Name: The Woke Movement Has Peaked. What’s Next? | Andrew Doyle
Uploaded: 2026-01-06T19:08:27.000Z
Description: Have we reached the end of “woke”? Comedian and writer Andrew Doyle thinks yes. But he believes new forms of what he calls the “authoritarianism impulse” will follow. He’s the author of “The End of Woke: How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to Expect from the Counter-Revolution.”

Jan Jekielek is a senior editor with The Epoch Times, host of the show “American Thought Leaders” and co-host of “FALLOUT” with Dr. Robert Malone and “Kash’s Corner” with Kash Patel. Jan’s career has spanned academia, international human rights work, and now for almost two decades, media. He has interviewed nearly a thousand thought leaders on camera, and specializes in long-form discussions challenging the grand narratives of our time. He’s also an award-winning documentary filmmaker, producing “The Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told,” “DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns,” and “Finding Manny.”

Jan Jekielek

NTD Plus

Shows

At a time when our nation is becoming increasingly polarized, media often ignore viewpoints and stories that are worthy of attention. American Thought Leaders, hosted by The Epoch Times Senior Editor Jan Jekielek and his reporting team, features in-depth discussions with important thought leaders on key issues facing America—and Canada, the world—today.

American Thought Leaders

The CCP’s Greatest Insecurity—and America’s Greatest Weapon | Sam Brownback

Homeopathy Cured Her Disease, Now She’s Fighting for More Access | Paola Brown

Mollie Hemingway: The Untold Story of How One Man ‘Reshaped the Supreme Court’

Why a Taiwan Invasion Would Trigger Trillions in Global Losses | Amb. Alexander Yui

Inside ‘Trump 2.0’ and the Media’s Role in Political Violence | Sean Spicer

Over 1,000 CCP-Linked Groups in America: Exposing United Front Operations | Peter Mattis

Sen. Ron Johnson: Here’s What We Found in 11 Million Pages of COVID Records

Here’s What Darwinian Evolution Can’t Explain About the Origins of Species | Stephen Meyer

Why 28- and 29-Year-Olds Are Disappearing From China’s Uyghur Concentration Camps | Ethan Gutmann

The Failures of Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom | Peter McIlvenna

NTD Newsroom comprises teams of reporters, editors, and producers assigned to cover breaking news and other stories.


NTD Newsroom

News

Fast, compelling, first-hand news from China. China in Focus airs Monday–Friday at 8 p.m. ET.

China in Focus

China Sends Warships to Pacific Drill as Tensions With Japan Rise

Reuters is a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters. It employs around 2,500 journalists and 600 photojournalists in about 200 locations worldwide writing in 16 languages.

Reuters

We present news that is truthful and based on facts, outside of the political fog. Instead of focusing on the negative things happening around us, our mission is to give our viewers a good morning with empathetic and uplifting stories. Our aim is to provide an antidote to negativity by shining a light on the best side of people. We speak to inspiring people who positively impact communities, pursue topics that represent our common human values, and will never miss an opportunity to bring you heartwarming stories.

NTD Good Morning

2 US Embassy Personnel Assigned to Cartel Case Killed in Car Accident

The Associated Press is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. 

The Associated Press

US News

Gunman Kills 8 Children, Including 7 of His Own, in Louisiana Mass Shooting

Flora Hua is a reporter based at NTD's global headquarters in New York City, where she covers China news, U.S.-China relations, and human rights issues. Flora primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus."  

Flora Hua

Trump: Seized Iranian Ship May Have ‘A Gift From China’

Joseph Lord is a congressional reporter for The Epoch Times.


Joseph Lord

Aldgra Fredly is a freelance writer covering U.S. and Asia Pacific news for The Epoch Times.

Aldgra Fredly

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani Hospitalized in Critical Condition: Spokesman

Wildfires Across Georgia and Florida Have Destroyed Nearly 50 Homes and Are Forcing Evacuations

News you can trust from the U.S. and around the world. Critical information and insight. We cover the stories that others don’t. NTD News Today airs Monday–Friday at 11 a.m. ET.

NTD News Today

US Warns of China Hacks via Routers, Smart Devices

Juliet Song is an international correspondent exclusively covering China news for NTD. She primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus," covering U.S.-China relations, the Chinese regime's human rights abuses, and domestic unrest inside China.

Juliet Song

2 Americans Among Suspected Communist Rebels Killed in Clashes With Troops, Philippine Officials Say

Ryan Morgan is a reporter for The Epoch Times focusing on military and foreign affairs. He was previously a news writer for NTD. 


Ryan Morgan

Mari Otsu is NTD's White House correspondent based in Washington. 

Mari Otsu

World News

Middle East

Iran

3 US Warships Fend Off Iranian Attacks, Trump Says Ceasefire Still Holds

Health News

3 Dead in Suspected Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship in Atlantic Ocean: WHO

Texas AG Ken Paxton Breaks Down Wave of Lawsuits Targeting CCP Surveillance

The Many Hidden Fronts of CCP Unrestricted Warfare | Casey Fleming

Has Xi Jinping Unified His Own Enemies? | Robert Suettinger

How the CCP Dehumanizes Christians in China | Pastor Bob Fu

Why the Iran War Is All About China | Zineb Riboua

From Iran to Venezuela—How Trump Is Neutralizing Beijing’s Allies | Gordon Chang

From AI Girlfriends to Brain Implants, How the AI Revolution Is Radically Reshaping Our World | Wynton Hall

Most Americans Agree: You Can’t Change Your Sex | Jonathan Butcher

The Woke Movement Has Peaked. What’s Next? | Andrew Doyle

Rob Schneider: Here’s What’s Wrong With Our Culture Today

Why These 9 Institutions Must Be Reformed Post-COVID | Jeffrey Tucker

Canning, Compost, and Chickens: How to Stop Relying on Others for Food | Special Episode

Charles Murray: I Thought Religion Was Irrelevant to Me. I Was Wrong.

‘We’re at an Inflection Point’: What’s Next for America? | Robert George

Smartphones Are Rewiring Our Brains—Here’s How Parents Can Say No | Clare Morell

Robert Kiyosaki: Why America’s Middle Class Keeps Getting Poorer

The CCP’s Gloves Are Off in Trade War—What’s Next? | Lee Smith

How Tariffs Once Paid America’s Bills–And Why They Could Again | John Gardner

Jeffrey Tucker: Everything You Need to Know About the Fed

Impact of Trump’s Trade, Tax, Energy Policies | Mark Skousen

How Clay Clark Helped Small Businesses Survive—and Thrive—During the Pandemic and Beyond

Eric Trump: How America Can Outcompete China in Manufacturing

EJ Antoni Decodes the Trump Economy and the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Controversy

How ‘Brain Rot’ and the Escapist Virtual World Are Harming Our Youth | Adnan Alkhalili

Treating the Root, Not Just the Symptoms: The Power of Integrative Medicine | Dr. Daniel Monti

Exclusive: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on How the NIH Is Rethinking Autism, DEI, China Ties, and Gain-of-Function

The False Promise of Antidepressants | Dr. Joanna Moncrieff

Why Steak Is at the Top of the New Food Pyramid | Dr. Shawn Baker

A New Approach to Alzheimer’s? | Lou Reese

Dr. Mehmet Oz: Up to $4 Billion in Health Care Fraud in California

The Evidence of Harm: What the Data Really Show About Pediatric Transgender Procedures | Leor Sapir

An Exclusive, Inside Look at Shen Yun Performing Arts | Special Episode

Epoch Cinema

Cinema

A Little Sketchy TV

Breast Milk, McDonald’s, & Garbage | A Little Sketchy

3-Headed Hydra, NSA, & Cringe | A Little Sketchy

Special

Jubilee Celebrations, Valentines Day, & Selling to China | A Little Sketchy

Freedom Convoy, Ukraine, & Winter Olympics | A Little Sketchy TV

He Ran the World’s Biggest Payment Processor; Now He’s Taking on Social Security | Frank Bisignano

Devin Nunes on Ending the Politicization of America’s Intelligence Agencies

Exclusive: Inside SBA’s Crack Down on Loan Fraud Nationwide | Administrator Kelly Loeffler

Exclusive: Kash Patel Talks China Fentanyl, Violent Networks, ‘Burn Bags,’ and More

Andy Ngo: I Was Nearly Killed by Antifa. This is What I Learned.

Eric Trump Opens Up About How Relentless Attacks Impacted Him and His Family

Why Charlie Kirk’s Approach Matters Now More Than Ever | Pastor Jackson Lahmeyer

The Battle Over Alligator Alcatraz, the US Census, and CCP Surveillance | Florida AG James Uthmeier

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Have we reached the end of “woke”? Comedian and writer Andrew Doyle thinks yes. But he believes new forms of what he calls the “authoritarianism impulse” will follow.

He’s the author of “The End of Woke: How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to Expect from the Counter-Revolution.”

Doyle is the creator of Titania McGrath, a fictional ultra-woke activist whose X account became hugely popular and currently has over 700K followers.

Doyle has also published satirical books under Titania’s name, including “My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism.”

In our conversation, we dive into the many ways woke ideology has transformed Western societies and explore growing restrictions on hate speech in Europe. In the United Kingdom, dozens of people are arrested for speech-related offenses every day, Doyle says.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NTD.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:

You know, I was incredibly disappointed. I had scheduled this interview with Titania McGrath, and you came instead.

She’s not available. She’s busy. She’s always busy. She’s a workhorse. It’s not me. No, she was just a character I created to mock, as you know, to mock the woke movement. But you’d be surprised how many people accuse me of impersonating a woman online, which suggests to me they don’t understand the concept of an author creating a fictional character. It’s quite a flaw, that.

There’s something about how people will intentionally misunderstand certain people and understand, in highly inappropriate ways, other types of people. And this is central to what you’re writing about, actually.

Yes, that is true. The willful misunderstanding. Well, willful or, I always like to assume that people mean what they say. And so if someone mischaracterizes me so wildly, I mean, I’m sure you’ve had it as well, but the sort of wild mischaracterization, the ascribing of views to someone. I’ve seen it about myself. I mean, I’ve read paragraphs about myself and I think I don’t recognize who they’re talking about. I don’t believe any of those things. I don’t say any of those things. I’ve never said anything remotely close to those things. So where has this fabrication come from?

And then it comes down to a question of, do I believe that they believe that? Or is this a lie, an attempt at defamation? And I don’t know, obviously. I imagine more often than not, it’s willful. But then sometimes I think people do get into a kind of, particularly in the culture war, which is of course what I’ve been writing about, you get into this kind of, it’s a kind of hysteria. I mean, one of the things I say in my book is that the culture war is really a case of imaginary hate. It’s people imagining fascists in the shadows. It’s people imagining this world of venom and bile and vitriol and hatred.

And there’s some of that, but that’s not the world. The world is not that simple. But because of the technology that we live in, the media, people end up being siloed in these very small groups that all agree on particular points, and they sort of imagine, in many cases, that this is the whole world.

You know when you come across someone who strikes you immediately as if they have never encountered the opposing views to their position. They’ve never even read them. They’ve never had the curiosity to seek them out. And so to them, even entertaining an opposing point of view is just baffling. Why would you do that? Why would you not be sufficiently secure in your own worldview? Why be open to challenge? Why be open to a dissenting voice? Those people fascinate and terrify me a little.

I spend most of my time reading things I don’t agree with. Firstly, because it’s much more interesting. Secondly, because I want to know if I’m right or wrong about various things. I assume I’m wrong about most things. So doing that is a good exercise. And then, but the idea of just, I understand the comfort of it. You know that thing where you read a book or an article which effectively summarizes everything you think, but better than you can.

And it’s such a fun feeling, isn’t it? It’s so warm. And I enjoy that. But it’s like all forms of enjoyment. For me, it’s always tinged by a sense of guilt, you know, because it’s too easy. Oh, look, I was right all along because this person, this learned person in print, says that I’m right.

But that’s a boring way to live, I think. Much better to talk to other people and listen to their views. You might be a little bit rarer than you think in terms of how you think about things. I don’t think so. But what’s important? No, well, that’s interesting because, you know, you make a case, of course, that we may indeed be approaching the end of woke or at least hitting the inflection point.

But I’m actually quite concerned about the fact that our technologies exist today that are used constantly, as far as I can tell, volitionally or not volitionally, that kind of would prevent the end of polarizing information being pushed into the ecosystem constantly. But that’s always been the case. But as you say, I suppose the technology amplifies it now.

I mean, one thing I know I’ve called the book The End of Woke, but you know, having looked at it, I don’t mean it’s over, let’s have a party and go home. I mean, the case I’m making very clearly is that woke is the latest manifestation of the authoritarian impulse that recurs throughout human history. And so therefore, wokeness was just the latest version of it.

But there’s going to be some other version. The concept of authoritarianism can’t go away because it’s so deeply embedded in the human condition. So the title, I suppose, might be ill-advised. Maybe there should have been a question mark. But I’m really saying that this stage of authoritarianism, this wokeness, too many things have changed now for it to retain the stranglehold that it once had on society. That’s sort of gone.

But yes, absolutely, other things will happen. Other movements will take its place. And other examples of disinformation and misinformation, people just getting it wrong and not thinking beyond these very narrow parameters, that will happen as well. It certainly has been accelerated by social media and the digital age. That has happened. That’s why wokeness became a thing. That’s a movement that has never enjoyed the support of the population at large.

The More in Common initiative found that between 8 and 10 percent of the population of the U.S. and the UK, even at the height of wokeness, supported it. So if you think about that, that means this was a top-down imposed belief system that no one ever bought into. You take the example of the Latinx phrase, and every single poll and study shows that Hispanic people don’t use that phrase, and a lot of them don’t even understand the phrase.

And don’t like it.

And they don’t like it. But you have these privileged white people saying, no, that’s what you should be called because it’s a more inclusive version of Latino. Just put the little x at the end. So it’s better for you. So much of the woke movement has been about very, very privileged people, very paternalistically saying they know best for the masses, for the plebeians, you know. I very much see the woke as Coriolanus incarnate. I would say what you say about one thing that does concern me, I mean, yes, the social media aspect, that’s not going anywhere. And I’ve fallen for it.

Sometimes when I see something online, I’ve gotten into the habit of double-checking and triple-checking every single story. And I have made mistakes where I’ve said to people, oh, did you hear about that? And then I found out the whole damn thing was a concoction, wasn’t real, that that’s bound to happen. It does force us to be more diligent and vigilant as we consume information or as we read this stuff. That’s a worry.

AI similarly worries me in that respect, insofar as it provides too many shortcuts for thought. And the temptation will be, oh, you know, chatGPT, just tell me what’s the best way to do this? What’s the best way to phrase this? What should I even think about this? And those shortcuts are deadly, I think. You know, I think you need to train the brain like a muscle. Not that I train any other muscle, and I’m very lazy, but I would say the brain I do try to train. At least I’ve got that, even if I’m sort of this sort of flabby mess. At least I’m thinking, and thinking to me matters more than anything else.

You know, I keep thinking about all of this in the context of media. And you point out, you know, I was reading your chapter that’s specifically on the authoritarian impulse. And you talk about how the fact that we, despite everything that’s happened, do have a free press. But I would argue many, many of the big media that I would call the legacy media have kind of transitioned into a different kind of journalism, which they themselves would call activist journalism, where you assume the correct view ahead of time and contort the facts and the picture of the facts into what that is. If that’s indeed the case, and so many of our media do function this way, I don’t know if we really have a free press anymore.

Well, that’s where social media and online platforms can provide a benefit. You can get a corrective to that. You’re absolutely right, the legacy media is so ideologically captured one way or the other that it does the opposite of how the scientific method is meant to work, which is to try and disprove your own thesis and then reach a conclusion. And the legacy media doesn’t do that. You’re absolutely right. By and large, that sounds like a terrible generalization because there are good journalists still.

Yes, and 100 percent there are.

But if you take an institution like the BBC, there are excellent journalists at the BBC. There are journalists who’ve been tearing their hair out over what’s been going on. But for a number of years now, there has been an LGBT desk at the BBC, and all stories relating to sexuality, gender, or orientation had to go past this desk first for approval. They effectively had the power of veto over stories.

For example, the WPATH files, which were leaked by Michael Schellenberger and Mia Hughes, are one of the biggest medical scandals of my lifetime. WPATH is the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. It is the leading international body on what they call gender-affirming care. It is the body of self-proclaimed experts and professionals who advise medical institutions across the globe, including the National Health Service in the UK, and so has incredible disproportionate influence, and they are very supportive of this notion of gender-affirming care. In other words, a vulnerable person, a child, can come and say, I believe I am this; I’m born in the wrong body, and that the initial response must be to affirm that, even to medicalize that, so that this individual’s perception of themself aligns more closely with their body.

Now, that in itself is a controversial, unscientific position to take. But what makes matters worse is the leaked memos from WPATH, which were released in the WPATH files, prove that senior individuals at WPATH and people who were working with them were fully aware that many of these vulnerable people could not possibly give informed consent to the treatment that they were receiving.

That’s very, very dangerous and dodgy. I mean, you have these doctors talking about how, yeah, these kids don’t even have biology in high school. They won’t understand it. They can’t possibly understand the concept of losing the capacity for sexual pleasure in later life or infertility in later life. How can a prepubescent even understand what any of that means?

So they knew all of this. Those leaked files should have been front-page news in all the papers for weeks. It’s that big a deal. The BBC hasn’t mentioned it once. I contacted the BBC over five times— it must be five or six times— to their press office asking why they are omitting the biggest medical scandal of our lifetimes. They first ignored my requests, even though I was working for a news network at the time in the UK called GB News.

Then, when they finally did get back to me, and I think they only got back to me because I managed to find a way to contact someone high up in the press office, I was saying, this isn’t good enough. Like, you’re the state broadcaster. You have a responsibility to answer these questions. And I eventually got a one-line response, which was that news editors make decisions about the stories of the day, depending on various factors. In other words, go away. We don’t want to answer your question.

I gave them some time, even when there was a big story about the White House because they discovered that Rachel Levine had effectively put pressure on WPATH to ensure that there was no lower limit to the age of transition, which is a big story. Even the White House talked about this. Even after that, even after the cast review, the BBC just didn’t mention it as though it never happened. I contacted them again. I got the same line back as though a robot, an automaton, just wrote the same message back to me.

So there’s an example of not just a network but the state broadcaster omitting a major story for partisan ideological reasons. And I don’t know why, but one assumes it’s because the LGBT desk said, no, we can’t report on this. And every reporter, no matter how good they are, had to defer to the power of veto. And that shows you how ideological capture works. It isn’t that everyone working for an organization suddenly is in lockstep over these issues, a certain contingent who is sufficiently powerful or sufficiently empowered by those in charge, which is what’s happened.

That is why Tim Davie, the director general, has resigned; it’s why the head of news has resigned, ostensibly because of this false editing of a Trump speech. But really, there’s a lot more going on here. There is a deep ideological rot at the heart of it.

You absolutely need a free press in a free society. You point that out. Do we have one really when so much of it has this ideological capture to precisely amplify certain narratives that are convenient or compatible and eliminate ones that are not?

Okay, so if you start with a conclusion and seek to find evidence for your conclusion because of confirmation bias, you’re likely going to find it. But journalists are human beings, so you’re all going to have your own prejudices and expectations. But there’s a way to do it, and there’s a way to be professional and ethical. I mean, I did a two-hour special on the WPATH Files on GB News because no other channel would bloody touch it. And I was looking into it, and I was contacting WPATH. I think we sent over 50 requests to WPATH members to appear; not one agreed to. We contacted all sorts of people.

Now, during the course of those investigations in preparation for that show, if I had found incontrovertible evidence that gender-affirming care was actually a good thing and was actually beneficial for the patients, then I would have revised my opinion and reported accordingly. No such evidence exists, of course, which is the whole problem. In fact, the evidence all goes the other way, as Dame Hilary Cass’s Review showed. So although I had my views about what the evidence was likely to materialize as a result, if I were proven wrong, I would have the humility to report on that honestly.

I am absolutely certain you would have, because again, your approach is different. You’re a truth seeker. That’s part of the reason why we’re having this conversation.

Why wouldn’t you, right?

Well, this is exactly the point. This is exactly the problem.

That’s surprising, isn’t it? The idea that even when you are confronted with evidence, it’s a thing called belief perseverance. When evidence is presented that completely obliterates your point of view, but you still cling fast to the evidence.

Well, and not to hack on the UK that much, but I just, but the obvious thing to think about is this grooming gang scandal.

Yes. So, I mean, the Jay report found that over, what was it, over 1,200 at least, or over 1,400 at least; I mean, we’re probably talking many more thousands of victims of children sexually assaulted and raped, and even in rare cases murdered. You know, children who had gone to the authorities, whose parents complained to the police, where figures of authority, social workers, police officers, and politicians deliberately obfuscated or said, you know, we can’t look into that because the perpetrators were predominantly men of Pakistani heritage.

I don’t know where you begin with that, because that is, well, firstly, it’s antithetical to the principles of a liberal democracy. We live in a society where the law has to be applied to everyone equally. You don’t have a parallel rule of law dependent on ethnic origin. That’s nonsensical and also kind of racist. I mean, you know, if you look at the latest report, the latest review found that the ethnic heritage was typexed out in some of the documents. I don’t know if you have typex in America, but maybe you call it white-out. It’s this paste that you put over words to delete them. And it’s been actually erased as though it wasn’t a factor.

Well, of course, it was a salient factor, not least because, culturally speaking, a lot of these men felt these white girls and Sikh girls as well were just trash, and so the rules didn’t apply to them. This is because they had come from a misogynistic culture, and that was key. They called them white sluts and white girls, and they were very clear that there was a racial motivation behind a lot of these attacks.

So it’s really important. I mean, the recording and recognizing that the ethnicity and the heritage in that case is important. Not to say, as I think some people feared, that you are making racist, essentialist statements about any given category of human being, but rather that, because it’s a cultural question, not a racial question. It seems obvious to me.

But yes, the fact that it was effectively covered up by people in authority, the fact that you had cases such as, was it the Times reporter who reported on the police showing up at a house where there were seven men of Pakistani origin with a naked, drunken 13-year-old girl, and they arrested the girl because she was drunk and disorderly, and they didn’t even question the men.

Any human being would have a few questions for those men, you would have thought. But so great was the fear of being accused of racism. So great was this sense that we have to have community cohesion that they were willing to allow the mass rape of children to preserve the myth that multiculturalism has been a success. Multiculturalism, wherever it has been applied, has been a failure, a catastrophic failure.

You know, you could argue that this recent election in the United States was a kind of repudiation of woke and censorship and all sorts of these kinds of related things, but that hasn’t necessarily been replicated in other places like your home country.

Well, no, but we—I mean, look, we have a very authoritarian government in the form of the Labor government, but then the vast majority of the woke movement was presided over by a Right-wing conservative government. So wokeness infected both sides of the aisle. You know, it’s different with Trump. It’s different with the MAGA movement because there is an explicitly anti-woke tinge to that. Their most successful advert was the one with the strapline that Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you. Because Kamala Harris had been talking about the importance of funding transgender prisoners in their sex transitional surgery, which is a preposterous notion anyway.

And then Trump came in with that slogan, which I’m sure he didn’t invent, but his advertising team—I think it actuated a 2.7 shift in his favor among those who saw that advert, which anyone who’s involved in political campaigning will tell you was a massive game-changing shift. So to say, you know, this was the woke election—that, you know, when people say the culture war doesn’t matter, well, it won an election in the biggest, the most powerful country in the world. So actually, it’s pretty key, I would say.

But yes, you’re right. It hasn’t been replicated in the UK because, in the UK, really, the Labour government got in on the back of fatigue, sort of mass fatigue. People were fed up with the Conservatives. They’d been in charge for so long. They’d failed and reneged on most of their promises. You know, they promised to deal with the migration issue. It escalated massively under Boris Johnson. So they had failed hugely. Then there was Partygate, Covid, and various controversies. And what actually happened is Keir Starmer was elected in with a massive majority.

And you look at that on paper and you think, wow, there’s suddenly mass support for Keir Starmer. It was such a low turnout for him. He won fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn did when Jeremy Corbyn lost in 2019. So it’s not like he has an incredible mandate. I think it’s something roughly around 27 percent of the electorate or something. It’s very low. He hasn’t got an overwhelming mandate, but he has got a massive, stonking majority in Parliament, which is why he’s able to introduce—I mean, he took the online safety bill, which was a conservative idea, and just ran with it.

So now we have this ridiculous situation where the internet is supposedly regulated by Ofcom, which is a regulatory body in the UK, who have been writing threatening letters to Rumble and American companies saying, you’re going to have to censor; otherwise, we’re going to fine you. That’s how hubristic Ofcom is and how hubristic the British government is. They still think they have an empire of cyberspace, right? It’s insane, actually.

Are you not worried about talking about things this way, given that you’re—well, I guess you’re here—but you know, I understand people are constantly being arrested for speech violations.

In the UK, The Times’ freedom of information request—The Times of London, which is a big newspaper—found that 12,000 a year are being arrested in the UK for offensive things they write online. Now, some of those are going to be connected to other crimes like domestic abuse, but it’s still going to be in the thousands. This is still a very serious situation—30-a-day being arrested for speech crime.

The Online Safety Act has made that even worse. We have a police force that is trained by a quango called the College of Policing. An unelected quango. It’s got no authority, no accountability. You can’t vote them out. And they’ve trained the police in our country to believe that it’s their role to monitor speech and thought and to arrest people for offensive speech. So that’s so deeply embedded. The only way you’re going to deal with that is to abolish the College of Policing, which no politician seems to have the guts to do. But of course, it should go. It’s not fit for purpose. It’s an activist body. And everything trickles down from that.

Now, you don’t have that in the U.S. Firstly, you’ve got the First Amendment as this barrier to the imposition of authoritarian rule. I mean, you know full well that the Democrats would have introduced authoritarian measures on speech if they could. I mean, we know that because Tim Walz in the vice presidential debate with J.D. Vance literally said, explicitly said that the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech or misinformation. Actually, it does. You’re allowed to say things that are false. Free speech also covers lying, by the way. And yes, it covers being hateful if you want to be. That’s called living in a free society.

So the fact that the Democrats don’t understand the First Amendment, someone as high up as someone who was running for the vice presidency—that’s pretty chilling, isn’t it? But we don’t have the First Amendment. We don’t have a codified constitution. We don’t have these protections in place. What we have are hate speech laws encoded in the various acts. We’ve got the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 as well. We’ve never had a government in recent years willing to tackle this problem.

As we’re talking here, it doesn’t feel to me, given all of these things, even whether in the U.S. maybe, but certainly not in many other countries, that we’ve hit peak woke. In some cases, it feels like it’s accelerating some of these ideas anyway. And so, I’m open-minded. I want to believe that. I want to believe that it’s happened, right? Actually, so this is, hence we’re here.

Yes, but you can’t post-cast review that. I mean, for instance, the gender issue, you have seen various sporting bodies around the world saying, you know, we’re changing that. And I am so grateful to hear this. Yes. And the Supreme Court in the UK ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. It doesn’t mean this esoteric notion of gender identity. That battle is being won.

And all of the various pieces on the chessboard are in place for a complete victory. It’s just going to take a while because the ideology is so deeply embedded. But because the ideology was always based on a fantasy, the idea that human beings can change sex, which they, as a matter of fact, cannot. It was never going to win out, ultimately. It couldn’t, in the same way that flat earthism couldn’t win out once we had the technology to photograph the earth from space.

There comes a point where falsehoods do die, and that was always going to die. So that’s one thing. The DEI thing, diversity, equity, inclusion, all of that is being exposed for what it really is. The $8 billion-a-year industry racket that is very racially divisive, and that does the opposite of what it claims to achieve.

On this point, I want to just develop this very briefly. I did read a number of reports that showed when this type of training and this sort of standard model is applied, it actually increases the pull. You know, this is supposed to create more unity, create more understanding, but it actually goes in the other direction. Can you just explain those studies? You seem to know a bit more about that.

I mean, can anyone honestly say that since the Black Lives Matter protests and riots of 2020, and that hysteria that followed, where there was this sort of frenzy of conformity, and everyone had to post the black squares on their accounts and all the rest of it? Can anyone honestly say that race relations have improved since then? No, of course not.

We’ve become more racially divisive. We’ve been going backwards. We were actually doing pretty well. The Liberal project was doing well in terms of tackling inequality as and when it occurred. It was tackling racism as and when it appeared. That has been replaced with individuals such as Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility, who basically claims that racism is more powerful now than it was in the era of Jim Crow, which is something she actually says because it’s invisible. And the only way you can find it is that you need experts in whiteness like her to come along and detect it.

All of this is very, very damaging for race relations. It’s all gotten a lot worse. The implementation of things like unconscious bias training sessions, which studies show, if it has any effect at all, is typically making the workplace more racist. People become hyper-aware. It’s not a good thing to be hyper-aware of race.

It’s not that you don’t notice it. I mean, when the dream of color blindness isn’t a dream of we literally don’t see the difference between white people, black people, whatever. It’s that we don’t care. We don’t care. Sam Harris made the analogy of ginger hair, or brunette, or whatever. You see it, but it doesn’t bear any relation to how you treat someone. So that’s the dream. And it’s obviously the goal.

But Robin DiAngelo, in her book, White Fragility, explicitly lists colorblindness as a white supremacist ideology. Which is, you know, I can think of no one who has expressed that dream more beautifully than Martin Luther King in his I Have a Dream speech, that we judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. And here you have Robin DiAngelo, a white woman, basically saying that Martin Luther King’s idea is white supremacist. That’s how perverted the DEI industry is.

There’s a lot of fraud. There was a leaked screenshot from one of her training sessions at Coca-Cola. And on the screen, it says, try to be less white. So you’ve got these corporations paying a fortune for these individuals to come in and hector their white employees and tell them that they’re racist, even when they know they’re not. But that’s losing now.

Latest

Paywall Related

Free for Subscribers

Conversations on current and trending topics.

Latest and breaking news, documentaries, movies, and lifestyle content on NTD+.
 
Empower your knowledge and elevate your spirit with NTD+, your go-to destination for truthful news, insightful documentaries, and captivating lifestyle content that enriches your life.