There's some truth at 23:45 and not only as it relates to immigration. There's also some unintended irony with constructing a chart of development and self-assigning yourself to a higher tier (20:20). ("I've created this chart of good-thinking people and I'm at the top while those people are still in the bottom tier.")
I'm going to take a more Marxist approach of what we're seeing in the UK and suggest that the "theres" are a victim and need a scapegoat, or perpetrator (~27:00) to blame for their falling fortunes. (This is of course not what the Roshi meant at all -- he's putting blame on the post-modernist left.) When Labour is pro-immigrant, and the least-powerful other is easy to blame, then the "theres" vote for the anti-immigrant party. We've seen it in the past and we'll see it in the future.
In the end, this podcast is one-sided, except for a few places. It's like they're still in their bubble. Tribalism? A product of the left! Virtue signalling? The left do it! Being a victim? The left are eternal victims! The left, the left, the left are so wrong and need to adjust their thinking!!1!!
But maybe it is meant to be mainly a criticism of the left and they also criticize the right in other podcasts. Right?
They made an effort but Daniel Schmachtenberger is more unbiased.
I agree it's fairly one sided.
Not sure what you mean about the "theres", do you mean "others", as it was used in the video? You make a good point about people scapegoating immigrants, but this is an issue of boundaries and nationalism, isn't it? Does a given nation-state have an obligation to help people outside its borders? What if it occurs at the expense of the nationals? If protectionism(for higher wages, for instance) has some merit, then it should follow that an argument to reduce immigration also has some merit, and isn't simply a scapegoat(although it may partly be one). Of course, the Roshi would say the nationals should be more responsible... to earn their higher wages through merit, I suppose, rather than protectionism. But this seems to reflect more on the assumptions on the "sanctity" of the nation-state. I think right-wingers point to the fact that they have their own domestic issues to deal with, and so even the most successful nations are not in a post-scarcity state, which means they must triage their resources still, so some amount of restriction on immigration remains necessary.
I haven't seen a large amount of their other content so I can't say for sure if they are more neutral in other podcasts. From what I have seen, however, I'd say most are framed this way as well--not to say that they are necessarily blaming the left, more that the left is generally having a harder time bounding their ideological space to avoid virtue signaling, identity politics, puritanism, etc. (I personally believe this will always be the case, as the left integrates chaos and the right imposes order, roughly speaking. The left will always look chaotic at the moment and the right will always look dogmatic in retrospect).
It seems to me that the right wing has done a pretty good job including progressive ideas that are clear cut, such as gay marriage or homosexuality generally, integrating atheism, avoiding xenophobia, etc but this could be my bias speaking. There are certainly people on the right that are bigots but I do not think they are integrated into the right wing dialog to the degree that leftist ideologues are integrated into the left.
In any case, the question remains why left wing governments(with the rough exception of my home and native land) are typically losing elections.