All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 3, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:31
20230503_piers-morgan-uncensored-republic-threat-hollywood-
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Hypocrisy at the Met Gala 00:04:54
I'm Piers Morgan, uncensored tonight.
Another bombshell poll shows half of the king's realms want to ditch the monarchy, with many citing colonial sins as the reason for divorce.
So should King Charles apologise for the past, maybe even pay reparations?
Or would that just fan the Republican flames?
And Hollywood's nauseating hypocrisy laid bear as Met Gala stars paid tribute to the late Carl Lagerfeld, a venomous provocateur who disagreed with them about pretty much everything.
Should these wokeys practice what they preach?
Or maybe just stop preaching?
We'll debate that.
And an elected official in America sparks fire and thunder by coming out as a woman of colour.
Of course, he did it as a prank to test this concept of limitless self-identity.
So what's the problem?
Well, the black lesbian representative for Delaware, who's a white bloke, will join me live to explain.
From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening, From London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Hollywood loves nothing more than telling the rest of us how we should live and how we should think.
It's heavy on the preach, light on the practice.
This week's stars and supermodels flew in on private jets, taking a very well-earned break from hectorings about their carbon footprint, attention for detail for the Met Gala in New York.
And what is now routinely a nauseating annual romp of tone-deaf extravagance became a glistening exhibition of Hollywoke hypocrisy.
Well, the whole event was billed as a tribute to the late fashion king, Carl Lagerfeld, indisputably, one of the all-time great designers.
A visitor from outer space will be forgiven for thinking he was some kind of hybrid non-binary fusion of Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela by the time this slot had finished the other night.
But let's compare and contrast some of Largefeld's opinions with those peddled by the stars oozing their tributes to him on the red carpet.
Here's Margot Robbie.
This is actually, yeah, this dress was worn by Cindy Crawford in 1993.
Wow.
They remade it for me and it's obviously a Carl design and I feel really great in it actually.
It's incredible.
Obviously the Met's always an exciting night but I had the great privilege of getting to know Carl to an extent.
I was the last Chanel ambassador that he picked.
What an honor.
Yeah it is an honor.
Now nobody bows in admiration more to Margot Robbie than me, one of the great actresses in the world right now and a lovely lady.
Met her a couple of times.
But that's the same Margot Robbie who's a vocal advocate for gay marriage.
Famously wearing a pro-gay marriage t-shirt for an appearance on Saturday Night Live.
I've got no issue with that obviously.
But Largefeld did.
I'm against gay marriage, he told Vice magazine the same year before launching a stunning broadside against gay parents adopting children.
Surely some mistake, Margot.
And then there was Jared Leto dressed up as a cat in homage apparently to Carl Largefeld's beloved pet.
And yet here is Mr. Leto in 2015 giving an impassioned speech about refugees of the Syrian crisis.
By the way, many of us here are the sons and the daughters of immigrants.
And Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian immigrant.
Very moving, very laudable.
But what about his hero Carl Largefeldt?
Well, in a shocking interview on the same refugee crisis, he evoked the Holocaust to attack former German Chancellor Angela Merkel for taking in too many refugees from Syria, or the enemy of the Jewish people, as he effectively called them.
The list of the double standard goes on.
Kim Kardashian joined the sycophantic parade.
Of course she did.
She turned up at the opening of a paper envelope.
But despite Largefeld saying she was to blame for a robbery that she suffered in Paris because she flaunts her wealth on Instagram.
He literally victim blamed her.
But she forgave him because she gets a chance to wear a nice dress in a tribute to Carl Largefeld and be the centre of media attention, which is really what she loves doing most.
Never mind the hypocrisy.
And then there's my old friend Emily Balachowski, a vocal body positivity advocate and lioness of the Me Too movement, who appeared to have forgotten that Largefeld once described curvy women as fat mummies and said models should expect to be groat.
This is the same ridiculous hypocrisy that leads to fugitive paedophile Roman Polanski bagging an Oscar in a standing ovation after his conviction.
An ovation led by Meryl Streep, while the rest of us are just invited to forget about it.
Colonialism and Victim Blaming 00:14:16
Now, I've had many run-ins with the British actress and activist Jamila Jamil.
She can be incredibly irritating and she would say exactly the same thing about me.
But today she wrote this in response to the Met Gala.
This isn't about cancel culture.
It's not even about Carl.
It's about showing how selective cancel culture is within liberal politics in the most blatant way so far.
It's about showing why people don't trust liberals because of slippery double standards like this.
Well, for possibly the first time ever, maybe the only time, ever.
I agree with her.
She's right.
If you're going to use your positions of privilege to preach woke morality for the minions back home, you should start by practicing yourselves and maybe avoid treating as your hero somebody whose opinions are the complete opposite to everything you preach.
Well we'll debate that later in the programme.
But first, a new bombshell poll published today shows that nearly half of the king's realms would vote to become republics if they had the chance.
Caribbean countries cite colonial ties as a reason for wanting to part with the monarchy.
And pretty disturbingly for King Charles, 10 of the 14 countries polled say they backed the Sussexes, saying Meghan's treatment exposes racist views.
It's ignited debate about whether King Charles should apologize for Britain's past sins, maybe even pay reparations.
Would that make any difference?
Or would it just fuel the fire of republicanism?
Well here will be now to debate this, the former royal butler to Princess Diner, Paul Burrell, the activist and organiser of Black Lives Matter protests, Iman Ayton, and the historian and royal author Dr. Tessa Dunlop.
Well this will be a quiet debate won't it?
You brought your earplugs Paul.
I won't get a look in.
Paul, let me start with you.
I've got a problem with this constant looking back in history, feeling guilty for stuff that none of us in this era actually did, and then having to say sorry for everything that we didn't do, and even now, apparently having to pay people today for stuff that happened to their ancestors many generations before.
I don't really get what that achieves.
We should learn from lessons of the past.
We can't change anything and we should move forward.
But the Queen's greatest achievement, his mother's greatest achievement, was the Commonwealth of Countries.
She was very proud of that.
I think if she could beam her down now, she would say, my Commonwealth, that should survive intact into the King's reign.
So he should do whatever he can.
Now, bear in mind, I've known this man for a very long time.
He has a voice and he will say what he thinks.
Here's the real problem he's got.
There's another voice yapping away about racism.
Two voices.
His son Harry and Harry's wife Megan, who for three years have branded the royal family a bunch of callous racists.
That is now turning up in these polls because understandably, frankly, black people in the Commonwealth around the world are going, whoa, really?
They're racist, these people?
And yet they haven't produced a shred of evidence for any of it.
You and I know the royal family are not racist.
And you and I know that they pressed the racist button on the Oprah Room Free Show.
Yeah.
And they never apologised to the queen.
Never.
She went to her grave thinking there was a racist in the royal family.
And after she lied, they said...
What happened?
They didn't say that the press sentence.
Me to say it was racism.
Why didn't you correct it, Harry?
Why didn't you tell yourself?
We know why.
Because it made them, they weaponized racism and mental health to make themselves extremely rich.
I totally agree.
All right, Iman, this is my problem.
This has always been my problem with this racism narrative that these two have spun without any evidence, is that people around the world, particularly people of colour, they believe it.
And why wouldn't they believe it?
They're hearing the first person who wasn't a white royal bride say they're racist, these people.
So the damage is palpable.
It's tangible.
And it will lead, I think, if we're not careful, to a load of these countries becoming republics and the beginning of the end of the monarchy.
Thank you for your soliloquy.
So thank you.
All right, no problem.
So first and foremost, my feelings on the royal family and racism are not predicated on Harry and Megan's willingness to identify it.
That's the difference between me and you.
We are talking about a country that was built off of racism, and we are referring to the oldest institution in this country that started at all.
So that's the first thing.
In terms of why black people and many others feel the way that we do, well, the monarchy is a symbol of white supremacy.
Okay?
White supremacy.
That is the reason let me...
Why does it make any difference if King Charles says sorry or why does it make any difference if he pays money?
What difference does that make?
Okay.
So representation.
How does it combat racism?
No, it actually does.
The guy hasn't got a racist phone on his body.
He's done more for racism than any public figure in the country.
Why should he be paying for the sins of people hundreds of years ago?
Okay, so can I finish?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
So, the monarchy is a symbol of white supremacy, which is what black people have had to contend with for the last 400 years, notwithstanding the fact that Elizabeth or every king and queen from Elizabeth III.
You think the last late queen was a model of white supremacy.
Let me finish.
Let me finish my point.
You just asked me several questions.
Let me finish.
Well, answer the question.
Right, I'm getting there, so just finish.
Let me just finish, okay?
So, every king and queen from Elizabeth I to William IV has supported and profited off of slavery.
So, this is about the fact that this country was built off of racism, and that's the second.
This country is talking.
No, because I haven't even finished my point.
You can't just make outlandish statements about our royal family.
Don't expect me to jump in.
Piers, you keep interrupting.
Can I finish my point?
This country also led the world out of slavery.
Okay, so can I finish my point?
A long time ago.
Can I finish my point, please?
Yes.
Perfect.
Please finish it.
I will.
No problem.
Just be patient.
So, every single king and queen from Elizabeth I to William IV over a 270 years period supported the enslavement of Africans and profited as a result.
So it doesn't...
It doesn't take any genius.
Hold on a second.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this country was built off of racism and it stems from white supremacy, all of which is directly attributed to Crown Slavery and Colonelism.
To answer your point, let me finish.
You can't keep talking.
Piers, you keep interrupting.
Answer my question.
Let's have a conversation.
Answer my question.
Let's have a conversation.
Let me share with you here, guys.
You spoke about slavery.
Let me ask my question.
I can't answer the point.
I asked you a specific question.
Why should King Charles either apologise for what happened centuries ago or paying money for it?
Okay, so what you're talking about is slavery.
I'm not talking about slavery.
Slavery can be traced back to Europe, the Greek slave trade to be specifically 400 BC, then the Roman Empire.
Then we get to the Muslim conquest of the 7th century.
And black people had slaves.
What we're talking about...
I'm not talking about slavery.
Slavery comes in many forms.
There is a lot of slavery around today.
So I'll tell you what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, racial despair, and the racist system of oppression and exploitation of black people and white supremacy, which have been rebanded under the gun.
What's that got to do with King Charles?
I'm telling you why he needs to apologise and pay representatives.
What did he do?
He had anything to do with slavery.
What did he do?
I'm telling you, colonialism, neocolonialism.
I understand.
Let me finally get my point across.
Lord.
You've not got your point across.
But here's my point, my counterpoint to you.
What's any of that got to do with King Charles?
Who actually has been, I think, one of the great standard-bearers in royal history for actually promoting racial inequality and tackling racial injustice.
So let me.
You want him to be issuing grovelling apologies for people hundreds of years ago and you want him to pay money.
Okay, so I think black people would be far more inclined to get over it if it wasn't for the fact that the legacies of the crown, slavery and colonialism still remain, which includes racism, racial disparities, and the racist global system of oppression and exploitation of black people.
You're not answering my question.
I am, but you don't want to accept it.
That's different.
That's a sort of thing.
You haven't explained what it is.
You also have the white people.
What's that you've got to do with King Charles?
As a result of exploitation of black people.
And you also have to...
Let Tessa speak now.
Hold on.
You haven't even let me finish, Piers.
No problem.
No problem, Martha.
You've done nine-tenths of the talk.
No, no, you didn't let me finish.
Tessa.
You didn't let me finish.
You've heard the debate.
I think you're both wrong, actually.
On the one hand, we celebrate, and you certainly do, Piers, the idea of monarchy as continuity.
Yeah.
Going way back when.
I mean, I read an article this week that traced the anointing oils to the Old Testament and King Solomon.
You can't pick and choose which bit of that continuous historic line you like.
Yes, I can.
How is that answering?
You can, but it's hugely problematic.
And I would counter to you where we have the face of history and the physical form of history in our royal family.
When, for example, France, the Republic, outlawed slavery much later and in the civil wars in America, that's what it took in America.
Can you talk much later?
So my point is, let me finish my point.
You interrupted me.
Just let me do this.
You did all the talking.
I see your hypocrisy right now.
I think what are you interrupting me?
What we're doing here is we're conflating an individual family with institutions of state.
You can't expect a king to apologise.
He doesn't have that power.
He would have to be told to apologise by the government.
He's already apologized.
Because it's an institution of state.
Do I have to?
He's talking about actively apologizing.
Time out.
Time to be a sign.
You keep talking about slavery.
Let's just be clear about slavery.
Yes, you did end slavery.
You've made that point and you've made that point, so let me address it.
You did end slavery.
And there was a clause in the contract that said, for example, that Jamaicans had to work up to 45 hours a week for the following four years, whilst you simultaneously paid off the slave owners and left the enslaved and their countries to what?
And then you transition to colonialism, where slavery still continues.
And then you transition to the Commonwealth.
I agree.
Where you continue to accept your dominance, exploit black people, and do it in a farm.
I agree with Marxist society.
There are also slavery.
Can we all stop now?
When he's refusing Republicans to be able to do it.
Can we please time out?
The biggest problem of slavery right now is there are between 7 to 10 million slaves in India.
Last time I looked, that is not as a result of white supremacy causing modern-day slavery.
I would rather we expend all our energy on current slavery issues than going back in the past as we now do with...
We now go back in the past for everything.
Wallowing in self-guilt about stuff that had nothing to do with us.
Paul, legacies.
You jumping back.
Legacies of the crown slavery and colonialism.
You ignored that conveniently.
Do you look at it?
This is such a negative.
This isn't.
Negative going back how far?
How far do you want to go back?
400 years black people have been constantly in the middle of the country.
I've told you that.
So do you think the Vikings should be paying me money for what they did to me?
So you're talking about slavery.
I am not.
I would explain what's happening.
I'm talking about colonialism.
We are claiming that racism and racial disparities that still contend with the people.
Stop shouting.
You're not listening to what I said.
You're not listening to me.
Should the Vikings and the Romans also, through their modern-day ancestors, be paying me reparations for what they did to my family?
So I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about colonialism.
It's not slavery, you're not listening to me.
Yes, I am.
The Vikings and Romans didn't make us slaves.
No, yes, you're talking about the Roman Empire, which included the people.
No, I'm talking about the Romans and the Vikings coming over here and causing immeasurable harm to my ancestors.
And saving free people and slave people.
In one sentence, one sentence.
Iman, Iman, in one sentence.
Go ahead.
What do you want in one sentence?
Thank you, Tess.
You want money?
You want money, pure money.
Perfect.
But I want money from the Vikings and the Romans.
Paul, I think they're very patient.
No, but the Commonwealth is a force for good.
Yes, it is.
They do.
They work for each other.
It's a family, a community of families that help each other.
That's why it was formed.
No, you benefit more.
That's why it's formed.
No, we don't benefit more.
They benefit as well.
They do benefit.
Of course, they do.
Paul.
Yes, I'm not saying that they don't.
What I'm saying is that we benefit, you benefit, you benefit.
Everyone benefits.
Exactly.
You benefit.
Iman.
You benefit.
Iman.
You benefit more.
That's white supremacy.
How much money do you want from me?
That's what I keep talking about.
How much money do you want from me?
The National Commission on Reparations said that Jamaica, for example, is about 20 trillion.
How much do you want from me?
Top up my feelings and not from you.
This isn't about me.
We've all got to chip in, right?
So how much do you want?
How much money could I give you for something that had nothing to do with me?
That's what I wanted to do.
How much money could I give you to make racism better?
Nothing.
We're talking about the legacies of the crown-saving claims, which includes racism.
I don't know why you've come on deciding to speak like a robot today.
It's not really working.
You can't listen because you don't listen.
That's why.
Nor does talking to me like that.
It doesn't work.
Okay, well, how about you?
Because I will happily be listening.
If you could convince me that it will change racism one iota in this country, I will pay you a check for the damage inevitably that was done by my relatives when they weren't being attacked by Vikings and Romans.
I will pay you reparations if I think you have any argument for why I should.
And you know what?
There isn't one.
Can I give you a response?
No, it'll run out of time.
That's it.
That's the point.
Guys, thank you all very much indeed.
I said next is the King's Coronation, a final hurrah for Bran Britannia or Tina Brown, the queen of royal commentary, weighs in from across the pond.
And breathe.
Well, welcome back to Piers Morgan.
I sensed that assessing Britain's monarchy as a brand might seem superficial, even sacrilegious, but not to the royals, who have seen themselves as a family business ever since George VI nicknamed them the firm.
The British monarchy has long been a global juggernaut as a brand.
The late queen was its brand ambassador and an amazing one at that.
But will the monarchy under King Charles continue to stoke global intrigue?
Well, some commentators have huffed that the coronation will be the monarchy's last imperial hurrah and a decline in the number of US media crews at Saturday's event indicates maybe the royal sparkle is dimming.
Well joining me now is Tina Brown, author of the Palace Papers, alongside Paul and Tessa.
Tina, great to talk to you.
The Monarchy's Transition Crisis 00:08:45
I can't think of anyone better to put all this in.
I'm very happy to hear you, you know, trashing the Vikings.
Well, you know what?
I just think once you get...
It's time they got cancelled.
I'm sorry.
Don't even get me started on the Romans.
But once you go back in history, looking for people who've invaded places and demanding you money for it, we're all going to get quids in and the entire world goes bust.
Anyway, that's not why I've got you on.
Tina, put me into proper perspective about where we are with the monarchy, with King Charles and the future, because it seems to me we've reached a real difficult moment, I think, for that, for the monarchy as an institution, for the country, and anything could happen.
Well, it is a very sort of pivotal moment that Charles has taken over.
I actually think it's probably a good thing it was him, not William, because in a sense, he's going to be this kind of sorbet horse between the two reigns, right?
And he's got to somehow get out of the last reign's sort of extraordinary charisma that it had and position in the next reign for William.
And actually, I think he's going to be much better than just a transitional monarch, because he is a really accomplished statesman.
I think one of the things I think people here are quite surprised at, those who pay attention, which isn't very many, I'll be honest, but those who do are quite surprised at just how well Charles has handled this whole interregnum, if you like, between the Queen's death and him taking over, starting right when he came out of the box, right after the Queen died.
Wonderful, human, excellent speech, terribly dignified, during the funeral, and actually has weathered the whole kind of Sussex grudgernaut with tremendous kind of applomb.
But here's the butt I would put in, the spanner in the works, if you like.
There's no doubt that he's worked, I think, in this country.
The latest poll shows still a significant majority in favour of a monarchy, many echoing the points you've just made about how Charles has handled it so far, and I totally concur with that.
But there's a pretty worrying poll about the rest of the Commonwealth, where a lot of countries have fed into this Sussex narrative that the royals are racist, and they're moving fast towards a republic.
I interviewed the Prime Minister of Australia yesterday.
He's a die-hard Republican.
No doubt there's going to be a referendum, I think, probably in his second term if he wins it.
And that could well go the wrong way for the monarchy.
And that could be like a domino effect if we're not careful.
I'm not so sure, though, that the sovereign realms are in anybody's expectations that that's going to continue.
I mean, if there are any sovereign realms by the time William takes over, I'd be very, very surprised.
And actually, I think that Charles is fairly sanguine about that inevitability of that happening.
The fact is that this is a time of huge transition.
I mean, the Queen, you know, the Commonwealth was the Queen's great love, and it made her a kind of a global monarch.
But those times have changed.
I mean, you saw how terribly they've changed.
I mean, how amazingly they've changed just by that whole, you know, messed up royal tour of William and Kate when they went to Jamaica.
They were doing all the same old things, but suddenly they were in the wrong movie.
You know, it just suddenly looked like, wait a minute, the world has changed.
You're doing the same things.
So I don't think that the Commonwealth as sovereign realms will continue.
But I do think that the Commonwealth as a club of nations, allied by trade, values, shared values, shared sense of fair elections, all of those things, that is going to be still, I think, a very powerful club.
And I think Charles is probably quite reconciled to that, actually.
What should he do about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
Should they remain able to use their titles to generate such huge income?
Oh, Tina, I think you've lost contact.
We'll sort that.
Don't we'll come back and sort Tina's mic out.
It's a long way of me now, isn't it?
Well, no, quick, quick, quick, actually, yeah.
What should they do?
I'll tell you what, react to, first of all, what Tina said about this Commonwealth.
Do you agree with that?
I do think it's inevitable we will lose Australia and Canada.
I do.
And Jamaica.
Hugely.
I don't know about Jamaica, but I do think that the Commonwealth.
I think quite a few Caribbean countries will lose.
Commonwealth should stay together.
It works.
Does it matter?
Yes.
What really infuriates me is how bad the reporting is.
Nobody fully seems to understand the difference between the 14 realms, which I don't think Charles will end up remaining head of state of, and the Commonwealth, by the way, in which countries who cast off our king remain in the Commonwealth.
It's this grouping, and do you know what's so crucial about it?
It's away from the hoof of America, something we do, and many of the countries are smaller, imperiled by climate change.
Together, we're greater than the world.
No, that's a good point.
Okay, we've got Tina back.
Tina, we left the viewers on a cliffhanger of whether Charles should strip his son Harry and Megan of their titles.
Should they be allowed to continue to exploit the royal titles whilst causing clearly demonstrable damage to the institution that afforded those titles on them?
Well, I mean, I think that, you know, there's probably quite a lot of personal emotional desire to do that.
But anybody smart advising Charles would say, don't do it.
Because the fact is that if he strips them of their titles, they have a whole new grudge match to go to town with.
And right now, they're sort of fading, is the truth, both I think in the US and in the UK, certainly as kind of fascination figures.
I mean, they're now in their next kind of phase where they're simply going to have to prove themselves in terms of celebrity content.
I mean, it's all going to be about what's next.
You know, I know that Megan is scrambling very hard now to kind of figure out what is she going to do now with this huge deal she had from Netflix to, you know, create content.
She actually hasn't done any content except for the documentary.
So people are looking at them and thinking, well, okay, we had that.
That was great.
You were a massive celebrity for the whole of the end of last year.
What's next?
What's next?
They're now having to manufacture product.
Yeah, I mean, there's a limit to how much whining.
There's a complete limit.
Well, it limits how much whining you can do and how much the public will stomach.
I mean, their popularity has absolutely plummeted on both sides of the Atlantic.
Their USP is being royal.
Right.
And whilst ever they're royal and have titles, they can make money because they are considered to be the royal family in America.
Charles cannot, he can't take the titles away from them because Harry was born a royal prince.
So that makes Meghan a princess.
Didn't change the letters Peter.
The bigger role, and Tina said this at the beginning of the interview, was not many people really care about King Charles.
And I think we talk all the time about Harry and Megan because we don't want to face the truth, which is the dude at the top at the moment, the guy who's going to get coronated on Saturday, just isn't frankly that interesting.
Okay, Tina, the other person who's getting a crown on Saturday, of course, is Camilla.
What an amazing journey it's been for Camilla.
I mean, if you go back to after Diana died, she was the most reviled woman in Britain.
And now she's going to be crowned.
She's a little reviled.
She was so reviled.
Do you remember they called her old boot, old bag, vampire?
I mean, the list of epithets that we used about her.
There was even, you know, a restaurant dish called Smoked Had at Parker Bowls at one point.
It was in such terrible repute.
But, you know, she just, she's exactly proved about just playing the long game.
You know, she has got Elizabeth II-like sort of durability and, you know, sort of patience, quite honestly, which has really been remarkable.
Interestingly, she hasn't really broken through in the United States at all.
One of the problems for Camilla here is that, first of all, she's still really, if anybody does think about her, they think about her through the prism of Diana, who always saw her as the usurper, the Rottweiler.
That has kind of faded.
The trouble is that as she can't do a TV interview because that would be very unwise and Camilla is not as unwise as everybody else in her family have done the TV interviews.
She's not going to fall into that trap and do it.
So how does she, in a sense, project the sort of warm, human, humorous person that she actually is in the United States?
They don't get it at all.
They think that she is a sort of, they get her completely wrong here.
I mean, they think that she's a kind of a, quote, battle axe, you know, a sort of a wannabe.
I mean, they use the most extraordinary adjectives about her when they talk about it to me.
I said, no, you get her completely wrong.
You know, she's not like that at all.
But quite hard for her, I think, now to break through.
And I don't think she's probably ever going to here.
Finally, Tina, will you be watching tomorrow?
Defining Biological Sex Clearly 00:11:57
Oh, God.
Sorry, I'll say that.
I'm going to be commentating the CBS, so I shall be speaking to the great American.
Well, I'll be anchoring for Fox.
So we'll both have our vantage points, but it's going to be an amazing event.
And I think, I mean, the one thing it will do, it does remind people that we might not be great in many other ways now, but boy, can we put on some pomp and pageantry?
Apparently, the procession on Saturday will be twice as big as the one for the Queen's funeral and three times as big as the one for the Platinum Jubilee.
It's going to be absolutely glorious.
And the truth is that, of course, for all the kind of so-called lack of interest here, once that starts, people will be sitting there in their pajamas at five o'clock in the morning, completely glued to it and just marveling.
Will you be saying the oath of allegiance?
I'm not so crazy about that oath of allegiance.
Oh, my God.
When did we become North Korea?
I mean, I just don't think it's going to fly.
I hope it's not going to just be this sort of giant national raspberry that's kind of you here through length and breadth of the country, because whoever got overexcited and suggested that, I think it was a forgiveness.
I'm going to blame his being part with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Tina, great to talk to you.
And best of luck on Saturday.
It's going to be a hell of an occasion.
Thank you.
And I appreciate you taking time to join us.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And thanks to my excellent pack, as always.
Ron Censor next, a U.S. politician takes the brave decision to come out as a lesbian woman of colour.
Sparking calls for them to resign.
But why?
Why was he not entitled to re-identify himself?
Well, he, she, they will join me live after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Wilkinson Censor, a county politician in Indiana in the United States, is making headlines this week by, well, exploring his identity.
A councilman is coming out as a transgender, as transgender, and a woman of colour.
Delaware County Councilman Ryan Webb announced that he now identifies as an Indian American woman.
Since that announcement, he's received some support, but a lot of backlash, many calling him childish, despicable, even calling for things like execution.
Yeah, that's always how the woke left responds, isn't it?
You must extracute him.
Now, he issued a statement after the funeral, Ryan Webb.
He said, after much consideration, I've decided to come out and finally feel comfortable announcing my true authentic self.
This is Ryan Webb.
He said, it is with great relief that I announced to everyone that I identify as a woman, not just any woman, but as a woman of colour as well.
I guess this would make me gay lesbian as well, since I'm attracted to women.
Whew, that felt good to finally get that out there and start living my life as my true self.
Well, Miss Webb's statement has not been met with the empathy and gushing support normally extended by the woke community.
Some have even demanded that he resign.
They resign.
Well, that he has basically made a hate speech in his post on April 11th.
And I feel that he should resign.
And if he doesn't, I would look at county council to talk to legal and see what they can do about removing him because he has created some hate and discord and divide with the transgender population here in Muncle.
He must be executed.
He must be cancelled.
He must be fired.
It's the usual predictable response to what was obviously a joke, but it was a smart joke because actually what it did was expose the farce of limitless self-identity.
I myself identified on International Women's Day as a black lesbian.
Why shouldn't I be able to?
If you can identify as anything you want, Esther's cackle when I said that went around the world.
Well, Ryan Webb joins me now alongside Talk2V's Nicola Thorpe and Esther Krakow, as I just said.
Well, Ryan, thank you for joining me.
So I did chuckle because I had a similar thing myself, which you may or may not have heard about when I did a similar stunt.
But you were making the same point, I think, which is if we really want to have a world where anyone can identify as anything, well, why shouldn't you be able to identify as a woman of color?
Well, Pierce, you're absolutely right.
And I appreciate it.
I want to thank you for bringing me on the show.
And as a fellow lesbian woman of color, I feel we have a deep connection here.
But you're right.
They've laid the groundwork.
They set it up where anybody can be anything that they want just by simply declaring it.
And, you know, that's what we're doing here.
And it turns out that they don't really feel as strongly about that and believe it in their soul as they would make you believe because I wasn't really as accepted in the beginning as you would think someone of my stature would be.
Yeah, and the reaction was unbelievably vicious.
People calling for you to be executed.
Of course, they wanted you fired.
Of course, they wanted you cancelled and all entirely predictable because it's fine for them on the other side of this debate to identify as whatever they want.
But the moment you dare to identify as what you decided you wanted to be for that day, all hell breaks loose.
It's the double standard.
Well, predictably, the political left, they always implode on their own ideology.
I've made a statement that I'm just holding up the mirror to them and they're doing all the damage themselves.
I've just stepped back and with their own words and their own actions, they're just dismantling their entire ideology that they've worked very hard to build up to this point.
And in my opinion, they've turned the clock back two, three years.
You know, just a few days ago, all you had to do, if you wanted to self-identify as anyone as you choose, is just declare it.
And it was a universal truth that that had to be accepted.
But now the truth is clear that that's not the case.
Now I'm being told you have to do hormone treatments.
You have to start dressing the part.
You have to wear the makeup.
You have to change your identification.
So, you know, they've turned the clock back on their own movement a few years.
It's disappointing to see them give up so quickly on something that they said they believe in so strongly.
You know what, Ron, I had to chuckle watching genuine news reports having to report this legitimately because how else could they do it without obviously disrespecting you, without respecting your right to self-identity, which it just made me laugh.
Ryan, I appreciate you joining me for Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Thank you.
What are you currently identifying as?
I'm currently, at the same time, I'm still identifying as a woman of color.
And I've said in a few other times, these journeys are often complex.
And, you know, sometimes we never know where they're going to take us.
We could end up right back where we started.
I'm just riding the wave.
And wherever it takes me, that's where I'll be.
Well, I wish you all the very best with your journey, Ryan.
And thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Thank you.
All right.
It's a good laugh.
And watching the news reports was hilarious.
But Nicola, I can see you've fulminated as you were listening to this.
But why?
Because just as I was doing, all he's really saying is, look, if we genuinely are moving to limitless self-identity, this is where it can go.
We're not.
We're not moving to limit self-identity.
There's male, female, non-binary.
That's it.
That's not it.
BBC teachers are 100 gender.
Genders is different.
Genders is different.
What sex is non-binary?
But somewhere between male and female.
It's not identifying.
That's not what non-binary is.
There are 100 gender identities.
Non-binary is not saying there are.
Non-binary is not biological.
The BBC and various other outlets have said, I hear the 72 genders quite often.
That's just 72 different ways of describing something.
You could also argue there's only three colours, red, yellow, and blue.
But a mixture of all those make multitudes of colours.
It's the same thing with gender.
But how did you feel, for example?
How did you feel about an American cyclist, Austin Killitz, becoming the first transgender athlete to win a women's professional stage race?
Yes.
Right?
This has caused complete outrage and apparently the vast majority you can see towering over the female competitors.
But here's to say that height necessarily gives you an advantage.
But a lot of people will be afraid of...
Because like all these trans athletes, when you look at how they competed as males, they didn't compete with anything like the success.
So clearly they have a physical biological advantage purely from having gone through puberty.
It is indisputable.
So anyone who tries to, the moment I hear anyone on this side of the trans activist argument, I support trans rights to fairness and equality, but the moment I hear anyone on that side of the argument trying to defend what's happening in sport, in women's sport, they lose me.
Because you're denying biological facts.
But do you know how many trans athletes that have competed competed in the Olympics?
One.
Okay, so here's what you did with the Olympics.
Let's remove any specific gender from Olympic qualification.
Okay.
What do you think would happen?
Well, that's...
What would happen?
What would happen is that...
How many women would compete in the Olympics if it was gender neutral?
Probably just as many women would compete, but on certain sports.
No, no, no, they wouldn't qualify.
No women would qualify.
Okay.
Apart from equestrian and shooting, I think.
Everything else would be a lot of fun.
No, no, Nicola, Nicola, here's my point.
There is a reason we separate the sexuality.
There is, absolutely.
Yes, because men, generally speaking, wouldn't win any medals.
Because it's unfrown women.
So why is it fair for people who are biological males to put their hand up and say I'm a woman and compete against biological females?
Because you're being disengaged.
It's cheating.
They don't have to just put their hands up and say I'm a woman.
They have to transition for two years.
And for two years, they have to be on hormone replacement therapy.
Can I ask a question about these better stops?
Because I feel...
How is this in line with doping, anti-doping legislation?
Because on one hand, you have people like Serena Williams who actually failed a drug test for taking too much aspirin, but you're allowing biological females.
It's the same.
It's a pumpkin bodies full of all sorts of hormones, so their testosterone levels, which is not all women are, by the way, were much more than just testosterone.
Exactly, I agree with you to be within a certain moment.
Why aren't they unfortunately?
Well, Austin Killips won't be having periods every month, which will affect training, for example.
I don't have periods every month.
You're unique.
I'm sorry.
No, a lot of women don't have periods any month if you're on your coil.
Right.
But a lot of people are.
A lot of sportswomen have told me that is rarely mentioned as one of the reasons why it's also incredibly unfair.
But you just have to see Austin Killips towering over the biological females.
He fails to happen.
But let's talk about his name.
Brian Webb.
You know, Piers, Brian Webb is not being genuine.
And that's why the people on the left, such as myself.
Well, what is the standard of genuine?
No, he's genuinely sending up the hypocrisy.
He's sending up the hypocrisy, as you were saying, you know, I want to identify as a black lesbian.
Okay, so nobody is saying that you can identify as a different race or you can identify as a gender.
No, even though it's more logical.
Why can't?
Because race actually is a spectrum.
Exactly.
Sexism.
I actually had my DNA done and I discovered I had no English DNA whatsoever, mainly Celt, so it was like Scottish, a lot of Irish, and it's genuine.
But hang on, 6% Middle Eastern.
So am I an Arab?
Yeah.
6% of you are.
So I cannot put it in.
So I could identify as Arabic.
Yeah, but ultimately you are multi-production.
And yet you would say, and most Arabic people would say, what are you talking about?
You're not.
You're born in England, you're a white guy, you're not Arabic, right?
However, it's more complicated, far more complicated than biological sex.
Yeah, biological sex.
Look, can you define for me then what is a biological, what is a man?
Yeah, it's an adult male.
And what is an adult male?
And an adult male is an adult male.
It's a biological sex.
It's a prominent chromosomal.
Fact-based thing.
But what's it?
What makes like?
I asked the prime minister of Australia chromosomes.
I asked the prime minister of Australia what is a woman and he replied it's an adult female, which is not difficult.
But what defines a man?
The chromosomes take what's body and what are the male.
Let's play the prime minister of Australia.
Here we are very easily.
What is a woman, prime minister?
An adult female.
How difficult was that to answer?
Not too hard.
Hollywood's Woke Double Standard 00:06:13
He was just on TIME magazine's 100 most influential list, named by Justin Trudeau, the wokest human being in the history of planet earth, as the champion of progressive politics around the world.
Even he understands what a woman is.
You know what's happened to him today, all around Australia, absolutely buried with abuse from the trans activist mob who say what he said there was transphobic.
Transphobic for saying a woman is an adult female.
It's nuts.
Let's take a break.
When we come back uh, we will discuss the world's most privileged, pampered prima donnas, not these two who turned out in their droves to honour the late Carl Lagerfeld, the acerbic designer, who was, of course, the antithesis of everything that they stand for.
This is Hollywood hypocrisy at its best.
We're going to talk about the staggering hypocrisy of the Met Gala stars all pouring in to pay tribute to Karl Lagerfeld, who was the least woke human being ever.
Great designer, but he had outrageous views about almost everything that that lot would have normally hated.
So Nicola, incredibly you read a column I wrote about this for the NEW YORK POST and you found yourself agreeing with me.
Even a broken clock is right twice.
And I found myself agreeing with Jamina Jamil, which are words I never thought I'd use, because she, as she rightly pointed out, if you are on the left, if you're a woke left and this is the double standard you deploy yeah, you lose all credibility when you try and deploy it against the other side.
It was enraging.
Um, I was flicking through my instagram over the weekend and seeing photos of people who I admired, people.
I looked up to people who had been outspoken on issues of fatphobia, issues within um, the Me Too movement, homophobia precisely.
You know he.
He mocked me too victims.
He did.
He mocked models who complain about being groped.
He was openly uh, homophobic he was.
You know he.
He abused Muslim refugees in a vile manner, called them the enemy of the, of the Jewish people in Germany and evoked the holocaust.
And yet there they all are.
Yeah, he's my hero, he's a.
If that had been Donald Trump saying that stuff, they'd have been marching through the streets so many of them dressing as him as well.
And it goes to show when, when money's involved, or a career advancement is involved, or a nice dress and a party well, for them to drop their morals.
And it annoys people such as myself, people who genuinely do believe in these causes.
Yeah, because we will get a bad name.
We'll get called the woke left.
Well, you see yourself as a principal.
Cancel cultura.
Okay, principle.
Cancel cultura.
Yeah, sounds good, doesn't it?
I don't know what I'm saying.
I completely understand it, but I think for people that make this their raison d'etre, I think how far does it go?
Like, who would actually be because no one is blameless, right?
You can always dig up something from someone's past and find something you disagree with.
So I just, I'm curious where the standard is.
Yes, Karl Lagerfeld was a horrible person, but I just think there's no way to do it.
No, don't get me done your hair off.
I think, look, I think a lot of people are flawed, right?
And they should be taken in totality.
He was obviously a brilliant designer, legendary designer.
However, it really, the column I wrote wasn't about an attack on Carl Lagerfeld, even though some of his views were clearly pretty reprehensible.
I don't agree with him.
He's entitled to his views.
My attack was on the hypocrisy of all these very woke Hollywood stars who are openly all the time preaching about all these things and yet are happy to call him a hero.
But they're not truly woke.
And I use the word woke as it is.
Well, I agree, they're shallow.
So the thing is, because it's now become a church, I don't have a problem with these people saying the things that they do and I suppose supporting Karl Lagerfeld in the way that they do.
But that just means that the public shouldn't take what they have to say.
By the way, I don't think anyone is truly woke.
Wokery is an invention of the ultra-left, which is built on sand.
It doesn't exist.
The way that we define the word woke now has changed and it's been defined by people like yourself.
Woke originally is being aware and having an awareness of social and justice.
And what it now means is you don't mind if a six-foot-four-inch bloke gets in a swimming pool and demolishes women's swimming records.
That's what being woke means.
You know what?
You can stick it.
Lovely to see you, Nicola.
Lovely to see you, Esther.
That's it from me.
I'm going to leave you again with the fantastic Catherine Jenkins singing Jerusalem.
If this doesn't get your heart pounding with British pride, what will?
Keep it uncensored.
Good night.
And did those fate in ancient time walk upon England's mountain green and was the born of God on England's blessed posterity?
And did thy come strain.
I'm for
Bring me my arrows of Jesus unfold, bring me my chariot all the far.
Fighting for England Forever 00:00:23
I will not cease from land to fight, nor shall my sword slip in my hand till we build your horse alone in England's green and blessed.
Export Selection