Political Violence & The Lunatics of Your Own Side - Andrew Doyle

The podcast argues that extreme elements within political ideologies, especially on the left, are normalizing violence and suppressing free speech, leading to a dangerous and authoritarian societal trend that misunderstands true liberal values.

• Political extremism normalizes violence and suppresses free speech on both sides of the political spectrum.

• The 'woke' movement, based on ideological fantasies, spreads through intimidation and redefines language to mislead many into supporting anti-liberal policies.

• The UK exhibits growing authoritarianism through speech policing, while a backlash from the right threatens to introduce its own forms of control, emphasizing the urgent need to defend core liberal principles.

Extreme factions on both the left and right, particularly the 'hard left,' are increasingly tolerating and even celebrating political violence and employing violent rhetoric, exemplified by reactions to Charlie Kirk's murder. This normalization, coupled with a decline in nuanced debate and an embrace of ideologically driven 'wokeness,' undermines the fundamental principles of free speech and liberalism. The UK, in particular, demonstrates a concerning rise in authoritarianism through policing online speech and the weaponization of identity politics, indicating a need to re-center on core liberal values to prevent further societal decay.

Extreme Rhetoric & Violence

• 00:00:21 The greatest enemies of both the left and right are the extremists within their own ranks, as their actions make their side appear irrational. A worrying trend shows increased overlap between the mainstream left and the hard left, with mainstream voices attempting to justify violence, such as in the 'horrific murder of Charlie Kirk.' This extent of celebratory or excusing rhetoric surrounding violence is unprecedented.

• 00:01:56 The erosion of boundaries between the mainstream and far left contributes to the normalization of violent rhetoric. Distancing oneself from such extremism means condemning violence, like cheering calls to 'punch them in the face' at protests, which signals that violence is now accepted within certain activist communities. This tolerance of extreme violence, often disguised by misusing terms like 'fascist' or 'Nazi,' is dangerous because it dehumanizes opponents and promotes historical illiteracy.

• 00:04:13 Studies show a concerning rise in the tolerance for political violence, particularly among younger liberal Americans, with 25% of 'very liberals' believing violence can sometimes be justified for political goals. This trend, also increasing among young conservatives, indicates a growing tribalism where disagreement is perceived as an attack. When personal identity is deeply tied to political views, a challenge to those politics feels like a personal assault, fostering an environment where violence is excused.

• 00:08:40 Political violence is an oxymoron, as politics exist to prevent it. While any political assassination is a tragedy, the murder of Charlie Kirk resonated more profoundly than a hypothetical attack on a politician like Trump because Kirk, a robust political commentator without political clout, was punished solely for his opinions. Attempts to discredit Kirk or justify his murder by misrepresenting his words are a 'grotesque' way of rationalizing an immoral act, treating him as a 'folk devil' based on out-of-context clips and collective imagination.

• 00:19:31 The concept of 'woke' ideology is in decline, as evidenced by reports showing peak support in 2020 and subsequent decrease. Key changes, like the CAS review exposing the dangers of 'gender affirming care' for children and the UK Supreme Court affirming biological sex, have significantly damaged gender identity ideology. Corporations are also rolling back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs due to ineffectiveness and potential to 'ramp up racism.'

• 00:25:00 The 'woke' belief system, never endorsed by more than 8-10% of the population, was imposed from the top down by a predominantly upper-middle-class movement. Its spread was not due to robust ideas, which are often based on 'fantasy' and cannot be sustained through debate, but rather through intimidation and fear of 'cancel culture.' This environment allows 'bullies and sociopaths' to inflict harm under the guise of 'compassion and love,' while many well-meaning individuals are 'gulled' into supporting concepts antithetical to their true beliefs through redefinitions of language.

• 01:00:48 The genderist movement, despite being embraced by many gay people, is fundamentally anti-gay, operating antithetically to gay rights. It shames gay individuals for their sexual preferences by insisting biological sex isn't a factor in attraction and promotes the 'mutilation, sterilization, and castration of gay youth.' Instances like Grinder, a gay hookup app, disallowing filtering for biological women who identify as men, or activists releasing cockroaches at gay rights conferences, demonstrate this inherent conflict.

• 01:25:36 The UK is characterized by 'deeply authoritarian' tendencies, including ramping up censorship through laws like the Online Safety Bill and the police recording 'non-crime hate incidents.' These incidents, where police investigate 'offensive things' said online, can impact employment records and highlight a 'two-tier policing system' based on ideological slant. This erosion of free speech, despite Britain's historical legacy as a champion of civil liberties, is alarming and is seen by international observers as a 'downfall of the UK.'

• 01:54:50 The rise of authoritarianism on the right, as a backlash against 'woke authoritarianism,' is a growing concern. This includes 'cancel culture from the right' and attempts to suppress speech, such as former President Trump's view that flag burning should be criminalized. Such actions risk replacing one form of authoritarianism with another, undermining true liberal values like individual autonomy, freedom of speech, and conscience. A sensible understanding of incitement to violence, like the U.S. Brandenburg test, is crucial to protect free expression.