TRIGGERnometry - Andrew Doyle & TRIGGERnometry DESTROY 2022

Episode Date: December 26, 2022

SPONSORED BY: easyDNS - domain name registrar provider and web host. Use special code: TRIGGERED for 50% off when you visit https://easydns.com/triggered/ Andrew Doyle is a comedian, broadcaster and friend of the show. He joins Konstantin and Francis for a look back at the craziness that was 2022. Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ | Channel ID: UCo_8zzSxKeL3arKWVuP8wdQ Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod​​​/ https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. 00:00 Intro  03:36 The Ngozi Fulani Debacle 08:11 Meghan Markle’s Netflix Outrage 11:58 The Scottish Gender Self-ID Bill 15:46 Society’s Obsession with LGBTQIA+ 32:12 The Twitter Files 45:37 The Ever-Continuing Culture War 1:00:30 Can We Recover from This Nonsense? 1:08:54 Conclusion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's be honest, Andrew, it has been a great year for stupid people. It has. Yes, they've really flourished. They have. This year. Yeah, good on them. More power to the stupid people. Well, they have a lot of power, actually, as it turns out. Every media outlet in this country, almost, particularly the BBC, covered it like it was a fucking terrorist attack. It was front page news for two days.

This kind of legislation will result in some sexual assaults. So then it comes down to, well, how many sexual assaults are the S&P prepared to? to accept as collateral. You can barely now see the rainbow because there's so much shit on the flag, right? And obviously people are saying, well, actually, looking at that now, this looks kind of homophobic.

This is Watergate level. Yeah, it's election interference by the FBI, of course. Right. Hugely. It's got to be the first sign of something creeping into authoritarianism when they start changing definitions and forcing you to accept their definitions.

And that's the thing we've got to be really wary of. Why is she constantly in the press this year all the time? I'm getting really bored. But that's also why people are obsessed with Megan Markle because she is an actual princess complaining about being oppressed. Yeah, and people are sick of it. I've always said and argued that the culture war

is a key issue because it wins and loses elections. It determines the course of history. I mean, the culture war has escalated in this country since 2012, roughly, and the Tories have been in charge all of that time. And they've made it work. The civil service is now out of control. It's completely captured.

That's the machinery. of government right there and no one's doing anything about it. Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kishon. And this is a show for you if you want honest conversations with fascinating people. I'm delighted to say for our final year-end interview is the one, the only, returning for the 170th time to the show. He's a satirist writer, author, Andrew Doyle. Welcome to Trichon. I was only on a couple of months ago. Yeah, I know, but we've got to do this Christmas special review. Because let's be honest, Andrew, it has been a great year for stupid people.

It has. Yes, they've really flourished. They have. This year. Yeah, good on them. More power. More power to the stupid people. Well, they have a lot of power, actually, as it turns out. They really do. And kind of a lot has been going on. I mean, I don't want to talk about the more recent stuff right now, because we'll talk about the Twitter files and we'll talk about Jeremy Clarks and all of that more recent stuff. But I think we sometimes forget towards the end of the year how much crazy shit happened earlier in the year? Yes. What have been some of the highlights for you?

I mean, this has been a big year for the whole mermaids, trans debate, Tabastock Clinic, closing down, people starting to wake up to the problems that, you know, all of a sudden people have realized there's an NHS-funded clinic in London that is effectively sterilising gay children. And suddenly people realise that's not such a great thing. But isn't it weird that it took this long? This all sort of came about with mermaids as well, taking on LGBT alliance in court. trying to strip them of their charity status, and then it all crashing down on them,

because suddenly people, it's drawn attention to the fact that one of their trustees has written in support of paedophilic desire, and the CEO of Momey's took her son to be castrated in Thailand at the age of 16, and they've been sending breast binders to children without their parents' consent. And of course, if you are that dodgy as an organisation, maybe don't go after another charity and draw that much attention to yourself. There's going to be a light-hearted episode, but I was going in on the festival. But you mentioned, I mean, charities and then going after people when you've got some things to hide. Ingozi Falani, interestingly, her charity is now being looked into.

And Gozi Falani, that's not her name, is it? No, it's Marlene. Yeah, Malene. Slightly less African. Yes, that's, I mean, that's the thing. So they're going after her charity now as well. Turns out there's lots of dodgy stuff there. Well, maybe, maybe, allegedly, possibly.

Might chill out. Well, I don't know. We don't have the same legal team as they do at GB News. But actually, I mean, for people who may not have followed that story, because obviously we've got a lot of people from abroad, I actually thought that story was a testament to how utterly deranged our conversation about race in this country's become. Because for people who don't know,

it was a story about a woman who went to an event at the palace with some minor royal adjacent. Yeah, it's one of those incestuous Germans. Exactly, exactly. And she was asked repeatedly, where she's really from. Not necessarily the best thing to ask somebody. Allegedly, that's what she was asked.

And every media outlet in this country, almost, particularly the BBC, covered it like it was a fucking terrorist attack. Front page news for two days. It's a bit mad, isn't it? But there's also some very important details in that story, which is that the woman who kept asking her where she's from was 83 years old. So she might have different ideas or maybe less heightened awareness of intersectional priorities, right? So there's that. But also she was an 83-year-old Royal Aid who's been like best friend of the Queen.

She's been involved with the royal family for decades. And part of her job, if you turn up at the palace as a guest, part of the AIDS job is to try and get information out of you about you and your background so that that information can be fed to whichever royal you're meeting so that the conversation flows nicely, right? So when she's saying, where are you from, I actually need to know because I've got to pass this information. That's what it's about. It wasn't, oh, I don't believe you because you're black, you can't be from Britain. That's a really ungenerous assumption to make that that's what she was talking about. She wasn't saying that at all.

Also, Ngozi Falani, which, as we said, real name, Marlene, changed her name to this faux African name and dressed in full traditional African garb, right? With Africa-shaped earrings. I didn't know about that detail. Yeah, she had earrings with the shape of Africa in it. So if you completely say that that's your identity and she's free to identify however she wants,

and she identifies clearly as African, She connects with the country. She dresses as the country. The continent, Andrew. Yeah, she accessorizes with the continent. You know, then someone's saying, where are you from? And, you know, that's a reasonable question, I think. Yeah.

So it was bizarre. The whole thing was way over the top. I think it is rude, right? If you ask somewhere they're from and they tell you and you don't take that answer, that is kind of rude. But I don't think that's what was happening here. Didn't Ngozi describe it as sustained racist abuse. Wasn't that? She said it was traumatising as well. Yeah, of course she did.

Yeah. Trauma's very powerful. It's like you get a lot of points, don't you, for having trauma? And then she was so traumatized. She went back to educate the members of staff about racial awareness. Yes, she did. So it's a happy ending in the end. Yeah, exactly. Why not just have this conversation anyway face to face? Why not just, why did she have to put a transcript on Twitter and try and get this person shamed? I mean, it's all. And then she did a mass of media tour as well, didn't she? She went on a mass of Massive media tour saying how she didn't want to draw too much attention to the incident. Yes, okay.

Which is what you do when you don't want to draw too much attention. You go on Good Morning Britain. I mean, I've had gauche conversations with people regarding sexuality, people making assumptions about me and stuff. I don't put it all on Twitter and try and get points, but maybe I should. And thank you for that, Andrew, because I have apologised, mate. It was really awkward. You know, it made you feel very uncomfortable.

You know, particularly when you said that my actions were against nature. I thought that was a bit harsh. I said not natural. Not natural. Okay. Okay, fair enough. But, you know, as human beings, we're all going to end up in these messy situations sometimes.

And you often say something, you put your foot in it. We all do. You don't expect someone to be secretly filming, putting it on Twitter, let me get so much cultural capital out of this as possible. And it also kind of degrades the idea of racism, doesn't it? It sort of suggests that actual racist incidents are on a par with this sort of imaginary scenario.

And that's not good for tackling actual racial injustice either. So no one's a winner here. No, no one's a winner. And the thing is, as well, there was so much happening in our country. Right. And yet they focused on this. And you're like, weird, isn't it? Public services are falling apart. Yeah, but the media's obsessed with the royal family, of course. So there's that. So this was a royal story. So that, you know, and they particularly at the moment, I were obsessed with the royal family being potentially racist

because the whole Mega Markle thing, which is, of course, another big thing this year. Why is she constantly in the press this year all the time? I'm getting really bored of hearing about it. Look, to be fair, Andrew, I'm going to call you out on this. G.B. News, bloody love a bit of Megan. Well, he's not responsible for all of G.B. News. I think I've spoken about her a couple of times when there's been a big story

relating, like, to the Netflix documents and stuff like that. So I'm happy to talk about, but I don't bang on about Megamarkal at all. She's, I think she maybe 0.1% of my output is based on Mega Market. I mean, we can talk about it. I do find it quite funny that she keeps

getting caught in these incredible lies. Right? Which I just, like, you know, when she said, that she got married in secret a couple of days before the wedding and the Archbishop became officiated. And then the Archbishop said, that's not true. It just didn't happen. That's such a weird. You know when she said she went to the opening of the Lion King

and the South African actor came up to her and said, Megan, when you married Harry, we were dancing on the streets of Africa just like when Nelson Mandela was released. Right? And then it turns out that the only South African actor in the Lion King wasn't even at the premiere and has never met her. So, like, just incredible lies.

And that kind of, and that is funny. So it's worth talking about just because she's a fantasist. That is quite funny. But I'm not obsessed with her at all. I'm just not obsessed with the royal family. I'm just not really that interested in them. But we see racism in everything. And that's another thing.

I think that the reason the palace responded in the manner that they did was because they had spent six months or months or whatever, however long it is. I don't follow it because I'm not interested in it either. being accused of systemic racism by Harry and Megan because they asked what colour the baby was going to be or speculated when it appeared. If they did.

I mean, I don't know who said what. Recollections may vary, right? We don't know who said what about it. So it's just not interesting. An overheard conversation by some posh people will never meet. Yeah. Why is that? But also, Andrew, this is the other thing

that people don't want to acknowledge, but the reality is in all mixed families, that is what people talk about. include, like, when my son was about to be, when my wife and I talked, was he going to be like me, or if she's much light to skin them? It's what people talk about.

It's the human thing. Do you know what I mean? Ask, wondering what color your offspring or grandchildren might be is the most natural human thing that exists. Is it akin to saying, or will it have blue eyes or brown eyes? Yeah, well, it's the same.

Will it have webbed feet, that kind of thing? Only in Cornel, but. But, like, Francis, you know, his mom is very dark. His dad is pasty eye, white skin. Why did you point at me when you? I have pasty skin. I sun burn easily. It's grim. You're Norne Irish. It is a problem.

I would, you know, I can burn at even the slightest contact with the sun, you know, it's not good. But that, but when you come from a mixed background, that's what people do. Like, when I went back to Venezuela, people always used to say to me, why are you so white? Yes. You need to get in the sun. It's quite offensive. It's a bit, a bit of it. Isn't it? But you're going to call them the white devil? No.

That would be offensive. That would be offensive. Yeah, I don't have this. Because everyone in my family is quite pasty. So we don't have that conversation. Actually, they called me the white monkey, monololanko. But saying that, I do have gingers in the family. Yeah.

So if I were to have a child, I would probably speculate about whether it would, we would have to get rid of it, you know? That would be something. That's not fair, is it? But whether or not. Well, it's just a bit mean. It's a bit cheap. Not.

On here, it's not. It's exactly the right price for trigonometry. But Andrew, there has been a lot of other stuff going on as well. And obviously, we're joking about all this stuff. But the trans issue, for some reason, I mean, you talk about, you know, I feel we've made a lot of progress in this country this year. On the one hand, on the hand, the SNP, literally as we sit here right now, they've just pushed through a bill in Scotland. Tell us about that.

Well, yeah, that's not good. So the SMP have been for a long time pushing the idea of gender reform so that people can self-IDID as the gender that they choose without. So typically you would have to live a period of time if you are a transsexual person, if you're someone who for whatever reason needs to have surgery or to present as the opposite sex, there are this protocol in place to do that

so that you can have medical guidance, etc. But now they're saying, I think that's three months, so you can just after three months just declare it effectively. Now lots of feminists, you must have seen the protests outside Holyrood, and lots of feminists have been saying, look, the thing about implementing self-ide laws is it leaves loopholes open to be exploited by people who may have nefarious agendas.

What they're not saying is that trans people are predators or trans people have a propensity for being predatory. They're not saying that at all. What they're saying is that if you are a sexual predator, you will use any loophole that you can. And from the history of sexual predators, we know that to be the case. sexual predators always claim to be something that they're not to get access to victims.

I mean, I could cite a million examples of that. Just in the litany of serial killers of people who pretended to be something different than they are to get access to victims. So, you know, that's a no-brainer. So it really comes down to a question of, do the SMP just not care about women's safeguarding? And it would seem that they're willing to sacrifice some women. You know, this kind of legislation will result in some sexual assaults. So then it comes down to, well, how many sexual assaults are the S&P prepared to accept as collateral? And that's really what the feminists have been arguing.

That's what they've been saying. But Nicholas Sturgeon has, I mean, she's already said that these arguments have no merit. She's already said she's just dismissing them. She's not going to listen to them. And now they've actually just railroaded it through and they've just, they've proven it. So I think it's a problem with the S&P. I mean, the S&P think they're being really progressive on almost every issue. And they're actually an incredibly regressive party.

In almost every respect. I mean, they push through their hate speech bill, which is one of the most draconian, authoritarian pieces of legislation we've ever seen in the UK where you can be prosecuted for stuff you say in your own home, where you can be prosecuted for jokes, for there's a section on the public performance of a play. So we can put on a play and get,

if we put on a play of trigonometer of our conversation now is dramatized that. I mean, that would be a hate crime. Yeah. I mean, it wouldn't be a good play. But they could prosecute, if that was at the Edinburgh Frames, they could prosecute that. You know, it's just unbelievable stuff. And so I think the problem is that the S&P have too much power because there's no, the Tories and Labour,

they have nothing in Scotland. There's no second party to hold them to account. You know, it's like if, you know, if some powerful figure is left unchecked and is only surrounded by sycophants, you know, you know where that goes, you know, so. I don't know what they're going to do about that. I mean, the feminists are saying they're going to keep protesting and keep making their point. But while people just keep dismissing these concerns as anti-trans or hateful,

which is just not the case, I'm not saying there aren't hateful anti-trans people out there, but they're not the people who are protesting outside of Holyrood. They're not the people who are saying, we have these legitimate concerns. These are just people who are being monstered for trying to make a completely fair point about safeguarding, you know? But also as well,

you know, the focus and the obsession we now have with LGBTQIA plus, whatever it is. Yeah. We were, it felt like we reached this peak of tolerance where we got to the stage where it was like, I don't care who, you know, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. You know, it doesn't matter. But now it's like, it's almost become a, well, it's literally become a badge of pride. And Qatar was a very good example of this. Yeah, exactly.

Did you see the other day the rainbow flag There's a new addition to the rainbow flag? There's always a new fucking addition. So what's the newest? Well, it's a red umbrella which is for sex workers' rights. So you have... So obviously we've got the chevrons

with the trans colours and the black stripe and the brown stripe for racial inclusivity and the intersex circle and now you've got the fucking sex worker umbrella there. You can barely now see the rainbow

because there's so much shit on the flag. And obviously people are saying well actually looking at that. now, this looks kind of homophobic because you've just crowded a gay pride flag with lots of other symbols so we can't even see the gay bit anymore. It's a real problem. And look, by the way, obviously we're having a lighthearted discussion, but it's something I've been aware of, and I'm sure you're aware of as well, which is among young people, acceptance of LGBT, blah, blah, blah, is going down. Yeah, of course. And that's because they're looking at this shit and going,

what the fuck is this? Yeah. I just wanted to treat everybody equally. Well, now I have, I have, I have, and anyway, racial, what does that have to do with nothing to do? The whole, the rainbow flag, I mean, I've got a stand-up bit about this, because the rainbow flag was about unity. It was about the rainbow symbol meant unity and harmony. It was not a literal representation of the skin colors that are acceptable in the gay community, right? And so the idea that you have to add different racial groups,

it's so mental, it's so bad, and it makes us look like idiots. It makes the gays look pathetic. And I don't like that. It's what you said, like, we were at a point where no one cared, no one cared how you identified or who you slept with or whether you wanted to be called he or she or no one. I mean, I don't remember knowing anyone who ever had a problem with any of that. Now I know a lot of gay people who won't use pronouns that people prefer

on a matter of principle. No one ever cared about it before. But now they do because now they're being told to use pronouns that are either invented, like toy and toy self or cat and cat gender and she and jure and they as singular. And people aren't going to do that. They're not going to start fucking with the language to satisfy someone else's ego,

which is effectively what it is. And also you see all this crazy stuff. Do you remember that Canadian teacher with a massive boo? I love that story. Yeah. I mean, well, didn't we discuss it? I think a lot of people have thought it was a troll.

It is a troll, right? It is a troll, but it's not. Oh. It looks like he's not a troll. So it's a story out of South Park. There was an old episode of South Park where Mr Garrison wants to be able to sue the school for homophobia

to make money. So he brings his gimp boyfriend in with like, you know, anal beads or whatever and ball gags and all the rest of it. And of course the school is all really tolerant and like, oh, this is who you are, it's fine. And he's gutted because they won't let him, he wants to sue them.

And they thought this was a similar thing. This guy goes into this school in Canada, woodwork teacher, by the way. So, you know, there is a health and safety issue here because he's got these massive prosthetic breasts that are like distended udders that go even below his waist. They're absolutely huge.

And there's even footage of him using an electric saw with these rather cumbersome, pendulous items. But it's fetish gear. You know, this isn't who he is. Like, just... It's what he enjoy. It's a fetish, right? And so now they're saying

that the kids in the school who are secretly filming or taking pictures, they'll be expelled for doing that. That news broke this week. So the school is really clamping down. on this. But why not just say we support our teachers, our members of staff, right to identify however they want, but you can't wear fetish gear to work? Why not just say that? Seems uncontroversial. Right. But that's really problematic now, isn't it? Even just to refer to it

as fetish gear. It is fetish gear. Well, I know it is. It obviously is. And like, we, and that's the thing that's really happened this year, I think, overall, is the sort of introduction of sexual, like, hypersexualization into, into the gay rights movement and all the rest of it. The kink stuff at Pride is a bit weird. Every time I open Twitter, there's some drag queen shaking her ass in front of a five-year-old. Right. Or his ass or whatever. Well, drag isn't trans, right?

I know. So it's a man. Yeah. Basically twerking in front of a three-year-old or teaching a three-year-old to twerk for tips. I mean, it's grim. It's really, it's really great. And what it does is it resuscitates its ancient homophobic trope, which yoked gay people with paedophiles.

and that was something that gay people thought to sort of get away from, and now they're doing this stuff. It's really bad for gay rights. And like it's not, there is some room for nuance here, and so far as a drag queen reading a story to a bunch of kids in a library in a non-sexualized way, I don't, like, that's fun. It's weird. I think it's weird because drag for me is a sexualized genre,

and part of the fun of drag is how edgy it is and how far it pushes the boundaries. If you want to sanitize that, I don't think you're a great. great drag artist. I think you're a boring drag artist. And so I don't know why you'd want to sanitize your art to do that. But okay, I can accept that drag performers. They're quite lively. They're quite declamatory. They would be able to do a good job, I think, of a story. But part of the problem is either the stories they choose are basically indoctrination,

are basically sort of ideological indoctrination. Or they put on a performance that is inappropriately sexual. And in both of those cases, I think, just stop doing that, you know? Hey Francis, do you like locals? I live in London, mate. So obviously not. The only pleasure I get from the locals is when we share an intimate moment as we watch a Japanese tourist get trapped in a tube door. That is good.

But I wasn't talking about the locals, I was talking about our community on locals. You mean the one where you get phenomenal behind-the-scenes content when you... Like you space, s'-wispie, s'i-spea. When you get to what? incredible guests like Jordan Peterson, Brett Weinstein, Bill Burr, Sam Harris, Adam Carolla, Heather Hying and others your questions? Not just that, you can get supporter-only benefits like trigonometry mugs, monthly calls with other top supporters and even a regular meal with me and Francis. You also get phenomenal behind-the-scenes footage of our trip to America where we met a whole host of incredible guests and gave ourselves terminal indigestion.

We're also starting to do monthly giveaways for locals only. The first one will be signed copies of Andrew Doyle's new book. Plus, you get access to an incredible community of like-minded people who share memes, have fun conversations and most importantly, you get to make new friends. You can support us with as little as $7 or about £5 a month, or give us more for the higher tier benefits. Go to trigonometry.locals.com. Go to trigonometry.orgals.com and support the show.

And also the word queer is just being used by everybody now. Well, it means straight now. Basically. Like, you see, I've seen pictures of, like, celebrity couples, and we are an out-queer couple. I'm like, you're a straight couple. You're a man, you're a woman, and you're fucking. That's straight.

That's not. And you don't get to sort of grab that phrase and say, we're oppressed. I mean, that's really what it is. It's people identifying themselves. into oppressed groups because there's a kind of glamour or sheen around being oppressed. Why? Isn't it better not to be oppressed? Why would you say it by that? Well, not anymore, but this, I mean, you know this. You've put your finger on it. It is not

better to not be oppressed. It is much better to be oppressed. We covered a story on one of our raw shows a few days ago where there's a woman who is a woman of color and she got a job at the BBC due to some kind of diversity scheme. Her dad, owns a Premier League football club. Wow. She's the daughter of a multi, multi, multi-millionaire. Yeah, and we always forget. But it is better to be oppressed.

Yeah. Because you're not actually oppressed anymore. You're just getting bonus points for being brown or black or lesbian or gay or whatever it is. That's why it's better to be bisexual, even if you're just straight. Or non-binary, even if you just cis or whatever. But that's also why people are obsessed with Megan Markle

because she is an actual princess complaining about being oppressed. Yeah. And people are sick of it. But no, you're right, you hit it. It's, you know, whenever the BBC and bodies like that pushed these diversity schemes and said, we need a quota for a certain number of racial groups,

what mostly happened is posh people of colour got the jobs, right? People who didn't need a leg up, people who weren't oppressed. And so the class issue is a big thing. As you know, we've spoken about this many times. For me, unless you are concerned about class issue, issues, pushing working class people up, social mobility, economic inequality and trying to redress that. If you're not interested in those things, I don't think you're left-wing in any meaningful sense. So the whole identitarian movement, the whole LGBTQIA nonsense, the critical

race theory nonsense, all of this stuff is essentially an upper-middle-class pursuit. It has got nothing to do with being left-wing at all. I would argue it's more right-wing, actually, because it's concerned with posh people and their interests. Andrew, why is it acceptable for straight person to describe themselves as queer. But if a person identifies as being black and if they're white or of a different race, that is somehow unacceptable. I don't understand what the difference is.

Well, that exact question was posed by Richard Dawkins this year on Twitter, I think near the start of the year. And he had an award taken away from him. It was a humanist award. That'll learn him. What's hilarious is he actually said, I don't remember getting that. So he really didn't care.

But he did what scientists often do, which is pose a hypothetical. He even ended the hypothetical with the word discuss. He basically said, why is it that when a man identifies as a woman, they are universally celebrated? But when Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, she is universally condemned, discussed. It's a legitimate question. It's the question you just asked, in fact. You're very much on a part with Dawkins, I feel intellectually. Thank you very much.

There's any awards they can take away from you, mate? There's nothing they could take from you. Third place at the Hackney Empire, mate. And your cycling proficiency test, I can't write a bike, mate. Oh, well, I was wrong about that. So, yeah, it's a good question to ask. Like, why it? But that is probably the end point, isn't it?

And there were intimations of it. You remember the Rachel Dollars are thing. Of course. When, you know, you had journalists on CNN and things saying, well, maybe you can identify as black. And that did get shut down quite quickly, but I think we'll go there eventually as well. I think that's obviously.

Look, did you see the thing about the Norwegian interview? There was an interview on Norwegian TV about four or five months ago, an able-bodied man who identifies as a disabled woman in a wheelchair. It doesn't need the wheelchair, but identifies as having to need to have the wheelchair. And they gave him a really sympathetic interview about his truth. And you just want to say, just stand up. You don't need, like, this is really offensive to just roll on in and say,

well, I've always wanted. He said, I've always felt that I wanted to be a woman who couldn't fit. anything from the waist down. But you're not. You're a bloke. You can jump around. Like it's and so that's why, what you're right? Why not race? The guy, wasn't there that Peter Pahler tried to get out of it by saying, well, he identified as a child? You know, there was that guy. It's the logical endpoint of all these bollocks. It's like if you can identify as anything. And look, sitting in that chair only a few days ago was Olly London. Ah. Now is Olly London trolling? No, he just got a bit carried away, I think of his words. And he's

seen the light. He identified as Korean. He identified as Korean. Then he identified as a woman. He had a shit ton of surgery and then he realized this was not helping. So what's he now? He's just a man who's had a lot of surgery who wants to sort of, you know, explain to people that he went down the wrong path and they shouldn't follow him. Well, I remember talking to him last year on on GB News and not, it wasn't in a direct interview. I was just involved in the chat. And he struck me as just a bit, just a bit mad, a little bit mad, you know. I think if you have the shit ton of surgery to to try and make yourself Korean, you probably are in that moment. But he's actually very sensible now.

Well, he didn't seem unpleasant, he's what I'm saying. No, no, no. He seemed like a nice guy. He was a bit posh and mad. He's a lovely guy, and if anyone hasn't seen that interview, they should go and watch it because you just see that, you know, sometimes people, and the thing that he said to us that, see, it's not going to be a great revelation to people watching this, because it's obvious, but he said, well, society tells you now,

you can identify as anything. Yeah. Why can't I be Korean? And there's a logic to that if you look at, around, if you spend most of your time on social media, if you're a young person who maybe doesn't have a huge amount of experience with the real world, you haven't had the opportunity to see yourself make mistakes and go, well, sometimes you believe things and then you realize they were wrong. Yeah. You look around and you go, well, why can't I identify Korea?

And actually, and that's the danger of all of the shit is my point. There's a point where, to an extent you can. Like, I think nationality is very complicated. I think Ngozi-Filani, being descended from African people, I think she has a right. to identify with that country. But there's a grain, there's a truth to that. She's not even from Africa. She's not. But she, you know, it's like, I was speaking to him, I was in New York the other week, and I was speaking to an American guy and he was talking about his Scottish great-grandfather, but he was describing himself as Scottish. And although that's a bit alien to us, I think in America, which is a nation of immigrants where, you know,

I don't think that's a lie. And I actually think it's legitimate. I think you could, there is an element of personal choice, because we're all Mongols from all sorts of places. I think your identity in terms of nationality, that is a bit malleable. I think when it comes to gender, you know, if I genuinely felt that I'm so uncomfortable with being male that I have to present and identify as female, I think that should be respected. I really don't have a problem with that. But when it comes down to denial of complete facts, so for instance, could I say I'm Nigerian? I have absolutely no connection.

I'd love to see that. But I don't have. That should be a Christmas special, Andrew. Yeah, yeah. On Free Speech Nation. Come out dressed as a Nigerian. I really... Welcome to Free Speech,

It's so easy to kill your career, isn't it? It's so easy. I am Andrew Doren. You gotta do it for the troll, mate. Come on. I mean... Wow. You don't even do blackface, just gotta identify as Nigerian.

I don't make any effort at all. I'm just like, exactly as I am. That's just my truth. You see, now that, then that becomes in the realms of satire. Of ridiculousness, you know? And I think, and I think, but similarly, that's why people always had a tolerance for people identifying as the opposite sex, because we understood gender dysphoria as a concept.

as a concept, right? But we don't have tolerance for someone identifying as a cat, which some people now are doing. I mean, very few, I should say. But we don't have tolerance to that because it's so divorced from reality that at some point you have to say

that is not the truth. But even when it comes to trans identification, right, trans people aren't saying they are literally the opposite sex. I know some are, but most trans people know that they're not. And they accept that, and they will make that point. It's about feeling comfortable

with the way you're saying. And that's fine. And so I think there is room for some sort of nuance here. But look, you're right. Some of the identification points, racial identification points, it's, and actually identifying as a different race makes more sense than identifying as a different sex, because there are only two sexes and no human being has ever changed sex. But racially, we're all the same. Like race, there is a strong argument regarding race as a social construct, which I actually get on board with. In fact, as, you know, ever since they sort of decoded our DNA, we realize we're all the same. Well, you know, there just isn't any tangible difference.

So there's more of a case for doing that, and yet that's the thing that's demonized. It's interesting. Well, a lot of this is because of social media. Yeah. And let's talk about Twitter for a moment, because Twitter has been, in many ways, one of the things that's helped to create this.

It's one of the catalysts behind all this nonsense. But it's been a very interesting year for Twitter, hasn't it? Hugely. Yeah. I mean, it's, I think, thanks. Thank God for Elon Musk. I think it's really, I'm not saying he's perfect and, you know, and he hasn't made some strategic blunders, which he had. But my God, I mean, what a revolution. You know, so many people whose accounts have been nuked for no good reason, just for having the wrong opinion, they're back on the channel. There's some more I'd like to see back on,

like Graham Linaherne and people like that. Hopefully, eventually we'll get to that point. But what Elon Musk was trying to do was say, look, we're going to have all and any opinions and discussions can be had, you know, and that's a good thing. And we're not just going to sense, I mean, he's going to nuke accounts that break the law. He's already kicked off a lot of accounts that have been child trafficking and peddling in child pornography. Well, good, right? Because I don't think illegal activities should be going on on the channel. But I think any speech that should be allowed, even if it's offensive speech.

And I think that's a positive step. Well, I agree with you that I'm glad that he's taken over. I don't think he's as consistent on these issues as anyone would want. And frankly, he's been quite inconsistent. Yeah, and I think he knows it. Yeah, well, he does. And this is why, you know, people, I've always looked with some skepticism of people who claim to be free speech absolutist because you may be in theory. But when it comes down to practice, when you have to run a platform like Twitter, you rapidly find out that people aren't, no one is a free speech absoluteist.

I mean, I think I am. Insofar as if I were running Twitter, I would say, here's, I don't need a moderation council. I don't need anyone moderating this. What I would have is you've got a block button. If you don't want to read something, block the person. It's a user-based thing, and that solves all your problems. Obviously, if there's illegal content, you delete it, because that's illegal yourself. But that's why you need a moderation council to decide whether something's illegal or not.

Well, the law does that perfectly sufficiently. But I knew... Well, that's why we have courts. You need people to implement the law, in other words. But that's not quite the same as a moderation council. A moderation council is saying, what is acceptable for our platform. I just say, don't let anyone say anything. I know what you mean, but...

the internet of the early days, which was free, that's not coming back. I'm sure it's not. It's not going to happen. I know it's not. They're not going to let you do that, even if you own the company. I'm not going to own the company constantly. It's not going to happen. This is not, I don't have $44 billion to make this happen.

Sadly, if you had, it would be a much better world. But you went fash for cash. I did go fast for cash. There's not much cash in it anymore, apparently. It's mad. But Andrew, let's talk about the Twitter files, because you and I, I think, in this country, have been at the forefront of the people going, this is quite important, and no one is fucking talking about it.

Maddening. I don't understand. We have had, in the last few days, revelations that the FBI had the New York Post, the laptop that was the source of the New York Post story about Hunter Biden. They sat on it, and then they deceived Twitter and likely Facebook into thinking that it was Russian disinformation. This is Watergate level. Yeah, it's election interference by the FBI, of course.

Right. Hugely. That seems to me quite important. The BBC, the Times, even the Telegraph, the Guardian, obviously haven't covered it. And this isn't to say, by the way, that they don't think Twitter is important because they cover Elon Musk's polls every day. Yeah, exactly. But they won't tell us anything about that.

They won't tell the public, the reading public, anything about that. And I literally feel myself becoming radicalized on a daily basis. There's another bit of revelation that is not being covered. Isn't it insane? And I have to say, G. G.B. News has covered it. Well, you've covered it. I've covered it over the last three weeks.

I've been covering from day one. And I've been particularly... I share your view. I've been completely... I don't understand why this isn't front-page news everywhere, right? And it should have been from day one. Look, the fact...

And the way journalists have been saying things, like, oh, this is a nothing burger, which is a phrase I hadn't heard before and I hate it. And they all now say it. They're all saying the same phrase. Why are you doing PR for the world's richest man? And they all use that phrase.

It's like, they're all robering. saying the same things. It's bizarre. They're not doing any thinking for themselves. But the idea that you wouldn't cover this, no matter what your political view, I don't understand. Like, why wouldn't you be interested?

And they say things like, why do you care so much about Hunter Biden's dick, about nude? I don't care. I haven't seen it. Maybe I would care for some. I don't care about that stuff. I care about the fact that politicians

and the social media tech giant colluded to suppress a news story. They got to decide what the public should read. That's what I can. In the run up to an election about a story that was potentially unflattering for one of the candidates, that's what I care about. I couldn't give a damn about the substance of the story.

It's the cover up. The cover up is the story. And, you know, the other stuff that the Twitter files have, you know, the fact that they knew, the executives knew they had no grounds for suppressing this story. And they openly said that to each other. They effectively were saying, how can we get away with it? You know, same with the Trump thing. They knew that they had no grounds

to ban Trump from the. And arguably, in some way, I mean, obviously the Hunter Biden thing is big in terms of electoral interference, but I think as a structural issue, shadow banning people like Jay Batta Chariah. Yeah, exactly. You're hiding things from the public because you've decided to put your thumb on the scales. And the thing is, you don't have the expertise. Jay Batatererio does. That's my point.

Right. Is it Stanford? Yeah, he's at Stanford. So the idea that suddenly a few 20-something, you know, Gen Zs at Twitter are, world-leading epidemiologists is incredible to me. They had absolutely no right. They sort of prevented his tweets from being amplified, isn't that, right? And trending, et cetera.

And we have evidence, and I don't mean like conspiracy theory. We have a video that we did with Peter Hitchens early in the lockdown, which we have direct evidence was being shadow banned by YouTube and Google. You could not find it on Google, and you could not find it in the search on YouTube. You had to go to the link to watch it. Isn't it interesting that these journalists and all these people, for years were saying, Firstly, oh, it's Twitter, it's a private company. They can do what they want.

I had a lot of people saying to me, well, this isn't true. Conservatives aren't being censored. You've got no evidence for it. Where are those people now? Well, now we do. The evidence is absolutely plain in black and white, and they're just going to ignore it. No, no, they don't just ignore it. They say, oh, we knew this already.

Well, they're lying. The same people who said it's not happening and now saying, well, we knew this already. Well, they were lying then or they're lying now, and that's just bizarre. Like, for me, if I put my neck out there and said, there's no evidence for that, so I'm not going to believe it. And then I see the evidence. evidence. I'll come out and say I was wrong and I accept that. Why, why can't they do that? That's what I don't understand. Also, as you say, this thing about the media ignoring it, the BBC covering it, not one iota

is absolutely unforgivable and shocking. They are in dereliction of their journalistic duty. They're quite clearly. I mean, this is a huge story no matter which way you sit politically. It would be just as big if the tables were turned, if it were the case that it were, you know, I mean, look, Trump's team were trying to get tweets censored, right? The document, they just weren't doing it because they hated Trump, right? So it's not as big a story. It's not as big a story, right? It's a big story that the Democrats were doing it because they actually got those things implemented on a huge scale. That's why that's more of a story. But I also care. Trump's team had no right to be trying to get tweets deleted. I'd care about that as well. And if the tables

were turned entirely and it was mostly the Republicans who had been doing this, I'd be making the same noise about it. So it's got nothing to do with politics. Well, think about this, Andrew, Francis. I just finished this and let you go for it. The crucial story that would make your journalistic career as a left-wing journalist 20 years ago would be exposing collusion between government and the FBI. That would be the great scoop, exposing the establishment corruption between politicians and the intelligence people and big tech, big corporations. That's the left-wing journalistic natural target, isn't it?

The collusion between big corporates, big government and big intelligence. That's what it was. It was. And they are now all on board with this. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier about how this is not a left-wing movement. No. Right? So this is not the same as Occupy Wall Street or anything like that. The fact that self-declared leftists are in bed with the corporate and political class means they are no longer leftists, frankly. And we should stop calling them left-wing as far as I can see. They can carry on doing that if they want, but they're not. We had an interview with Sam Harris, which went viral in which he he made a number of outrageous statements,

but basically his argument was that he didn't care because the ends justify the means. Isn't this but just writ large amongst our entire media, political class, etc.? It's exactly that. It's this idea that you will excuse any kind of poor behavior as long as it's from your own tribe.

I just think it's... I think... Well, you and I are all similar in this. We don't have a tribe, and that's the way to be, I think. Like, just don't... Because otherwise, if you align yourself with one, way of thinking, one ideology, one group, it means you are literally outsourcing your thinking to

someone else and you're saying, I will never think for myself again. I mean, you may as well kill yourself at that point. What's the point? Seriously, what's the point in being alive if you're just going to say, someone else do my thinking for me, you know, priest, you tell me what to think about the world. I mean, why would you do that to yourself? But these are intelligent people. These are Ivy League graduates. Doesn't matter. I mean, people, people at Ivy League schools can be really stupid. We've seen that. And particularly now that so many higher-educated. institutions are effectively just churning out ideological nonsense and just attempting to train people to think a certain way. They're not really universities anymore, just as the activists aren't

really left-wing anymore. These universities aren't university. There are only universities in name, as far as I can see. And what another interesting point about the entire story was a lot of the time, Jack Dorsey didn't even know it was going on. No, I know. Yeah, it's weird, isn't it? Whether that was deliberate, by the way, we don't know. That may have been deliberate. He may have put himself in that position so that he could go to Congress because he's quite possibly lied to Congress under oath. Really? Yeah. It's quite possible that that is what happened. Now, it may be the case that he had plausible deniability about knowing.

Because he said to Congress, they don't shadow ban people. Yes, but they, yeah, okay, but the way around that is that they didn't call it shadow banning. They called it visibility filtering. Yes. Which is, you know, which is, I mean, I made the point on my show. You know, this was like when the CIA used to do enhanced interrogation. Yeah. Which means they could say, we've never tortured anyone.

And we've just interrogated them in an enhanced way, which means sticking pins in their nails or whatever. Well, they didn't do that. But they did some pretty nasty stuff. And, you know, just this is something that authoritarian always do. And they've always done it. They've just changed the words to describe the horrible things they're doing. You know, it's like an example I've given before was there's a bit in one of Samin Rushdie's essays

where he talks about watching a general in the Vietnam War talking about, we have achieved a hundred percent mortality response. What he means by that is we've killed everyone. And just by sanitising it and saying this chilling phrase that sort of gets around the truth, and this is the core belief of all of these identitarian activists, that if we could just change the way that the words and the definitions of words, it means we can make anything palatable, right? So, you know, even down to, you know, a therapist talking to a child

who might be confused about their gender, suddenly you call that trans-conversion therapy and suddenly it becomes an evil, horrible thing that you mustn't do, whereas actually it's a moral good that you were trying to do. They invert everything. So moral goods become evil and vice versa, right? So I find it's got to be the first sign of something creeping into authoritarianism when they start changing definitions and forcing you to accept their definitions.

And that's the thing we've got to be really wary of. So visibility filtering? No, it's shadow banning. And they knew what we all meant by shadow banning, because they once used the phrase in the same way. It's trickery, chicanery. It might end up, as you say, with criminal charges. But even Elon Musk said Twitter is a crime scene.

That's how he described it. Do you have a website or do you plan to have a website? Because if you do, then EasyDNS is a company for you. EasyDNS is the perfect domain name registrar provider and web host for you. They have a track record of standing up for their clients, whether it be cancelled culture, de-platform attacks, or overzealous government agencies. He knows about that. So will you in a second?

EasyDNS have rock solid network infrastructure and fantastic customer support. They're in your corner no matter what the world throws at you, unless it's your ex-girlfriend, in which case you're on your own. You know about that. Move your domains and websites over to EasyDNS right now. All you've got to do is go to EasyDNS.com. forward slash triggered. That's easydns.com forward slash triggered. Use our promo code, which is also triggered, and get 50% off the initial purchase. Sign up for their newsletter, Access of Easy, which tells you everything you need to know about technology, privacy and censorship.

And Andrew, you mentioned Sam and Rushdie. Yeah. And I think this year that was not the only incident with him being. Did Sir David Amos happen this year as well? I think it did. And the thing that I found particularly shocking in the Sir David Ames case, it was a British MP who was stabbed to death by a jihadi, was the response from our political class. Incredible. Do you remember what happened? They used the murder to promote their own ideological agenda.

They were all saying, we need to clamp down on... Hates people on trolls online. Why don't we just clamp down on jihadis stabbing people? Could we do that? Well, because that would be to address the actual issue. Right. No, there was no evidence to suggest that anything to do with this crime had come about due to online trolls. None.

It's just MPs didn't like being insulted online and they used this. They said they were prepared to use this as to hook on to, I mean, it's so morally repugnant. It just is. It's, it's an absolute bare-faced refusal to address the problem of Islamic extremism. Because to do so, well, it's the grooming gang situation. It's the grooming gang situation all over again. You expose yourself to the accusation of racism. But, you know, it makes no sense at all

because, of course, some of the most obvious victims of this form of extremism are Muslims. So this is something that we have to address. But you're right, there's that, the Salman Rushdie thing, you know, I found just absolutely horrific, obviously, not just because of the attack, but the response to the attack. And, you know, who's that idiot at the independent?

Shawano Grady is his name? Something Grady. I think they're all idiots. Yeah, yeah, but he's a real, I mean, And he wrote many years ago about how he would burn a copy of the Satanic verses if he had it. I mean, there's all this sort of apologism for the worst kind of authoritarianism that you can possibly have. And why wasn't there just universal condemnation? This happened because he wrote a book, you know, that's it.

And I think it's because we failed at the time. 1988, 1989, was it? When the Satanic verses came out, we sort of capitulate. There were debates on TV, people sort of saying. I mean, I was seven at the time, so I'm probably not responsible. I'm not responsible either, but there, but, but, but, but, but, but, but I know, I was joking. But there were people saying, well, maybe he shouldn't have written a book. I remember I was at school when it happened. I remember one of my teachers, my Christian theology teacher saying,

yeah, but you know, if you write a book insulting someone's religion, you get what you deserve and, you know, so these, what, no, you did grow up in Northern Ireland. I didn't grow up in Northern Ireland. I didn't know, I didn't. No, I didn't, but, but, um, but, but, um, you did grow up in Northern Ireland. But what astonishment, I even knew at the time, even as a kid, that that was wrong. To say, to victim blame, to use the current parlance, right, to say that you can't, you know, the idea that, for a start, they hadn't read the book, you know, and it is a brilliant book. So let's just get that out of the way.

But this sort of attack reminds us that actually, could the satanic verses be published today? Would anyone even dare write this today? And the reason they weren't is because we failed from 1988, right through. now, even with Charlie Hebdo, when that happened, we failed to come out in, to get, well, we did for like five minutes and say we condemn this. But actually, the media should have put those pictures everywhere. You know, everyone should be saying this is not right. You shouldn't, you, it's something I get particularly wound up about, because the idea that an artist could be attacked or killed for, for their art is, it's kind of like, to me, a complete repudiation of

civilization and everything that we have achieved. And Sam and Rushdie said this himself. He wrote a really brilliant memoir called Joseph Anton, Joseph Anton, being the pseudonym that he used when he was in hiding. And in this memoir, he recall seeing on the streets of Bradford the images of his book being burnt. It wasn't just burned. It was crucified, then immolated. It was nailed to a piece of wood and then it was set on fire. And he said that visual image felt him like that the achievement of the Enlightenment was somehow temporary or reversible. And it's true. The image of a burning book, it chills us. Not because the book, the book's replaceable, it's just a thing, but because it reminds us of those Patea newsreels of

Goebbels and the Open Platz or the Babelplatz, as it's now called in Berlin, casually tossing books onto the fire. We think of, we think of Fahrenheit 451. You know, these things matter to us because of what it represents. And the idea that activists now, you see a kind of collision between ultra-conservative religious extremists and identitarian leftist activists who will happily burn... We talked about it, didn't we? The flame purification ceremony in Canada

where school boards burnt books because they had problematic representations or where activists over here burn copies of Harry Potter. And they don't think that this has some kind of historical resonance and they don't see how authoritarian that act is and how unforgivable that act is. And this is why I get...

bothered by just stop oil vandalising great works of art such as the sunflowers by vintamang goff and yes you could say there's a plastic there's a you know glass the thing isn't being damaged but the symbolism of that the complete negation of human civilization artistic achievement that is so wrapped up in that movement the complete mistrust of humanity the degradation of humanity that that's it that to attack that masterpiece tells us all you need to know about these people's mindsets and how little they care for all of the achievements of humankind Sorry, that was a rant. And a welcome one.

Yeah. It just, it winds me out, as you can tell. Yeah. Very well put. But I think there's something else more basic going on here, which is the cowardice of our elites. The people who should stand up and should condemn, who have the platforms, they don't do it.

So on the one hand, I have some sympathy. It is quite scary when the people you're condemning have a habit of beheading people. so I get that. That is a deterrent. Right. I think that is, from a human level, I completely understand that.

But when you're talking about a whole media class or a whole political class failing to address that issue, you know, there's safety in numbers as well. You know, politicians have a responsibility to address that issue. So, you know, I understand why people don't want to mock

or attack a religion when there's a tiny minority of that religion who will take action into their own hands. I get that. But that doesn't. mean that we as a society shouldn't be having these conversations, or that it's forgivable to leave those girls to be raped and abused just because we don't want to be accused of being racist. Or indeed, at the Manchester Arena bombing where the man was not intercepted because people

were afraid of being called racist. You know, this isn't good enough. Yeah. And it's also Batley grammar school with the unions. Oh, that was incredible, yeah. But notice that again in Batley, these are the Muslim protesters who wanted, one of the teachers had showed a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad and they wanted to, but they used the language of the intersectional woke. they said we felt unsafe and the students are unsafe now and this is a safeguarding issue. See, they borrow from each other. The similarities

shouldn't surprise us because although they're not morally comparable, they are both authoritarian branches of different kinds. It shouldn't surprise us that they do this. And again I should point out Batley Grammar School protesters they weren't attacking anyone. They didn't threaten anyone. But the teacher did get death threats from other quarters.

We had this year the Lady of Heaven the film where Cinear Wild capitulated. So you have these protesters out these cinemas, and I have support peaceful protest. They should be able to do that. I had an Imam on my show debating this very topic. I think they should be allowed to express their displeasure with the film. But Cineworld should not capitulate and shut down a film.

Made by Muslims, by the way. They were just made by the wrong type of Muslim, right? So that's what bothers me about it. There was no individual risk for Cine World to not show this film. That's not a... But you say that, I don't know if that's true. I mean, we don't know if that's true. They didn't shut that in a film, the protest continued,

and eventually the manager of the cinema gets stabbed. I mean, that's what he's scared of, isn't it? It's a possibility. But Andrew, since we've got serious, I suppose the question I've been thinking about over the course of the last year is we talk about all these culture of all silliness and I think it's important. I don't trivialize it.

But one of the things that I think has happened in the last kind of 20 years is the world that we lived in before, where, you know, the economy was doing quite well and everything was quite comfortable and there weren't really that, you know, there was no wars going on of major significance that affected us in the West. That world is slowly ending.

The economy is absolutely fucked. There's a war that broke out in Europe. We had a pandemic. Everyone in their dog is on strike at the moment in this country. do you think that given that we've got really tough times ahead, I'm unfortunately convinced that in the real world, that is going to be the case. Do you think we will look back at this year

and the last few years and think we got distracted from serious things? Or do you think this craziness is just going to run and run? It's a really good question, but I think it's, I think the crux of it was 2020. I think it was the summer of 2020. I think that's where the culture war exploded into the mainstream. and I don't think that can now be ignored. I've always said and argued that the culture war is a key issue

because it wins and loses elections. It determines the course of history. It's something that we ignore in our peril. And I'm very mistrustful of people to say it's a distraction from other issues because you can care about more than one issue. But also people who say that they effectively, usually what it is, is they agree with the culture warrior's stance. And so they don't want criticism of their precious ideology.

That's normally what it is. of course these things are all important. And you don't just ignore one important thing because there's something that might be slightly more important. You don't do that. You address various things, particularly if you're in politics. Now, what Ronda Santos has really got right is that he has prioritized the economy

and things such as COVID and getting people back to schools, getting people back to work, and actually running his area, Florida, in an efficient way, but he also hasn't neglected cultural. war issues and has been talking about how we need to tackle critical race theory in schools, the racial division that it engenders, gender identity ideology, and the problems that that causes for gay people and for women. He does address all of those stuff, but he also handles

all the other thing. So I think for a politician to just focus solely on cultural war issues is a nonsense because we have all of these economic issues to deal with and to prioritize. But by the same token, a government that ignores culture wars war issues or stokes them is also making matters worse. and the Tory party is hugely to blame. I mean, the culture war has escalated in this country since 2012, roughly, and the Tories have been in charge all of that time, and they've made it work. The civil service is now out of control.

It's completely captured. That's the machinery of government right there, and no one's doing anything about it. The NHS completely captured, and the Tories are nowhere to be seen. It's like they just don't care about this stuff, or they don't understand it. If they were genuinely conservative,

they would do something about it. And you don't even have to be conservative. If you were genuinely left wing, you would do something about it. Or if you were genuinely liberal, you'd do something about it. Right, exactly. There is no excuse for Labour and the Tories and for that matter, the Lib Dems, not to prioritise completely quashing this culture war and the culture warriors that fight it. So why haven't they?

I don't think they get it. I don't think they understand what the implications are. I think they're starting to with Tabastok. I think maybe now they're starting to see that. I think you get the egregious stuff like the American schools segregating children by skin after, you know, for extracurricular activities and stuff. And we can all laugh at that, although it's really fucking horrible. Like it's, so we should...

But has there ever been a precedent where that has gone badly? What, racial segregation, exactly. Good point. Good point. But it's interesting, you know, Eric Kaufman recently did a study about the extent to which critical race theory in gender identity ideology, which are basically the two times of the same pitchfork. The extent to which that is now the norm in schools in the UK, most children encounter both. most children are taught in one way or another

both of these things that don't divide us did many, many freedom of information requests to schools and councils and found the same thing. We've got evidence. We've seen the Brighton Council's anti-racist school strategy

which is a direct template of critical race theory being implemented. So the argument that this really isn't happening is a lie and we now have the evidence for that. So why then does not the Education Secretary step in? Why does not the health secretary step in? Why don't, you know, why when you have an official NHS policy of accommodating patients by gender identity rather than sex,

and also in addition to that, having an official NHS policy whereby, if a biological woman complains because there's a biological male on her ward, she is to be told you are wrong. There are no men here. That is official NHS policy is to gaslight women. Even to the extent when there was a sexual assault on a ward, the police came to investigate, and the police were told it couldn't have happened because there was no man on that ward. right this is really serious

and at what point does the government say actually we're going to do something about it for ages Boris Johnson talked about a war on woke I don't think he even knows what woke means and I don't think he even knows that the Tories are woke I don't think he gets that so in other words the cultural to answer your question hugely important

because it has massive effects on people's lives it's also a massive waste of money the amount that is spent on diversity and equity and inclusion training which money that could, by the way, be better placed in terms of our economic deprivation. But to not address that

is completely myopic in my view. I think you can do both and you can do both effectively. You just have to, first, you have to take the effort to understand it and then you have to implement some policies that will address it. This is, I mean, the reason I wrote my book is because I feel people don't understand the problems. And the whole book is about trying to explain the problems.

you know, I'm not saying Tory should buy my book, but yeah, they should. They should, you know, just make the effort to understand the problem and then resolve the problem, I suppose, is what I'm saying. So, we're coming to the end of the interview and it was meant to be a lighthearted positive. It was too serious, I always do this.

No, no, but it's great, but it's great. It started lighthearted, we did a bit of serious, we'll finish on a knob gag, everybody. Everybody's happy, right? I always do this, though, didn't I? Like, I had this the other way. What, knob gags or? Knob gags, yeah, no, I was on a podcast in American,

I got loads of comments like, you're too serious. I'm like, yeah, maybe... But no, it's been great. But let's focus, let's focus on something positive. Can we see the green shoots of recovery, Andrew, in terms of common sense, in terms of fighting back against the nonsense? Come on, give me something. Yeah, I don't really... I don't really like the phrase

common sense, because it implies that there's a kind of... There's just something we all know. I get what you're driving at. You know, do we get to... Do we come back to... There are signs. Okay, yeah. There are signs. that people are... You don't believe it. No, no, I've done my best.

No, I'm going to be positive here. Okay. No, Andrew, you don't have to be positive because I think what people actually want to hear is what you really think. Yeah. Yeah. But what I really think is...

Of course, you can come up with a positive example. But what do you think? Are you optimistic for the future? What I think is that I am both optimistic and pessimistic, and that's why I'm trying to formulate this accurately. Cuck. Well, some days I'm really positive. I think, wow, we're winning this.

Yeah. And some days I think, oh, we're absolutely not. because every time there is a victory, there's like 12 setbacks, you know? And like, for instance, okay, here's one positive thing. And it's to do with the young. It's to do with the fact that whenever I go and talk at universities, the young people, the students always really impressed me. Always.

I've never been in it. And maybe it's because I'm appearing, and therefore the kind of people who would come along are unlikely to be antagonistic. But then, you know, I gave a talk recently at Gonville and Keys College in Cambridge, and it was the week after Helen Joyce had been on. and at the same college, and she'd had people beating drums and air horns and whatever.

And so I spoke to the students, a lot of the students had come to my talk as well. I didn't get any protest or anything because I was talking about John Milton, and it would be really weird when people got really upset about the author of Paradise Lost. That would be bizarre. But I was talking to the students afterwards in the pub,

and some of them had said that they had to sneak in or people had to sneak them in to Helen Joyce's talk. Mostly because they didn't want to be seen by the activists and they didn't want their lives to be, you know. And so all of that's quite depressing. But there were a couple of them who really fundamentally disagreed with me but wanted to talk to me

about it. I had the same at Oxford at the Oxford Union actually. There was a girl who came up to me and she said so you think there's woke people in Britain? And I went, yeah and she went, can you give me an example? And I gave her some examples. Oh, okay. You think there are woke people

in government? I was like, yeah. And she said, can you give me some examples? I gave her some examples. And then we had that conversation. She never formally agreed with me. But she kept asking questions. And it was very clear that she hadn't thought or researched any of this. But her received wisdom was there's no wokeness in the UK. It's not a problem.

It's not an issue. It's not causing any problems. Anyway, afterwards, she wanted to take a picture with me. Yeah. Now, I don't know what else she's going to do with that picture. But my point is, young people, this is Claire Fox is very good. And every time I talk to Claire about this, she always kind of, gives me a non-physical slap around the jobs because she's like,

you've got to remember these are young people. The minds are open to change. And think about their lives. They've grown up in an environment where they're surrounded by people who have a certain opinion. They've never really had to question it. But they do know deep down inside that if they are the one that questions it, their life's going to be ruined by it. So, of course, they have this view.

But as time goes on, as they're exposed to different types of information, different types of content, different times of people, as they meet people like you. There is the possibility that one out of a billion of them will change their mind. Well, I hope it's more than that. And I think they will, the other problem, of course, is they've got the academics. People of my age and older who are promoting this stuff in those universities. And it's been so sort of, there's such a consensus now of idiocy among the staff.

And that doesn't help, right? So I think I would blame my generation more than the current younger generation. I really would. I also am, you know, I'm pleased by the findings of group. such as the more in common initiative, which has done a sort of very rigorous study on, the extent of wokeness, if we want to call it that. Roughly 13% of the country would be classified as within that identitarian woke bracket.

And that means that there are minority in all generations. And you can see it when you go to these universities. And you can see that, you know, I asked one of the students whether you would publish an article in favor of, say, LGBT alliance in the university newspaper. And they said no. But it wasn't because the majority of students wouldn't agree. It was because there would be a very vocal minority who would make their disagreement known in a very unpleasant way.

So as with all of these things, in terms of corporations and institutions and the arts and the media and universities, it's a very vocal and intimidating minority that seem to hold the reins. Now, there's a reason to be optimistic there because of pure numbers, because of democracy. Because ultimately, once it becomes clear that the majority are more sensible, shall we say, then they will be more comfortable expressing those viewpoints. And I think that's the way we're going. And I think from my interaction with students on university campus, they are, like you say, and like Claire Fox rightly points out,

far more open-minded and willing to have discussions than people give them credit for. It's just that the minority who are so active politically makes such a noise and they're so boring. And it's always been the way. There's nothing new about that. When I was at university, the ones that got into politics were the bores.

Yeah. They were the ones who, they love the power. You know, they loved like going around tearing down posters that they disapproved of and, you know, shaking their fists at people and stuff. You know, they loved it. But no one really took them seriously. And so I think, well, I'm going to, yeah, I'm going to be optimistic today. So maybe if you'd caught me tomorrow would have been really negative.

But today I'm going to be really optimistic and say, I think it's down. I think the future generation shows us that there's a way out. And eventually they will come around to the reality, I think. Yeah. A good example of this is my cousin was it. Sussex when all of this nonsense with Kathleen Stock happened. And my cousin, he was a young man, he was very, very, very, very, very, very left wing. And he was walking through the squares whilst they were one of the squares in Sussex, whilst they were doing the demonstration against

her. And they all had black balaclavas on. Yeah. And he stopped, looked him and went, I don't think these are the good guys. No, exactly. And he changed his mind and he now loves trigonometry. So there we go. And that's a result. That's what you want. And that's how right-wing indoctrination happens online. But Andrew, on a pre-Christmas personal note or non-personal note, what are you most grateful for this year? What am I most grateful for? Because gratitude is something that we've been thinking about a lot here.

I'm grateful for a lot of things. I'm in such a privileged position because my job is that I get to say what I think for a living. It's so weird. You know, I used to be a teacher. and there's no way I could express. That's my line, mate. I've trademark that. I'm sorry about that. He says that on every show.

All our audience are massively fed up of him saying, I used to be a teacher. But you know, a lot of... You know what it's like being a teacher, and you are limited, quite rightly because you've entered into a contract. You know, there's a certain way you behave. But, like, I couldn't be a teacher now,

not just because of the way I tweet and the way I talk and everything, but also because I'd be constantly battling these stupid speakers that come into schools to try and train you on unconscious bias and stuff. I don't have the temperament to sit there and take it. I would have to tell them why they're wrong. Because the data's on my side about that.

We know that unconscious bias sessions achieve literally nothing. And yet here is this person coming in, earning a fortune, to sell snake oil. And I'd want to say, and it would be, I wouldn't ever get promoted as a teacher now, and I wouldn't get anywhere, and it would be constant battles, and it would be exhausting. But I get to have those battles on my own,

terms now and I get to talk about it and I get paid for it. And it's, and it's, and it's a job I love. And very few people have jobs that they enjoy. And so I'm very grateful for that. And I'm very grateful for that. I can write the books. I want to write and get them published by a good publisher. That's really great as well. I feel like I'm free to say whatever I want. I haven't been censored. I don't think I will be. I don't think I can be. And, Andrew, there is no problem with free speech in this country. There isn't for me. But there is for so many people. And that's why, you know. I'm just talking.

You know. Well, Andrew, what we're grateful for is having you back, as I said, for the 174th time. Yes. No doubt we'll have you back again. Everyone should get your latest book, The New Puritans, which we've talked to you about and go back and watch that episode. We are going to do a few questions from our local supporters. Oh, yes.

The only they will get to see the answers to. But for now, thank you for joining us. And thank you for watching and listening. We will see you very, very soon with another brilliant episode like this one or a show when we start the show when we start them back up in January. And for those of you who like your trig on the go, I shouldn't, I shouldn't, trigonometry, it's also available as a podcast. Have a wonderful Christmas, a brilliant new year, and we can't wait to see each and every one of you back in 2020. And this will probably go out after Christmas, so hope you have had a lovely Christmas and we'll see you on

locals in a second. Do you think at some point the left will become so embarrassed by wokeism that there will be attempts to frame it as a right-wing position all along.