Piers Morgan critiques the UK's one million net migration in 2024, linking infrastructure strain to social tensions and rising anti-woke sentiment. He dismisses Andrew Mamdani as an unqualified socialist while condemning Tommy Robinson's dishonest methods despite his grooming gang insights. On Israel-Hamas, Morgan supports Israel's existence but denounces the hard-right government's blockade and ethnic cleansing rhetoric, contrasting it with Donald Trump's potential two-state solution. Ultimately, he defends his debate format against "Jerry Springer" accusations, framing the woke left's free speech suppression as hypocritical fascism akin to the Charlie Kirk tragedy. [Automatically generated summary]
Public tolerance of wokeism is massively collapsing.
Sidney Sweeney, what's happened to Sidney Sweeney since that attempt to cancel her?
She's only got infinitely more famous.
The public in Britain view wokeism has markedly shifted in the last four years.
Twice as many people now think that wokeism is a slur, not something as a badge of honour.
I think we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with wokeism for a while yet.
Mr. Mandani is one of them.
He's never done anything really other than he is dynamic, he is charismatic, and he can pull people along.
He's a populist wokey, but we know that doesn't work.
There's nowhere in the world you can point to where socialism actually can work.
I've seen criticism of my show where people say you're the Jerry Springer of inner political debate because you just want people fighting all the time.
It's not true.
I don't like it when it becomes too much of a circus.
I am noted as like the serial murderer of interviewers.
So no, I'm glad to see you.
Obviously, we've done each other's shows many, many times.
There's plenty of things we agree on, disagree, and I want to kind of dive in on everything.
But first, let's talk about the book for a moment because it's called Woke is Dead.
And I was thinking, it's an interesting title at this moment because it seems to me in New York right now, woke has just come back in the most nefarious, almost final form way, the combination of kind of woke and Islamism and communism and all that stuff.
And then on the other side of it, Trump has eliminated a lot of woke.
So tell me about sort of where the title came from and what do you make of...
And the GQ interviewer clearly wanted her to apologise for the jeans ad.
And Sidney Sweeney was having none of it.
What's happened to Sidney Sweeney since that attempt to cancel her over that ad?
She's only got infinitely more famous and more successful.
That's an example of what I mean by woke being dead.
Two, three years ago, she might well have been cancelled.
Now, people are standing up going, I've had enough of this.
And actually, anybody else who stands up to it, I'm going to support them.
Whether it's through buying their albums or going to their movies or whatever.
I'm seeing a lot more of that.
In England, a survey came out today, actually, reported in the Times of London, and it showed that the way the public in Britain view wokeism has markedly shifted in the last four years.
So there's twice as many people now think that wokeism is a slur, not something as a badge of honor.
So it was 24% thought that in 2020.
Now it's 48%.
Again, you're just seeing a rising tide of the way people view wokeism as now something that's more of a slur than it was something to be proud of being.
What do you make of the Mamdani version of it that went from woke, like all the gender nonsense and everyone's racist and all that stuff, which I'm completely with you?
The political correctness around that has largely shattered, but that now it has sort of burst forth into what its end game was, which was really socialism or Marxism, communism, whatever you want.
He's never done anything, really, other than he is dynamic, he is charismatic, and he can pull people along.
He's a populist wokey, right?
And they can carry young people with them right to the point of the reality check.
I get the affordability thing.
I get the fact young people are angry.
They can't pay for stuff.
They can't get rentals and so on.
Of course, I get what they gravitate to somebody who says, I'm going to sort all this out.
You're going to get all this stuff for free.
But we know that doesn't work.
There's nowhere in the world you can point to where socialism of the kind that he is spewing actually can work.
In the end, he'll just have to do what the Labour Party is now doing to people in Britain, which is they promised the earth and now they're making everybody pay the earth for it.
But it's not something people feel comfortable about because you obviously don't want rival laws being established in your own country where people in that community do not obey your own laws but abide by the road.
Obviously, that's untenable.
We have a lot of Muslims in Britain, most of whom have assimilated extremely well and exist perfectly well with everybody else and exist very peacefully.
But inevitably, the more people you have from any community, the more issues you're going to have, which are not so good.
And you've seen that in certain parts of Britain now.
I think there's a general sense of communities where you feel like there's a clash ideologically between these communities and, I guess you would say, old-fashioned British communities.
And I think that's where the flashpoint has come.
A lot of that is down to successive governments, conservative and left, I think, having appalling issues in how they regulated immigration.
And it goes back to Tony Blair in the early 2000s, actually the original problem.
He opened the floodgates to Eastern Europe, actually.
But then the floodgates opened everywhere.
Then you've got illegal migrants coming over on the southern border on these small boats from France.
That's become a huge problem.
None of them can tackle.
But legal migration, I think, net migration in 2024 was nearly a million people.
Now, to put it in context, you're a country of 340 million people.
We're a country of just under 70 million people.
We're a fifth of the size of the United States.
And yet we are having a net migration in one year of a million people.
That's a huge burden to put on the infrastructure of our country.
Well, I think people talk about civil war or something.
I don't think it's going to come to that.
But I do think you need to have a much tougher government-run immigration system than we have currently, both legal and illegal.
The big problem with the legal migration, we were letting people in who were highly skilled and might contribute well to society, but we allowed them to bring almost unlimited dependence with them.
So they were bringing huge numbers of their family with them.
And this puts incredible pressure on things like the National Health Service.
Well, the National Health Service, the NHS, which was the pride of the world, actually, you know, if you go and break a leg in London next time you're over, God forbid, I don't want you to, and I'm not going to be breaking it for you.
But if you broke your leg in London, you would get free health care in a very good hospital immediately.
But it was designed in the 50s for a population of 50 million people.
We now have a population of nearly 70 million.
So that's happened in 75 years.
So the infrastructure of the NHS is creaking up the seams.
If you start adding a million more people a year coming in, wherever they're coming from, you're going to start having huge pressure on the NHS, on the education system, on other public services.
And it just, it feels like Britain to me.
The real problem, it feels like it's creaking at the seam.
But you certainly, on the small boats issue coming in, which is, to me, is part of the problem, but it's not like the problem because you're getting 50,000, 60,000 people coming in illegally on the southern border.
You've had 10 million come in in the Biden administration.
So they clearly just completely deliberately lost control of the border, it seemed to me.
We've not had that.
We've had successive governments trying to control it.
We've got to try and do a deal.
I keep saying, what would Trump do?
He'd say to Macron, right, here's the deal.
If you don't stop these people getting on these boats, your end, which is the only way to really stop it, once they get out there into the English Channel, really, there's hardly any way to stop it.
So you've got to stop at the French end before they get on the boats.
You just say, right, do what Trump would do: 1,000% tariffs until he sort this out.
I suspect it would get sorted very quickly.
Remember the backdrop of Brexit and how much ill-feeling that caused with the rest of Europe, with the UK coming out of the European Union.
So the French have no great allegiance to us now in terms of helping us.
I don't think you can have a situation where you have communities operating, as I say, with their own Sharia law courts and so on.
I just don't think that's going to work in a country like the UK.
They've got to do something about this.
Now, how you do that without inflaming a lot of tensions on both sides, I don't know.
Because at the moment, you've got people like Tommy Robinson, who over here is kind of sainted.
Let me tell you, I do not view him as a safety.
It's like a message that in certain parts of his message, he's right.
In other parts, he's woefully exaggerating the situation for his own gain.
And he's probably the worst possible messenger.
However, when he talks about the grooming gangs in the north of England, which were horrendous and were covered up and were all British Pakistani men doing this to young white girls, he's right.
So there are lots of parts of what he says, which I think he's right about.
But the idea that he's the standard bearer for kind of a solution to this, which doesn't result in a violent solution, I think is for the birds.
If you talk to Tommy Robinson, I've asked him on my show now every week.
I call him bottle job on X, right?
I was like, come on, bottle job.
Are you familiar with the phrase bottle job?
It's an English phrase that means he's got no bottle.
He lost his bottle.
He's got no guts, right?
And there's a reason he won't come on my show, but it does everybody else's shows.
Other people haven't scrutinized, as I have, actually, his track record on stuff and what the reality is.
Take the story he loves to tell on American Airways about the young Syrian boy who he lost a court case to.
He made a documentary about this boy and about how violent he was and so on and so on.
It was full of lies.
The Syrian boy sued him.
He won six-figure payout.
He knows this, Tommy Robinson.
His real name, by the way, is Stephen Yaxe.
He's not even called Tommy Robinson.
A lot of it's a facade.
He sued him.
And the film was a deliberate defamation because it was a breach of a court order.
That's why he went to prison.
He wasn't sent to prison because of a free speech argument.
He was sent to prison for contempt of court because he repeated lies he'd said about this young Syrian kid, which were proven to be untrue in a court case, which is why the kid won the court case.
So Tommy Robinson was to present himself as a great freedom of speech king.
And a lot of Americans lap this up because they don't actually look into the facts of it.
I can't speak to that, but what I can speak to is from an American perspective, when I see someone out there who's leading these marches with your flag, who's proud of your country, who wants to address all the things that you just laid out there as problems, I see that as someone that's a good guy.
I can't speak to all 10 of the things that he's doing.
There's a reason you don't want to do it because you know that I will ask tricky questions about a lot of the stuff you claim is your version of events, but we both know isn't.
So, look, I don't pretend for a moment he doesn't resonate with a lot of British people, nor do I pretend for a moment there aren't certain elements that follow him who are violent right-wing thugs who just want to punch up and actually want racial lack of cohesion.
But I do think that he himself is becoming a bigger and bigger figure in Britain because of the failure of successive governments to control immigration.
I don't want to spend too much time on him, but I think actually, if there were other people in your country that seemingly were standing up for your country properly and dealing with these issues, then that probably his face wouldn't be out there as much.
Do you feel when you interview somebody that so if you have some of the people on the other side of this, on the sort of more Islamist or leftist side, that you treat them in interviews with the same scrutiny that you would treat someone like Tommy Robinson?
Then, okay, if you want to come on, just bear in mind, I will go after you about all the hateful statements you've made, including your love of Adolf Hitler.
So there'll be a slightly different tone to the interview.
My only critique of what Tucker did was I just think you give him a bit of a free run and didn't pin him to the floor in a way that ironically Tucker did to me when we interviewed each other in the desert study.
Right, which then Megan Kelly asked him about at the live.
Sure, he basically was like, well, go ahead and do your own interview, which is a little strange in light of how he treated you, but really Ted Cruz particularly.
They do, and I'm obviously making a ton of money doing it.
And, you know, I've taken on Candice a few times, not least her ridiculous campaign against Brigitte Macron, who she keeps saying is a man.
I think the court case will establish she's a woman, and Candice will have to end up paying loads of money.
But even then, she will, I can guarantee you, twist it into some kind of pyrrhic victory for herself, albeit she'll owe me $300,000, which is the current size of our bet about whether Bridget is not aware.
Do I think they promote what I consider conspiracy theory sometimes?
Yes.
The problem with just condemning all that out of hand is as the pandemic taught me and others, one person's conspiracy theory can often turn out to be actually a bit closer to the truth than the people saying conspiracy theory imagined.
But the point where I absolutely conceded I was 100% wrong.
And I blame the scientists, but I learned a lesson next time I won't be so compliant with what the scientists are saying.
But there was a period quite early on with the pandemic when the science advice promoted by governments around the world was if you had the vaccine, you couldn't transmit the virus.
Therefore, the presumption for the public was, well, you're going to help save lives because if you have it, you not only protect yourself in a way, but you're also not going to be infecting other people if you get the virus.
So, you know, the grandmother at home is not going to get it from you.
That's never right.
So that was that turned out to be totally untrue.
But in the period before it was declared untrue, and in fact, it made little difference to transmission whether you had the jab or not, I became incredibly censorious.
Ridiculously.
I look back and I just cringe at what I was saying, the way I was saying it.
I was too believing in what the experts were telling me.
That will never happen again.
I'd be far more questioning next time, far more journalistic, I think.
So I'm ashamed.
I said, it's fine.
I got it wrong.
And I leave those tweets up.
And people, there are certain people who just literally post them every week to the cliques.
Do you think some of the reason that you missed it on COVID and like there's BLM stuff that you've said that's kind of sort of, I would say, insane or really misguided?
Do you think some of that is just because you came from the mainstream world?
So the ecosystem you were in just sort of circled around so many wrong people.
I watched the Tucker thing with Megan and he talked again about how he supported the Iraq war.
I vehemently oppose the Iraq war.
We've all got our wins and losses in the causes we take.
I'm sure you would concede you have had to, right?
So none of us is right all the time about these things.
What I learned from the pandemic was it's very dangerous to be overly censorious based on information in a fast-moving health crisis or any story, BLM being another one.
Those who last sued themselves to Black Lives Matter, the organization, look, when George Floyd got murdered in the way he did, it was despicable and horrendous for us to watch it all happening over the eight-minute video, whatever it was, was an appalling thing.
I make no bones about thinking that that was one of the worst things I've watched.
And actually, yes, it should have been a moment of reflection for everybody about what we do to try and stop this happening.
However, the Black Lives Matter movement that developed and the activists behind it, you know, I look at, I do think that, for example, although I was very censorious again about the January 6th riots, make no apology for that.
I thought it was horrific what happened that day.
However, where I have sympathy with those on that side is they got treated far more severely than any of the protesters beating up police officers or smashing up shopping parades and so on.
So there was a real double standard between the way that the left-wing protesters on the Black Lives Matter marches were treated to the January 6th rioters.
For example, I can expose that hypocrisy quite willingly, regardless of which side I see it.
So, you know, I try and look at all things as fairly as I think I can.
And I try and, more importantly, I think, I get people on from all sides of the debates so that even if I'm myself not entirely certain, you know, I do this with you.
I'll get you on with somebody like Harry Sisson, whoever it may be, and I'll let you guys go at it.
And actually, I sit there and my brain whirs and I'm like, well, which one of these is actually being more persuasive to me?
Well, he kills it in the comments section in that everyone hates him.
And if you just lay out calm things.
Well, so let me ask you about that because I will be completely, totally honest with you.
About eight months ago, I basically said to myself, I don't want to do Piers' show anymore because the way the debates go, all of the people, the screaming, the lunatics, the jank and just these awful people, where you have a certain set of people largely on the right who come on that are thoughtful and can explain their ideas and wadjot and all these nutbags.
And I really swore it off.
And then I did do it again.
I did it the day after Charlie died and I had to demolish Jank the way I did with receipts.
But I view it now as it's adding flame.
It's just adding fuel to the fire that nothing good is coming out of it.
And in a weird way, I don't mean that as a knock to you.
I mean it maybe as a knock to what the internet has become.
So for example, if you ask me right now, Dave, you want to come on my show for a one-on-one interview the other way, or even for maybe a one-person debate, which I did with you in person in London, which with the with that socialist, and I enjoyed that.
But the other thing I think has now become something that is not helping, that's just my.
And I've seen criticism of my show where people say, you're the Jerry Springer of in a political debate because you just want people fighting all the time.
It's not true, actually.
I don't like it when it becomes too much of a circus.
I don't like it when people shout over each other because the viewer can't really understand what's happening.
I do like fiery, passionate debate between people who are ideologically completely miserable.
And I do like just me doing an interview with one person.
So I like all different time.
This week alone, I've had Cristiano Ronaldo a week, right?
Completely different vibe altogether.
I went to Saudi Arabia and sat with two hours with Cristiano Ronaldo, the greatest football player of all time, in my opinion.
Very different, obviously, to a four-person debate with Chenk Uger or you or whoever it may be.
Sometimes I think if the story, look, the Israel war with Hamas in Gaza has been an extremely toxic and divisive thing.
So I think you're getting a lot of people with big followings who only on their own world, to their own sort of echo chambers, pump out their views and they rarely get challenged.
I like to think that what my show does, it brings together people on both sides of these debates, whether it's Russia and Ukraine, whether it's Israel and Hamas, whether it's Trump, whether it's Brexit, whatever it may be, brings people together who have strong opinions and big followings.
So they're getting a lot of traction anyway for their views.
And they actually have to meet each other and go at each other.
One of my favorite things is when I can get a point of agreement, right?
Because I do think that democracy demands that we try and do that.
I do think that a lot of people, they pump themselves up and they start shouting each other.
They don't want to hear another view.
I accept that.
But sometimes I do get to a place where people can agree on various points.
And, you know, it reminded me, I remember talking to Bill Clinton when he had about a year or so crossover with Vladimir Putin when they became leaders around the same time.
And he said, you know, the thing about dealing with Putin was, if you just went out and hammered him in public, you got nowhere with him.
He said, and we would have these big meetings, him with all his team, me with all my team.
And we go at each other really hard, but we weren't really getting anywhere.
It was all posturing theater.
And eventually we throw a bout and it'd just be me and him.
So it's an interesting parallel.
And we go hard at each other.
He's a hard guy.
He said, well, then we've reached points of agreement.
And I said, did he keep his word?
He went every time.
Which I just thought was quite interesting.
That clip's gone viral quite a few times, actually.
Peter might be a very different character now, but certainly is what I've heard from other people about him.
He's extremely tough.
He's very ruthless.
He knows what he wants for Russia and so on.
But you can get to a point of agreement.
And when he shakes his hand with you, that's a deal, right?
And in a way, I see that as a kind of microcosm of what I want to do with the show.
I want to bring people together.
Look, I want to do big one-on-one interviews.
I want to do interviews with two people, one either side.
They're great as well.
I do a lot of those.
But when you have the four people, two on either side about a big issue, I make no apologies for it getting passionate and fiery.
I just hope that rather than it descending, as it sometimes does into total chaos, that actually I can calm people enough where I can try and bring them to a point where we can at least agree on various points.
And then I think it serves a very valuable purpose.
Do you think there's a fundamental reason, though, that the people that tend to be left-leaning in these debates are the ones screaming, yelling, saying all the awful things?
Can you think of one instance where someone that you brought on the right in one of these debates was doing any of the things that you're doing?
Vinny Sharlan feels pretty lightly.
No, he gets, but it's usually like, yeah, he yells a little bit, but it's like, but he's doing it kind of, he's a comic also.
When you're a lying propagandist, obviously, you know, he says exactly the same about you guys on the right.
So that's what I mean about.
So if you're a viewer in the middle and you're not actually self-declared partisan, I hope you look at you both and actually sometimes one will win, sometimes the other wins, sometimes you both get a win.
It's an interesting little battle to watch if you're not on the highway.
Basically waging war on a very small area of land, densely populated by 50% children.
And in the process, you're killing thousands and thousands of children and will continue to do so.
And I have resisted going as far as you have done in your criticism of the Israeli government.
I resist no more.
I think we've reached common ground about what we view is happening and has been happening through this period of this blockade, which frankly is just starvation of the people there, including so many innocent young women and children.
And I think that the incessant bombing and killing, and we don't know how many civilians have been killed, but it is on a daily basis, it looks like hundreds of people every day, with no apparent attempt, it seems to me, to have any real plan for how this ends or what happens when it ends.
And what you're trying to do is be very weasily with your words.
No, I'm not.
They've then moved into a nearly three-month blockade, which to me is a criminal starvation of a populace, which should never have been allowed to happen.
The bombardment has been utterly relentless all over Gaza.
They've obliterated 70% of Gaza.
I think it's completely disproportionate to what happened to Israel October the 7th.
These hard-right, hardliners on the Israeli government cabinet, the way they've been talking now quite brazenly and openly about ethnic cleansing.
Which I maintained for a long time, by the way, and used to get absolutely hammered by the pro-Palestinian side in a way that I've, since this year, had more hammering from the pro-Israeli side.
The reports by almost every official body say the opposite, but you don't believe them.
My view is you're entitled to not believe anyone, right?
It's fine.
I had that thing with Meghan Markle.
Didn't believe her either.
Coughing my job.
However, the best way to get to the truth is let journalists who are used to covering in war zones, let them go in and do their job, particularly now we have the ceasefire.
So let them go in.
There is a reason the Israeli government is not letting the media in.
And I fear I know what it is.
They are terrified about what the world will uncover.
If you look at the Navy Convention, actually operate, well, but then no other country in the world has had the control that Israel has over Gaza, right?
In the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, 75 years or so, there has never been a response from either side to an atrocity by the other.
Both sides claim the other side has committed atrocities, right?
There's never been a response, anything on this scale.
So we had on October the 7th, 1,200 people were killed.
We had nearly 7,000 more wounded.
We had 255, six people who were kidnapped, including a baby, including Holocaust survivors.
Absolutely horrific.
But the reason I asked about proportionality, show me another moment in the 75-year conflict where the response has been to kill 60 times as many people.
And where you have a, well, hang on, let me finish.
Where you have a government with people like Smodrich and Ben Gavir who begin publicly, openly talking about ethnically cleansing all the Palestinians from Gaza, about annexing the West Bank, about taking complete control of all of it, to the point that Donald Trump had to step in and say that is not happening.
And credit to him for doing that.
unidentified
It's random random ministers talking about two of the most senior people in the government.
This is how people in Northern Ireland used to talk, right?
On both sides, you'd have implacable positions.
We can never do peace with these people.
They're terrorists, they're terrorists.
The loyalists and the IRA called themselves terrorists for seven decades, right?
And eventually, you had new clear thinking by Bill Clinton, by Tony Blair, by Senator Mitchell, and we managed to get to peace that nobody thought was achievable amongst warring people who lived amongst each other.
unidentified
Sure, but how many similar to the Gaza-Israel border?
If I'm an Israeli, or if I'm a Jew living out of Israel around the world, and I was in New York recently, more Jews live in New York than live any Jewish community outside of Tel Aviv.
I think, do they feel safer by what's happened or do they feel less safe?
I would argue that the conduct of the way that the Israeli government has waged this war, particularly this year, has actually inflamed hatred of the Israeli government, but also by association, Israel, Israelis, and Jewish people.
I don't think it's made them more secure.
I think it's made them less secure.
So in all wars, Dave, at some point, you have to have a political solution.
The only solution that seemed to be being offered by Netanyahu, Ben Gavir, Smodric, and the others, was to raise Gaza to the floor and to expel all Palestinians.
Thankfully, Donald Trump sees it a different way.
And I thank God that he does because this had to end.
But you, as a British citizen, if French terrorists came in and killed a thousand, well, what the equivalent would be, it would be many more than 1,200.
But let's say they killed 10,000 British people and they took your wife and killed your daughter, would you be calling for a proportionate response?
You know, there have been reports that for every Hamas fighter that's been killed, terrorist, I call them, for every Hamas terrorist that's been killed, they reckon they've been replaced five times with people with the same ideology.
But I just do, I do not think, in answer to the proportionate question, I'm very glad the ceasefire came when it did.
I'm very glad the hostages got released.
They shouldn't have been released, obviously, immediately.
They should never have been taken in the first place.
I'm very glad Donald Trump made this happen.
I fear if he hadn't got involved in the way he did and clearly directed Netanyahu to do this, the hostages would have died.
And so, you know, again, I come back to this.
What was the Israeli war aim?
The government said they wanted to defeat Hamas completely and they wanted to get the hostages out.
The hostages are now out.
Hamas is not defeated, but they are heavily dismantled.
They've accepted they can no longer have power.
The Arab countries around them have said they can't have power.
The argument now is about whether they should give up their arms.
I believe they should be compelled to do that.
The unanswered question is: will they do that?
And who's going to put the most pressure on them to do it?
I hope that it's a concerted effort by the United States and by the Arab leaders around the area who say to Hamas, you've got to give up your arms.
Then you have the opportunity in Gaza for a peaceful resolution.
But I think Israel will look back.
I've met a lot of Israelis.
I've met a lot of Israelis and Jews in the last few months who've felt that I've been absolutely right in what I've said.
Not all.
I've met others who said the same questions you're asking me.
I think they're perfectly valid questions.
I'm very happy to debate them.
But don't be under any illusion, there aren't a lot of Israelis and Jews who agree with me that the Israeli government, which is a hard-right government, Smodric and Ben Gavira are not just right-wing.
I think the whole way it was organized at the start was deeply flawed.
But I also read a very interesting piece by a guy called Jonathan Friedland.
He's a British Jewish journalist who said he could have written two columns about what happened in 1947, 48, 49.
He said, and one would have been very pro-Israel and one would have been very pro-Palestinian.
And he wrote, he said that as a Jewish journalist, I think it was an interesting perspective.
I've heard both sides argue passionately, but the crux of the combined debate is that it was very badly handled and should have been handled a lot better.
You know, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes, but also hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Jewish people, as they were then, but obviously became part of Israel, were displaced from their homes in the region.
So there was a lot of displacement of people's lives, uprooting of people's lives going on.
I mean, if you want to bust out your phone and show me all the starving people, what I see are hordes of young men with perfectly cut hair who are in shape with clothes that you don't honestly think that life for a young Palestinian kid in Gaza in the last two years has been anything but utter healthy.
unidentified
Well, they unfortunately elected Hamas, who I don't disagree with you about a single thing you're about to say about Hamas.
And the woke left's war on free speech is the cornerstone of my book and culminates eventually in things like the murder of Charlie Kirk, which is where if you try and silence debate and free speech, that's what happens.
And if you call everybody a fascist or a Nazi, that's what happens.
So that's all covered in the book.
But I think what's really important, the point he made was that even if you have an uncle and you're a liberal and your uncle's very right-wing, that he may have other qualities like Jon Stewart's uncle has, which are incredibly great qualities.
Why would you pillory somebody or disown somebody because one part of their makeup doesn't suit you?
That's where wokeism has taken us, I think.
It's taken us to a thinking that if you don't sign up to my worldview, I'm going to shame you, cancel you, disown you, destroy you, maybe ultimately try and kill you.
That, as I point out to them, is the personification of fascism.
And yet they would say they hate fascists more than anybody else in the world.
So there's an underpinning hypocrisy that runs right to the heart of wokeism, and it's that.