Ep.73 - Christian Nationalism in the UK

Ben and Adam coordinate T-shirts, then draw from Adam's article in Shibboleth magazine to coordinate their critiques of how church and crown legitimise each other. They also react to the horror of an American Pope and present perhaps their most famous Saint of the Week yet!

Transcript

PLEASE NOTE: This transcript may be slight inaccurate. 


Hello, and welcome to Bread and Rosaries, the leftist Christian podcast that believes in coordinated fashion. I'm Ben Molyneux-Hetherington, and I'm joined by Adam Spiers. Adam, we we've done it again after someone called us out for wearing the same thing on a previous, video episode of the podcast. We logged on today, and we are both wearing pretty much the same. Yeah.
 
 I did I selected this as well thinking that we wouldn't be. I thought, oh, this is probably a safe bet, but apparently not. Yeah. To be fair, you have, like, four t shirts. It's kind of on me to just avoid any of those.
 
 Like, I don't I actually don't have four T shirts. I have more than four T shirts, but the four I only have four that I've bought. So, you know, a lot of them are actually your old T shirts because I care so little about fashion. Yeah. That's that's true.
 
 And, what is the provenance of the t shirt you're currently wearing? This was actually a gift from my partner. Okay. And it is just a the problem is I've got a really long torso. Mhmm.
 
 So I need, like, long T shirts. And, so she went and bought me a pack of three long plain T shirts, one of the best things that have ever happened to me, honestly. Uh-huh. But does it sound like they're ethically sourced? Is that the I don't know about that.
 
 Mhmm. Unfortunately, as much as I'd love to source ethically, I did I just did, finger quotes for anyone who's who's listening because, of course, as we know, there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. However, you know, I would still love to do my bit as best I can, but, unfortunately, at the moment, I have no money. So, patreon.com/breadandrosaries, or, you know, breadandrosaries.com/shop, something like that. Sounds plausible.
 
 Yeah. It's all on the website anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Just go there.
 
 Great great great plugging, Adam. Yeah. And, yeah. I I will continue to be the ethical one of the of the podcast with my clothing choices. That's absolutely fine.
 
 You can you can let the slide down. When was the last time you drank a Coca Cola been? Quite a while, actually. But I had a Fanta last night, which is so much worse! 
 
 That's even worse! That's even worse! 
 
 It's because the pub we went to I had a tried to have an orange and lemonade the other week, and it was one of the foulest things I've ever tasted. I don't know how you can screw up an orange and lemonade, but they, they're The season do a lot of, like, bitter stuff now that's I just want the basic orange juice with some lemonade in it. Is that the way? So I went for a Fanta instead, and, yeah, it's it is the Nazi Cola.
 
 So Nazi Cola. Yeah. Yeah. What can you do, though? Like, sometimes, you know, you're in a pub and that's all they've got.
 
 What are you gonna do? Yeah. I mean, the answer is it would have been more ethical for me to just drink. Right? That's the Depends what you're drinking, I suppose.
 
 I don't know what isn't isn't ethical to drink. I don't know them. I'm sure there is, like, rules about what I mean, I think, just stay away from BrewDog these days. Yeah. No.
 
 That's fine. I'm not a beer drinker, so that's fine. Fruity cider for those Swedish communists, so that's probably fine. I cider was one that I used to so when I did drink years ago, if I was gonna have, like, a pint of something, I have a pint of cider, but normally, I was I was I would have spirits. Yeah.
 
 I'll be doing a few vodka shots through your eyes, that sort of thing. Snorting salt. What is it like the what's the shot to take away? Yeah. But there's like the death version where you, like, drip the lemon juice in your eye and snort the salt.
 
 That's gonna be what we do next week for Ben and Rose movies. This will be on our Patreon. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. If you donate enough money, we'll get Adam to do that. I am making no promises. So today, we're going to talk a little bit about some ideas around Christian nationalism, riffing a little bit of the new issue of Shibboleth magazine. Let me just for those of you on the, on the video, on the YouTube, look at that beautiful magazine.
 
 Look how wonderful it is. You might be able to see a small squash stain in the corner that tells you that it's a used magazine. And if that upsets you, there's a folded corner in it as well. I don't know how you feel about it. That upsets me greatly.
 
 Yeah. But most importantly, look at that. In the bright lights, again, apologies if you are on the audio, but I'm showing the camera Adam's name in bright lights in the in the meantime. Pretty sure your name is there as well, Ben. Mine is not in the bright lights.
 
 I got ready to Oh, is it not? To the, yeah. Yeah. To the No. No.
 
 No. Down the bottom. Yeah. You're the big name. Oh, no.
 
 So, so, yes, we're gonna talk a little bit about some of these Christian nationalism. Adam wrote a great piece in there that I have now read. You got upset with me the other day when I hadn't read it, but I have now read it. I didn't know I got upset with you. I don't think I actually did.
 
 I think you might be wrong. Me a very nasty word that I would sell the podcast. Yeah. I would never do that. So, yeah, we will talk a little bit about, Christian nationalism, riffing on some of the stuff that's in there.
 
 It's a great issue. Shibbolethmag.com, I believe, is the, link if you wanna get ahold of one. Yeah. Definitely. Recommend it.
 
 Definitely do as well because it's like it's a I mean, we did a an an episode with John c, the editor of that magazine recently. And the point is that it's it's a brand new sort of lefty, progressively Christian magazine, and it really needs all the help it can get really because it's just started. This is a third issue. So if you if you can, definitely go to their website and order your copy, maybe subscribe. Yeah.
 
 Absolutely. Anyway, we'll we'll whiff a little bit on some of the ideas and that and talk some more about Christian nationalism in it. But before that, as always, I'm gonna ask the question, what else is on my mind, grapes? What else is on my mind, grapes? And, Adam, while you're on that soundboard there, keep that finger hovered because it's time for some air for air horns.
 
 We've got a new pope. Indeed. Habemus Papam Ben. 
 You what, mate? 
 
 Habemus Papam.
 
 That's what they say when they announce the new pope. Is it? Yeah. It means we have a pope. Yeah.
 
 We have a new pope. It's an American pope, which is wrong because he should be Italian. I'd settle for Italian American at best. But to be fair, I think he is I think his one of his parents is, like, French Italian or something. And Uh-huh.
 
 He has another parent who is French, Italian, and Catholic. Yeah. I think he's another one who's either German or Spanish or something. So hang on a sec. You're saying he's French, Italian, Spanish, and Catholic?
 
 And he's a naturalised Peruvian citizen. So Okay. But that that last one doesn't doesn't have quite the same, you know, sleazy vibe to it. You know what I'm saying? But up to that point, that was the sleaziest man ever invented.
 
 Well, I mean, there have been some really sleazy men popes. So Yeah. Yeah. I don't know much about the pope other than he's an American, which is a travesty. I've seen a lot of stuff going around where people are like saying he's got a history of kinda homophobic stuff that he said.
 
 And He's he's the pope. I mean He did he did do some safeguarding stuff properly. And, yeah, everyone's been making the same joke of, like, yeah, the the pope is Catholic. Like, what do you what do you wanna, like, like it sounds like he is just Francis too, like, kinda shitty, but less shitty than a lot of popes. The thing is, right, 80% of the cardinal I I I don't know if it's cardinals in general, but certainly, like, cardinal electors have been appointed by Francis.
 
 So, you know, we were always likely to end up with someone who was aligned somewhat with Francis's program, which is, you know, this is the thing. I think Francis has been the best pope we've had in well, I mean, since the very early days. Let's put it that way. And, yeah, even Francis, as you say, he's a Catholic. He's he was the pope.
 
 He's gonna have some stuff that we're not quite on board with. Let's put it that way. I mean, he he used homophobic slurs, really quite bad homophobic slurs, and apologised for them, but, you know, but, you know, Catholic the Roman Catholic church is still homophobic, systemically homophobic. It's still systemic systemically, misogynistic. You know?
 
 So there's a lot I really love about Catholic spirituality, but we shouldn't expect anything too impressive. Let's be honest. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, what we can say about him is that as someone who is on board with the kinds of reforms that Francis was doing, he's gonna be much better for, the poor.
 
 He's gonna be a lot more concerned about economic justice. Him taking the name Leo, some people have observed is a nod to Leo the thirteenth who was pope until, I think, like, nineteen o three or something, and he was a pope who was trying to answer some of the questions that were raised by the rise of communism and socialism. And there's some you know, obviously, if you listen to what mainstream media has to say about that, they will say, oh, he was you know, they'll frame it as he was the pope who really cared for the working man and so on. And, like, I'm sure he did. Right?
 
 But a big part of that was, of course, that similar to how social democracy came, you know, came to pass, right, is that you've got a threat and you have to acquiesce to some of their demands in order to keep the system as it is, which is effectively what Leo the thirteenth did. Right? So I'm sure I'm sure he did care in much the same way that I'm sure, you know, Roosevelt cared to an extent. But those things that were won were won by people, you know, won by the people, not by those in power, first and foremost. But either way, this new pope has taken the name Leo the fourteenth, which means that he is likely to try and model himself as a pope in a similar vein to Leo the thirteenth, who was interested in the workers and economic justice and that kind of thing, which is a which is a good thing.
 
 But, you know, we're we're not going to we we can't expect to see, you know, a Marxist pope or a a a pope who isn't at least a little bit more of a problem. On Twitter. Woke Marxist pope Yeah. Is the, is the word on the street. Yeah.
 
 I think I think, I think we'll be waiting a while for that to actually be true. But I think But you can sing woke Marxist pope to the tune of North American's car and baltitude sound system, system, and it's very pleasing. So That's the most important thing about this. I think one thing I will say, I think it's really interesting. Like, obviously, for a long time, people have said, oh, we can't you know, they'll never elect an American pope because, you know, America is the sort of global hegemon.
 
 And I think there are some interesting questions it throws up about the position of America now that they have elected an American pope because I think it's probably quite deliberate. The fact that there are only four rounds of voting, it only took them two days, that is very, very quick. And I think that they've chosen an American and they've chosen this American quite deliberately because of the position of America at the moment. Having Trump as president for a second term, having sort of the rise of fascism in America, and some of the stuff that this guy has said. This guy has been quite directly oppositional to Trump and Trump's, immigration policies.
 
 So I think that's a really interesting move from the College of Cardinals there. I think it's quite a deliberate move. We'll see we'll see how it plays out. I think it also says something about, you know, America as a declining power as well. You know, if if the prevailing wisdom was for a long time that you can't have an American pope because America is is far too powerful, we don't want a concentration of power, well, now we've got the rise of China, we've got the rise of India, to a lesser extent, Russia, and, you know, a lot of African countries as well.
 
 You know, power is becoming less concentrated, and, of course, that is partly why we're seeing the rise of fascism in America. So we said you got the American pope, and America is a country that was once powerful but is in quite sharp decline and, turning to fascism. So deep down, we do actually still have an Italian pope. Sure. America is just Italy with more people.
 
 That's a bad pizza. That's I mean, the, the thing is, of course, that, as soon as you're pope, you're a citizen of the Vatican anyway. So Mhmm. You probably are as cardinal as well. I'm not sure.
 
 I know it's very it's very limited who can actually be a citizen of the Vatican. I know that the Swiss Guard can, but I think they're about the only certainly the only laypeople who can actually be citizens of the Vatican City. By the way, everyone is wrong on his name. People keep saying his name. He's what people are missing is that the new pope was announced the same day the Lions Touring Squad was announced, for the Tour to Australia this summer.
 
 And we all know that Leinster broke the record for the number of players in one club on a tour with 15. Leicester's mascot is, of course, Leo the Lion. So it's quite clearly a nod to the lions. And anyone who's missed that, I just don't think knows about Catholicism properly. The the Vatican is actually a a big rugby union, country.
 
 They've never quite qualified for a World Cup, but they're really fascinated by the Lions Tour. So that's because all of their players are Swiss Guard, and they just keep taking those, like, massive spears on the pitch. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 Too many injuries. Yeah. Well, these days are the way woke rugby is. You know, you can't get you you back in the day, you used to be able to rub your stunts against people. You used to spear people as your player.
 
 You know? Shall we move on to our main topic of the day? Go on, Ian. Then. Good.
 
 I'm glad I've got your permission. I always ask for your permission rather than just, you know, I think it's polite. Still do it anyway. But Yeah. Yeah.
 
 So as we mentioned, this newest edition of Shibboleth is about Christian nationalism, and it's very good. And there's some very good pieces in there, including by by Adam, as I mentioned. So I guess it's gonna start, Adam, by just asking you to kind of talk about what what angle you were trying to take on Christian nationalism in your piece, and we'll we'll go from there. The funny thing is the angle I was trying to take wasn't quite the angle I ended up with. I mean, I suppose maybe angle wise, it sort of was, but I ended up, as I tend to do, ranting about, the royals again and, kind of became it became a piece that I wasn't that I hadn't quite intended it to become.
 
 But the idea is that, first of all, Christian nationalism is not just a problem in America as we're often led to believe that there is Christian nationalism over here, but also that, you know, when you think of it, you shouldn't necessarily jump to the most extreme form of it in your mind. Right? There's a lot of Christian nationalism that is softer, right, and there to sort of manufacture consent rather than kind of hammer you over the head with it. And The UK is so much of our culture is absolutely dripping in Christian nationalism. And so I wanted to kind of just point some of this out, get people to think a little bit more critically when they're out and about, when they're engaging with, well, life really, but sort of media, with culture, with that kind of thing to sort of think about things, have a lens through which they can start to see where this Christian nationalism rears its head.
 
 Yeah. Absolutely. And you being you, you, of course, immediately start to about the royal family Yeah. Yeah. And the and the coronations.
 
 But but I thought it's, you know, some of the idea you called, the legitimation ritual Mhmm. Was was quite an interesting thing talking about the way that symbolism is used to legitimate power structures and the way that the church movement in particular was quite heavily involved in kind of legitimating Christian nationalism. Yeah. I mean, that's the whole point of it, really. The whole point of a coronation ceremony in a church is to give, not just human backing, but divine backing to a regime.
 
 Right? And there and there's there's a difference between a regime and a government. A regime is sort of the overall thing that can include multiple governments. And when we hear the word regime, we often hear it used in the context of countries like Russia, countries like China. Every country has a regime.
 
 Right? We are no different, and, our regime just happens to to use these legitimation rituals to legitimise themselves, you know, ostensibly in the eyes of God, but also humans as well in the eyes of people. So and and this is something it obviously functions as a, form of soft power abroad as well. So the thing we often hear about is how much people, particularly in America, for example, absolutely love the royals. You know?
 
 And one of the arguments we hear for retaining the royals is, well, they bring in so much money through tourism, which, of course, is, you know, at the very least, highly, highly questionable, and I would argue not true. Yeah. I I think something that I thought was quite interesting, that you touched upon, but it's touched upon in other pieces in the issue, actually, is this idea around oath taking. And there's an interview with, Stephen Backhouse Yeah. Where he talks, about basically Jesus telling you not to take oaths and, kinda talking about, you know, actually, if you take an oath of loyalty within, you know, which you have to if you're like an Anglican priest, that is fundamentally choosing to, ignore Jesus's command in order to be an acceptable member of of that church.
 
 And you also talk about, you know, the peoples who have to swear oaths within the coronation ceremony. And I found that really interesting idea, actually. And I think I find the oath thing quite an interesting perspective on it because I kinda come across, you know, that that kinda idea. But it's hard to I guess, historically, I've always been a bit confused about it because it's kinda being read as like a don't make promises or don't don't swear on things. You know, don't swear on on this or that, on my mother's grave, or whatever.
 
 And, actually, you know, Backhouse argues that it's very much a don't make oaths to the ruling powers. That's what is being referred to. It is about actually very specifically do not take an oath of commitment to to the state or to the powers that be or, you know, powers, principles, powers, however you wanna put it. And that is explicitly what Jesus is telling you not to. And in some ways, that's an a simple command to pass.
 
 And yet, lots of people, you know, whether they be Anglican priests or whether they be soldiers. Civil servants. Civil servants. So so many jobs. People don't realise how many jobs in this country require you to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
 
 It really is madness, a collective delusion. And I mean, it's something that I really when I was training and before I was training to be an Anglican priest, obviously, I'm now not, I really struggled with it. And I know that other people do as well because it's you know? I mean, I I I tell you what happened when I was, when I was first speaking to a DDO, diocesan director of ordinance. So that's a person in an Anglican diocese who kind of is in charge of those who think they're being called or or want to go and train to be a priest.
 
 I spoke to one of those for the first time sort of formally well over ten years ago now, really. Not well over ten, about ten years ago. And she and I clearly you know, she was a nice person, but she and I clearly didn't see things in quite the same way. And she asked me about because she knew how I felt about oath taking because that had been something that had come up in my paperwork with the sort of priests that I was working this stuff through with and, you know, with royalty and everything. And and she asked me about that, and I said, yeah.
 
 Well, you know, it's, and I I wouldn't say this now because there is an element of it. You know, I think I think we should hold people to account on a personal level as well. But I I said, you know, it's not personal with the queen. It's it's about the system. That's what I don't like.
 
 And she said, well, yes. But but she is such a good queen, isn't she? And it was just it was one of those moments where you you really have it revealed to you how different your world views are, how differently you see things. And she also said on oaths, I think there are other ways to see the, the bit in the Bible where Jesus says not to swear oaths, other ways to read that. And I'm like, and, obviously, I have to be careful what I say to her at this point because she is potentially in control of my future.
 
 And I'm like, yeah. There are, but I I think this is a pretty tricky one to to get out of really, isn't it? I mean, this is the established church. This is, in many respects, the centre of power making you swear an oath to the centre of power. So how are you gonna argue that Jesus doesn't have a problem with that?
 
 So I wrestled with this for for years, and those who advised me, some of some of them wrestled with it as well. And, you know, I have one tell me that they had crossed their fingers when they when they took the oath, and another basically just say that they don't agree with it, but that they basically had to sort of just work out what it meant for them and that really it just represented you know, the monarchy represented the people in that moment for them. Now, I can't That's that's some tortured mental gymnastics of another one. But but you have to do it. Right?
 
 If you if you are trying to be someone who takes what Jesus taught seriously, but you also feel called to serve as a priest in the Church of England, you have no choice but to do the mental gymnastics. Right? If that's what your the ministry do feel called at the point where I think those two are fundamentally incompatible. So, you know And I've and I've swung and, you know Yeah. Yeah.
 
 I I think look. There are clearly good people Mhmm. In ordained ministry in the Church of England doing good work who disagree with the monarchy, who have nevertheless had to take the oath of allegiance. And and so there's a sense in which I think, you know, every one of us has to work this shit out on our knees, and I hope that they have as well. But it's it's wrong, and and you shouldn't have to do that.
 
 And it's also quite prejudiced as well because you there's actually a get out clause. If you if you become a priest in the Church of England but you are not British, you are not required to say the oath of allegiance. So clearly, the normal thing is that you will, but you can ask for special dispensation and be like, oh, yeah. Fine. You know?
 
 So clearly, it's not actually required. You know? It's just that this actually quite revealing about the soft malleability, which of kind of Christian nationalism in this country that is mistaken for an absence of Christian nationalism. Right? You know?
 
 Mhmm. It it is so much softer and gentler and more liberal. Right? Like, liberals or people who call themselves liberals love the royal family a lot of the time. Now, obviously, if you're an actual liberal, you're a republican, that's a basic principle of liberalism.
 
 But for me so, wouldn't you? Yeah. Yeah. But then also, basically, principle of liberalism is individual self expression and rights. And most Mhmm.
 
 People, because of liberals, are getting increasingly turfy. So, you know, liberals don't know what they are. But, you know, actually They never really have, have they? No. There was a a cuddly nationalism Mhmm.
 
 That that is that is very British, and is horrible. And it's, you know, Paddington Bear and it's the Queen Can I can I just say can I just say how much garden? I I hate Paddington Bear. I hate if I saw that bear It's on-site. It's on-site for Paddington Bear.
 
 I just hate it. And I I and I have done and I I think so many people very good, Adam. That's why you hate him, isn't it? Yeah. That's it.
 
 Yeah. No. But he's not the the, you know, there's the the type of immigrant who comes in, and they're so thankful for being taken in by this country that they just become the most patriotic about this country. But it actually, that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Right?
 
 In that Yeah. You know, there's an argument people say, oh, the fact that Powhatan Bear is, you know, a fictional immigrant who's become a symbol of this country proves that we don't have that problem with nationalism. Yeah. But actually, the form of nationalism that's been taken is perfectly encapsulated Mhmm. By the acceptance of an immigrant only because they immediately assimilate to kinda upper middle class values and lifestyles.
 
 I mean, the whole story of well, certainly in the the the film, anyway, the whole story of it is about how this family of bears have basically indoctrinated this bear to to love The UK because some guy came across and was like a missionary or something. This is the story of colonialism. Mhmm. And we kind of don't see it even though it's so bloody obvious because it's such a cute bear who's who's all lovely and he loves meeting the queen and he eats marmalade sandwich. He ruined marmalade for me, that bloody bear.
 
 Marmalade's not all sorts. Well, I think it is now as well, but only because I can't do anything but think of Paddington Bear when I eat it. And I'm not even necessarily talking about the actual Paddington Bear books or the films, which are apparently quite good. But the way They're not. They're not.
 
 I don't know why everyone loves them. Like, I'm I'm being serious right now. I sorry to interrupt. I genuinely can't stand those films, and I really tried to like them. But it's so nakedly nationalistic for me that I just find it profoundly offensive and disgusting.
 
 I want my right wing film-making to be filled with violence. That's my life. Yeah. I got I got no one about the right wing films. I just want it to be like yeah.
 
 Yeah. Yeah. I've not seen them. I've known it. But, I'm talking about the adoption of the symbol here.
 
 And, again, it's not that important. It's just it's just a fictional bear. But it's it's that what you might call that, a tree nationalism, really? Yeah. Yeah.
 
 That, you know It's very middle class nationalism. Yeah. And a lot of the contrasting to America and Donald Trump has essentially been on the basis you know, you can talk about Doge and how Elon Musk is a loser who's desperately funny and never will be. But what is Doge doing about what George Osborne did? Yeah.
 
 You know, what's the difference between Doge and George Osborne? Yeah. It's an eating education. Right? Like, it's that George Osborne knows he's not funny and doesn't really try.
 
 Like, it that that's it. It's the same shit that that we did, you know, fifteen years ago. It's been done by Elon Musk, but he's just such an odious prick, obviously, that you respond to it, and we go, oh, it's horrible. It's happening over there. And it's like, yeah, it is.
 
 But we did exactly the same thing over here, but we did it in a way that didn't and people didn't like austerity. Don't get me wrong. But they didn't identify it as something horrible at the heart of the country. Right? We look at America and go, god.
 
 What's going on over there? We look at austerity, and even people who opposed it would often go, what are these pricks doing to us as a country? Not what does it represent about us as a country? Because of the way that that kind of national project is so differently presented, but the same stuff is happening. Yeah.
 
 And and I think this argument thinks a little bit more extreme. You know, there's you know, we had at least a semi functioning welfare state, before austerity. The Americans simply don't. But I think we excuse ourselves from the charge of nationalism far, far too easily because it's presented in this very kind of genteel, middle class, twee, Cath Kidston way. Cath Kidston.
 
 That is so true. The most fascist you think Stone Island's a fascist brand. It's not. Cath Kidston is the face of fascism in The UK. Is Cath Kidston still I I heard heard that Cath Kidston had Yeah.
 
 That might be outdated. Ten years ago, it was the face of fascism. I don't know if it's anymore. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. No. I mean, it it really it's it's sort of it's not quite the word that I'm looking for, but it is essentially the the aesthetics are are different. You know? It it it looks different.
 
 It presents differently. But under the bonnet, there's very, very similar stuff going on. And it and it does matter. It does matter what what it looks like. Part of the thing about Trump, you know, if we if we imagine that what Trump is doing it's not.
 
 He there are awful things that he's doing that are worse. But if we imagine what Trump was doing as being pretty much exactly the same as what Biden did, which was pretty much exactly the same as what Obama did and so on and so forth, the difference is that Trump has created a far more fascistic outlook amongst people in America. And a similar thing is going on here as well where, you know, the rise of reform is creating. I mean, there were there was maybe certainly, whilst Corbyn was in opposition, migration became less of an issue. I'm not saying they were perfect on that by any means, but there was a time in this country for a while where immigration was not the thing that was being pushed at us even in most of the media.
 
 And so it wasn't something that got most people foaming at the mouth. Right? Yeah. I mean, the small boats thing was not a narrative. No.
 
 Right? And now it's a huge, huge narrative pushed by the far right with the gleeful participation of the media. Yeah. But, yeah, that wasn't a narrative, and and it's been allowed through the capitulation of both the, political class and the media class to to the far right, and it's been allowed to set the tone of the conversation. Yeah.
 
 I mean, the the, you know, a whole raft of new laws have been created to make the lives of those coming to this country a misery. I mean, I think I spoke about this on an episode before where, they prosecuted a guy, young guy, because he was the one who piloted the boat across the channel. Right? They were all Yeah. Seeking asylum, including him, and, the raft overturned or something.
 
 And I think it's something like four people died. And because he was the one who was piloting this thing, he was prosecuted for manslaughter. I wanna pick up some of this come up in in an issue that people talk about, that language of powers of principalities, which comes from Walter Wink. And I have I'm not fully sold on the ideas, but I think it's it it is an interesting framework. And kind of talking about how actually, when we talk about demons or, you know, whatever, we're talking about things that material things, really, things that people have created that really exist in the world.
 
 And when I think about the immigration system, the conversation about immigration, the way immigrants are treated, the way people are prosecuted for driving a boat because they're also trying to seek asylum. I can't think of a better word than demonic for that or satanic. Right? You know, I'm not necessarily a believer in any sort of ritual demon or Satan. Go on.
 
 I don't see you rushing to hit that heresy button. Oh, oh, sorry. Yes. Go on. Heresy.
 
 I mean, the thing is I'm looking at a picture of, Charles Windsor at the moment, so I think that just disproves you straight away. But to talk about things as demonic or satanic, like, I think our immigration system is is a system of demonic power. Right? I I think that is a an extremely accurate and helpful way to discuss. And to be very clear, I don't mean in the sense we're letting too many of them in.
 
 I mean that we are retraumatising people. We're ruining people's lives. We are treating people abominably for no benefit, for no reason other than cruelty, and an attempt to appeal to a bunch of complete assholes. And that is a demonic manifestation of the way that nationalism is utilised in pursuit of political goals. Yeah.
 
 Entirely. The nationalism is based I mean, as an argument that all politics is based on violence. Right? Like, you know, you acquiesce to the laws that we have decided or we will arrest you, prosecute you, throw you in prison. That is violence.
 
 Right? So it's all all politics is predicated on that, but especially nationalism. Nationalism itself is something that others fundamentally even the the sort of slightly fluffier forms of nationalism, are about othering, to the, you know, at least to the extent where you say, well, this is the thing that I like. Right? And this is the thing that I like is not a whole lot of steps away from the thing that I like.
 
 It's better than the thing that you like. And I know you can you're gonna make make the argument this is a slippery slope argument or whatever. But I I I think I genuinely think that the results bear it out. You know? I I remember being when I lived in Scotland, finding it very weird because Scotland has a kind of nationalism I don't see in England.
 
 I think we're starting to see a bit more of it in England, but it tends to it's not always by any means, but it tends to be you know, in England, Nationalism does tend to be a bit more sort of right wing and and nasty. In Scotland, because they see themselves, their sort of national story, national myth, if you like, is that they are the sort of oppressed nation under the English boot. Their nationalism plays out in a kind of, well, we don't want to be tied to England kind of way because England are backward and nasty in right wing. We are with a nasty and right wing. We are different.
 
 We are Scottish. We are progressive, which is a funny thing to think about historically, but, but that is where they see themselves a lot of time now. And so there's just Scottish flags everywhere, and everything is named the Scottish this and the Scottish that. An example I always give is seeing an ambulance go by with the Scottish ambulance service and finding that very strange because we're in Scotland. What you know, who who else's ambulance service is it gonna be?
 
 And so I remember moving there and just find just seeing this everywhere and finding it really super weird. Yeah. But they will argue that it's got nothing to do with othering, but it obviously has. And, yes, okay, that, primarily, the othering that they're doing is is against the English. But I guarantee you, you know, obviously, these things are not a a a single kind of narrative anyway.
 
 There are people in Scotland who are very proud to be Scottish who hate immigrants, hate every kind of a country and so on as well. But I think as much as I personally would vote for independence if I was in Scotland, I think you would potentially see a bit more of a rise of the sort of nastier forms of nationalism after that because they start to define themselves less in opposition to the nasty English, and a bit more in in other ways, I suspect. Shall we take a pause there and do a saint of the week? Saint of the week. I have a saint of the week for you if you'd like one.
 
 Go on in. So but I kinda can't believe that we haven't done before in some ways. I'm gonna do Leo Tolstoy. Okay. Okay.
 
 Yeah. Yeah. What what are your boys, I believe? Leo Tolstoy's anarchism is not quite the same as my anarchism. Let's do that.
 
 That is that is true. I do have a Leo Tolstoy finger puppet somewhere, though. I'm not sure where. Tolstoy is born in 1828, and he is a writer. You may have heard of some of the books he's written.
 
 Not sure I have, actually. He wrote War and Peace. He wrote Anna Karenina. He wrote a bunch of other stuff, but those are the big boys. But he then basically he has so he kind of is he's an aristocrat.
 
 I think he's orthodox, like, Russian orthodox kind of by default a little bit, but he doesn't massively practice it. He when he gets married to in his thirties, he, writes it, like, a little diary thing and gives it to his his wife to be that is basically like, here are all my sexual indiscretions. Also, one of the serfs on my farm has has my kid. Cool. We good now?
 
 Let's get married. You said it was before. Really fun is that there's lots of, like, stuff around, like, the marriage. I'm trying to describe it. And, basically, the, like, concept of a couple being bad for each other but madly horny for each other turns out to have a real precedent in history.
 
 Like, because there's all sorts of, like, euphemistic ways of putting it in this kind of slightly more formal language. And I'm like, oh, they're bad horny for each other even though they're bad for each other. Yeah. We've all seen that couple. Like, that's Many times.
 
 I will say here that although Torres has sent the week, he's a complicated figure. His treatment of his wife is complicated. There's a a whole history of people arguing about who's in the right, who's in the wrong, you know, what happened there, all the rest of it. But, yeah, there's some certainly some complexities in with Tolstoy. He essentially abandons her.
 
 In the end, they stay legally married, but they have some quite profound disagreements. But, essentially, Tolstoy bangs out War and Peace and Anna Karenina and then has some sort of an existential crisis, which, to be fair, if I had knocked out in less than ten years two of the, like, all time greatest novels, I probably would also be like, oh my god. What do I do with the rest of my life? So, yeah, he he has this kind of profound existential crisis, which he comes to see as very much a spiritual awakening. And he kinda does this weird thing where he reads Jesus and takes him seriously and to quite a large extent literally.
 
 And that turns out to be quite a big a big deal. He's a huge fan of the Sermon on the Mount, but he takes it to me, seriously the kind of turn the other cheek thing, which turns it into a, a kind of hard line pacifist, but also a early advocate of kind of nonviolent resistance. You know, taking that idea of turn the other cheek as not just being a meek submission, but a way of, I guess, protesting against the exertion of power. He is a big influence on Gandhi. And Gandhi names one of his communities after Tolstoy.
 
 They they exchange letters for, like, a year or so before, I think, Tolstoy passes away. But, Gandhi essentially credits a lot of the kind of nonviolent resistance stuff to to Tolstoy, which I did no entirely research that, but that is absolutely fascinating. Like, two figures that I don't really see as interacting. A lot of connections were made between the kind of big names in nonviolent resistance and pacifism over the years. So Martin Luther King, for example, was influenced by both of them as well.
 
 Mhmm. Yeah. And and I think what's really interesting about that is that you've got a Russian orthodox essentially. Yeah. Russian orthodox anarchist.
 
 I don't know if that's I think he was Russian orthodox by the end, but but Not a Hindu and a sort of Southern Baptist. You know, back when Southern Baptists still had some Backbone decency for anarchy. Yeah. Yeah. And they are all really indebted to each other, and, you know, there's no real sense of it having to be like, well, you're a Hindu, and that's bad.
 
 It no. It's nonviolent. Let's let's talk nonviolent resistance. And, and I I've that's always kind of struck me as just a little bit more grown up than you would see with a lot of, a lot of Christians. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. So, yeah, Tolstoy becomes an anarchist or a former Christian anarchist. He sometimes uses that term, I think, but it's he's often seen as one of the kind of early Christian anarchists, rightly or wrongly. He diverges in some ways from the classical versions of that, but in a lot of ways seems to draw his anarchism from his pacifism in that he seems to believe that governments will inevitably wage war. And therefore, if you're a pacifist and you oppose war, you have to oppose governments, which I find on one level, you think, well, that's not necessarily the case.
 
 But then on another level, certainly seems to be borne out by the historical record. Right? Like, that that whether or not that is a necessary consequence of having a government is wars, that pretty much every government has engaged in some sort of warfare, for a very long time now. So it's an interesting idea. He, doesn't like marriage, which is all good because he's married and thinks that, like, chastity is a really good thing.
 
 A bit of the Augustine thing of, like, looking back at your pre conversion life and being like, I'm going the opposite way to that, I think. By the way, he's he is standing in a tradition in a sense of, you know, people who became Christian and then just, like, left their wives. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. It's a lot of tradition, I'll be honest. But Yes. Some of them, like, the better ones, I think, would sort of go and live in the desert somewhere, but, like, still kind of find a way to provide for their spouse, but and and their family if they if they had had children. But but, yeah, a lot of them just sort of they're like, I I like you and all, but bye.
 
 Yeah. And he didn't believe in private land ownership. He thought that was wrong, opposed it. He thought the aristocracy is a burden on the poor. A lot of the tension with his wife became because he wanted to essentially embrace voluntary poverty.
 
 He believed that actually voluntary poverty was kind of the route to some sort of spiritual completeness or kind of I don't wanna say happiness, but fulfilment, I guess. Again, taking literally that command about the eye of the needle in from Jesus, right, and said, actually, I I don't want to be rich because it's going to cause me these these issues getting to the kingdom of heaven. Something interesting is that he's a big he's a Georgist. So I think what I find fascinating about Toy Story is he is a man desperately waiting for Marx and doesn't seem to, unfortunately, get his, get his Marx fixed quick enough. Because, if you're in War and Peace, there's a bunch of stuff about, history, the way history is written, and it is a man desperately grasping towards, a kind of materialist dialectic materialist conception of history.
 
 It it is a very strong critique of the great man thief history. Arguably, that is the kind of main theme of War and Peace. But without getting to a particularly convincing solution to it. And it's the same with Georgism. Right?
 
 Like, Georgism essentially is about no taxes apart from taxes on land. And, again, there's kind of this proto Marxist recognition of the value of land and the way that capitalists exploit land and the labour on it to turn their profit, but it's quite undeveloped. It doesn't have the analytical accuracy of the of Marxism. Yeah. It says a lot that Georgism has a right wing and a left wing.
 
 Right? There are right wing Georgists, and there are left wing Georgists. And I think that shows sort of how kind of undeveloped or underdeveloped that is. You know, it's not a terrible idea, land value tax, but Yeah. You can't just sort of leave it there.
 
 So, Tulsa did have a history of anti racism. You know, I I think he was complicated as a as a nineteenth century man would be on it. But he wrote to an anthropologist who was one of the first guys to kinda say that, actually, all humanity is the same species, that different races aren't different species. And he said, you were the first to demonstrate beyond question by your experience that man is man everywhere. That is a kind, sociable being with whom communication can and should be established through kindness and truth, not guns and spirits.
 
 In some ways, that seems quite obvious. But I I think in the context of the time that he was writing in, it's quite a, compelling thing to to recognise that. I think this is one of the the things I really love about anarchism, actually. And I'm not saying that this is the case for all anarchism. Like, it's a large set of ideas as anarchism, but anarchism is positive.
 
 It's telling me that humans can be better than they often are, that they have some of that within them. And it's not a case I I did a, I went to, like, a sort of online talk seminar thing, that was hosted by a former professor of mine and, a bishop. And they were talking about what Christians can learn from anarchism. And one of the questions that someone asked this bishop who was giving this talk was, you know, kind kind of the opposite. You know, where where are the the limitations?
 
 And one of the things that this bishop said was, well, you know, Christians believe in sin. They believe in, you know, original sin, whatever that means. Anarchists believe that the human being is perfectible. And I I I sat there as an anarchist thinking, I don't think you I don't think you get it. Right?
 
 Because anarchists don't by and large think that human beings are perfectible. Anarchists believe that human beings can be better. They have the capacity. It's like, you know, mutual aid is as, Kropotkin says, a factor in our evolution. It is not the factor in our evolution, but it is a factor.
 
 And I think this is the thing. Anarchism is positive about, you know, what human nature, whatever that whatever that is as we've discussed before, but it doesn't say that everything from then on is, you know, there's no toil, there's no blood, there's no violence. It just says that maybe humans are capable of better, and maybe we should set society up in a way that doesn't actively encourage us to be worse. Yeah. Absolutely.
 
 So, yeah, Tolstoy, he basically spends a lot of his kind of subsequent life trying to renounce his aristocracy and trying to kind of Yes. He was a count, just so people know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 And kind of not being pressured by his wife and family and whoever else into kinda not following through with it. But, basically, the day before he dies, possibly because he's having an argument with his wife, he, buggers off, says that he's not gonna be an aristocrat anymore, that he's gonna live a, you know, a life of poverty. And, he jumps on a train, and a day later, he dies at a train station after a a day of travelling. This may be apocryphal. It probably is.
 
 But supposedly, he'd spent the last hours of his life, preaching love, non-violence, and Georgism to fellow passengers on the train, which I suspect is apocryphal. It's a little bit too perfect, but I'm prepared to believe it because it's such a I don't I don't know. Lovely ending. Yeah. I I don't know if that's apocryphal.
 
 I, I could I could see it. I could see it. So, yeah, a complicated man with, you know, not always above reproach, I would say, but an interesting and someone, I think, who's simplistic in some ways approach to the bible, taking just saying I'm taking Jesus literally, kinda led him to a very specific form of political and spiritual engagement that was very profound and kinda came to this very spiritual place, but that also basically led him to some quite, like, radical and, yeah, interesting positions. As you kinda mentioned, he kinda said the church had basically perverted the teachings of Christ, and he didn't think much in the institutional church. But, yeah, that is your saint of the week for this week, Leo Tolstoy.
 
 I I like Leo Tolstoy. I think there's a lot like, as you say, his he does have, in some respects, quite a simplistic understanding of scriptures. But I think it almost, you know, we we can use that as a counterbalance, as a counterweight to as we were talking about earlier, really, some of the mental gymnastics that the church and and those within it are often doing and often forced to do. To try and get this thing that really is is anti imperial is, you know, is born out of a a radical peasant community. Trying to get that to fit into these power structures as we as we have them now as if they can or should.
 
 And I think if we if we take Leo Tolstoy as a sort of corrective to that or or a counterweight to that, I think that can be really helpful because so often we we are taught to explain away things that you know, particularly things that Jesus said as not literal. Yeah. Actually, there are a lot of things there that were actually just quite literal. You know? Yeah.
 
 And and it's it's a little bit to me, so much of this stuff, the way it's read by churches, particularly established the established church, it's just a little bit too convenient to read it the ways they do. So I I would side with Tolstoy over over a lot of those, I think. Yeah. Say of the week. Shall we talk a little bit about patriotism?
 
 If we must. Adam being a patriot. Oh, yeah. I love it. I I love it.
 
 We just had VE day, and, I've seen all of the flags flying and people getting all teary eyed. What do you get? Is there anything you are patriotic about at all? I mean, I guess the closest I would get would be football. But e but even then You like me are a are the worst of all things and even a football supporter.
 
 Right? Like I mean, yeah. Kind of, but, like, far less than I ever was. Now I sort of find myself It's because you're because you're Newcastle, not England. Is that Yeah.
 
 You support the Saudi Arabian football team now. No. I mean, I I find myself the way I kind of watch football now. You know, back in the day, it would have been I really need England to win at all costs. I can remember standing in my kitchen with my dad.
 
 I think it would have been, like, euro 2,000 or something. Uh-huh. You're '42. And, sorry? You were '42.
 
 Yeah. I was '42. Do you know it was euro 96 that really got me into it? But it was February I I'm too young. I don't remember euro ninety six, but I'm sure it was great for you.
 
 Look. I'm not that much older than you. Okay? So It must be because I was four in '96. So this is That's why in '96, I was seven or eight, I think.
 
 So old. But but yeah. But, you know, I yeah. I remember standing in the kitchen in the year February during, like, a penalty shootout or something, and I I sat sit there watching with my dad. For some reason, there was, like, a small TV in the kitchen.
 
 I don't know why yeah. And I could barely stand. You know? My legs are, like, wobbling, and I'm holding on to the side because I'm so nervous that England are gonna go out. And now I watch England play, and there is a little bit of me inside that's like, I want England to win because of what that's meant to me in the past, I think.
 
 However, I have very complicated feelings about that, and I kind of also want other teams to win. So for example, when Haiti were playing in the women's I think it was the women's World Cup, a year or two ago. Obviously, I really wanted Haiti to do well because it's Haiti. You know? Yeah.
 
 I find that interesting, though, like, your whole because for me, I recognise that football fandom is a way in which nationalism is upheld. Mhmm. And, you know, there was definitely a very solid link between the far right and football support. But at the same time, I think, like, I support the England football team in much the same way as I support, like, Wigan football. Right?
 
 Like or, like, a a rugby team or whatever. Like, not because I have any particular nationalist feeling related to it. And I recognise that things aren't that simple and that there is an inherent legitimisation of stuff going on through through the stuff. But for me, it's so, like, obvious that, like, it is fundamentally silly and irrational to support any team. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. But it's fun to do, so you may as well, like, support the team that you support and just, like, yeah, embrace it as a stupid thing. But isn't that isn't that just isn't that just civic nationalism, though, Ben? But possibly. But I guess what I'm saying is, like, I have a very clear like, in my in my head, there is a clear dividing line between, like, Englishness and the England football team.
 
 Sure. And look, there is in mine as well. There is in mine as well. But the way I work and the things I'm interested in and the things I think about, I can't not also think about how it functions. Yeah.
 
 And and there's an added element as well in the a lot of the English football team now is, you know, made up of people who are the descendants of people who were colonised by us and enslaved by us. And so if you're cheering for England, it's a little bit more complicated than we're cheering for this flag. Yeah. You know, what what do you what do you do with that? I'm not so sure.
 
 So now I I don't know. If England win, I'm like, excellent. And if England lose, I'm not that far away from saying excellent again, to be honest. You're just a bad fan. That's all that is.
 
 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the reason I'm being this up is this interesting, bit in the Steven Backhouse interview where he basically says he doesn't see a distinction between patriotism and nationalism, which I thought was a really interesting intervention into some of those conversations because conversations about left patriotism, Keir Starmer's attempts to wrap himself in the flag, All all this stuff have been you know, for the last few years, I think there's there's been a bit of a resurgence of this question of, you know, can you be a patriot and be on the left? No is the answer to that question, by the way.
 
 If I was like, I I just have no time for, like, left patriotism. It's a nonsense term. No. Like, internationalism is is like, you can recognise that you are a a member of a particular country and that there are things that you like about that country and that that country has formed you and your identity. You can support that country's sports teams.
 
 Crack on. But patriotism is not a leftist idea. It is a right wing idea. It is one of the forms of false consciousness that are the most pervasive. And but, yeah, to have it, you know, to straight down the line say, actually, there is no distinction between patriotism and nationalism.
 
 They are exactly the same thing. I thought it was a an interesting intervention into it. And I think, you know, people would balk at Christian nationalism, but defend forms of Christian patriotism, in a way that I don't think actually holds any water. Yeah. I think I think what's interesting particularly about Stephen Backhouse is I I don't know if this is a development in his thinking or whether it's just a sort of more fleshed out, like, way of thinking or or or what it is.
 
 But sometimes you will see that he I think when he says that, he's he's talking about the outcomes essentially. Right? Because there is a a sort of distinction to be made between them in the one of them at its heart is a love of nation, and nation is different to state, to government, to that kind of thing. Right? And so there is a distinction to be made there, but, ultimately, I think he he basically says that there is no difference in in the outcomes of those two things.
 
 You know, you're a flag shagger either way, basically. Yeah. That's a very succinct way of putting it. I'm not sure he puts it like that. No.
 
 I don't think he does. But, yeah. I I think there's something quite important about actually, it's a question of degree, not of, substance. Right? Like, patriotism is of the same substance of as nationalism, just with the dial turned back a little bit.
 
 You know, ultimately, you know, he makes an interesting point of they both revolve around following the command of your country over the command of Christ. Yeah. And and, you know, people aren't actively seeing it that way, but that is ultimately what is happening when you when you are a patriot, is that you are being a patriot over being a follower of Christ. Yeah. I I don't I genuinely don't think you can do both.
 
 You know, I think you can be a there are some things I disagree with back house on in there, but but a lot of things I I agree with him on and some things I'm sort of undetermined on. But I I think one of the things I I find interesting about some of the stuff he says is that he talks about how perhaps we shouldn't call ourselves Christians anymore. Because Christianity you know, you can you can be a Christian in a lot of different ways. It has a very, very, very chequered history, and some of that history is bad. And the earliest Christians didn't call themselves Christians.
 
 They called themselves followers of the way. Mhmm. So maybe, you know, we'd be better off calling ourselves something like followers of the way to differentiate between this brand that's become so toxic now. And I I get that. It's an interesting, provocative point, but I think, perhaps I think, you know, the the Magnificast guys have developed this critique of, like, disavowal, of trying to be like people aren't real Christians or trying to separate yourself from Christianity.
 
 Yeah. But, actually, you can say, oh, you need to stop calling yourself Christian because, you know, Christian. And I kinda see where it's coming from, that the idea of being a Christian is not the same as fallen in Christ, and there's a lot of baggage and inherent bad stuff bound up in that. But that is also what you are, and you can't just stop calling yourself that and lose all the baggage and issues bound up with that. All you're doing is putting a different label on it rather than actually unpicking why why has Christianity been so bad, And how does that actually still impact me and the people around me and all this stuff?
 
 Yeah. And I think that's where I sort of land as well, is actually to say, I am bound up in this stuff too. And to some extent, I share in some of that blame, and I can't disentangle myself from that. That is through the tradition that I have chosen to be a part of. And I have to to embrace the fact that there's some great, great stuff with that, but there's also some shit that comes with that as well.
 
 Oh, it goes w for Christian nationalism. I I think both you and I have been shaped quite strongly by the Anglican church for better or for worse. I think you can guess which one I think it is. But I'm just going to hold my tongue on that. You know, neither you or I have a particularly patriotic or nationalistic bent to us.
 
 Right? Like, that's just not our vibe feed versus. I mean, I would go so far as to say that I actively hate it. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 So yeah. But I think without want to speak for you too much, I think we both probably say that there is a Christian nationalist inside of us that we have worked hard to eradicate and had to continue to work hard to eradicate, particularly with the shaping of the Anglican tradition, right, which is deeply nationalist. It's literally called the Anglican church, like the Church of England. It is inherently nationalist. You don't just decide one day, I'm not going to be a patriot anymore.
 
 I'm not really shaped by nationalism anymore. Like, there are ways I imagine that both of us, whether we're cognisant of them or not, are still deeply shaped by the narratives of Christian nationalism. And it's not as easy to shake this off as you might like. So Stephen Backhouse, as I said before, says, you know, I mean, even in this interview, he says, well, you can stop being a Christian. You can stop being a patriot.
 
 If only it was so easy. Yeah. Yeah. But he says, you know, he found it easier to stop being I'm saying patriot like an American. It's disgraceful, isn't it?
 
 You can stop being a patriot. It does actually sound better as patriot, though, to be fair. No way is the word meant to be patriot. Like, you know me. I I have a deeply held anti Americanism in me, which may or may not be a result of some some Christian nationalism.
 
 We'll laugh at that right now. But there is no way the word is meant to be patriot. It's patriot, Surely. I mean, do you say patriotic or patriotic? Patriotic.
 
 But I would accept patriotic. I hear what it's spelled. I think I think you might actually just be American. Oh, no. The Americanism that I fought against so hard.
 
 But, yeah, he he says you can stop being a Christian. You can stop being a a a patriot patriot. But elsewhere, there are other people who would say, well, actually, there's a distinction to be made between Christianity and Christendom. And I I I think maybe that's a helpful helpful thing. I reject Christendom, but with Christianity, I have to try to do the work of making it better.
 
 And there have always been people in Christianity who have done that, who have been trying to do that, and there have also always been people within Christianity who are who are trying to do the opposite. That's an interesting way to think about it. I I think sometimes there's an asterisk on Christendom, it's overly simplistic and, don't recognise always the way in which I think people can reject Christendom whilst embracing capitalism. And I I see that. So ultimately, my critique, as always, is that it's insufficiently Marxist.
 
 That is, and pro probably not dialectical, I'd imagine, which as always, you know, if you wanna criticise something and sound intelligent, just say, not very dialectical, is it? Hang on a minute. Hang on a minute. You communists. You rattle off a lot of fancy words, don't you?
 
 I fundamentally believe that no one actually really knows what dialectical needs. But with all that, that is a conversation another time. I think we're gonna start on dialectics. Yeah. Yeah.
 
 Yeah. I think that's probably a time to draw our episodes to a close. Adam, if people want to find you on the wild, wild web, world, wide web, wide, world, web, wild, world web, one of those on the Internet. Where can they find you? You can find me, most places, TikTok, Blue Sky, less so on Twitter these days.
 
 I'm trying to sort of move away from Twitter. My handle is at commie x I a n. Wonderful. Go and go to lead magazine, Shibbolethmag.com. And if that link doesn't work, look at the subscription description because I probably, like, updated the actual correct link.
 
 But I'm pretty sure that's right. It's really cool. Subscribe now. All our details are on breadandrosaries.com. If you have a few pennies you wanna throw us, there's a Patreon there, or there is a shop with some cool stuff you can dress, so you also match Adam and I.
 
 Ideally, if you are watching this on YouTube, I would like you to also be dressed in kind of a dark green t shirt while you do so. But I guess that is up to you. Otherwise, we will see you all next time. Thank you very much for listening, and thank you, Adam. See you later.
 
 Bye bye. Bye bye.