Victoria Toumit’s Blog

Social movements have shaped humanity throughout history. Reflecting the spirit, needs, and criticisms of their times, these waves are the expressions of the human condition. However, by their very nature, every movement has a beginning, a peak, and an inevitable end.

Why do some movements endure for decades while others rise and fall quickly? In a rapidly changing world driven by technology, social media, and modern consumer culture, why do contemporary movements have shorter lifespans? Where does a modern movement like woke culture fit within this cycle?

In this article, we examine the birth, rise, and fall of cultural and social movements throughout history, assess today’s woke culture in this context, and, drawing lessons from the past, explore what movements might shape the future.

---

Cultural Movements Through History: Birth, Peak, and Decline

Cultural and social movements often emerge as reactions to the social, economic, and political conditions of their time. Each movement criticizes the shortcomings or excesses of the preceding era and seeks to establish a new order. For instance, Romanticism emerged in response to the dehumanizing effects of the Industrial Revolution, while punk became a banner of rebellion against systemic oppression in the 1970s.

The lifespans of these movements have varied significantly throughout history:

• Romanticism (1790–1850): A movement that celebrated nature and individual emotions as a counter to the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution. It lasted approximately 60 years.

• Bohemianism (1840–1900): A lifestyle that challenged bourgeois values and celebrated artistic freedom. It lasted ~60 years.

• Dadaism and Surrealism (1916–1940): Short but impactful art movements born from the chaos of World War I. They lasted ~8 and ~20 years, respectively.

• Hippies, Punks, Grunge (1960–1995): Youth-driven rebellions that lasted around 10-15 years each.

• Woke Culture (2010–Present): A movement centered on social justice and equality, emphasizing identity politics. However, it is grappling with its internal contradictions.

---

The Shrinking Lifespan of Movements: Why the Change?

In the past, social movements endured for decades. However, in the modern world, their lifespans are shortening. There are several key reasons for this:

1. Technology and Communication: Movements used to take years to spread. Today, social media allows ideas to reach a global audience instantly.

   • Movements like Romanticism and Bohemianism slowly gained traction through books and art, enabling them to last for decades.

   • Woke culture became a global phenomenon almost overnight via social media, but this rapid spread has also led to quicker saturation.

2. Rapid Saturation and Backlash: Easy access to information accelerates both the support for and criticism of movements. This leads to movements reaching their peak and decline more quickly.

3. Impatience and the Need for Constant Change: Modern consumer culture fosters a craving for novelty. Movements are adopted quickly, consumed intensely, and discarded just as fast.

---

The Contradictions Within Woke Culture

Woke culture began as a movement rooted in social justice and equality. However, it also contains inherent contradictions:

1. Identity Politics Conflicts: Supporting LGBTQ+ rights while also advocating for traditional Muslim communities creates tensions between often contradictory values.

2. Free Speech vs. Cancel Culture: Woke culture’s commitment to free speech is at odds with its embrace of cancel culture, where dissenting voices are silenced.

3. Hierarchy of Victimhood: Efforts to address various injustices simultaneously have led to a “competition of grievances,” weakening solidarity among groups.

---

The Future of Woke Culture: What Comes Next?

Considering historical cycles, woke culture is unlikely to be eternal:

• Start: ~2010

• Predicted End: ~2030

• Current State: Approximately 50% of its lifecycle is complete.

What might follow? Based on historical trends, here are some possibilities:

1. A Renaissance of Individualism: A shift from collective identity politics to personal freedom and self-discovery.

2. Rediscovery of Spirituality: Renewed emphasis on spirituality and a connection with nature.

3. Tech-Resistant Minimalism: A rejection of digital excess in favor of simplicity and offline living.

4. Global Solidarity Movements: A move away from identity-based activism to focus on universal issues like climate change and economic inequality.

---

Lessons from History: Movements Shape, but Do Not Last

Every social movement is born out of its time’s needs, but no movement lasts forever. Woke culture, like its predecessors, rose to address specific demands but risks fading unless it resolves its internal contradictions.

History shows that humanity is in constant reinvention. Each movement carries the seeds of the next, shaped by the successes and failures of its predecessors. As woke culture approaches its predicted peak, the world prepares for a new era.

What remains constant is humanity’s drive for progress, meaning, and balance. Movements come and go, but the ultimate goal persists: to create a more just, harmonious, and meaningful world.

Victoria Toumit

Throughout human history, one of the most effective methods of controlling people has been the strategy of “divide and conquer.” This approach continues to shape social and political life today, not only in the depths of history but also in modern democracies. Dividing people to maintain control has been a timeless tool of power, used to strengthen authority by fostering divisions within society. However, in today’s world, this strategy operates in more sophisticated ways through state actions, media influence, social media dynamics, and identity politics.

Unfortunately, this article is being written at a time when humanity is hurtling toward a great collapse. As societies become exhausted by internal conflicts, leaders further polarize populations to consolidate their power, and technology accelerates division, this writing might serve as one of the last warnings.

---

Settling for the Lesser Evil: The Greatest Dilemma of Modern Democracies

In modern democracies, one manifestation of the “divide and conquer” strategy is the presentation of “lesser evil” candidates to the public. In many countries today, people are forced to vote not for leaders they wholeheartedly support but for those they perceive as “less bad” than the alternative. This reality transforms democracy from a mechanism reflecting the will of the people into a system of “forced choices.”

This dilemma further fuels division within society. Representative democracies struggle to produce leaders who can meet the needs and desires of broad swaths of the population. Especially in two-party systems like that of the United States, voters are often trapped between only two options. The internal dynamics of political parties tend to favor candidates who serve the interests of elite factions rather than the general public. As a result, out-of-touch career politicians frequently take center stage.

This process deepens societal division. Leaders who cannot unify their base often resort to polarizing rhetoric. When people cast their votes reluctantly, they lose faith in the system’s effectiveness, leading to collective disillusionment. The perception of “the other side being worse” drives individuals to cling blindly to their own factions while demonizing the opposition.

Ultimately, the lack of transparency, scandals, and the disconnection of politicians from public demands become some of the greatest challenges facing modern democracies. The inability of Irish voters to find a suitable leader during elections and the polarization surrounding figures like Trump and Biden in the U.S. are concrete examples of this phenomenon.

---

How Close Are We to Collapse? Are We at a Tipping Point?

Civilizations have repeatedly found themselves teetering on the edge of a cliff throughout history—and sometimes, they have fallen. Today, we are at a critical juncture. Identity-driven politics, the divisive impact of technology, and the polarizing rhetoric of leaders suggest that societies are nearing a breaking point.

History shows that such periods are often followed by either major collapses or radical transformations. The fall of the Roman Empire, the chaos following the French Revolution, or the ideological rifts of the Cold War all demonstrate how humanity has struggled to balance on the edge of the abyss. Today, however, we face an era where social conflicts are amplified and accelerated by the digital world.

If division continues at its current pace, the structural disintegration of societies and states will become inevitable. But this article aims to remind us that such a collapse is not destiny, and humanity still stands at a crossroads.

---

Modern Manifestations of Division

The “divide and conquer” strategy continues to infiltrate our lives through various modern tools. Identity politics, media manipulation, and social media algorithms have made this strategy more complex and effective. People are no longer divided solely along ethnic or religious lines but also by gender, ideology, and lifestyle.

Identity politics plays a significant role in deepening these divisions. Movements like “woke culture,” which aim to address social justice issues, often hinder dialogue through hypersensitivity and cancel culture. These restrictions on free expression push both sides into defensive positions. One side feels it is fighting for its rights, while the other feels its freedoms are being curtailed. In this climate of conflict, common values are forgotten, and polarization intensifies.

Immigration issues also exemplify this division. In the West, some immigrant groups demanding systems like Sharia law clash with local populations that value freedom and secularism. This creates friction that is often manipulated by media and politicians to further exacerbate divisions, splitting societies into “us” and “them.”

---

A Lesson from History: Division and Control in Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany serves as one of the most chilling examples of the “divide and conquer” strategy. Adolf Hitler unified the German people against a common enemy—the Jews—while simultaneously fostering internal divisions. Through propaganda, the Nazi regime manipulated emotions, ensuring the population remained focused on the perceived threats posed by minorities rather than addressing their own societal challenges.

Fear also played a key role in this strategy. Institutions like the SS and Gestapo enforced a climate of terror, silencing dissent and compelling compliance. While some citizens actively supported the regime, many others remained silent out of fear.

When the war ended, many Nazi supporters retreated into silence, denying or minimizing their complicity. Claims like “We didn’t know” or “Everyone was doing it” allowed individuals to evade responsibility for their roles in the regime. This silence illustrates how easily individuals can deny their societal responsibilities and attempt to escape the shadows of history.

---

Is There Still Time for Unity?

In a world so deeply divided, is there still hope for resolution? The answer is yes, but it requires collective effort, patience, and a shared commitment to rediscovering common values.

Education is the most vital tool in this process. Teaching people to think critically, understand media manipulation, and engage in constructive dialogue can reduce polarization. Additionally, leaders must move away from divisive rhetoric and focus on addressing the needs of all citizens to rebuild trust in the system.

---

Conclusion: Unity Is Humanity’s Only Option

The “divide and conquer” strategy has been one of the most effective yet destructive tools in human history. While it consolidates power for those in control, it ultimately weakens societies in the long run. From Nazi Germany to modern democracies, the consequences of this strategy are evident.

Humanity must break free from this vicious cycle of division. By remembering shared values, fostering dialogue, and embracing critical thinking, we can build a future where unity triumphs over division. Because division only breeds hostility, while unity builds the future.

Victoria Toumit

Keir Starmer’s tenure as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which began with high hopes in July 2024, has been marked by increasing controversy, unfulfilled promises, and mounting public discontent. As cracks in his leadership begin to show, the nation is left wondering: how much longer can he maintain his grip on power?

---

Unkept Promises and a Fraying Trust

Starmer’s campaign was built on bold promises of change, but his time in office has been marred by policy reversals that have alienated voters. Among the most glaring examples:

• Fuel Allowance for Pensioners: A key campaign pledge to support the elderly with fuel subsidies was swiftly abandoned, leaving many struggling with rising energy costs.
• University Tuition Fees: Starmer promised to abolish tuition fees during his Labour leadership bid in 2020, only to shelve the proposal once in power.
• Nationalisation of Utilities: Labour’s manifesto championed the public ownership of essential services like energy and water, yet Starmer later walked back on these commitments.

Such policy U-turns have eroded public trust, leaving voters questioning the sincerity of Labour’s promises.

---

Grooming Scandals and Double Standards

A recent wave of grooming scandals has further destabilized Starmer’s government. Despite public outrage, authorities have been criticized for their perceived inaction against the perpetrators. Meanwhile, cases of individuals facing prosecution for online comments—such as a 94-year-old World War II veteran—have fueled allegations of a two-tier justice system.

The contrast is stark: while criminals involved in grooming gangs walk free, ordinary citizens face harsh penalties for expressing their views. Figures like Tommy Robinson, who advocate for free speech and draw attention to these disparities, have been targeted by the state, prompting accusations of authoritarianism.

---

Plummeting Public Approval

Public dissatisfaction with Starmer’s government is palpable. Recent polls paint a grim picture:

• Ipsos Survey (December 2024): Only 27% of respondents expressed satisfaction with Starmer’s leadership, while 61% voiced discontent.
• More in Common Poll (January 2025): Labour risks losing up to 200 seats in a potential election, as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party garners increasing support, with 25% of the vote.

These numbers suggest a significant erosion of Labour’s once-solid voter base, with Farage emerging as a formidable political rival.

---

Liberal Authoritarianism or a New Political Order?

Starmer’s leadership has increasingly been described as “liberal authoritarianism,” where political correctness and censorship appear to trump democratic freedoms. The government’s focus on suppressing dissent, rather than addressing systemic issues, risks further alienating the public.

At the same time, rising support for far-right nationalist movements, led by figures like Farage, raises questions about the country’s political trajectory. Are voters rejecting Starmer’s leadership in favour of a different kind of authoritarianism, or is this a call for genuine reform?

---

What’s Next for Starmer and Labour?

Keir Starmer faces a critical crossroads. With public trust dwindling and policy failures mounting, his government’s ability to lead effectively is increasingly in question.

The path forward is clear: address systemic inequalities, restore trust by fulfilling promises, and pivot away from perceived authoritarianism. Without such changes, Starmer risks not only his own leadership but also the future of the Labour Party.

The United Kingdom finds itself at a pivotal moment, grappling with deep societal divisions and political disillusionment. Whether Starmer can rise to the occasion remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the public’s patience is wearing thin—and time may not be on his side.

Keir Starmer’s government faces its toughest test yet. As public dissent grows louder, the question remains: will Labour’s leadership adapt to the changing tides, or will the United Kingdom chart a new political course?

Victoria Toumit

The unexpected resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marks a significant turning point not just for Canada but for global politics. Trudeau’s decision to step down as the leader of the Liberal Party and relinquish his position as prime minister comes at a time when the influence of liberal ideology is being critically questioned worldwide. This resignation could have far-reaching implications, both for Canada’s political future and the broader international landscape.

Why Did Trudeau Resign?

During his 9 years as prime minister, Trudeau faced numerous economic and political challenges. However, recent crises have rendered his leadership unsustainable.

Economic and Political Pressures

• U.S. Tariff Threats: Economic tensions with the U.S., particularly during Donald Trump’s administration, significantly undermined Trudeau’s economic policies.
• Internal Party Divisions: Key resignations within the Liberal Party weakened Trudeau’s support base and further destabilized his leadership.
• Declining Public Support: Public dissatisfaction with Trudeau’s handling of social and economic issues led to plummeting approval ratings, making his continued leadership untenable.

Suspension of Parliament

Following Trudeau’s resignation, the Canadian Parliament will be suspended until March 2025. This hiatus gives the Liberal Party time to elect a new leader, but it also signals a period of political uncertainty for the country.

The Crisis of Liberalism: Soros’ Shadow

Trudeau’s resignation can be interpreted as a symptom of the broader crisis facing liberal ideology globally. As one of the prominent faces of the liberal order, Trudeau’s failure highlights growing dissatisfaction with the promises of globalization and progressivism.

Soros and Globalism: The Art of Social Engineering

George Soros, known for championing “open society” initiatives, has faced criticism for allegedly destabilizing societies through his globalist projects.

• The “Chosen Figures” Theory: Figures like Trudeau are often seen as handpicked leaders, selected and guided to advance Soros’ globalist agenda. However, their inability to address public demands ultimately undermines confidence in liberal ideologies.
• Polarization of Societies: Soros-backed policies have been accused of creating deep societal divisions and fostering growing resentment towards liberalism.

The Rise of Nationalism: Rothschild’s Influence

As liberalism falters, nationalism and conservative ideologies are gaining traction. In this context, figures like the Rothschild family emerge as proponents of national borders and strong state structures.

Two Strategies, One Goal

While Soros and Rothschild appear to represent opposing camps, they may, in fact, be two players on the same chessboard. These two figures seem to steer societies through opposing ideologies, ultimately working towards a shared objective.

• Soros drives chaos through liberalism and globalization.
• Rothschild offers order through nationalism and authoritarianism. This dual strategy may serve to polarize societies, paving the way for greater control and the eventual establishment of a new world order.

The Crisis of Liberalism in Europe: A Domino Effect?

Trudeau’s resignation resonates with the struggles of liberal governments in Europe. The failures of liberal policies and rising public dissatisfaction with globalism have paved the way for far-right and nationalist movements.

Sweden’s Social Collapse

Sweden faces rising crime rates and social unrest, exacerbated by liberal immigration policies. The inability of these policies to address societal challenges could push Sweden toward more authoritarian approaches.

The Rise of Nationalism in Germany and France

• In Germany, far-right parties are gaining momentum, while in France, public discontent over immigration policies is growing.
• The failure of liberal policies is fueling demands for stricter immigration controls and the preservation of national borders.

Conclusion: The Beginning of a New Era?

Justin Trudeau’s resignation underscores the fragility of the liberal order. As liberalism weakens, nationalism and conservative movements are rising to fill the void. But is this shift merely a change in control, or does it signal a genuine ideological transformation?

• Will societies embrace the authoritarian tendencies of modern liberalism?
• Or will the far-right’s ultra-nationalist vision redefine the global stage?

The global stage is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Understanding the forces at play behind this chessboard is essential, as the decisions made today will shape the future of societies worldwide. After all, knowing who is playing the game is the first step toward regaining control.

Victoria Toumit

Cinema often acts as a mirror, reflecting the future and sparking discussions about societal and political shifts. V for Vendetta and The First Omen are two such films that delve into the mechanisms of control through fear and chaos, encouraging viewers to question the systematic plans underlying these scenarios. Both films explore how fear can be weaponized to consolidate power and manipulate societies.

V for Vendetta: A Prophetic Vision of the Future?

Released in 2005, V for Vendetta depicts a dystopian England ruled by a totalitarian regime. Interestingly, the film was written by the Wachowski siblings, Lilly and Lana Wachowski, who are also renowned for their groundbreaking work on The Matrix trilogy. The film’s depiction of events is strikingly relevant to contemporary societal and political dynamics:

1. Normalcy: A stable England with the majority of its population composed of native citizens.
2. Immigration Crisis: An influx of migrants disrupts social structures and introduces radical ideologies.
3. Pandemic: Fear and uncertainty are used as tools to manipulate and control the population.
4. Radicalization: Cultural and religious clashes escalate, with Islam becoming a dominant topic of contention.
5. Conflict: Society becomes increasingly polarized, with rising security concerns leading to violence.
6. Repression: Radical ideologies are banned, and migrants are deported, marking the rise of draconian policies.
7. Dictatorship: Fear compels people to trade their freedoms for the promise of stability, solidifying authoritarian rule.

The stages depicted in the film mirror today’s reality, especially the tensions surrounding immigration and radicalization in England. People, overwhelmed by fear, seem more willing to surrender their freedoms for a semblance of safety.

---

The First Omen: Controlled Chaos as a Tool of Manipulation

The 2024 film The First Omen takes this concept further by presenting a calculated chaos orchestrated by the Church. In the story, the Church endeavors to orchestrate the birth of the Antichrist (Omen) as part of a deliberate plan to instigate global chaos. Their goal is to make people so afraid of the turmoil that they turn back to the Church for guidance and safety.

This plot is eerily reminiscent of V for Vendetta, as it showcases how institutions can manipulate fear to achieve control. While the Church creates chaos as a means to an end, the question remains: could real-life chaos be part of a larger plan to consolidate power?

---

Revisiting “Islamophobia”: Fear or Reality?

The term “Islamophobia” is frequently used to describe anti-Islamic sentiments in the West. However, this term can blur the lines between valid criticism and irrational fear, undermining genuine concerns.

Criticism vs. Fear

Labeling every critic of Islam as “Islamophobic” silences necessary discourse and stifles freedom of expression. People questioning the impact of radical ideologies on their societies are often dismissed without addressing the root causes of their concerns.

Double Standards

Criticism of Christianity or other religions often doesn’t provoke the same backlash. For instance, Christian missionary activities face harsh opposition in Muslim-majority countries, yet Islam’s expansion in the West is often protected under the banner of religious freedom. This discrepancy fuels resentment and intensifies divisions.

---

England’s Transformation and Public Reaction

England, like much of Europe, has undergone profound changes due to migration and radicalization. These changes are not just cultural but also psychological, as people grapple with their sense of security being eroded.

Legitimate Concerns

People’s fears are not baseless phobias but reactions to tangible events, such as violence, harassment, and the imposition of conservative norms in public spaces. When these issues disrupt daily life, they evoke a sense of threat to the social fabric.

The Symbolism of Mosques

In a secular society like England, the growing visibility of mosques and discussions around a “caliphate” provoke unease. These are not merely religious issues but cultural and political ones that challenge the country’s identity.

The Importance of Critique

Critiquing any ideology, including Islam, is a fundamental right. Branding dissenters as “Islamophobic” dismisses valid concerns and undermines the democratic principle of free expression. Constructive criticism is vital for addressing the underlying tensions and fostering understanding.

---

Conclusion: Beyond Phobia

In England, what is labeled as “Islamophobia” often stems from lived experiences and observations, not irrational fear. These concerns deserve to be heard and addressed, rather than dismissed with a term that simplifies the complexities of the issue.

If society aims for peace and inclusivity, it must differentiate between baseless fears and legitimate grievances. The question raised by V for Vendetta and The First Omen—whether chaos is part of a larger, deliberate plan—invites us to look deeper into the societal shifts around us. Only by understanding these dynamics can we hope to navigate them without compromising our freedoms.

V for Victoria