The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1254

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 17, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:40:47

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1254

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Loadseaters episode 1254 for Wednesday the 17th of September 2025.
	I'm your host Luca, joined today by Harry the Owl and brother Stelios.
	How are you both?
	Brother Luca.
	Hello everyone.
	Good.
	Today we're going to be talking all about the mounting panic from the Starma bunker.
	We're then going to be talking about more and more how more and more evidence about Charlie Kirk's murderer Tyler Johnson is I think we should still say alleged even though he's basically admitted.
	Alright okay very alleged murderer is making the left look crazy.
	And then we're going to be talking about how deplatforming people who say they want you dead isn't actually cancel culture, funnily enough.
	So shall we begin?
	So it seems that with every single government that we've had in a living memory, really, they never end successfully.
	They always end in chaos, right?
	They always end with scandal upon scandal mounting, advisors and allies leaving and to try and save their own skins.
	Abandoning ship.
	Abandoning ship because every single government seems to be destined to be the prime minister is always just a captain of the Titanic, it seems, over and over again.
	And it seems like that time has come now for Starma's government as well.
	And I believe that a part of the panic is because they heard that Islander magazine isn't going to be on sale for an awful lot longer, ladies and gentlemen.
	Oh, brother.
	And I thought my ad reads were bad.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Carry on.
	If you purposefully make them bad, then they're good.
	That's how that works.
	They may be bad, but we feel good.
	Exactly.
	Simple as.
	So please go and buy it.
	It's got some fantastic essays in it.
	You've heard it all before, but we say it because we insist.
	And you can get it on the website for $14.99 plus the postage and packaging.
	So, in the past two days...
	You were saying that Kiestama is the captain of the Titanic and his heart will go on?
	Well, I don't know if it will, actually.
	Well, I'll explain why in a little bit.
	So two days ago, we had a senior Stammer advisor quitting over offensive Diane Abbott messaging.
	And no, before you're all wondering...
	What was so offensive about them?
	Before you're all wondering, I'm afraid he's not our guy, despite all of those messages.
	Imagine you think that this is the only shot you have to save the country, because this is what the rhetoric was and is about.
	And just saying, no, I'm going to abandon ship because you had some offensive messages about Diane Abbott.
	Well, the thing is as well that these messages are not new messages.
	These messages stem from eight years ago.
	So someone has been sitting on these to use as fodder as ammunition for a long time now.
	This is a great plan.
	Well, what were the offensive messages again?
	Because I've heard them described as not offensive messages, but something far, far worse.
	Well, there was a game of that classic game of Shagmari Kill, you see.
	And Diane Abbott was one of the names involved in this little game.
	So honestly, it's one of the poorest excuses I've ever seen to have someone sacked over.
	But the fact that this is coming now does point to the fact that obviously there are many people within Whitehall, Downing Street, and from the left of the party.
	There could be an alternative explanation, which means that he has, in fact, done something way worse.
	People are going to focus just on that.
	And they are not going to inquire about what is worse.
	It just could be.
	No, no.
	I just can't believe that they're raising this alarmist culture where Hitler is rising any moment from now and they have to fight it.
	But hey, this guy had some weird messages, so he's going to abandon ship.
	No, I'm not buying it.
	No, I don't either.
	There are obviously probably deeper reasons for it.
	But secrets will come out when all sorts of come tumbling out.
	But anyway, aside from the Hot Fuzz references, the point is as well that this is not some small name.
	Paul Ovendon was Kia Stama's director of political strategy.
	So there's quite the scalp actually to be taken from the government.
	And obviously, this comes after the tragic and huge loss to the Labour Party of Diane.
	Sorry, Diane.
	She's a survivor, apparently.
	Of Angela Rayner.
	She's a big political operator is Diane Abbott.
	Unironically, she's lasted that long.
	She always puts both left feet forward.
	Sorry, I meant to say Angela Raynor, of course, as Deputy Prime Minister.
	And then, of course, more scandalously, Lord Mandelson as ambassador to America.
	Lord Mandelson, to remind people, had been a very, very important part of the PR campaigning of New Labour in the 1990s.
	He was a fundamental part of the trio of Blair, Brown, Mandelson, and now they've lost their political strategy guy as well.
	So what little PR savvy the Labour government had seems to be drying up very quickly.
	It's interesting to read as well when you hear the whispers from inside, you know, and the people who are talking about it through the back channels, because they talk about with the loss of Ovendon, how this is a great loss because he was so much a part of what led to our victory last year.
	It's like your victory was just guaranteed by not being the Tories.
	Whatever your grand strategy was, right?
	You lost votes on Jeremy Corbyn.
	It's not that people were so taken in by the grand political strategy of Paul Ovenden, right?
	Two things tanked, two things caused Labour to win last year.
	One, reform-splitting right-wing vote.
	Two, the Tories having been useless and terrible and ruining the country for the prior 14 years.
	Yes, and if I could just finish your point, Harry, the Tories.
	Yes.
	It wasn't a pro-Labour mandate.
	It was an anti-Tory mandate, basically.
	Yes, it was a victory by default.
	But then, so let's start talking about, because beyond the Paul Ovenden stuff, which is, of course, a tragic loss, it's really the Mandelson stuff that is really putting the screws on Starmer's government here.
	So let's just grit ourselves and listen to him speak for a minute.
	Let me talk this through with you because it's important to appreciate what happened when, and I understand that.
	Obviously, the post, the diplomatic post of American Ambassador, really important post.
	And Peter Mandelson, before he was appointed, went through a due diligence process.
	That's the propriety and ethics team went through a process.
	And therefore, I knew of his association with Epstein.
	But had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed it because what is anyone buying this?
	Is anyone in Britain or America buying this?
	The thing is, even according to their own narrative, from what I've seen, they already knew that Mandelson continued his association with Epstein after the initial 2008 charges.
	Yes.
	And the conviction, which he pled guilty on, the conviction came as a result of a guilty plea, and that was including improper sexual behaviour towards minors, right?
	Girls as young as 14.
	So they knew all of that.
	And then what?
	It was just the release of a load of emails confirming what they already knew.
	Oh, no, no.
	We'd have been fine if he stayed friends with Epstein after the conviction, as long as in private he was very upset about it.
	No, it's the fact that apparently he stood by him and was saying that these are trumped up charges and you shouldn't have been convicted with anything.
	Was that what pushed you over the edge?
	Or is this all a load of bollocks?
	Yeah, sure Demi felt bad about it.
	There you go.
	But it was, well, I mean, let's not forget as well that just a week ago, Stammer was saying that he stood by Mandelson's appointment before those other emails came out as well.
	So he has been pushed to this decision.
	And what's more, we can see now, as Guido reports here, McSweeney in the firing line as Starmer enters survival mode.
	Downing Street is in survival mode this morning as Labour MPs at all levels sound the alarm over Starmer's shambolic handling of the Mandelson debacle.
	The Times, the Mail and the Telegraph all sprash with fiery warnings of an impeding leadership challenge unless number 10 produces better answers over what Starmer knew and when.
	Now, I can't speak to the veracity of a leadership challenge.
	I think that the strategy would simply be to continue pushing with this story until Starmer resigns, as opposed to actually having an open show of lack of confidence in Starmer.
	It's just not the Labour way.
	But the really important point to all of this as well is that Mandelson's appointment as ambassador was pushed very heavily by Morgan McSweeney, who is his friend.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And is someone, so Mandelson was quite instrumental, it seems, in giving McSweeney his initial power in the Labour Party and, you know, influence over the apparatus of the party.
	And what's more as well, of course, Morgan McSweeney has been instrumental in terms of guidance with Starma's policy on many, many occasions, right?
	He's been there since before Starmer's election.
	He was always in favour of Starmer being the leader of the Labour Party.
	And the problem is as well that you have is the fact that as dissent grows and dissatisfaction in the Labour Party and as reform are rising in the polls, you are seeing more, and let's not forget as well, from the left, you've got Corbyn and the Greens outflanking.
	So the left of the Labour Party have a more authentic option to vote for.
	You can see that Labour are starting, their support is starting to wither.
	And the problem is that you have here Starmer could theoretically try and pin this on Morgan McSweeney and say, just put on the blame onto him and say, well, there we are.
	I'll just jettison that and I'll try and carry on.
	But the problem is that McSweeney has been in there for a long time now.
	And what's more, conversely, McSweeney can't push Starmer because if McSweeney pushes Starber, his own power will disappear as well.
	Because a lot of the people from the left of the Labour Party really, really dislike McSweeney and don't trust him because they basically see him as the Dominic Cummings equivalent, but for the Labour Party, which is obviously not a true comparison because it turns out that the power behind Johnson's government wasn't Cummings.
	It was the fact that he was being whipped by his wife.
	But that's obviously a different matter.
	So you have here that it goes on to say that drowning on the Drowning Street in the Titanic.
	Downing Street sources also firmly denied reports that Mr. McSweeney tried to prevent Lord Mandelson's sacking this week, which took place after Sakia came out and defended the ambassador in the Commons.
	So again, this is something that's in the ether.
	This is something that they have that they can nail on McSweeney.
	And really, McSweeney is the foundation of Starmer's power base.
	If he goes, I don't know how much support he actually has within the party to back him up, should things start to crumble quickly.
	And you have many headlines like this from the Independent saying why Kia Starmer cannot survive as prime minister without this man.
	And so it seems like, really, if McSweeney falls, you're basically losing the queen from the chess set, right?
	You're losing your most valuable piece in the Labour government.
	Can I ask you something about this?
	So he's supposed to be the main strategist, right?
	So what is the strategy?
	Well, don't forget as well that it was Morgan McSweeney who had influence over Starmer's moment where he talked about the Island of Strangers speech, right?
	So Sweeney, more than the far left of the party, who were still going around there saying, oh, we need to make the positive case for immigration, right?
	McSweeney is at least politically sensible to the fact that there is mass dissatisfaction with many of the problems that mar our society, right?
	And at least once is politically savvy enough to give lip service to them, although, of course, doesn't need to be said, won't do a damn thing to actually address them.
	So then you also have this article from the Financial Times basically saying that Kia Starmer has until May to turn things around.
	And this is from the MPs and unions.
	Now, obviously, Angela Raynor was the choice of the unions.
	And whether or not she was removed by her own stupidity or whether it was orchestrated, right?
	That's not the point, right?
	She was a unionist.
	It's very easy to orchestrate against someone that stupid.
	Quite right, quite right.
	But obviously, so that's certainly not endeared Starmer to the unions, who obviously Labour heavily depend on for their support.
	And what's more as well, there are going to be many, many more hurdles besides.
	Let's not forget, of course, that you also have the autumn budget on the horizon in November, which Rachel Reeves will no doubt come to us again with many more sensible.
	I can't wait to see how many more pennies Rachel from Accounts decides to pinch.
	Exactly.
	I think, you know, I'm not really in the art of political prophecy, but I'm willing to bet here and now that whatever's coming in that November budget is not going to be popular.
	No, it's not going to be.
	And also the economic policy of this government is going to make things much worse.
	Because, I mean, we've talked about it before, and they show that they are unable to course correct.
	They will fund the NHS no matter what.
	However, many people enter the country, they will just keep calling for more benefits, irrespective of whether some of them work or not.
	And they are turning the country into being way more hostile than it should be to entrepreneurship.
	The public debt is exploding.
	It doesn't look good.
	And they have four years now.
	There's nothing that suggests that in this four years, they are going to do something that makes the situation better.
	There's no sign of pivoting whatsoever.
	And what were the most recent results that we saw about the economy?
	What was it?
	0% growth in the past 12 months.
	Wow.
	Good job.
	All those immigrants really helped.
	Yeah.
	Well, part of me worries that if they have been, if figures come out next year or at the end of this year that show that Labour really did let in less immigrants than the Tories did at their height.
	Let's face it, it isn't hard.
	Yes, which is not a difficult thing to consider.
	I'm worried that people will then turn it around and go, well, see, we started letting less in and the economy immediately flatlined and ignore all of the other disastrous economic policies that have caused that.
	Yeah.
	No, it's a legitimate concern.
	But you have here as well that it says with Labour polling at a little above 20%, and I believe it's 19 in some polls as well, some 10% points behind Nigel Farage's reform party, and with tax rises looming in the November budget, the discontent has spread to the wider labour movement.
	One trade union leader told the Financial Times, obviously no one will get rid of him one year into a Labour government, but my worry is that we're going to be a one-term Labour government.
	Can we turn it around?
	I don't know.
	I wouldn't even be worrying at this point about being a one-term Labour government.
	I'd be worried about the extinction of your party, frankly.
	Right.
	Because what reasonable if, you know, it can only remind me really of back when Liz Truss was, you know, trying to become prime minister as well.
	You know, and it's like, who would really want to inherit that mess?
	Right.
	And again, it comes down to the same thing with this.
	Starmer, did you genuinely believe yourself so talented?
	Did you genuinely believe your advisors to be so wise that you could begin to, well, and that's...
	That's exactly how leftists think.
	They don't understand the notion of unintended consequences.
	Well, one thing that I'm considering might be a possibility in the future is if this government manages to string itself along for the next four years, whether with Starma in charge or not, there is a possibility that we could see some political switcheroo.
	Everybody has been pointing out that reform, by the looks of it, are going to be just a replacement Tory party.
	Not only are MPs defecting, I would imagine many of the same donors that have been helping to fund the Tory party for a long time are also starting to switch around to them because they appear to be a more attractive prospect politically and they don't have the same baggage the Tories do.
	So they've got the next four years to really get themselves into gear, push for a Farage Prime Minister position at the next election.
	Labour does not yet have a replacement in line that all of the donors could switch to.
	Certainly not one that represents the same kind of policies that they go for, which is under somebody like Starma and the Blairite paradigm, kind of a middling soft left economic policy comparatively with obviously still the same kind of far-left social policies, whether or not Starmer wants to go out and give a speech with loads of rhetoric or not.
	The policies tend to remain the same.
	There's not really an air in line for Labour yet.
	So I'll be interested to see in the next four years if something that could be pops up so that by the next election, if Labour are really going to tank it, perhaps we will be looking at a re-skinned Tories versus Labour, except it's reform versus, I doubt it will be Corbyn's party, but maybe something similar.
	There is that worry.
	We are in politics.
	It's a team game and the teams can switch faces.
	They can switch colours.
	But ultimately, if it's still the same people running the teams, it's still the same team.
	And as we know, reforms seem to be consistent in only really vetting candidates to the right and not so much to the left.
	And so Nigel Faragel seemed to take on many, many people who, frankly, don't deserve a second chance.
	I don't know why they would keep accepting these people.
	Was it Nadine Doris last person?
	It was switched over.
	Why?
	Why take Tory failures into your party?
	That's a bad sign for everybody.
	And not only that, you're trying to distance yourself and talk about the disaster that was Boris Johnson whilst simultaneously taking on one of his closest, most loyalists.
	I was going to say, she wrote a book defending him and his prime ministership, which let in more people than ever that this country has ever experienced in a single year.
	Why?
	Right.
	Why?
	I thought that's the exact opposite of what you want.
	Yeah, it really is.
	But also another point to consider with all of this as well is that even though we've been speaking about, well, there are many dissatisfied trade union leaders, and obviously there are those MPs in the left of the party as well who are looking at the shaky ground that Starmer is now on and want him gone.
	But we should also consider the fact as well that Lord Mandelson himself might well try and drag Starmer down with him.
	And there was talk from P. Powerful, man.
	There's a quote from someone close to Mandelson where he says that vengeance will be unleashed like a deposed Mafia Don.
	That's pretty strong words.
	Right.
	And let's face it, however much dirt people obviously have on Mandelson, let's not pretend that Mandelson won't have a great deal of dirt on other people as well.
	So these are all things to consider.
	But as well as obviously everything to do with Mandelson, you also have just the fact that, so just to mention as well, so there was supposed to be an emergency debate yesterday in the House of Commons regarding the recalling of Mandelson as ambassador and his firing, of course.
	But whilst this was going on, Starmer decided that he wasn't going to attend this to be held accountable because he was busy that day.
	Simply busy.
	There were simply more important things to be done.
	He did have time to tweet out, though, about congratulations to the casting crew of adolescents.
	Congratulations to our government endorsed propaganda in receiving awards from other propaganda awards ceremonies, right?
	So he had time to talk about a Netflix show that was never really much credible in the first place.
	But he didn't have time to attend to answer questions about what might be something linked to the very downfall of his government.
	And so I guess he was just weeping in the bunker in Downing Street, as it were.
	And let's not forget as well that whilst all of this is going on and he is speaking of trying to hide from the Mandelson scandal.
	Patriotic renewal, national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
	Bitch, you arrested people for being angry that children got murdered last year.
	You keep arresting people for stupid stuff and there was no growth in the economy at all the whole time that you have been prime minister.
	Like, what would you call that other than decline and toxic division?
	You told people their concerns did not matter.
	You said that there's a speech.
	It was recorded.
	You can play it back yourself if you want, if your memory hasn't been wiped.
	Then of you saying that.
	What the he is basically Schrodinger's Enoch Powell.
	He'll use the language, then he'll take it back.
	He'll use it again when it's difficult, then he'll take it back.
	Now he's talking about patriotic national reasons.
	And we're in the fight of our times.
	Yeah, against you.
	Moron.
	Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it?
	But that Rupert's there saying nobody cares.
	People just want the illegals deported.
	Not just the illegals, Rupert.
	He says that elsewhere.
	Yeah, we'll toss that bridge when we get to it.
	It isn't just Rupert.
	Yeah, it's this chap, Luca Johnson.
	No, no, no, it's fine.
	I didn't give him a life.
	I didn't give him a life to read.
	There we go.
	I know.
	Also, why?
	Why haven't we?
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	No.
	Shall I?
	We'll do a scathing quote tweet on him.
	No, no.
	Right.
	Anyway, now that we're all behaving.
	Oh, behave.
	The point is as well that whilst all of this is going on with Mandelson and people on the inside.
	And don't get wrong, it is ridiculous that Mandelson's appointment was ever allowed to go and speaks to the sickening nature of part you know of the Labour Party that they would sign off on such an appointment anyway.
	Obviously, just judging that the risks were worth it.
	That's really what it comes down to.
	They knew his character and they wanted him in there anyway.
	And they just thought it was worth the risk.
	They didn't judge him by the content of his character.
	Well, yes.
	So, but obviously the fact is as well that no one in the general public as well is actually satisfied with what Labour are doing.
	And so we are just looking at total extinction.
	We might just get zero seats for the Labour Party.
	And so, Kia, whatever aspirations you may have had about being Prime Minister, I promise you, you will live to regret them.
	Anyway, we'll leave that there because time's ticking on.
	Right, I'll just read the Rumble Ranscott.
	That's a random name, says, you know, it's not terrible news when Harry isn't hitting you with the face.
	That face.
	Also, you used brown eyes for that.
	I have grey-green-blue eyes.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm not some street sweeper like you, brown eyes.
	And Carl M. Rumble says, no offense.
	Luca, grow back your Tash.
	You look naked without it.
	No.
	Moving on to.
	Pretty definitive.
	Moving on to the YouTube comments, you've got just loads of criticism.
	Why did he say that?
	Hey, barbecue.
	Seven likes there as well, but three comments.
	What do the comments say?
	For goodness sake.
	What do they say?
	Rip mustache man.
	No, not the Austrian painter.
	Hey, you've got a woman saying, looks much more handsome.
	Now, this is.
	Thank you, Anne.
	This is where intra-sexual dynamics come into play here, Luca, right?
	And I've mentioned this in the office, but I'll mention it on air because I see what you're doing.
	And it's the same thing that people are trying to do to you, Luca.
	Is since I've grown my hair out and started tying it back as such, right?
	I have had a lot of men telling me, Harry, what are you doing?
	You look like a puffer.
	Shave it short.
	What are you doing?
	You don't look right with that hair.
	That's a lot of men saying that.
	I have a lot of not men saying, hair looks great, Harry.
	Really like you with that hair.
	Really fantastic.
	And it seems to be the same thing with you and your mustache.
	Seems for the case.
	It is men sabotaging you.
	Other men, you know the way that girls will bitch about each other behind their back and tell them, oh, you look great with a few extra pounds on you.
	Don't worry about it.
	Don't let anybody.
	No, it's sabotage, my friend.
	Thank you.
	Now, I appreciate the advice, but I just want to reassure viewers that I am still spiritually Captain Darling at heart.
	So he will never truly leave you.
	Sonny Collier says, I suspect the lovely Mrs. Abbott is Stellius's type.
	Trust me, no.
	He likes him a bit bigger than that.
	Luke Stewart is talking about the third segment, says Good Ao, the perfect verse for the last segment, Luke 631.
	Do to others as you would have them do to you.
	Wise words to live by, I think.
	I'll get back to it during the segment.
	You weren't very Schwarzenegger with that.
	Luke.
	You're very very Luke.
	And Jun Wong, good morning from the Landown under, or soon to be known as India 2.
	Yes, do keep fighting that.
	I saw someone there celebrating Modi's birthday in Australia.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, in the subway.
	Does not surprise me.
	Anyway, Harry.
	He needs them, you know.
	Take us away.
	Alright, so plenty has already been said on the assassination of Charlie Kirk that happened last week, last Wednesday.
	We're almost coming up to a full week since it happened.
	And there are various conspiracies and theories about why he was killed, who really killed him, etc., etc.
	But one thing that we are certain of is that the alleged shooter is currently in custody.
	He is not cooperating with the federal agents at the moment, since he supposedly handed himself in after being convinced by his own father.
	There are, I will admit, quite a few discrepancies with some of the story that we have been heard that we'll go over in a moment.
	I'm not going to try to get too much into conspiracy thinking because I do think Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is the most likely correct one, which would be that some guy who was going out with some trans person who was a leftist,
	inculcated in trans ideology, probably groomed into it through his time on Discord servers and in other online spaces, decided that for the sake of trans rights that he was going to take out one of the biggest and most vocal opponents of trans and LGBT issues in the US.
	But that's not to say that there aren't plenty of discrepancies with the stories and plenty of things to be concerned about.
	But one of the other things is, I mentioned this on Twitter the other day, to a certain extent, the shooter and his ideology doesn't matter with regards to the left anymore.
	Because as soon as it happened, we saw that they claimed it.
	They not only claimed it, they celebrated it and they mocked Charlie Kirk, they mocked his family.
	I saw threats against his wife saying that they needed to have the, she needed to have her children taken away, presumably so that the children, rather than being raised in a household with biological parents who loved them, could instead be raised by radical ideologue lunatics into being trans themselves or something like that.
	So no matter the ideology the shooter had, no matter the reasons he had for shooting, no matter what conspiracy theories may be abounding regarding the shooting, and I'm not saying that none of them have merit either, the left claimed this.
	This is theirs.
	We have the footage.
	People have already been tracked down.
	People have already been fired from their jobs over the disgusting, vile, sickening ways in which people celebrated the death of an innocent father, an innocent husband and father.
	Which is why it's very frustrating when you see actual articles trying to claim that this was some kind of right-wing or Nick Fuentes Groiper style incident, like this one from the Telegraph, where they state here that he had apparent links to the Grouper army and that he had a digital footprint that suggested that he understood and spoke the language used by the alt-right at some stage.
	Whether he espoused the references intentionally remains unclear.
	They're obviously trying to insinuate, they're trying to imply here, and this is from the Telegraph as well, that he had some kind of contact or sympathy to the right or the far right or the Groupers in general.
	This image being one of the ones that they're using to substantiate that claim, given that he is doing a squat in a track suit, which they compare to a Pepe meme.
	And as much as Pepe is used by people on the right, I think this writer fundamentally misunderstands in making this comparison that Pepe is just like a general internet thing, right?
	Everybody of a certain age, mostly Zoomers, even some younger millennials, uses Pepe because Pepe is funny.
	And all of the other far-right language that this kid was using was really just internet talk for Zoomers, as far as I can tell.
	That's not really coded one way or the other.
	So it's a very strange thing to try and imply and insinuate that this kid, whether there's more steps to it or not, was not himself a radical leftist when, as explored a bit, and we'll go over it a little bit more in this segment, it was explored on Monday, I'll expand on it, was not obviously a radical left-wing ideologue.
	That much is obvious.
	It is undeniable, and yet some still try.
	This clip came out of Jimmy Kimmel saying, we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points for it.
	I'm sorry, he was not a right-winger.
	He may have come from a right-wing family, but just assuming that if you come from a right-wing family, you must be right-wing.
	Have we not seen countless examples over the past 10, 20 years of people who came from conservative families who hate them, who despise their family's social views?
	This is a desperate and flailing attempt to try and distance themselves from something that they already claimed.
	You can't walk it back.
	You can't walk back.
	They just won't stop gaslighting.
	Exactly.
	You can't, but it's such a pathetic attempt.
	You can't walk back.
	The second Charlie Kirk's death was announced, before it was even announced, when we all saw the footage of him dying, before it was clear whether he had survived the shot or not.
	Every single one of you were on TikTok, we're on Instagram, we're all over Twitter, celebrating, cheering, saying, who's next?
	Who's next?
	So you don't get to walk that back.
	You don't get to take that back.
	You will be held accountable.
	Those of you who have lost your jobs already, I am glad to see it.
	It is people like you that make tragedies like this more and more likely.
	Things have been escalating to this point.
	Political assassinations are not the sign of a healthy society.
	They are the exact opposite.
	If political divisions in your country are so bad that the guy who goes to universities and tries to have an open dialogue with people who disagree with him, where they can try and find some common ground, is killed for that.
	You do not have a society anymore.
	You do not have a culture that you can all agree upon.
	You do not have a shared common ground that unites all of us.
	You people celebrating that need to be separated from society.
	You need to be fired from your jobs.
	You need to realize there are repercussions.
	There are consequences.
	There are costs to your actions, which we will get into in Stelios' segment.
	But I tell you what doesn't cost too much, and that is, Islander, I have been asked to throw this in.
	I know it's a very serious subject, but knowledge is serious, or some other catchy Piata.
	Just buy it.
	Just buy it.
	If you've not already, it's $14.99.
	The first issue was $14.99.
	This issue is still $14.99.
	So if anything, given by how terrible inflation has been over the past year or so, we're ripping ourselves off by charging so little for it.
	So get yourself a deal while you still can, or you'll be doom scrolling through eBay pages looking at this issue like the rest of them, going for $300 and kicking yourself in the ass, alright?
	So buy it already.
	Anyway, so countering the prevailing gaslighting narrative that people like Jimmy Kimmel are so disgustingly trying to put forward, we have, well, the actual facts, a lot of which have already been gone over, but there is more stuff that has come out since then and more stuff that does cast some questions on what is going on.
	What was going on with this, how he planned it, what was being planned.
	There are text messages which I'll show in a few minutes wherein he says specifically that he'd been planning this assassination for maybe a week and a half.
	And yet at the same time, we have evidence that a number of people who were part of the online trans community were pointing to this specific date of the 10th of September and saying that if Charlie Kirk goes to Utah, there will be consequences.
	So that casts some questions over the text messages.
	Either way, we have some updates here.
	So he has had his first court appearance via Zoom link yesterday.
	That was Tuesday, the 16th of September, 2025.
	He has been charged with aggravated murder and prosecutors are saying that they will seek the death penalty.
	He was taken into custody in his native Utah following the 33-hour manhunt involving local law enforcement and the FBI.
	And let's just stop for a moment and highlight here.
	Cash Patel's FBI, completely useless, completely useless in this whole manhunt.
	It took them waiting for him to hand himself in.
	But also, you'd expect them to take care of roofs.
	Well, that was a private security problem with the event itself.
	And sadly, sometimes, clearly, as we've seen in this case, the security just isn't very good.
	You can see footage of, and you can go across 3D images and images of the event and the layout of the campus.
	And it does seem like it was just an easy place to get up to that people weren't paying attention to.
	Stupid, shoddy work, especially after Trump's attempted assassination last year.
	But I suppose they didn't think that Charlie Kirk would be as high-profile a target to go after as he clearly ended up being.
	But yeah, the FBI in the manhunt, especially given that they all knew Charlie, he was a friend of the administration, taking 33 hours to find nothing and then waiting for him to hand himself in after he was convinced by his trans boyfriend, girlfriend thing and his father to hand himself in.
	Not good.
	Not good work at all.
	DEI FBI.
	Robinson's being held without bail in a special housing unit at the Utah County Jail.
	In addition to aggravated murder, he's facing multiple other charges, including felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and committing violent crime in the presence of children.
	Utah Governor Spencer Cox said a family member told investigators that Robinson had become more political in recent years.
	He said that during a dinner conversation before the attack, Robinson had discussed Kirk's upcoming Utah event at the Utah Valley University.
	Also, just for full transparency, no relation.
	No relation.
	Different Robinson's, I hope.
	Either that or common ancestor six, seven hundred years ago.
	Different Robinson.
	No relation to me, promise.
	Carrying on, Cox said they talked about why they didn't like him and the viewpoints he had.
	Robinson's mother said her son had started to lean more to the left.
	Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray told a news conference on Tuesday, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights orientated, obviously because he had begun dating his roommate who was transgender and transitioning from male to female, according to authorities.
	Gray said Robinson left a note under his keyboard for his roommate which allegedly said, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.
	And this is all information that we've got from the trans girlfriend, boyfriend, right?
	Where apparently he, they, it, she have been very cooperative with the police.
	Robinson himself has chosen to not cooperate with the police after already handing himself in.
	Very strange.
	Perhaps it was that he wasn't really thinking the death penalty would be on the table.
	Now it's been put on the table.
	Maybe he's changed his mind and he's thinking, I'll hold out until I speak to a public defender who has not been assigned to him yet, so I can figure out a legal strategy where maybe I can do a plea deal.
	If the official narrative is true, right?
	With all of the other information that we have, he was not the only man in this.
	He was not the only person as part of this plan.
	There were co-conspirators, as far as I can tell from the information that has been given.
	So the smart move, if you wanted to avoid a death penalty, I am not a legal professional, I do not know if this would work, would be to potentially wait until you can come up with a plea deal with your public defender where you daub everybody else in that conspiracy in to maybe have your charge taken down from a death penalty to maybe life imprisonment instead.
	Maybe he's waiting for that.
	Maybe there's something more suspicious going on.
	But the family and the partner, apparently very cooperative, which is where we're getting this information from.
	In the hours before Robinson handed himself in, Gray said Robinson's mother saw footage of the suspected killer on the news and thought it looked like her son, which led his father to confront him.
	Utah County attorney Gray said police recovered the suspected weapon, a rifle near the scene of the shooting, and DNA consistent with Robinson's was found on the rifle's trigger, adding that the firearm was unique and had once belonged to Robinson's grandfather.
	Earlier FBI Director Cash Patel said DNA discovered on a towel wrapped around the rifle also matched the subject.
	So we have multiple pieces of evidence, material evidence taken from the scene, which have DNA that points towards Tyler Robinson being the shooter.
	And yet, despite all of this and all of the testimonies from his own family, his own boyfriend, you still see this Falsehood being trotted out that it was some you know far-right groiper and that Charlie's death was politically They do this because they do this because they are focusing on narrative control and They have completely lost it people have understood what happened But they want they're playing a numbers
	So they want to give out quantity of message, hoping that one month from now, the sheer quantity of messaging, according to which the killer was right wing, will stick to some people's minds.
	I have already seen that some people have stuck with it because for many people, sadly, this story, like so many others with Irina Zaritska, with even Austin Metcalf and Carmelo Anthony, even something much more minor than this, but still horrifying, that being the brutal beating of the wrestler Psycho Sid at the hands of Roger Jackson, which was caught on camera, live on kick, on a live stream.
	These things cycle in and out.
	So they get bombarded with information to begin with.
	A lot of it is very overwhelming.
	A lot of it is contradictory.
	So they choose one narrative to stick with.
	And for many people on the left, maybe even those who celebrated it, who then see that there are consequences this time and want to absolve themselves so they don't face those consequences, they will have seen some suggestion, like the Telegraph
	article, maybe they only read the headline, that says probable right winger comes from conservative family, Mormon family, registered unaffiliated to political parties, and they'll say groiper, they'll say right winger.
	And they will stick with that because they won't follow up on the information because something new will have popped up in the news cycle that they've instead had their attention grabbed by like a pigeon.
	They want to both gloat and gleefully cheer at the outcome without actually receiving any repercussions or accountability for what they advocate for.
	They hate consequences.
	There is more evidence pointing to him as well, which is that when they went to Tyler Robinson's home, they found targets with bullet holes in it.
	Police found several targets with bullet holes, according to Utah County attorneys, Jeff Gray and the charging documents.
	Obviously, that is circumstantial.
	That is circumstantial.
	But as part of the larger picture, especially with the DNA evidence that they have found as well, it does begin to paint a picture.
	Robinson allegedly told his roommate, his boyfriend, girlfriend thing, that he had been planning to kill Kirk for about a week, according to text messages included in the charging documents.
	Investigators also say they found a shell with an engraved message on it at the same residence, because one of the interesting things about this is like the recent, I think it was Minneapolis school shooting, that freak Robin Westman who shot up the children at the Catholic school, there was engravings on the bullet casings that were left at the scene of the crime at the Utah Valley University here.
	This is becoming a more common thing.
	It seems that people who are committing these crimes are leaving messages for the police when they find the evidence.
	Also, people who do this, they want a sort of symbolism for their action.
	That's why they're leaving engravings.
	They also think it's kind of a meme, like it's a joke.
	A lot of the messages that were engraved on this guy's bullets, supposedly, were references to niche internet jokes.
	I think one of them said something like, if you read this, you're gay lol.
	Yeah.
	You've just taken a man's life.
	Maybe, I'm not trying to ask for a better quality of killer, but maybe I am.
	See you next time?
	need a beer.
	I'll sign up for 20, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 17, 18...
	Maybe I am.
	If you're going to take somebody's life, especially a young father and husband, perhaps have a little bit more, I don't know, solemnity about it.
	Is that the right word?
	But anyway, there's more stuff which is, according to Discord, who initially stated that they did not have any evidence that the killing was planned on Discord or promoted violence on Discord,
	have since come out and provided evidence of messages that were sent through the platform where he confessed to it on a Discord server where he said, it was me at UVU yesterday.
	I'm sorry for all of this.
	This reads from an account that allegedly belongs to Robinson, according to the spokesperson and law enforcement source.
	And I believe Discord have voluntarily come out with this.
	Law enforcement sources have told CBS News that Robinson and his friends bantered about the shooting before his arrest in a group chat on Discord involving more than 20 people.
	The Discord messages, which are said to be from Robinson, were first reported by the Washington Post and are thought to have been written and posted towards the end of a manhunt for the killer.
	The spokesperson said about there was no evidence that it was planned or promoted on Discord.
	From what I know, we only have access to the Discord messages which were sent to this server though.
	So we don't know if then anything was said in DMs.
	Certainly nothing has been brought up in the reporting that I have seen on it.
	The attorney Jay Cox has said previously that he was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.
	All evidence seems to point in that direction.
	Public records reviewed by the BBC suggest that he had in the past registered as an unaffiliated or non-partisan.
	So this is where the BBC try and run a little bit of cover and say like, oh, but he wasn't affiliated with any particular party.
	Well, radical leftists don't associate themselves with the Democrat Party anyway.
	They think the Democrats are some kind of radical right-wing party.
	However, according to Cox, the family member told the investigators that he had become more political.
	Same sort of news that we saw from that.
	Let's look at the text messages then.
	So this is one of the most controversial pieces that have come out thus far regarding all of this.
	Because people are questioning how likely it is that somebody would message like this.
	They're looking at the way that it's written and saying, this doesn't come across like how a young person would message to me.
	Because not only does it come across stilted and awkward, it also is just really condemning in the kind of evidence that he's putting against himself in these text messages himself.
	Now, there are a number of reasons for this, which people are floating.
	Let me read it through it first.
	So after finding the note, supposedly, I think the name is Lance Twiggs is the name of the boyfriend, girlfriend, transitioning person thing.
	He got a text message from them saying, what?
	You're joking, right?
	To which Robinson replied, I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet.
	Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I've got to grab my rifle still.
	To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.
	I am sorry to involve you.
	Response, you weren't the one who did it, right?
	Robinson, I am, I'm sorry.
	Response, I thought they caught the person.
	Robinson, no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing.
	I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down.
	It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering.
	And it goes on like that.
	He really, he really dobs himself in with all of this, essentially.
	Now, there are three explanations people have floated for why this is so stilted and awkward and almost scripted in the way that some say.
	Which is, one, he is just an autistic young kid who doesn't have much social interaction with people outside of Discord servers.
	He doesn't seem to have much of a social media footprint at all outside of Discord.
	As far as I can tell, we've not found a Twitter account, Instagram, TikTok, anything like that.
	It's mainly his Steam account and Discord.
	So perhaps it is just that he talks like a LARPer when he's on there.
	He thinks he's part of some big romantic plot where he's gone out and he's done this for his reason.
	Main character syndrome.
	Yep, and he feels like talking in grandiose statements like, I'm still okay, my love, but I am stuck for a little while longer yet.
	The other two are one, that perhaps the roommate was involved, and all of this is written in such a way so that he only incriminates himself so that the feds will have evidence that looks like the roommate knew nothing about it.
	Sure.
	And the third one is that this whole thing has been fabricated and has been written by somebody who does not know how young people speak over message.
	So I'm not going to put my own opinion forward there.
	And all three of them are plausible.
	Right.
	All three of them.
	If this is part of some larger conspiracy, that would explain why it would be why people have put forward option three.
	What is weird is in the very beginning where he says, to be honest, to be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.
	Just why you just straightforwardly...
	But why did you leave the note?
	Yeah.
	Why?
	That's another contradiction here, which is if you wanted to keep it a secret, why did you leave a note which causes your roommate boyfriend to immediately message you saying, what have you done?
	And then you immediately confess to it before you've even been caught.
	Maybe it was after he was presumably found.
	Well, no, no, no, no.
	This is on the day of the shooting, before he was found.
	And you can see here, he's basically saying here that he's been hanging around the area for ages, waiting while the police are sweeping the area where he dropped his gun.
	So also we have this where he's saying that a guy who looks like the security footage that they'd already have access to, I would assume that they would look at that almost immediately to see what they can find.
	Excuse me.
	He's just hanging around where you find this gun.
	And what he's so discreet that you don't pick him up.
	Very strange.
	Very, very strange.
	Either incompetence or there's something else going on here.
	Again, despite this, he also said in it, he's asked, why did you do it?
	Presumably, though.
	Surely you would have known.
	Right.
	You'd have known.
	He said, I had enough of his hatred.
	So there's the motivation right there.
	Some hate can't be negotiated out.
	And then he says that, how long have you been planning this?
	A bit over a week, I believe.
	But there is some strange occurrences which seem to suggest that it might have been a little bit longer than that.
	So again, we have all of this stuff to respond to people who, as of yesterday, are still saying that this guy was MAGA, even though, according to the official narrative, everything that we have suggests that he was the exact opposite.
	But this is where we get to some of the other weird stuff.
	Which is one, if he was planning it for over just over a week, why is it that even on the 6th of August, for instance, we have tweets from people seemingly suggesting that something strange was going to go down on the 10th of September when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
	And the same person saying, I plead the fifth.
	And then you have other people with accounts where their name says, saw Tyler June 30th.
	And there's a number of these, like people saying, we effing did it.
	There's a number of these from people saying, Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow.
	I really hope someone evaporates him literally.
	Let's just say something big will happen tomorrow.
	And these all seem to be very young people.
	They thems, people who would potentially be in the same kind of Discord servers that Tyler Robinson was interacting with.
	So there needs to be questions asked of these people.
	Track down their accounts, figure out what they meant.
	If they were just memeing, or as it seems more likely, they already knew something was going to happen.
	And that's where we come to this as well, which was a report from the New York Post that, according to a neighbor, two weeks prior to the assassination, several people driving cars with out-of-state license plates were seen going in and out of Tyler's apartment.
	And the neighbour said they did not give off a good vibe.
	So was this just some kind of strange internet meetup with a bunch of transgender furries, which are communities which it seems that Tyler and his boyfriend, girlfriend were associated with?
	Or was there something else going on?
	Was this coordination with outside actors with bad intentions, as some have suggested?
	Was this coordination with other people who are part of these communities who were in on the plan and that Tyler is going out of his way to protect through non-cooperation and through his roommate releasing text messages which seem to incriminate only Tyler as the sole person behind this?
	There are a lot of questions.
	One thing is to be sure, though, we can't say that this guy was anything like MAGA.
	We can't say that this guy was not radically left-wing, even if he was being manipulated by outside sources.
	I think it seems clear that this guy is the killer.
	It's just a question of how far this goes.
	And when it comes to some of the larger conspiracies, I don't put too much stock in them.
	But I will say there has been something weird.
	And it is something that I saw only just before this came, before we came on, so I didn't have time to put it in the segment.
	Which is part of the administration's reaction to the whole event, right?
	Which is, you know, it's completely normal and understandable and respectful for his friends to, like JD Vance, for Matt Walsh and the others to go on the Charlie Kirk show and give speeches in memoriam to him, to his audience, as a kind of way of respectfully closing out the show.
	Perhaps this is just a difference in sentiment and sensibility between Americans and the English.
	But I saw on the 21st, so that would be what, Sunday, that there's going to be a big memorial for Charlie Kirk where they all go around giving speeches and loads of people who knew him.
	Donald Trump's going to be there.
	JD Vance is going to be there.
	And I saw it going around on social media like it was some kind of big PR WrestleMania style event.
	To me, that's a very, very strange way to mourn a fallen comrade.
	Maybe it's just a different approach that Americans have versus the English.
	Those are the wishes of his wife.
	I mean, his wife is making an appearance there.
	But I don't know, for me it just feels wrong to treat it like a PR event.
	It's quite tasteless.
	But Americans in the audience, feel free to disagree with me there.
	That might just be my sentiment and sensibilities versus that of America, because I know Americans like to go big and go loud with everything.
	But that's just me.
	So, you know, leave your theories, leave your ideas down below.
	And don't let the left shy away from this.
	This is something they claimed.
	Not only have they claimed it, this is something else I only saw before that I couldn't add in this.
	There were memorials put up not only to Charlie Kirk, but to Irina Zarutska, the Ukrainian girl who was stabbed to death by a feral con on the subway.
	There were memorials painted around America about her.
	I've already seen those being vandalized.
	I've seen the same ones for Charlie Kirk being vandalized.
	The one for Irina was painted over and somebody put up a mural of her killer instead.
	Don't let people shy away from this.
	They took this.
	They've claimed it.
	They need to live with the consequences, which is complete, complete ostracization from society.
	They must be outcast.
	There you go.
	Well said.
	I'll read through some of these.
	Right, so Scott Saigai on Rumble, strangest part in the messages is him randomly mentioning his dad went MAGA.
	Like they would never have talked about that before.
	Sarayan555, FBI did absolutely F all.
	If he hadn't been made to turn himself in, this little freak would have gotten away.
	Also, this field office is the same one that gunned down Craig Robertson two years ago.
	Boba Bad.
	If the FBI was as focused on getting criminals and assassins as they were on glorifying Valhalla, this slime ball would have been caught immediately.
	And Emira's Davenport says, got to disagree a bit here.
	Cash broke with previous FBI protocol and released the suspect photos, which led to the family recognizing Robinson and confronting him.
	Potentially, Habsification, the left will never admit their own violent murder because they don't view it as such.
	Yeah, they think any kind of agreement is a disagreement is a death threat.
	So they think that if they kill you, then that's just fair.
	On YouTube, Mormons historically are more conservative, but in the last 20 years, there are more varied political opinions and, of course, rebellious young adults.
	Apparently, Cash had to overrule the rest of the law enforcement to release the killer's photos to the public.
	If that did help to track him down, then great.
	As someone which bought two of the island number four, one for my old man and one for the men's shed he is with, I think you can expect a large order for down under for future issues.
	Cheers to the team.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	As much as I agree, impotent FBI, to be fair, there is only so much that can be done in nine months.
	True, but again, the handling of this case in particular seemed to strike me as not as swift or as competent as it could have been.
	Celius and Harry were my favorite couple.
	I see there's a new handsome man in the mix now.
	Seriously, glad things are shaping up over there towards sanity.
	I think I've just lost whatever sanity I had reading that one out.
	And the ABC Australia's new broadcaster just interviewed Hassan Piker about Charlie and whitewashed him for the mainstream Harry.
	I have just etched you.
	I assume you mean tagged me on X. Brilliant.
	Brilliant.
	Hassan Piker, he's someone we'll be talking about.
	Right, so, Simpson, do you want to get Stelioses up there?
	There we go.
	Yeah.
	Thanks.
	Right, so one of the main vehicles of radicalization of people by the radical left is the progressivist narrative.
	And the progressivist narrative is spreading victimhood.
	It's trying to create the false idea that its recipients are under imminent threat of death and they have to defend themselves and therefore they're justified in using violence.
	They're doing this all the time by mainstream media in academia for decades.
	It is basically stochastic terrorism.
	When you're convincing millions of people that they are faced with such imminent threat, some of them, regrettably, are going to take action and violent one.
	And the effects of it can't be denied anymore.
	For a long time, we were talking about this.
	Many people were talking about this.
	And it was treated by those we want to convince, not those we can't convince and we do not address, but those we want to convince as somehow very theoretical, very abstract, as pointing something that is problematic within a worldview that no worldview is fail-safe, therefore it's an issue of just you know, you're making things up because you're too much online.
	But that's that can't be denied anymore.
	There is an issue with radical left extremism in what is called the, within quotation marks, progressivist space.
	Right, so we see them constantly do this, weaponizing this narrative to radicalize people, but also to completely change our perception of reality.
	And when they can't win the argument and when more and more people wake up, they're just following the Gebellian tactic of throwing as much mud as possible, hoping some of it will stick, because they want to create a completely false idea of reality in the minds of the general public.
	Right, so they try to claim that Charlie Kirk was an extremist.
	They still do.
	They try to claim that the assassin was a right-wing conservative.
	Some of them still do.
	Now they're trying to make it about cancel culture and are putting the onus of proof and responsibility on the right yet again.
	No matter what happens, they're constantly deflecting.
	They're constantly claiming that it's not the left that has to assume responsibility for anything.
	All the times, at all times, blame the right.
	And there's a habit in the minds of the general public after a while of expecting the right to apologize and not expecting the left to do so.
	And actually becoming habituated into a left-wing space of the political area of the political spectrum, which only asks questions and never answers and is never held accountable.
	Well, I mean, that goes to show why so many were comfortable with celebrating in the first place, is because they have become just so protected from consequences.
	We have Mehdi Hassan here saying, I remember how much Muslims were lectured about the importance of a right to offend being part of a right to free speech.
	We were told that we must accept offensive and racist remarks about our faith, our prophet, etc., in the name of free speech and integrating into Western civilization, Voltaire and the rest.
	Those same folks who lectured Muslims are now saying to people that they cannot be offensive about a dead conservative influencer and they will be punished if they do so.
	Even if being offensive in one speech is literally what the First Amendment guarantees.
	Oh, the hypocrisy, oh, the gaslighting.
	That's amazing that that last line actually describes what he is doing right there.
	Projection.
	Indeed.
	So I want to say that what is happening right now from the right wing is not cancel culture.
	I know some friends asked me yesterday about this.
	They thought that I'm taking a very hard line on this and they think that somehow this is cancel culture.
	I want to say why this isn't.
	Right.
	If I know you are associating with someone who is very malevolent and you may not know of their malevolence and I happen to find out about it, I have to warn you about it.
	Unless I do, I'm not your friend.
	I have to warn you about it and then I have to appeal to all your considerations, not about freedom of speech, but our freedom of association.
	There has to be a point where people draw a red line between what is acceptable and what not.
	There has to be a point where civil society claims, imposes some standards of behavior and marginalizes those who fail to meet them.
	And I want to say that what Mehdi Hassan and many leftists who are playing this card are doing right now is they're trying to blur the lines between a huge difference.
	It's one thing to say that it's evil to disagree with any point of the progressivist agenda.
	And on the other hand, saying that if you're celebrating the murder of an innocent man in front of his family is evil, you have to be ostracized in the other hand.
	No amount of gaslighting will make these things the same.
	No amount of gaslighting will make these things the same.
	And if we focus on just on personal relationships, I'll just give you an example from a movie that I think by now most people have watched.
	It's American Psychopath.
	You remember the main character is talking to some of his co-workers.
	At some point he makes a very, he makes something like a joke.
	So you hear it, is it the, hey, quit it with the anti-Semitic remarks, that bit.
	I think he means the end game.
	No, no, at some point he talks about heads.
	Yes, heads.
	And the other people say, wait, that's not funny.
	They're not laughing.
	so it's the same thing at some point people have to we know we're we are mature We shouldn't speak to each other like we're children.
	Some people lie.
	And when we're mature people, we need to grow up to develop a radar of understanding when people are lying and understanding when people are behaving in ways that are absolutely unacceptable.
	And perhaps this means that they should be marginalized and ostracized.
	And again, this is not an issue of freedom of speech.
	This is an issue of freedom of association.
	Well, if I may just say as well, as regards to like the things that Mehdi's alluding to with left-wing cancel culture back when it was just at its absolute height in 2020, those were on issues such as, oh, are trans women women, right?
	And is the West systemically racist?
	And not only were we on the right side of those issues, right?
	But also, as you say, those are matters of opinion.
	What is not a matter of opinion is cheering for the political assassination of a political opponent because implicit within you cheering for it is also your endorsement of the action itself.
	You're saying, I agree in principle with murdering my political culture.
	And you're encouraging more of it.
	Some more practical examples.
	So for one, back in 2017, so here's an example of cancel culture as we understand it, right?
	James DeMoore, Google engineer, writes a document for Google explaining the gender pay gap and achievement gap as a result of biology.
	Makes perfect sense.
	Well reasoned.
	Fired.
	Cancelled for it.
	Cancelled for trying to help his company to understand why there were these supposedly intractable problems within the company.
	Fired.
	That was a freedom of speech issue.
	People in England, to bring it back to Mehdi Hussein's example, or Mehdi Hassan, his example here, people in England were cancelled and they were ostracized and they were humiliated and mocked in the mid-2000s for highlighting the problem of Pakistani grooming gangs in England.
	That was a problem of freedom of speech being restricted for the sake of protecting Mehdi Hassan's group.
	That he doesn't, he wouldn't like to talk about that.
	This is a problem of a person being assassinated.
	We all saw him die.
	We all saw that.
	And people not only cheering it on, but then encouraging it, inciting more and posting on social media.
	Here's a list of other people.
	I would like to see murdered publicly.
	Right, at that point, this isn't a question anymore.
	It wasn't a question 20 years ago when people were being humiliated and mocked for trying to protect their own communities.
	At that point, you're actually in a war.
	Whether you want to accept it, whether it's heated up to its full extent, yet you are in war when it's that divided.
	The other issue is to friends who are viewing it from a very abstract point about considerations of freedom of speech.
	I want to say that when they are entering into this discussion without drawing the line I mentioned before, you're assuming you're essentially being lured into the leftist narrative because you're functioning from a position that assumes that there is no such thing as a plausible line to be divided between cheering for the death of an innocent man in front of his family on the one hand and
	getting cancelled for literally deviating from the main narrative that they tried to impose on you.
	They shouldn't drag themselves into this trap.
	Right, before we go on, I think it's time to I think now it's a good place to talk about the islander.
	We have Islander issue number four, only $14.99.
	Check out our website and order it before it before we run out of these copies.
	Check it out and read our really great articles there.
	Luca, you also have an article about Sauron.
	Yeah.
	Very relevant.
	Check it out.
	Check it out.
	No, it is relevant because it's about evil.
	Yeah, it is.
	Right.
	So yesterday, Pam Bondi did a massive mistake.
	She used their language and started talking about hate speech and said hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
	It's a crime for far too long.
	We've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations and cheer on political violence.
	That era is over.
	I agree with the last bit.
	It's called incitement to violence.
	You don't have to enter into the language of hate speech and all this nonsense.
	And because she did, she gave extra justification or perceived justification for people to start talking about.
	Oh, well, Charlie Kirk did hate speech, so where was your condemnation of him?
	Yeah.
	And I want to show something because we should never forget the specifics of the issue.
	To a very large extent, people are thinking about these issues in a very abstract sense without focusing on the particulars and data.
	And this is incredibly wrong.
	And I want to say that the media, the universities, but also alternative media platforms, they are sustaining this crazily alarmist narrative, according to which society is at the brink of extinction simply because people disagree with progressivism.
	And simply because someone disagrees with open borders, somehow this is to be credited to a rise in Hitlerism.
	Absolute nonsense.
	I want to say that I completely disrespect people who do this, especially when it's without evidence.
	And I want to show you here how the left is sustaining this culture and this alarmist narrative by giving you several examples because all of them are trying to basically radicalize people and they're trying to constantly blur the lines between a normally functioned society, functioning society on the one hand and a totalitarian society on the other hand.
	And again, I can't stress this enough.
	No amount of gaslighting by crazy imbeciles is going to make cheering the death of innocent men the same as saying that people...
	Sorry, I was completely lost here.
	will do this there no amount of gaslight gaslighting will ever make us say that it's the same thing to say that we're going to marginalize people who are happy about the assassination of an innocent man in front of his family and call for more assassinations and treat the same with getting cancelled with for completely for disagreeing or deviating saying that men and women are different and not interchange yeah where the progress is narrative
	and i want to show you here this msnbc um hey it's not there you go there yeah
	look at what he's saying at some point i'm gonna have grandchildren and they are gonna ask me granddad grandpap what did you do when the bad men come and what am i gonna say to those kids right what am i gonna say to my future grandkids about what i did in this moment the answer can't be nothing what anybody who is listening to me is doing right now is what you would have done at all of those great and evil points in history what you're doing right now is what you would have done
	during jim crow what you're doing right now is what you would have done during pinochet or hitler or stalin or any of the other bad guys in history what you're doing right now is what you would have done then right so again how is how is that not a justification of any terrorism i've i've considered myself the ultimate good guy you're the new hitler therefore anything that i do is actually freedom fighting also sorry i'm gonna call this bullshit because his whole thought experiment is based
	on the idea that his group isn't going to be genocided he says at some point i will have grandchildren at some point they're gonna grow up they're gonna ask me grandpa what did you do because the good guys always win and he's a good guy no but the point is all this is based on the idea that all the narrative according to which all the minorities constantly say we're going to be genocided if trump is bullshit but
	he's playing in it and he's constantly saying question for white liberals who praise charlie kirk in the name of free speech where are your columns actually defer where are you you columns actually defending the free speech of people who are being fired for quoting meritocratic tweet writing yeah also look at what he says here how to canonize a white supremacist oh he is he the one who wrote the uh the nation one yeah this should be taken down
	and uh see here what he says you should have your platform the purging of media voices unwilling to venerate the hateful racist career of kirk has already begun msnbc fired analyst matthew dowd who said in response to the shooting hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions telling the truth of television on television is never the smart career move well what a moron who did the hateful action yeah
	your guy no sorry i i i don't think we need to we i don't think people like this should be on on uh on msnbc and what gives him the right to a platform oh here's my favorite guy here's your favorite it's not just and it's it's not just the mainstream media it's also alternative platforms here we have destiny constantly talking about you know fantasizing about you know how conservatives should be killed this is a giant thread
	shared by sharon brooks he said it time and time again these are multiple compilations i think we've even showed them on the podcast before where he says that they should be assassinated where he said that they should be in fear they should be worried about being assassinated well destiny if you're going to try and claim plausible deniability how do you get people worried about being killed without at least one person being killed and here he says basically if
	you wanted charlie kirk to be alive donald trump shouldn't have been president for the second term That's destiny again.
	That's just a terror threat.
	And here he's talking meticulously about planning a murder with his friends and getting so close to going to his house and murdering him and his father.
	Right.
	So the point is, when you are the left is constantly using dehumanizing rhetoric across all platforms.
	Some people do it with a facade of respectability.
	Destiny is actually more honest than that.
	Yeah, it's just a mask off.
	Yeah, I'm more honest than that.
	I said he's the one who says it out loud.
	Yeah.
	Because he's been able to get away with it for so long.
	He got taken off Twitch.
	Don't believe him if you search for his account and find the post where he says, oh my god, people mass reporting me have gotten me off Twitch.
	Because I saw a load of people, because I said he's on kick.
	Kick is where he streams.
	You can complain to them under guidelines 4, 5, and 6, which prohibit incitement of violence against particular demographics.
	That would also include political demographics such as conservatives, incitement to violence in general, and incitement of terrorism and encouragement of terrorism.
	Destiny is guilty of all of those things on and off the platform.
	So if you would like, what I have suggested is that people can follow my example.
	You can go to support at kick.com, their email address, and you can send an email complaining, saying there needs to be greater moderation.
	Perhaps his account should be taken down because he is clearly in violation of this guideline, this guideline, this guideline.
	In the thread that I put up on Twitter, you can find examples in the thread that you can link to the kick moderation team when you put that forward.
	Because Destiny should not be allowed on platforms where he can encourage people to get killed.
	He should not be given platforms on Piers Morgan where he can do the exact same thing.
	He is complicit in this.
	And the same with Hassan.
	Same with Hassan.
	And what I find absolutely worrying is I made a post yesterday about this, about this dehumanizing rhetoric that people are habituated into listening from the left.
	And several people who follow me, they're not Destiny followers.
	They were telling me, that is just bread getting buttered.
	It's another day ending in Y. In one respect, it is.
	This is what the rhetoric is about.
	But this is even more frightening.
	This is not a reason to not get worried.
	This is a reason to get very worried because it means that people have been habituated into accepting that the left wing will use this dehumanizing rhetoric and get away with it.
	And here we have Hassan Piker with Mamdani.
	I wonder how many mainstream media journalists are going to ask Mamdani about Hassan the way they do to right-wing politicians if they happen to have to be on a photograph with someone they consider off the pale.
	Also, to a certain extent, the way these people behave, as a father, you have to treat them like children.
	Like, does my daughter like it when I tell her off for doing something?
	No.
	Do I have to do it anyway so that she can learn or at least there can be some kind of consequences for what she does?
	Yes.
	But also, let me just end with this, because I feel that basically in the last 10, 12 days, I feel I've aged a decade.
	I'm incredibly tired.
	And yes, that's why you hear me sometimes being very incoherent.
	I have been incoherent throughout this segment, but I want to say, yes, I want to say that it's not the same thing.
	Saying that you need to take care and you need to be careful because there are psychopaths out there and bad people who are cheering about bad things and you need to wake up and not associate with them is not the same thing as cheering about the cancellation of anyone who ever deviated from an incredibly totalitarian agenda of progressivism that only radicalizes people and
	makes our society worse and has led to the desecrations of neurons of Irina Zarutska.
	Thank you for including me.
	We're again making it about ending systemic oppression.
	They're again desecrating the mural of Charlie Kirk by putting the BLM fist, right?
	Making about systemic oppression.
	Get some responsibility.
	Take some responsibility.
	And here, I want to say this.
	We have by Eric Schmidt, he's saying 55% of those on the left say it would be at least somewhat justified to kill Donald Trump.
	25% of the leftists, he calls them very liberal.
	I don't because I don't want to play into this narrative.
	He says, of these Americans say political violence can be justified.
	They are doing this because people have been habituated into accepting this ridiculously radicalizing, extremist narrative by the left.
	And they shouldn't.
	This is not a both sides issue.
	There are incredible differences.
	And at some point, people who want to make this about free speech, they have to ask the same question.
	The people in favor of abstract multiculturalism and fettered multiculturalism are in favor of how many people must die in order for you to wake up and understand that there is a problem.
	There are some specifics that you need to focus on and stop hiding behind abstractions.
	These questions need to be addressed.
	All right.
	Thoroughly agree.
	Let's go through.
	I'll go through some of these super chats just so that we can get through them quickly.
	On YouTube, it's easy.
	Political violence is terrorism.
	Absolutely true.
	You're not supporting Bondi's take, are you?
	Questions someone.
	Yes, the left's pretending to support free speech, but every American on the right is condemning Pam Bondi too.
	Yeah, we're not agreeing with her using terms like hate speech.
	That's only justified.
	We condemned her in the very beginning of the segment.
	Yeah.
	Just let's stop with this idea of hate speech that she's putting.
	It's incitement to violence, whether it's direct and indirect.
	And the question is, when do we have to focus on the specifics in order to understand what is indirect incitement to violence?
	Ultimately, they say they want to kill us.
	They've killed one of us.
	They say they want to kill more of us.
	At what point do we say you being allowed to say that is just putting us in danger?
	Hassan Piker just got interviewed and normalized to the Australian public by the ABC or National Broadcaster.
	Should we expect any less?
	That's pretty horrifying.
	On Rumble, Mam Danny was already on a stream with Ilhan Omar justifying Kirk's killing.
	These people are demons that wear sin like a badge of honor.
	As far as I'm concerned, neither of those should be permitted anywhere near US government, state, local, or federal.
	Or in the country.
	Yeah, or in the country.
	That is true.
	Anybody who can't bench like 60 kg by themselves without a spotter for more than two reps should not be allowed anywhere near state office.
	The engaged few, I refuse to call him that anymore.
	This is destiny.
	Henceforth, his name is Density, because that describes him better than any other moniker.
	Cranky Texan, even if it was canceled culture and what made what the left was doing so terrifying was involvement by the security state and state-funded NGOs.
	That's why Pam Blondie needs to shut up.
	Yes.
	The left who are used to acting with absolute impunity are losing their minds now that the shoe is on the other foot and we're more than perfectly justified in doing so.
	They can get bent.
	Yeah, it took them literally murdering somebody for them to actually start to face anywhere near the kind of consequences that we have been experiencing for years.
	I got kicked out of my band for talking about the fact on this podcast that men cannot be women.
	Right?
	I get kicked out of my band for that.
	Not that the band wanted to, but because the actual apparatus of the UK music scene did not want me in the band.
	The people who were the gatekeepers didn't want me in the band.
	That was cancel culture.
	I didn't murder anybody.
	Nor when somebody was murdered did I cheer and say, let's do more of that.
	So there's a complete difference there.
	Every person who celebrates the assassination is publicly declaring that they believe people with the wrong opinions should be silenced by any means.
	We have an obligation to hold them to their own standards.
	Be careful there.
	We do not want to encourage violence.
	We do not condone violence.
	I encourage consequences and repercussions for people who would have violence committed to me.
	Trump visited the King of England today and the parade was really awesome to see.
	And finally, Stelyos' discussion is perhaps the most important component of this debate.
	And I want to see him expand on this in a separate video I can share to folks on X and Facebook.
	Perhaps when you've collected your thoughts at the end of the day.
	It's not that, honestly, I'll do it.
	It's not an issue of collecting your thoughts.
	It's an issue of me being absolutely exhausted.
	That is absolutely fair.
	Once you've had some rest and you're up for it, I think perhaps a daily video or something could be very instructive for people.
	All right then.
	Do we have time for video comments, Samson?
	How many are there?
	And for the comments on the website.
	I'll go through them after.
	Gotten Samson.
	Got them there.
	England belongs to the English.
	England, they took your guns, they took your swords, and they raped your women.
	You have nothing else to lose, but there's still hope.
	You are still the majority.
	So you either fight for this nation or you let all of these rapists, Muslims, and corrupt politicians take over.
	And after what they did to Charlie Kirk, debate time is over.
	Was that at the Tommy rally?
	Yes.
	Valentina Gomez, I think.
	Yes.
	Guys, you've got a channel, Russian.
	Yeah, he's out there.
	You can watch that stuff and subscribe.
	I was not there.
	I was in a field wearing elf ears in Kent.
	However, the bassist and drummer from my band were performing at the Tommy Rally as the backing band.
	My question is a bit of a tough one, and it's probably something others are going through too.
	While none of my friends are directly supporting or celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a lot of them are making excuses and lying about him, similar to how Lewis Goodall did in Carl's latest video.
	I've tried to be respectful and disprove their claims, but they still stick to the talking points of racism and transphobia, and it just seems like the conversation goes in circles.
	I really don't want to end friendships with people I enjoy, but how do you stay friends with someone who doesn't try to listen or understand you?
	Really appreciate everything you all do.
	Love you guys.
	If they don't try to understand you, they're not your friends.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, the question becomes...
	They just want you to understand them, but they don't want to see you as an equal, apparently.
	Yeah, the question becomes: for me, in a situation like that, would they make excuses if it was me because of my opinions?
	And if the answer is yes, then you shouldn't associate with them.
	i second both of those i
	remember as a beautiful small boy going to a carlisle It's the one and only time I visited there because that old classic steam engine, the flying Scotsman, had been taken out of retirement and I went with my granddad for the day.
	I remember as a child getting to Carlisle and we went, wow, this is really boring.
	And we got an early train home because we were but perhaps worth a revisit for the eye of Salron, if nothing else.
	I've never been Carlisle.
	I was in the Lake District a couple of years ago.
	It's a lovely, lovely part of the world, but I didn't get a chance to go to the.
	Yes, I love the Lake District, though.
	Yeah.
	The left can't meme because, among other things, they have no self-awareness.
	This is why they accidentally make the right wing look cool.
	Speaking of, now my mech is more or less functioning.
	Anybody got some mech video ideas?
	Remember, no Fed posting.
	Ultimate mech battle.
	Is there somebody with similar mechs that you can pit against one another, like Robot Wars back in the day?
	Optimus Prime?
	Maybe?
	Yeah, have it transform into like a Lamborghini for yourself.
	That'd be cool.
	But you would need to build a Lamborghini.
	Well, I'm going to be at the First Fleet Forum that's advertising you're going to be there, Carl.
	So they didn't accept my speech pitch, but that's okay.
	I'm up against academics, and what I was pitching was a glorified epiphany anyway.
	But it'll be good to see you, and I will have my copies of Islander hoping to get a signature.
	Oh, you can check how much they go for on eBay.
	It's a lot.
	It's a shocking amount.
	It is.
	Yeah, it's all the video comments.
	All right, then.
	Well, I'll very quickly just go through two from my segment.
	Amara Wad says, Politics is the only realm in which you can support aborting labor in the first term and still have the moral high ground.
	I'm even willing to consider a Cesarean solution, God knows.
	They've stabbed us in the back over 23 times by now.
	Well, obviously, don't endorse a Cesarean solution.
	You've got to read Hex Rex's, because that's a great comment.
	And then Rex says, David Lamy eating crayons in his room and Abe burst in.
	So you've been made prime minister.
	That is how it's going to happen.
	That's how we're going to get our first black prime minister.
	Is that David Lamy is just gonna fall into it somehow?
	So let's see.
	Texas Gal says, at first I thought the text messages sounded fake, but if you read it in your best slash worst Redditor voice, it makes sense.
	Because one of the problems is that all three answers that I provided are somewhat plausible, which is why I am withholding public statements on where I fall so far.
	And Chance from Canada has said, has asked, will you guys cover the Israel conspiracy theory on Kirk's assassination?
	I'm pretty certain that Carl covered a lot of that on Thursday's stream, the day after it happened.
	So if you want to go back and see some of the information, I'm sure it's been expanded on by now, having been almost a week, but a lot of the information regarding that conspiracy theory was already available by that point.
	So you can watch Carl's segment for more on that.
	Do you want to read some of yours Celios or should we read through some of them?
	Yeah.
	Furious Dan says, the left, why are you cancelling me?
	What happened to your principal, the right?
	You shot them.
	So honestly, I just don't think it's an issue of us not having principles.
	There's no contradiction.
	No.
	In what we've been saying versus what we're saying now.
	They're entirely consistent.
	Yeah.
	Baron von Warhock.
	Remember, these people don't care about free speech.
	They're only using the First Amendment as a shield because they know the right wing holds it in such high regard.
	They created cancel culture to begin with and used it to cancel people over jokes made 10 years ago.
	There's nothing wrong with using the tools of the enemy in moments like this because if the roles were reversed, they would have shown us no mercy at all.
	I will say that, you know, again, I don't think it's using the tools of the enemy because let's take the US and say it's a classically liberal society.
	Within classically liberal societies, you have a focus on civil society.
	It's a bottom-up society rather than a top-down imposed society.
	And you can have civil society exerting moral pressure for and against some positions.
	It's just that's always what the whole thing was.
	Always.
	I don't know whether at some point what you're calling as 90s liberal was against this, against the idea that civil society should exert moral pressure.
	If that's the case, then I'm not for that.
	Right.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	And also that predates leftism.
	The idea that you're having a civil society that exerts moral pressure on people and tries to ostraciz those that they consider worthy of being marginalized.
	It's way before the left.
	Arizona Desert Rat wreak weak and insecure people like Destiny are often the most dangerous as they're the most willing to take extreme action to get their way.
	And I was watching a good video by Scott Jennings on CNN, who's really doing a good job against the CNN leftists who are constantly trying to shake away responsibility from the left.
	They were saying these were some random people and say, no, no, you cannot not accept responsibility for random people when you're radicalizing them.
	At some point, when you are engaging in such inflammatory rhetoric, some random people are going to be influenced by it.
	Absolutely.
	Well, we've run over time, ladies and gentlemen, but entirely worth it, particularly for those final two segments, unpacking all of this and figuring out principles.
	And again, a very important conversation to be had.
	So we thank you for joining us.

▲