UKIP drew voters from across the spectrum (apt choice of word too). I want you to go look at swings at the past few elections. There were tonnes of voters leaving Labour and going to UKIP. Hell the Tories pulled old mining towns in the north in the last election and I cannot stress how out of this world that actually is.
Why did these changes happen? Because Labour stopped caring about their traditional base (blue collar workers) and went full fucking rainbow with the borders (among other things). Immigration can depress wages, provides competition for labour, leads to social unrest (if not properly managed), overcrowded cities, housing shortages and a bitter feeling towards those in charge. So if those blue collar workers are going to vote, why would they vote for a party that fucks them at every angle?
They dont, they find another. They aint going left to the Greens, Lib Dems are faggots who sold the country out to Cameron and Tories? With their history with blue collars? Nuh uh. But looky here, theres a party that wants to protect British ways, specifically when it comes to borders. It doesnt want to fuck the poor (or have a history of it), its got some common sense approaches to all these problems I listed and they suffer from and the guy running it is charismatic as fuck. After a few election cycles of UKIP, UKIP dies (it was time anyway) and theyre once again left with the choice. Vote for the guys that fucked you 30 years ago? Or vote for the guys that have been fucking you the last 20? Its not a hard equation.
Sargon's voting history likely mirrored exactly what I said because thats what voting history, polls and trends suggest in the UK. Sargon didnt leave the left, the left left him (and fucking everyone else in a rainbow-fuelled brainless move)
Its true, the left has changed a lot, but only really in terms of language and arguably the goals, assuming we are talking about progressives and not democrat politicians aka Joe biden and the like who are more center-right arguably.
Even by the standards of "old leftism" Carl is right wing. Economically he is left wing, sure, but only in contrast to the US political spectrum where Universal healthcare and socioeconomic safety nets is a partisan issue unlike in most everywhere else in the world. not even the most fervent conservative in britain would want to tear down the healthcare system, because they know that despite its flaws its popular. Though they do push for privatization, which, carl being increasingly economically libertarian, doesnt seem to have much of a problem with.
And even then, when was the last time you heard Carl talk about how the US should implement such systems? If truly dedicated to left wing policies, regardless of the annoying neon-heads mucking about in the breadtube trough, he would at least try to push some of his supposed beliefs.
culturally he is centrist-right, especially if you count the typical nationalist brit bong shtick of "pasty skin + Snagglytooth = Imperial master race".
Geo-politically he is definitely right wing. endorsing nothing but right wing leaders, regardless of their authoritarian antics, just because they supposedly stand up against one or two societal ills with their "shitposty, redpilled and based kek" ways.
Cue Jordan Peterson talking to Viktor Orban, a dude who shut down universities for dissenting opinion, about the dangers of political correctness (from the left, obviously). Not saying JP represents Carl directly, but lets not beat around the bush. this is how these guys see the world. the "classical liberals" or whatever stupid shit you want to call em. College students are more dangerous than authoritarian regimes because reasons.
College professors preaching Marxism and feminism in universities? literally 1984.
Political leaders banning educational forums and institutions because of dissenting opinions? based, redpilled, dab on em sjws.
At best, its political larping. They want to pretend this is Rome, and that the current nationalist populist is Augustus here to wipe out the corrupt senate and evil rebels.
At worst, its closet conservatism with a sprinkling of economic self-awareness.
The only times i can think of when Carl called out right wing figures has been whenever they refused to tow whatever arbitrary line in the sand he has set that day.
Like when Nigel Farage left UKIP and was called a coward for it because he didnt like the ethno-nationalism. At least until Ukip fucking imploded and the Brexit party threw them to the curb.
Also, say what you will about "old school left" but the left has always been about progressives pushing aggressively against the norms. the "homosexuals" were seen as little more than a rainbow fueled craze as well. I bet my bathwater stonks that the same rhetoric about "fucking progressives, leaving us old school lefties behind with their aggressive culture war" happened 10-20-30-40-50-60 years ago.
And all of this spergery, and i didnt even go into some of his most brilliant hottakes. Blaming Elliot rodger on feminism, rape victims being "gold-digging" whores because they profited from it, women ruined muh politics etc.
Am i saying that Carl is a far right extremist? no, no one here has said that.
Am i saying that Carl is a neo-nazi radical or a conservative oil-tycoon/Libertarian bear-hat wearing gunfucker? no.
What i, and other people are saying, is that Carl, for all the talk about holding left wing economic and social policies, always goes after and attacks the left whilst venerating right wing figures. He doesnt merely "ignore the right, focus on the left" for the purpose of reforming "his own political peers". He'd lick Trump's asshole clean if it meant he could hog a brown loogie in Bernie Sander's face for his meekness and refusal to call BLM protesters the n-word.
www.youtube.com
