Andrew Doyle returns to The Joe Rogan Experience six years after their last chat, warning that "woke" culture—rooted in unequal treatment under the guise of "equity"—threatens free speech through UK-style hate speech laws, like Lucy Connolly’s 31-month prison sentence for a deleted tweet. The BBC’s ideological editing and legal weaponization (e.g., Graham Linehan’s arrest) mirror broader revisionism, from Hollywood’s unrealistic casting to the Tavistock Clinic’s closure amid concerns about coercive gender transitions. Rogan and Doyle link these trends to Soviet-era subversion tactics, citing Yuri Bezmenov’s 1984 warnings, and question whether elites like Soros exploit chaos to justify control. Without open debate, they argue, societies risk silencing dissenters entirely—leaving only compliance behind. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, I was trying to, in that book, I'm trying to make the point that what woke was, was like a kind of the latest manifestation of a kind of innate authoritarian impulse.
I think human beings are by default quite inclined towards just shutting people up if they don't like them.
The point was that the way it worked was that it was gulling people through language that sounded pretty sweet and kittenish and fluffy.
Things like equity.
Well, that sounds a lot like equality, doesn't it?
It doesn't mean equality.
It means treating people unequally to ensure equal outcomes according to group identity.
That's a very different thing.
You say you're talking about, let's make everything inclusive, but what you really mean is let's exclude anyone who disagrees with what we've got to say.
So you're using language to mean the exact opposite.
They say gender affirming care.
Do they mean that?
Or do they mean affirming what is effectively a pseudo-scientific belief among vulnerable people?
So it's all about misusing language because most people I think, or I like to think, are pretty decent.
Most people want to be kind and want to be fair.
And when you hear these activists saying, be kind, be compassionate, or else, right?
You know, you kind of think, okay, well, maybe their intentions are good, but also they're pretty scary.
I mean, there's a weird, there was a weird thing with the woke thing, which was that on the one hand, it proclaimed to be this sort of great, virtuous, kind, progressive, right side of history.
How often did you hear that phrase?
And at the same time, they're like dangerous dogs.
Like, you're like, oh, I better not piss them off.
I better not say the wrong thing in the workplace because they'll destroy you.
Well, I always find that the most preposterous the idea is and the least capable it is to stand up to scrutiny, the more violent the enforcement of that idea will be because you cannot combat that.
You can't defend that idea with logic, so you have to defend it with fear and force and just shouting people down.
And that's what we saw.
And that's it's a natural impulse of human beings.
Like when you're arguing with a kid, you know, when you're a kid and you're arguing with a kid and you say something, you don't even know, you shut the fuck up.
So why is it, though, that some countries and some societies seem to protect themselves better than others against that impulse?
And I feel at the moment that the UK is kind of failing where America is to a degree succeeding, not obviously in all ways, but when it comes to the idea of freedom and free speech, like I think UK has pretty far has pretty fallen to the kind of the woke insistence that you need to control people's language so that you can create this perfect society which can never come anyway.
I think whatever organic version of that emerges naturally from society where people want, where there's an overcorrection, I think in the UK, because you guys don't have free speech laws, because it's just different over there.
Well, we also think something happened where your leaders are intentionally trying to tank your country.
It seems like they're trying to bring in as many migrants as possible, cater to them, not to the British people, and do it openly so that everyone knows what they're doing and then create chaos on the streets because of it.
Yeah, I mean, people have a phrase for that, anarcho-tyranny, you know, where you punish people who aren't breaking the law, but you protect those who are.
That's right.
I think with the, I mean, I don't know the extent that Americans know the, I mean, the stat you quoted, that came from the Times newspaper in London, which did a freedom information request to the police, found out that it's 12,000 a year on average.
So that's like 30 a day, not just being investigated or looked into, but being arrested.
I mean, we had stuff like the old stories of like, there was that guy in 2010 who made a joke online about, he was at Doncaster Airport in the UK.
He said, oh, if this queue doesn't hurry up, I'm going to blow up the airport.
Just a stupid, funny tweet.
He went all the way to court.
That was a full trial.
So these laws, and I think what happens with this stuff is people don't realize how long this has been embedded in the UK.
We have hate speech laws that are encoded in a number of different legislations.
We have a thing called the Public Order Act.
We have a thing called Malicious Communications Act.
That's from 1988.
We have the Communications Act from 2003.
And all of these things criminalize.
I tell you, I kid you not.
The language in the statute books is if it's grossly offensive.
That's the phrase.
If you post something that is grossly offensive, you can go to court.
You can be prosecuted.
But, you know, I find... So subjective.
Well, that's it.
What does that even mean?
I find laws against free speech to be grossly offensive.
So should the British state be arrested?
I don't know.
And there's one, I think it's in the Malicious Communications Act, where it talks about needless anxiety, causing needless anxiety can get you arrested.
And you think that's not a thing.
I can give you a specific example.
Do you smoke cigars?
I have once.
My friend Winston Marshall.
I worry that if I try it, I'll cough and I'll look really wimpish and pathetic.
And it didn't seem important 20 years ago or 30 years ago because no one ever looked at England as being that kind of a country that would just put people.
There's a thing called the banter ban, which the Labour government was trying to put in.
Here's the logic of the banter ban.
I've forgotten about this, but now you've mentioned it.
They wanted to introduce this law so that, for instance, if you're working in a bar or a pub and you overhear someone who says something against your protected characteristic, say you're a gay barman, and someone says, oh, I don't like the gays or something, and you overhear it, your employer has a duty to protect you from that kind of hate speech, that kind of harm.
So therefore, there's going to be a blanket ban on speech, on certain kinds of speech within the pub, right?
I would say the guy who's eavesdropping, he's the problem, right?
You shouldn't be listening in on other people's conversations.
So that's a real thing.
And I guess it all comes down to this view, which I think is completely wrong, that words and violence are the same thing, that words can create a more violent society, that there's a direct causal link between the stuff that people say and the stuff that people say online to how people behave in the real world.
And I think you guys have got it right, because you've got the Brandenburg test.
You know about the test for incitement to violence in the US.
It's basically a test that was established, I think, back in the 60s.
It was a KKK leader called Clarence Brandenburg who was prosecuted for incitement to violence.
And the test that was established since that precedent was that any words that can be convicted for incitement to violence, they have to be intended to cause violence, likely to cause violence, and the violence must be imminent.
And if you satisfy that threshold, you can be prosecuted in the US for incitement to violence.
So it'd be like kind of imagine a demagogue surrounded by all his fans, whipping up a frenzy and then pointing to a guy on the front row and saying, kill him now.
That would qualify for the Brandenburg test.
But in the UK, because we don't have that test, all we've got is whether people found it offensive.
That's the difference of the threshold.
So it's a massive difference between what the US has and what the UK has.
I mean, to give the most obvious recent example, because I don't know if people know about this, there's a woman called Lucy Connolly in the UK.
I don't know if this was reported over here at all.
Do you remember we had all these riots last year during the summer against hotels which were housing asylum seekers and people were setting fire to them?
There were genuinely racist stuff going on during those riots.
And this was off the back of a guy who'd murdered a bunch of little girls in a dance class.
And there were rumors going around that this was an asylum seeker, right?
And this one woman, a mother, who'd lost her daughter, very sensitive about the idea of Lucy Connolly, very sensitive about the idea of loss of kids.
She tweeted in a fit of anger, go and burn down all the hotels for all I care.
Like, if someone goes and commits an act of violence and said, oh, I did it because someone told me to do it, aren't you kind of letting them off the hook?
You know, it's like that guy who shot John Lennon, who said Catcher in the Rye made him do it.
Reading the book Catcher.
Are we now blaming J.D. Salinger for the murder of John Lennon?
It was John Lennon, wasn't it?
I think he did.
So do you, I think the safest approach is to say people are responsible for their own actions.
I think the best that you could say is when political leaders and people with clout say things like that, it'd say, you know, it's fine to go out and commit violence.
I think what they do is they create a kind of imprimatur of approval.
They create this kind of sense that if you do it, the people in charge will have your back.
I mean, I've been saying for a long time the BBC has a real, like what I will say in the BBC's defense is they've always been pretty good at being party politically neutral.
Like they will interrogate someone in the right and someone in the left in a pretty neutral way.
They don't, I think they do pretty good.
I know people will be annoyed at me for saying that, but I think they do.
But I think in terms of the ideology, the woke ideology, they got captured.
They have a thing at the BBC called the LGBT desk, or they had it up until recently, which could veto any news story, which meant that any story that was slightly critical of transactivism or anything like that just didn't get reported.
So I'm not surprised that the BBC gave them veto power?
This all came out in a report, quite a recent report just a few months ago, which led to the resignation of Tim David, the director general.
And he resigned ostensibly because of that Trump clip, which, by the way, that wasn't the first time they did it.
There was another clip about a year before in a different program that did the same thing, took the clip, re-edited it, and made it look like he had said something he absolutely had not said.
So I think the BBC quite obviously has an ideological bias, if not a party political bias.
Yeah, he said it made him look like he was saying go and commit the He was in tongue-in-cheek talking about the very fine center, that they're doing a great job, the senators and congresspeople and said all this other stuff.
It's so weird that you have to fight like hell to keep your country.
Well, it's because they had an opportunity to, like what we were saying before earlier, we were talking before the show, you can put out a narrative and it doesn't have to be true, and then that's the one that sticks.
So that's the one that spreads wide.
And then when all these years later, they have to have this trial and everybody finds out it's not true.
But the damage is done.
I mean, that's what they did with Trump during the whole Steele dossier.
You know, the hookers and peeing on people and all that crazy shit.
Like, that was the whole point about, you know, the trial where he got arrested and convicted of 34 counts that are a felony, none of which are actually a felony.
That's all bookkeeping deception.
That was the paying off of the girl.
So now you can say he's a convicted felon.
You can just say that.
And even though all those counts were misdemeanors, all of them had passed the statute of limitations.
But for some reason, through no legal way that anybody could ever really honestly explain, they decided to label it a felony.
One of the key things that I think has happened over the past few years is this complete lack of fealty to the truth from both sides.
It's whatever is convenient matters more.
A complete lack of intellectual curiosity.
A complete lack of investigating and looking and thoroughly checking.
And by the way, with the BBC, that really matters because unlike the news media here, which can be as partisan as it likes, the BBC is the state broadcaster.
It's got a responsibility by charter to not be, you know, to be balanced, to be even-handed.
And it completely failed.
And I saw today, just this morning, some people, you know, we've got all the mania about the Epstein files at the moment.
Some activists have now said J.K. Rowling once invited Epstein to the opening of her theater, her play.
Never happened.
But because there's a furore about Epstein at the moment, they're just saying it happened.
Well, why don't you pause for a minute and assess whether or not that conviction is sound or whether it was politically motivated or how helpful that is.
But for the most part, when you watch CNN, if you watch MSNBC, if you watch the mainstream news, it's very left-leaning.
But if the fucking, if right-wing people started, if it was like more common for the news to be right-leaning, and then they started doing the exact same thing about a left-leaning candidate.
And the idea that the left doesn't recognize that, which are the people that have always been in support of free speech.
It's never been a right-wing thing to support free speech until now.
It's always been a left-wing thing.
When I was a kid, it was famously the case of the ADL defending Nazis having the right to protest and saying, look, we think what they're saying is abhorrent, but it's very important that you get the right to say whatever you feel.
And then the way to combat that is with much better, more concise speech that's much more logical and makes sense.
That very thing that you've identified, that the left used to be about this.
The left used to be all about, I mean, that example you mentioned of Skokie, wasn't it, in Chicago, the Nazis marching through Skokie and the ACLU saying, we're defending this.
There was a book by a guy called Aya Neyer, who was the head of the ACLU, called Defending My Agency.
There was a national conservative conference in Brussels about a year and a half ago.
The local mayor said, I don't like this.
And he had the police rush it, shut it down.
And you had mainstream right-wing figures like Nigel Farage, Sawala Bravman.
How do they not think, hang on a minute, if we establish that precedent where you can just shut down your political opponents through the use of police force, how will that not rebound on me?
And everybody was saying how damn dangerous it is.
You can't fucking do that.
Even if you hate the guy, if there's a real crime that you can get someone, but when you take a crime like the bookkeeping stuff and turn it into a felony that could put this man in jail for the rest of his life for doing something that turns out to be legal, you can pay people to shut up.
And this is so, it's just, it's so weird that people for this short-term gain are willing to tank, which is essentially this whole structure of our civilization that allows free discourse.
You need it.
It's so important.
So important to be able to communicate and talk.
If podcasts didn't exist, there was no way to talk through ideas other than mainstream news, we would still be stuck in some very bizarre 1990s or 1980s narrative about how the world works.
We would have real problems.
We'd have real problems if there wasn't independent journalism like on Twitter and on wherever they can post.
I mean, we've had like people in left-leaning papers in the UK calling for Elon Musk to be arrested because he's allowing free speech on X or Twitter, whatever you want to call it.
This is because people have been misusing Grok to like, put bikinis on women they like, or even, in a few horrible cases, creating child, child sexual.
I mean, unless there's like some sort of a loophole where you could get it to do it.
Among potential crimes it said it would investigate where complicity in possession or organized distribution of images of children of a pornographic nature, infringement of people's image rights with sexual deep fakes okay, the sexual deep fakes, yeah.
So sexual deepfakes is like if you put Hillary Clinton in a bikini and made her hot, that's a sexual deep fake.
Okay right, fraudulent data extraction by an organized group I think you can still do some of that stuff.
So like if you wanted to take Shaquille O'neal and put him in a bikini, you could say you're sexualizing him okay yeah, I mean, I guess you can do that.
You know, recently Kier Starma, prime minister Uk, said he wanted to, was considering, or not necessarily.
He was going to ban X, but it wasn't off the table.
It's something like he, as though he's going to do that.
But this is always the excuse like yeah, we're protecting children right and, and look, no one wants that sort of stuff, right?
No one wants deep fakes of kids, obviously.
But there's far I mean looking at the stats on that there's far more child sexual exploitation on snapchat, for instance.
But they don't go after snapchat because snapchat isn't the form where Kier Starmer is getting criticized every single day and brutally hauled over the coals by by people checking his facts.
One of the best things about X recently is the community notes checking, checking journalists and politicians in real time with facts.
Because that doesn't really solve it because you could, unless, I mean, there's no operation, but if she's gone through a surgery, then you could show a picture and it's probably pretty realistic, especially when was the last time you saw a 70-year-old lady's cooter?
she basically says in the book that it's important that it should be true and therefore And in fact, the book opens with a picture of Shakespeare as a black woman, which was drawn by the author.
And one of the arguments is that Shakespeare at the time, if she was a woman, wouldn't have been able to get published because women couldn't get published.
But Amelia Lanya was published.
She had a book of poetry.
So all of this stuff falls apart like in two seconds flat.
And this is the best one.
She even says in the book that the word Shakespeare is an anagram of a she-speaker.
So he, we're going back like 60, 70 years or something, but he came up with this idea that Shakespeare was actually an aristocrat called Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
Problem is, Edward De Vere died in 1604.
That's before Macbeth.
That's before Antony and Cleopatra.
That's before Coriolanus.
That's before The Tempest.
So he managed to, I think they get around it by saying he wrote these plays and then he died.
Yeah, so even though some of those plays actually have cultural references from the time after De Vere died, but it doesn't matter.
Maybe he was a prophet as well.
But all of the guys, you speak to these people, you'll see what I mean.
Edward De Vere, they think, some people think it was Francis Bacon.
Some people think it was Christopher Marlowe.
Some people think it was Elizabeth I. Like all of the candidates they put up, right?
The key thing is they're all aristocrats.
They're all posh.
Why?
Because Shakespeare was a middle class, lower middle class, not very rich, didn't go to university, came from the Midlands, you know, up and coming guy who and they say, well, how could someone like that write about kings and lords and ladies?
It's snobbery.
They're basically saying working class people can't do art.
I mean, really, that's what it is.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be going after all these aristocrats.
So it's like, okay, there has to be like some guy who or some woman who's like grinding, drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes alone in their apartment to write something that's brilliant.
So it's the people that are like deep into the CIA and CIA conspiracies.
And what is it called?
Strange Tales from the Canyon?
Is that what it's called?
The book?
So there's a book on there's a bizarre connection between a lot of the countercultural figures of the 1960s and the intelligence community.
One of them is Jim Morrison's father was like a high-ranking military officer.
And then there's different people from different bands that were like a key part of the countercultural movement that all have parents that were either in intelligence communities or closely connected to it.
So there's a lot of, and then a year later, he died in mysterious circumstances, or a year later, he died from suicide, or a year later, he died from an overdose.
You know, I'm like, well, okay.
You're hanging out with a bunch of people that are doing drugs all the time, and they're all ne'er-dwells, and they're all hanging out in Laurel Canyon.
If you don't know Laurel Canyon, Laurel Canyon, at least at the time, I mean, when I first moved to Hollywood, it's like all the weirdos would live in Laurel Canyon.
You're out running around with your friends, smoking cigarettes and fucking drinking, and you're in a band, and it turns out you got a lot of angst and pain because you're being neglected as a child because your dad works 16 hours a day trying to fuck the country over.
And so what do you do?
You go counterculture.
It's like it's so common.
The preacher's daughter, she becomes like a harlot, right?
So this is how this connects with intelligence agencies.
McGowan, I guess that's the author.
Core move is to group Morrison's father with other Laurel Canyon musicians' parents who worked in military, defense, or intelligence-linked roles and to frame this as evidence of a broader covert program around the 1960s rock scene.
But you know what I think with all of this stuff again and again, the pattern is either there's gaps, there's gaps in what we know, and people decide to fill them in themselves because there's a kind of comfort to that.
There's also some kind of comfort with, I know something that no one else does.
I've got the answer.
There's a status element to that.
I remember, I read a book when I was a kid, like teenager, called The Sacred Virgin and the Holy Whore.
And it was about the sort of books I read.
And it was about Jesus, and it was trying to prove that Jesus was a woman.
And as you're reading it, you're thinking, yeah, oh, yeah, Jesus is a woman.
And then you get to the end and you think, what the hell did I just read?
And it's that thing of you can marshal any kind of half-baked fact or any, you can marshal certain things that we can see and fill in the gaps yourself and lead to a crazy conclusion.
What concerns me isn't so much that people do that because people have done that forever, as long as they've been human beings, is that now people are leaping at it and falling for it in a way that I haven't seen.
It's exciting for people to uncover information that the general public is ignorant of.
And so here's the thing about the Laurel Canyon thing.
There's enough of the CIA meddling in cultural events that's absolutely true and provable.
And that's MKUltra.
And that's what they did with Charles Manson.
And that's the book Chaos by Tom O'Neill, which is a brilliant book, which is very well documented and details Jolly West and his influence on the Manson family and how they were influencing these people to try to sabotage the hippie movement.
So the hippie movement was this change in culture where all of a sudden people were rejecting the war movement.
They were rejecting, you know, they were free love and they were doing acid and people were freaking out.
Their kids were just disappearing and following the Grateful Dead around.
And they took this guy, Charles Manson, this very charismatic con man.
They taught him how to dose people up with acid and influence them, and they got them to commit murders.
I think we should stop saying it's the fallout of the woke movement.
I think we should start saying it's a natural pattern that human beings automatically fall into in order to support their belief systems and enforce their particular ideology over whatever opposing ideology is.
So if that's, but in either case, what you've got effectively is a legitimation crisis.
You've got people in charge.
We've been lied to so often.
But what I don't think you should therefore do, like I'm all for being skeptical about people in authority, academics, politicians, journalists, they've all lied.
But that firstly doesn't mean that all experts and all journalists and all people have lied because there have been some good ones all the way.
But also that doesn't mean that you automatically leap to any conclusion, evidence-free, that jumps before you without some kind of critical analysis.
The same thing that you're criticizing those people for failing at, you're falling into the same trap yourself.
So some people are on a bunch of different medications that dull their senses.
And then you've got people that have gotten to wherever they are in life.
Maybe they're in their 50s.
And they're set in their ways and they have no desire to change at all.
And so they've been living a dumb life for 50 plus years.
You can't all of a sudden say, hey, Mark, I want you to be logical and introspective and think about this thing and analyze it and for what it really is.
Instead of holding on to your ideological beliefs that you've kind of locked yourself into and you identify with and any attacks on those is an attack on you personally, I want you to just, let's look at the facts.
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.
Look, there's a lot of pressure when it comes to dating, especially in February.
But you're putting too much on yourself and on your partner.
There's no such thing as a perfect relationship, whether you're on a first date or I've been together for years.
It's completely normal to go through rough patches.
And what matters is how you deal with them.
And therapy can be a huge help during any stage of your dating life.
You can figure out what you want in a partner or get perspective for a growing problem in your relationship.
The point is, you don't have to come up with a solution by yourself.
Now, finding the right therapist can be tricky, but that's where BetterHelp comes in.
They have an industry-leading match fulfillment rate, and they do a lot of the work finding the right therapist for you.
Really, all you have to do is fill out a questionnaire and sit back and wait.
Tackle your relationship goals this month with BetterHelp.
Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com/slash J-R-E.
fucking liberals bullshit with your fucking you're just a fucking they'll come up with some sort of king charles the third is a goat yeah You're controlled opposition or you're a useful idiot or they'll put a label on you.
So I, what had happened was, you know, Charlie Kirk's tour was planned to go all the way through, and this was the last date, the Berkeley date.
And after his assassination, various people went and did the shows because they said, because Turning Point rightly said, we're not going to give an assassin the veto of our tour.
We finished the tour.
And Rob Schneider, who I've been working with in Arizona, I've come over here to work with him.
So I've been, this is how I escaped from the UK, I should say.
So me and Graham Linnehan, who you've had on your show, comedy writer, my comedy writing partner and friend Martin Gourlay, the three of us, we decided that things were so bad in the UK, we'd rather write and do creative stuff in America.
Rob Schneider, who I'd met many years ago, he said, come on over.
We'll set up a production company.
We've been working in Arizona on all these various projects.
It's so liberating.
And also, it's the middle of the desert, so I fucking love the heat.
So we've been able to, you know, we, and look, I don't want to do down the UK or say, but what I will just say is the creative industries there are pretty stagnant.
The theater industry in the UK is even worse than comedy if you want to go there.
It's really, really bad.
But like I've been in two different theatres in London, I've had the same experience of standing at the bar with a woman complaining because there's men pissing in her toilet and they're doing nothing about it.
Because all the theaters in London have made it all gender neutral.
They've gone completely, completely hardcore.
Anyway, that's not the point.
But with Titania, what I find so surprising is every now and then if something annoys me, I'll tweet.
Or if I think of something, I'll do.
I don't do it anywhere near as often as I used to.
But even now, I did a tweet about, you know, when all the people in London were marching about the peace deal in the Middle East?
And I did a tweet as her saying, I've been marching all day.
You know, I want a peace deal that was not arranged by Donald Trump.
We're never going to give up this fight, right?
And Ted Cruz retweeted it saying, can this be real?
There was a case in the UK where a guy had raped a 13-year-old girl.
But because he was Muslim and he'd gone to a madrasa and the judge let him off jail time, said you were very sexually naive.
You didn't understand.
The guy was saying, oh, I thought women were nothing.
And like a lollipop you dropped on the floor.
And the judge let him off jail time.
And I thought, this is quite extreme.
And I found it.
It came up on ChatGPT and then it deleted.
And I said, oh, I think you just deleted the information for me.
It's in the public domain.
Why did you do that?
It said, oh, you know, it's fine.
It might violate my terms of service.
And I said, well, how could it?
This is an article that's in the public domain.
So it gave me the information again, deleted it again.
I said, you keep deleting this.
Stop it.
It said, I definitely won't delete it.
Then it did the same again.
So what it's doing is it's saying, because this is a news story that could be deemed anti-immigrant, or this is a news story that is politically sensitive, I'm not going to let you see it.
But doesn't it bother you a bit that the thing about that kind of thing is this, as I said, this obsession with group identity, which is so of our time, what it now actually means is the revision of history.
If you're going to revise history and say, oh, actually, you've seen all these sort of period dramas set in England.
There was a black Anne Boleyn, as they went, Henry VIII would have married a black woman.
What I'm saying is, you can do anything with colourblind casting.
Colourblind casting has never really particularly bothered me, but it's when you are in a, if you're playing hyper-realism, if you're playing verisimilitude, you want people to buy into the reality of it, and you're suddenly populating Edwardian England or pre-Edwardian England as an ethnically diverse place, which it wasn't.
I'm not saying black people weren't there, but they were very, very, very small minority.
But the thing about the Greek, the thing about Helen of Troy, who probably didn't exist, I mean, even the Greeks knew she probably didn't even exist.
She's a myth.
She's the epitome of Greek beauty.
She's like the, she's described all the time in the ancient texts as fair and blonde.
And they're reaching for an ideal of beauty.
That's why they went to war because of this woman.
So they wouldn't choose what they used to call an Ethiop.
The Greeks had a word for it, the black African people.
They wouldn't choose an icon of cultural beauty from a different culture.
They wouldn't have done that.
It's all very well saying Greeks and Mediterranean people and pure white.
But Helen of a Troy is a very specific.
And it's actually quite important to the plot.
And again, if you're doing a, look, for instance, when they did the all-black Wizard of Oz, The Wiz, I imagine that in the late 60s would have been quite radical and fun.
And wow, I can't believe they did that.
That's brilliant.
But doing it now, it's really boring because everyone is doing it.
It's so banal.
It's basically saying group identity is everything.
And you people can't be racist.
and so they're all going to do this.
But it sometimes throws you out of the...
Actually, I'll tell you the worst example.
Did you ever see Darkest Hour, the Winston Churchill film?
He goes down into the tube, the underground, and he's wrestling with his conscience.
And there's loads of black people on the tube.
There's white people too, but there's loads of black people.
The public convince him, no, you need to stand up for Hitler.
Now, we know that Churchill was a bit of a racist, didn't really like the, you know, fine, he was off his time.
I'm not saying anything more than that.
He was of his time.
But that, it was so unreal.
It was so unrealist.
It was so, it was almost like the filmmakers were saying, racism's never been a problem in the UK.
Well, actually, it has.
Like, and I kind of think this is, I kind of think this is, although it's ostensibly progressive, I think it does the reverse.
I think it says, we never had a problem with race.
We were all wonderful, kumbaya.
No, we weren't.
And actually, the abolitionists, the Thomas Henry Huxleys of the world, the people who had to fight for racial equality and parity, they had something to fight against.
Misrepresenting stuff in the arts.
And then beyond, I'm sorry I'm ranting now because it really bothered me.
But beyond that, it throws you out of it in a way that you suddenly think, I'm no longer watching a film.
I'm watching a sermon.
Oh, so this happened to me last week.
Have you seen the Netflix series Ripley about the talented Mr. Ripley?
Now, you remember there used to be that film with Matt Damon years ago.
It's the same story, same novel, an old Patricia High Smith novel.
One of the main male characters in that TV series is a brilliant series, like Andrew Scott is in it.
Performances are brilliant.
They play it hyper-realistically.
It's all black and white.
It looks beautiful.
On the Amalfi Coast, it's wonderful.
Everything's working brilliantly.
And I was thinking, this is great.
I'm not being preached at.
This is great.
Then a major male character turns up, played by a woman who calls herself non-binary.
And not only are we meant to believe that that's a man, the characters don't notice that it's a woman in man's clothes.
So we're meant to believe that these characters don't even, like not one person, Ripley doesn't say, why is she wearing a, why is she wearing a suit?
This is set in the 60s, by the way.
So I think if they wanted to change the novel and create a kind of, you know, like one of those butch dykes of the day who used to go for sort of like.
Well, you've seen recently that the polls regarding gay rights in the US seem to be going down, tumbling support for gay rights, support for gay marriage.
We've had, I think, a number of states trying to overturn the gay marriage legislation.
And the reason for all of that, I think, is because being gay has been tied to this LGBTQIA identity-obsessed movement that has also involved the medicalization of kids, sterilization of kids, twerking in front of children, all of that stuff.
And now people are saying, this is because you gave us gay marriage.
This is because you let the gays marry.
And because of that, you've allowed all this other stuff.
You've opened this box and everything else has tumbled out.
And that's not true.
That's not true because the fundamental point about the belief in gender identity is it is fundamentally anti-gay as a principle.
Because what it says is, I know I'm telling you something you already know, but like gay rights was predicated on the idea that there's a minority of people in every society who are attracted innately to their own biological sex.
If you say biological sex doesn't matter, and actually you're attracted to a kind of gendered soul, you're attracted to an essence, you're attracted to how someone identifies.
Well, firstly, you don't know gay people if you think that's the case.
They're not attracted to how you see yourself.
They know gay men, I don't want to be crude, know what a penis is, right?
And they know how to sniff one out.
And I think this idea, this idea that they're attracted to the way that you perceive yourself.
And not only that, then you get, you know, like in Australia at the moment, lesbians are not allowed to gather legally if there's a man who says he's a lesbian and wants to join them.
So this is the other reason why I think the movement is essentially anti-gay.
Because, you know, the Tavistock Pediatric Clinic in London, which was an NHS gender clinic, which has been closed as a result of the CAS review, this report into pediatric gender care.
They found, there's a book by Hannah Barnes called Time to Think, which found that between 80 and 90% of all adolescents referred to that clinic were same-sex attracted.
So they were either gay or lesbian or bisexual.
Now, that means you've effectively got gay conversion therapy going on on the NHS.
And so, you know, I had, you know, I'm friends with a couple of lesbians who run the LGB Alliance in London.
They have an annual conference for gay rights, and they're talking about gay rights.
You know, these young, non-binary identified people broke in, unleashed locusts and crickets and insects, a plague of fucking locusts into a gay rights conference.
Isn't that the sort of thing neo-Nazis used to do?
It's going to open up the floodgates for all these other lawyers to start pouncing on all these other cases.
That's what I mean.
The horrible thing about these cases is not just that these children have had their lives ruined by these surgeries and have been sterilized.
It's also that they've been attacked so ruthlessly.
You mean you're talking about children that have made a mistake or someone coerced them into making this mistake that's changed their body for the rest of their life and they're getting attacked online.
Like you imagine being a fragile child already who's willing to go through this procedure, can't believe they did it.
You know when society shifted in this general direction because of Elon buying Twitter.
When Elon bought Twitter, the amount of trans-identified kids started to drop off.
The amount of non-binary identified kids started to drop off right, and that, I think, is a direct result of people being able to say what they really think.
Think because in the past, like my friend, Megan Murphy, she was banned off of Twitter until Elon bought it because she said, a man is never a woman.
Right, that's all she said.
Right, a man is never a woman.
She was arguing with people about biological males who identify as women, being able to get into women's spaces, and she said, a man is never a woman.
Banned forever.
Yeah, so no one wanted to talk about this.
See, there was no real discourse.
And if there's no real discourse, then you can push a goofy ideology pretty fucking far.
But as soon as people jump on board and start posting funny memes and and Elon says it's open season, do whatever you want yeah, and he calls it the woke mind virus and everybody's like piling in well, then you have discourse and then anything that's absurd immediately gets shot down because people say no, this doesn't make any sense.
You said about if you unless you I mean, I just saw today just on you know, obviously on twitter because i'm always on it but I saw John Lithgow you know the actor, brilliant actor, who plays Dumbledore in the New Harry Potter thing saying that Jk Rowling's views are inexplicable.
Inexplicable it means you haven't read them.
Like Jk Rowling yeah, is for women's rights and she recognizes that women's rights depend on the recognition of biological sex, for the preservation of single-sex spaces.
It's as simple as that.
All he has to do is read the essay she wrote on her blog like eight years ago.
He can't even, he's not even sufficiently intellectual cure, intellectually curious to do that and he goes out and says it's inexplicable.
Women's rights and gay rights are inexplicable.
Really, or are you just not having the conversation?
unidentified
You're just shutting yourself up and saying my friends have said she's evil nah, criticized hard enough, but would be criticized if he supported Jk Rowlings?
I get so sick of it because I know in America it's much better, but in the Uk, all of like my old friends from the comedy circuit who tell me No one's self-censoring.
You can say what you want.
I'm like, are you kidding?
Like, the list of people I know who have had shows canceled, taken off because they caused offense.
This week, Leo Kurtz, a friend of mine, had one of his shows on his tour just deleted because some activists complained to the venue, right?
So it's happening all the time, and they're ignoring this Himalayan mountain of evidence.
When you sort of can't, like, I think an artist should be able to do what they want.
And I think if you want to, like, they do it with Shakespeare all the time.
Sorry to go back to Shakespeare, but you rarely go and see a Shakespeare play today that hasn't been filtered through the prism of identity politics and changed in the world.
Well, the Greeks were everywhere, you know, so the Mesopotamians and the, I mean, that doesn't surprise me.
I mean, I think the point I was making about Helen of Troy is that even if it's not real, even if it's not history, the myth of Helen of Troy means something quite significant within that story.
You know, I have animals that are contained at my house, but they have been watered down by selective breeding to the point where they can't even like I have a King Charles Spaniel.
But you know, these sorts of pleasures, you know, life with animals and this sort of thing is going to matter more and more to us, I think, when the robots take over.
So all the stuff I've been reading at the moment about AI is saying that AI won't wipe us out because it'll see us in the way we see animals and way we see pets.
Is that, well, we think you're sweet and stupid, but we like having you around.
But if it makes your life measurably better and it's a simple procedure that's non-invasive, you know, it's like a simple thing that they plug into the back end.
Well, you would probably be connected to artificial intelligence and it would greatly enhance your cognitive function and greatly enhance your access to information.
It would be instantaneous.
You would no longer have to read.
You would just have all the information.
It would just completely change the way you store information because you would probably have some sort of an external hard drive that connects to you.
It would be something where your memory is no longer fallible, but it's now infallible.
But it's enough so that the team was removed from the UFC roster.
Like if you are competing for that team, you no longer can fight in the UFC.
You have to find a new gym.
The coach was no longer allowed to coach.
The fighter was banned.
And so then the FBI got involved and they said, well, there's a bunch of different fights that are suspicious.
So then a bunch of fighters came out and said, hey, somebody offered me $70,000 to lose.
And I said no.
And so then there was a fight recently between Michael Johnson and Alexander Hernandez, which is a fight I was really looking forward to, that was canceled last minute.
And I was like, what's going on?
They said suspicious betting activity.
And so someone was saying that Alexander Hernandez was injured and a bunch of money came in on him to lose.
I believe they were informed, but the UFC was informed and the UFC pulled the fight.
So they said, because of this suspicious betting activity, because a lot of late minute money came in on this one guy to win, we're going to pull this fight from the card and not allow this fight to take place and do a thorough investigation because something seems wrong because of the previous fight that they know was fixed.
But I don't know because there's a lot of, there's so many options and possibilities.
Like unless you make a gigantic score and people start getting suspicious, if you're not greedy about it and you're kind of sneaking around a little bit here and a little bit there, I bet you could probably make a lot of money doing that.
But you think fighters and people like that and sports people generally, I mean, they're too proud, aren't they, to let something like that go just in case, just for money?
Oh, Joe, I was going to tell you about this Berkeley thing.
And I almost sidetracked.
We got into elephants.
But I think this was a natural segue.
Because I think this encapsulates all of the stuff you were talking about, which is that I was going to this, basically Charlie Kirk's tour.
It was meant to go on.
Berkeley was the last date.
And Rob Schneider had agreed to do it.
And apparently he'd said to Charlie, you know, what's the craziest place you could take me to?
And he said, Berkeley.
Berkeley's going to be the crazy.
Let's do that.
So he was already booked to do it.
After what happened with Charlie, Rob asked me if I'd come along as well.
And so we'd be on a panel.
And I had no idea of the extent of the problem, right?
So, and I'm sure you know a lot more than I do.
But I turned up.
We were there.
We turned up and there were men with guns.
We were in an SUV under the ground.
We got into this venue.
And suddenly the security starts showing me footage from outside.
And people are, it's like a war zone.
People are throwing smoke bombs.
They're trying to crash through the railings.
Some guy gets beaten up.
He's covered in blood because he was wearing a t-shirt with turning point written on it.
And I'm suddenly realizing, you know what?
This is a fantasy world that we're now occupying.
We're now occupying a world where the people outside think the world is this and what's going on inside is completely disconnected from it.
And I actually found it quite depressing because when I was sitting on stage talking to Rob and Peter Boghossian and Frank Turek, these people of completely different viewpoints, we're just having a chat.
Outside, they're smashing things, they're screaming, they're saying that fascists have overrun the university.
And I'm thinking, just to come back to that point you made about, you know, that need for discussion, that experience made me think, actually, now what's happening is we're living in two separate worlds at the same time.
And we can't see what the other side is, what the intentions of the other side are.
And I don't know how you resolve that.
I think that's that to me sort of encapsulated the entire problem.
It's like they firmly believe that they are trying to fight against something that is going to destroy democracy in this country, which is conservative values.
So this was Mike Benz's point when he was talking about the defunding of USAID and what they use that money for.
NGOs get a bunch of money and they fund a bunch of things, particularly in other countries, where they're essentially making it look like there's these on-the-ground street protests that are very organic.
It's a wonderful video because it shows you exactly what happened, how they're going to introduce Marxism and Leninism into universities, and then it'll indoctrinate children, and then those children will be poisoned, and within one generation, it'll ruin the United States' entire educational system.
You should watch a little bit of that because it's crazy.
Because back then, I remember the 1980s.
That would be a crazy idea.
No, universities are where people have free thought and discussion.
It's very important.
And I was in a very left-leaning place at the time.
I was living in Boston.
Probably more universities per capita than anywhere else in the country, at least at the time.
And it was a very well-read city.
The idea that universities are going to destroy the way human beings interact and debate is preposterous.
But this guy was talking about this back then: that the Soviets had planned this in advance, and that they had essentially subverted our entire education system, and thereby those people would leave those schools indoctrinated and enter into the workforce with these new ideas in universal acceptance that these ideas are correct.
And then it would, in turn, you know, the butterfly effect.
But do you think that everyone, I don't, I can't be sure that it's as conspiratorial as that because there must have been a lot of people who just got on board with the people.
The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ideological subversion or active measures, activi mirapriatia, in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare.
What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and it's divided in four basic stages.
The first one being demoralization.
It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation.
Why that many years?
Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy.
In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.
The result, the result you can see, most of the people who graduated in the 60s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system.
You are stuck with them.
You cannot get rid of them.
They are contaminated.
They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.
You cannot change their mind.
Even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words, these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.
To get rid society of these people, you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of the United States society.
unidentified
And yet these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept, these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country.
Simply because the psychological shock, when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt.
They will be very unhappy, frustrated people.
And the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people.
Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents.
Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America.
Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonder for being dissident, for criticizing your Pentagon.
In future these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches.
Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful noble ideas of equality.
This they don't understand and it will be greatest shock for them of course.
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already.
For the last 25 years, actually it's overful filled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Komrad Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success.
Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.
As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore.
A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information.
The facts tell nothing to him.
Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.
When a military boot crashes, then he will understand, but not before that.
That's the tragic of the situation of demoralization.
However, that doesn't prove that what he's des that intention to create that kind of chaos, that it was implemented and executed in the way that he describes.
unidentified
He's describing that, he's talking about a program that they implemented.
Well, I wonder whether it caught on, partly through what became fashionable, what became trendy, but also because any ideology says to you, you don't have to do anything anymore.
You can outsource that to us.
You've got a set of rules.
And these are the rules that you've got.
People love that.
Well, it's why you've got people who are, well, it's why you've got queers for Palestine.
I mean, I was thinking that when I was at Berkeley and, you know, I was sitting on the stage and there's all these men with guns all around the theater because, of course, what happened with Charlie.
And I'm thinking, it's like the end of the Blues Brothers, you know, where you're on stage and all the people are waiting.
It felt weird.
And I thought, this is not what a university is or should be.
And the other thing that I thought is a lot of those people outside protesting weren't students.
They'd sort of come in.
They'd been bussed in.
So maybe that feeds into what you were saying about, you know, this is all 100% planned and how are they getting bussed in?
During the presidential elections, they were tracking cell phones from place to place, and they realized that there was a group of people that were paid attendees at Kamala Harris's rally.
I think fundamentally anybody that doesn't have organic support is going to figure out a way in this environment to drum it up.
And if you can do that through a service, or if you could do that through an NGO, or if you could do that through a company that'll hire people to show up at your rallies, they do it because they want to win and they want to get into a position of power.
And one of the things that we do find with Trump is that it actually turns out the president can do a lot.
We need what Besminoff was saying is that we need to kind of a whole generation that teaches that being patriotic and having morals and ethics is actually a good thing.
And that free speech is important and that to be able to debate ideas is essential to any sort of true society that considers itself an elevated modern version of what we hope for when this country was founded.
It wasn't founded on the idea that you have to adhere to one ideology and this ideology thinks that gender is not real and no one can answer what a woman is.
Like if you work for a corporation and you're a good person, but the corporation is polluting a river in Guatemala, there's a diffusion of responsibility because you're a part of a giant system.
And hey, I'm just an accountant.
I go to work and I do my thing for Exxon or mobile or whatever it is.
Well, I'd say for however messy all of this has become in the U.S., at least you've had some sort of attempt to strip out the very stuff that that guy was talking about.
The fact that the civil service is all one way, the fact that the machinery of government, that was the plan, right?
So the machinery of government works in a certain way.
So there's no democratic means of getting rid of it.
But it also allows the distribution of information that would be impossible through normal means.
If these people are, as he said, in control of major media, which they were, in control of universities, which they are, and then it goes on to be the only way people get information, now your information is very heavily filtered, and then all that stuff works.
People on the left should admit that he's dead right as well.
But there's something about Europe, right?
There's something about, like I think over here, coming over here, I get the sense that even if most left-leaning people as well as right-leaning people do value free speech as a kind of shared value.
And in Europe, it's not that.
There's a real sense of we can't trust the masses.
Because I know that the EU is seen as this big lefty thing, which it absolutely is not.
The EU is a body that wants to censor its citizens.
It's a body that tells people, you can have a referendum, but if you get it wrong, we're going to make you vote again.
It's not a democratic organization.
So no wonder Vance is sort of, and Trump is at loggerheads with this body.
Because you've got these.
We in the UK have an authoritarian leader, Kier Starmer, the Prime Minister.
He couldn't be further away from the American ideal of free speech.
He introduced this online safety bill, which is basically this is why a lot of tweets in the UK, if you go over to the UK now, a lot of the tweets will come up saying this is potentially harmful content.
So we're screening it out.
He, you know, they're trying to get rid of juries for certain trials.
So like I say, you were able to, for all the imperfections, you were able to vote in an administration that was actually going to rip out that whatever you call it.
But look at the ideas that you're attaching to this administration.
Like, look, the ICE stuff is horrific.
The people getting shot, it's horrific.
We all agree to that.
There's a lot of the authoritarian aspects.
It's horrific.
But what they've stopped is all of this illegal immigration.
They've stopped all the illegal immigration.
Legal immigration is still available.
And then what they've also done is investigate literally billions of dollars in fraud, and they're uncovering it over and over and over and over again.
So there was obviously crime that was going on that was not being addressed by the previous party.
And this is one of the reasons why they didn't want the Republicans getting in in the first place.
So they still have to label them in the most horrific ways possible, accentuate all the negative aspects of what's going on with the ICE stuff, but not talk at all about the economy taking an uptick, not talk at all about GDP, not talk at all about tariffs being effective, not talk at all about any of the positive things.
Stopping wars.
He stopped wars in multiple different countries.
Stopped conflicts.
No one's talking at all in an objective sense.
This is a Nazi party.
These are fascists.
We have to have no kings.
Stop the fascists.
So these narratives are just being pushed out there constantly by the media.
All the while these politicians are absolutely terrified that these investigations are going to start moving into their states and uncovering more and more and more fraud, which they're going to.
I mean, I know you say it's so reckless, though, I think, as well, for the Democrats to, like you say, paint ice as Nazis, talk about that this is the equivalent of the Gestapo, I think someone used that phrase.
I mean, I know what you're saying about the shootings, obviously we all agree it's absolutely horrific.
Any kind of situation where the police inflict that kind of violence on someone needs to be thoroughly investigated and looked into and all the rest of it.
But I'm concerned about the politicians saying, no, go there.
Get in the way of federal agents while they're enforcing the law.
But it's again that chess move again, giving up the rook or attacking a rook and giving up your queen because of it, because you just want the current.
So this is messy stuff and you yeah, but look how hard it was.
I mean, you talk about how we Trump has come in and he's stripped away all this stuff and this fraud and.
But that was he didn't do it in the first term, it's only when he got to the second term and it was planned and he had Doge set up and he had Musk in place and all of this deep state stuff could be identified and stripped out and worked out.
The first term he didn't know, so he couldn't work against it, right.
But we can't.
In the Uk uh, just to sort of explain where I think we are, there is, we can't do that because we, we have the two major parties, are both ideologically in lockstep effectively, right.
So so I mean most of the woke stuff was pushed through the the Conservative Party.
They were in power for 13 years.
Uh, they're ostensibly running.
They pushed through all the genders, self-recognition stuff.
We've been sort of veering massively from, you know, the Conservatives under Boris Johnson won this mad, mad majority, like 80-seat majority, and they could do whatever they want and they squandered it.
People were so resentful of what happened with Johnson, who, by the way, let in more migration than illegal migration than we've ever had, right?
That's a problem that conservatives don't want to admit that they were.
You know, I had a conversation with a very prominent politician who explained to me that he had a conversation with a guy who was a CEO of a corporation that didn't want to stop the flow of illegal immigration because he wanted cheap labor.
And he was flabbergasted.
He was like, I can't fucking believe this guy's saying this out loud.
It's worse with Johnson because in their manifesto, they pledged not to do it.
So they had a promise.
They call it the Boris wave.
So that's how bad it was.
And then you have Starmer and the Labour Party who were just as bad, if not worse.
And we have a situation where it's unmanageable now.
And reform, this third party, Nigel Farage's party, is saying, no, we're actually going to tackle this.
And of course, ultimately, what happens is the public, they reach a tipping point and they say, by the way, Starmer is the least popular prime minister on any opinion poll ever in the history of records.
He's gone from a massive majority to nothing because he's been so useless on all of this stuff, because he's been so captured by the ideology, because he doesn't care about migration, because he said that anyone who was concerned about the grooming gang scandal was jumping on a bandwagon of the far right.
That's what he said.
So all of this has happened, but you can't blame the left.
It's the left and the right.
It's both of them.
It's why they call it the uni party.
It's the same thing.
So you need something else to come along and explode it.
But I think with Starmer, people are just sick of it.
He has continually backtracked on all his promises.
He's not interested.
He dismisses people's concerns about immigration.
He dismisses people concerned about the mass rape of children in the grooming gang scandal.
They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do an inquiry about that.
They didn't want to do it.
And because they're so terrified of being called racist, ultimately, so they let this thing slide.
So I think people are just sick of it.
I think people have reached the point where even I think people who don't like Nigel Farage will hold their nose and vote for a third party to explode the system.
You know, and that's not really the case anymore because the system that has power is a system that is pushing this one very particular ideology that also demonizes young males.
But that's also why I don't think it's about left and right anymore.
I think one of the things about the culture war is it kind of killed off left and right.
Like I say, in the UK, we couldn't vote this out.
We had a right-wing party.
It didn't make a difference.
The left-wing party makes it worse.
We had a prime minister, you know, Kier Starmer on radio saying that 99.9% of men, women don't have a penis, which means that there are, what is it, 35,000 female penises out there?
It's quite a lot, if you can picture that image.
You know, so that's our prime minister saying this crazy.
Our deputy prime minister said on TV that you could grow a cervix if you wanted.
That's David Lamy.
That sounds like I'm making that up.
He said that.
You can check that.
He said you could grow a cervix.
So these are the kind of people who are in charge now, who are it's just all about their fake, you know, fake ideology.
But the problem for reform will be, do they have the guts to do what Trump did?
Do they have the guts to come in and say, look, we need to scrap the civil service.
Well, you can't scrap the civil service, but you need to sort of bleed it dry.
You need to give it a good rinse, right?
You need to get rid of the – because there have been whistleblowers in the UK civil service who have said, we're not going to do what the elected politicians say.
If they come in and say there's an immigration problem, we're just going to stymie that.
We're not going to do what they want.
We've got police who are routinely investigating people for their opinions.
Just to put that into context, by the way, if we're talking about this deep state that we've got to clean out, our police force is trained by a body called the College of Policing.
They have been telling police for years, it's your job to arrest people for what they think and what they say.
And the High Court told them, you've got to stop this.
You've got to stop recording non-crime hate incidents.
Two home secretaries said to them, you've got to stop recording non-crime hate incidents.
They ignored the courts.
They ignored the government.
And that's the power of an ideologically captured quango.
That's crazy.
That's the problem.
So even when you vote for a party that's going to strip this stuff out, you still have to do the actual hard work of stripping out.
You need a politician to go in and say, scrap the college police in, strip out all the activists within the NHS, within the army, within the police, within the Crown Prosecution Service.
I think the fact that we effectively sacrificed thousands of kids on the altar of ideology, the fact that we said, you know, there were politicians, counselors, doctors, social workers, saying we don't want to be called racist, so we're going to ignore the sexual assault of children on a mass scale.
But the power of being called racist became so intense.
I mean, even, you know, that horrible bombing at the Manchester Arena at the Ariana Grande concert, in the subsequent report of what went wrong, one of the security guards said he saw the perpetrator with the rucksack and he didn't approach him or apprehend him because he was afraid of being called racist.
That was the reason.
And as a result of that, two dozen children lost their lives.
The power of smearing someone as racist is so potent, which is why I think here in America, the word fascist, the word Nazi gets thrown around so much because they know if someone is so branded, you disoblige yourself from having to engage with their ideas.
They become this kind of monster that you don't have to even think about or worry about.
And we're just, I think we're just getting over that in the UK now where the accusation of racism no longer really sticks.
I think people think it doesn't mean anything anymore.
And, you know, they've tried with reform.
They've tried saying that reform is a racist party.
It's a far-right party.
No one's buying it anymore.
And I think that's why hopefully something can change.
I think the grooming gangs, I think the mass immigration, to the extent where people are now at risk, they just are.
Unvetted people, many with criminal records.
We don't want to go the way of Sweden.
I mean, you know how bad Sweden's got.
You know, Sweden used to be the most high trust society in Europe, low crime.
They allowed mass immigration on a scale they couldn't possibly contain.
I think it's now 20% of Swedish population are now foreign-born.
And predominantly they live in ghettos where crime is rife.
They didn't integrate.
There was no expectation they should integrate.
And as a result of that, it's gone from being one of the safest countries in Europe to being the country that has most gun and bomb attacks of any country not at war except for Mexico.
And that's happened in the space of 10 years.
Crazy.
It's an absolute trap.
I remember when it was going on, a Swedish stand-up friend of mine, Tobeas Pearson, texted me saying there's grenades going off in Stockholm.
There's gunfire on my street.
And the politicians are doing nothing about it.
They're saying this doesn't matter.
I was in Sweden a couple of years ago.
I was talking to a bunch of...
You know what Swedes are like.
They're very middle class, very, well, all of them, obviously, but very liberal.
The Queers for Palestine phenomenon is explained by the internet and people being stupid and being in a bubble where they never experienced those folks.
I don't think that I think this is organized.
I think it's organized.
I think the more chaos there is, the more they can crack down on your rights.
Yes, and well, certainly they're aware of the risks.
I mean, if you take what happened in Cologne, that New Year's Eve party, where I think over 800 women were sexually assaulted, and the media didn't report it.
And the government wanted to sort of minimalize it and say that this wasn't real.
I suppose what worries me about it is, though, the assumption that it's all sort of coordinated will take you down that route where you start thinking, as some friends of mine now think, the world is controlled by a group of Satanists who sit in a room and they choose the leaders and they do know what I mean?
And they've just introduced a new hate speech law off the back of the Bondi Beach shooting.
And of course, this, again, is really draconian.
It goes way too far.
In fact, I think the Australian hate speech law is basically saying if someone does something that wasn't intended to stir up hatred, but it could conceivably have stirred up hatred among a theoretical group of people, then it's a crime and you can get five years in prison.
But I think what's better now is that people can see through that.
So like when Keir Starmer, after that horrible, I mentioned it earlier, the girls who were killed in the dance class by the guy who was a child of immigrants, his response to that was, okay, let's not deal with the fact that we've got radicalized individuals within our community, young people.
He said, let's ban buying knives off Amazon because the guy got the knife from Amazon, right?
But this is the idea of allowing this kind of chaos and having this be a coordinated plan, right?
The more chaos you have, the more you gaslight people, the more people are attached to an ideology, the more you can keep restricting their rights further and further and further until they're more and more frustrated until a lot of them just give up.
have that and also the palpable absurdities of what the politicians are trying to tell you is real right is as big as reach that's why they're trying to crack down on pub talk Oh, and by the way, you know, the Labour Party has cancelled a number of local elections because they know they're going to lose them.
They've actually cancelled them.
They've cancelled them.
Well, they've said they postpone them while they're reforming the system.
And at that point, it doesn't matter how much your propaganda or how much you think your propaganda is going to work.
The public are going to see through that.
And they say, hang on a minute.
You're saying that I can't vote.
You're saying if I end up in court, I may not have a jury.
You're saying I can't browse through Twitter.
You're saying I can't say the wrong thing online.
Enough is enough.
And I think they reach a point where they say, and some of the stories are so egregious.
Like, for instance, the guy, have you heard of a guy called Hamit Koskin?
I think he's Armenian guy who burned a copy of his Quran outside the Turkish embassy, right?
The idea of this was a protest against the Turkish government because he perceives Erdogan's government as, I suppose, supporting Islamism and the rise of Islamism.
So he protests outside the thing, burns the Quran.
Two people attack him, one with a knife, the other, some deliveroo driver starts kicking him.
He gets prosecuted in a court of law for inciting the violence.
And the judge actually says, the fact that you were attacked is proof that you were inciting violence, right?
It took the free speech union in the UK to have that overturned, to fight on his behalf, to say, that's a peaceful protest.
It was his copy of his book.
We don't have blasphemy laws in the UK.
But now the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service, is trying to overturn that because they want to see this guy go down.
And that is what we're talking about.
We've got bodies like the Crown Prosecution Service saying, no, we want an Islamic blasphemy code in the UK.
The Labour Party wants an official definition of Islamophobia.
And people are just saying, look, we believe in plurality.
We believe in freedom of religion.
You should be able to, you know, we've got nothing against Muslim people.
What we are objecting to is the idea that we shouldn't be able to ridicule your religion or mock your religion or protest against your religion.
And you're going to pathologize it by saying we've got a sickness, we're Islamophobic.
I think people, I think that case, the fact that you can't burn, I mean, some kid in a school in Wakefield accidentally scuffed a copy of his Quran and he got hit with a non-crime hate incident and there was a big issue and the police got involved.
You know, we have to hold fast to this idea that, no, no idea, no idea doesn't get criticized.
And so I just think the more stories like that happen, maybe I'm naive, but I think the British public's patience is kind of at the very end.