HyperNormalisation

The narrator repeatedly says that banks, finance, corporations, politicians, and technology systems took power away from ordinary people. The film calls these systems not answerable to voters and says they create fear, fake stories, and public confusion. The film also criticizes Western foreign policy, the Iraq and Libya wars, social media companies, and the failure of the political left. The language is sustained and openly activist, but it is about power and economics rather than race, gender, or DEI.

The film repeatedly says that banks and finance took power away from elected politicians after New York’s 1975 debt crisis. It links Western governments, media, intelligence agencies, and technology companies to fake stories, fear, spying, and public confusion. The film also presents the Iraq and Libya wars as results of simple Western stories and treats Trump and Putin as products of this broken system. This critique drives the film from its opening argument to its final sections.

The separate X research found no anti-woke reaction, and no organized backlash appears in the sources reviewed. One forum critic called the film left-wing and objected to its anti-Trump and anti-Brexit framing. Other audience comments focused on its loose argument, conspiracy feel, or editing, which do not count as woke complaints. The available criticism is fringe and mixed.

Adam Curtis has a stored woke score of 12/100. His work often attacks political power, propaganda, capitalism, technology, and Western foreign policy. His record is strongly political and often against powerful institutions, but it does not show a lasting DEI, race, gender, or sexuality activist focus. The producers have stored scores of 0/100 and add no known identity-focused signal.