So in a recent article you wrote for Jacobin, you provided what you describe as 10 rules

for what you call right-wing grifters, those political commentators, journalists and academics

who are busy making careers in articulating an anti-wark politics and prosecuting the culture

wars on both sides of the Atlantic. I first wanted to ask about that term

grifters, which implies that these commentators are motivated not by ideological conviction,

but rather a recognition that positioning oneself in this right populist or ethno-nationalist

space can be highly lucrative. Is that the way you see these figures as very cynical operators who are

prepared to adapt their political outlook to the prevailing climate? Or do you think that some are more

sincere ideologues? I mean, this was a short piece, obviously. So, you know, I had to kind of

make some kind of generalisations at time. I think there's a wide variety of people who are

part of this universe. And that's why I've also used quite a lot of links as well and quite a lot

of different examples in the piece itself to kind of show that there's a wide diversity of people.

Some of them are very much ideologically inclined. I think some of,

some of them are not necessarily ideologically inclined and will kind of move also with the wind

and with where the kind of like money is, but also where the power is. So I don't think it's just a

question of money for some of them. It's also a question of power, of feeling valued, of feeling

listened to, of being in the holes of power and so on.

So that's where I could see the grief.

But in a way, what I wanted to kind of make clear in all of this is that there is this cynicism.

I think these people know exactly what they're doing.

They know exactly what they're doing in terms of bad faith arguments in terms of

hypocrisy and in terms of the pretense that they're making of speaking for the people, while in fact

...