Welcome to Deconstrative Criticism. My name is Aaron Flamm. This episode's guest is in a way two people in one person. Titanium Agraith is a twitcher personality who describe herself as activist, healer, radical, intersectionalist, poet, selfless and brave.
Which is selling herself short, I might add. Titanium is a fearless feminist fury against the patriarchy, whiteness, climate change, fact and comedy. One can but stand in awe of her self-righteousness and wonder how does one become so heroic as she is. Luckily, Titanium Agraith has just released a book called Boak, which instructs the reader on how and what to think or in most cases not think in order to avoid being racist, misogynistic, capitalist, asshole.
Titanium explains chapter by chapter how you can become a righteous warrior for justice without ever having to actually do anything but think the right way and demonstrate it by posting on social media. It's not the same as doing nothing at all. It is something and sometimes require poetry. Titanium protests so much that one might suspect that she is satire.
I have been following Titanium since Twitter blocked the account of Godwin Elphwick. Another account so thoroughly PC it was deemed satire and had to be blocked. Titanium has since filled the void and now she has even released a book. It is a riveting and very poignant read and today we will talk with Titania's creator, comedian and writer Andrew Doyle about the book he has written as his character, Titanium Agraith.
The conversation between me and Andrew took place over Skype so for you who want to see us, there is video of the conversation after this short introduction in only sound. But before introducing Andrew, I want to thank you for contributing to deconstructive criticism or in Swedish deconstrative critique. Thank you for being a patron, donating via PayPal, Bitcoin or SWISH, Nolhu 6.0.3.3.0, Nolhu 6.0.3.0, Nolhu 6.0.3.0.3.0, or in English 0768943737. I am grateful for your support and it will be more needed than ever in the coming days, weeks, months and years.
If you want something more material for your money, please visit my website www.oronflan.com.com. merchandise where you will find fantastically stylish t-shirts, hups and hoodies where the text your feelings are hurting my thoughts. This is all available at www.oronflan.com.com. And before I introduce Andrew, I also want to say very, very special thanks, in that you who bought my book, the Harar and Svanse Tiger in English, This is a Swedish Tiger.
However, it does not exist in English yet, but I am working on finding a translator and hopefully I can get it done by Christmas. But that all hinges on selling enough copies of the Swedish original, and by now, you that ordered a copy should have it in your hand. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to write this book. It has been one of the most grueling experiences of my life and by far the most rewarding.
This is a Swedish Tiger traces to travel Sweden in today to what it did during the Second World War, the Isle of Parliament's meeting with Yasser Arafat in Algeria in 1974 and back to the present and the fall of the greatest social democracy the world has ever seen. Sweden. If you haven't yet ordered a copy, you can still do that at www.oronflan.com.com. Now, Andrew Doyle is a writer and comedian.
He is the co-writer of Jonathan Pie, the spoof news reported created by Tom Walker that has become a YouTube sensation with some clips exceeding well over 100 million views. As a stand-up comedian, Andrew Doyle has appeared at Edinburgh Fringe Festival, he has written a place for BBC's Radio 4, and so much more it would frankly take too long to go through it all to sum up. Andrew is an expert comedian and an expert on comedy and satire. Among other things he has done is an adaptation of Jonathan Swift's Gallivers Travels, and he is currently working on an adaptation of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, satire in other words.
He is also regularly appearing on Sky News as a commentary on politics and current affairs, and is a regular columnist for Spike Online Magazine. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Andrew Doyle, enjoy. Welcome to Deconstructed Criticism, Mr. Andrew Richard Doyle.
Hello. I have some pointed questions I'd like to ask you, but before we start, I'd like to start with a very broad question. Who are you? Who am I?
I'm a comedian and writer and satirist, and I suppose I worked in comedy for a stand-up comedy for about 15 years, something like that, and I've been more focused on writing satirical things like that. Because it sort of dobsails quite well with the political articles that I write, you know, sort of for Spike Magazine, which is a sort of, I don't know if everyone knows, it's a sort of kind of, it comes from a Marxist tradition, but it's a kind of left-leaning, humanistic, pro-free speech magazine. But it also has a very kind of, well, what something would describe as a libertarian streak insofar as it values individual autonomy over state intervention, so that would be where I'm coming from. Are you yourself a Marxist, to begin with?
No? No, I don't think so. No, I think I think I've gone, I think I've been lost. But I mean, when you were young and starting university...
No, I'd say I was a socialist, that was the way I saw myself, and I suppose I'd probably, broadly speaking still am. All right, because I see here that you have a doctorate in early Renaissance poetry. Yes. So your father must be very proud of you.
It's what they always wanted. Yes. It's what they pushed me into doing and ended up doing it. Yeah.
I do. And of course, that isn't really a political endeavour. Although that said, even back then, I think the academy was very politicised. Yeah, I believe you, but I was just thinking there must be some easier way to tell your father your gay than writing an entire doctoral thesis in early Renaissance poetry.
Yeah, but there isn't a more creative way. Maybe not. I'm sorry, but I meant it to be offensive there. So, just you know.
So you started out in Renaissance poetry, and that was your interest when you were younger. Not really. I think it sort of happened by accident, because when I started my English degree, my undergraduate degree, I had a tutor there who was very interested in Renaissance poetry. And as a result, I became interested in it, because it's one of those people who inspired it.
So I became interested in that subject. I tended to fair better academically speaking in work in essays relating to that era of that period. So I ended up writing that and I ended up doing a masters in Renaissance poetry and then the doctorate. So, yeah, I also went where the scholarship took me.
I mean, I did the masters because I got a scholarship to go to York and then I did the doctor because I got funded to do it. And so I kind of just slipped into working on the things that I most enjoyed. That's how it sort of happened. It wasn't as though I always used to read Marlowe Shakespeare and that and just desperately wanted to do it.
In fact, it's all I guess, right, so I didn't really like Shakespeare at all. I know almost nothing about early Renaissance poetry, but I want to say the name Petrovic. Petrov, yeah, absolutely. He loves on it too.
To a dead woman, Laura. And Petrov's quite important as an influence on the English sonnetes, people like Philip Sidney and Wyatt Thomas Wyatt. So the Italian, the Charken tradition of love sonnets sort of became quite fashionable over here. By the time Shakespeare wrote his sonnets, they were becoming quite unfashionable.
Because they weren't actually always about love. Everybody wrote them for a myriad of reasons. It was like a popular love song today. Yeah, and most crucially they're about unrequited love, you know, I mean, on the whole.
The most obvious example of a petrak and sonnet sequence from the English perspective is of Philip Sidney's Astrophil and Stella, which is all about someone he cannot have. Someone who, you know, in the case of Petrovic, he was, she dies halfway through the sequence. Lovely. So we cannot have a corpse, right?
So this is what everyone, these people knew, all these writers knew, that the pain and the anguish of love is when it's unrequited. There's nothing really tragic or fascinating about requited love. It gets a bit boring once it's requited. Yes, you have to divide up who's supposed to do what around the house and all that.
And that sort of doesn't lend itself to great romantic epic. No, on Wednesday's I do laundry, you do dishes. I mean, it's a to do it. That would be quite a challenge, but it's not.
It's not something I would dare attempt. So how did you get into comedy? I was doing my doctorate at Oxford and I started doing standup on the open micro circuit. And that meant just getting a late bus up and down all the time.
Because where you do standup basically, you know, there are places that you can, of course. But in terms of the open micro circuit, you need somewhere where there's plenty of venues and not a place. So I ended up just doing that and. Yeah, but how come?
What got you interested in comedy? Well, I'd always written comedic scripts and sketches and things. I've done that from being an undergraduate even before I used to do that at school, actually. And then I did a sketch show in London.
It must have been while I was still at Oxford. And there was a space in the running order. We were basically 10 minutes short of the running time and we didn't have time to rehearse and write a new sketch. So I just wrote a monologue, which was a standup piece effectively.
So it happened by accident in that sense. And then I realized how much I enjoyed doing it, even though I didn't go particularly well. But I still liked it. So I ended up just doing it.
And then it became an necessity. That's where I was earning money. So now I tend to focus less on, I mean, I just did a standup show at the end of the fringe. I'm still doing it.
It's just I'm focusing more on writing and I particularly like writing for characters and other people. Yeah, because part of what you're most famous for, I guess, is you're a part of a writing duo who makes this, well, for us Swedes, it's a YouTube character, Jonathan Pie. Yes, I don't write for him anymore. We wrote together for three years.
So I started writing for him December 2015 and just finished this January. So we did a few years collaboration. And now I'm moving into I've got this other character who I'm working a lot on, just on your behalf. So yeah, people know that YouTube character.
Yeah, we'll get to it, Titania. But first, because there is something here that's interesting to me is that it caught me between romance and cynicism, which I guess the romantic part being your interest in early Renaissance poetry and cynicism being an integral part of comedy as I see it. Yeah, but I don't consider myself particularly cynical in an odd way. I don't know if satire is particularly cynical.
I think comedy is cynical. But I think satire is more optimistic than that. I think satire is urging a change, trying to change something for the good. And it's based on the pre-somposition that things can change for the good.
Whereas I don't think comedy does. Comedy is a more a resignation to how terrible things are and our only recourse is to laugh at it. Do I think that's the sort of difference? Yeah, well, when I first met you, I didn't know you were a Titania McGrath, which is one of my favorite characters to follow on Twitter, at least since Godfrey Elphric died or was blocked.
Yes, so you are in effect, Titania McGrath. Who is she? She is a radical intersectional feminist, fourth wave feminist, not a proper feminist. A permanent offense seeker, somebody who's a diviscer to be, she wants everyone to seek her as the victim.
She believes that anyone who is female is a victim anyway, because we live in an oppressive patriarchy. She's completely unaware of her own privilege and has spent a lot of the time cascading others for their supposed to privilege on the basis of their skin color, usually, or their gender. And does not see the essential hypocrisy of that. She is a satirical representation of the people who consider themselves to be left wing and progressive but are neither.
There is nothing left wing about going to a private school, being independently wealthy and lambasting and attacking, working class people because of their skin color. There's nothing left wing remotely left wing about that. There's nothing from my perspective authentically left wing about denying the importance of the individual or seeking censorship at every turn. That is not to say that left wing governments have not supported censorship or sensorial practices, but I don't for me that doesn't work as a left wing premise.
That's who she is. So she embodies that kind of victim culture that we see coming from predominantly bourgeois people who are the least well placed to claim victimhood. And as her, you have written a self-help book, or what is it exactly? Yeah, it's called Woke.
It's a guide to social justice and it is effectively, I mean I've read a lot of the books by the sort of force wave feminist activists, intersection activists. And what they do, they do, they have a difference, is what they all have in common, is an incredible narcissism. They can't hide it. So each page just bleeds this kind of egotistical, look at me, look at my situation, why won't the world change to suit my views and my preferences?
And that's what it's really, and that's what Titanic is, she is a narcissist. Well, I enjoy the read thoroughly, I must say. I like the first chapter, it's in English my struggle. We would say, Kampf in the more Germanic tongue.
What do you think has shaped her into this person? It's a good question. I saw a debate about this notion of what is stirring up this victimhood culture. And a very young person tried to basically knock horns with Camille Palia, the American academic about this.
And what Palia said was, well, you haven't experienced any hardship. Her generation, from the generation's remember, growing up with people who fought in the war, people who have actually experienced something. And of course, you don't have that now. I think a lot of the people who are desperate, who mark themselves out as social justice activists and who see the world as this sort of fascistic, awful place.
They just have an experience of hardship. They just don't know what it is. Hence, you get post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis when someone calls you a nasty name on Twitter. These people haven't been in Narm.
They don't know what this stuff actually means. How it's happened, I don't know. It's a question I'd be very interested to your thoughts on or anyone's thoughts on because I don't know quite. There's something I'm trying to grapple with.
I think it's probably the fault of my generation. I think it's probably what generation is that when you're born. I was going to 1978, so I'm going to be end of generation X just before the millennial generation begins. And it's people forget this about millennials as they're getting old.
And then they're not, you know, generation Z following them. The statistics in to show that they've got no trouble with this kind of centaureal nonsense anyway, that's another point. But I think it's our generation's fault. There's a really good chapter in Claire Fox's book that she wrote a book that I find that offensive.
And she's talking about teaching and she's talking about the kind of overly, uh, Molly coddling quality of teaching practices from my generation. In Tafaris, they would encourage, I mean, I'm positive to this. They would encourage people to have any sense of grievance, any sense of anything. However small, it will be treated as though it's with incredible significance, as though this really matters.
But of course, a lot of people say that if someone's being bullied or something like that is happening, of course, it should be addressed. Of course, it's not right. But when a child comes to you with saying, oh, someone said something a little bit mean, you know, at some point, the teachers have to have to have say you're going to have to get over that. So that is life.
And that isn't suggested not sensitive to people being bullied. It's the opposite. I think bullying is disgusting. One of the things I hate the most and schools in particular have a responsibility to clamp down on that.
But by the same token. But this is a pedagogy, as you put it, that actually fosters bullies because that's what the social justice warriors turn into. That's exactly right. What the social justice activist movement is is the way what it does do is it legitimizes bullying effectively.
That's what it is. So yes, it does create that. I'm suggesting that when a pupil gets a low mark and is crying and screaming about it, you have to tell them, well, you need to work harder and get better. We're not going to pander to your emotion when it comes to this, because actually this is where you're on good.
I think that in order to be an autonomous adult, you need to be effectively socialized as a child. In that respect, I suppose I have quite a conservative view of education, but it works and it's true. So I think it is our fault, largely. And you have, and I also think that millennial generation have been unfairly demonized.
I think it is a minority of, you know, I think there is a problem with resilience, but that's not there fault. That's our fault. We created that. But a lot of a lot of young people are just as sick of the sensorial nature of a social justice activism as anyone else.
And they get branded in this way and people complain about millennials all the time, but virtually all of the millennials that I spoke to about this subject are just as sick of it as everyone else. It's shamefully. But yeah, I think what you said about the bullying is absolutely right. I mean, you'll notice on Twitter, and it's on social media, the people who put pronouns in their bio, the people who have the pro-EU hashtag in their bio, the people who have the gay rainbow flag in their bio tend to be the most intolerant people of all.
And those signifiers, those things are meant to convey an idea of tolerance. What that, you put your pronouns in your bio to say, I'm a tolerant person. I'm one of the good guys. I'm progressive.
And the reality is that nine times out of ten, you see those, you know they're going to come out with something ambitious and bullying. And that's one of the odd ironies of the whole thing. Well, yeah, I personally think it has to do a teeny tiny bit with socialism because I think socialism is a collectivist ideology and a collectivist egalitarian ideology that wants to sort of smooth out all the rough edges between people and create this gray, just formless mass of people. I think that is a form of socialism that I do not subscribe to, but I think you're right that it does exist.
Well, I live in a country that is marked by it, to say the least. I mean, first time we met wasn't that pleasurable for you. I didn't make the best of impressions, I suppose. I thought you did.
I enjoyed it. I screamed out an audience for fifteen... It was most exciting and entertaining aspect of that, I'm more than happy with that. I like drama, you know?
Well, thank you. I provided some. I see it more as a corrective to the excesses of capitalism, not the antithesis of capitalism. I see it as far as you can say that under a total free market system where you can end up with a situation where people are earning billions and billions and billions of pounds that they don't need.
And what a true form of socialism is it just curbs that. It just introduces a set... not to suggest that people don't have ambition that they can't earn more than there shouldn't be differentiation in economic interests, but that you end up with a situation where the most egregious examples are rectified. For me, what it means?
Yeah, okay. I understand that. But for me, that's just redistribution of wealth, and that doesn't have necessarily to be socialist. To me, it's a fundamental premise of socialism.
Yes, I would say it is, but I'm saying that other economic and political systems can also have redistribution of wealth and do have redistribution of wealth. They all tax people. But I think you can also have... there is room for a socialist template that has individuality at its core, and that can come from a Marxist tradition.
If you consider that the entire view of emancipating the proletariat is because all they have is their labor. That is the only thing that they can choose to sell or not, choose to withhold. That is an individual choice, and that's something that can be at the house. And let's not forget...
I've mentioned this before, but I think one of the most elegant expressions of this idea is from Oscar Wilde oddly enough, who wrote an article called The Soul of Man Under Socialism. And really what that article is, what that essay is, is a defense of individuality. What he is saying is that we need to work collectively, and we need to... well, how does he put it?
We need a form of slavery through technology, in other words. He's saying that we need the robots to do our work for us so that we have a leisure time, so that there can be no individuality without leisure time, without the time to read, to think. And what he's saying is actually that socialism is a means to achieve that. So I think there is a tradition where socialism doesn't mean collectivism as such.
What it means is collective action for the benefit of the individual. I don't really agree with you, although I have been observing you, Brit's Mind-Tile Life, and I know you don't take anything so seriously as to actually enact a revolution, a Communist one, at least. No way. But here it would be a different matter, I think.
But I am glad you brought up Oscar Wilde, because to tie back to Titania's book, Woke, a guy of social justice, she writes, this is sort of a connection for Oscar Wilde, joking about Piedofilia is even worse than actual Piedofilia. Because he was, I believe, condemned for Bugery. He was. In fact, there was a movement, there's a blue plaque in England, there's lots of commemorative plaques, there's all these different houses that they used to live in.
There was a blue plaque in place worth in Sussex, and there was a campaign to have it removed on the grounds that he had sex with people who were below the age of consent. Firstly, that is serious, we don't know that that's even true. But on the other hand, there was no age of consent for gay people at this time anyway, so it's a completely ludicrous argument. So, sorry, what was the question?
No, I was just remarking on how true it is when Titania writes, joking about Piedofilia is even worse than actual Piedofilia, because as she points out, it reaches more people than just the one crime. Yeah, she's saying that it can be retweeted. I mean, it's based on the idea that words are violent, she believes that words are a form of violence, and hearing about bad things, she thinks it's just as bad as experiencing those things, which is a real problem with the social justice movement, they cannot divorce the idea of words and arguments. They can't, you can tell the difference between you and Titania, right?
Yeah, of course. But Titania cannot tell the difference between you and Titania. Well, you are a middle-aged, privileged man. Am I bad white?
You forget the most important thing. Oh, yes. She doesn't like white people. She certainly doesn't like male people.
No, but she says in her book that she's written that she's not white except for the collar of her skin. Yeah, she doesn't consider it as white as a philosophical standpoint. Not as a descriptor. Yes.
That's really common in the humanities as well. Whiteness is the problem, not white people. Yeah, so when you say you're white, you're just actually self-identifying as white. Yeah.
You don't have to be white, you're just refusing to give up your whiteness. Exactly. It's absolutely ludicrous, isn't it? And this is another example of how deranged and how the gulf that exists between the humanities and academics and the real world.
The gulf is absolutely huge. They spent years creating their own little esoteric language, buying into all this Foucogian nonsense, this post-structural nonsense that was never true to begin with. But it's like any other religion. If enough people repeat the holy texts and quote each other repeating the holy texts, then it becomes truth.
Even though they didn't believe in truth, they call it a log of centrism. It's no inherent truth. Precisely. But it is the whole deridar thing.
It's built on a foundation of sand. It's not real, but it's just gained this illusion of credibility through decades of reproduction and repartition. Well, you call it a titera or titania, it calls it a titera no facts, I believe. Yeah, titera no facts, exactly.
So, you know, when you're faced with biological realities, for instance, when you're faced with the fact that identity politics involves a repudiation of reality, then what hurt her strategy then is to just deny reality. Well, well, into her theory. Yes, there are some things that I think explain her quite well that you've written for her. One trauma is that her mother breast-furderer, even though she was a vegan.
Horrible, yeah. I mean, can you imagine? No, I cannot. I was a meat eater from the start, so.
Hopefully. Only for, actually. So, yes. And then she thinks that we will reach utopia when women are valued more than men, then and only then will we have achieved true equality.
Yes, because she doesn't really believe in equality. She doesn't really know what it means. Well, in supposed she thinks that in order to redress the power structures in society, you need to invert the power structures of society, not just find a sort of balance. Yeah, and that's where you get this cult-like thing, because they're actually just never in the Nazis.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it is essentially social engineering. That's what they want to do. And it's based on an illusory premise.
It's based on something that doesn't exist. You know, you have this situation where they believe in these power structures that privilege white males, and they think they can redress that for instance, when Birmingham University had all the white male academic be mentored by young black female academics, because of their unconscious bias. Well, that's a faith-based position. You know, we don't know that that unconscious bias even exists, let alone that we can quantify it.
Let alone that it can be addressed by the presence of a young black woman. This is the stuff of cults. It isn't real. And what annoys me about it isn't so much that it's happened that people are suggesting it.
It's a capitulation of authorities to it. You know, what should be happening in this situation is universities should be saying, okay, we take on board your recommendation, we're going to dismiss it because it's nonsense, but thanks for suggesting it. Like in Oxford University, when campaigners, a group of very posh young students were upset by the Statue of Cecil Rhodes, the colonialist on a royal college, and they wanted the statue removed. He's a very, very posh kid, very, very privileged kid, but they felt like they were being punched.
They felt like the equivalent of being punched every time they saw that statue. Because they clearly, historically, illiterate, and they don't understand that a man of his kind living at that time, it would be weird if he wasn't colonialist or didn't have colonialist values. But what happened in that case is that the Vice Chancellor of Oxford said, no, where the statue says where it is? But what is it that they're upset about?
Is it that their ancestor committed what they considered to be crimes? Or is it the constant reminder of their cultural heritage? No, this was actually coming from black students who, but rich black students who felt that the class Cecil Rhodes would have seen them as inferior. I'm sure that's probably right, he would have seen them as inferior.
But he lived over 100 years ago. So that the statue in itself is an endorsement of that racist viewpoint, which of course isn't. We live in a country that has a history and recognition of that history is actually rather important. It's extremely important, I'll tell you, because I grew up in this country where we sort of sweep the bad parts of history under the rug.
If you've ever wondered why Sweden seems so squeaky clean, that's why, we're very good at it. It's a mistake, though. It means you don't confront your past and you don't learn from history. You can't just go for a sort of year zero approach and say, well wipe out all the mistakes that ever happened in the past, because then you'll do them to repeat them.
It's such a mistake. It's a need to salatize history, which is straight out of Orwell. People get very upset when you mention the Orwell comparison because it's become predictable. It's become a cliche.
But there is no other way to describe it. I'm reminded of when Christopher Hitchens went to the, I think it was North Korea, and he was talking about, I was determined not to make the comparison with Orwell. I was determined not to do it. But then as soon as he was there, something happened where the police arrested him and wanted to know what he was thinking what he was right.
And he said, but they make you do it. They force you to make the comparison. There is no other comparison to make. Well, not maybe North Korea, but here you can definitely throw in Brave New World.
Yeah. There's been plenty of dystopian novels. Yeah, but Sweden is a futuristic utopia from the past, basically. So, to have a broad knowledge of Sweden or its culture.
No, I'm just saying, because, well, I find it interesting because I've studied this culture as well as I can, which is not much because we don't have much history. And your history is quite easy to study because you have a long one and you've written most of it down. Well, not in an unbiased way, maybe, but still you have it there. And for instance, when you say, I don't know where it started, I start thinking about, well, one of the social democracy of Sweden's founding fathers was Paraldian Haughneson.
He became Prime Minister in 1932. And in 1945, I think, just after the end of the Second World War, he declared world socialism revived by, and possibly in cooperation with the Labour Party in Britain. And they restarted the Socialist International, which then became a socialist international organization to rebuild the failing democracies of Europe, connecting the Labour parties. And that started the age of social democracy, which I think we're seeing the end of now, the welfare state.
And that doesn't really have anything to do with my political leanings. It's just, I'm looking at technology and how it's changing our societies. And I don't think, if we're going to have welfare states going forward, I don't think they can look like they have up until this point. What are your political leanings and how would you describe yourself?
Well, I discovered myself as a sort of libertarian, quite young, which is easy to do if you have those leanings and are brought up in the social democracy of Sweden. You start, well, banging your head against the system, quite young. And then at heart philosophically, I'm a cynicismist basically, of the Diogenes kind. That's something I did pick up on before.
But I do appreciate individualism and freedom of speech and freedom, I think, above all things. What was the debate we were having? I can't remember what the topic was. It was about parody and freedom of speech.
Yes, okay, yes, that's right. Yes. And I think what is, yes, I remember now, and you did shout at the audience. I think your point was that you were not free really because the audience lacked the ability to understand.
Well, you come from England, you have freedom of speech and you have an exception for parody, right? We have the parody laws. Yeah. As far as to say we have freedom of speech, we do have freedom of speech on the whole, but we do also have a lot of hate speech laws.
Yes. We don't really have full freedom of speech. We know over 3,000 people a year are arrested in this country for things they've said online, which means that we don't have freedom of speech really. But we have a lot better than most people.
No, I think you do. Nothing's perfect ever. But Sweden got freedom of speech when we came into the EU in basically the early 90s. So in 94 we got freedom of speech.
That we had freedom of the press. It was really just a way for the state to maintain an information monopoly. You had to sign your name. And we don't have negative freedom of speech.
It's not even though state censorship, although state censorship is obviously appalling and tyrannical, that's not the problem we're facing at the moment. Where the problem we're facing is self-censorship is an particular comedian and satirist and people in the arts who are effectively policing how they express themselves because we live in a culture where if you express the wrong idea, you will be cancelled. Yes. So I understand that the inevitable outcome of that.
And I do sympathize with it. We all have to make a living. And you're not going to make a joke if you feel that it will destroy your livelihood. That does make sense.
This is absolutely an atom as the artist. Yes. And also if you want to do art and you can support yourself expressing yourself freely, then you're not really doing art. So if you're a comedian who just plays along with this, you're not really a comedian.
You're a propagandist. Sure. I mean, I think art can be educational, but it doesn't have to be. I think most good art isn't.
Most of the art that I love the most has absolutely nothing to do with morality. And I don't think it should. So may I ask who are your comedic references? Oh, it's a bit of comedically.
It would be things like Ambrose Bess, Standard Wise Victoria Wood, who else? Chris Morris, Amanda Enucci from The Thick of It. I think Chris Morris's brass eyes hasn't been surpassed really when it comes to the satirical, in terms of its... I don't know if that got to Sweden.
Not really. No, it's a spherical television show. I think it's early 90s. That sort of time.
But I could be wrong. I think it's worth watching. It's fantastic. But it is characterised by that fearlessness.
Yes. We had a version of it called The Parliament. It's like a panel show, right? Yeah.
And I actually wrote for that show in Sweden. Unfortunately, comedy works only if people understand the references. Yes. And if you have a population that has been lied to most of their lives, then it's kind of impossible to make some jokes.
For instance, I started yelling at the audience because they believe that we live in a liberal western democracy, and we don't. We live in a social democracy. So, you know, the discussion becomes completely insane. And then you start talking about you have an exception for parody.
We sort of have an exception for parody via the EU laws, but not really in Swedish law. So... The parody law is just to stop you from getting sued. If you mock someone or use their material online, but it hasn't really been tested, to be fair.
It's a relatively new law. So I don't know how... I mean, but we still have comedians who are falling foul at the law. I mean, Joe Grant was investigated by the police for a joke.
For instance, that only happened a few weeks ago. And so therefore, you know, we don't have a situation where we have as comedians complete freedom to say what we want to say. I think what you're saying about the parliament is called. That sort of satire can only work if you have a culture that is not infantilized.
Yes. I think that is a problem. Is that ultimately when people are not granted the freedom to think for themselves, then you end up with a situation where they're not able to appreciate things like art and satire. And the arts and satire actually lose their meaning then, you know, because people don't recognize them for what they are.
I think it's very depressing. Yes. I agree. And that is why I now, most of the time, do podcasts where I talk about taboo subjects without actually making too many jokes, except for, you know, the offensive jokes about your Renaissance doctorate earlier in the conversation.
That's more offensive than it, because that's directed very personally. Yes, yes, I know. I know. I did my research.
Yeah. So, and you start every chapter in the book, or rather, Titania starts every chapter in the book with a quote. Yes. And I was wondering, are the quotes real or not?
Yes, all of them, except one. Which one? The second answer to the CC quote. He never wanted to fuck a bush.
That's it. Yeah. That was just a stupid, it's one of those moments where I'm just going to say I'm really stupid now. So, apart from that, all the other quotations at the start of the chapters are all real.
And I'm sure you know, I wanted to incorporate genuine quotations from genuine activists, so that people could see that what Titania is saying is not a minute miles away from what the real people are saying. No, no. One example I think I remember is the AOC quote. Yes.
And I think what she says is people are more worried about being factually correct than about being morally right. She said that on Anderson Cooper, I think. That's right. Yeah.
So, I use that as a quotation for the chapter about the tyranny of facts. Yes. And other quotations like I'm wondering, but I'm saying that you can still be homeless and have white privilege. It's a real quotation.
The thing about, is it about a result in that one about to call a man is an animal, is to flatter him. Yes. He's a walking builder. So, these things are not made up.
No. And you also quote, Linda Sarsour, when Titania discusses what she calls internalized misogyny, which is women who don't believe in fourth-way feminism. And Linda Sarsour had said apparently about right to Brigitte Gabrielle and activist Ayun Hixiali that she would like to take their vaginas away. Yes.
Yeah. Because she doesn't believe they should be called women. I mean, she's obviously she's being metaphorical there. The point that she doesn't think that they are women, because women, if they're real women, will share her exact identical political worldview.
Exactly. What a great convenience get out. Anyone who disagrees with me must hate themselves. That's the only explanation.
You know? It's a similar thing. But the way that people pathologize disagreement now. So, you disagree with same-sex marriage.
Well, that means your homophobic. That means you are afraid. You have a disease. You have a condition.
It means you are afraid of gay people. Maybe it's not that. Maybe they just don't agree with same-sex marriage. And maybe you should have a discussion about it rather than just diagnosing your opponent with a mental disorder.
You absolute loon. You know, it's nuts. And then similarly, it'slamophobia. Same thing.
You know, people, that gets, you get all sorts of people confided under that term from the idiot, for a human at mosques or the, or the thugs who rip people's veils off in the streets. And they get conflated with people like Sam Harris or Douglas Murray who raised legitimate criticisms of what is an ideology, that religious ideology. Those are not the same things. Douglas Murray can go around ripping veils off.
I mean, in the street, he's not a thug. He's not an idiot, right? But both of those people then fall into the bracket of Islamophobia, because what Murray is saying is that he thinks there are, theological and philosophical problems within that thought process, within the ideology, which is his right to say. There should be absolutely no circumstances where any religion or political worldview should be ring-fenced from criticism.
And certainly not. But when they may be able to do so, and people express their right to criticise, they are pathologised in this way. It's really gross. Yes, you're obviously an Islamophobe for saying this.
It must be. It must be. Well, you must be. You're a white man.
And also... That's how infantile is. That's what I mean. This is not serious adult discussion.
When people start throwing around those terms, Islamophobe, homophobe, racist, Nazi, fascist, their infants, their children, who've learned a whole bunch of words that they don't know the meaning of. And it's not... I don't know how we resolve this, because that seems to now become the norm. It's even the norm in government.
It's even the norm amongst our politicians. We have people like David Lammy who's a Labour MP who just throws these insults. He said that Jacoby Smark and the European Research Group who were a pro-Brexit group within government, he said that they were worse than Nazis. Oh really?
That sounds like a child. Yes. And that's a real problem. We need the adults back in the room.
Well, at least he didn't threaten them to have their vaginas taken away. I was the next step. Well, also, I do believe that Ayang Hiali's vagina was already taken away. Well, they're states that, isn't it?
Yeah. Yeah. And Taitania writes, celebrates, when she was confronted in a college auditorium about this statement that she would want to take their vaginas away, she said that she didn't want to answer because the question was posed by a white man. Another great get-out, isn't it?
So, you know, that's why I see this as a cult because they are absolutely impervious to criticism or reason or debate. Yes. And do you want to know something interesting? Always.
Linda Sarsour and AOC, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, as I call her, they are both part of the Justice Democrats. Right. Do you know of the Justice Democrats? No.
No, there is a small group within the Democrats of America that come out of the American Socialist Society. Yeah. Yeah. And this is the same group as Momentum in Britain.
I see. So they're sort of further left segment of the Democrats. I suppose, are they the ones related to the squad in an Omar? And, you know, there's the four, four- Yes, precisely.
The known as the squad, aren't there? Yes. It's a pressly, an Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez, and there's one other. Tally.
Tally. That's right. And of course, they're not reflective of left-wing or even Democrat thought in America. They're the woke wing of the Democrats.
They want a Green New Deal collective bargaining and a corporate estate. Right. But the thing is about that is that they will never win an election. Those people and those ideas will never be.
It is absolute electoral poison. And this is why Donald Trump keeps going on about them. It's pretty smart. Yeah.
If you think Democrat and you suddenly think Rashida Tally, you know, then you're not going to vote Democrat and Democrats aren't going to vote Democrat. That's why Nancy Pelosi hates them. Yes. It's not.
It's identity politics and woke politics is not a popular form of politics. It's not this exactly what Jeremy Corbyn's Labour wants to do. They want Green New Deal. They want collective bargaining and a corporate estate.
Not only that. Corbyn's government wants much more severe press regulation. He's literally threatened the press. He said, if we get into power, you better watch out.
You know. He's brought into the work movement. He got Monroe Burgh, Dorfon Borda's an advisor. And who's Monroe Burgh, Dorf, Swids?
She's a LGBTQIA plus activist. Who is effectively, you know, she was on television talking about how the white race or the most evil force of nature on earth. So, you know, she's a racist basically. But of course, because the work movement of redol is how it means privilege, prejudice plus power.
Okay. We just need to definition that anyone shares. It's just in their own little bubble. So, you know, when Jeremy Corbyn appears to give a speech and white people are charged 10 pounds extra.
Well, then you know that he's buying into this work culture. He's allowing that to happen. And the problem with that is it's a minority. There's hardly any people who are in support of this.
They're really not. The problem is because it's such a bourgeois movement. They are in positions of power. They've infected everything.
The law, the media, arts, journalism. They have, they are the decision makers, but there's not many of them. So when it comes to democracy, that's why they lose. That's why they were also shocked when Trump won.
Because they thought, because they only speak to each other. Yeah. But, you know, they lost their laws. But do you think that because now it looks as if the Boris Johnson is challenging Jeremy Corbyn for a snap election or what it would call Ben won't agree to.
So, so Corbyn has been going on for two years about how he must have another general election. When it comes to the crunch, if he knows he'll lose, he won't go for it. So, it's strategic. If Corbyn had any integrity, which I don't think he does anymore, he would go for that general election.
Absolutely. In Harvey. But he doesn't. No.
I mean, I voted for Corbyn in the last election. I don't think he's massively disappointed me. His stance on freedom as speech is appalling. His dishonesty about the EU is absolutely appalling.
He's a Eurosceptica who opposed the EU for 40 years. And now he's pretending that he supports it. Yeah. How's that Brexit coming along, by the way?
You just sort it in like two years ago. You broke up with the rest of us like years ago and you still haven't moved out of the apartment. No, because... Are you still paying rent?
Yeah. Oh, you are. Then we're fine. But certainly.
There's a lot of sexual tension now. Yeah. You know, we voted to leave in 2016 three years on and we haven't left and the reason for that is we have a house of commons which is populated by people who don't care about democracy. Basically.
They care about their own careers and they don't understand that the sovereignty of parliament comes from the people. They don't understand that. But you know, it's not serious politics. It's a joke.
No, it hurts me to see because I actually had some hope that you Brits would have the values of freedom and individualism so ingrained in you that you would never actually accept this. I mean, I live in Sweden. Our state policy is Green New Deal, collective bargaining, corporatist state. We have all that.
We've had everything you're fighting against for 80 years and this country is going straight to hell. So the trouble is that we have, and our culture is becoming more and more infantilised. Which means that the more infantilised the culture becomes, the more likely our people are to be just directed, just told what to vote for and told what to think. That's the unfortunate byproduct.
That's why it's important to win the culture war. Because if you have any infantilised culture, then people will be content to have a parliament of elitists making decisions on their behalf. Because of course, that children are content to have parents make decisions on their behalf. When you have a culture of people who think for themselves, a culture of adults, that doesn't happen anymore.
And so that's really why we have to win the culture war. We have to, we have to, everything rest on it. Everything does. I think the Brexit case is a very good example.
And actually, if we did go back to the polls now, I think Lee would win again. But that's why they'll do everything they can. That's why they don't want a general election. Corbyn knows full well if there's a general election and Boris Johnson runs on a Brexit mandate, he'll get a landslide, particularly if he gets to support the Brexit party.
So do you think there are more people willing to vote for a Brexit now? Yeah. Particularly because I think a lot of people who voted remain last time, also are believers in democracy. And they see that what this is really about.
It's no longer about Brexit. That's over and done with. We had the arguments. We had months and months of the arguments.
Everyone was engaged. Everyone knew what they were voting for in spite of the people who will tell you otherwise. Everyone understood the principles. It was really actually quite exciting because for once, the whole country's been really politically energised.
And we're talking about it. And it's so weird to subsequently be told that nobody knew what they were voting for. They certainly knew more about this than they'd known about any other election they've ever participated in in their lifetime. Because that's what happened, right?
You voted to leave and you haven't left. And that sort of shows people that this is not a democratic institution. Which is why I think you've got to understand that a vote now for Brexit is actually about the democracy, something to do with Brexit or you. It's way of the choice between whether we want to live in a democracy we don't.
And I think this entire process has damaged democracy to the point that I don't think we can really claim to be living in a democracy anymore. So we need to reinstate that. That's why Brexit needs to happen. Because it's not about the EU anymore.
It's about what's the country we want to live in. And EU has formed on this. It's what the EU isn't an anti-socialist movement, a neoliberal bloc. That does not like democracy.
It does never like democracy. So when the Greeks voted against your austerity measures and they just don't care. They just forced it through any way. Same in Ireland with the Lisbon Treaty.
Same in Denmark with the Maastricht Treaty. They get the wrong vote. They're going to go back and say no sorry. You better go again or we'll just ignore it.
That's what the EU does. The EU is the complete antithesis to democratic principles. We need to get out. Well, I wish you all the best.
And also we are all eating popcorn in front of our TV screens. I mean it's part of it. It is quite interesting to watch the more absolutely tear each other apart and fall to pieces. It is.
It's really funny. I mean it's essentially hilarious as well about it. There's something hilarious about all these people standing up saying that they're standing up for democracy while trying to destroy democracy. It's really funny.
And you should know that in this country on state television we are told every night that Boris Johnson is evil. That democracy has been abolished. What is their justification for that? Why is he about to see the democracy?
Are they talking about the pro-ro department? Because he suspended parliament? Is that it? Were they similarly up to this in 1997?
Because he wanted to avoid a scandal? No. This is not the problem with having an unwritten constitution. People can play constitutional side of hand.
I don't think it's a good idea to suspend parliament as it happens. I don't think it is a very democratic route to take. But it is constitutionally valid. But you do have a constitution.
You just don't have one written down. Yeah. We have this thing floating in the air that we can take a little bit from a reinterpret and make up new rules. So do you think you should get one?
Yes. But the trouble is who would write it? Well you had a queen don't you? She should write it out.
I've seen her in all of Sacha Baron Cohen's films. She seems lovely. She does seem lovely. I think she should do a really good job.
I think she should write the constitution. Absolutely. There you go. I'll write it.
I was wondering. We don't really have a constitution here. We have basic laws. But they can also be changed sort of willingly when they want to.
Well, exactly. We had a tradition here. To have an uncoated constitution means you rely to extend to the goodwill of the people in charge. Not to mess with the rules.