everything involved in the Cuban Revolution, and at the same
Speaker 1: time one a member of a persecuted group, right, you know,
Speaker 1: and I really wanted to swear this circle like and
Speaker 1: I saw something to let me do that. I would
Speaker 1: probably also just glimb onto it and just not really
Speaker 1: try and not think about it too much for the
Speaker 1: same reason, right, you want, you know, our defenses are
Speaker 1: a low one, it's something we want to believe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is there is an enormous amount of stuff that
Speaker 1: just sort of people, I mean just yeah, like everyone
Speaker 1: has a bunch of stuff that they believe because they wanted,
Speaker 1: they want it to be true. Like it's it's not
Speaker 1: like like we're we're we're we're we're being hard on
Speaker 1: the socialist here, but like, I don't know, like this
Speaker 1: is why half of the people who believe Q shit
Speaker 1: believe it, right, Like it's it's it's, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: the thing they want to believe, and I think they
Speaker 1: sort of have to believe for the ideology to function.
Speaker 1: And so it's like it's not like I don't know,
Speaker 1: like it's it's it's. It's not that much different than
Speaker 1: like and Paul Wolfowitz like still thinking the Iraq war
Speaker 1: works or something, right, Like it's it's it's, it's, it's
Speaker 1: it's the thing you have to believe in order to
Speaker 1: not like have to sort of process the complications of
Speaker 1: what you're supporting. Yeah, so I think, yeah, everything I
Speaker 1: want to talk about sort of moving past this is
Speaker 1: about the stuff that's been happening recently and about how
Speaker 1: stuff got better in Cuba, because this is I like,
Speaker 1: this is this is one of the places where like
Speaker 1: things actually did genuinely get a lot better than like
Speaker 1: it was. And I want to talk a bit about
Speaker 1: like how that happened before we get to sort of
Speaker 1: the stuff that's been happening in the last week or so. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm happy to get into happier terror. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it sucks, like, oh god, it's it's definitely dumer stuff
Speaker 1: to always think about the sixties of the um. So
Speaker 1: after the sixties, it did get pretty It was pretty
Speaker 1: bad in the nineteen seventies too. There was a purge
Speaker 1: of education and culture of anyone LGBT or suspective being LGBT,
Speaker 1: because the ideas that they would recruit and influence and
Speaker 1: corrupt the miners. And but yeah, uh so, I can
Speaker 1: probably do an article comparing the Culture and Education Congress
Speaker 1: in seventy one in Cuba with with with policies in
Speaker 1: the United States right now. Um, But then things start
Speaker 1: to get better in the nineteen eighties a little bit
Speaker 1: like the the throttles pulled back. It's not great, but
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's not terrible as terrible as it was,
Speaker 1: And then from the late nineteen eighties into the nineteen
Speaker 1: nineties we really see to see start to see a
Speaker 1: sea change, both in terms of popular culture and in
Speaker 1: terms of the of state policy. And of course they're
Speaker 1: intertwined because the who who who allows films to be
Speaker 1: put on in theaters the state, they owned all the theaters,
Speaker 1: so um in terms of culture. Actually know one of
Speaker 1: the people who had a play played a key role
Speaker 1: in this, which is Seneta Bas And Seneta Bas is
Speaker 1: this writer from a small town in Cuba, small village,
Speaker 1: and he goes to heaven and he's he's a writer
Speaker 1: and artist, and he wrote this short story about this
Speaker 1: platonic relationship between a patriotic gay man and a patriotic
Speaker 1: human heterosexual member of the communist youth who develop a
Speaker 1: respect for each other. And it's like, even though like
Speaker 1: the gay man is alienated from state policies because of
Speaker 1: the persecution of LGBT people, he actually knows a lot
Speaker 1: more about history and culturing Cuba than the heterosexual guy
Speaker 1: who's raw ra revolution but doesn't actually know like all
Speaker 1: these important writers and artists and and things like that
Speaker 1: that are also important for Cuban national identity. That When
Speaker 1: that was first read in the Castable Samericas, which is
Speaker 1: like this huge building for human culture, people wept just openly.
Speaker 1: And then it was made into a movie called So
Speaker 1: Strawberry and Chocolate. I can explain the type people want,
Speaker 1: but basically it basically it's the same story. It's expanded
Speaker 1: a bit because the original was short story, and you
Speaker 1: can actually get it in the United States. I think
Speaker 1: Paramount bought the rights for distribution. Fox maybe bought the rights.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it was came out in and
Speaker 1: it was a big turning point for public public perception, right. Um.
Speaker 1: Actually have a friend of mine was who who knows
Speaker 1: who knows? The offer? He was stopped at his building
Speaker 1: and this the wife of a colonel who lives in
Speaker 1: this building says, my husband wants to see my friends,
Speaker 1: like would you what did I do? It goes up
Speaker 1: to the colonel's house. The colonel says that you want
Speaker 1: coffe or anything? I said. My friends says no. The
Speaker 1: colonel says, explained to me this film that's come out recently,
Speaker 1: because the colonel wasn't gonna see it in theaters. Then
Speaker 1: my friend explains the movie and guy says no, no no,
Speaker 1: no explain everything. So basically my friend does a scene
Speaker 1: by seeing synopsis for memory, and after like an hour
Speaker 1: and change in this guy's house, the Colonel's just sitting
Speaker 1: there not saying anything. He said, If I understood this
Speaker 1: and seeing this earlier, things might have been different, like
Speaker 1: like thank you. It's it's a huge turning point culturally,
Speaker 1: and then politically you also have Maria la castro So.
Speaker 1: Maria la castro is daughter of Rool castro So, niece
Speaker 1: of Fidel, and she from within the government, using her
Speaker 1: position of privilege, really starts to push for better LGBT
Speaker 1: policies for resil GBP people in better know laws and
Speaker 1: runs and she at the head of the Sentesex, which
Speaker 1: is the National Center for Sex Education. She really starts
Speaker 1: to spearhead and improvement, and we start to see the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties and two thousand's not just a pulling back
Speaker 1: of persecution, at least official persecution. You know, you can
Speaker 1: still have informal prosecute level of jobs. But you also
Speaker 1: start to see things like l trans people can have
Speaker 1: gender firming surgery backed by the state, you know, free
Speaker 1: of cost, Like all these sorts of different protections and
Speaker 1: policies like the SENTISEX will if there's like a homophobic
Speaker 1: incident to the school, they can send out somebody to
Speaker 1: give a talk and say, this is why persecuting someone
Speaker 1: for their gender identity or the sexual orientation is wrong.
Speaker 1: But but but you really see a shift in the
Speaker 1: position of the state. And that's not just Mariella. I
Speaker 1: don't want to make it about Mariella, but behind her
Speaker 1: is of course all these other these LGBT people who
Speaker 1: would not be in the position to demand this for themselves.
Speaker 1: But she definitely spearheads this and I think she deserves
Speaker 1: some merit for that. Yeah, it's interesting that they have
Speaker 1: like that they have a level of sort of buying
Speaker 1: from the state, because I think, like that doesn't happen
Speaker 1: in like China or Vietnam, and like you know, I
Speaker 1: mean like Vietnam, like there has actually been stuff there
Speaker 1: and the last like year where there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of real progress, but like they like literally one month
Speaker 1: ago the government was like we're going to declare almost
Speaker 1: axuality no longer like a mental illness, and like that's
Speaker 1: sort of just like a month ago, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then there's only people like cool people have been
Speaker 1: fighting for in Vietnam for like a long time. But
Speaker 1: like and even then, like there's this whole thing there
Speaker 1: where like people like you get you get this because
Speaker 1: you talked to medical people in like you start to doctors,
Speaker 1: you get this thing where like, well, okay, so there's
Speaker 1: like real and the other thing, the thing that is
Speaker 1: outlawed conversion therapy. But if you talk to doctors about
Speaker 1: the doctors are like, well, there are real gay gay
Speaker 1: people and there are fake gay people, and the real
Speaker 1: gay people you can't do conversion therapy on. But but
Speaker 1: this rule there, but these guys are like, this ruling
Speaker 1: only covers the real gay people, doesn't cover the fake
Speaker 1: gay people because the conversion therapy like it's it's a disaster,
Speaker 1: and like I I don't know, like it's and like
Speaker 1: China also has been really bleak. Like I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: you're talking about a lot about sort of like the
Speaker 1: effect the media has on it. I'm gonna read this
Speaker 1: thing from the Chinese General Rules for Television Drama Content
Speaker 1: Production from ples and fifteen, which Okay, I've seen conflicting things,
Speaker 1: but I think this is still in effect. If it's
Speaker 1: not still in effect, it was only reversed in one,
Speaker 1: but I think it's still in effect. And also there
Speaker 1: have been new sort of guidelines have been put out
Speaker 1: from movies that are about like I mean the specifically
Speaker 1: the stuff are like you you can't have gay men
Speaker 1: in movies. You can't have men they were to effeminate
Speaker 1: in movies, Like you can't have men that look like
Speaker 1: they're cross dressing in movies. I'm gonna read this thing
Speaker 1: from the TV code. Um so this is this is
Speaker 1: stuff that he says is explicitly is not to be shown.
Speaker 1: Content which depicts or portrays unnatural sexual relations and actions
Speaker 1: such as incests, homosexuality, perversion, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual violence, etcetera.
Speaker 1: This is Vision Best Version two Rission three. Content which
Speaker 1: portrays and promulgates unhealthy perspectives on marriage and married loves
Speaker 1: such as extra marital love, one night stands, free love, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Sorry try guys not allowed. Yeah no, like it's like
Speaker 1: it's oh god, yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna do a
Speaker 1: tray guys joke every episode for a down never never
Speaker 1: off the recording. The French are surely complaining that the
Speaker 1: ban on cheating on your wife is an imposition on
Speaker 1: their culture. Yeah, definitely, that's actually extremely racist against the French.
Speaker 1: The actually he said it doesn't mention I was gonna
Speaker 1: make up I was gonna make a French film pedophilia joke.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't actually ban it bands incests, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't actually ban like that. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: on I think I on pedophile I think I think
Speaker 1: it's a different section of the code that I didn't
Speaker 1: coffee here. But yeah, and I think part of what
Speaker 1: was going on there was like like there wasn't like
Speaker 1: I mean, I think things have gotten like it the
Speaker 1: law that was being used to arrest like gay people
Speaker 1: in China like was dayballish in the nineties, but like
Speaker 1: and like there was a culture shift, but it didn't
Speaker 1: like the state decided it was going to do the
Speaker 1: same thing the US state which is doing, which is
Speaker 1: like do this sort of backlash to it, and it didn't.
Speaker 1: Like that kind of stuff didn't happen, which is I
Speaker 1: think really bleak. But also like is genuinely is a
Speaker 1: thing that like like yeah, like the good good good
Speaker 1: for good for the Cuban people, good for Cuba, like glad,
Speaker 1: glad you all are doing this because like mador Win. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because because it because you know, like you can you
Speaker 1: can see what happens when like this doesn't happen, which
Speaker 1: is all of this bullshit that exists in a lot
Speaker 1: of the other sort of post Soviet like or post
Speaker 1: communist countries. Yeah, I think that Cuba would have done
Speaker 1: it eventually, but I think that Mariela definitely just sped
Speaker 1: it along. Like there's there's definitely a problem of a
Speaker 1: cult of Mariella, where like abroad where it's like all
Speaker 1: all things be great, be due to Mariella. It's like
Speaker 1: completely cuts out all the people behind her, you know
Speaker 1: who something like please ask ask your uncle. That's for me.
Speaker 1: I gotta get married someday. But you know, but at
Speaker 1: the same time, I think we can't cut around of
Speaker 1: the story either. Yeah, and that gets us to, well,
Speaker 1: I guess, I guess you're starting quitting that tea first.
Speaker 1: But yeah, there's the new family code that's passed. Which
Speaker 1: also I do want to mention this because I don't
Speaker 1: think like people don't even know this when I tell
Speaker 1: them about this, about neither China nor Vietnam is game
Speaker 1: in neither tryinga nor Vietnam is game marriage legal. And
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people who think that the repeal
Speaker 1: that happened in Vietnam legalized gay marriage, and that's not
Speaker 1: what happens. Like the thing that it did is you
Speaker 1: will no longer be arrested for having your own unofficial marriage,
Speaker 1: which is a thing that could happen. But this is this,
Speaker 1: this is this is not this is not the thing
Speaker 1: that is happening in Cuba. Like I see those are
Speaker 1: people a lot where like something good will happen in
Speaker 1: Cuba and people will prorect it onto like China, and
Speaker 1: it's like that's no, like they're not the same place,
Speaker 1: Like don't, don't, don't do this with this stuff. Don't
Speaker 1: project the Cuban medical system onto the Chinese medical system.
Speaker 1: They're not the same. Please stop. Yeah yeah, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: but yeah, going on to stuff that's good and this stuff,
Speaker 1: but on also the sort of like yeah, so can
Speaker 1: we talk a bit about like what talk about like
Speaker 1: the nineteen referendum and the sort of like the stuff
Speaker 1: about sort of how do you like the story of
Speaker 1: how the stuff that's happening now didn't happen in yeah happening. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so so when the in the Raoul Castro who who
Speaker 1: took over after fidel Um. He began using a bunch
Speaker 1: of referendums decide major things, major policy changes, and using
Speaker 1: referendums kind of just till like because like the because
Speaker 1: the Nationalist police basically reberen stamp committee like referendums really
Speaker 1: took to the four as a way to like channelize,
Speaker 1: channel support and you know, show popular acquiescence to major
Speaker 1: changes among the constitution. So as part of the they
Speaker 1: did a draft constitution. They debated it their debase all
Speaker 1: around the country at local levels, in in in in
Speaker 1: neighborhoods and workplaces, and people gave feedback the um marriage
Speaker 1: equality and and and things connected to it, which we
Speaker 1: can get into in a second. These were part of
Speaker 1: for the most part, part of the twenty nineteen Constitution,
Speaker 1: but there was a lot of pushback. Um, Like, obviously,
Speaker 1: if if the state has been repressing LGBT people for decades,
Speaker 1: that part of their coalition just doesn't stop overnight, does
Speaker 1: It doesn't just stop being bigoted overnight because of you know,
Speaker 1: a change in policy. So you know, it wasn't just
Speaker 1: that the religious right, like evangelicals, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of evangelicals in Cuba right now, there's a growing evangelical population,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say, yeah, backed by the joical money.
Speaker 1: Uh no, please pressing the wrong people. And and then
Speaker 1: there's the Catholic right obviously you know, much more you know,
Speaker 1: discreetly but still very you know, against this. Uh. And
Speaker 1: there was enough pushback that the government was worried that
Speaker 1: I don't know if they were worried that the constitution
Speaker 1: the referendum would fail entirely, but it did seem like
Speaker 1: they were worried that it would lower the voting percentage
Speaker 1: in favor of the new constitution enough that it would
Speaker 1: hurt the new constitution's legitimacy or something. So they decided
Speaker 1: to carve off the more controversial parts about the LGBT
Speaker 1: rights and basically carve them off, pushed them into a
Speaker 1: referendum on the family code with all the new laws
Speaker 1: based on the new constitution, all the new laws governing
Speaker 1: family law, and pump that down the road indefinitely. And
Speaker 1: so what's happening now that would just happened is the
Speaker 1: culmination of this red friendom that they punted down the
Speaker 1: road in twenty nine. The original constitution stuition was passed
Speaker 1: with something like approval, uh, and and this was just
Speaker 1: kind of left it on the to do list. And
Speaker 1: then with the current crisis in Cuba, I mean like
Speaker 1: there's a couple of there's a couple of ways to
Speaker 1: read this, but I think one of the most obvious
Speaker 1: is that, uh, the Cuban government needed to win, and
Speaker 1: this was an easy win. They could actually deliver in
Speaker 1: the age of extreme scarcity and rolling blackouts. It's like,
Speaker 1: we can just at least deliver on this promise, and
Speaker 1: they did. So Yeah, I guess, So can we talk
Speaker 1: a bit about like what what what what actually is
Speaker 1: in the new code and what like what what it does? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So it does. It does a bunch of pretty cool things.
Speaker 1: It legalizes same sex marriage, which is great for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, not just because you know, not not
Speaker 1: just because of the principle of it, but also things like, Okay,
Speaker 1: you're separating from your partner, but everything is under your
Speaker 1: partner's name. You're not never need like Mary and what
Speaker 1: you're right, pop up up up us so you like
Speaker 1: for for separation for immigration, if you're trying to immigrate
Speaker 1: and you're not married to your spouse, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're trying to inheritance all these kinds of things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is gonna be. This is like important in concrete
Speaker 1: material ways. It legalizes adoption by same sex couples, which
Speaker 1: is also pretty cool. That was not allowed at all.
Speaker 1: Good it wasn't before. Glad, Glad, glad, glad. You can
Speaker 1: now do that. That that's good. Hopefully we can still
Speaker 1: continue to do that here for like you more years
Speaker 1: at least. Like yeah, Um, it legalizes surrogacy and same
Speaker 1: scop sex couples can can benefit from can use surgacy now,
Speaker 1: although on a not for profit basis, and that's that's specific.
Speaker 1: I am not an expert on whether or not it
Speaker 1: is the best policy to have it as only not
Speaker 1: for profit. Um. I know that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: debate over it, but the law says not for profit
Speaker 1: only for surrogacy. But that's still another option for people.
Speaker 1: In addition to adoption. UH. It expands civil unions to
Speaker 1: be much more inclusive. They're called uh in Spanish, so
Speaker 1: now they are much more inclusive. And also you know,
Speaker 1: you know, you you don't have to get married. You
Speaker 1: can get a civil union if you can we explain
Speaker 1: what that is, because that was a like there there
Speaker 1: was a whole thing in the US, like in the
Speaker 1: in the two thousand's about like oh, like you can
Speaker 1: do civil Like there was a period it was like
Speaker 1: there are a lot of places you can get civil unions,
Speaker 1: but you couldn't get married. So can you explain what
Speaker 1: a civil union is? Because I think that's a thing
Speaker 1: that like a lot of our audience probably isn't gonna
Speaker 1: like remember when that was a thing anyone talked about. Sure,
Speaker 1: I mean, like I'm I'm not a lawyer. Yeah, My
Speaker 1: understanding is it is it is a way to recognize
Speaker 1: your basically partners. You have some rights, and it helps
Speaker 1: with some issues of like I think it also varies
Speaker 1: country to country, but it's basically like a step down
Speaker 1: from the full commitment of marriage, is my understanding. Um, sorry,
Speaker 1: that's less No, Yeah, I know, like that that was
Speaker 1: that was by understanding of it. It was like like
Speaker 1: in the US, it was this whole thing of like, well,
Speaker 1: you can have still union, so you don't need to
Speaker 1: be married. And then people were like no, because he
Speaker 1: doesn't give you doesn't give you this sort of full
Speaker 1: suite of rights and stuff, but it gives you some
Speaker 1: things which I'm glad. I'm glad he was doing, Like no,
Speaker 1: you could do both of these things. And then wasn't
Speaker 1: there something about like like yeah, there there were changes
Speaker 1: to like what like changes to what can be recognized
Speaker 1: as a family That is the part that I've seen
Speaker 1: the most, Like I have read a bunch about this,
Speaker 1: and I'm I still feel like this is something that's
Speaker 1: not it's not entirely clear what this is going to
Speaker 1: look like in practice. So basically, in expect has the
Speaker 1: what the legal definition of what can constitute as a
Speaker 1: family unit uh to be more focused less focused on
Speaker 1: blood ties and more focused on affective ties so love, affection,
Speaker 1: you know, caring for each other. Uh. So that for example,
Speaker 1: let's say, I think like the big hypothetical that was
Speaker 1: held up was like grandparents, so like if the parents
Speaker 1: aren't around, but in practice, these people are the ones
Speaker 1: that raise you, you know that you know, for for
Speaker 1: for legal stuff that has to do with kids in
Speaker 1: family law, like we can consider this a family unit,
Speaker 1: is my understanding. It's still really murky and it's not
Speaker 1: really helping me feel like like the r things I've
Speaker 1: read on this also seem to be kind of like like,
Speaker 1: here's an explanation. I'm like that that doesn't really help
Speaker 1: me understand this at all. It is a little and
Speaker 1: and I've seen people running about this is like human
Speaker 1: government has abolished the family. Ray, I'm like, didn't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And for everything everybody, it seems like it's a they
Speaker 1: abolished the family. It's that they've allowed you to change
Speaker 1: what a family is in the like in the eyes
Speaker 1: of the state, which is not the same thing, right,
Speaker 1: Like it's it's like giving you more wiggle grew. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: is my understanding. But again, it's one of those things
Speaker 1: where I feel like everyone who I've seen running with
Speaker 1: it has run with a completely different, very triumphilist explanation
Speaker 1: that are sometimes mutually contradictory. And I'm like, I'd like
Speaker 1: to see what this actually looks like in practice and
Speaker 1: like seeing the effects better because it's it's an underdiscussed
Speaker 1: dynamic of it because like what most people abroad we're
Speaker 1: looking at was like same sex marriage, so like this
Speaker 1: so that was less discussed, But I mean it seems
Speaker 1: to be positive. The thing that the thing that caused
Speaker 1: more controversy on the island was there was a shift
Speaker 1: to patio stad, which is uh father paternal rights basically
Speaker 1: parental rights right and um, Basically, the idea is to
Speaker 1: switch the child from nearly being a subject of their
Speaker 1: parents will in theory they have more rights and our
Speaker 1: subject on their own, even if they're just a kid
Speaker 1: that's trying, yeah, to like prevent things like corporal punishments
Speaker 1: and things like that you can't be your kids, which
Speaker 1: also seems like a positive change. I would would would
Speaker 1: love more of that in the US to just like
Speaker 1: absolutely clobber the like parental rights people because oh my
Speaker 1: fucking they're they're going to kill us all yeah. And
Speaker 1: I mean the funny thing is like every time that
Speaker 1: there's a leftist movement, the thing is always there coming
Speaker 1: for your kids. And then like oh god, yeah anyway,
Speaker 1: sorry no, yeah, like it's right has one thing and
Speaker 1: it's the same thing every time. Yeah, those are the
Speaker 1: kind of the big things reds. The only thing I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about was like, I okay, so there
Speaker 1: was a thing of okay, so like obviously it passed
Speaker 1: with like sixt seven percent of the vote. I think, um,
Speaker 1: something like that, like basically two theories of the vote um,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk a bit about like, Okay,
Speaker 1: so something I saw Okay, so like, okay, so you
Speaker 1: have the people who voted against it because they're Christian
Speaker 1: and they suck um and the young people who are
Speaker 1: just homophobic non Christian homophobes, non Christian homophobes. But then
Speaker 1: there was also like something that I saw that was
Speaker 1: like like people in opposition groups being like, we're going
Speaker 1: to vote against this as like a vote against the government, which, yeah,
Speaker 1: can we explain what that was about, because that's yeah, sure.
Speaker 1: And I think that you also have of a division
Speaker 1: there between the people who are like, it's really against
Speaker 1: the government, but really it's against the change thought about
Speaker 1: like I think that even there it's a mixed bag
Speaker 1: of both. But um, basically, the idea was that by
Speaker 1: approving this, uh and voting in favor of something cooked
Speaker 1: up by the government, that they were giving credence to
Speaker 1: the government, legitimacy to the government. Uh. Ergo, the only
Speaker 1: moral position was either extension or voting now uh. And
Speaker 1: so I mean, again a lot of it's mixed up
Speaker 1: with They also really as a rule, did not like
Speaker 1: the content of the law. I mean, the part of
Speaker 1: the thing is like it's the the the opposition is
Speaker 1: in this weird space right now where they have like
Speaker 1: the more historical branch, which is you have like a
Speaker 1: historical branch that it's like rapidly far right. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then you have there's a lot of overlap with like
Speaker 1: default Catholic right in there uh and the Catholic of
Speaker 1: far rights in there as I'm sure you understand what
Speaker 1: that means. But but but then you also have a
Speaker 1: growing prominent liberal contingent um who speaks better not just
Speaker 1: that doesn't just put on a better face for international audiences,
Speaker 1: but also puts on a better face for Cuban audiences. Um.
Speaker 1: And because like Cuba is not a far right wing
Speaker 1: society like for example, abortion, Like I spoke to a
Speaker 1: right wing Cuban who left who's like, yeah, I like
Speaker 1: Ben Shapira and a lot of what he says, but
Speaker 1: I don't get his obsession with abortion. That's a woman's right,
Speaker 1: Like that's just so weird to me. It's because like
Speaker 1: Cubans aren't aren't necessarily super religious as well, which is
Speaker 1: a big part of it. Uh and slimant to the
Speaker 1: petis and all that. So the the so so that's
Speaker 1: so they're they're kind of like a but like it's
Speaker 1: like cats and dogs tied into a sack. So there's
Speaker 1: like you have these different opposition figures. And I think
Speaker 1: that the really right wing ones know that they can't
Speaker 1: be as openly homophobic as they used to be, and
Speaker 1: so they need to couch it in a different way.
Speaker 1: I think it's not just that I don't want to
Speaker 1: reduce everyone to that, but I do think that's a
Speaker 1: huge part of that project. And then in addition to that,
Speaker 1: just people who are like anything that the government does
Speaker 1: is bad because they're accelerationists, which is another big part
Speaker 1: of the opposite. Know why is every why is everybody
Speaker 1: an acceleration is? Now? This is the worst I I
Speaker 1: I an acceleration I don't think. I wonder if it's
Speaker 1: material reality is a trick to that to the I
Speaker 1: am going to take a time machine. I am going
Speaker 1: to hunt down nick Land, and I am going to
Speaker 1: stop the g RU from forming, and no one will
Speaker 1: ever know what acceleration is. Is that you know that's
Speaker 1: not true. Without nick Land, someone else would come up
Speaker 1: with with accelerationism. It's a very easy thing to think
Speaker 1: of to to to be fair to Nick Land, at
Speaker 1: at LEAs his version of accelerationism had to do with
Speaker 1: like at least there was everyone. Yeah, like the first
Speaker 1: of accelerationism. We're like, like capitalism is the human machine
Speaker 1: that's also a god that only exists in but that
Speaker 1: it exists continuously in potential and all all of you,
Speaker 1: like the market being irresistible because because because because it's
Speaker 1: like the market itself is the thinking machine that this
Speaker 1: is at least funny. Yeah, the moder stuff is, oh god,
Speaker 1: this is like they I longed for the days where
Speaker 1: there was an argument where people where people would do
Speaker 1: the modern accelerationist thing and like the land Ends were go, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what accelerationism is. It's just that I hate
Speaker 1: this reality. It's the worst. Yeah. So I mean, like,
Speaker 1: I think I think a good chunk of the opposition
Speaker 1: movement can be described as alex accelerationist. It's not just
Speaker 1: it's not just accelerationists, but I do think a lot
Speaker 1: of them are in there. Any improvements to anything is
Speaker 1: helping the government. That's why the support the embargo. That's
Speaker 1: why they don't want an improvement on any laws. They
Speaker 1: want things to be as dysfunctional as possible because they
Speaker 1: think that like the government is incapable of actually getting
Speaker 1: doing better, and to the extent that it becomes better
Speaker 1: and stronger, it's just going to be more repressive ergo.
Speaker 1: The solution is bring the country to a standstill so
Speaker 1: there will be a general strike and overthrow the government.
Speaker 1: That's their plan. I think that seems like a terrible plan.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna gonna throw that out there. That's that,
Speaker 1: Like I get at that at that point, Like why
Speaker 1: do why not just become a terrorist? Like I don't know,
Speaker 1: like because that's because that's more scary. Yeah, that's the
Speaker 1: actual reason. Yeah, It's like it's people. It's people, people
Speaker 1: who were too cowardly to like kill someone with their
Speaker 1: own bombs, so they kill people by trying to get
Speaker 1: sanctions due instead, which is like no, although there have
Speaker 1: there happened, there happen terms there was the realist. He
Speaker 1: blew up a put a frag bomb in a few
Speaker 1: hotel until the Cuban an Italian tourist. Um. Yeah, actually,
Speaker 1: actually my dad was working on the extradition case to
Speaker 1: get an extraditeto vensquel over that he was yeah, he's
Speaker 1: He also committed the first act so a Cuban, a
Speaker 1: CIA trained Cuban exile committed the first act of terrorism
Speaker 1: involving civil aviation in the Western Hemisphere. That's pretty late. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe maybe it was just people were just
Speaker 1: doing it in and maybe it was just a European thing,
Speaker 1: and then the CIA was like, what if we bring
Speaker 1: this here. It's like, no, sure, surely this will work
Speaker 1: better for us that it worked for every other group
Speaker 1: who's hijacked a plane in the nineteen seventies. Oh god,
Speaker 1: this sucks. I hope, I hope those guys have a
Speaker 1: bad time and that. Yeah. Yeah, well at least kicked
Speaker 1: it a couple of years ago. Oh thank god. Okay,
Speaker 1: rest rest in piss official official pot opinion doing. We're
Speaker 1: doing the crabs got these people suck um Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: so yeah, I guess do you have anything else you
Speaker 1: want to talk about? Or I think that's it. Just
Speaker 1: thanks a lot for having me on. It was it
Speaker 1: was great to be on. Thank thanks for coming on. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Queer rights good, not doing them bad. Don't kill people
Speaker 1: with sanctions. Yeah, definitely. The embargo has been an utter failure.
Speaker 1: Everything in human misery. Yeah, like all right, yeah, and
Speaker 1: I guess, um, yeah, but listening, do you do you
Speaker 1: have do you have stuff you want to plug? Oh? Sure,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's a very good and generous point. Um.
Speaker 1: So you can find me on Twitter at at a
Speaker 1: s R tier up Peas and Peter E r Teas
Speaker 1: and Tom I e r r A. I also have
Speaker 1: a podcast which is linked in my bio. I'm doing
Speaker 1: a history of Cuba um as an academic but spreading
Speaker 1: for a poor popular audience. And we're going way when
Speaker 1: we start with the indigenous people, we don't just jump
Speaker 1: over them, and we're I'm currently working on Columbus and
Speaker 1: then uh, let's see. And I also have a sub
Speaker 1: stack called scene embargo s I N and then the
Speaker 1: word embargo, so yeah, yeah that that's without embargo. If
Speaker 1: I'm Spanish, is okay, yes, it means without embargo, but
Speaker 1: it also sounds like sit embargo, which is I feel like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it would be a cool band theme. So yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well we will, we will, we will link to stuff
Speaker 1: and we will link to that in the description. And yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us. This this has been na
Speaker 1: could happen here? Um? Yeah, make bad things happen to
Speaker 1: homophopes and get good things to happen. Yeah, hello, and
Speaker 1: welcome to It could happen here today. It's just me
Speaker 1: because it's early and I live on the West Coast,
Speaker 1: and today we are talking about America's drug problem. And
Speaker 1: I'm joined by David Mitchell from Patients for Affordable Drugs,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about the cost of medicines,
Speaker 1: why it's so astronomically high, why I sometimes go to
Speaker 1: Mexico to buy my instident, and why you probably know
Speaker 1: someone who can't afford the medicines they need to survive
Speaker 1: or maybe thrive. So, David, can you explain a little
Speaker 1: bit about First of you like to introduce yourself and
Speaker 1: explain what Patients for Affordable Drugs does and the role
Speaker 1: that you play there. That would be wonderful. I am
Speaker 1: the founder and president of Patients for Affordable Drugs. Were
Speaker 1: the only national patient organization that focuses exclusively on policies
Speaker 1: to lower drug prices. We're independent, we're bipartisan. We don't
Speaker 1: take money from any organizations that profit from the development
Speaker 1: or distribution of prescription drugs. We do two main things.
Speaker 1: We uh collect patients stories, and we amplify those stories
Speaker 1: to policymakers and elected officials so we can bring home
Speaker 1: the human impact of ridiculously high drug prices on the
Speaker 1: people in the United States. And the second thing is
Speaker 1: that we recruit and train patients to be advocates. UH.
Speaker 1: We teach them about the policies, give them coaching on presentation, UH,
Speaker 1: and UH prepare them to go tell their story and
Speaker 1: deal directly we the people who set policy in this country.
Speaker 1: And so we've had patients testify in state legislatures all
Speaker 1: over the country. We've had patients to testify in Congress
Speaker 1: on many occasions. Just last week, one of our patients,
Speaker 1: who happens to be a Type one diabetic, I introduced
Speaker 1: the President of the United States in the Rose Garden
Speaker 1: in a speech the President made talking about the New
Speaker 1: Inflation Reduction Act and how it's going to help lower
Speaker 1: drug prices and out of pocket costs for people. So
Speaker 1: that that's our work. I do this work because I'm
Speaker 1: a patient. I have an incurable blood cancer. It's called
Speaker 1: multiple my looma. It's incurable. That's not good, but it's
Speaker 1: treatable for some period of time with very expensive drugs.
Speaker 1: Right now, my oncologists have me on a four drug
Speaker 1: combination that carries a list price of more than nine
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year. Christ these drugs are literally keeping
Speaker 1: me alive, and I'm very grateful to have them, but
Speaker 1: they're wildly overpriced and the the drug industry. Drug companies
Speaker 1: exploit UH patients everywhere in the world, but especially here
Speaker 1: in the United States. They use us as a piggy
Speaker 1: bank to hit their targets for executive bonuses, to trigger
Speaker 1: executive bonuses, and they hit profit targets for their shareholders. UH.
Speaker 1: And the unfairness is not acceptable. Anyway, When I got
Speaker 1: diagnosed and suddenly I found myself with a disease UH
Speaker 1: through no fault of my own, they required very expensive drugs,
Speaker 1: I began this journey, and the journey taught me a
Speaker 1: fundamental point, and that is drugs don't work if people
Speaker 1: can't afford them. And so I retired and decided to
Speaker 1: devote myself as a patient UH to trying to change
Speaker 1: a system in this country there really is built to
Speaker 1: benefit the people who profit from it at the expense
Speaker 1: of the people that's supposed to serve. And I worked
Speaker 1: for free as a volunteer and I've been doing it
Speaker 1: for six years. That's great. Yeah, let's say, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: to hear about your own wealth, but I think it's
Speaker 1: a very admirable thing you've done. So, David, can you
Speaker 1: explain because it does Yah. I think people sometimes maybe
Speaker 1: if they've only lived in the US, they might not realize,
Speaker 1: or perhaps they're extremely aware. Why are medicines so? Why
Speaker 1: can't I travel sixteen miles right, go across the border,
Speaker 1: flash my passport at someone, have a bunch of scans
Speaker 1: taken right, go through a bunch of machines, and then
Speaker 1: buy medicines for less than half the price on any
Speaker 1: given day. Why Why is it like that? It's like
Speaker 1: that because we are the only developed nation in the
Speaker 1: world that lets drug companies dictate the prices a brand
Speaker 1: name drugs to the to their citizens. Every other developed
Speaker 1: country in the world negotiates on behalf of their citizens
Speaker 1: directly with the drug companies to get a better deal. Uh,
Speaker 1: And we don't do that. The net result is that
Speaker 1: Americans are paying almost four times what other wealthy nations
Speaker 1: pay for the exact same brand name drugs. And the
Speaker 1: impact is that three out of ten Americans report that
Speaker 1: they are not able to take their medications as directed
Speaker 1: because of the cost. This has a direct impact on health. Uh.
Speaker 1: And you know, I understand that you are the type
Speaker 1: one and you're insulin dependent, and so you know the
Speaker 1: struggles and the high prices of insulin. But we've had
Speaker 1: five people confirmed dead because they tried to ration their
Speaker 1: insulin in the United States of America. This happens because
Speaker 1: we grant the drug companies this incredible market power, and
Speaker 1: we let them dictate the prices to US, prices that
Speaker 1: are completely unjustified. Uh. And patients suffer financially and worse
Speaker 1: because of their health due to these high prices. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's heartbreaking, the stuff like and I've
Speaker 1: known people have died from from lack of access to insulin,
Speaker 1: and it's it's just it's pretty horrific stuff. And can
Speaker 1: you explain, because let's get into that lack of justification,
Speaker 1: and right, there's ways that a drug. The things that
Speaker 1: make up the cost of a drug would be the
Speaker 1: research and development of the drug, the distribution of the drug,
Speaker 1: and the marketing of the drug, and maybe something else
Speaker 1: I'm missing, But can you explain, like, how do we
Speaker 1: arrive at this insane price for insulin which was synthesized
Speaker 1: in a lab more than a hundred years ago. Like,
Speaker 1: what what makes up that price structure and how much
Speaker 1: would it actually cost to produce that insulin if we
Speaker 1: stripped away some of those things. Well, you're asking a
Speaker 1: very intelligent question about what should exist but doesn't, and
Speaker 1: that is a framework to arrive at an appropriate price
Speaker 1: that will provide a reasonable return to the drug maker
Speaker 1: and ensure that drugs are affordable and accessible for the
Speaker 1: people who need them. We don't have a system like that.
Speaker 1: The drug companies charge as much as they think they
Speaker 1: can get away with. Period. This was shown just last
Speaker 1: year when one of the drug companies named Biogen tried
Speaker 1: to bring a drug to market for Alzheimer's and proposed
Speaker 1: to sell it at fifty six thousand dollars, even though
Speaker 1: there was no proof it worked. And after it got
Speaker 1: big pushback and no one wanted to pay for it,
Speaker 1: the government private employers, uh, they cut the price to
Speaker 1: twenty eight thousand dollars. Now was it worth fifty six thousand.
Speaker 1: If it wasn't, then why didn't you just price it
Speaker 1: at twenty eight thousand to begin with why because they
Speaker 1: thought they could get away with fifty six thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year for this draw. Now, where insulin is concerned,
Speaker 1: it's very unfortunate. There is an insulin cartel. Three companies
Speaker 1: control of the global insulin market in the world and
Speaker 1: here in the United States as well. And it's some
Speaker 1: people would say, correctly, you know, you have to call
Speaker 1: it correctly an alagopoly. A small number of producers and
Speaker 1: sellers who are controlling the market. Uh. At what happens
Speaker 1: as a result of that problem. Well, insulin costs roughly
Speaker 1: ten dollars of vile to produce. It sells for more
Speaker 1: than three hundred dollars of aisle. It has gone up
Speaker 1: in price more than six in the last twenty years
Speaker 1: because of this cartel that literally controls the insulin supply
Speaker 1: in the world. I'll give you another example. I take
Speaker 1: a drug. It's called for my cancer. It's called palmer List.
Speaker 1: It's an oral drug that I get under Medicare Part D.
Speaker 1: Palmerlus costs less than one dollar capsule to make. It
Speaker 1: sells for almost one thousand dollars per capsule. J Christ,
Speaker 1: you cannot justify. You cannot tell me that there's justification
Speaker 1: for a thousand percent margin. It's just ridiculous. But because
Speaker 1: we do not use our power, our market power to
Speaker 1: negotiate for a better deal, um, they can get away
Speaker 1: with it. And they do. And there there are many
Speaker 1: examples of this. Now all of that is about to
Speaker 1: change with some new legislation that has been enacted into law.
Speaker 1: It's about to start to change. I should be more precise,
Speaker 1: um uh, And we can talk about that. Yeah, let's
Speaker 1: talk about that. One thing I want to get into first,
Speaker 1: I think is this. I think sometimes we have this impression,
Speaker 1: certainly with new and novel compounds, that there's this massive
Speaker 1: lab and it's entirely funded by the money that's made
Speaker 1: from selling other drugs. And in that lab people are
Speaker 1: just all day cooking up curious to the Boula virus
Speaker 1: or these various very deadly conditions. And so I wanted
Speaker 1: to explain. I wanted you to explain who pays for
Speaker 1: the R and D for the most part, and who
Speaker 1: decides what that R and D focuses on, because I
Speaker 1: think those are both very important topics. Yeah. Well, it
Speaker 1: turns out that every single drug approved by the FDA
Speaker 1: from two thousand ten to two thousand nineteen was everyone
Speaker 1: was based on in some part on science paid for
Speaker 1: by taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health, another organization
Speaker 1: and the government called BARTER, and another organization in the
Speaker 1: government called DARPA darpas who invented the internet, for example,
Speaker 1: and GPS. UM. UH. We pay taxpayers billions of dollars
Speaker 1: every year to finance basic scientific research that lays the
Speaker 1: foundation for all these drugs. And when a drug company
Speaker 1: sees the drug that has promised UH, it will try
Speaker 1: and acquire from the NIH or the other government agencies
Speaker 1: that do this work fund this work UH the intellectual
Speaker 1: property UH, and then they'll finish the job of running
Speaker 1: UM late stage clinical trials and going through the process
Speaker 1: of gaining FDA approval. I'm gonna say a couple of
Speaker 1: things here that are critically important to understand. To try
Speaker 1: and illustrate this. The drug industry TIES tries to take
Speaker 1: credit for the m r n A vxans that were
Speaker 1: developed to fight COVID nineteen. And these are the vaccines
Speaker 1: that are marketed by Visor and its partner in Europe,
Speaker 1: by on Tech, and by Moderna here in the United States. UM.
Speaker 1: It turns out that in the eighties and nineties and
Speaker 1: early two thousand's, drug companies weren't investing in vaccines because
Speaker 1: it didn't produce they didn't produce a big return. So
Speaker 1: the federal government invested through NIH, DARPA ambart to all
Speaker 1: of them. Two developed the technology that we now call
Speaker 1: m r n A so that when the virus hit,
Speaker 1: that technology was ready for MODERNA and Visor to run with.
Speaker 1: But they didn't make the big investment. We did, we
Speaker 1: being taxpayers, to get that technology ready to go. And
Speaker 1: in the case of MODERNA, we paid for everything. And
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating, they had never produced a drug, so
Speaker 1: we stood up manufacturing capacity for them, We paid for
Speaker 1: their late stage clinical trials, and we signed advanced purchase
Speaker 1: agreements to completely de risk the enterprise. But they will
Speaker 1: tell you that they saved us, It's not true. We
Speaker 1: saved ourselves. There's a reason that the president, who cares
Speaker 1: deeply about trying to reduce the death toll from cancer
Speaker 1: has to have this new organization called h which is
Speaker 1: going to be funded with billions of dollars to try
Speaker 1: and do something to accelerate cancer research. Why do why
Speaker 1: do we have to pay for that because the drug
Speaker 1: companies will not pay for the high risk early stage research.
Speaker 1: It goes into getting really breakthrough new drugs to market.
Speaker 1: So who who does this? Who pays for it? By
Speaker 1: and large, taxpayers are underpinning all the basic science. Drug
Speaker 1: companies are taking drugs that show promise, acquiring the intellectual property,
Speaker 1: and then charging whatever they want for the drugs. Um.
Speaker 1: So that's our system in the United States of America.
Speaker 1: It's completely screwed up. Uh. We need to have a
Speaker 1: process more like what you described imposing this question, which is, well,
Speaker 1: shouldn't we look at what the government invested, what the
Speaker 1: company invested? Uh? You know what would be what does
Speaker 1: it cost to manufactured the drug and distribute the drug
Speaker 1: and all of that, and then arrive at a price
Speaker 1: that provides a fair return for investment in risk to
Speaker 1: the drug company, but not any price they want to dictate.
Speaker 1: That's what we have now is they get the drug
Speaker 1: from us and they get to dictate the price. We
Speaker 1: don't have a system like the one you referenced. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's it's much to a detriment, right, And I
Speaker 1: was that it's interesting you talked about how that this
Speaker 1: profit driven model tends to focus on certain conditions and
Speaker 1: not others. And I know that you focus mainly on
Speaker 1: the United States, but perhaps we could get into a
Speaker 1: little bit what that means for neglected diseases on a
Speaker 1: global scale. Right, how looking at only patients who can
Speaker 1: afford to pay these inflated prices means that we're drug
Speaker 1: companies are sort of tacit lee saying, well, we're okay
Speaker 1: with people dying from conditions that people don't get in America.
Speaker 1: Are you comfortable talking about that a little bit? Well,
Speaker 1: we only work in the United States because that is
Speaker 1: a big enough challenge for us. I will say that
Speaker 1: drug companies want to invest only in drugs that produce
Speaker 1: a big return their profit maximizers their corporations, and we
Speaker 1: don't have a way that we balance that out where
Speaker 1: we say yes, but but, but but taxpayers are are
Speaker 1: doing the foundational research that leads to these drugs, and
Speaker 1: and these are in that sense, public goods, and we
Speaker 1: need to figure out how, yeah, you can have a
Speaker 1: fair return, but we also make sure that they're priced
Speaker 1: to maximize affordability and accessibility. And in this plays out
Speaker 1: overseas with neglected tropical diseases, which you reference, which you know,
Speaker 1: drug companies don't want to spend a lot of money
Speaker 1: on because those countries don't have a lot of money
Speaker 1: to pay for them. Because all the companies care about
Speaker 1: is honest to god, you know, they they want us
Speaker 1: to believe that they're all about looking after our well being.
Speaker 1: They are corporations, and corporations by law, have to maximize
Speaker 1: profits for their shareholders shareholders, and that's what they do. Um.
Speaker 1: You know who invests in neglected tropical diseases. The Gates
Speaker 1: Foundation and other foundations that put the money out to
Speaker 1: do that early stage research that changes the pricing equation,
Speaker 1: should should change the pricing equation, um, so that we
Speaker 1: can still develop the drugs that people abroad would benefit
Speaker 1: from tremendously. Uh if if only we made the effort
Speaker 1: and made the investment, which they're not inclined to do.
Speaker 1: You don't answer your question, yes very well, very well.
Speaker 1: I think people are like looking for evidence on this.
Speaker 1: They could look at the speed at which we started
Speaker 1: to develop ebola treatments of vaccines once became a threat
Speaker 1: to US vesse, once he became a threat to people
Speaker 1: in the global periphery. By the way, I will say
Speaker 1: one more thing. Of course, it's not the drug companies
Speaker 1: only hurt people in poorer countries in the world. It
Speaker 1: is that drug companies insist on high prices everywhere. And
Speaker 1: for example, UM, the disease system fibrosis is incurable, and
Speaker 1: UM there are new drugs that help people live longer UH.
Speaker 1: They are marketed by Vertex. Interestingly, the gene that all
Speaker 1: of these UH drugs are built on, the genetic component,
Speaker 1: was identified by the former head of the ni H,
Speaker 1: Francis Collins, when he was doing research paid for by
Speaker 1: the NIH at the University of Michigan. His his discoveries
Speaker 1: were min UH, but still the drug companies wouldn't invest.
Speaker 1: So the Cystic Fibrocess Foundation raised money from its community
Speaker 1: to do more early stage research, and when it showed promise,
Speaker 1: Vertex bought the intellectual property from them UH and UH
Speaker 1: brought these drugs that are built on that genetic discovery
Speaker 1: to market. But in countries that have said we can't
Speaker 1: afford the price you're demanding because we only have so
Speaker 1: much money to pay for our citizens for healthcare. Because
Speaker 1: we provide healthcare to all our citizens, Vertex will let
Speaker 1: people kids because it generally affects kids and younger adults.
Speaker 1: Will let them die if the company, if the countries
Speaker 1: won't agree to the price that they are insisting on,
Speaker 1: literally let them die and say, look, you know, if
Speaker 1: you won't strike a deal that has high and the
Speaker 1: price for us, we're not going to sell the drug
Speaker 1: in your in your country. So it isn't only the
Speaker 1: poor people, uh uh, you know the poorer countries around
Speaker 1: the world. It's patients who are stuck with a drug
Speaker 1: disease that requires a high cost drug and maybe they
Speaker 1: can't get access to it because it's not affordable for
Speaker 1: their country or them. Yeah, it's it's pretty pretty bleak
Speaker 1: stuff in that sense. Let's get onto a little bit then,
Speaker 1: of how we can make this better. And I know
Speaker 1: that there are approaches that are incremental and their approaches
Speaker 1: that are more revolutionary or sort of making these big leaps.
Speaker 1: So let's let's start with talking about how this legislation
Speaker 1: that we've just seen, the Inflation Reduction Act, does that
Speaker 1: make a difference. How much of a difference does it make,
Speaker 1: and how does it make that difference. The Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Act is really historic legislation that is going to save
Speaker 1: millions of people in America millions of dollars over time.
Speaker 1: It does for big things. It does manymore, but for
Speaker 1: big things. One, for the first time ever, Medicare is
Speaker 1: going to be able to use it it's purchasing power
Speaker 1: as the largest purchaser of drugs in this country to
Speaker 1: UH negotiate lower prices for people on Medicare. For the
Speaker 1: first time ever, we are going to curb price gouging
Speaker 1: by forcing companies that raise prices faster than the rate
Speaker 1: of inflation to pay a rebate. U two Medicare. We're
Speaker 1: gonna that will curb their their price increases. H Third,
Speaker 1: we are going to limit the amount of out of
Speaker 1: pocket annually a Medicare patient can pay under the Medicare
Speaker 1: Party Prescription Drug Benefit. Right now, there is annual lot
Speaker 1: of pocket limit I pay for that drug I described
Speaker 1: to you before to costs of almost a thousand dollars
Speaker 1: of capsule, I pay out of pocket more than sixteen
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year. There will be a limit of
Speaker 1: two thousand dollars. No Medicare beneficiary will pay more than
Speaker 1: two thousand dollars out of pocket for Medicare Party drugs.
Speaker 1: And four for the first time. Starting next year, people
Speaker 1: who depend on insulin in Medicare will pay no more
Speaker 1: than thirty five dollars per prescription per month for their
Speaker 1: insulin um. These are all truly significant changes UH and
Speaker 1: begin to shift UH drug policy UH in this country,
Speaker 1: begin to uh break the dictator real pricing ability that
Speaker 1: the drugs drug companies have. And I wanted to take
Speaker 1: a minute to explain why Medicare negotiation in itself is
Speaker 1: such a big breakthrough very quickly, when the Medicare Prescription
Speaker 1: Drug Benefit was enacted into law in two thousand three,
Speaker 1: the drug companies, in the dark of night got stuck
Speaker 1: into that law something called the non interference clause that
Speaker 1: said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could
Speaker 1: not negotiate directly with drug companies period. It got stuck
Speaker 1: in in the dark of night by a man named
Speaker 1: Billie Tausend, who was then share of the Energy and
Speaker 1: Commerce Committee in the US House of Representatives, And within
Speaker 1: months after doing that at the behest of the big
Speaker 1: drug companies, he went to work to run the big
Speaker 1: trade association for the drug companies it's called Pharma, at
Speaker 1: a salary of two million dollars a year. In other words,
Speaker 1: they bought the prohibition on medicare being able to negotiate,
Speaker 1: and they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
Speaker 1: keep that prohibition in place ever since then, just in
Speaker 1: the last two years, in fighting to not let medicare
Speaker 1: negotiate over any drugs ever directly with the drug companies,
Speaker 1: they spent uh north of two hundred million dollars to
Speaker 1: try and stop that legislation from passing. UM. So these
Speaker 1: are all big, significant, important changes, they are not enough.
Speaker 1: Uh if if if we wrote the world, we would
Speaker 1: have written legislation that negotiated over more drugs and the
Speaker 1: pricing for which extended into the private sector and to
Speaker 1: people without insurance. But we had to do that. To
Speaker 1: extend it to the private sector and people without an assurance,
Speaker 1: we needed sixty votes in the Senate because of the
Speaker 1: filibuster rules, and we couldn't get one, not one Republican vote,
Speaker 1: So it had to be passed under a special procedure
Speaker 1: called reconciliation. The Democrats used it. They stood up the
Speaker 1: pharmah and they passed the bill. God bless him. Uh
Speaker 1: We in the course of it had um a vote
Speaker 1: trying to extend the thirty five dollar insulin monthly co
Speaker 1: paid to the private sector. We could only get seven
Speaker 1: Republican votes um and so we couldn't take it all
Speaker 1: the way there. So there's much more work to do.
Speaker 1: But this breakthrough is truly historic. Yeah, it's good. It's
Speaker 1: it's good to see some progress because there hasn't been
Speaker 1: progressed for a very long time. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: difference in between a cost and a cope, because I
Speaker 1: think it's easy for politicians sometimes that you know, tweet
Speaker 1: insulin will cost you x and in fact it only
Speaker 1: costs you x if y and is that are true?
Speaker 1: So can you explain for folks what a copay is
Speaker 1: and why sometimes these claims are made about co patients
Speaker 1: those are not the same as costs. Well, the big
Speaker 1: difference is the word price versus cost. In our system,
Speaker 1: we in order to lower out of pocket costs for people,
Speaker 1: we have to lower price. Why if you we're paying
Speaker 1: a hundred dollars out of pocket for your medicine and
Speaker 1: we zero that out said nothing, But we don't lower
Speaker 1: the price. The overall price that hundred dollars has to
Speaker 1: be paid for it by someone And what happens is
Speaker 1: patients wind up paying higher premiums or higher taxes, or
Speaker 1: getting less money in their paychecks. You know, half of
Speaker 1: more than half of all Americans get their drug coverage
Speaker 1: and healthcare through their employers. So if that hundred dollars
Speaker 1: still has to be paid by somebody, then we wind
Speaker 1: up paying for it, either with higher premiums, higher taxes,
Speaker 1: or getting less money in our paycheck because someone needs
Speaker 1: to absorb that hundred bucks. This is very important for
Speaker 1: people to understand. There's no free lunch unless we lower prices.
Speaker 1: That's why pharma will always say, the big drug companies
Speaker 1: will always say, well, what we need to do is
Speaker 1: we just need to lower everybody's out of pocket, make
Speaker 1: it zero and let them have all the drugs they want,
Speaker 1: and let us continue to charge any price we want.
Speaker 1: But that's not there's there's no free lunch. It would
Speaker 1: still have to be paid and um, so we fight
Speaker 1: very hard at pages for affordable drugs to help patients
Speaker 1: and policymakers understand that we need to do both. We
Speaker 1: need to lower out of pocket costs for people and
Speaker 1: we need to lower the price in order to do
Speaker 1: that co payments. Co payments are what you pay when
Speaker 1: you go to UM the pharmacy counter and they tell
Speaker 1: you that your share of this prescription is five dollars
Speaker 1: or ten dollars or twenty dollars. And lots of times
Speaker 1: employers and the insurance companies they hire to run their
Speaker 1: programs will use co payments to try and steer you
Speaker 1: to a less expensive drug at generic. Right, So if
Speaker 1: you want a brand, you're gonna have to pay fifty bucks,
Speaker 1: but if you'll take the generic, you pay five bucks.
Speaker 1: For example, they're trying to steer YouTube and equally effective drug.
Speaker 1: Generics are by definition the same exact drug, and they
Speaker 1: are trying to steer you to the less expensive but
Speaker 1: equally effective drug. The problem with our country big time
Speaker 1: is that sometimes they are not you for that purpose.
Speaker 1: In my case, I have co payments on all my drugs, right,
Speaker 1: but I don't have a choice. I don't have a
Speaker 1: cheaper chain there. I gotta I gotta take the drugs
Speaker 1: they're telling me to take UM. And so when we
Speaker 1: misuse co payments like that, we are hurting patients. Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's how we also need to change. It points
Speaker 1: to how we also need to change our benefit design
Speaker 1: in this country. If if we can steer a patient
Speaker 1: to a healthier or as healthy least less expensive option.
Speaker 1: That makes sense. But if you're charging me for something
Speaker 1: that I can't do anything about, that makes no sense
Speaker 1: at all. Uh. And so these are changes that we
Speaker 1: at P four a D work on, it will continue
Speaker 1: to work on in our benefit design in this country. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can see that trying to give you a price
Speaker 1: incentive to what not buy you a drug and you
Speaker 1: so or be poor or or be sick because you
Speaker 1: can't afford it, which is not the function of the incentive,
Speaker 1: and it's silly. Can you explain how why does some
Speaker 1: drugs have generic since some don't? So, boy, you're asking
Speaker 1: some really good questions. Um, you're going right to the
Speaker 1: heart of our system. A long time ago, in the eighties,
Speaker 1: eight three or eighty four, a bill was passed called
Speaker 1: the Hatch Waxman Bill, and since then everyone Affer refers
Speaker 1: to a concept called the Hatch Waxman barbain. And the
Speaker 1: bargain is this, if you're a drug company and you
Speaker 1: bring a valuable new drug to market, you get a
Speaker 1: period of exclusivity along with your you have a patent
Speaker 1: already probably but upon approval we give you a period
Speaker 1: of exclusivity where for sure, no matter if your patent
Speaker 1: is old and only has a year left, we give
Speaker 1: you additional years of exclusivity where you have a monopoly
Speaker 1: on that drug. But at the end of that period
Speaker 1: of exclusivity, generics and biosimilars. Biosimilars are the generic name
Speaker 1: or the name for generics. For biologic drugs, they're more
Speaker 1: complicated drugs. But at the end of that period of exclusivity,
Speaker 1: a generic I'm not a generic. Generics and biosimilars come
Speaker 1: to market, and we use the competition from the generics
Speaker 1: and biosimilars to drive down the price. When you have
Speaker 1: one generic that comes to compete, the price goes down
Speaker 1: about fifteen or two generics, the price goes down three generics.
Speaker 1: You know, by the time you get five generics in
Speaker 1: the market, the price is roughly five to of the
Speaker 1: original brand name price. So the hatchwax On Argin was
Speaker 1: you got a good drug, you bring it to market.
Speaker 1: We give you a time where you you can charge
Speaker 1: whatever you want. You have exclusivity in the market, but
Speaker 1: at the end of that we have competition from generics
Speaker 1: and biosimilars to lower price. Why aren't there generics and biosimilars,
Speaker 1: That was your question for all drugs, while some drugs
Speaker 1: are still in their period of exclusivity. But the drug
Speaker 1: companies don't let competition come to market. The brand drug
Speaker 1: companies they fight, They file additional patents. They they sign
Speaker 1: deals with generic companies not to bring a drug to market,
Speaker 1: a competitive to market, and pay them not to um uh.
Speaker 1: They make small changes in the drug and then file
Speaker 1: additional patents. There is something called a patent thicket. Um Humorra,
Speaker 1: the best selling drug in the world, has like a
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two patents, a hundred and thirty two
Speaker 1: which were filed after the drug came to market. What
Speaker 1: are they for, Well, they could be for the packaging,
Speaker 1: the instructions, the color of the capsule. They patent everything,
Speaker 1: and why because Generica buys some other competitor has to
Speaker 1: fight its way through all of them to bring a
Speaker 1: drug to market. So we call them patent thickets. You know,
Speaker 1: if you grew up anywhere near you know a place
Speaker 1: where there were thickets, you know, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: get through a thicket. Um. And so in some cases
Speaker 1: there is no competitor because they're in the period of exclusivity,
Speaker 1: but in far too many cases there are no competitors
Speaker 1: to drive down the price because the drug companies are
Speaker 1: manipulating our system. And they're very good at manipulating our system. Yeah. Yes,
Speaker 1: they are exceptionally good, and that has terrible results. Okay,
Speaker 1: So we've spoken about that, the way that they've manipulated
Speaker 1: this system, the way that maybe that's beginning to change.
Speaker 1: One thing that I'm interested in I've written about it
Speaker 1: a little bit is these ways that are perhaps more revolutionary,
Speaker 1: if not always as like a cast iron safe. And
Speaker 1: one of those is obviously people making their own medicines,
Speaker 1: which is something that will see unfortunately increasingly in this
Speaker 1: country because of bands on access to reproductive healthcare. And
Speaker 1: I wonder how you think that has the potential to
Speaker 1: change this that we've seen, like the epic pencil, we've
Speaker 1: seen these homebrew abortion drugs, things like that. Do you
Speaker 1: think that has the capacity to change access? I remember
Speaker 1: I'm a patient, mm hmm, and um it scares the
Speaker 1: hell out of me. Yeah. The reason is there was
Speaker 1: a time in the United States and in most of
Speaker 1: the world when drug companies were not regulated. Uh, and
Speaker 1: they brought patent medicines. Uh and uh, you know, mix
Speaker 1: it at home, bruise and sold them. And we had
Speaker 1: no way to make sure that those didn't hurt people.
Speaker 1: They killed people in some cases. Uh and then uh.
Speaker 1: In the twentieth century, the government realized and our Congress
Speaker 1: and our elected officials realized, we needed a way to
Speaker 1: regulate this industry, which would you know, sell poison in
Speaker 1: some cases, and they created what is now called the
Speaker 1: Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration is charged
Speaker 1: with making sure drugs are safe and effective. I'm a patient.
Speaker 1: I want the Food and Drug Administration to do its job.
Speaker 1: I want drugs that are safe and effective. I do
Speaker 1: not like drugs that are not subjected to some scrutiny
Speaker 1: um to make sure that they do what those who
Speaker 1: are selling them claim they do. So remember, I'm not
Speaker 1: big on taking chances with my life. Uh. And I
Speaker 1: if the drugs don't work, I'll die. That's that simple.
Speaker 1: I'll die of cancer. Not not to mention, I could
Speaker 1: drive to die from a drug that's no good. Some
Speaker 1: drugs cause harm, you know, even drugs approved by the
Speaker 1: FDA cause harms sometimes. So I am I am. I
Speaker 1: am not a fan of homebrew drugs. I'm a fan
Speaker 1: of a system that protects me and ensures the drugs
Speaker 1: are safe and effective. But that's one man's perspective. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think it's reasonable to say that, like, we
Speaker 1: have a way to make drugs that are safe and effective,
Speaker 1: and it's the lord legislation or a system that's getting
Speaker 1: in between people and the life saving medicines that they need,
Speaker 1: and we should certainly struggle to fix that instead of
Speaker 1: looking for ways around it, even though I understand why,
Speaker 1: especially with things like reproductive healthcare, that doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: it's getting fixed anytime soon. Sadly, No, it's it's terribly sad.
Speaker 1: It's heartbreaking. Yeah, this whole thing is extremely and I
Speaker 1: know you've obviously seen it too, but my previous life,
Speaker 1: I've worked with one of someone who works for you
Speaker 1: now in diabetes nonprofit and seen firsthand the consequences of this,
Speaker 1: and it's really heartbreaking stuff to look at, and I
Speaker 1: wish it just seems so unnecessary in the world where
Speaker 1: like these pharmaceutical companies make we should say, like billions
Speaker 1: of dollars. Right, It's it's not as if these people
Speaker 1: are you driving to work in the second hand toyo
Speaker 1: to Corolla like they they are doing very well for
Speaker 1: themselves of this system, right yep. People will be familiar
Speaker 1: with like farmer Bro, Martin Screlly, the guy. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's just one example of a very problematic industry.
Speaker 1: I think you've done an excellent job of explaining it. David,
Speaker 1: Is there anything else you'd like to get to before
Speaker 1: we finish up here? Just Martin, screw you. You call
Speaker 1: to mind. I won't take you back to MODERNA and
Speaker 1: the m RNA vaccine. The fact that we not only
Speaker 1: developed the m r A technology to taxpayer money, but
Speaker 1: we brought the MODERNA vaccine to two people with taxpayer money,
Speaker 1: and in the course of doing that, we minted three
Speaker 1: new MODERNA billionaires. Um, you're talking about I'm not driving
Speaker 1: to work and uh, you know secondhand Toyota gorillas. Oh
Speaker 1: far from it. Yeah, these are the people whose yachts
Speaker 1: I've seen in the bay. I think that's disgusting. Three
Speaker 1: new millionaires off the back of billionaires billionaires? God? Yeah, God,
Speaker 1: it's gross, isn't it. Yeah. It can't be said enough.
Speaker 1: Not only does the NAH fund their research, but often
Speaker 1: the taxpayers will fund the lab right. If it's at
Speaker 1: a university, you pay for it twice before before you
Speaker 1: try and pay for it again at sex. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a very broken system, David. How can people find p
Speaker 1: F A D. How can people find you? Is our
Speaker 1: website on Twitter? Facebook? Where should they go? Go to
Speaker 1: our website Patients for Affordable Drugs dot org. Just like
Speaker 1: it sounds, you can leave your story if if you
Speaker 1: or someone you love care about has struggled with high
Speaker 1: drug prices, give us your email address. We don't ask
Speaker 1: patients for money, but the stories and email addresses are
Speaker 1: our power. Uh, They're the they're the currency we trade
Speaker 1: on to make sure that the voices of people in
Speaker 1: this country are heard, uh, to counter the propaganda ana
Speaker 1: lies that are put out by the drug companies. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's very important stuff that people can hopefully do.
Speaker 1: Even if they are struggling sort of materially to afford
Speaker 1: their drugs, maybe they have some time. So that's great.
Speaker 1: It's four f O R right, not the number four.
Speaker 1: That's correct. All right, great, Thank you so much, David.
Speaker 1: It's been a pleasure. You've done excellent job of explaining
Speaker 1: a very convoluted and broken system. Thank you, James, your
Speaker 1: your patient man. I try to be sometimes I'm very
Speaker 1: much not that, but yeah, I do appreciate your time
Speaker 1: on this Monday morning. Thank you very much, David, thank you.
Speaker 1: Welcome to it could happen here a podcast about things
Speaker 1: falling apart. I am Robert Evans, and today we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about a specific part of Eurasia where I
Speaker 1: don't know, things are kind of on the edge of
Speaker 1: of of falling apart and maybe becoming something else. As
Speaker 1: I'm sure most people are aware, Russia expanded its invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine earlier this year. UM. It has not gone well,
Speaker 1: and the government has recently announced that they are doing
Speaker 1: a general mobilization and bringing in another three thousand soldiers
Speaker 1: into their armed forces. UH. The significant chunk, if not
Speaker 1: the bulk, of these recruitments are coming from areas away
Speaker 1: from the on the periphery of Russian power, you might say, UM,
Speaker 1: particularly different chunks of the Russian state, UM, where there
Speaker 1: are minority populations who have been UH dissident to the
Speaker 1: to the Federation of Russia in the past. UM. Probably
Speaker 1: the most active of the is a place called Dagistan UM.
Speaker 1: Most Americans probably are not super well versed on this area.
Speaker 1: It is the furthest southern point in the Russian state.
Speaker 1: It borders Azerbaijan. UM, it's pretty close to Turkey and UH.
Speaker 1: This is a region that has a massive Muslim population
Speaker 1: and has been the side a whole lot of resistance
Speaker 1: to the Russian state in the recent past. And today
Speaker 1: we're going to be talking about what that looks like
Speaker 1: now as the government is attempting to draft men from
Speaker 1: this part of the state and as sort of resistance
Speaker 1: has risen up significantly within dagistan UM. I'm going to
Speaker 1: be talking with Karina Avadisian. Karina is a PhD studying
Speaker 1: social movements in particularly in Russia. UM. Karina, welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. Thanks for helping me. UM. So, first off,
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on on Dagistan UM. What do
Speaker 1: you think is important for people to know about the
Speaker 1: relationship between this region and the Russian state. UM, it's
Speaker 1: the biggest republic in the North Caucasus, UM, and it
Speaker 1: has actually independent media still depe despite the really intense
Speaker 1: repression UM and the dozens of disappeared or murdered journalists
Speaker 1: from from the republic. UM kinship ties are strong in Dugistan.
Speaker 1: So the announcement of mobilization and the kind of you know,
Speaker 1: the sort of the mobilization process um, really affects people
Speaker 1: because extended families are closed, So when someone has taken
Speaker 1: away to affects a lot of people. UM. So that
Speaker 1: UM in large part kind of explains the level of mobilization.
Speaker 1: The other thing I want to mention is that the
Speaker 1: North Caucasus region in general, but especially Dugistan and Chechnia
Speaker 1: UM just kind of don't see themselves as part of Russia. UM.
Speaker 1: To be honest, Russians don't really care about what happens
Speaker 1: there either. I mean, you know, it's as if it's
Speaker 1: another country and there's this huge disconnect um. So there
Speaker 1: doesn't really exist this kind of civic Russian identity UM.
Speaker 1: And the concept of Russia as a country is to
Speaker 1: a large extent held together by sheer oppression and propagania. UM. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's kind of kind of why I try to focus
Speaker 1: on like this is a part of the Russian state
Speaker 1: rather than like these areas are Russian, because that's certainly
Speaker 1: not the way it feels on the ground or the
Speaker 1: people feel about themselves. Yeah, exactly, UM. And you can
Speaker 1: kind of see differences in the way police respond to
Speaker 1: these protests in Russian regions versus places like Dagistan Um.
Speaker 1: In Russian regions and by Russian region, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: places where you know, Russia, ethnic Russians are a majority. Um,
Speaker 1: you have people or you have police kind of arresting
Speaker 1: or detaining interresting protesters, whereas in Dakistan Um you know,
Speaker 1: the tactics of the arrest sing people. You know, her
Speaker 1: being kind of carted off is really significant because of
Speaker 1: the history of violence in the republic UM, so abductions, UM,
Speaker 1: disappearances and murder is very common. UM. And this is
Speaker 1: something that I've heard Dakistani protest participants kind of expressed
Speaker 1: fear about, Like you know, people know that that might happen.
Speaker 1: You might get identified among the protesters, and you might
Speaker 1: not get detained interested like you would you know in
Speaker 1: Moscow for example, but you might get you know, identified
Speaker 1: and then kind of targeted later, which is yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously very frightening. UM. One of the things that I
Speaker 1: had read kind of about part some of the origins
Speaker 1: of the conflict in the region right now is that
Speaker 1: it had been common for some time because the the
Speaker 1: economy in Dagistan. Dakistan is in the Caucusus, which is
Speaker 1: a mountainous region in southern Russia, and it's where a
Speaker 1: great deal of the country's fuel comes from. Um. There
Speaker 1: are kind of folks who will say that the government
Speaker 1: of the Federation has like avoided utilizing that infrastructure to
Speaker 1: the most that it can to avoid providing jobs, and
Speaker 1: it's made a lot of young men join the military
Speaker 1: to become contract soldiers. In the past, that was a
Speaker 1: good way to provide for if you had a large family,
Speaker 1: you do a military contract, you're not going to get
Speaker 1: sent outside of the region. It's pretty safe. But then
Speaker 1: of course Putin invades Ukraine and suddenly a lot of
Speaker 1: these people who had been doing this not because they
Speaker 1: wanted to support the Russian Federation because it was a job,
Speaker 1: are suddenly being sent to go fight and die in
Speaker 1: outside of kharkivor wherever. Yeah. The other thing is that's
Speaker 1: why there's so many security personnel kind of internally in
Speaker 1: the republic as well. So the Republic experiences high unemployment. UM.
Speaker 1: That's mentioned poverty, UM. And it's almost my design rights.
Speaker 1: So many people just relying on this state for jobs
Speaker 1: and security UM services. It's one of the main UM
Speaker 1: sources of employment. But that also kind of has that
Speaker 1: double effect of UM, you know, being used as a
Speaker 1: tool for repression. So anytime kind of descent comes up,
Speaker 1: even you know, when a large part of the grievances
Speaker 1: are about poverty and unemployment and just kind of having
Speaker 1: a future, you have UM a kind of excess of
Speaker 1: people who are ready to kind of suppress UM any
Speaker 1: expression of kind of descent that might lead to problems later.
Speaker 1: And it seems like a great deal of discent right
Speaker 1: now is coming from UM, the Muslim pop in, particularly
Speaker 1: like the Muslim religious community within Dagastan. The reason that
Speaker 1: you and I are talking right now is you you
Speaker 1: shared and commented on a post um that someone was
Speaker 1: sharing a piece of protest art um that was referencing
Speaker 1: a recent comment by the Deputy Mufti of Dagastan UM
Speaker 1: and it's a stylized drawing of several mountains on a
Speaker 1: green background that says the invader doesn't become a martyr.
Speaker 1: And if I'm interpreting that correctly, what what that's saying
Speaker 1: is it's it's a statement of protests from within the
Speaker 1: Islamic community of Dagastan saying, if you go to someone
Speaker 1: else's homeland to take part in an invasion and you die,
Speaker 1: you're not being martyred, You're not dying in a way
Speaker 1: that is that is, you know, uh, respected by a
Speaker 1: law essentially. Is that am I? Am I interpreting that correctly? Yeah? Absolutely, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it's saying. I found that remarkable, UM
Speaker 1: for a couple of reasons. UM. The first is that
Speaker 1: descend in the region originally, so you know, after the
Speaker 1: collapse of the Soviet Union and then the First Church
Speaker 1: in War, there was descent, but it was mostly limited
Speaker 1: to ethno nationalist movements who were very narrow in their messaging.
Speaker 1: So their grievances were, you know, just about their one
Speaker 1: ethnic group and you know, whatever repression that they experienced.
Speaker 1: So UM, they kind of missed out on broader support
Speaker 1: and political Islam became a channel for UM kind of
Speaker 1: representing oppositional identity. UM. And because of that cutting across
Speaker 1: the ethnic lines through selfism, which is U kind of
Speaker 1: a stricter interpretation of Islam, which is prone to radicalization. UM,
Speaker 1: that had much broader support and posed a significant threat
Speaker 1: to Moscow, And I want to kind of make a
Speaker 1: parallel here because UM, mosques and religious communities across the
Speaker 1: world are actually really um interesting spaces for social movement mobilization. UM.
Speaker 1: Some of the earliest works on social movement mobilization talked
Speaker 1: about black churches in the US as being you know,
Speaker 1: key to the civil rights movement because you know, these
Speaker 1: spaces that are kind of away from the state, away
Speaker 1: from surveillance. Although in Legistan and lots of parts of
Speaker 1: Russian Muslim spaces are are up totally unfiltrated by the
Speaker 1: state or they're actually you know, state most these or
Speaker 1: the state's eyes and ears are kind of there. But
Speaker 1: still there's these spaces, and I think that's a big,
Speaker 1: kind of, um significant key factor in how this movement
Speaker 1: has been able to mobilize and interested in Because obviously
Speaker 1: Chechnia is another part of Russia that has a large
Speaker 1: Muslim population. There was a horrible war, they're not all
Speaker 1: that long ago. That is really a prelude in a
Speaker 1: lot of waste to the kinds of violence and the
Speaker 1: kinds of oppressive tactics that are being used right now
Speaker 1: by the Russian state. UM, what what sort of separates,
Speaker 1: like why didn't Dagastan kind of go the same way
Speaker 1: as czech Nia, Like how I'm kind of interested in
Speaker 1: in and that because it seems as if the Muftis
Speaker 1: there are much more willing to kind of act in
Speaker 1: resistance to the States. Still, is it just a factor
Speaker 1: of the violence that was unleached on Chechnya earlier? Is
Speaker 1: there more to it? Um? I think in large part
Speaker 1: it's yeah. I mean, it's the legacy of violence and
Speaker 1: war um in Chechnia. But I think it's partly because
Speaker 1: of how this kind of historical view of touching as
Speaker 1: being um, you know, a threat a problem for the
Speaker 1: Russian Empire previously, and then so the Union and then
Speaker 1: you know independent Russia, you know, um, And it's really
Speaker 1: the rule of Ramsanka ditto, which plays a really suppressing
Speaker 1: role in the republic and his security services Chechnia has
Speaker 1: experienced post war. I would argue it's it's calmer and
Speaker 1: in a in a strange way. I mean, I was
Speaker 1: when I was doing my field work in the North Cooxus,
Speaker 1: I visited Czechnia. I was in Cambodno Bolkaria, which is
Speaker 1: you know a couple of republics over Um it didn't
Speaker 1: experience war, but I remember at the time there were
Speaker 1: counter terrorists operations in Carbdna Bulkaria, where the security services
Speaker 1: would kind of lock down whole neighborhoods and kind of
Speaker 1: storm impartment buildings to go after someone who had been
Speaker 1: you know, identified as a problem and just kind of
Speaker 1: you know, neutralize that person. They were rarely detained, they
Speaker 1: would just kind of kill, no questions us. Then going
Speaker 1: to Chechnia from that kind of context, that stuff doesn't happen,
Speaker 1: just because the security apparatus is so strong and so
Speaker 1: intense that that kind of thing doesn't happen. At the
Speaker 1: same time, you feel that tension, that kind of fear. Um.
Speaker 1: So I think that's the main reason why, um, you're
Speaker 1: not seeing these sort of protests in Chechnia. When we
Speaker 1: talk about like what is it reasonable to hope for here?
Speaker 1: I wonder if you have any thoughts on that from
Speaker 1: Dagastan like in terms of resistance to both this kind
Speaker 1: of general conscription order and resistance in general to the
Speaker 1: to the increasing imperial aims of the Russian state. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's revealing those tracks that I mentioned in
Speaker 1: the beginning about identity and then kind of this this
Speaker 1: region not feeling like a part of Russia. And I think, um,
Speaker 1: the other thing is that it it it's unprecedented in
Speaker 1: many ways just in terms of its messaging, and your
Speaker 1: protest movements in general are seemed to kind of when
Speaker 1: you participate in a movement, UM, it's it's really transforming
Speaker 1: on an individual level. You feel like you're part of something.
Speaker 1: You see all these other people on the street, who
Speaker 1: are you agreeing with you in a context that's so
Speaker 1: authoritarian where and you don't you know, have that freedom
Speaker 1: to speak out there's no free media. Um. In general.
Speaker 1: Um it's it's it's transformative. And I think that's probably
Speaker 1: for me, at least as a social movement scholar, the
Speaker 1: most interesting aspects. I mean, we can't predict, We don't
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen. There might be in a
Speaker 1: new wave of repression. UM, but it's it's revealing these
Speaker 1: cracks and um kind of almost providing this proof of
Speaker 1: the the lie of this you know, unified Russian state
Speaker 1: that that is being kept together by a repression in propaganda. UM.
Speaker 1: I think the messaging also reflects a change in identity
Speaker 1: in oppositional identity in the region. Um. Previously, protests in
Speaker 1: the region were directed at the local leadership, so at
Speaker 1: the republican level. Right, so these are usually con who
Speaker 1: are installed by Moscow, not so much to govern, but
Speaker 1: more to manage UM and check and leader Ransankada is
Speaker 1: an extreme caste of this. And it was a practice
Speaker 1: common in Imperial Russia. Right, you install your own guy,
Speaker 1: but he's local, so it fits better with the population,
Speaker 1: even if they're only there to carry out policies that
Speaker 1: are decided and um. So those protest movements were normally
Speaker 1: against the republican authorities, um, their excesses, their corruption, um,
Speaker 1: you know. And again the exception to that is philopism,
Speaker 1: which was targeting both Moscow and the local leadership. But
Speaker 1: here in this new wave of protest movement, the sentiment
Speaker 1: the grievances against Putin and that's totally now. And I
Speaker 1: one of the things that is kind of remarkable is
Speaker 1: you've gotten in the wave of and these are not
Speaker 1: just in Dagistan, but Dagistan had a lot of the
Speaker 1: protest against this general mobilization order. You actually have what
Speaker 1: what looks to me and you're you're certainly certainly no
Speaker 1: more than I do. So tell me if you think
Speaker 1: my analysis, if this is wrong. But looks to me
Speaker 1: like the regime blinking a little bit, because in the
Speaker 1: wake of the protests, you had both Putin and a
Speaker 1: number of different local leaders come out and say we
Speaker 1: because one of the things that was happening as soon
Speaker 1: as the mobilization started, as you saw a lot of
Speaker 1: these people, including like doctors, healthcare workers, other kinds of
Speaker 1: professionals and industries that are generally protected from this sort
Speaker 1: of thing getting pulled in by state forces and effectively
Speaker 1: drafted on the spot along with protesters and um. The
Speaker 1: in the wake of the outcry against that, Putin himself
Speaker 1: and a number of other local leaders have come out
Speaker 1: and been like, this was a mistake. We're releasing a
Speaker 1: number of these people, these these certain certain you know,
Speaker 1: we're not supposed to be drafting people from these certain
Speaker 1: professions and whatnot. And to me that looked like, well,
Speaker 1: maybe that's a little bit of a blink. Um, But
Speaker 1: I don't know if perhaps I'm being overly optimistic there. No,
Speaker 1: I agree, um, And it speaks to the level of
Speaker 1: mobilization that kind of un stended. Um Um. Levels of
Speaker 1: mobilization on the street and also speaks to the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, previously Moscow, I mean they didn't care
Speaker 1: as much when the protests were directed at the local authorities.
Speaker 1: I mean they did, but not like this. This is
Speaker 1: this is threatening UM. And I was listening to an
Speaker 1: interview of a protest organizer from Augustan. He's exiled, like
Speaker 1: he's kind of you know, in touch with the people
Speaker 1: on the ground and he and he was talking about
Speaker 1: how he felt that the reason mobilization orders have been
Speaker 1: UM commissioned kind of to the Republican regional authorities is
Speaker 1: on purpose so that grievances UM aren't directed towards Moscow,
Speaker 1: because it's the regional authorities deciding on who's being mobilized. UM.
Speaker 1: And it's a kind of deflection of blame that he
Speaker 1: thought was by design. And the interviewer asked him a
Speaker 1: couple of other questions. He was saying, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: we're hearing reports about the police being really brutal um.
Speaker 1: And again he was like, no, not really, or that's
Speaker 1: not the point, that's not the question to be asking.
Speaker 1: It's actually deflecting because again, the grievance is not to
Speaker 1: the local police. It's actually towards Moscow, who is you know,
Speaker 1: the origin of this whole problem, and I think that's
Speaker 1: that's a threat. Do you have any kind of advice
Speaker 1: for people if they're looking as kind of things continue
Speaker 1: to develop in Dagistan as there are more protests, which
Speaker 1: I'm sure there will be. Are there actually like organizations
Speaker 1: over there that can be supported by people, um, including
Speaker 1: you mentioned independent media there. UM. I'm just wondering if
Speaker 1: you have any kind of particular advice for folks who
Speaker 1: might either want to learn more about the region what's
Speaker 1: going on, um, or who might want to try and
Speaker 1: help the people who are protesting right now. UM. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: there's um not much for outsiders to do a lot
Speaker 1: of the news, and I think it was kind of
Speaker 1: expecting that the answer. Yeah. Yeah, it's like it's kind
Speaker 1: of a denied context. So where I get the news
Speaker 1: is a couple of telegram channels that are only in Russian. UM,
Speaker 1: so that probably doesn't help your audience if they don't
Speaker 1: speak Russian. There's a couple of Twitter accounts that I
Speaker 1: would recommend people follow, you know, UM, there's UM, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I can mention that or yeah, please, no, absolutely,
Speaker 1: let me quickly find the guide personally. When it comes
Speaker 1: to like where I'm able to get English language news
Speaker 1: about the region, Medusa is generally kind of like one
Speaker 1: of the places where I've gotten some. Medusa is a
Speaker 1: Russian news site that's or news organization that's banned in Russia.
Speaker 1: In fact, if I'm not mistaken, a MEDUSA journalist just
Speaker 1: got arrested in Dagastan by the State Security Services. UM.
Speaker 1: But you can go to Medusa dot io and that's
Speaker 1: one place where I've come across news that's English language. UM.
Speaker 1: It's not the most detailed coverage, but it's kind of
Speaker 1: hard to find that in English about stuff going on
Speaker 1: in Dagistan. It is, it is hard to find it.
Speaker 1: I would echo that sentiment of Medusa being a good
Speaker 1: source for that. UM. There's a researcher on Twitter named
Speaker 1: Harold Chambers. His handle is Chambers Harold eight, the number eight,
Speaker 1: and he is an analyst and he is posting kind
Speaker 1: of more detailed, you know, in the weeds, up to
Speaker 1: you know, up to date, day to day developments from
Speaker 1: from the region. UM. And is there anything like as
Speaker 1: as we I'm kind of closing out here UM that
Speaker 1: you wanted to particularly get into about what's happening over
Speaker 1: there about kind of um, the development of social movements
Speaker 1: in Dagistan right now that you you find particularly fascinating
Speaker 1: that you'd like to kind of talk about to the audience. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think, um, the context of the Russian war on
Speaker 1: terrorism in the North Caucasus praise a huge role here um.
Speaker 1: And I mentioned, you know, the counter terrorists operations that
Speaker 1: that Russia used to use in the region as a
Speaker 1: repression tool um, so they didn't have to be sal
Speaker 1: office or kind of you know, seeing this extremists to
Speaker 1: be targeted and stuff like that, like secular Dakistani's and
Speaker 1: Chechens were absolutely targeted, and and that kind of in
Speaker 1: those um in in those um in that context of
Speaker 1: counter terrorism. And it's really the fact that your dungiesst
Speaker 1: studies are really tired of the repression. People leave the
Speaker 1: republic and move abroad um because they've been labeled a
Speaker 1: terrorist and they don't want to die um. And when
Speaker 1: their families send them money um to support them abroad,
Speaker 1: they get um labeled as terrorists because they're helping you know,
Speaker 1: support a terrorists. So it's it's why It's also why
Speaker 1: the movement is leaderless um, because there's really no intelligencia
Speaker 1: or leaders left in the republic um anywhere. Anyone who
Speaker 1: had any kind of critical standpoint um has either been
Speaker 1: killed or exiled. So we have to see the mobilization
Speaker 1: in Dungista is kind of you know, with that backdrop,
Speaker 1: people are tired of the repression um and and yeah,
Speaker 1: the protests are spontaneous, and the fact that it's horizontal
Speaker 1: is also unprecedented, and it obviously means that it's much
Speaker 1: harder to repress the movement and suppress it because there's
Speaker 1: no individuals to kind of target. That's interesting because that's
Speaker 1: obviously a global trend that we've seen in protest movements,
Speaker 1: not just against the Russian state, that around the world,
Speaker 1: governments have gotten much better at note finding leaders in
Speaker 1: protest movements, compromising them, going after them, targeting them, arresting them. Um.
Speaker 1: It's and I think this has been a part of
Speaker 1: why all over the world you've seen so many more
Speaker 1: horizontal movements leading street protests against different kinds of oppression,
Speaker 1: because it's really the only thing that can't be compromised
Speaker 1: easily by the security forces. Yeah, especially in an authoritarian contexts. Yeah. Well, um, Karina,
Speaker 1: is there anything else you wanted to say before we
Speaker 1: close out? No, No, that's all right. Well why don't
Speaker 1: we talk a little bit about your plugs here, because
Speaker 1: you have a podcast that you're about to be starting, Yeah,
Speaker 1: starting a podcast. It is called obscurest Den Podcasts, where
Speaker 1: we'll talk about the bizarre and fucked up nature of
Speaker 1: the region of Eurasia. Um, but also more importantly how
Speaker 1: it got that way. Yeah, so that's what we're doing.
Speaker 1: I can think a few more topics, more important topics
Speaker 1: for people, particularly people just where I live. To understand,
Speaker 1: so many people have been affected in in You know,
Speaker 1: we're looking at the energy crisis hitting the UK and
Speaker 1: and to a slightly lesser extent, continental Europe. Right now,
Speaker 1: we're looking at rising food prices in the United States,
Speaker 1: all of it tied to this conflict, which people wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been surprised by if they'd been paying attention to
Speaker 1: Eurasian history and politics a little bit more. Um. So
Speaker 1: I I think that's a commendable effort and I'm excited
Speaker 1: to start listening. Um, thank you so much. Yes, can
Speaker 1: I mentioned one last things? And so I'm I'm sitting
Speaker 1: in Armenia and speaking to you from Armenia. So, UM,
Speaker 1: I would just encourage your listeners to find out about
Speaker 1: what's happening. We were recently attacked by I was pretty
Speaker 1: sure on and um we have some for n one
Speaker 1: score kilometers that are currently occupied by OSSIANNY soldiers. So
Speaker 1: I would encourage people to learn about the conflict and
Speaker 1: kind of pay attention to what's happening here. Yeah. Absolutely, UM,
Speaker 1: we continue to be big advocates for folks paying attention
Speaker 1: to that. Um. And uh, yeah, it's it's I don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, I had this brief period of like optimism
Speaker 1: when the White House started making statements and Pelosi visited that,
Speaker 1: like and we'll see maybe that I know there's like
Speaker 1: there's a vote coming up right now in Congress to
Speaker 1: stop selling weapons to these areas, which would be at
Speaker 1: least a start. Um. But I mean, you know, it's
Speaker 1: the what's I think is necessary is for our Menia
Speaker 1: to have access to the kind of weapons that have
Speaker 1: been so successful at stopping for an aggression and other countries.
Speaker 1: Shall we say, Yeah, well all right, Karina, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for your time. That's gonna be our show
Speaker 1: for the day. Have a good one. Everybody keep paying
Speaker 1: attention to stuff he trying to conceive of it, girl Boss, noised, No,
Speaker 1: I'm trying. There's trying to think of something that's about
Speaker 1: like Italian racism, um and how we should all be
Speaker 1: racist against Italians. Um because now it's important. Um oh hi,
Speaker 1: welcome to it could happen here the show where we're
Speaker 1: talking about anti Italian racism um and and also girl
Speaker 1: Bosses finally to two great tastes that go great together,
Speaker 1: like mixing peanut butter and piss. That's right, the piss
Speaker 1: being Italians. Girl Boss. I usually don't say things that
Speaker 1: are that obvious, but yes, uh with me today is
Speaker 1: Chris James and Robert I'm Garrison, and we're talking about
Speaker 1: girl boss fascism today. Um and uh's are we gonna
Speaker 1: say Georgia? Is that how we're going to do it?
Speaker 1: Is that how we're gonna say her name? Georgia? But
Speaker 1: I don't know George Georgia Milani. Georgia Milani, Georgia Milani
Speaker 1: at Le's new prime Minister, Gia Milan. That's what I
Speaker 1: was waiting for. You put some Italian on it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we spice up that meat a ball. So since since
Speaker 1: she's been the head of the Brothers of Italy Party,
Speaker 1: which is funny because what I think of the Brothers
Speaker 1: of Italy, I just think of Mario and Luigi. Obviously
Speaker 1: that's there, That's what most people think. So but Marco
Speaker 1: and Luigi also fascists, so well they're monarchists. Yeah, there
Speaker 1: mona gusts. They specifically served princess. So so Bowser is
Speaker 1: Bowser is your standard issue left wing polit bureau chief
Speaker 1: type leader. Whereas what Mario and Luigi are doing, like
Speaker 1: Mussolini is installing a royal in power, is taking its
Speaker 1: Essentially every Mario game is recreating the March on Rome.
Speaker 1: I have like ten pages to get through stool come
Speaker 1: into it. So it's fun importants for the head of
Speaker 1: the Brothers of Italy Party, a party with directlydiage from
Speaker 1: the fascist Italian Social Movement, and Melani herself has been
Speaker 1: on camera praising figures like Mussolini. Uh and until very
Speaker 1: recently the Brothers of Italy Party. Besides being a very
Speaker 1: pro plumbing we're we're pretty on the we're pretty on
Speaker 1: the fridges of Italian volunteers. Just four years ago, the
Speaker 1: party one only four pres scent of the votes in
Speaker 1: the last election, and now it's become Italy's largest political party,
Speaker 1: claiming the greatest percentage of the vote in the last
Speaker 1: month's election. So today we're gonna talk about who Millennia is,
Speaker 1: what what she believes, what she kind of what what
Speaker 1: her rhetoric is, and then also the types of how
Speaker 1: the types of ways that media has been framing her
Speaker 1: relation to fascism, because there's definitely been this perception that
Speaker 1: like liberal feminists and mainstream media have been kind of
Speaker 1: soft on Melanie because she's the first woman prime Minister
Speaker 1: of Italy UM and they have they've kind of framed
Speaker 1: her ascension to power and like a girl boss go
Speaker 1: get it sort of way, and have been downplaying her
Speaker 1: more fascist views. So we're gonna talk about kind of
Speaker 1: where this perception comes from, the few ways where it's
Speaker 1: kind of correct, and some of the ways where it's
Speaker 1: I think a little off base. To start off with this,
Speaker 1: one of the kind of one of the biggest things
Speaker 1: that UH pushed this perception into the forefront was a
Speaker 1: tweet from Political Europe accompanying an article now that this
Speaker 1: this tweet. Sorry, thank you, thank you. And because I
Speaker 1: hate basing our research off of things that are just
Speaker 1: on Twitter, this tweet has been referenced a lot on
Speaker 1: like television, UM, on like News, and like News TV
Speaker 1: has been using this tweet a lot as well. This
Speaker 1: is this is kind of shaped the way that discussions
Speaker 1: happening on a national stage even off Twitter. Um. But
Speaker 1: the tweet. The tweet reads in a fifteen year old
Speaker 1: school girl went to join her local branch of the
Speaker 1: far right Youth Front in Rome. The all male group
Speaker 1: of radicals met her with amusement. Thirty years later, Georgia
Speaker 1: Milani is now on course to become Italy's first female
Speaker 1: prime minister. So the way that frameorworks is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: uh this this little girl wanted to join her Nazi
Speaker 1: club and it was and now she's finally private minister,
Speaker 1: the first one. And so yes, obviously this is very
Speaker 1: cringe e um, not not great framing a lot of
Speaker 1: good girl Hitler jokes. Even presidents listen, I'm no really,
Speaker 1: I'm happy. Wow a girl president. How progressive and so
Speaker 1: takes venture brothers. Uh, no uncritical support, it's just just
Speaker 1: support to venture brothers. Um, so takes like like that,
Speaker 1: like what like what we just heard a dean of
Speaker 1: Ventures say kind of kind of spawned a big slew
Speaker 1: of of comments. You know, I'm just gonna read, read,
Speaker 1: read some of the stuff that the people have been
Speaker 1: saying in response to stuff like that Political Europe a
Speaker 1: piece quote begging liberals to stop praising girl Bossolini for
Speaker 1: being brave enough to shatter the glass ceiling in the
Speaker 1: neo fascist parties she's joined, and like why is media
Speaker 1: treating this as a freaking girl boss story? The girl
Speaker 1: bossification of Georgia Miladi has been interesting to watch. Liberals
Speaker 1: will literally stand anybody. So there's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of takes like that have been have been have
Speaker 1: been going around. There's there's been extremely viral viral tweets
Speaker 1: getting hundreds of thousands of of likes, thousands of thousands
Speaker 1: three tweets and shares, stuff getting referenced on national TV
Speaker 1: all kind of about this, you know, people complaining the
Speaker 1: takes from Political Europe and and other other kind of
Speaker 1: various soft headlines emphasizing the girl boss nature being like
Speaker 1: the sweet little girl defies the odds and grows up
Speaker 1: to be the first female Mussolini. So like, some of
Speaker 1: these jokes are pretty funny. I think I think they're
Speaker 1: they're funny. Um, they're fine. There is oh, probably the
Speaker 1: worst one of these takes that I found that still
Speaker 1: got hundreds of retweets and thousands of likes was quote
Speaker 1: the American right and the American Left. The aesthetics are different,
Speaker 1: but the effect is the same. Support for the rising
Speaker 1: tide of fascism. Communists are the only people now as
Speaker 1: in the past who truly opposed fascion far for fox sake.
Speaker 1: True for those of you following along time, No, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a terrible Megan McCain tweet, which is very
Speaker 1: funny because people definitely wish we'll talk about the Megan
Speaker 1: McCain can't wait I have, Yes, well, we'll talk about
Speaker 1: our good friend Megan McCain. But yeah, so you know
Speaker 1: Italy's Italy elected their first female Mussolini. Um in a
Speaker 1: remarkable victory for both girl power and diversity in politics
Speaker 1: and people. People. Uh, people had some good japes. So
Speaker 1: the other the other kind of big thing that caused
Speaker 1: this perception that that like that like the liberals will
Speaker 1: literally stand anybody. The other big thing I kind of
Speaker 1: caused that was, uh, some viral quotes from Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: uh talking talking about the the role of of women
Speaker 1: in politics and referencing Milani. So some remarks from Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton published in Italy last September. I think it was that.
Speaker 1: I think it was that, like the Venice of Film Festival. Actually, um, so,
Speaker 1: some some quotes from an interview that she gave at
Speaker 1: the Venice Film Festival went viral. Um mostly because tweets
Speaker 1: included to two small clips of of these quotes when
Speaker 1: she was talking about both women in politics and uh, Georgie, George, Gia,
Speaker 1: Georgia doing great, buddy. So multiple tweets circulated, mostly with
Speaker 1: two short quotes from Clinton getting the majority of attention, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: the election of the first woman prime minister in a
Speaker 1: country always represents a break with the past and is
Speaker 1: certainly a good thing unquote. And a second quote being
Speaker 1: every time a woman is elected to head of state
Speaker 1: or government, that is a step forward unquote. Um. Obviously,
Speaker 1: those takes in an of themselves not very good. I
Speaker 1: don't think there's a good opinions. UM. Shocking, shocking that
Speaker 1: we are going to criticize the statement from Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: This is this is rare for us. Um, it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's I'm I'm surprised as well. But um, these
Speaker 1: kind of are slightly cherry picked from a larger section
Speaker 1: of this interview discussing women in government and how the
Speaker 1: far right is starting to use tokenized women to uphold
Speaker 1: patriarchy and conservatism. So the first quote is taken from
Speaker 1: this from a translation of an interview that that that
Speaker 1: Clinton did at the Venice Film Festival in September, prior
Speaker 1: to Melanni's apparent victory in the Italian elections on September.
Speaker 1: So she do it in Italian Italian, you know, but
Speaker 1: it was only published in Italian, so we're translating from
Speaker 1: Italian back into English. Double translation. But the so in
Speaker 1: in a section of this interview talking about the increase
Speaker 1: of women in governmental leadership Roles. A translation from her
Speaker 1: remarks in the larger section of this interview reads, quote,
Speaker 1: the election of the first woman prime minister in a
Speaker 1: country always represents a break with the past and is
Speaker 1: certainly a good thing. But then, as with any leader,
Speaker 1: woman or man, she must be judged by what she does.
Speaker 1: I never agreed with Margaret Thatcher, but I admired her determination. Clearly,
Speaker 1: then the ideas are voted for. I admired her determinating
Speaker 1: stamp on the neck of the sucking class. Funck Off
Speaker 1: also doesn't Does she really oppose Margaret Thatcher's policies? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know if I believe that
Speaker 1: one that lady is dead in the world is better
Speaker 1: for it. Uh you Margaret Thatcher had girl power? Yes,
Speaker 1: of course. Do you think she effectively uti let girl
Speaker 1: power by funneling money to illegal paramilitary death squads in
Speaker 1: Northern Ireland? I don't know about that. There's this thing
Speaker 1: that you get with like people talking about all of
Speaker 1: these schools where and it's specifically like a centrist thing
Speaker 1: where it's like, well, certain things are just admirable traits,
Speaker 1: no matter about who has them, and you can admire
Speaker 1: that trait. And it's like, no, it's it's not like.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of men in the s s who,
Speaker 1: you know, we're willing to do things that you would
Speaker 1: call brave, but it doesn't mean you have to consider
Speaker 1: them admirable. I think you don't have to have respect
Speaker 1: for the you don't have to hand it to the Nazis.
Speaker 1: Exactly like just suck certain people. Yeah, yeah, the contribution
Speaker 1: to the world is bad. You can stop stop that,
Speaker 1: argre Thatcher being a good example. I have kind of
Speaker 1: the same thoughts on the inclusion of toadet inside the
Speaker 1: new Mario Kart games. It's just really it's it's just
Speaker 1: you're signifying it, but it's not actually a step forward
Speaker 1: for the toad race. It's um so. In the next
Speaker 1: section of the interview, Clinton also Harrison's Garrison's come out
Speaker 1: against work Mario cut the next section, Clinton also acknowledges
Speaker 1: conservative women politicians role in upholding patriarchal government, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: women on the right are protected by patriarchy because they
Speaker 1: are often the first to support the fundamental pillars of
Speaker 1: male power and privilege. Today in America, the right wing
Speaker 1: leaders are very much against abortion. Um So, she she
Speaker 1: did like it was part of this section talking about
Speaker 1: how women who are on the right and are running
Speaker 1: is concerned of politicians actually support all of the all
Speaker 1: the things that keep patriarchy alive and blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. It's well, it's it's it's true centrism, right,
Speaker 1: It's half of a good taken half of a terrible
Speaker 1: exactly exact exactly so so yeah, so our snippets of
Speaker 1: her comments embarrassing rewomen being a break from the past,
Speaker 1: always being a good thing. Yes, most certainly. M Are
Speaker 1: they taken out of context enough to change the scope
Speaker 1: of what's being said? I suppose that's the subjective. Um,
Speaker 1: But I just thought that's interesting that there was very
Speaker 1: select few quotes that were getting a whole bunch of traction,
Speaker 1: and her larger statements are actually slightly more interesting article
Speaker 1: don't don't do the Alex Jones ship of getting mad
Speaker 1: at a headline? Yeah six seconds, Like, come on, people,
Speaker 1: you have to be better than this. And I think, still,
Speaker 1: you know, I see the same thing whenever I'm playing
Speaker 1: Mario Sunshine and there's the graffiti. Um, you can you
Speaker 1: can get mad at just saying it's the graffiti all
Speaker 1: over Definitely, no pasa, you can get mad about that.
Speaker 1: But once you actually start learning how Bowser Jr. Was
Speaker 1: treated as a kid, it's it's there's actually more. There's
Speaker 1: more that you actually can understand about what's going on
Speaker 1: and what leads to that behavior from Bowser Jr. Very identifiable.
Speaker 1: Everybody understands those references. Garrison, good work. Yeah. I just
Speaker 1: want to say that there is only one square in
Speaker 1: Italy that matters, and that is Pie Saliretto and you
Speaker 1: can you can google it. I just I love the
Speaker 1: juxtaposition of Garrison struggling over every single word that's in
Speaker 1: the in the neighborhood of Italy, and then James just
Speaker 1: perfectly saying, some fucking Italian ship. My Italian is bad,
Speaker 1: My Italian comes exclusively. Your Italian is much better than
Speaker 1: anyone else. Here's maybe I swear, I swear other managed
Speaker 1: bandix is. I know a couple of curse words from
Speaker 1: watching my uncle's playpool when I was a kid. But
Speaker 1: that's about all I've got. I rely on that hand gesture,
Speaker 1: which works very well, and hand gestures are eight percent
Speaker 1: of Italian. Yeah, yes, it's true. Okay, So now, having
Speaker 1: now exhausted every conceivable Italian joke, we could proceed with
Speaker 1: the scrip. Oh I don't we keep receiving We can
Speaker 1: actually proceed with an ad break. Do you do you
Speaker 1: know what else is in support of anti Italian racism?
Speaker 1: Who won't kill miss Leny hang him upside down in
Speaker 1: the square? I mean probably the current Prime Minister of Italy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true. Also probably these advertisers, okay, and we are back.
Speaker 1: So there was there has been this kind of perception
Speaker 1: that the media kind of by and large dropped the
Speaker 1: ball on this one, and this sentiments was pretty widespread
Speaker 1: among leftists that the kind of there was a lot
Speaker 1: of emphasis on the the breaking the fascist glass of
Speaker 1: ceiling and less on the fascist part. There was even
Speaker 1: people like the MSNBC hosts Meddi Hassan who ran a
Speaker 1: whole segment on his show about kind of mainstream liberal media,
Speaker 1: let's downplaying the fascistic elements of milani uh in headlines
Speaker 1: in favor of the girl power angle. What's been so
Speaker 1: depressing it is to see so much of the quote
Speaker 1: unquote liberal media, the mainstream media, the m s M
Speaker 1: giving a pass to Maloney or playing down her and
Speaker 1: her party's fascist roots, focusing more on the fact that
Speaker 1: she's female and less on the fact that she's you know, fascistic.
Speaker 1: That has been deeply, deeply depressing to see. There was
Speaker 1: the Washington Post headline, Georgia Maloney could become Italy's first
Speaker 1: female prime minister. Here's what to know. Now here's what
Speaker 1: you wouldn't know from that headline. You wouldn't know that
Speaker 1: she has ties to fascism. But hey, she's female. There
Speaker 1: was the headline in the Financial Times. We can pull
Speaker 1: that up as well. Likely victory for Italian right portends risks,
Speaker 1: but no lurch into extremism. Don't worry, no hurts to extremism,
Speaker 1: even though they just elected card carrying extremists. But still
Speaker 1: hers is a heartwarming tale, isn't it. I kid you not.
Speaker 1: This was the tweet from Police to CO Europe. That's
Speaker 1: pull up the tweet from Politico Europe. In July, fifteen
Speaker 1: year old school girl rang the doorbell at a local
Speaker 1: branch of the Youth Front, a far right movement in Rome,
Speaker 1: and asked to be let in this weekend, that same
Speaker 1: school girl could become Italy's next prime minister. Wow, forget
Speaker 1: the fascism, forget the fascism, focus on the inspiration there.
Speaker 1: Then there was this op ed in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: Georgia Maloney is extreme, but she's no tyrant. Well that's
Speaker 1: all right, then, at least she's not a tyrant. There
Speaker 1: was this OpEd in the Atlantic which argued that the
Speaker 1: most immediate concern about Italy's new government. Is not any
Speaker 1: threat to the country's democratic institution, still less a return
Speaker 1: to fascism. Did you notice a trend? Yet it's not
Speaker 1: as bad as you think. This isn't really fascism. So
Speaker 1: we'll we'll talk a bit more about media coverage of
Speaker 1: Milani's election in a bit and how I think some
Speaker 1: people are kind of desperate to see the stupid Democrat
Speaker 1: Libs shill for fascism trope, especially with the whole girl
Speaker 1: boss thing that they actually kind of miss how the
Speaker 1: framing of Milanni's fascist ties has been perceived on a
Speaker 1: broad scale. But first I want to get into who
Speaker 1: she actually is, what her views are, and what her
Speaker 1: election means. So it least a home. Italy is home
Speaker 1: to sixty million people, well with Robin, and it's continental
Speaker 1: Europe's third largest economy. When it comes to the actual election,
Speaker 1: the right wing coalition that Melani led one around of
Speaker 1: the vote, with Melani's Brothers of Italy Party getting around
Speaker 1: for the Senate race. So in all around three out
Speaker 1: of four voters did not vote for Melani and one
Speaker 1: in three didn't even vote at all, No surprise there,
Speaker 1: But overall that means like only one in six Italian
Speaker 1: adults voted for the Brothers of Italy party and that
Speaker 1: that does, that does make them the biggest party in
Speaker 1: the new parliament, but it's long term legitimacy is still
Speaker 1: kind of in question because she was leading a larger
Speaker 1: right wing block but the but the actual party that
Speaker 1: she's in and leads got the boat, so it's it's right,
Speaker 1: it's I think that's an important perspective on like how
Speaker 1: long she'll actually stay in power. Italian politics are kind
Speaker 1: of known for their kind of residing government not lasting
Speaker 1: very long. There's there's usually a pretty high like turnover rate,
Speaker 1: so we'll see. Um, yeah, they it's an interesting composition
Speaker 1: right of like like moderate moderate ish right wing people
Speaker 1: and then like some more hardcore like no that it's
Speaker 1: to people who used to be the League of the North,
Speaker 1: I think of the second largest party, so it's not
Speaker 1: like a homogeneous block that she's in. Job would be
Speaker 1: kind of interesting to see how they hold together. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think Melani can be an example of what
Speaker 1: political scientists called gender washing, when when female politicians adopt
Speaker 1: a non threatening image to blunt the force of their extremism.
Speaker 1: I think you can see this as well with Daisy
Speaker 1: inside Mario Kart for the for the Wei. Extremely brutal
Speaker 1: character play style, very brawley, but you know she acts
Speaker 1: very nice and that. Yeah, she's just like just powers
Speaker 1: through other other carts on the track. Um and it's it's.
Speaker 1: It leads to this slightly warped perception of what Daisy
Speaker 1: actually does. Um So and Melanie's signature look involves flowing
Speaker 1: outfits and pastel shades, kind of like Princess Peach Um
Speaker 1: and two uninformed Foreigners. Her a sthetic could look like
Speaker 1: female empowerment. She poses as like a defender of women,
Speaker 1: even though her party has rolled back women's rights, just
Speaker 1: like in uh the Two. As in six Princess Peach Game,
Speaker 1: she was a did brutal suppression of protests around the
Speaker 1: Mushroom Kingdom. So David Broader, author of Mussolini's Grandchildren, Fascism
Speaker 1: and Contemporary Italy, wrote in Political Europe Get funny. It's
Speaker 1: very different take from Political Europe and this one uh quote.
Speaker 1: Milani owes much more to the moderate forces in what
Speaker 1: Italians call the center right Alliance. They've allowed her the
Speaker 1: opportunity to present herself as part of the main stream,
Speaker 1: not just because she's been softening her policies, at least
Speaker 1: in presentation, but also because the center right politicians jumping
Speaker 1: on her bandwag and has given her of an ear
Speaker 1: of respectability and credibility. Um. You can see this in
Speaker 1: Super Passionate Most Brawl, when Warrio shows up a biker outfit,
Speaker 1: not wearing the regular Italian uniform and they just let
Speaker 1: him play like Mario Luigi are wearing their proper outfit
Speaker 1: and Warrior just like showed up in like like a
Speaker 1: leather jacket and like ripped shorts. That's not okay, but
Speaker 1: it gave him the veneer of respectability because others allowed
Speaker 1: it to take place. Kind of the kind of the
Speaker 1: same thing here with Milani. At the same time, attempts
Speaker 1: by the main like center left rivals to make the
Speaker 1: election about this kind of ghost of fascism uh spreading
Speaker 1: again through Milani, have proved unsuccessful. Voters by enlarged and
Speaker 1: did not buy the narrative kind of that that the
Speaker 1: left was trying to push that Melani was this reincarnation
Speaker 1: of fascism. They just it just that that they were not.
Speaker 1: They were not convinced enough to affect the election results
Speaker 1: in an in any meaningful way. Um same way, Nintendo
Speaker 1: is not convinced that putting Walluiji in the new Smash Bros.
Speaker 1: Will actually lead to more people buying the game. Italian
Speaker 1: essayist Roberto Slavinio wrote, quote, the far right can succeed
Speaker 1: in Italy because the left has failed, exactly as in
Speaker 1: much of the world, to offer credible visions or strategies.
Speaker 1: The left asks people to vote against the right, but
Speaker 1: it lacks the political vision or an economic alternative of
Speaker 1: And I think these are all the kind of factors
Speaker 1: that actually led Milani to win this election. Should we
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about the sort of democratic party
Speaker 1: like five Star Alliance things that happen. Sure, if you
Speaker 1: can want to do like TLDR on that that would
Speaker 1: be great. So alright, long ago, in a galaxy far
Speaker 1: far away, Italy had a very very large and powerful
Speaker 1: left um and then when the Soviet Union fell so
Speaker 1: that they had the Communist Party. The Comunist Party was
Speaker 1: like one of the most powerful comunist parties in the world.
Speaker 1: That wasn't like a sort of like dicutorial ruling party.
Speaker 1: But when the Soviet like when the USSR felt it
Speaker 1: like voted dissolve itself basically became the Democratic Party and
Speaker 1: all of their sort of militants, like much of the
Speaker 1: militants basically turned into Libs and you know, I mean
Speaker 1: and the Italian left like how together for kind of
Speaker 1: a long time after that because they had you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's a very long tradition to sort of an
Speaker 1: extra parliamentary left and like tartically an anarchist left in Italy,
Speaker 1: but like the modern I don't know, it's kind of
Speaker 1: a ship show, like in terms of actual party politics,
Speaker 1: Like there's a there was this thing called the Five
Speaker 1: Stars Movements, which was like kind of like basically Astro
Speaker 1: Turf by Abilionaire. It was just like very weird, very
Speaker 1: like early two thousand tens party that was like doing
Speaker 1: the whole sort of like we're going to do direct
Speaker 1: democracy by like online polls things. It has just like
Speaker 1: really weird mishmasch like the main social Democratic for us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well it's also sort of but like they're very weird,
Speaker 1: like like I don't know, you'll get things from them
Speaker 1: like okay, we want like like they're they're not a
Speaker 1: normal social democratic party right there, closing to like the
Speaker 1: Pirate Party, but like way weirder. Like so you you'll
Speaker 1: you'll you'll get people in this party who are like
Speaker 1: you know, who who were who are like you know,
Speaker 1: sort of like old school like like leftist militants, because
Speaker 1: this is where sort of like the energy was going right,
Speaker 1: but also like there's like anti vaxers in it. It
Speaker 1: was just it was just really weird iological like sort
Speaker 1: of mishmash. And then when they sort of got into power,
Speaker 1: like none of these people have ever been in politics before,
Speaker 1: and so like you know, you'd at someone who was
Speaker 1: like the head of garbage collection, right, who's from this
Speaker 1: party and they have no fucking idea how to collect garbage, right,
Speaker 1: And it was it's it's this real ship show because
Speaker 1: like you know, and then you have the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: which are basically sort of just like lib hacks at
Speaker 1: this point. And this meant that, like you know, and
Speaker 1: they eventually sort of aligned with each other to try
Speaker 1: to keep like other like fascist basically like right wing
Speaker 1: groups out of power. But they like they also they
Speaker 1: also like had an alliance for a little bit with
Speaker 1: one of the right wing parties. It's it's an incredibly
Speaker 1: like bizarre story ends like honestly like deserves like its
Speaker 1: own episode one day. But yeah, yeah, they're they're very weird.
Speaker 1: They're not in effective left thing at all. They're just
Speaker 1: very very sort of like mishmash confused populist thing. And
Speaker 1: it didn't like they yeah, like they definitely did not
Speaker 1: sort of like succeed in preventing an alternative, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It was, I don't know, kind of a disaster. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Italy's like it's worth noting as well. I think that
Speaker 1: like anti fascism is is sort of baked into the
Speaker 1: myth of the Italian Republic, right, like the that's what
Speaker 1: the republic rests are, that's where it comes from. That's
Speaker 1: creation myth. But like much in the same way as
Speaker 1: people living in the United States will be familiar with
Speaker 1: how these creation miss kind of lose all relevancy apart
Speaker 1: from some kind of totemic, meaning like their repetition has
Speaker 1: some kind of linked to that, but they don't really
Speaker 1: have any any value in the contemporary discourse in terms
Speaker 1: of animating and the way people act. I think you
Speaker 1: could say that that's happened in Italy, right, like people
Speaker 1: talk about people in institutions talk about anti fascism as
Speaker 1: where they come from and as foundational to it, LEAs democracy,
Speaker 1: but it's been so subsumed into structures of power that
Speaker 1: it that institutional discussion of anti fascism has lost its
Speaker 1: relevance from like the street fighting like anti fascism that
Speaker 1: created the republic in the first place, So that concept
Speaker 1: is kind of defanct along with like, Italian liberals have
Speaker 1: always walked hand in hand with like business interests and
Speaker 1: the right wing right, like from even previous to fascism,
Speaker 1: like there was a quote unquote liberal monarchy, right, So
Speaker 1: Italian liberalism isn't necessarily this anti authoritarian force. It was
Speaker 1: briefly like it got made to be briefly by the
Speaker 1: organized working class movement, but it hasn't been and it's
Speaker 1: going back to not being. Yeah, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I now think we should may as well get into
Speaker 1: milanni Is actual like views and what she actually believes
Speaker 1: in the pauses, which you mean, what she actually believes
Speaker 1: in the bass is maybe slightly different things. Um, but
Speaker 1: we'll we'll, we'll at least at least start. So Milani's party,
Speaker 1: the Brothers of Italy party, was formed to quote carry
Speaker 1: forth the spirit and legacy unquote of the Italian Social
Speaker 1: Movement or the m s I the end, and the
Speaker 1: the m s I is the descendant of Mussolini's National
Speaker 1: Just Party. It's it's it's like a has a direct lineage.
Speaker 1: They even have the flame, right, they are still using
Speaker 1: the same logo, which is the flame on his tomb.
Speaker 1: I think that's where it comes from, right, Yeah, So,
Speaker 1: uh Melani has said that quote LGBT lobbies are out
Speaker 1: there to harm the women and and they're and they're
Speaker 1: attacking the family by destroying gender identity. Um. She's made
Speaker 1: statements about George Soros, calling him an international speculator. More
Speaker 1: on more on that. In the Saco uh he says
Speaker 1: that that that Soros finances global mass immigration, that thrends
Speaker 1: a great replacement of white, native born Italians. Um Melani
Speaker 1: shows affinity for other kind of authoritarian strong men, like
Speaker 1: the the the marine Lee pen who's the leader of
Speaker 1: the of the National Rally Party in France. Strong and
Speaker 1: that's an it's part of this section on strong men
Speaker 1: like political political strong men. She's she's she's previously supported
Speaker 1: as Joe Rogan taught me, Garrison strong times mega hard
Speaker 1: men and also what I've learned from Matt Well, she's
Speaker 1: what is a woman? So yeah, strong man. But like
Speaker 1: Milanni's previously supported Putin, although she's kind of lowered that
Speaker 1: enthusiasm since the invasion of Ukraine. She has she does
Speaker 1: have a pro Ukraine position on that publicly. Um but
Speaker 1: she's expressed kind of affinity for the types of other
Speaker 1: fascist leaders across Europe. We've see in Sweden, we've see
Speaker 1: in Poland, we've seen in Hungary. She's kind of aligned
Speaker 1: aligned herself with some of some of that kind of
Speaker 1: trend inside of Europe. Milanni wants to ban same sex
Speaker 1: couples from adopting children, and possibly dissolve the same sex
Speaker 1: couples legal parentage over the children that they've already adopted.
Speaker 1: Her party has sought to ban a cartoon featuring a
Speaker 1: bear with two mothers, arguing that kids should not be
Speaker 1: seeing same sex adoption as natural or normal because it's not.
Speaker 1: Um so basic kind of right wing censorship of materials
Speaker 1: that they don't like. I don't think children should be
Speaker 1: allowed to watch cartoons with bears in them. Okay, good
Speaker 1: for you. It is going to reduce their readiness when
Speaker 1: it becomes time to fight the bears. But Milanni also
Speaker 1: wants to ban gay Italians from traveling elsewhere for like surrogacy.
Speaker 1: Um so like so like they can't they can't leave
Speaker 1: the country to get to get like to have them
Speaker 1: become parents and return less. Like it's it's this, it's this,
Speaker 1: it's this whole whole thing. I'm gonna read a quote
Speaker 1: from Ruth bend Guite, a professor of history and Italian
Speaker 1: studies at New York University. Quote. Since twenty seventeen, she
Speaker 1: has tweeted repeatedly that Italian identity is being deliberately erased
Speaker 1: by globalists such as Soros and European Union officials, who
Speaker 1: have conspired to unleash quote uncontrollable mass migration. Um. So
Speaker 1: normal normal stuff there and more on so so in
Speaker 1: in a in a speech, in a few speeches, and repeatedly,
Speaker 1: she refers to financial speculators and has called people like
Speaker 1: George Soros an international speculator. Um. And you know when
Speaker 1: when she says, uh, financial speculators, I don't think she
Speaker 1: actually means just people who speculated about finances. I think
Speaker 1: she means something slightly different. Michael bench Laws, who is
Speaker 1: kind of history political person who works for NBC MSNBC PPS,
Speaker 1: had a really good, uh thread on on this, and
Speaker 1: I think it's important like this, this is a mainstream
Speaker 1: media guy, like this is not coming from antifa one
Speaker 1: six one on Twitter. This is like coming from like
Speaker 1: like in terms of like mainstream media actually talking about this.
Speaker 1: Uh quote the new Italian Prime Minister says that quote
Speaker 1: we will never be slaves at the mercy of financial
Speaker 1: speculators sounds just like nineteen thirties in Italy and Germany.
Speaker 1: Uh No, thanks for the memories Mussolini enjoyed publicly referring
Speaker 1: to Jewish people as financial speculators who needed to be controlled.
Speaker 1: When a fascist leader speaks, whether it be in Europe
Speaker 1: or America, never brush aside what you are hearing as
Speaker 1: meaningless rhetoric. Do not fail to learn from the history
Speaker 1: of the nineteen thirties. History of the nineteen shows us
Speaker 1: that fascist leaders in the United States have been very
Speaker 1: eager to link US and pool resources, often in secret,
Speaker 1: with fascist leaders in Europe. Monitor carefully and beware, and
Speaker 1: please never take it at face value. When and if
Speaker 1: fascist leaders in America and Europe tell you that they
Speaker 1: have no personal or political animists towards Jews or other
Speaker 1: minority groups in society. Too many examples in history tells
Speaker 1: us the opposite, unquote. So that is like you know,
Speaker 1: regular MSNBC NBC people being like, hey, when she says
Speaker 1: this thing, she needs Jews should should should. We also
Speaker 1: talk about like the way parts of like the left
Speaker 1: on Twitter reacted to this, and also the sort of
Speaker 1: history of like how some people were like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: she's calling out the capitalists. That's not a lot of
Speaker 1: this is like you guys are maybe the dogs people
Speaker 1: who have ever lived Like she immediately like acts the
Speaker 1: I know she like this is the same thing we
Speaker 1: see with people like like Dugan even right what she's saying,
Speaker 1: she she's not saying that, you know, international capital is
Speaker 1: bad because it hurts the poor people or workers. She's
Speaker 1: she's mad about it because it's because it's a threat
Speaker 1: to traditional identities. It's it's it's it's a threat to
Speaker 1: the way that you want, the the idea of the family,
Speaker 1: it's the way it's it's it's it's threatening all of
Speaker 1: these things that are about your like God, family, country, brotherhood, ship.
Speaker 1: It's not about actual poor people, working class people at all.
Speaker 1: That's not that's not what it is. It's it's not
Speaker 1: a good criticism of capitalist modernity, just to just to
Speaker 1: propose another form of more like authoritarian capitalist modernity. It's
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not. It's not good. Um. The original
Speaker 1: fascists in Italy did the same thing when they denounced
Speaker 1: like British um placrats. It's just it's it's not, it's
Speaker 1: not the it's not a good critique of capitalists. So well,
Speaker 1: and we should point out to that. Like like so
Speaker 1: Mateo Savini, who was like the former like basically until
Speaker 1: the selection, he was like the guy he was in
Speaker 1: charge of the right wing. Like he he's a guy
Speaker 1: who got like arrested basically for trying to sink a
Speaker 1: migrant boat. Like so that's actually these guys he sucks
Speaker 1: um and but she she do this like more explicitly
Speaker 1: he would, you know, like specifically used Marxist terminology to
Speaker 1: push right wing stuff. So he he had a speech
Speaker 1: where he talked about like the reserve army of labor,
Speaker 1: which is this concept of Marxism that's about like basically
Speaker 1: Mark Marx is arguing that like like capitalism inherently produces
Speaker 1: this like quote unquote like reserve army of labor, like
Speaker 1: industrial army of labor, which is like an enormous mass
Speaker 1: of people who are unemployed. You've been spit out of
Speaker 1: the labor process, and you know, okay, and like and
Speaker 1: and and and like Mark Marx is like Marx is
Speaker 1: pro these people, which is a very important thing. He's like,
Speaker 1: these people are part of the poletariat, but they've been
Speaker 1: spit out of like like the capital wage relation to
Speaker 1: spit them out, and they're, yeah, they're they're they're they're
Speaker 1: to sort of like regulate like wages stuff happens. But
Speaker 1: also there people who have just been sort of like disenfranchised,
Speaker 1: et etcetera. Salvini when he talks about the reserve army
Speaker 1: of labor specifically, is like, there is a reserve army
Speaker 1: of labor. Uh. These people are immigrants to North Africa
Speaker 1: and like the like the elites are like shipping these
Speaker 1: people into Italy to like destroy your jobs. And it
Speaker 1: is it is again very very important that you understand.
Speaker 1: This is what he like when he's using the marks term,
Speaker 1: he is using it. He is using it marks racism
Speaker 1: and not like Mark's anti capitalism, and you need to
Speaker 1: be able to tell what difference between these two things,
Speaker 1: because yeah, like especially in time Poults like this, this
Speaker 1: is the thing that happens. Like people people will use
Speaker 1: like even literally explicitly stuff that is from Marx but
Speaker 1: they will use it to be like we need to
Speaker 1: like machine gun every like boat of small children trying
Speaker 1: to free Libya. Like it's like cherry yeah, cherry picking
Speaker 1: these these bits of Marxism and the arranging them into
Speaker 1: a racist as fun college that you used to justify
Speaker 1: your bagotry. It's fashion. It did that the first time,
Speaker 1: it's doing it again then. And the other thing that
Speaker 1: kind of that's that's notable. In case people have not
Speaker 1: have not seen it, There's been h lots of video
Speaker 1: going around of of Melani openly praising um Mussolini, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: I believe Musolini was a good politician. Everything he did
Speaker 1: he did for Italy and there have been no other
Speaker 1: politicians like him in the past fifty years that now
Speaker 1: these interviews all come from the mid nineties. She has
Speaker 1: since said that her opinions on Mussolini have changed. She
Speaker 1: has nuts she has not said what her opinions have
Speaker 1: changed to she changed, but this was. This was. These
Speaker 1: interviews all come from when she was when she was
Speaker 1: a young plucky girl getting into the Boy's Nazi club
Speaker 1: of and leading the youth wing of a fascist party
Speaker 1: founded by veterans of Musolini's dictatorship. UM. Since since her
Speaker 1: her own modern party, the Brothers of Italy, which was
Speaker 1: again started emerged from the fascist National Alliance, which grew
Speaker 1: out of the Italian Social Movement, which was founded by
Speaker 1: Mussolini regime officials UM, and she still uses the same
Speaker 1: logo for her current Mario Luigian Sorry, Brothers of Belief Party. UM.
Speaker 1: So yeah, let's have let's have one more ad break
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk about how mainstream media has been
Speaker 1: talking about the new girl Boss Mussolini and we are back.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm so excited. I'm so excited. So we're actually
Speaker 1: gonna talk. I'm first gonna read some stuff from the intercept,
Speaker 1: just not I would not say is actually a mainstream
Speaker 1: media It's a little bit outside of that, but it
Speaker 1: sets a good stage for the rest of the stuff
Speaker 1: that we will be talking about, which actually is dealing
Speaker 1: with how mainstream media has been framing UM. Milanni's election.
Speaker 1: So quote, the media got this right much of the time,
Speaker 1: giving predominant building to Melanie's fall right nationalism, but numerous
Speaker 1: English language headlines focused solely on her being Italy's first
Speaker 1: woman prime minister. Is tempting to say that her position
Speaker 1: as a woman leader should be considered irrelevant given her
Speaker 1: and her party's vile anti immigrant, nationalist, racist, anti LGBT
Speaker 1: e Q plus policies, but ignoring her womanhood misses some
Speaker 1: crucial points about her political ideology. Being a woman, a
Speaker 1: white woman that is, is not in conflict with Milanni's fascism.
Speaker 1: White supremacy has always relied on active enforcement by white women,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to upholding racist, po nationalist narratives.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think that that's that's that's a good
Speaker 1: stage for kind of how every other headline and article
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about here. Let's start with The Guardian.
Speaker 1: The Guardian ran a piece saying, quote, the election of
Speaker 1: Italy's fascist adjacent Georgia Milani is a public reminder that
Speaker 1: women can be just as awful as men. That's a
Speaker 1: good headline. And this was was this was the Guardian US,
Speaker 1: the Guardian UK. This was Guardian UK. Yeah, fashionis and
Speaker 1: this and this article and this, this article is actually
Speaker 1: directly in opposition to Australia's a sky News headline Georgia
Speaker 1: Milani is not a fascist. Um this is this is
Speaker 1: just directly in opposition to this Sky News article, which
Speaker 1: is kind of funny. Um uh NPRS Morning edition went
Speaker 1: with quote a far right group with neo fascist roots
Speaker 1: wins big in Italy's election. Um A CBS Mornings host said,
Speaker 1: Milani rejects the label of fascism while embracing its symbols,
Speaker 1: just its symbols, just you know, like they were specifally
Speaker 1: talking about like the actual like iconography that they directly
Speaker 1: left like this, like the slogans like brotherhood, God, country
Speaker 1: type things, and like like the logo and it's it
Speaker 1: was part actually part of a larger thing around around fascism. Look,
Speaker 1: we'll actually get a bit more into that on our
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson's section. Oh good. The Washington Post headlined quote,
Speaker 1: the mainstreaming of the West's far right is complete, and
Speaker 1: then opened article was saying in the land that invented fascism,
Speaker 1: the far right is back in power. Milani has a
Speaker 1: lengthy record of extremist rhetoric, has embraced the white supremacist
Speaker 1: narrative of the great Replacement theory, and has engaged in
Speaker 1: frequent dog whistling to a radical base. The Atlantic had
Speaker 1: a good piece titled the Return of Fascism in Italy
Speaker 1: um saying that the Brothers of Italy, which Milanni has
Speaker 1: led sin has an underlying and sinister familiarity. The party
Speaker 1: formed a decade ago to carry on the spirit and
Speaker 1: legacy of the extreme right in Italy, which dates back
Speaker 1: to the Italian Social Movement, the party that formed in
Speaker 1: place of the National Fascist Party, which was banned after
Speaker 1: World War Two. Now, just weeks before the one hundredth
Speaker 1: anniversary of the March on Rome, the October nineteen event
Speaker 1: that put Musolini in power, Italy may have a former
Speaker 1: Italian Social Movement activist for its prime minister and a
Speaker 1: government rooted in fascism. So that's like overall, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of really good Like most of the of
Speaker 1: the extremely reference or viral kind of articles on this
Speaker 1: had decent headlines and decent content actually emphasizing the fascist nature.
Speaker 1: Now it's funny because the Atlantic had this return of
Speaker 1: Fascism in Italy one, but The Atlantic also ran an
Speaker 1: op ed piece titled Melanie's election win is not a
Speaker 1: vote for Fascism, which later changed its title to Italians
Speaker 1: didn't exactly vote for fascism Um, which to its credit,
Speaker 1: still discusses uh Melani's links to fascism, but it questioned
Speaker 1: how much power she actually will have to enact said
Speaker 1: fascism um. But so there was there was some like
Speaker 1: both sides and going on on some A lot of
Speaker 1: these news outlets, they'll put one up, they'll put one
Speaker 1: piece out that's actually very good about centering the fascist rhetoric,
Speaker 1: another one being like she may be a fascist, but
Speaker 1: it's not like she could do much and she's a woman. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is kind of like I think, I
Speaker 1: think it's just kind of a post J six thing.
Speaker 1: Like I I think if this had happened in I
Speaker 1: don't think the LA media would have been like as
Speaker 1: willing to just do this. Absolutely that is that is
Speaker 1: undoubtedly true. Um. I think I think they kind of,
Speaker 1: like like liberals in general, kind of were shaking out
Speaker 1: of their complacency when they're sort of like beautiful symbols
Speaker 1: were under like finally actually came under attack and not
Speaker 1: just like US. Routers ran a confusing headline titled nationalist
Speaker 1: Milani set to smash Italy's glass Sea leg and become premier,
Speaker 1: which is really it just sounds super weird. Nationalist Milandy
Speaker 1: smashes glass Sea like it's just like it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess the cos it's it's what. That was one
Speaker 1: of the weirder headlines because it still has nationalists in it,
Speaker 1: but it has the whole glass stealing bit, which is
Speaker 1: just like I There was another Guardian UK piece uh
Speaker 1: that had the headline uh at Italy's Georgia Melani is
Speaker 1: no Mussolini, but she may be a Trump, which is
Speaker 1: an interesting article. Um it It has some a lot
Speaker 1: of it's actually pretty reasonable h and it emphasizes her
Speaker 1: more recent comments trying to align herself more with the
Speaker 1: modern US Republican Party rather than any kind of form
Speaker 1: of nineteen thirties style fascism. Quote hawkish on foreign policies,
Speaker 1: orthodox on economic policies, nostalgic nationalists, and inimical to civil liberties.
Speaker 1: This right wing politics is illiberal at heart, but it
Speaker 1: would aim for respectability in what used to be called
Speaker 1: the establishment, including by not undermining the rule of law
Speaker 1: in the way that Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has
Speaker 1: done unquote. So there's it kind of I do like
Speaker 1: the there is some things that are worth we're thinking
Speaker 1: about in terms of how she has a lot in
Speaker 1: the past year tried to align herself more with the
Speaker 1: Modern Republican Party in the States, which still is as
Speaker 1: we discussed the show, a lot is kind of getting
Speaker 1: more fashion I would say, so, so I will say
Speaker 1: it is has I don't know if you're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about this, but it has been very funny. She managed
Speaker 1: to sort of like lose like the like really hardline
Speaker 1: like American right wingers because she did some sort of
Speaker 1: like pronato ee things and so now there's like like
Speaker 1: so like like Snovich and a whole bunch of other
Speaker 1: people like that were posting about how like she's like
Speaker 1: an op and she was part of some I don't remember.
Speaker 1: I don't even I don't. I don't even think even
Speaker 1: believes that because I don't, I don't. I've seen much
Speaker 1: more people be very enthusiastic about her than people being
Speaker 1: critical of her who are on the fashionst rite in
Speaker 1: the States. Yeah, I mean, I don't know, like there's
Speaker 1: there's definitely was especially like there's a whole thing about
Speaker 1: her being like remember the Aspen Institute, but I think
Speaker 1: was happening for like I don't know, may maybe that
Speaker 1: maybe that's just a thing like right after she got
Speaker 1: like I don't I don't know, I mean on kind
Speaker 1: of on this note of of her trying to align
Speaker 1: more with like modern United States conservatism. UM. In one
Speaker 1: of their newsletters, Politico included that Milani has appeared at
Speaker 1: see Pack this past year on the National Prayer Breakfast
Speaker 1: and uh and it did did join the Aspen Institute
Speaker 1: in but she and Steve Bannon were films strategizing together
Speaker 1: as far back and Bannon instead of her back then
Speaker 1: quote you put a reasonable face on right wing populism,
Speaker 1: you will get elected. Um. So her and Bannon have
Speaker 1: been strategizing for years. She's at Sepack. Uh. This past year,
Speaker 1: she gave a speech there that Tucker was very enthusiastic about.
Speaker 1: In his segment about her. That political newsletter that included
Speaker 1: the bits about Bannon and Spack also had I think
Speaker 1: this line, which sums up some of my thoughts on
Speaker 1: this quote you've already read and in dozens of headlines
Speaker 1: that Milani will be Italy's most far right leader since Miscellani.
Speaker 1: But don't fall for the trap of reducing this far
Speaker 1: right firebrand too simple labels like the Italian Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: or Victor or band or Marine le pen global takeaway.
Speaker 1: Right wing populism is getting smarter. It could have died
Speaker 1: off with Trump selection lass or Boris Johnson's humiliating ejection
Speaker 1: from Downing Street, but that isn't happening. So I have
Speaker 1: I have a few more of a few more things
Speaker 1: here which will lead into kind of how the right
Speaker 1: has been talking about this um. There was a scene.
Speaker 1: There was a scene an article on the victory that
Speaker 1: headlined the conditions are perfect for a populist resurgence in Europe,
Speaker 1: which also referenced the anti immigration Sweden Democrats, who are
Speaker 1: expected to play a major role in the new government
Speaker 1: after winning the second largest share of seats in the
Speaker 1: general election last month. The party has been now mainstreamed
Speaker 1: and initially had its roots in very strict neo Nazism.
Speaker 1: Over All, I was less happy with some of the
Speaker 1: New York Times headlines relating to Milanni's election. There was
Speaker 1: there was the the cheeky headline Georgia Milani is extreme,
Speaker 1: but she's no tyrant, which is of again a weird
Speaker 1: way to frame a headline. Um but even that peace
Speaker 1: still opens with this line saying, quote, it happened here again.
Speaker 1: Nearly one hundred years since the March on Rome, Italy
Speaker 1: on Sunday voted in a right wing coalition headed by
Speaker 1: a party directly descended from Mussolini's fascist regime. Mrs Milani
Speaker 1: is the first post fascist leader to win a national
Speaker 1: election in Italy after World War Two, and her party
Speaker 1: is the heir to the Italian Social Movement, the reincarnation
Speaker 1: of the long dissolved and constitutionally banned Fascist party. So
Speaker 1: weird headline still it includes stuff in the article. But
Speaker 1: in the age of social media and honestly on news media,
Speaker 1: headlines are way more important. Unfortunately, um and there was
Speaker 1: an actual New York Times article, not just not just
Speaker 1: opinion piece have the headline Milani wins voting in Italy
Speaker 1: and breakthrough for Europe's hard right. Another Times piece read
Speaker 1: Europe looks at Italy's Milani with caution and trepidation. Uh
Speaker 1: Milani posed to be the country's first far right leader.
Speaker 1: Since Mussolini, so still not the worst, not the best
Speaker 1: from the New York Times, which you mean, no no
Speaker 1: shockers there. Um now on to kind of the right.
Speaker 1: So the right had a really big mix of reactions
Speaker 1: based on how the left was talking and liberals were
Speaker 1: talking about this. There was a lot of enthusiasm coming
Speaker 1: from the right. A lot of people on the right
Speaker 1: questioning the fascist framing, being like, I can't believe Megan.
Speaker 1: I mean we can talk about the Magan Bcayan tweet.
Speaker 1: Everyone wants a woman in power until it's the conservative power.
Speaker 1: This one right bart reporter said quote calling her most
Speaker 1: Salini just because she's Italian is racist, which is one
Speaker 1: of the best, one of the best tweets about this.
Speaker 1: Laverne Spicer said, so everyone calls Melania fascist? Can anyone
Speaker 1: offer proof of that? And most most of people just
Speaker 1: replied with videos of her praising Missolini. Um, yeah, will
Speaker 1: bang you for picture. Lauren Bobbert had the extremely bad
Speaker 1: tweet This month, Sweden voted for a right wing government.
Speaker 1: Now Italy voted for a strong right wing government. The
Speaker 1: entire world is beginning to understand that the woke left
Speaker 1: does nothing but destroy November eight, November eight is coming
Speaker 1: and the USA will fix our House and Senate. Let
Speaker 1: freedom rain Um, great, great prose there um just shouting
Speaker 1: at Cloud. But I I it is rush. It is
Speaker 1: actually super messed up to be praising Sweden's new wing
Speaker 1: government because they're pretty pretty bad. The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: had the great headline Milani is no fascist, but can
Speaker 1: she revive Italy's economy? Um? Yeah, that's that is perfect,
Speaker 1: That's that's the classic. Well, I'm very I'm very excited
Speaker 1: in about eight months when the Italian economy is like
Speaker 1: it makes the British economy look fucking great when the
Speaker 1: West there turnaround like can some other random persons save Italy? Yeah,
Speaker 1: like somebody further to the right, and they'll just continue
Speaker 1: to be like, well, maybe it's good for the economy.
Speaker 1: The economy I have running in my Super Mario RPG
Speaker 1: game is better than the current UK economy. So again,
Speaker 1: it's not saying more on that, right. A Fox News
Speaker 1: headline in the lead up to the election read Italy
Speaker 1: on track to elect first right wing prime minister since
Speaker 1: World War Two, first female to hold office. So I really,
Speaker 1: I really do that. This is one thing I really
Speaker 1: need to get keep people on, like, is fucking Sylvia
Speaker 1: Berlisconi a joke to you? Like the answer should be yes,
Speaker 1: but also like come on man like forever. A few
Speaker 1: days later, another Fox headline read Milani's Italian election win
Speaker 1: renews spotlight on Europe's continued migrant woes. Great, great, great
Speaker 1: heading there, that's definitely what we should be focusing on.
Speaker 1: And so now onto a friend of the pod, Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: So on September twenty six, Tucker Carlson ran a fifteen
Speaker 1: minute segment titled we live in a fake democracy and
Speaker 1: there will be a revolution like Italy. So the segment
Speaker 1: was on the election of Milanni and how she's daring
Speaker 1: to address the issues that voters really care about but
Speaker 1: aren't allowed to talk about, like the attacks on the family, immigration,
Speaker 1: the unpopular climate change policies that are ruining the economy,
Speaker 1: aren't allowed to talk about. Bill Muscodi has literally been
Speaker 1: saying whatever the funk comes into his brain for like
Speaker 1: thirty years at this point. That was that was a
Speaker 1: big thing of the Tucker segment was that voters have
Speaker 1: all these issues they care about, but they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to talk about it. It's actually illegal in some places
Speaker 1: to talk about this. That's an actual quote from what
Speaker 1: he's there. Um And obviously Tucker offiscated her lings to
Speaker 1: Mussolini style fascism while still praising the fascist rhetoric that
Speaker 1: to Melania espouses. Here is a clip from the segment.
Speaker 1: She's not the first person to say this, people have
Speaker 1: said it before, but she's just been rewarded for saying it.
Speaker 1: That's the point. The population likes it. This is what
Speaker 1: they actually want. They're not that worried about global warming.
Speaker 1: They don't want open borders. They think the woke stuff
Speaker 1: is absurd. They want to say what they think. And
Speaker 1: now it's obvious because she just won. And so even
Speaker 1: in this country, the people running and benefiting from a
Speaker 1: deeply corrupt and doom system are hysterical. Watch the reaction
Speaker 1: to that. I want to start today by talking about
Speaker 1: a politician on the right who we should all be
Speaker 1: worried about, who's on the rise today, A politician who
Speaker 1: was brushed off accusations of fascism. What separates us from
Speaker 1: let's say, Italy who elected a fascist. She is from
Speaker 1: fascist Fruits, a far right political party whose roots go
Speaker 1: back to post World War two neo fascist party that
Speaker 1: has its roots in Italian fascism. It's roots in Italian fascism.
Speaker 1: Define that for us if you would. Joe Scarboro, sorry,
Speaker 1: you're an idiot, you can't. But the point is fascist
Speaker 1: means unacceptable. Whatever this chick is saying you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to agree with. They're very worried that that many Italians
Speaker 1: do agree with it, So she has to be completely unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Don't read further. She's a fascist. So yeah, that's that sucks,
Speaker 1: That's not great. Um I don't need to waste any
Speaker 1: more time talking about Tucker's segment because it's it's typical
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson stuff, pretty fascistic, pretty awfu Durremberg at the
Speaker 1: end of every time. Anyway, um So yeah. Kind of
Speaker 1: the reaction was as one might expect. American right wing
Speaker 1: operatives have celebrated her rise to power. For example, Keith Robert's,
Speaker 1: head of the Heritage Foundation, drew on some of the
Speaker 1: familiar kind of language in terms of and I'll just
Speaker 1: I'll just say this. This is what he said about
Speaker 1: her victory on Twitter. This can be a trend. Conservatives
Speaker 1: everywhere need to define the choice as to what it
Speaker 1: is us versus them, everyday people versus globalst elites shown
Speaker 1: they hate us, so familiar dog whistles and ship. But
Speaker 1: to kind of close this up, I'm actually gonna do uh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do a Guy Debord quote, one of our
Speaker 1: favorite philosophers on this. Can we put a little French
Speaker 1: on it? Can we have Giva guid Bor quote? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So he he wrote the situations The Situation's phosopher wrote
Speaker 1: this in nineteen eight. Italy sums up the social contradictions
Speaker 1: of the entire world as such. It is a laboratory
Speaker 1: for international counter revolution. Um. So hilariously they held out
Speaker 1: longer than the French did. So well, what what What
Speaker 1: he's trying to say there is that it's a way
Speaker 1: to try out social change and try out the suppression
Speaker 1: of like progressive social change. Um. And it's like a
Speaker 1: model for the rest of Europe. Um. Like it's like
Speaker 1: it's it's this owns like miniature model that you can
Speaker 1: try out things and see how they'll react on a
Speaker 1: on a grounder European political scale. Um And kind of
Speaker 1: rough in in the in the vein of that, I'm
Speaker 1: actually gonna do a quote from one of the Washington
Speaker 1: post articles about what what what one of the better
Speaker 1: articles about Melani to kind of finish up the types
Speaker 1: of stuff that I wanted to talk about. So, if
Speaker 1: there's been one dominant story in Western politics over the
Speaker 1: past decade, it's that the far right is no longer
Speaker 1: beyond the pale. Indeed, it has taken over the right
Speaker 1: wing mainstream in many countries, including and arguably most significantly,
Speaker 1: the United States. In France, the far right has long
Speaker 1: been the leading force of the opposition. In Spain, it's
Speaker 1: also gained ground in Sweden, a party originally founded by
Speaker 1: Neo Nazis and other right wing extremists will now be
Speaker 1: the second largest faction in parliament. In Hungary and Poland,
Speaker 1: the far right is already in power. So just in
Speaker 1: terms of this overall trend of how people are trying
Speaker 1: to mainstream far right things and how they're getting more
Speaker 1: normalized across Europe in the United States here, and the
Speaker 1: types of asthetics that they're using to gain such ground.
Speaker 1: Because the Italian voters were not convinced by the left
Speaker 1: attempts to paint Melani as a reincarnation of Mussolini, the
Speaker 1: way that she wrapped her fascism in contemporary US style
Speaker 1: conservatism was convincing, and the left did not offer any
Speaker 1: viable alternatives to fix the problems that the country's facing.
Speaker 1: So she got the vote, which was enough to get
Speaker 1: a majority. So yeah, that's that's kind of That's most
Speaker 1: of the stuff I have on the Girl Boss Mussolini,
Speaker 1: Um any any other any other uh comments on how
Speaker 1: the rights been talking about this, how the liberals have
Speaker 1: been talking about this, how media has or any anything
Speaker 1: at all. Before we close up, no, I wish her
Speaker 1: the best of getting strung up in the street. It's
Speaker 1: very funny to turn pictures of her upisode down. People
Speaker 1: will tell you, Whi's not funny. It is funny, you know.
Speaker 1: I like the seed to be turning into the nant twenties,
Speaker 1: but like tragedy is farce version of it. But this
Speaker 1: means we can do it funnier. We can. We can
Speaker 1: do it funnier. We can all go to Italy wearing
Speaker 1: Mario costumes. That's right, we can we can do it.
Speaker 1: We can do it funnier. It's always possible to be
Speaker 1: more funny. M hmm, that's what we striful. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm still laughing about the Brothers of Italy thing. That's wow,
Speaker 1: that's pretty funny. Anyway, go have fun fighting anthropomorphic lizards
Speaker 1: who steal the princess and hang her in a cage
Speaker 1: and go race around the mushroom Kingdom on your way
Speaker 1: to save her with your brother. Is how I spend
Speaker 1: most of my free time in the mushroom Kingdom. In
Speaker 1: the mushroom Kingdom, jumping on lizards. Yeah, let's let's a
Speaker 1: go Hello and welcome to It could happen here a
Speaker 1: podcast about how everything is falling apart, and today we
Speaker 1: are talking about how the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Speaker 1: Northern Ireland is continuing to fall apart. And James, can
Speaker 1: I say, great job, nailed it, Thank you buddy, out
Speaker 1: of the park. You absolutely just stunning work introducing this podcast. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've bought the level of commitment that British people have
Speaker 1: brought to governing half of the world for centuries. I
Speaker 1: have my coffee cup that says fuck it and that
Speaker 1: that's where we're at with this one. That's exactly what
Speaker 1: we wanted from you. Yeah, I'm incredibly sad about the
Speaker 1: plight of my home country and continue to be so
Speaker 1: that I'm going to explain the reason for my sadness
Speaker 1: to Garrison and Chris and Robert today one of one
Speaker 1: of the reasons for my sadness. Okay, so what I
Speaker 1: want to talk about today is Elizabeth trust list Trust.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the British cost of living crisis,
Speaker 1: and I think more broadly, I want to talk about,
Speaker 1: like how we consent to be governed by people who
Speaker 1: do not give a single funk about our well being. Well, now, James,
Speaker 1: that's an experience that only the British have, So that's correct. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's known to be not something that much of the
Speaker 1: colonial periphery experience for centuries, which he thought the monarchy
Speaker 1: away beat beat the monarchy Garrison. That's a bold we
Speaker 1: garrison from a Canadian. Yeah, that's right. Your people trying
Speaker 1: to stop it. Yeah, that's all we did was invade
Speaker 1: you a couple of times. I don't think you can
Speaker 1: sneak in there. And then the ambiguity of accents by
Speaker 1: us passport is on the way, on the way, on
Speaker 1: the way. Yeah, so was the Queen of England's Yeah,
Speaker 1: trust going to take that away, King Charles, it's going
Speaker 1: to make it not allowed. I do have to get
Speaker 1: a new Canadian passport with the king on it now,
Speaker 1: which sucks. That was the most I guess we all
Speaker 1: learned a lot because it's been so long since you
Speaker 1: had a change of monarch. But the fact that everyone
Speaker 1: has to stop using the money and everyone has to
Speaker 1: skip is fucking absurd. This is the worst political system
Speaker 1: I've ever heard of. Just wait, because it's gonna get
Speaker 1: even more kind of Okay, Chris, you live in Chicago. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but here's here's the thing. Here's the thing right in Chicago, right,
Speaker 1: everyone everyone like like too, and in the core of
Speaker 1: their being they know that the people who ruled him
Speaker 1: are robbing them. Everyone in Britain actually genuinely like wants
Speaker 1: to be like this. No one in Chicago wants any
Speaker 1: of the people in Chicago who rule us to be
Speaker 1: ruling us. Right. Everyone in Britain is like pro like
Speaker 1: they want to have to throw all their money away
Speaker 1: because some fucking ninety year old in a hat died.
Speaker 1: Is an incomprehensible level of just outstanding. Yeah, it's a
Speaker 1: marvelous country. There's nothing wrong with it. It will continue
Speaker 1: to be marvelous. And the lowest ten percent of income
Speaker 1: people in Britain now enjoy a quality of life which
Speaker 1: is substantially lower than that same income bracket in Slovenia,
Speaker 1: which looking at the economic powerhouse of Slovenia, I just
Speaker 1: want to say, we do not deserve a better quality
Speaker 1: of living than the people of Slovenia actually rules. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it does great places. Yeah, it's a really nice place.
Speaker 1: She takes about two hours to cross. But it's a
Speaker 1: great country. Right, you can ride your bike across it.
Speaker 1: But that's great, that's what you want to do. What's
Speaker 1: what's happening here is that Maoice Liz Trust is like
Speaker 1: very slowly returning all the brids of the countryside. She yeah,
Speaker 1: she's she's doing a cultural revolution. And let's talk about
Speaker 1: Mauice Liz Trust. So her parents are actually a long
Speaker 1: way to her left. There was a thing a little
Speaker 1: while ago where her dad refused to campaign for her
Speaker 1: when she ran for a seat as a Conservative, which
Speaker 1: is based critical support for liszt Us his dad. Her
Speaker 1: mom also ran as a lib dem which is not
Speaker 1: exactly like the Liberal Democrats are not exactly like the
Speaker 1: party that are going to liberate the working class through
Speaker 1: glorious revolution. But it's still pretty funny to have your
Speaker 1: mom running for a different party than you and objectively amusing.
Speaker 1: She was born in Oxford. Her parents her mother's a teacher,
Speaker 1: her dad is an academic. I think it leads her
Speaker 1: dad's he's a mathematician. What a nerd? God damn it.
Speaker 1: Her dad is not the nerd here. Her dad is
Speaker 1: the best. Trust as far as I can tell, it's
Speaker 1: it's Liz who were worried about. She described her parents
Speaker 1: as being to the left of labor, which is not hard.
Speaker 1: Labor just exists to kind of these days really to
Speaker 1: have the pretensive opposition right. They've deliberately purged the left
Speaker 1: from labor after two thousand and nineteen, and they exist
Speaker 1: for Keir Starmer to say I broadly support this terrible
Speaker 1: nearliberal policy but and then say something completely ineffectual. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure he will be Prime Minister soon and nothing
Speaker 1: will change. And I think that Liz Trust has done
Speaker 1: and is doing, will be walked back because Britain doesn't
Speaker 1: have an effective left opposition in Parliament. It does in
Speaker 1: society and in the streets. And we'll see there are
Speaker 1: lots of movements. Our parliament is a fast and continues
Speaker 1: to be a fast and it's lots of dudes who
Speaker 1: went to the same education institutions making this funny kind
Speaker 1: of noise that there are more diverse people in parliament.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure people have seen videos of the British
Speaker 1: Parliament right and everyone was like when someone sounds just
Speaker 1: like that, yeah that thanks Danial Americans who don't understand
Speaker 1: entirely how British educational culture works. The fancy schools that
Speaker 1: they go to, they're like Hogwarts if you replaced like
Speaker 1: the magic with kids beating each other in the shower
Speaker 1: and yeah yeah, with the repressed sexuality and yeah yeah, violence,
Speaker 1: bullying and being picked on because you're the poorest kid
Speaker 1: in a school ful. So actually it is. It is
Speaker 1: a like Harry Potters, quite a bit like Harry Yeah yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: there are still turfs. It's very disappointing. So, talking of
Speaker 1: educational institutions, trust went to ox It right, she went
Speaker 1: to Merchant. I went to talk to two. I didn't
Speaker 1: get to Merchant. That's a better off college. I went
Speaker 1: to college which is renowned for being poor. For what
Speaker 1: that's worth. Within Oxford colleges which were all full of
Speaker 1: rich people doing rich people's stuff. She read Ppe Politics
Speaker 1: philosophy and economics, which I don't think you can really
Speaker 1: do as a degree in the US. Right, what is
Speaker 1: that politics, philosophy and economic Yeah, yeah, it's called PP
Speaker 1: three made up things? Well, what do you say? Other
Speaker 1: other degrees, on the other hand, are real and tangible
Speaker 1: and of course in the physical space where you can
Speaker 1: touch them. Everyone knows that. Yeah, it's true. Apart from
Speaker 1: pp PP is so like I went to talk for two.
Speaker 1: I took Modern History and Politics, which is way cooler
Speaker 1: and better in every way. But the PPE kids such
Speaker 1: so that people understand. A vast number of British prime
Speaker 1: ministers have taken PP as as their undergraduate degree. It's
Speaker 1: like the Kingmaker of degrees and you take it because
Speaker 1: you're an insufferable, fucking dorc who wants to be prime
Speaker 1: minister or like work for the British government in some way, right,
Speaker 1: Like it is this like kingo maker one of the
Speaker 1: prime minister It looks like such a good job. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they last a long time. They have universally great approval
Speaker 1: ratings and to be fair, they do just go on
Speaker 1: to grift to share a ton of money like it's
Speaker 1: not and they don't have to do it for like
Speaker 1: a fixed period of time, like American presidents do. So
Speaker 1: that's nice. They can just have a bunch of parties
Speaker 1: for their friends in the lockdown and their leave, which
Speaker 1: is more or less what Boris Johnson did. And I
Speaker 1: don't I don't expect Liz to be Prime Minister for long,
Speaker 1: but it's what she's doing and what she has already
Speaker 1: sort of done that I think it's of interest here. Certainly,
Speaker 1: she was also president before we get off her university
Speaker 1: time at the Oxford University Liberal Democrats and so oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: great stuff. The so like she's gradually drifted to the right,
Speaker 1: which you know, what are we? What we she's grifted
Speaker 1: to the right. You know, the lib Dems were a
Speaker 1: little bit more left then, but Labor was very neoliberal
Speaker 1: in the nineties right when she was in when she
Speaker 1: was in Parliament, so sometimes the Lib Dems provided something
Speaker 1: of a left opposition if you remember, like Tony Blair
Speaker 1: New Labor. It was just kind of bold neoliberal, like
Speaker 1: shameless near liberalism. Right now, Tony Blair is the one
Speaker 1: who was played by Hugh Grant, right is he the
Speaker 1: one of his He the inspiration for love? Actually, I
Speaker 1: was assuming because Tony Blair was the only British politician
Speaker 1: I could name as a child. Okay, must have been right,
Speaker 1: because Tony Blair is completely devoid of charisma, and the
Speaker 1: one thing that that Hugh Grant character has is charisma,
Speaker 1: So maybe maybe he does kind of. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: all pint men. They are a white man that is
Speaker 1: a very white movie. He looks like him. But then
Speaker 1: that's not exactly a remarkable thing, is it in sort
Speaker 1: of homogeneous British ruling class that we have so trust
Speaker 1: has gone through like being Secretary of State for Justice,
Speaker 1: through being Lord Chancellor, through being Foreign Secretary. Okay, Lord
Speaker 1: Chancellors are pretty cool sounding title. I gotta give it
Speaker 1: to him first. That's like Star Wars ship did you do?
Speaker 1: They have a shadow Lord Chancellor to the thing that is,
Speaker 1: they pick the terms to make it all sound cool,
Speaker 1: like when whenever one of like your parliamentary coalitions collapse,
Speaker 1: they're like the government has fallen. It just makes it
Speaker 1: all sound like it's so much cooler than it is.
Speaker 1: It does lend an air of shakespeare An epic where
Speaker 1: it's one of these is these seventeen people who all
Speaker 1: went to the same schools and read the same Telegraph
Speaker 1: newspaper columnists have disagree with each other from minor point
Speaker 1: and will shortly be reconstituting their alliance in a slightly
Speaker 1: different way. Yeah, but it sounds like people are fighting
Speaker 1: each other with machetes. It has a game of thrones
Speaker 1: beheading via Maybe that's where this is heading. Who knows?
Speaker 1: She I think if people had heard of Lives Trust
Speaker 1: until she became Prime Minister, it was probably from her
Speaker 1: really wonderful pork market speech, which if you haven't watched
Speaker 1: the pork market speech, it is a study and when
Speaker 1: you should and shouldn't pause for applause, Robert, have you
Speaker 1: seen this pork markets? No? Okay, what is a fucking
Speaker 1: pork market? It's so funny. In December, I'll be in
Speaker 1: Beijing opening up new pork markets. What the fund is
Speaker 1: this ship? She's not a real person, she's it's it's
Speaker 1: reminiscent of like when you take a fish out of
Speaker 1: water and it moves its lips but makes no coherent noise,
Speaker 1: an alien trying to pretend to be humid. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's this is this is a great leader of our people,
Speaker 1: and it's the uncanny value of post craft Ian and
Speaker 1: it's in its unsettling nous. Yeah yeah, what's what's what's
Speaker 1: happening here. What we're seeing is that this is this
Speaker 1: is the this is the final result of affirmative action
Speaker 1: from white people. Yes, we're going to get into that.
Speaker 1: This is why, this is why she has this job.
Speaker 1: She she she benefited from affermative action from white people.
Speaker 1: Other examples of this include Destiny and yeah, yeah, you
Speaker 1: get the same kind of person every single time, same
Speaker 1: same right, like Destiny and the Prime Minister of the
Speaker 1: UK and yeah, so like she becomes prime minister. And
Speaker 1: it's worth noting that, like, the way you become prime
Speaker 1: minister in the UK is different to the way you
Speaker 1: become president in the US. Right, you are the leader
Speaker 1: of the majority party in parliament, or of the coalition
Speaker 1: that controls the majority of the votes in parliament. So
Speaker 1: she becomes prime Minister not through a vote of the people,
Speaker 1: but through a vote of the members of the Conservative Party.
Speaker 1: And you can understand as like people whose dogs have
Speaker 1: girls names and whose daughters have dogs names. I think
Speaker 1: that is I think that's a trash future bit. I
Speaker 1: don't know where it came from, but it explains some perfectly.
Speaker 1: So these people got together and they she ran against
Speaker 1: Richie Sunac right and who is eminently more capable of
Speaker 1: doing the fashion neoliberal ship that they want to do,
Speaker 1: as are many other people of color within their party.
Speaker 1: But above all things, they are racist, right above even
Speaker 1: doing this kind of speed run extraction from the British economy,
Speaker 1: they are still racists. They're they're they're fine with having
Speaker 1: people of color in in positions in the hierarchy, right,
Speaker 1: there's something that Britain established through hundreds of years of empire.
Speaker 1: But the idea, the idea of having someone in a
Speaker 1: leadership position is is fundamentally anathema to the Conservative Party.
Speaker 1: So instead they picked kind of Liz Trust to just
Speaker 1: flap her lips around and talk about pork markets. Right,
Speaker 1: So that's how we get Liz Trust as Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: So no one per se votes for Lizz Trust. No
Speaker 1: one even per se votes for like the Liz Trust
Speaker 1: a genda that we're seeing now, right, and I think
Speaker 1: that's really important. And in her acceptance speech she talks
Speaker 1: to Boris Johnson. She said, you're you're admired from Kiev
Speaker 1: to Carlisle. Yeah, she says, yeah, okay, first of all,
Speaker 1: bizz Absolutely, the thing I know about Boris Johnson is
Speaker 1: that he looks like Donald Trump. If Trump didn't have
Speaker 1: his ship quite so together, Yes, yeah, Donald Trump. His
Speaker 1: mom didn't tell him to comb his hair and tuck
Speaker 1: his shirt and before he went to school. Yeah, if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump couldn't have paid paid a half people like
Speaker 1: check him before he walks out the door, that's how
Speaker 1: he would look. Yeah, yes, exactly. If he fell over
Speaker 1: in a wind tunnel, he would look like Boris Johnson.
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson a guy so fucking rich he's never had
Speaker 1: to comb his hair. Stop being prime minister because of
Speaker 1: these scandals, right, these sleeve scandals about them having teas
Speaker 1: during lockdown. More or less, that was what destroyed him,
Speaker 1: not any of his terrible policies, his bigoted bullshit. Him
Speaker 1: writing up ed saying that the problem with us was
Speaker 1: not that we were in charge of Africa, but that
Speaker 1: we're not anymore. God, Yeah, this is a type of
Speaker 1: guy who exists and can become Prime minister. Like people
Speaker 1: don't understand. I think, um, British, the British right is
Speaker 1: very different from the American right, and I think we're
Speaker 1: going to get into that. And also a guy who
Speaker 1: famously just like pulverized a small child on a trip
Speaker 1: to Japan. Play You don't need to say the things
Speaker 1: that he did that are rad He he did finally
Speaker 1: discover the actual third world British politics, which is that
Speaker 1: if you have fun in a way that someone else
Speaker 1: can't have fun, they will destroy you. Yes, the mere
Speaker 1: British person, but your act of a British person seeing
Speaker 1: another person having any joy whatsoever, like just like the
Speaker 1: so a switch flips in their brain and they just
Speaker 1: turned into like Brits but worse. This is yes, so
Speaker 1: this is like there are basically two ways that a
Speaker 1: British political party can be right. One is that they
Speaker 1: enjoy themselves while they're plundering the institution to still remain
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom. And the other one is that
Speaker 1: they are like magnastically abstemious while they're doing it right.
Speaker 1: And Labor tend to be the obstnious ones, uh, and
Speaker 1: the Tories tend to be the ones who drink the
Speaker 1: poor and have the lockdown parties and have like literal
Speaker 1: karaoke events when they're asking people not to go to
Speaker 1: their grandparents funerals and labor tend to be the ones
Speaker 1: who wring their hands to go oh no and then
Speaker 1: fundamentally do the same ship. Right, that that is a
Speaker 1: different Chris is entirely correct that that is the thing
Speaker 1: that irritates British people most, right, And maybe we'll just
Speaker 1: talk about this right now. It's increasingly like it's not
Speaker 1: the material conditions that bring down British governments, because material
Speaker 1: conditions are getting worse and have been getting worse since
Speaker 1: we started this this austerity stuff in it's these stupid scandals, right,
Speaker 1: these these personal scandals which yes, normally involve them having
Speaker 1: too much fun when they're supposed to be pretending to
Speaker 1: be serious while they steal all the all the things
Speaker 1: that still remain in Britain. And I want to talk
Speaker 1: about a little later. So yeah, she said Boris Johnson
Speaker 1: was amoved from Keith to Carlole. He's not. That's why
Speaker 1: he's not Prime minister anymore. Everyone hates him. And also
Speaker 1: I don't think she's been to Carlos because I got
Speaker 1: family who lived there and not everyone loves Borrows Johnson there,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure not in Kiev either. But so the
Speaker 1: UK has been having this cost of living crisis since
Speaker 1: the economy reopened in one right, since the end of lockdown.
Speaker 1: What this cost of living crisis is, what cost of
Speaker 1: living goes DoD is generally is that when the goods
Speaker 1: that you need to buy to exist arising more quickly
Speaker 1: than the wages you get paid for working. Now, some
Speaker 1: of these causes a globe or Right, we have this
Speaker 1: inflation issue in the US too, but the UK has
Speaker 1: compounded this by leaving the European Union, that creating massive
Speaker 1: labor labor shortages and these repeated bumps in the energy
Speaker 1: price cap? Right, which is the limit that an average
Speaker 1: family should pay for their energy consumption. It's not it's
Speaker 1: not a hard stop. It's not a limit on how
Speaker 1: much you definitely will pay, but it's a limit on
Speaker 1: how much the average family should pay. Right, and so
Speaker 1: trust comes to power in the context of skyrocketing energy
Speaker 1: rates for British consumers. Gas is used for heating most
Speaker 1: homes in the UK, and it's increased in price since
Speaker 1: before the coronavirus times. Despite the fact that most British
Speaker 1: people don't pay spot prices for gas and pay the
Speaker 1: going market rate for gas, there's a serious crisis and affordability.
Speaker 1: Now it was looking like the gas bills are going
Speaker 1: to go up, into the average gas bill for the
Speaker 1: average British person is going to go up more than
Speaker 1: it now is because Trust has has announced some capping
Speaker 1: of spot rates. We're going to get into why that
Speaker 1: isn't as great as its sound. The big issue here
Speaker 1: is that Britain doesn't have a nationalized provider, right. It's
Speaker 1: privatized its energy. Great, it's privatized its energy generation, and
Speaker 1: it ends up with this bizarre situation where one of
Speaker 1: the one of the people you can buy energy off
Speaker 1: and often you don't have a choice, right depending on
Speaker 1: where you are, is the French national energy company. That
Speaker 1: makes sense, Yeah, it makes perfect sense, right, it's it's
Speaker 1: great and one of the notables consequent to this is
Speaker 1: a gas price who've gone up. France caps the prices
Speaker 1: that consumers can pay Britain allows them to charge a
Speaker 1: lot more so British people at this it's as a
Speaker 1: rule one thing that Britain. You would telling me that
Speaker 1: France finally won that long year and saying that we
Speaker 1: have been owned by the French. And if that doesn't
Speaker 1: bring down the Conservative government, I don't know what will
Speaker 1: because there's one thing British people dislike its French people.
Speaker 1: And and so yeah, Britain is now subsidizing energy rates
Speaker 1: for French consumers, which is great having just left the
Speaker 1: European Union, because we are incredibly xenophobic as a nation
Speaker 1: as it turns out. And people may have seen this
Speaker 1: UK TV show called This Morning where they did a
Speaker 1: wheel of Fortune type thing where you could win a
Speaker 1: thousand pounds or or they will pay your energy bills. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but for like three or four months, right, months, four
Speaker 1: months of energy bills. And the bloke they're doing it
Speaker 1: in it's just like it's this side of relief when
Speaker 1: he gets energy bills, right, He's like, oh massive, Like
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have my energy bills pay for four months.
Speaker 1: It's such a relief. And this guy is one of
Speaker 1: four million people in the UK who uses what's called
Speaker 1: a pre payment meter, which I'm reliably informed that Americans
Speaker 1: don't have. So do you do you all? Are you
Speaker 1: familiar with the concept of pre payment meters? Uh? No, okay,
Speaker 1: so maybe people are familiar with like pay as you
Speaker 1: go phones right where you go to the shop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you if you're like selling drugs, or your you
Speaker 1: engaged in anti government extremism. Yeah you want to want
Speaker 1: a phone like that? Sure? Yeah yeah yeah, Or if
Speaker 1: you're doing journalism, you might want journalism reasons. It's the
Speaker 1: same as one of the others. Yeah, yes, true. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Here at cool Zone Media. You know, you know, you
Speaker 1: know who won't use a prepaid cell phone to sell
Speaker 1: you drugs because they're not Wait yeah they would, you
Speaker 1: think so? I think they just got enough money they
Speaker 1: would just use a regular phone bill and have a lawyer.
Speaker 1: Just you know, I think I think they're deep into
Speaker 1: boost Mobile for the only thing even John laugh. They're
Speaker 1: fucking back. Okay, So you know who has to go
Speaker 1: to Walmut to buy more credit to their phone so
Speaker 1: they can sell you some weed. It's the advertisers who
Speaker 1: support this show. Okay, we're back and we are talking
Speaker 1: about prepaid energy meters, a scintillating topic. So the prepaid
Speaker 1: energy meter, you have to go out, you have to
Speaker 1: pay for energy, so if your rate to go. The
Speaker 1: reason for these overwhelmingly is like there's an agreement by
Speaker 1: which stenergy supplies won't just cut you off. In the UK,
Speaker 1: like if you have old people in your house, you
Speaker 1: have children in your house, like they have to do this.
Speaker 1: The appearance of caring is this thing that we're going
Speaker 1: to see is really important in lots of these policies. Right,
Speaker 1: so they can't cut you off, but if they have it,
Speaker 1: if you have a meter and you can't prepay for
Speaker 1: the electricity, then your de facto cut off. Right And
Speaker 1: the best states I could find about this was in
Speaker 1: seventeen were roughly a hundred and forty tho households of
Speaker 1: the of those that had pre payment meters self disconnected.
Speaker 1: Self disconnected the euphemism for they couldn't pay right for
Speaker 1: gas or electricity in they couldn't afford to our credit
Speaker 1: to their meter right and they didn't have the credit,
Speaker 1: so they couldn't get the electricity, so they end up disconnecting.
Speaker 1: And if you add to this that the British houses
Speaker 1: are made out of cheese. Our houses are very poorly
Speaker 1: insulated for the most part. Right that they're often single brick,
Speaker 1: so it's expensive to heat them and they get cold
Speaker 1: in the winter and they get hot in the summer.
Speaker 1: We're not we don't have houses are designed to deal
Speaker 1: with the extremes in temperature which we are now experiencing
Speaker 1: because we have ruined the climate. So people are spending
Speaker 1: more and more, using more and more electricity and gas
Speaker 1: to heat their homes. It's costing more and more and
Speaker 1: increasingly they can't afford to pay it, right, and this
Speaker 1: will lead to people dying. So if we look at
Speaker 1: like what the average pensioner in the UK, right, I
Speaker 1: looked at some statistics on the Office of National Statistic Here,
Speaker 1: the average pensioner in the UK has on a fixed income.
Speaker 1: It's making seventeen thousand pounds a year, which I guess
Speaker 1: pounds of what though the gold rubber gold? You take
Speaker 1: your pounds to the Bank of England and they give
Speaker 1: you golden return, Okay, not anymore. That actually, interestingly was,
Speaker 1: if we go on a side note for a minute,
Speaker 1: one of the ways Britain achieved greater democratization when the
Speaker 1: middle class for excluded but landowners were in did was
Speaker 1: the middle class had cash money and the landowners had
Speaker 1: wealth in the form of property. Right, so in the
Speaker 1: middle class threatened to tank the entire Bank of England
Speaker 1: by taking all their pound notes and asking to have
Speaker 1: them converted to to the gold that they that they
Speaker 1: were supposedly pegged to and there was not enough goal
Speaker 1: to actually to do that for the entire money supplies,
Speaker 1: so they could have tanked the Bank of England. So yeah,
Speaker 1: a bit of Reform Act history. They're no longer they're
Speaker 1: decoupled now from that, so you can't do that, sadly.
Speaker 1: But seventeen tho pounds is not a lot of money, right.
Speaker 1: Trust has just announced that the energy bill for an
Speaker 1: average family is going to be KEPPT at two thousand,
Speaker 1: five hundred pound a year, which is a decent chunk
Speaker 1: of your income, right if you're making seventeen thousand. Before that,
Speaker 1: the previous planned limit had been three thousand, five hundred
Speaker 1: forty nine pounds for an average family based on average consumption,
Speaker 1: which is a very significant chunk of your seventeen thousand
Speaker 1: pound yet, right, especially if if if you're renting on
Speaker 1: top of that, Right, the cost of housing, the cost
Speaker 1: of rental housing has gone up in the UK, and
Speaker 1: so and this is arise again. The capital already been
Speaker 1: risen in April. Right, it's not a price cap, right,
Speaker 1: This doesn't mean that you as a family are guaranteed
Speaker 1: that you will not pay more than this two thousand
Speaker 1: found number. What is It's a unit cost limit. So
Speaker 1: not all families are typical, not all homes are typical,
Speaker 1: but the cost is for those who interesting tenpence per
Speaker 1: killer for gas, steady fourpence per killer for electricity. So
Speaker 1: what this means is that, like, we've capped a little
Speaker 1: bit of the cost and in response, like, and this
Speaker 1: is pretty this is pretty typical of what the conservatives do. Right.
Speaker 1: They'll do this thing where they give the appearance of
Speaker 1: caring and then at the same time they bundle it
Speaker 1: in with a bunch of incredibly like uh, just like
Speaker 1: the best way to understand these people is that they've
Speaker 1: you the free market as a religion, right, So, and
Speaker 1: they believe that like the only way out of anything
Speaker 1: is to cut taxes. Whether they actually believe that because
Speaker 1: they think it will genuinely make the situation better, or
Speaker 1: they're just trying to get as much as they can
Speaker 1: for them and theirs. I think it's probably I'm leaning
Speaker 1: towards the second one, right, But so she bundles this
Speaker 1: with the UK is gonna gonna lift it ban on fracking, right, Um,
Speaker 1: the UK band fracking after a series of earth tremors
Speaker 1: near Blackpool, which like, there's a lot of cursed things
Speaker 1: about Britain, but until recently we hadn't added earthquakes to
Speaker 1: that list, and so thank you Liz. They it's very
Speaker 1: funny work Business School published to study in pointing out
Speaker 1: it is widely widely recognized that the open and liberal
Speaker 1: nature of the UK's gas market means that the market
Speaker 1: price the national Baltic point is unlikely to be influenced
Speaker 1: by shell gas development. So shell gas is fracking right
Speaker 1: in the UK. So the UK is going to start fracking,
Speaker 1: which is great. And she also proposed removing the top
Speaker 1: tier of income tax, which is reducing the amount of
Speaker 1: tax paid by people who earn more than a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand pounds a year right now they pay
Speaker 1: tax above that. This announcement caused a pound to fall
Speaker 1: to a historic low against the dollar and for Trust
Speaker 1: to find herself in open beef with the Wokes Golds
Speaker 1: at the i m F. So the i m F
Speaker 1: said new economic measures laid out by the UK government
Speaker 1: will likely increase inequality, and they added that the i
Speaker 1: m F does not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages
Speaker 1: at this juncture. So she also during this like she
Speaker 1: she promised that she was going to cancel a planned
Speaker 1: rise on corporate tax and scrap a proposed cap on
Speaker 1: bankers bonuses. This has been one of her big policy things,
Speaker 1: along with Simon Clark, who declared a new age of
Speaker 1: austerity at the time they announced this. Right, but there's
Speaker 1: this constant like everything Britain does is only one way
Speaker 1: in which conservative governments to move can move, and that
Speaker 1: is taxing the other people who went to the same
Speaker 1: schools and universities as them less. So I kind of
Speaker 1: want to take a step back here and talk about
Speaker 1: the ideology that underpins a lot of what Trust is doing.
Speaker 1: And and it's that she and Chance to the execut
Speaker 1: Quasi Quieting and pretty Patel and Dominic rob who are
Speaker 1: all in her cabinet, I think a part of this
Speaker 1: free enterprise group within the Conservative Party. And much like
Speaker 1: you have caucuses in the American Senate, in Britain, we
Speaker 1: have these groups. And they wrote this book called Britannia Unchained,
Speaker 1: which I don't know if people are probably not familiar with. Right,
Speaker 1: I've heard of it, but I know very little about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just like a it's a series of short essays,
Speaker 1: just like doing a Milton freedoman, like an unreconstructed free
Speaker 1: market fundamentalism. That it's it's very different to what the
Speaker 1: because the American right likes to talk about markets and
Speaker 1: libertarianism and stuff, right, but like in general their entire politics,
Speaker 1: it's just kind of owning the lips, right, like these
Speaker 1: socio cultural a greevances, and then when they get in power,
Speaker 1: they they they're spending is largely just about one might
Speaker 1: argue staying in power, right, Whereas the Conservatives in Britain
Speaker 1: are genuinely committed to slashing government, including slashing services, including
Speaker 1: slashing any kind of social safety. Now right, it does
Speaker 1: have these amusing consequences sometimes, like Britain continually cuts the
Speaker 1: number of police it has, which is great. It's genuinely
Speaker 1: really funny. Yeah, it's it's very funny. It's very funny
Speaker 1: that like our most right wing party, and I guess
Speaker 1: not our most writing party if you've got some proper nutters,
Speaker 1: but we've defunded the police just by not wanting to
Speaker 1: spend money on them. It is also okay, and by
Speaker 1: by funny, you have the incredibly depressing that like like
Speaker 1: Corby Corbin was running on adding more cops, which is
Speaker 1: like the most cursed, Like the British left like always
Speaker 1: like they've always find a way to destroy themselves. That
Speaker 1: they've been doing this for like two hundred years. It's
Speaker 1: really impressive stuff. Yeah, yeah, it's incredibly it's incredibly depressing
Speaker 1: to watch, Like, yes, the British left just tear itself
Speaker 1: to piece. Not that the American left doesn't tear itself
Speaker 1: to pieces, right, it seems to be a thing on
Speaker 1: the left. But yeah, when the British left had a
Speaker 1: serious run and making a serious difference in instead, we
Speaker 1: decided to just absolutely like tear each other to shreds.
Speaker 1: And here we are, right here we are with the
Speaker 1: number of children in poverty going up by six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand in since with the number of twelve The number
Speaker 1: of children who rely on food banks for their food
Speaker 1: security has tripled. By the end of this year, their
Speaker 1: National Health Service, the National Health Curve, which is our
Speaker 1: nationalize socialized medicine system, right, the IDA, will have been
Speaker 1: cut by compared to that's despite the fact that we
Speaker 1: just went through a pandemic. The poorer socio economic groups
Speaker 1: in the UK are experiencing a full in life expectancy
Speaker 1: for the first like we we have life expectancy. It
Speaker 1: is pretty much continually trucked up since the Industrial Revolution,
Speaker 1: but we're now finally slashing that down again. Well I wonder,
Speaker 1: I wonder why. Yeah, there's no way of explaining it
Speaker 1: that there's it's just happening. The only solution is a
Speaker 1: free market, a free market, a freeer market. He had
Speaker 1: to pump more things into the area. Yes, ye, well
Speaker 1: here I'm going to take a puff from my inhaler
Speaker 1: because my lungs are dying. Yeah. Well that's because one
Speaker 1: is outrageous right now, you're not getting fracked hard enough
Speaker 1: in the Pacific. More fracking will fix money. And the
Speaker 1: fact that people are literally dying, yeah, younger than their
Speaker 1: their parents did. And the Tories don't they have these
Speaker 1: like what's very important to them. It's the performance of
Speaker 1: patrician care, right like we saw this with Theresa May's
Speaker 1: burning injustices, which of course remain burning injustices because you're
Speaker 1: doing anything about them. Boris Johnson's leveling up agenda of
Speaker 1: people familiar with his God, I can't believe you have
Speaker 1: a minister, you have a shadow minister of leveling up.
Speaker 1: I just like, at what point do you just go
Speaker 1: none of this is real, and like if they start
Speaker 1: sending cops, you just keep beating them up until everyone
Speaker 1: else is forced to concede that they're like, no, there
Speaker 1: is not in fact a shadow a shadow minister of
Speaker 1: leveling up. Yeah, I don't know. That is the big
Speaker 1: The big question that I want to ask is at
Speaker 1: what point do we realize that there is not a
Speaker 1: shadow Minister of leveling up and that we don't have
Speaker 1: to open new pork markets, and that maybe that isn't
Speaker 1: a solution to us dying younger than our parents, and
Speaker 1: that we don't have to do what these people say
Speaker 1: when they are just very blatantly like Trust is very
Speaker 1: obviously doing an extractive speed run on the British economy
Speaker 1: right there. And I'll tell you what, you know, who
Speaker 1: else will do an expected steed run on the British economy?
Speaker 1: Is that the products and services that yeah, the show
Speaker 1: it is sadly yeah, alright, we're talking about extractors speed runs.
Speaker 1: We're back. So with Johnson and even with Theresa May
Speaker 1: right who was a Prime minister before him, there was
Speaker 1: this important performance of of caring right, being like, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make life better for the poorer socioeconomic groups,
Speaker 1: the poorer people in the UK. I think what's changed
Speaker 1: is it like the nature of consent from the governed
Speaker 1: is is this thing that maybe we need to elucidate more, right,
Speaker 1: Like in Britain, there was this kind of consensus that
Speaker 1: like the the governing party will pretend to care and
Speaker 1: we'll pretend to do things, and sometimes they would let
Speaker 1: you have nice thing, write little treats and trinkets, and
Speaker 1: that in return you would largely not kick them out right,
Speaker 1: like either physically or electorally, although it's very hard to
Speaker 1: keep them out electorally because of Britain's asked backwards electoral system,
Speaker 1: which is another relic of a previous era. Now they
Speaker 1: don't seem to be bothering to pretend to care, right,
Speaker 1: Like when you're looking at a system in which, when
Speaker 1: trust came to power, old people were going to die.
Speaker 1: We we were looking at a system in which people
Speaker 1: are dying younger than their parents, and old people were
Speaker 1: going to die in the cold this winter, like I've
Speaker 1: got friends. I remember this was years ago, but it
Speaker 1: was when the utility brices maybe started going up. When
Speaker 1: my grandfather passed, my grandmother lived on her own and
Speaker 1: her being really afraid to heat the house because of
Speaker 1: how much it costs. Right, And I've got friends who
Speaker 1: have spoken to this time who were like, well, we're
Speaker 1: preparing to have our grand come and live with us
Speaker 1: so that we can we can heat the house, or
Speaker 1: like if we just move into the downstairs parts of
Speaker 1: the house then we can keep those warm, right, or
Speaker 1: like you know, we're going to go back to having
Speaker 1: fires and we'll just google warm our house with a
Speaker 1: wood fire, right, lots of how does in the UK
Speaker 1: still have fireplaces that are functional? Yeah, my my house
Speaker 1: growing up was heat with a wood fire. It's great.
Speaker 1: It's good for their lungs. It's gives them a good
Speaker 1: coating that they can then use in the rest of
Speaker 1: your life to repel other pollutants. Coal fires are great
Speaker 1: inside the home, highly encouraged. So like people were really
Speaker 1: making these like it's it's it's the sort of stuff
Speaker 1: you you associate maybe with like like the hard times
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, right, like like sort of being like, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to go to the food bank and we'll
Speaker 1: line up and get food and then we'll we'll all
Speaker 1: huddling one room to stay warm. But these are the
Speaker 1: plans that people were making like this this summer, looking
Speaker 1: to this winter. And Liz Trust responded to that with like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: the way to fix this is lower taxes for high
Speaker 1: earners and no cap, but removing the cap on bankers
Speaker 1: bonuses so that the financial services industry will relocate to
Speaker 1: the UK, which it aren't because the UK has left
Speaker 1: the European Union, right, and it's now kind of a
Speaker 1: pariah in that sense. So like, I don't really understand
Speaker 1: how the UK, how the British government at obtains consent
Speaker 1: from the government anymore. And I'm partially interested to see
Speaker 1: how this goes, and partially obviously like a pall to
Speaker 1: see the costs of this. Like they're not even trying
Speaker 1: to care, they're not even pretending anymore. They're just going
Speaker 1: to take what they can and then presumably bounced to
Speaker 1: some tax island where they can they can survive and
Speaker 1: thrive while the rest of us freeze our asses off
Speaker 1: over the winter. So what I wanna, I guess, finish
Speaker 1: up with is this idea that like, so in America,
Speaker 1: you have six terms of elections, right, so every we're
Speaker 1: we're having a mid terms next month and then we'll
Speaker 1: have the presidential in Britain. We don't write in Britain
Speaker 1: the government has to lose a vote from no confidence,
Speaker 1: which is when the majority of MP's vote they no
Speaker 1: longer have confidence in the government or the Prime minister
Speaker 1: have to warr in theory the monarch castic corner election. Right,
Speaker 1: So I guess King Charles could just because they didn't
Speaker 1: let King Charles go to the climate summit recently, which
Speaker 1: is another amazing thing that Live Trusts managed to do
Speaker 1: within like a month of being in office. She's already
Speaker 1: like openly in beef with the monarchy, which is the
Speaker 1: one thing that conservative people might like more than white
Speaker 1: people who tax rich people less. She wouldn't let King
Speaker 1: Charles go to a climate summit because conservatives are more
Speaker 1: or less climate change deniers or at least sort of
Speaker 1: climate change don't give a fuck because we need to
Speaker 1: extract more money, and so like at some point, like
Speaker 1: I don't know what the withdrawal of consent looks like anymore. Right,
Speaker 1: it's the people who British politicians see themselves like see
Speaker 1: themselves as governing for like their constituents are seemingly like
Speaker 1: columnists in the Telegraph, and the people who are the
Speaker 1: CEOs of these big companies in London which have grown
Speaker 1: and grown and grown and grown, bay on this endless
Speaker 1: supply of free money that is now drying up, right,
Speaker 1: So instead of dealing with the record of that, they're
Speaker 1: going to try and look at other ways for those
Speaker 1: people to continue to grow and extract finance. And I
Speaker 1: don't know what that means for the rest of British people,
Speaker 1: like I don't know what the withdrawal of consent from
Speaker 1: a system which so obviously doesn't care about the material
Speaker 1: conditions you live in looks like. But if we want
Speaker 1: to talk about collapse, and collapse is a thing that
Speaker 1: gradually happens rather than the thing that kind of we
Speaker 1: click our fingers and it's there. I think some of
Speaker 1: this is what it looks like, like people refusing to
Speaker 1: pay their power bills is becoming a thing in UK right.
Speaker 1: I should mention the energy companies are recording record profits
Speaker 1: throughout this time period. Maybe it looks like protests in
Speaker 1: the street that Britain has had these like they had
Speaker 1: big tuition feeth protests, and we had the quote unquote
Speaker 1: London riots right, which were incredibly harshly put down and
Speaker 1: people went to jail for a long time for like
Speaker 1: stealing a bottle of water from Motesco. So, like, I
Speaker 1: think it's worth watching for people who are not in
Speaker 1: the UK, Like, what does it look like when you're
Speaker 1: governing elite stop pretending to care about you And what
Speaker 1: is the withdrawal of legitimacy or the withdrawal of consent
Speaker 1: look like? And like I said, I don't know, it's
Speaker 1: it's looked different every time it's happened, right, looked different
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union too, uh, the way it looked
Speaker 1: in Like I'm trying to think of other regime collapses
Speaker 1: in South America. And but like we say that, ay,
Speaker 1: we say that a regime is consolidated when the rules
Speaker 1: of the game are more important than the outcome of
Speaker 1: the game. And I think we're getting to a point
Speaker 1: in Britain where maybe the outcome of the game is
Speaker 1: going to be more important than the rules of the game.
Speaker 1: So that might mean some serious change, it might not.
Speaker 1: It might just mean, you know, we put a new
Speaker 1: dude on our on our coins and everyone puts bunting
Speaker 1: up industry, and we do nothing fundamentally different and just
Speaker 1: acquiescent and living conditions getting worse and worse and worse,
Speaker 1: and more and more people are dying because their poor.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but yeah, Garrison is just nodding, bet, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that last one is going to be the
Speaker 1: one that happens. Yeah, maybe we'll do it Olympics, and
Speaker 1: we'll spend the next what was London twelve, the next
Speaker 1: decade just reminiscing about how great that was, and and
Speaker 1: then we'll just not notice that, you know, our grandparents
Speaker 1: are dying unnecessarily because distrust his friends have to make
Speaker 1: more money. I have. I have an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: faith in the British people to just do nothing like
Speaker 1: they they they have, they have an unbelievable ability to
Speaker 1: just be like things are getting worse, like I don't
Speaker 1: know who cares, like We're still British, like they like
Speaker 1: they can't even really effectively do imperialism anymore. But it's
Speaker 1: like everyone so wedded to the like imperialism machine that
Speaker 1: everyone that like, you know, everyone, every everyone will constantly
Speaker 1: vote against their class interests. Everyone will constantly act agains
Speaker 1: a class interests, everyone will constantly just sort of like
Speaker 1: literally let hundreds of thousands of people die around them.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, because flags and sports. I think Corbin has
Speaker 1: and energized a lot of people into realizing their class interests,
Speaker 1: perhaps more than they were before, because there was briefly
Speaker 1: a parliamentary alternative, but right now there isn't Like kiss
Speaker 1: Downer is not Jeremy Corbyn. But then you know, but
Speaker 1: it's also the British right, like it's like well okay,
Speaker 1: so they sort of reconsolidated or left it did nothing,
Speaker 1: got owned and then imploded and now it's being split
Speaker 1: between like just complete pure like people arguing that Star
Speaker 1: Wars doing socialism like like pure labor party hacks, and
Speaker 1: then like a bunch of people just doing nothing because
Speaker 1: it's the UK and it fundamentally never gets any better. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was like I take a little bit of hope
Speaker 1: from like have you seen the the where people are
Speaker 1: to be deported from the UK and then they were
Speaker 1: like mass mobilizations to pretend that happening. Yeah, that gives
Speaker 1: me some hope. Right, that's a lot of people willing
Speaker 1: to give up the Saturday or the Sunday to shower
Speaker 1: immigration offices, and like, that's something that didn't happen by
Speaker 1: and large in the in the US right, even with
Speaker 1: the like gross abuses of the immigration system under Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: people people didn't stop that happening. So some of that
Speaker 1: it did happen in places like there are a lot
Speaker 1: of flights that got blocked and stuff. Yeah, I guess,
Speaker 1: I guess, yeah, yeah it happened then, Yeah, in a
Speaker 1: different way, some people here did, Like I think there
Speaker 1: was an icing and barrier logan and it got run
Speaker 1: out of town. So I shouldn't say that, but that
Speaker 1: gives me hope. It gives me hope that maybe some
Speaker 1: people will realize that, like, the solution is not to
Speaker 1: vote harder, right, and the solution is to is to
Speaker 1: organize and to do things in extra parliamentary fashion and
Speaker 1: not trust the people who are participating in your exploitation
Speaker 1: to live you from your exploitation, which has maybe been
Speaker 1: our mistake for too long. Yeah, we we Everyone in
Speaker 1: England needs to take a page from the Harry Potter
Speaker 1: books and arm the children to murder or government officials.
Speaker 1: If I'm remembering how those folks ended for for for
Speaker 1: form a gorilla army of you and your friends and
Speaker 1: attempt to overthrow the government. Probably. Yeah, let's let's say
Speaker 1: that's that's that's the plot of the Order of the Phoenix. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember it now when they when they do a cobbum. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's it. That's that's. That's our message to you today,
Speaker 1: read Harry pot To do a cobbum. There we go,
Speaker 1: There we go. That's our legally binding message for you today,
Speaker 1: non actionable threat. Hey, We'll be back Monday with more
Speaker 1: episodes every week from now until the heat death of
Speaker 1: the universe. It Could Happen Here is a production of
Speaker 1: cool zone Media. For more podcasts from cool zone Media,
Speaker 1: visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check
Speaker 1: us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources
Speaker 1: for It Could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone
Speaker 1: Media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.