Marketing is hard. But I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lib Sin ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre-produced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience and their favorite podcasts with Lib Sin ads. Go to LibSynads.com. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N. Ads.com today. On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience 2448 with guests, Andrew Doyle. The No Rogan Experience starts now. [MUSIC] Welcome back to the show. This show where two podcasters now with 174 hours of Rogan Experience get to know Joe Rogan. It's a show for those who are curious about Joe Rogan. His guests and their claims as well as for anyone who just wants to understand Joe's ever growing media influence. I'm Cecil Cicarell. That's Michael Marshall. Today we're going to be covering Joe's February 4th, 2026 interview with Andrew Doyle. So, Marsh, how did Joe introduce Andrew in the show notes? Andrew Doyle is a writer, broadcast and comedian. He's the author of several books, including the most recent, the end of woke, how the culture wall went too far. >> Oh yeah. >> And what to expect from the counter revolution. >> Yeah. Okay. So is there anything that we should know about Andrew? >> Yeah, I think so. I think so. So Andrew Doyle is a political commentator. And either is or at least used to be a comedy writer. I don't know how much like actual comedy writing. He does these days. He did used to call write a character called Jonathan Pi. That's why he made his name. That character was a news reporter who in clips would lose his cool and just out ranting about politics while he was waiting for the studio to cut to his studio. >> I'm sitting on the air. >> Yeah. >> It went viral, not really because the stuff he was saying was particularly funny, but more in a kind of, wow, look at this news reporter loses shit. Wouldn't it be funny if a real news reporter said things like that, like kind of way? The joke didn't really work unless you thought he was a news reporter and he really was blowing his top. Then Andrew moved on to writing the Twitter account, Tatarly and McGraw, which was a parody of an out of touch left wing woke figure, who off went viral when people would quote tweet the account with a look how stupid and out of touch the left wing wokeists are kind of tweet. Doyle was also a regular host on GB news, which is styles itself as the British version of Fox News essentially, and it primarily runs anti woke scare pieces. He also often writes for magazines like Spike, The Spectator, The Critic, Unheard, and he's closely tied to the free speech union run by Lord Toby Young. And that's a group that primarily supports free speech causes where those causes run counter to woke ideology. In 2019, Doyle spoke at the speaking truth to social justice event in a very expensive and very exclusive hotel in London to an audience of maybe a hundred people. And that was an event run by the White Christian nationalist group, Sovereign Nations in that speaker's like James Lindsay, Peter Magosian, and their funder, Michael O Fallon. Doyle is also a faculty member of Jordan Peterson's Not a University, the Peterson Academy, the way he teach the course called the Shakespearean tragedies. And according to Doyle's Wikipedia page, he considers himself to be left wing. Oh, okay. Well, that's interesting. What did they talk about on this show? Yeah, it was woken as going too far. It was the UK crackdown on free speech, the right to compare trans pride flags to the swastika. Sure. At what point speech insights violins, they talk about Trump's felony charges, they talk about Twitter and Elon Musk, Candace Owens conspiracy theories, Y Shakespeare definitely wasn't a black woman. He talked about his good friend Graham Linnahann. They talk about AI, Churchill, racism, trans people, Helen of Troy, elephants gambling. And obviously the great replacement conspiracy theory. Obviously, of course, yeah. Okay, well, before we get to our main event, which is going to be Woken as Gone Wild, we want to say thanks to our area 51 all access pass patrons. That's Angie Matke, billionaire oligarchs, bluerich true crime podcast, Karissa Gunderson. Chonky Katn Chicago has claws out Cindy Lynch. Yes, that's Cindy Lynch. Dahlene definitely an AI overlord. Don't think me your show is just worth investment. Dr. Andrew Gibson online physics tutor 11, Gretheous Fredr Gretheous Laura Williams, no not that one. The other one, left hand voodoo Lucy Cortes, Marsh in the Epstein files, Colour Me Gobsmacked, Matthew Cutler, autistic twitch dreamer Morgan Gordon, normal names, ram Tam Tickler, Scott Laird, Stargazer 97, Stone Banana and the unofficial no-rogan complaint department. They all subscribe to patreon.com/no-rogan. You can do that to all patrons get early access to ad free episodes and a special patron only bonus segment each week. This week we're going to find out how far Woke can go when a non-binary character gets written into a movie. Check it out at patreon.com/no-rogan. But for now, our main event. Huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast that was Robin from books that burn reviews that burn links that burn announcing our main event. Remember that you too can be on the show by sending us a recording of you giving us your best rendition of it's time. You can send that to
[email protected] as well as how you'd like to be credited on the show that that's no KNOW
[email protected]. That's one word. Okay. So we're going to talk about Woke. That's what they spent most of their time talking about. We start very early in the episode. This is a minute in and we're talking about Woke as sort of this authoritarian impulse in disguise. I mean, I was trying to, in that book, I'm trying to make the point that what Woke was was like a kind of the latest manifestation of a kind of innate authoritarian impulse. I think human beings are by default quite inclined towards just shutting people up if they don't like them. Yeah. Just imposing their authority. And so Woke, what I mean, a lot of people are annoyed that I've caught at the end of work. I'm not saying it's all over. Let's just go home, forget about it. It's still going on. But the point about it is that in its current manifestation things are changing now so rapidly. We are moving into some sort of new phase and that authoritarianism which we've associated with the left might come up from the right. It could come up from any way. It's what you say about the pendulum. So you just have to be kind of vigilant about it. I don't think we were vigilant. I think that's why Woke happened. We weren't vigilant against this prospect that authoritarianism could emerge in what we thought was a free society. Well, authoritarianism, authoritarianism, it's snuck in through a sheep costume. Yeah. In a sheep's costume. Yeah, it was a costume of being more inclusive, being more open-minded, being a better society, being kinder. Yeah. It led to child trans surgeries, led to chaos, led to like a lot of like really fucking freaky things that you would have never expected. People saying that the first amendment's not important. Right. It's more important. Yeah. Andrew says people are annoyed that he said the, you know, called his book at the end of Woke and he said, don't worry, Woke isn't over. It's like, yeah, don't worry. Woke's not over. You can still sell books about it. You can still build your career on it. You don't have to switch to something new anytime soon. Yeah. And we do, however he would identify whether he'd say to comedian or writer, he's certainly done political commentary. That was kind of his job on GB news. And he's a political commentator who is warning that authoritarianism is usually associated with the left, but could creep in from the right, like it's not normally a right-wing thing. It's not, you wouldn't usually associate it with right-wing. I think this sets his stall out very early. I think in authoritarianism from all parts of the political spectrum, it's not a left-right thing. It's not really a setting his stall out here. I'd actually argue that some of the most notable authoritarian regimes throughout history have been right-wing. There wasn't a lot of care for civil liberties in Nazi Germany, for example. And right now, Vladimir Putin doesn't particularly encourage a plurality of views and self-expression. And I'm not going to pretend it can't come from the left, but as someone, Doyle, as a gay man, you'd think he'd have more of a handle on who it is that wants to take his rights away because it's not the Woke trying to do that to him right now. >> Yeah, you hear Joe talk about this and he says things like, I'll just cause so much chaos. It's just, look at all the chaos. And he's basically saying being inclusive is bad because it led to things that are overblown or in fact never happened, right? I mean, next he's going to talk about cat boxes in schools. And one of the things he always drags in is he'll say, well, they're just against the first amendment. Just against the first amendment. Let's be real clear, the first amendment has to do with the government, the government censoring the speech of the citizens. That's what the first amendment is.
Amendment doesn't mean you shouldn't face consequences for your speech. Like if you say the N word somewhere publicly and you face consequences for that, like maybe your job decides to fire you because they found out you're a racist. That's not a first amendment violation. That's literally just consequences for your speech. So separate these things out and he never does that. He always tries to say, well, it's a first amendment. Like you always have the right to say literally whatever you want and there shouldn't be any consequences to it. Yeah, and also I'm not particularly seeing large numbers of people saying your first amendment isn't important. I mean, he might be able to find someone who's saying, now that's certainly not a position of the mainstream woke, anything like that. And when he says woke brought in all this chaos, I just say look around right now. We don't have woke governments. My country's not particularly woke. Government, it certainly hasn't had a woke government for some time. Your government is explicitly anti woke. And Joe say there is more or less chaos in America now than there was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, two years ago. Well, yeah. All right. So now they're still talking. This is just a continuation. They're going to talk about how woke tricked people. It's protecting people. Well, that was the key. Wasn't at the point was that the way it worked was that it was gullying people through language that sounded really sweet and kittenish. Yeah. And fluffy. Like equity, well, that sounds a lot like equality, doesn't it? It doesn't mean equality. It means treating people unequally to ensure equal outcomes are calling to group identity. That's a very different thing. You say you're talking about let's make everything inclusive. But what you really mean is let's exclude anyone who disagrees with what we've got to say. So you're using language to mean the exact opposite. They say gender affirming care. But do they mean that or do they mean affirming what is effectively a pseudo scientific belief among vulnerable people? So it's all about misusing language because most people I think or I like to think are pretty decent. Yeah. And most people want to be kind, want to be fair. And when you hear these activists saying be kind, be compassionate or else, right? You know, you kind of think, okay, well, maybe their intentions are good, but also they're pretty scary. I mean, there's a weird, there was a weird thing with the woke thing, which was that on the one hand, it proclaimed to be this sort of great virtuous kind of progressive right side of history. How often did you hear that phrase? Right. And at the same time, they're like dangerous dogs. Like, you're better not piss them off. I better not say the wrong thing, the workplace because they'll destroy you. So he says about equity here. The equity was treating people unequally in order to ensure equal outcomes according to group identity. That isn't what equity means at all. Equity means giving people equal access to opportunity, right? And this means you have to do more to give some people that opportunity than others. That's all that means. So take Andrew and I, for example, we're both white guys from Catholic families. Let's say we're of the same group identity. Obviously he's gay as well. I don't have that. But let's say we're on, at least on that respect, we're in from the same group identity. I grew up in council housing in an impoverished area to parents who are barely literate. Andrew's family includes famous political activists that are notable enough that they have their own Wikipedia pitch. It was probably easier for him to go to university than it was for me because nobody in my family had any idea what a university did or how you get into one, right? And I think we should have both had those same level of opportunities so that the only distinguishing factor there for is our interest and our abilities. And I think we should extend that further to places that have been traditionally gay-kept from women or people of color. That's all equity is. It's not all, everybody has to have an equal outcome as a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, group identity. It's everyone should be given equal opportunity. And that might mean you have to strive a little bit harder to give some people the opportunity because there are barriers that they, that needs to be overcome along the way there. It is incredibly surprising to me that he doesn't get that given that he's a political commentator who writes about this stuff all the time. He's got a book on it that he's there to promote. And somehow he fundamentally misunderstands a very basic concept that is, you know, foundational to the world view he's rejecting and he hasn't spent any time apparently understanding it. It could be purposeful. It could be that he's just mistaken. We're not sure. I like to take people at face value. I don't like to kind of assume their intent. That's something that Andrew will actually say in this interview. I think we'll probably have it in the gloves off that we should take people at their word and not try and read intent into them. If we do that, what it says is he hasn't done the reading about the thing he's built his career. Yeah. He says inclusivity is exclusive in this. I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically what he says. And I think what he means to say is that it doesn't center whiteness anymore. I think that's what, you know, like, like inclusivity means we're including other people and white people aren't centered. And that hurts feelings and that makes people feel like they're threatened. You're not threatened by inclusivity. You just feel threatened because other people have privileges that you used to have exclusively to your specific demographic. That's all that is. And he mentions gender affirming care by trying to throw a barbed-to-trans people to say, oh, we're talking about pseudo-scientific belief. He makes a very specific attack against trans people here, but just to remind everybody, gender affirming care is literally anything that affirms your gender. So if Joe is taking testosterone, that would be him affirming his own gender. That would be gender affirming care. And then through all of that, there's a really interesting line. And it's something that's kind of indicative of a way that Andrew will argue throughout this conversation. He says, when you hear these activists saying, be kind, be compassionate or else. Well, tell me who said or else? People aren't saying or else, Andrew. They're saying you should be kind and you should be compassionate. Now, obviously, if you're not kind and compassionate and you were, for example, a racist being racist isn't kind of compassionate, then the or else will be, we will let people know that you're a racist. But there is not a kind of, he makes it seem like there's this horrible sort of damacly he's constantly hanging over people that the woke are wielding and will constantly kind of threaten you with if you don't obey. And I just don't think that's a thing that's happening. He's not saying what the or else actually is. I would also argue that unkind people have flourished in our society. I would say that unkind people who have, they have been catapulted to, in fact, probably the highest office in our land is held by an unkind person. His entire staff is unkind. All those people are unkind. Nothing's happened to him, right? In fact, it's boosted their ability to reach more people and influence more people and have more power and more wealth. So what do you talk the way he makes it seem as if you are unkind, there's going to be these people who follow you around and throw a bag over your heads, throw you into a car and take you off somewhere. That's not true at all. It's literally the opposite of we're seeing the opposite nowadays. He says they'll destroy you. How will they destroy you? Point to people who've been destroyed. You know, the thing is, is what they, what they want, Marsh, is they want to be able to say awful shit and remain anonymous or at the very least be able to say awful shit and never face repercussions for it. That's what they want. That's what they've always wanted. They don't want to have somebody that, if they work somewhere, turn around and say, hey, you said a racist thing. We don't want you working here anymore because we don't support racism. They don't like that sort of thing. But in the same, you know, in the same year as something like that might happen. Like last year, look at there was something like 600 people got fired because they posted something that was anti-charlie Kirk. So their side does the exact same thing. They just don't pay attention to it when that happens. >> Yeah, yeah, exactly. They make it out like we should be conscious that we're all constantly on edge worried that we might say something that gets us destroyed by the, the, you know, the dangerous dogs that the woke are. And I'm just not scared of that. I'm not particularly careful in my language. I say the things that I think are reasonable. I'm not trying to be out of my, I'm not trying to go out of my way to necessarily be kind. I just, I'm saying what I think. And I'm not constantly terrified that I'm going to trip on a land mine and, and, and, you know, suddenly be destroyed by this aggressive woke movement. I'm just not. >> I want to say this is like 30 minutes later. They're having a conversation and they start talking about Shakespeare and if Shakespeare was a woman. So this is that portion of the conversation. >> I, I want to wait till it plays out on court. >> But whenever I do do, like I'll give you the example from this week, just because I'm reading it now. A woman's written a book claiming that Shakespeare was a black woman. >> I saw that. >> Yeah. So, um, this is a major spoiler alert. Shakespeare wasn't a black woman. >> Crazy. >> Yeah. >> I'm reading the book now. It is worse than you imagine. Part of the air. >> How could it be worse than I imagine? >> Because, because. It's obviously not true first of all. >> Of course. >> But, but, um, she basically says in the book that, um, it's important that it should be true. And therefore, yeah, and in fact, the book opens with a picture of Shakespeare as a black woman, which was drawn by the author. >> [LAUGH] >> That's, that's, that's, so, is it a good drawing? >> No. >> It's okay. I don't want to bother someone else. >> It's good as it is. >> If it's out, it's the front. >> First, oh, that's the book. >> It's actually pretty good. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. >> That's a black woman? >> No, no, no. >> That's a portrait of Amelia Lanier, who she says was Shakespeare. And she says that the portraits at the time were whitened to disguise her blackness. >> In, in the book itself, >> Convenient. >> In the book itself, you won't be able to get in the book, I don't think, Jamie. But in the book itself, there's a sketch that she's done. So it's like, I can imagine a publisher saying, oh, what evidence have you got? And she's like, oh, well, I'll, I'll go and draw it for you. >> Okay, you can imagine that, can you hand her? That's what happened necessarily, is it?
that you are admitting, that's the thing you were imagining. I've not read the book. I think the idea is probably bullshit. There's lots of different theories about who Shakespeare was. I think it wasn't William Shakespeare. I think they're all wildly unconvincing and have been for decades centuries probably. But I also strongly suspect that this book is not, is going to be based on more than I've drawn a drawing. And therefore, that's my evidence, because it wouldn't be published if their evidence to the publisher was here's this drawing that I've done. That's obviously ridiculous. And obviously, you can see it in there as well. You notice that he says, she basically says in the book that it's important that it should be true. Is that what she says? You've said it's basically what she said. Is that what she actually said or is that, is that basically bit there? Your paraphrasing it in order to make it sound, like she's basing it on much less than she actually is. And again, I think this theory's false, but at least give us her actual arguments so that we can properly assess what her theory is, rather than saying it's basically that she thinks it should be true and therefore is drawn a drawing. That isn't going to be the argument in the book. I would bet everything I own on that. And I think this is pretty typical of Doyle's approach to these types of things. You know, you find a minor edge case that literally nobody would really take seriously. And then present it in the worst and most flimsy way possible. This is the same kind of stuff we see from Chris Rufor, that we've covered on the show. People like James Lindsay, who we will cover on the show, I'm sure. I think Doyle is coming across to me similar in that mold and he'll do that throughout this conversation. I genuinely just like how this pretty minor book became whatever the opposite of a cosolab is for the right wing press. It was covered in the critic, the daily mail, unheard, the telegraph, the express and GB news. Four of which have employed Andrew Doyle. It's worth pointing out. This is a pretty minor book, but it's used in this kind of way. Now look, Shakespeare, wrote Shakespeare, but this theory really isn't any worse or better than the 65 other people that are positive as the real author of Shakespeare's work. But this one is just focused on more because people like Doyle can push an anti-woke gender off the back of it. This theory is bullshit on its own merits without race or gender having to be the reason for that. So give us those merits and then we can dismiss it probably. Yeah, that's such a great point because there are so many people who think that, you know, Shakespeare was written by all these other different animals at the time. Francis Bacon. Yeah. Some of them are there somewhere. Yeah. Yeah, they're all there. But he's not mentioning any of those as just as absurd as this one. He's specifically singling this one out. He's not going to stop there. Of course, there's more to talk about with Shakespeare. In this case, it's a black Jewish woman. And that sort of. Oh, she's black and Jewish. Yeah, black Jewish. Well, actually, I mean, Amelia and Lanier was part, part more ish, but wasn't black and she wasn't particularly dark skinned and she was Jewish as well. Yeah, part Jewish. Okay. So who is this woman that they're saying actually was Shakespeare? So she's called Amelia Lanier or Amelia Bessano. And one of the arguments is that Shakespeare at the time, if she was a woman, wouldn't have been able to get published because women couldn't get published. But Amelia Lanier was published. She had a book of poetry. So all of this stuff falls apart like in two seconds. And she, all right, this is the best one. She even says in the book that the word Shakespeare is an anagram of a she speaker. I'm not making that up. That's what she says. I mean, you know, listen, we'll cover up. How she craps this? Well, actually, it's an old theory. It's like a 20 year old theory. I tell you, 20 years old, she's just sort of rehashing it now for this identity in post-work world where we're all like with desperate for Shakespeare to be a black woman. And it's so, it's so fun. It's so pathetic. So okay, there's this point in here that her argument was in this book that this person who is, you know, the positive version of Shakespeare changed her identity because she couldn't get published, but she actually had been published. She wrote poetry. That's probably a more real criticism of a real argument eventually. I think that's not bad. That's pretty, that's probably much more like a real bit of criticism. I think it's flawed even then. I think there's a surprising thing in here because he's pointing out about like Shakespeare being published. Shakespeare wasn't published. He was performed. Like Shakespeare's plays were only published seven years after he died. Good. 1623 when they were first kind of collated. That's a really minor point to know about Shakespeare, but I will point out Doyle's doctorate is in Shakespeare. He teaches it at a fake university. Yeah, exactly. So like Shakespeare wasn't published at any kind of, that's not how that works. But okay, we'll leave that slightly aside, not a massive issue. Maybe you're just kind of conflating things and shortening for a, just going to give you a C in his class at Jordan Peterson University for speaking out against a march. And like, folios and candles and things, some of them were published like a Jewish Shakespeare time. They were collected. They were sold kind of like essentially black marketish kind of thing. Sure. Sure. We weren't official. Okay, there's a lot of kind of stuff going around there, but it's not like Shakespeare sent his plays to a publisher and got a letter back saying, hi, you're not a black woman there for a publisher. That wasn't kind of how this works. But then again, there's, he goes to this other argument of like, well, it's this clumsy, this clumsy acronym is kind of what it's about. It's a she speaker. Again, there's more to this book than here's a drawing that I wrote. And Shakespeare is an anagram for this thing here. That's not it. And he's only raising that bit of it to make it sound completely ridiculous, rather than to raise what arguments are actually making and make it mid in the book and then argue against those. And again, I think I've not read the book. I think the theory that Shakespeare was someone else be it this woman be it Kit Marl or be it Francis Bacon. I think those are bullshit. But not for these weak reasons that Andrew Dulles presenting us with. He's presenting it with these reasons in order to say, this kind of stuff is given a pass because people are so desperate to paint Shakespeare as black and a woman because they've got to make it all about all about how great women are and how great people are are and they get a massive passing scholarship if you just invoke those things. That's the argument he's making here. And I just don't think this is evidence of that. It doesn't hold. And this is something that happens all the time. They amplify these very small voices to make it seem like the entire sector of society is nuts. One of the things that'll happen often is they'll find some very small corner case of some low powered college student has like no powered college college student, right? Somebody who's involved in a system who says something or puts together a group that they want to make fun of and say this is indicative of an entire movement. Yeah. Rather than it's just the actions of a single person who this isn't exactly how everybody in the movement feels even if they're you know, so I think like they try to do this to try to it's a straw man. It's essentially a big straw man to say, hey, I'm going to build this argument up and then I'm going to knock it over and you'll see how weak woke is. Yeah, I mean, this entire book would have completely like vanished without a trace if her argument wasn't that it was a black woman specifically because that is what has enraged people like Andrew Doyle and this writer and telegraph and stuff. Yeah. Enough to give this book publicity. So like fair play to this writer because how she said it was a different guy. She would have had probably very few sales. So like she's she's farming the anti woke up. And then Doyle is saying that this is this is like this because people are so desperate for Shakespeare to be a black woman. Nobody is desperate for Shakespeare to be a black woman. Like you and the people that you were so shaped with, people you write with, the people who have work in the magazine right for your desperate for people to believe there is a clamor to say Shakespeare's a black woman because that is what your writing career is based on. But there isn't a clamor. You're inventing the clamor in order to be angered by it. Yeah. And this is this is interesting to hear Joe on the other end of this because if this was somebody who had a different take on something like they were the one out of the 10 dentists that doesn't recommend toothpaste Joe would have them on right. Joe has on all the anti-vaxxers, all the deniers of all these other climate change deniers. All these people who are the 1% who are pushing against the 99% of the other people who are qualified experts in that field. Joe if this was the case and Joe actually kind of agreed with it, Joe might be like, hey, this person I should have them on my show. If somebody wrote a book that Gandhi wasn't a vegetarian but I only ate jerky and drank AG one, Joe would probably have that person on the show. It's just that this is sort of conflicting with some of the major through lines and Joe's thoughts. So he's like, ah, no, I can't. I'll make fun of this particular conspiracy. But I'll embrace all the other ones that are the 1% fighting against the masses. Oh yeah. If this book said that Shakespeare was from Atlantis, Joe will be all over it. Yes. You kidding me? Got his power from like a pyramid or something? 100%. All right, we're going to take a short break. We'll be back right after this. Okay, welcome back. Let's jump right back in. Okay, so we go about 10 minutes later and Andrew tells us about a formative book that he read. But you don't think we've all done stuff. Like again and again, the pattern is either there's gaps. There's gaps in what we know and people decide to fill them in themselves because there's a kind of comfort to that. There's also some kind of comfort with I know something that no one else does. I've got the answer that there's a status element to that. I remember I read a book when I was a kid like Teenageum called The Sacred Virgin in the Holy Hall. And it was about sort of books I read. And it was about Jesus and it was trying to prove that Jesus was a woman. And as you're reading it, you're thinking, "Yeah, Jesus a woman, I can't believe I've heard that." And then you get to the end and you think, "What the hell did I just read?" And it's that thing of, you can marshal any kind of half-baked facts or any, you can marshal certain things that we can see and fill in the gaps yourself and lead to a crazy conclusion. What concerns me isn't so much that people do that because people have done that forever as long as they've been human beings. Is that
now people are leaping at it and falling for it in a way that I haven't seen. Maybe it's just social media, right? But it's, I mean, you've literally summed up Jordan Tyler's show here. That is literally what you're doing. We can wink out. But the broader point here is about this book. Andrew Doyle read this book when he was a teenager. He's older than I am. So this is 30 years ago, he's talking about it. And it was a book about how Jesus was a woman. But today when he finds a book that's arguing that Shakespeare is a woman, that's evidence that right now, wokeness has gone mad. 30 years ago, apparently, it wasn't evidence of that. It was something else. So like, yeah, right? Doesn't this discredit his entire argument that this is a new phenomenon? The walker is just going mad and that was his big push to make everybody a woman now. If you were reading a book about it, 30 years ago. Okay, next up, we're talking about Andrew Doyle and he starts talking about dark money and how if there's any available, he will have it. Like, if I were that guy, I'd be like, how I've listened to Jonah. No fucking weird. Fucking liberals bullshit. You're fucking, you're just a fucking, they will come up with some sort of reason. King Charles III is a goat. Yeah. You're controlled opposition or you're a useful idiot or they'll put a label on you. I've been told I get dark money. And he get any of that. Well, I love it. I want it. I want the dark money. So dark. I haven't seen any of that. That's how dark it is. What's dark money? I think it's when it's like some rich ideologue who's sort of slipping in money to say the thing. You know what it is? It's that thing of, I don't believe that you disagree with me. I'm too narcissistic to believe that you disagree with me. You must be being paid to have your pay off, bro. You'll pay it off. Trust me, I would love that. If anyone's out there wants to pay me off, I'll be a mouthpiece. I'm, you know, it's a bit, haven't had that opportunity. It's pretty low. I'm a bit of a whore. If it's a truth be told, I've got a mortgage. Come on. I will say any crazy shit if you want me to. So I think this is interesting that he's talking about the criticisms about dark money. Because I think part of this is that, as I said, Andrew Doyle did 100% speak at the anti-woke speaking truth to social justice conference that was put on by James Lindsay and Peter Bagoze in London, which was absolutely 100% financed by a white Christian nationalist organization called Sovereign Nations funded by a guy called Michael O'Fallon. I know that because I was there. I didn't attend the conference, but I happened to be in London at the time. So I dropped by the hotel. And then afterwards I looked at the finances of it at the time. And it was interesting to me that an organization from the US could hire out a very prestigious hotel in Westminster. Like a five minute walk from Parliament. You've got the Royal Horse Guards hotel. They hide out the Gladstone Library. And they flew in like eight or seven or eight speakers or seven people from the US to speak to fewer than 100 people who were paying less than 100 quid a ticket or something like that. And it was expensive place to hire out. So very clearly there was money involved. That was an operation by that organization. It was worth the money than spending in order to do something. And part of that is to influence the people who were there. And Andrew Doyle was one of those speakers. I think criticism over stuff like that genuinely stings him. But I also think that I strongly suspect at least that he took a speaking fee from that very obviously money losing gig. So Sovereign Nations invested money in that gig and they invested money in Andrew Doyle for what was essentially a proper gandest event for a white Christian nationalist organization. And that's just the one that I could immediately find a new about what happened to be there. They don't actually have to give you money directly either. They can just artificially boost your message or your show. And that would indirectly give you money or they could maybe send a conga line, a like-minded individuals to join the studio for a pushback free session and get the exact same thing they would get by controlling your word message coming from your mouth. They could easily convince you through using your Twitter feed to send you the messages they want you to broadcast. It's easier than you think, Joe. It's way easier than you think. Yeah, absolutely. And in terms of Andrew Doyle and Darkwoney, there's another thing here. Like so Andrew Doyle worked for a long time for GB News as I mentioned in the introduction there. That's funded by a company called Ligatum Limited, which is a private investment firm headquartered in Dubai and invested in lots of fairly shady stuff. It's also part funded by people like Matthew Kibble who's part of Palantir. Her release was the event was one of the investors in Palantir. They this Dubai firm and people like Kibble put their money into GB News to affect a certain output to have a certain propagandist output to push a very specific anti-woke agenda. And they were paying Andrew Doyle to be one of their their own air presenters about that. Now he might have had complete carte blanche to talk about whatever he wanted, but he was hired there for a reason. And if there was any editorial input from the people involved at GB News into what he was saying, that is where that comes in. You are paid and you are saying the things that this show wants you to say. That's what we mean. GB News is also partly funded by a guy called Sir Paul Marshall who also funds Doyle's other sometimes employer unheard the website magazine. And also Paul Marshall owns Doyle's other other sometimes employer, the Spectator magazine. So this is now three different outlets that Andrew Doyle is publishing material or broadcasting material for under Paul Marshall. That's the kind of stuff we're talking about here. Doyle writes for Spike. That gets his funding from the Koch Foundation and has ties to Victor Orban and Hungary. He writes for the critic, which is funded by the Tory donor and vote leave fund Jeremy Hoskins. Those are just the ones that I knew to look up and actually spent a couple of minutes looking up. So if he's unsure where his dark money in terms of money you're being paid in order to affect a certain outcome and influence, maybe look to maybe he should be looking at who's signing his checks at those outlets. Okay, next up they shift their conversation to talk about Andrew's very biting witticisms and his his ability to use a Twitter character to encompass the left. It is Tatiana McGrath, but you say it differently, right? You say McGraw. Yeah, Tatiana McGraw. We would say McGraw. Okay. Especially like you. So if people don't know, I should probably tell everybody you are Tatiana McGraw. So yeah, and here's what's funny about that. Your satirical character you created many, many years ago. When did you create her? 2019. Okay, when you created her, I had you on the podcast shortly after we laughed about it. I have seen her quote tweeted with people agreeing with her. Yeah, yeah, even now. Yeah, all the time. So with it's so I, yeah, I am if people don't know, it's a character called Tatiana McGrath. She's a woke just social justice worry. It's so good. It's fucking great. It's one of my favorite follows. But you know, I don't do it as often as I used to. You know, I used to do it all the time, but then I wrote two books as her. I did a live show as her. By the way, when I did a live show, we were booked in for a week in the West End in London. And then the head of the theatre found out and scotched it. And actually said, oh, well, I didn't know about this. And the contract are all signed. Absolutely craze. Anyway, it doesn't matter. But we did the show, but where it does matter, I suppose. But the point is that, you know, so I did this character. I have satire at your theater. My god. Well, the theater industry in the UK is even worse than comedy if you want to go there. It's really, really bad. So look, you can have satire in the UK. You can even have it in theatres. That's a ludicrous and hyperbolic thing to say. It's genuinely ridiculous. I've no idea about the internet of contracts either. He's not talking, talk to talk to anyone else about this specific play or performance being cancelled anywhere. So maybe, maybe it was planned for one theatre and then they cancelled it did go ahead and in London's West End. So yeah, maybe there's some stuff going on there. If so, he's never released any information about that. So we can't just know. But it did go ahead and it went ahead to pretty meager reviews, not for being offensive, but for just not having enough substance or creative thought to sustain any lactic. For it being a very much a one note trick. Like here's this person who's saying things that are ridiculous because she's so woke and it was kind of too thin to sustain any particular interest. That's what the reviews are essentially saying. Yeah, you wrote a satire about woke in the audience fell asleep. Okay, make sense. I wonder when I hear the way Joe is sort of gleeful about this. And I've heard Joe be pretty misogynist in the past. Yeah, I wonder if this would be as effective on Joe if it wasn't a woman. If it wasn't a woman also to make fun of. It definitely feels like there's something in there. I can't, I can't, but you know, 100% know his mind, but I do know that in the past he has been very misogynistic. So I wonder if that adds to the level of which he thinks this is funny. Yeah, and we've picked that up on previous shows. This isn't just something we're just saying, but we have actually covered that on previous episodes of people want to go back and check those. Okay, so they take a second to talk about London toilets. But like I've been in two different theaters in London. I've been at the same experience. I've standing at the bar with a woman complaining because there's men pissing in her toilet and they're doing nothing about it because all the theaters in London have made it all gender neutral. They've gone completely completely hardcore. Well, anyway, that's not the point. Yeah, it's not the point. It's also not true. He says here, all the theaters in London have made it all gender neutral. That isn't true. And maybe he's saying that in an offhand throw away kind of way, but I don't know that Joe Rogan is going to know that he's just hyperbologizing, hyperbologizing down in and exaggerating. I've been in theaters in London a couple of times. I don't live in London. I've been down. I was there literally a couple of weekends ago to go on
stopards are the old Vic and those weren't all gender, all gender neutral toilets. There's plenty of theaters in London that aren't all gender neutral. That's just ridiculous. Yeah, also, even if this was, they've gone all gender neutral on the toilets, just like you have at home. There's a woman in there complaining that there were men in the gender neutral toilet and Doyle thinks she's the one in the right about that. I don't understand this. Like where else did he meant to piss? Right. Even if we're taking him in his word that it's true, then it's a gender neutral toilet, meaning it's like one person goes in and then another person goes in and then like just like you have at home, right? It's not shocking at all. Yeah. My wife and I go into the same toilet at home. We just do it at different times. It's like, like that's how gender neutral toilets work. But again, I think you can, you can basically, if you use a couple of buzzwords, you can get Joe on your side and that's what he's doing here. Yeah. More on Tatiana McGraw. But with Tatiana, what I find so surprising is every now and then if something annoys me, I'll tweet or if I think of something I'll do. I don't do it anywhere near as often as I used to. But even now, I did a tweet about, you know, when all the people in London were marching about the peace deal in the Middle East. And I did a tweet as her saying, I've been marching all day. I won a peace deal that was not arranged by Donald Trump. We're never going to give up this fight. Right? And Ted Cruz retweeted it saying, can this be real? Even even now that fucking boomers. He's not even a boomer. I think he's younger than me. How old Ted Cruz? I think he's younger than me, which is hilarious. I had the same with I did one about how does he not know? Does he have no friends? How old is fucking Ted Cruz? Okay. That's crazy. So that dude's three years younger than me. And he doesn't, he doesn't know satire. The anger I got from I did one the other day, recently about the Iran protests. When did it stand? Can I just stop? Yeah, yeah. I want to get into this. Okay. When did he tweet about this? That's hilarious. Yeah. Yeah. That account. There it is. There it is. How many follows does that? Okay. So this, oh, sorry. This is possibly real. What? Obviously it's not. So this was actually after Trump's election. So she said, I justified my immigrant housekeeper because even though I'd educated her about the evils of Donald Trump, she's still voted for him. There's no place for racism in my house. Okay. This is their evidence that Tiana McGraw is constantly being believed by people agree with her, but their evidence is Ted Cruz who's a right winger who doesn't agree with this. Now, this is my issue with with Doyle's in my opinion, incredibly tame stick. He talks like he's been shared constantly by people who agree with the ridiculous takes he's publishing. But in reality, most of the attention that his account of this McGraw persona gets is from outraged and offended and upset right wingers who've mistaken it for real. So he says the joke is that people are so stupid they think it's real, but he pretends like those people aren't primarily people on his side like Ted Cruz here who believes it. And when you hear the tweet that they're talking about there, it's the idea is that a liberal is so quick to assume that Trump is bad that they'll assume immigrants who vote for Trump must be racist. That's the crux of the joke there in this. But the underlying point of it is, when you think about that joke is that the liberals have to be so out of touch with what real people think that they're going to hyperboleize about how bad Trump might be. That's how ridiculous it is. But this was recorded, this episode with Donald old recorded on February the 4th. So a week after armed immigration agents killed Alex Prattie on the street. And during an immigration crackdown in which seven immigrants have died in ice custody since the start of the New Year. And neither these men clearly made the connection between what they think they were laughing at, like liberal overreaction to the possibility of Trump's immigration policies. And the facts are immigrants are being targeted and killed by Trump's agents while this conversation was going on. Okay, so now they're going to talk more about workness. This time they're moving into AI and how AI might represent Nazis. Now this is something we have talked about before, but this is Doyle talking about it now. Well, why wasn't the worst the first iteration of Google Gemini? That was the worst cases. That turned Nazi soldiers into black people. I don't know how that's a positive message. Photos of German soldiers from World War II and it was all interracial. Yeah, and Vikings. Yes. I mean, I don't know if you've been to Scandinavia. Diversity, not the big thing. Oh certainly that wasn't then. Like you can't say that about the Vikings. Also, the Vikings came and marauded and raped and set high villages, but at least they were diverse. Hey, you know, at least they had a broad range of ethnicities. Right. But I mean, we're nearing a time in America where white people are not the majority anymore. So at what point in time does that stop? And we just call people what they are, just people. But doesn't it bother you a bit that the thing about that kind of thing is this, as I said, this obsession with group identity, which is so of our time. Yeah. What it now actually means is the revision of history. Okay. So that whole black Nazis thing, that wasn't designed to be a positive message about Nazis. It was AI just being shit to be good with. So this was an attempt to try and avoid AI just parroting the biases that existed in the data that it was trained on. So here's a piece about it from the BBC at the time. The BBC say traditionally images of doctors, for example, are more likely to feature men and images of cleaners are more likely to be women. AI tools trained on this data have made embarrassing mistakes in the past, such as concluding that only men had high powered jobs or just not recognizing black faces as human. I saw this too. Yeah. And the BBC said it looks like Google has actively tried to offset all that messy human bias with instructions for Gemini to not make those assumptions, but it's backfired precisely because human history and culture aren't that simple. There are nuances which we know instinctively and machines don't. And machines are now actually getting better at doing that. So this was a very weird edge case that to us is obviously ridiculous, but it's not obvious to the AI, or certainly not the version of AI at the time. But Diole is using this to claim that obsession with group identity is of our time. In other times, I guess people were just less obsessed when it came to group identity according to what he's saying there, especially he's given, he's talking about the Nazis here who were quite famously people who cared about group identity. That was part of their whole thing was about what group you're, the identity group you were part of. And I just think this is a, it's a funny thing for an openly gay British person to say less than 60 years since his sexuality was illegal. And less than 30 years since he'd have been banned from being out of the closet. If he was a teacher, for example, there was a rule section 28, which meant that if you were gay, you weren't allowed to mention that at all at school. You couldn't say my partner because you'd be fired over that because that was section 28. That was in place when I was at school. So when he was at school, but now we have an obsession with group identity. Or maybe should consider the fact that his family is Irish. And so about a century ago, they'd have been legally banned from some jobs in the UK, thanks to their group identity. A century before that, they'd have been starved death by their English landlord because they group identity. And yet he's saying that right now, in this conversation with Joe Rogan, he's saying that in a country where black people were constitutionally considered to be two thirds or three fifths, I think, sorry, isn't it, of a white person's worth until that had to be amended by vote. So group identity is not a modern phenomena, a modern obsession. It's not over our time at all. But yeah, sure, Andrew, could tell us more about historical revisionism while you're at it. Okay. So now, really just leading right from that conversation, we're not skipping any tape. They start talking about a casting decision in a movie. If you're going to revise history and say, oh, actually, you've seen all these sort of period dramas in England, there was a black Anne Berlin, as I went, Henry VIII would have married a black woman. No, you wouldn't. You know, what if she was hot? She was a very attractive woman. Hey, I'm not mocking her. I'm not mocking her. But back then, what I'm saying is you can do anything with colourblind casting has never really particularly bothered me. But it's when you are in a, if you're playing hyper realism, if you're playing very similar to you, you want people to buy into the reality of it. And you're suddenly populating Edwardian England or pre Edwardian England as an ethnically diverse place, which it wasn't. I'm not saying black people weren't there, but they were very, very small minuses. Is that a problem in the new Odyssey? Helen of Troy is black. Well, I say that. I just saw it online. So I might be being tricked by someone making something up. You know, a caveat that I think Helen of Troy is black in the new Odyssey. Well, let's find out. Can we check that one? But you can. All right. If it's true, I'll tell you why I think that's ridiculous. How far do we have to swing the pendulum until Root is redone with white people? Can you imagine or an all black shindles list? Right. Can you imagine to be portrayed by black actress in the new Odyssey movie? And look, I'm sure she's very talented. I'm not knocking her. But the thing about the Greek, the thing about Helen of Troy, who probably didn't exist. I mean, even the Greeks knew she probably didn't even exist. She's a myth. She's a, she's the epitome of Greek beauty. She's like the, she's she's she's described all the time in the ancient texts as fair and blonde and and they're reaching for an ideal of beauty. That's why they went to war because of this woman. So they wouldn't choose what they used to call an ethiot. The Greeks had a word for it. The black African people. They wouldn't choose an icon of cultural beauty from a different culture. They wouldn't have done that. You know, it's all very well saying Greeks and Mediterranean people and great, you know, would have wouldn't be your way. But Helen of Troy is a very specific and he's actually quite important to the to the plot and and again, if you're doing a look for instance, when they
did the all black wizard of ours, the Wiz, I imagine that in the late 60s would have been quite radical and fun and wow, I can't believe they did that. That's brilliant. But doing it now, it's really boring because everyone is doing it. So it's basically saying group identity is everything and you people can't be racist and so therefore we're going to do this. Honestly, I can't think of anything that matters less than this, but okay, here we go. He's saying it's central to the plot that Helen of Troy is cast as someone who would have been considered classically beautiful under the Greek standards of the time that the Odyssey was written. Come on. But that's not the case. It isn't important to plot. What is important to the plot is that she was seen as such a great beauty that Kings would go to war for her favor. That's a central bit of it. She's such a beautiful person that the Kings would go to war over. And they're speculating that she might be played by Lupita Nyongo who is an undeniably strikingly beautiful actor as well as an extremely talented actor. I have no issue with her playing Helen of Troy and I have no issue with anyone playing Helen of Troy. But he's saying no, it's important because Greek beauty standards were a very specific thing. Okay, but they're not our beauty standards. Right. Exactly. Beauty standards have changed throughout history. So if you're going for very similar to you, are you going to find out the exact things that would have been considered most beautiful by the Greeks? Even if they aren't exactly what we'd find most attractive now and then portray that on the screen and deal with people saying, well, I don't think she's that hot. I wouldn't have gone to war over her. It's ridiculous. The whole point of race blind casting is that historically racist societies and I'd hope that even Andrew Doyle would accept that a lot of societies, including ours, were historically racist. In those societies, writers would write fewer parts and fewer good parts for people of color. Even if they did regularly encounter people of color from other ethnicities throughout their lives, they wouldn't write those people parts or wouldn't write them good parts. So we have a choice now. Either we live with their old racial assumptions baked into our literary culture forever and influencing us into the future and into what stories we see. Or we just cast whoever we think would do the part well. Right. And I'm very happy with the latter. I have no issue with the latter. Yeah. All these people getting so uptight about all this, I, you're so right about the beauty standards because I think about the difference between when I was growing up in the 90s versus now and the beauty standards are so different. They're just, it's such a different look. If you were to take what would be considered like a classical beauty from the 90s, be a male or a female and then move it to now, it would be totally different. And that's a 30 year span. And the same thing, if you go back 30 years from the 90s, it's going to be the same thing. It changes completely. And so you're absolutely right. It wouldn't be our beauty standards. It would be something else. And the other thing that makes me crazy about this is no one seems to be pointing out that a white bostonian actor named Matt Damon is playing Odecius, right? He's Scottish English Swedish and Finnish in descent. He's not Greek. Why aren't they mad about that? Is it selective outrage here? Yeah, exactly. Okay. So they're going to talk, they're still talking about the same stuff that we're not cutting any tape. They start, they move on to talk about Churchill. But it sometimes throws you out of the, actually, I'll tell you the worst example. Did you ever see darkest hour, the Winston Churchill film? No. So you know, obviously he took on Parliament. He said, we're not going to appease Hitler. There's a scene in the film, Gary Oldman plays him. He goes down into the tube, the underground, and he's wrestling with his conscience. And there's loads of black people on the tube. There's white people too, but there's loads of black people. And the public convinced him, no, you need to stand up for Hitler. Now, we know that Churchill wasn't, it was a bit of a racist, didn't really like that, you know, fine. He was obvious time. I'm not saying anything more than that. He was obvious time, but that it was so unreal. It was so unreal. It was so, it was almost like the filmmakers were saying, racism's never been a problem in the UK. Well, actually it has. Like, and I kind of think this is, I kind of think this is, although it's ostensibly progressive, I think it does the reverse. I think it says, we never had a problem with race. We were all wonderful, come by our, no, we weren't. And actually, the abolitionists, the Thomas Henry Huxley's of the world, the people who had to fight for racial equality and parity, they had something to fight against, misrepresenting stuff in the arts. And then beyond, I'm sorry, I'm ranting, because it really bothered me. But beyond that, it throws you out of it in a way that you suddenly think, I'm no longer watching a film, I'm watching a sermon. Okay, so what I like here, first of all, he's so committed to not revising history, that he can't bring himself to admit straight out that Churchill was racist even for his time. He equivocates on it. He sort of, you know, he was a bit of a racist, just not just for his time, he was of his time. No, like, he was known as a racist at the time. But Doyle won't say that. I imagine I'm speculating partly because he knows who his audience is at jeeping news and the spectator and spiked and unheard in the critic. And he knows that saying anything bad about Winston Churchill is completely forbidden by them. So maybe that's why he's not going to just be open about the fact that Churchill was a racist even for his time. But there's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the racial views of Winston Churchill, lots of which involves contemporary accounts of how racist people found him. What kind of losers sit around and count the number of black faces in a scene and use that they specifically are using as extras and then they complain about it. Geez, you have to, what kind of time do you have in your life to think about things like this? Yeah, exactly. And actually, since you mentioned that, I did quickly look at all based on the cast list. There is only one speaking role played by a black actor. And they do appear in the London underground scenes who is, who interact with Churchill on the tube. So when he says there's loads of black faces, the only one that's listed on the credits at least in terms of getting a speaking part in the entire film is one. And that is too many. We shouldn't have so many people one speaking part in an entire film goes to a person of color. Okay. So now we just finished talking about that. It goes about maybe 15 minutes later. And then Jamie Drumson to make a slight correction. Make a small correction, I think. Oh, I don't think that she has been, sorry, back to the Odyssey. Oh, yeah, yeah. She has been cast in the movie, but only Twitter rumors have said what her position in the movie is. And then everybody has ran with it. Oh, interesting. So she could be, she could be anything. Someone else. So this is a different character. All the articles I found online said it was like social media confirmation. And then people were just running. There we go. Well, he's not what I said. What is that article? Do you just clip? This is the one I showed her. But what is it from starts off with the Hungarian conservative? That's a niche. That's a name. How dare you let that sneak by? You didn't notice it was a Hungarian conservative. Are you being tied by the Hungarian conservative? Top thing that popped up. It's probably a fucking troll farm in Pakistan. Yeah, it's creating that. It's probably in China. All I googled was hell in a Troy Odyssey movie. Good for the Hungarian conservative. That's coming out on top of the Google search. That's pretty good. That's so funny. But I did I not say I'm not sure about this. It's a Twitter rumor. But look, Elon Musk bought into it. Elon Musk is trying to throw on his losses integrity. Oh, Eli. So there we go. The dudes too busy be building rockets to pay attention to what he tweets. But this proves the point. Like, that's not, oh, yeah, he's going to text to the moon again. So, you know, that's what he's not. Isn't he? No, Artemis is. It doesn't prove your point at all. Okay, when you raised it, you said maybe this isn't right. Maybe this thing that I've seen is quite right, but it doesn't prove your point in the slightest here. You've been caught out talking or being outraged. Speculating as to how outraged you'd be about a thing that isn't actually even true, but it's just part of the outrage machine that you exist within. Also, I think it's really interesting that it comes up with a thing from the Hungarian conservatives. It's like, oh, you know, good on the good. Are you being paid by the Hungarian conservatives? Again, spiked online is actually allied with Victor Orban group in Hungary. That's where some of its funding kind of comes in. So they're not the ones being paid by Hungarian conservatives. I'd say, okay. But he was bringing this up as evidence that what people are crazy with their race blind casting. But this is just another example of people you agree with desperately looking for something to be offended by. And then you and people like you are swallowing it without checking. There is no difference between that and Ted Cruz believing one of Andrew Doyle's fake tweets was real. It doesn't prove your point. It proves that the people on your side will believe anything about the woke if it makes them feel angry enough. And what is that little pass Elon gets? Oh, Elon spreading misinformation. Oh, well, he's just busy. He's just a busy guy. He has an enormous megaphone just like you do. Like I feel like these people don't take responsibility for their megaphone ever. And then they just spread misinformation. And then it's like, whoopsie. Oh, well, I guess it just spread misinformation to millions of people. All right. So this is the last clip in the main event. This is talking. This is Joe. We talked about this before. Joe is bringing it up with Andrew. This is talking about the no Kings March. Well, at this point, it's going to be very difficult to resolve. And I honestly think it's going to take a generation to work through it. But isn't it as simple as people learning what the word fascist means? For instance, like that. It's like they they firmly believe that they are trying to fight against something that is going to destroy democracy in this country, which is conservative values. But we had that with the no Kings. There's a no Kings March. And I couldn't figure that out. I was trying to figure out what are they. This is an elected leader. Well, you know, it's all organized, right? You know, this is all funded. I don't know. Okay. It is. So this was Mike Benz's point when he was talking.
about the defunding of USAID and what they use that money for, NGOs get a bunch of money and they fund a bunch of things, particularly in other countries, where they're essentially making it look like there's these on the ground street protests that are very organic, right? It's not. It's very organized and it's very funded. And the idea is to start chaos. So I've seen people get caught out, people who are clearly being paid who appear at various different things. It's not just that. It's also email campaigns. It's indoctrinating people into this particular ideology by supporting universities. So you've funded it in advance. So okay, I really struggle. I genuinely struggle to believe that Andrew Doyle, political commentator, political satirist, doesn't realize that the no Kings March wasn't about someone literally being a king, but was about an elected representative stepping beyond his legal powers routinely in order to act however he pleases in defiance of the constitution. I find that really hard. All I can think is that maybe he's trying not to piss off the people in America that he needs to sell to now that he works and lives in America. But maybe I should take the advice that he shares elsewhere in this conversation, take him in his word and just accept that he has given literally zero thought to these issues while speaking about them on the largest podcast platform in the world. I find it interesting in this clip how Joe Nash is some of his previous guests and some of those things that they brought to him, some of that clear misinformation that they brought to him into this no Kings peace because he says that, you know, well, they in other countries, they use this NGO money to manipulate people and crowds and protests and then they create chaos through the through NGOs to try to manipulate the political message. But he's saying it's happening here, but then he also like, like didn't Elon cut all that stuff. I mean, we're talking about the no Kings March and I know there was one that took place in March itself, but then there's also the one I know this is the one he's talking about. That one took place in October. So Elon left Doge in late May of last year and he supposedly cut all the waste fraud and abuse. So where did the funding come from? He keeps, he brings this in as if, oh, here's it, it comes from our government, our government funds, but it's a secret shadow funding. It's like no, that never happened. Also, if we covered this before, there's no real funding of it at all. It's that other groups came in and gave aid to certain things, but there's no actual funding of it. They think it's like paid protesters. That's just not true. There's no evidence that that's true, but it's it's kind of a myth that gets perpetuated on Joe's show. And another thing he says, he's like, and they're just there to start chaos. Well, what chaos was started at no Kings. There were 27 hundred protests across America, seven million people and Wikipedia lists 36 arrests. Now, most of those are anti protesters fighting with the actual protesters. And then at the end, it's like, he's talking about it. He's like, they have email campaigns. Oh my God, guys, look out. They have opposed that there are email campaigns out there that oppose Trump. Look out, folks. It's coordinated. Yes, someone got pathetic. Someone got these people in Mailchimp account from the hills. Yeah. All right, we're going to take a short break and then we're going to move on to our undercard. And the undercards banging, the undercards filled with fights. So for the undercard this time, Marsh, there's a lot of UK politics that comes up. And I know this really sticks in your cross. So we're going to spend some time talking specifically about the misconceptions that Andrew brings to Joe about UK politics and specifically about their social media laws and the way in which the UK punishes people for quote unquote free speech. Yeah. So we're going to start at the beginning. This is a early on in the show four minutes in. This is talking about how the UK is failing. And I feel at the moment that the UK is kind of failing where America is to a degree succeed, not in obviously in all ways, but when it comes to the idea of freedom and free speech, like I think UK is pretty far as pretty fallen to the kind of the the woke insistence that you need to control people's language so that you can create this perfect society, which can never come anyways. Well, I think it's been co-opted. I think whatever organic version of that emerges naturally from society where people were, there's an over correction. I think in the UK, because you guys don't have free speech laws, because it's just different over there. Yeah. You can get away with a lot of crazy shit. Like the first of all, like we should explain what we're talking about. It's more than 12,000 people have been arrested in the UK in the past year for social media posts. And if you read some of those social media posts, they're not even remotely terrifying. It's not like I'm going to grab a knife and go cut the head off of every immigrant I see like, hey, buddy, maybe we should lock this guy up and evaluate him. He sounds like a crazy person. Like no, the immigrants are coming into this fucking country and creating all this crime. Knock on the door. You're going to jail. I worry that Americans think we're mad. Sometimes I think we do. Yeah, do you? We do now. Yeah, we think you've lost it. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, first of all, America is just crushing it on free speech right now. Andrew, you're actually right. There are no free speech issues in America right now. Tell us Stephen Colbert and Jimmy. Yeah, exactly. So the people are constantly fallen rather. Yeah. Look, Joe Keith bringing this figure up. It wasn't 12, we said this plenty times for it wasn't 12,000 arrests for social media posts. It wasn't just social media posts. He said it in the last year. It wasn't in the last year. It was in 2023. 2023 was under a previous government and long before Joe cared about any of this. He only cares about it because he thinks this is Starman's government that has done this. And he's just propagandizing. He's bought the propaganda on this. He's saying, some of these are some of these weren't even for violence. But a lot of them were for violence. And Doyle is going to bring those up. We're going to cover some of the ones that were about violence later to actually look at what the content of some of these were. But to be clear, these aren't 12,000 arrests for social media posts alone. That's just not true at all. It's all sorts of things under the Militius Communications Act. That includes harassing phone calls that somebody might send to their ex partner. So now they're going to talk about the UK intentionally tanking like a bad NBA team. We think what we also think something happened where your leaders are intentionally trying to tank your country. It seems like they're trying to bring in as many migrants as possible. Cater to them, not to the British people and do it openly so that everyone knows what they're doing and then create chaos on the streets because of it. Yeah, I mean, people have a phrase that anarcho tyranny, you know, where you punish people who aren't breaking the law. Yeah. But you protect those who are. And I think with the, I mean, I don't know the extent that Americans know the, I mean, the stat you quoted that came from the Times newspaper in London, which had a freedom of information requests to the police found out that it's 12,000 a year on average. So that's like 30 a day, not just being investigated or looked into but being arrested. But over the last few years only, if you go back, it's only like a thousand or five hundred. It was it could. It was 3000 last time we spoke back in 2023. Yeah, it was back then. Yeah. Oh my god. So we already had that problem. And we already know that many. That's crazy. Even back then. It was already really high. I mean, we had stuff like the old stories of like there was that guy in 2010 who made a joke online about he was that donkaster airport in the UK. He said, oh, if this queue doesn't hurry up, I'm going to blow up the airport. Just a stupid funny tweet. He went all the way to court. That was a full trial. So yeah, Joe is thinking all of this is intentional. They're trying to tie the country deliberately because he's fallen for the bullshit that he sees on the social media. That's why you think that Joe. Yeah. He says they're trying to protect people who break the law. What does that even mean? And I think like he's trying to say like because people don't get sentenced as harshly as I think other people think they should be sentenced. Therefore, they're protecting those people. It's like, no, that's probably just sentencing laws. That's how those work. Yeah, it's exactly that. And look, Andrew is saying in here as well, there's a phrase for this. It's an arc or tyranny. That's not the phrase for deliberately importing lots of migrants and then setting them against your native population in order to weaken the power of that particular population. That phrase is the great replacement theory. It keeps coming up and it will come back up at the end of this conversation too. And to be clear, Joe says, back then in 2020, it was only like a thousand arrests, 500 arrests. And Andrew says, no, it was 3000. Well, and Joe's amazed. Like God, that was crazy even then. So to be clear, in 2020, the number of people arrested under the malicious communications act or the other similar kind of act at the time. It wasn't 500 year, it wasn't a thousand year, it wasn't 3,000 year, like these two men are saying. It was 9,962 in 2020 when Andrew Doyle was last here. It went from 9,962 to 12,183 in 2023. So over three years, it did go up by just over 2000 arrests or just about what 5%, not sorry, 20%. So yeah, that's a rise, but it's nowhere near the precipitous rise that Joe was expecting here. When he's saying in the past, it was even less. Even if we got back as far as 2017, which is where this FY request goes, it was 5,500 then. So it's basically doubled in that.
That's six year period. That's the massive rise we're talking about. And again, that rise was under the government that Andrew Doyle seems perfectly happy with. And it wasn't certainly wasn't under the government that Joe Rogan is trying to use this to castigate. And look, Andrew Doyle does bring up a very real case that I agree with him on. The case about the guy saying that, a nottingham airport saying if this queue doesn't hurry up, I'm going to bomb the airport. That was a guy called Paul Chambers. That case was stupid. It was under David Cameron's new conservative government essentially. And I know that that's I remember that case very well because literally everybody I know, including quite a lot of people on the left and who would now be considered horribly woke by people at Andrew Doyle, we were following that case closely at the time and we were against it. There were campaigns about it. There was petitions against it. We tried to do something about that. So he's trying to make this out like the the wokes of always had this authoritarian streak. And the case he's bringing from 2010, everybody I know who was on the left. You'd heard of the case was against it and was campaigning against it. All right. So we're not skipping any tape here. They're just going to start talking about the UK laws and discuss them. Well, so these these laws, and I think I think what happens with this stuff is people don't realize how long this has been embedded in the UK. We have hate speech laws that are encoded in a number of different legislations. We have a thing called the Public Order Act. We have a thing called malicious Communications Act. That's from 1988. We have Communications Act from 2003. And all of these things criminalize. I tell you I kid you not. The language in these statute books is if it's grossly offensive, that's the phrase. If you post something that is grossly offensive, you can go to court. You can be prosecuted. But you know, I find objective. Well, that's it. I find laws against free speech to be grossly offensive. So should the British state be arrested? I don't know. And there's one. I think it's in the malicious communications communications act where it talks about needless anxiety, causing needless anxiety, can get you arrested. And you think you think that's not a thing. So okay, grossly offensive is the legal standard. But it doesn't just mean things that you find gross or offensive or things that you personally find grossly offensive. It's very specifically a standard that is subjective and left loose. But it's based on what a reasonable person's reading is. So is this thing? Would a reasonable person read this and say this was grossly offensive? This was designed to be grossly offensive. Was there kind of intent behind that? That would go to a jury. So 12 people read that. And then they would decide whether they would think very reasonably somebody who would read this would find this grossly offensive. So it's not just what the individual person might themselves be personally offended by. That's what they want to try and paint this as. That's the standard by which these communications have been judged since 1988. And as he says, it was one in 2003 too. These aren't two or also 2003. These aren't about social media posts. They weren't designed for social media posts. These standards have been in the statutes for what 40 plus years at this point. The reason the needless anxiety, the standard isn't just whether it causes needless anxiety. It's also whether it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it was intended to cause distress on needless anxiety. So it's not just about I said a thing and someone got anxious. It's whether you said a thing because you were trying to make someone anxious. And again, this is things like malicious communications. Did you phone this person so many times because you were trying to give them anxiety and harass them? That is how that is kind of taken it. Did you say did you send this person this message message in order to make them feel scared and anxious and offended and upset? Were you doing this deliberately? That's the standard. And because we can't know whether someone's doing it deliberately, it's set as would a reasonable person think there's enough evidence here to prove it. That is the standard. You can complain about those laws all you like, but at least represent them accurately because then we can have a proper conversation. And if you're going to represent all this accurately, you should talk about all of these types of cases. So for example, Doyle doesn't mention in any part of this lengthy conversation about the need for free speech and free protest and things like that about the fact that I've gone to Amnesty International, 2,700 people in the UK were arrested between July 2025 and December 2025 for saying they support a group called Palestine Action. And when they said that it's in it's either I holding signs at rallies, literally people holding signs at rallies or wearing t-shirts, same Palestine action. One guy got arrested for a t-shirt that said plasticine action because it was in the same logo as Palestinian action and therefore could have been taken as supportive. You arrested for saying I support Palestine Action on social media. Past and action are a group that that it would have been illegal for me to even say that I couldn't say I think they have a good point. That would be illegal for me to say that it would have been recently illegal to say that. That would literally has been as illegal as if I had said I think ISIS have a good point or I think Al Qaeda have a good point. That's the law recently under the UK law. That is very bad in my opinion. That's because Palestine Action, despite there being no evidence of them being a widespread violent active group in order to bring about their means they did vandalize some planes and various other things, but that's kind of the extent of what they've been doing essentially. They were prescribed by the government as a terrorist organization. And that's why you can't say you support them because you're considered a terrorist supporter. That prescription by the government was recently overthrown by the Supreme Court. But the government are appealing that reversal decision. So it is currently unclear whether I could be arrested for saying on this podcast I support Palestine Action. That phrase, it is unclear whether I can be arrested for having said that. And that to me is a pretty big free speech issue. That's one of the biggest free speech issues in the UK right now. And somehow Doyle doesn't seem to mention. And also those 2,700 people who are arrested for free speech for saying they support Palestinian action, they're not getting a lot of help or interest from Doyle's good friends at the free speech union. That is not something they're particularly motivated. They don't talk about it. They don't write about it. They don't seem to care about that. So I think there are real free speech issues in the UK. Some of them might even think that Doyle would agree on, but I think this is a major one and he doesn't seem to care about it. Yeah, I mean, Joe, I think we'd care about it too. He seemed to be pretty sympathetic to Gaza, pretty sympathetic to the Palestine people. At least the stuff that we've covered, it certainly seemed like he was sympathetic to that cause. And it doesn't seem like he cares about that at all. And that sort of thing happens in the United States too. There's been the government has gone after universities very specifically. Those people who have, they've sort of punished university students and universities for speaking out about the war in Gaza. So that's something that's happened. Our government literally is going after people in the media and saying and using the FCC as a tool to try to intimidate them. Those are all free speech issues. It just seems like Joe really what he wants to do is he wants to sort of go after any kind of anybody who has repercussions for attacking minorities or vulnerable communities. That's the voices he wants to prop up, not these other things that are obvious free speech issues. Those are the voices he is. I think I think you're right. I think you're right. I think he just doesn't hear it because that's not what he's social media's triggered around. Okay, next up, this is something that's been bouncing around in his podcast recently, the banter ban. You know, I think in the US, you have you have formal protections. I wonder whether it's to do with the fact that in the US, you have the First Amendment. You see, you have something codified that says, you can say what you want. We've never had that. It's very important. And it didn't seem important 20 years ago or 30 years ago because no one ever looked at England as being that kind of a country that would just put people, well, obviously this was our pre social media. Yeah, yeah. And England has always been a fairly polite society. Yes. And but the thing is like now pub talk has become illegal, right? Yeah. Like if you say something offensive in a pub, your subject to be arrested and they're asking people to turn people in, there's a thing called the banter ban, which the Labour government was trying to put in. Here's the logic of the banter ban. I forgot about this, but now you mentioned it. They wanted to introduce this law so that for instance, if you're working in a bar or a pub and you overhear someone who says something against your protector characteristic, say you're a gay barman and someone says, oh, I don't like the gaze or something. And you overhear it. Your employer has a duty to protect you from that kind of hate speech, that kind of harm. So therefore there's going to be a blanket ban on speech in uncertain kinds of speech within the pub, right? I would say the guy who's even dropping, he's the problem, right? You shouldn't be listening in on other people's conversations. So that's a real thing. Yes. So it is a real thing, but I think he's misrepresenting it here significantly. And first of all, it's not called the banter ban. He says there's a thing called the banter ban. It's not called the banter ban. That's just what GB News or the free speech union people have that are calling it. That should be obvious. I know that Andrew Doyle knows that. I don't know for certain that Joe knows that. So it's just worth making that kind of clear. It's a law that's being categorised as the banter ban. But Ferrer, if that's a minor point, I talked about this on a previous gloves off segment, but it's worth including in the main show here as well. It's about potential changes to the employment rights bill. According to people like the free speech union, if the bill comes in, it'll mean bar workers would have a legal mandate to report if somebody tells an offensive joke at their bar and that person can be arrested. Like they've got a legal mandate to snoop in that kind of way. That isn't what the law says at all. So there's clause 20, the employment rights bill. It would make employers liable for harassment of any of its employers employees rather by third parties unless the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. So the previous law, for example, outlawed a bar owner, homophobicly harassing a bar staff, saying, oh, I don't like the agent. But if your employer said that you were a bar owner saying that to your bar staff, that would have been illegal, but it didn't prevent those same staff being homophobicly or
abused by customers. Under the new law, if customers were harassing gay bar staff or female bar staff and the bar owner then refused to do anything to stop that, the bar owner could now be held responsible as the employers who are in control of that environment. But this law would apply to all forms of harassment, not just homophobic abuse of sexual harassment, which is why people at free speech or open arms about it because it would prevent people from harassing trans people in public spaces too. And the FSU and the other similar organizations like the Christian Institute, for example, they've been lobbying hard against these rules for that very reason because it would stop the harassment of trans people. So it's not about I overheard somebody sway over there, say to their friend they didn't like gay people, it's about if a customer is saying to a bar staff, you're a slurs about gay people on the regular, that bar staff can say to their employer, you need to do something about this customer. And if the employer refuses, then that can be a legal issue where the employer can be held responsible. That's all this is about keeping a space, keeping the environment a non hostile work environment, essentially. It seems pretty reasonable. Okay, this next clip they're bringing up a famous case in the UK. This is Lucy Connolly. To give the most obvious recent example, because I don't know if people know about this, there's a woman called Lucy Connolly in the UK. I don't know if this was reported over here at all. Do you remember we had all these riots last year during the summer when against hotels which were housing asylum seekers and people were setting fire to them. There were genuinely racist stuff going on right during those riots. And this was off the back of a guy who'd murdered a bunch of little girls in a dance class. And there were rumors going around that this was an asylum seeker, right? And this one woman, a mother who'd lost her daughter very sensitive about the idea of Lucy Connolly. She's very sensitive about the idea of loss of kids. She tweeted in a fit of anger, go and burn down all the hotels for all I care. If that makes me racist, so be it and take the government with you, something like that. And she deleted it within a couple of hours. She went out walk to dogs, she deleted it and she thought, I really, that's not me. That's not who I am. Deleted it. Please came, went to court, sentenced to 31 months in prison for that swiftly deleted tweet. And she served over a year. Oh my God. Now I'm not saying the tweet was nice, right? The tweet was a horrible tweet. And she says it was a horrible tweet. That's why she deleted it. But because we don't have that Brandenburg test, we don't have a test for incitement of violence. Because the key is that tweet. There was no way it could have, she was in a no, but you know, she wasn't someone with influence. She didn't have many followers. So this is a really famous case. So it's worth going into in some detail. I actually went away and read the judgments for this case, read the actual court documents and court filings. In the introduction here, he says there were genuinely racist thing going on during those riots. As if her tweeting that she wanted migrants to burn in hotels, therefore, wasn't racist. That wasn't genuinely racist. There were genuinely racist things happening. That's distinguishing from her. That's not true. He also gives her a reasoning that she lost her daughter and she was so sensitive about the loss of kids. And it's true that she did lose her daughter. That is something that she said in court. That that was why she tweeted this, but he doesn't point out that the murderer wasn't a migrant. He said a rumor went around, but the murderer wasn't a migrant and had absolutely nothing to do with hotels and migrants, absolutely nothing at all. Because if he had said there was this disturbed young kid born in England to an African family who drove from Wales to go and murder some girls in Southport. So loosely got upset at recent migrants in hotel and asked for them to be burned alive. It had been pretty clear. The only link there was her view of race or the rumors about race that she was willing to believe. So this is her exact tweet. It's worth keeping the mind the full words of it. Mass deportation now set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it to take the treacherous government and politicians with them, I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it. That is the words that we're talking about here. Yeah. And he says there's a trying to soften this a little bit by saying she didn't have many followers. That's a comment sort of to diminish the damage of this. This is from an independent article. I want to quote a quote, the post was viewed 310,000 times in a three and a half hours before she deleted it. Yeah. And the thing is according to court documents, she had 9,000 followers. That's how many followers I have on Twitter. That's not a small number of followers. He's saying it in a sense of like, oh, it's, you know, 10s, hundreds. When you say not a lot of followers, I don't think people would think, oh, it's not a lot. Therefore, it's only 9,000. I think that's a reasonable number of followers, really. Yeah, absolutely. And he's also saying that she deleted it. But that's, that's neither here nor there. That doesn't matter. A post can be screenshot and then shared. She posted it and then deleted it. It wasn't in her drafts. It wasn't like that she never posted it. There's sort of a softening here to try to, there's a lot of little words he's throwing in to try to make it seem like a less of a crime. Yeah, exactly. And also he's putting forward her defense, which is very reasonable. He's putting forward her defense. But he's not talking about what was in the court documents, for example. So this is from the actual court documents. The applicant, Lucy Connelly, was arrested on the 6th of August 2024. Her ex account had been deleted. However, investigation showed that while the account was active, she published other messages indicating her views about illegal immigrants. They included the following two on the 25th of July, four days before the South Port murders. She posted on Twitter the following response to a video which had been shared online by Tommy Robinson showing a black male tackled the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She said, Somalian, I guess, loads of them. And then the message was followed by a vomiting emoji. That was four days before the murders that she was reacting angrily to and accidentally said something that she didn't mean about racist, about race. Then three, then the third of August five days after the South Port murders, she posted the following message in response to an anti-racism protest that was happening in Manchester. Quote, oh, good, I take it. They'll all be in line to sign up to house and illegal boat invader then. Oh, sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if one of their family gets attacked but should raped, etc. by unvetted criminals, not all heroes wear capes. So these are things that she was tweeting around the same time as that one message. So it's not that she said this one thing and didn't really mean it. She was in the heat of the moment. Before any murders happened, she was already saying that, you know, Somalian people make a make a vomit stuff. Then on the fifth of August, so seven days after the murders, she sent what's that message to her friend saying, the rage tweet about burning down hotels has me, has bit me on the arse lol. That is her showing remorse, Andrew Doyle saying, she was very remorseful. She took it down. She felt disgusted by it. She's saying it's bit manly arse lol. And she's saying it's because she'd seen public backlash to the tweet. That's why she removed it. She talked about how she's a child, uh, carer, and she might get invested, but a investigator by off-com, which is the regulator of education. And so that's why she's deleting it. She says, and she said, if she did get investigated, she'd say she didn't send it. She'd been hacked or docks, she says. And she said, if she got arrested for it, she said she would quote, play the mental health card. Then she did get arrested and she told the police that her own child had died in horrendous circumstances and that the stabings of the children's south port had put it into a rage. So all of this is in the court document. And I think that's important context because in that context, it doesn't sound like someone who sent a single message in a fit of traumatized anger that she didn't mean and said something that she wouldn't normally say. And then retracted it because she regretted it. It sounds like somebody who said a thing that she believed in took it down because there was a backlash and then planned to claim mental health issues and anguish if she got into trouble over it. It seems like they always try to frame this as someone who's against immigration being silenced rather than someone who's inciting violence being punished. They always seem to frame it that way. Yeah, exactly. The inciting violence is so important because Doyle is saying nobody could commit violence on the back of what she said, so few followers this should that wouldn't need say anybody to violence. But crucially, she wasn't the only one saying stuff like this, not the only one getting arrested. This was at a time when people were literally stacking up wooden pallets at the doors of hotels and trying to set them a light in order to burn migrants alive. That was a thing that was happening at the time that she tweeted what she was saying and that these are the ones. For example, Jordan Parler 28, he was jail for 20 months. He pled guilty to inciting racial hatred when he paused on Facebook advocating that they attack a hotel in leads as part of that protest. His post was every man and their dogs should be smashing the fuck out of Britannia Hotel, whether more than two refugees in asylum seekers living. The judge said there can be no doubt that you were inciting others to commit violence. You went on to say that you don't want your money going to immigrants who rape our kids and get proper and get priority. You were encouraging others to attack a hotel which you knew was being occupied by refugees and asylum seekers. Then in Northampton, Tyler K, he was 26, he was given three years and two months in prison. He posted mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels, full of the bastards for all I care. She's crazy. She's making racist, so be it. Hashtag stand with Lucy Connolly, hashtag fuck Northamptonshire police, hashtag conservative hashtag Farage riots, hashtag riots, UK's. Then he said that's 100% the plan plus gloves, no car either, so no number plates to travel and a change of clothes nearby. So December 2024, a few months later, Lukia would receive an 18-month sentence for tweeting, I think it's time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel, then head off to MPs, houses and parliament, we need to take over by force. This is pretty clearly inciting violence. These are in the social media arrests that Joey's up on arms about the Andrew Doyle is saying people shouldn't be arrested over. And here's the thing, not one of those tweets caused anyone directly to go out and attack migrants, not one of them did.
it's not like people read Lucy Connelly's thing and said, sure, I'm going to go away and do that. But the ruling in Lucy Connelly's case very clearly states, and this is her tweet from July 25th. So this is in the ruling quote, there is no doubt that false information shared on social media platform on the 29th of July led to the widespread disorder and stirred up racial hatred. The relevant chronology of the disorder is as follows. On the 30th of July, there was disorder in Southport, 31st of July, Manchester Hartley, people older shot London, second of August, disorder in Sunderland and Liverpool, third of August, multiple locations, Belfast, Nottingham Hall, fourth of August, a hotel housing asylum seekers were attacked in rather them during the day. There was also on that date, disorder in Middlesbrough in other cities, fifth of August, Birmingham, Belfast, Plumeth, Dalton, sixth of August, disorder in Belfast. So misinformation on social media fed into all of that and this was what was happening at the time. So who can we hold accountable for stoking up those riots? If it was the weight of all of the social media incitement that was doing it, it's one of those straw that breaks the camels back. Or there's no individual grain of sand that causes it to be a beach when it's not a beach. You know, it's all contributing to that. So where do you start? You just say, well, we just have to let incitement happen and let riots happen as a result because we can't blame one specific person. Or do you start to police that in a way as to say, well, we will, we will prosecute some people for very clear incitement in order to illustrate that this won't stand. That's the conversation here. And I think that's a valid conversation to have about the limits of free speech, but you have to have it in context. Otherwise, you do an entire disservice to this whole conversation. That's what Andrew Doyle is doing. Represent it properly and people can have that conversation. If you don't, then you're just literally smearing it to make your own point. Yeah. All right. So this next one, this is talking about Elon Musk and banning Twitter. I mean, we've had like people in left leaning papers in the UK calling for Elon Musk to be arrested because he's allowing free speech on X or Twitter, whatever you want to call it. Well, their offices got rated today in some country. There was a country where ex's offices got rated. I think one of the things was they somehow another let there were, I think something had to do with child pornography. Where was that? France. France. Fresh investigation into Groc. And what is it? What are the, oh, you know what this is? Serious. Yeah. Suspected offenses, including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the possession of child pornography. Yeah, but that's not what this is about. This is because people have been misusing Groc to like put bikinis on women they like or even in a few cases creating child child sex. You can do with them in it. You can't create child pornography. I don't think, no. Or at least I think that's very much been shut down and safeguarded, right? I think that's what's happened. I mean, unless there's like some sort of a loophole where you could get it to do it. Among potential crimes, it said it would investigate where complicity and possession or organized distribution of images of children of a pornographic nature and fringement of people's image rights with sexual deepfakes. Okay, the sexual deepfakes. Yeah. So sexual deepfakes is like if you put Hillary Clinton in a bikini and made her hot, that's a sexual deepfake. Okay. Fragile and data extraction by an organized group. I think you can still do some of that stuff. You can put people in bikinis. Yeah, I think you can do that. So like if you wanted to take Shaquille O'Neal and put a bit of a bikini, you could say you're sexualizing him. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I guess you can do that. So to be clear, ex Twitter, it's not been investigated over free speech because ex Twitter, it's not about free speech. It's about algorithmically amplifying certain narratives and voices that have been demonstrated in study after study that Twitter is not a public space anymore where anybody's voice can rise to the top here. But this is very specifically, very specifically about Groc creating non-consensual pornographic images of people, including of children on demand. And therefore, those images are child sexual abuse material. And Joe is saying you can't do that on Groc and Andrew saying that either you can't or it's been safeguarded against now. But Jamie will later bring up an article. He actually actually, but Jamie then brings up an article here. You can see them reading it showing that it is. But I think Doyle must know that that's what this is about because this has been a massive story all across the UK news media of which he is a part. He worked for GB News up until recently. He's written for magazines that are part of the mainstream news media now. He's a political commentator. If he says this isn't about Groc making those images, he's either lying and hoping George and Czech always incompetent at that job of political commentator because he's not following what's happening. And to be clear, creating child sexual abuse material is a criminal fence. The creation of that is a criminal offense. If you went to someone and said, could you create me some child sexual abuse material and they did that? That will be a criminal offense. And that is what Groc is doing. People are asking Groc to do that and they would. They'd send Groc images of specific real children and Groc would turn that into sexual abuse material. If someone was doing that with Photoshop, they'd go to prison. Anybody viewing those images would go to prison as well. So that is what this is about. And Joe tries to soften that a bit by saying it's about putting Hillary Clinton in a bikini. Even putting Hillary Clinton in a bikini is non-consensual sexual material. I would argue being used to try and humiliate and dehumanize her. It's not a free speech issue. You don't have the right to create pornography of somebody else against their consent. That isn't a free speech right that you have. And Andrew here, Andrew can talk all he likes about guardrails and Joe can bring in loopholes. But initially there were zero guardrails. It was just Groc and in its most unhinged mode possible. And even with those guardrails, you bring guardrails in. If there are loopholes, you can exploit to get your AI to create abuse material of children. That is your fault. It's not the fault of the users or the loopholes. And you don't just get to release a tool that creates sexual abuse material of children. Have it commit thousands of sexual abuse crimes against in some cases specific real children. And then you tweak the algorithm to stop that happening and say, it's fixed now, everything's fine. You're still responsible for the crimes that you committed. Oh, that, that, the thing you built committed. You can't just turn that off, turn the tap off. And it reminds me, I know this is going back a bit. You remember we heard Joe talk into Graham Linneran and Joe mentioned how great it was. AI is so great. You know, it can even create Joe called it P.O.V. Porn from your neighbor. That's what he said. And he was, he wasn't saying like there's a bad thing. He's saying, you know, it can do AI. It can do amazing to GTA dialogue. And he said, you can have porn where any women that you want and desire in your life, you can take some photos and turn it into porn for you. P.O.V. Porn for your neighbor. That is sexual abuse material. That is non-consensual sexual abuse material. Joe was delighting in it then. That is what GROC is and Twitter are being fined over. And they actually, there's a clip you won't play, but they talk about how well child sexual abuse material Snapchat is way worse. And so why are they going after GROC? It's political because they could go after Snapchat instead. The difference is like Snapchat, it's terrible that it's it's a way where miners are being coerced to sharing images themselves and abusers are sending images to each other. That is terrible. No one denies that. But Snapchat itself is not the one actively creating right? Sexual abuse material. Right. Twitter is. GROC was creating on demand bespoke child sexual abuse material about specific children, thousands of cases. And Doyle and Joe here just try and pivot this into what is just a political attack. It shows they don't care about these issues if you ask me. Yeah, it's like a huge difference between the medium being used versus that versus a tool the medium created being used. Those are two totally different things. Okay. Next up we this is the last clip in our undercard. This is talking about girls and they're getting killed and it's being blamed on immigrants. But I think what's better now is that people can see through that. So like when when Kierstama, after that horrible, I mentioned it earlier, the girls who were killed in the dance class by the guy who was a child of immigrants. He that his response to that was okay. Let's let's not deal with the fact that we've got radicalized individuals within our community, young people. He said, let's ban buying knives off Amazon because the guy got the knife from Amazon, right? You can also get them in shops here. You can walk in and get shot. Most people have a kitchen over at home. It's like one of the most common weapons. Andy band ninja swords around the same time, which was a big blow to the ninja community. But I kind of so crazy. That's the thing you go for you. Choose the thing that isn't. But so to be clear, Axel Rudekabana was born in the UK. He was a UK citizen when he stabbed those girls in Southport. You can say he was a child of immigrants and that's true, but he was a UK citizen. He was also known to child services as being a disturbed child, but was missed due to a lack of funding and a lack of follow up partly because of the cuts to those systems for over a decade. So that is the real issue here. Who cut that? Well, yeah, exactly. Not the current government. And he says, well, what labor's response here was to ban knives from Amazon. But that wasn't labor's response. Labor ordered a full public inquiry into what happened. That inquiry has taken place. It took place on the 7th of April last year. The final report on that inquiry inquiry is due soon into a root and branch investigation to how this happened. How this was missed by people, even though it was kind of flagged up to various kind of authorities. That report hasn't yet been released, but I'll put the terms of reference into the show notes here. Doyle is doing the thing he did with the Shakespeare was a black Jewish woman's story. You know, that book is filled with arguments, probably bad arguments, but he picks the ones that are the cheapest and most ridiculous arguments he can do in order to illustrate how bad this person is. And he's doing that here. He's pretending that the only political response to the murder of those children was to ban the sale of certain knives in certain places. But that wasn't the only response. And also, is he against that?
that ban? Does he not think those knives should be banned from sale on Amazon? Does he think the ban should have waited for a couple of years until the full inquiry took place before they said, yeah, we should stop that ban. Like doing the obvious thing you can do very quickly makes sense while you're doing the rest of the investigation, which labor have done and the inquiry has taken place. But yeah, his criticisms, we see all the way through in multiple different issues from the the the meaningless and silly to the really important just these uninformed and cheap criticisms designed to portray the people he disagrees with in the worst possible light. Have you considered doing a 24 hour waiting period on knives for them? So you have to get it, you can't get it prime, you have to get it shipped to you like two days. Yeah, just regular. Yeah, then you called off enough and it's like a whole thing. Yeah, that's what you need to do. That's how we handle guns here in America and guns are going great. I just want you to know that while America is handling everything so much better than the UK. You know, in the UK, we're crazy, but America has it all right on freedom. Let's wrap it up with that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you very much. You're a beautiful person. Okay, March, here we are, end of the show. Anything good in this one. I do actually have something good. There's a part where Joe talks about how nice elephants are. There's a long conversation about how elephants are lovely, about how they were mistaken for cyclopses when people found their skills because of the space where they don't cause any cause. You know, long thing about how lovely elephants are and how he doesn't think they should be kept in place where tourists ride them because they don't like that. It's bad for them. It's no good for animal welfare. It's a lovely conversation about elephants. And yeah, I agree with him. And I'd go further. I think Joe Rogan, I genuinely believe he cares for animals. He's a hunter, but I don't think he's gratuitous. I think he respects animals. I think he respects wildlife and nature in that kind of way. I think he genuinely cares about animal welfare as best I can tell. And I've no issue with his take on elephants. What a very interesting point you make there. I would say something good. Andrew doesn't strike me as an AIDS denier. So is that a plus? Yeah. Okay. All right. That's going to be it for this week. Show remember that you too can access more than a half an hour of bonus content every single week for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com/no Rogan. That's KNOW ROG. Now, meanwhile, you can hear more from me every week on cognitive dissonance and citation needed. And you can hear more from Marsh sometimes on citation needed, but also on skeptics with the K and the skeptic podcast. And we are going to be back next week for a little more of the No Rogan Experience. If you love the show, please rate and share it. You want to get in touch with us? Come to patreon or check out the show notes go to no Rogan.com KNOW ROGAN.com
PodcastTranscript AI