The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1258

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 23, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:07

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1258

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Road Seaters episode 1258 for Tuesday the 23rd of September 2025.
	I'm your host Luca joined today by the Stellios.
	Hello everyone.
	And returning, returning, returning guest, ever returning guest Josh, how are you?
	Hello.
	And to be clear, to all the people dragging me up on this, I said I'd be back.
	I come back and everyone's just like, you were meant to leave.
	And now it just feels like no one wants me anymore.
	So be nice.
	No, we're very glad to have you here, Josh.
	You're joking.
	We promise.
	Now push me off the set.
	Today we're going to be talking about the Dutch anti-immigration riots.
	We're then going to be talking about Trump's autism action plan.
	Look at me.
	And then we're going to be talking about the worst cancellation of all time.
	Yeah.
	And also the apocalypse that has been averted.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Good.
	It was going to be an apocalypse.
	The world would have been destroyed.
	Well, I'm all for avoiding apocalypses, so let's see what comes of that.
	Anyway.
	Away from whatever advice Trump is giving about autism, allow me to give you some good health advice, which is to buy Islander magazine.
	I am told it is the final week now that you can get it.
	When we said that they were running out, we meant it.
	And now it's all coming to a very melancholy end.
	So go and pick it up for $14.99 on the website, plus the postage and the packaging.
	All right, Josh, over to you.
	Okay.
	So the Netherlands is obviously a very nice country.
	Everything's very sort of neat, orderly, law-abiding.
	Look at it.
	It looks lovely.
	It looks like a postcard, doesn't it?
	I don't like bikes, though.
	That is the one drawback for an Englishman.
	Having to dodge all the cyclists is a bit frustrating.
	But it does mean that you don't get run over by cars.
	So the limit, you know, the limitation of getting hurt is pretty good.
	But I've been there.
	I really liked it.
	It's sort of the closest I've felt to being at home away from home.
	And of course, normally it stays like this.
	But then this happened.
	What happened is this is an anti-immigration protest, and those are the police.
	And what is happening is they are running away.
	Could it be that the Dutch have had enough?
	Thank you.
	Is it that Dutch Patriots educate police vehicle because education is important?
	All the buzzwords in, didn't you?
	No.
	We're going to be talking about what it is in a second, but I'm just going to show you some footage and then we'll explain what's going on.
	So here's some more.
	Sorry if it's a little bit loud, but riots often are.
	Oh, it's all been muted, at least on our end.
	They seem angry a bit, don't they?
	Just a touch, yeah.
	But as you can see, they're attacking the police vans and they're having to flee.
	And here they're chanting, we are the Netherlands.
	I'm not sure if you can hear it, but we cannot.
	Is it muted, Samson, or is that just on our end?
	Ah, can't we?
	I can't hear it either.
	Samson has unmuted at this end.
	And I think there's one more here where we can hear it.
	And this is them, I think, turning over a set-on-fire police car.
	So this is hardly the sort of peaceful, idyllic, law-abiding stuff that we're used to seeing.
	And of course, the Dutch are sort of similar to the British in the fact that they've got their football hooligans and there may be some overlap here.
	But it is a little bit surprising that this has happened because to an outside observer, it seems to have come from nowhere.
	You'd expect this from France.
	You wouldn't expect it from the Dutch.
	No, you wouldn't.
	It's sort of similar to Germany in a way that people, generally speaking, abide by the law and are quite neat and tidy and orderly.
	And that's a good thing, right?
	It's an admirable way to conduct yourself.
	But this was an anti-immigration protest outside Denhag or The Hague.
	And this is the seat of the Dutch parliament, if you're not aware.
	And 30 people were arrested and two officers were injured.
	And I'm going to pronounce his name in the original Dutch first before saying it in English so everyone else understands.
	but Hirt Wilders, I think.
	I didn't do the properly.
	You also did it with a hand.
	It's a bit flamboyant, isn't it?
	I think I should be speaking Italian with that amount of hand motion.
	He was invited and he declined to speak there.
	I don't know whether he thought it might end up this way, but it was a rainy day in a field.
	So maybe it was just that he didn't fancy it.
	But another thing that happened, which I've not been able to find video footage of, but it is claimed to have happened, is 1,500 people blocked a highway crossing the city.
	And this has been met with lots of condemnation because, of course, fighting the police isn't exactly a productive way to limit immigration, is it?
	Generally speaking, this sort of thing doesn't play well optically.
	Although I can certainly understand the anger and frustration, because I care a lot about immigration as well.
	And I imagine that they're probably going to have lots of similar arguments that I might have about high rates of crime and financial burdens, etc.
	But it doesn't necessarily help things by doing this.
	And I think Wilders has gone down a similar line here.
	And to translate the Dutch here, he says, tackle that scum with an iron fist, blocking the highway and violence against the police are totally but really totally unacceptable idiots.
	So pretty strong words, isn't it?
	Yeah, it is.
	And if a lot of those people are rioting over anti-immigration, then obviously it's put Wilders in a position where he's having to crack down on his own supporters.
	Because what is going to be done and has been done, I'll show you in a second, is that they're going to say, listen, you're the person that's creating the environment where this happens.
	And so he's got to toe this narrow line because he's at the minute doing quite well politically and he doesn't want to upset that by being seen as a rabble rouser and things like that.
	So it has a chance of actually impeding proper improvements to the country potentially.
	So I think that that's part of the reason why he's so frustrated as well as the fact that obviously it's a breakdown of law and order that's not exactly ideal.
	And then again, this is quoting an article calling it football hooligans.
	I don't know whether they were football hooligans.
	I could sort of see where they might be coming from, but it's a little bit difficult to guess on those sorts of things.
	I mean, also, just because you like football and do some hooliganism doesn't mean you're necessarily a football hooligan.
	But by the by, right, it's not that.
	These technicalities are lost on me as neither a fan of football or hooliganism.
	Which one do you prefer more, Luca?
	I can't say live on YouTube.
	Fair enough.
	But it's calling them football hooligans and Wilders is calling them, he's saying, pick them up, lock away and throw away the key, scum.
	So it can't really get any stronger than that.
	You know what happens in this case is that Wilders is thinking of his political constituency and of the fact that, as you said, he's doing well.
	And the whole battle, the whole effort is to try and convince the majority, the silent majority, that one side is the side of law and order and the other side is basically completely against civilization as we know it and as the Dutch want it.
	So this is counterproductive.
	It doesn't help.
	Yes.
	And it's made even harder by the nature of the proportional representation system where all the other parties will be allied against him.
	Yeah, on the other hand, there's also the possibility, I don't know to what extent this happened, because I've only saw the videos from slop accounts, as you say in the beginning when we were joking about how these accounts are describing things.
	But there's always a possibility of agent provocateurs.
	I've seen people talking about this, and this is actually something that you got it exactly right where I wanted to mention it.
	So well done, Stelios.
	Is that I saw lots of people who either claimed to be there or know some of the people involved saying that there were either left-wing adjutants or anti-far people.
	And I don't know how true that is, but I would be remiss not to mention it that it's being circulated.
	But it's one of those things that's so difficult to prove that we can't know one way or the other.
	I suppose if there's video footage of someone who seems like they're not part of the protest, they just sort of walk out of nowhere and then start causing trouble, then there might be a bit of a stronger case.
	But, of course, with these sorts of things, it's always very difficult to piece together what has actually happened.
	Because, of course, there's no real video of what started this off.
	Because it did start off as a peaceful protest and turned into a riot.
	Not sure how it got to that point, whether it was police provocation or the protesters at the time.
	It's difficult to tell.
	But anyway, let's go on to what the leader of the Green Labour Party alliance says.
	So he's talking about there being NSB flags in that field there, which, of course, National Socialist.
	So he's trying to suggest a link between being anti-immigration and the mid-century jail.
	Yeah, he's talking about extreme rights there.
	We haven't translated it yet.
	It's all right, I've got the translation.
	But I guess extreme rechts is...
	Yep.
	So violence against the police by the far right, unacceptable.
	These are Trumpian conditions fueled by politicians who sow fear and division.
	And this is this argument, which is a load of nonsense, that by talking about immigration and talking about resolving it politically and civilly and through the democratic process, that ultimately results in violence, because that's not true.
	And in fact, it's the opposite.
	If you don't do anything about it, you make violence more likely because people feel like the political system isn't solving it.
	And I think actually these sorts of people are ramping up the temperature of their respective countries because this isn't just restricted to the Netherlands.
	It's in the US, it's in the UK, it's all over Europe.
	People trying to suggest that legitimate criticisms about immigration are wrong.
	And they're not.
	And in fact, they're very morally right.
	If you like preventing crime, for example, if you like not having your wealth extracted out of your country, these are good and moral things.
	And not having your culture liquidated.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	This sort of rhetoric, though, I mean, this has been going on for as long as the problems have been going on.
	When you actually look back even into the 1960s and the 1970s, you can only just look with frustration at how little the dialogue has actually shifted.
	Certainly from the left, who have never adapted to the changing times, to the changing conditions.
	Sorry, just quickly to say, you have exactly this point that Jonathan Miller made to Toinak Powell on a television debate where he was saying, look, Powell, it's really simple.
	If you just didn't voice these concerns, then people wouldn't be concerned about it.
	Which is exactly the thing that Timmermans is saying here.
	It's total nonsense.
	But the issue is that the left is focused on a top-down way of approach.
	Because that's how it always was, historically speaking.
	Disgruntled industrialists who turned against the capitalists by trying to tell to the workers what their interest is.
	And then when they were a second before gaining power, suddenly there was a vanguard party to tell the working class what their real interest is.
	The left works this way and it projects.
	That's why they tell everyone, if you stop talking about this, people will stop.
	Then you won't see the reality in front of your own eyes.
	Yeah, they believe that it's the media and prominent political figures that tell people what to believe and that people are just a sponge that absorb other people's opinions rather than seeing things with their own eyes.
	Most people I know that are anti-immigration have stories where they've personally experienced the sort of negative effects of it or know people who have or have witnessed it with their own eyes.
	A lot of it is actually first-hand evidence that can't be denied.
	Well, as he says here as well, these are Trumpian conditions fueled by politicians who sow fear and division.
	Okay, so Timmermans, like, if Donald Trump was president of the United States, but the Netherlands was an homogeneous country, would these riots have happened?
	Even though less or more likely, right?
	It's like obviously your own.
	Yeah.
	It's also that, you know, if you don't want another Weimar, stop being a pathetically weak government.
	That's also a very good point.
	I very much agree.
	But why are these riots and protests actually going on at the minute?
	Well, we need to go back to June of this year.
	And the Dutch government collapsed after Wilders quits the coalition.
	And it was in place for less than a year.
	One of the terms of the coalition was that he could not be prime minister.
	And so they actually got someone who was outside of government.
	I think he was an academic gentleman by the name of Dick Schouf, which is an interesting name.
	Doesn't travel quite well across to Britain.
	But it collapsed because he was pushing 10 additional asylum measures, including a freeze on applications, halting the construction of reception centers and limiting family reunification, to just name a couple.
	These are pretty moderate things, really.
	This is only asylum seekers, and it's not saying, yes, we can't have any more applications.
	But it's not saying every single one of you needs to go, which actually I think is probably the best way forward.
	But he sort of had his hands tied there, didn't he?
	Because that's what he was elected to do to get these people out of the country.
	And if you can't do it, then there's no point being part of the government.
	So I understand why he quit the coalition.
	And you want to disassociate yourself entirely from what are going to be the ruling party's failures.
	Exactly.
	That's for a while.
	It's not just the last week.
	That's for some time now.
	Isn't it?
	That he has quit.
	Yeah, this was back in June, 3rd of June.
	And then this triggered a snap election, which is set for the 29th of October.
	And then, as this is talking about here, this was, I think, polling from the end of August, so just under a month ago.
	Still leading in the polls two months before the vote at the time.
	He's still leading now.
	He's still doing very well.
	And I think, if anything, he's going to do better and better as time goes on.
	Because the problems that he represents the solution for are only getting worse.
	And although he might not be an ideal candidate because he has very strong opinions on Israel-Palestine, that I think might put off some left-wingers, obviously, as well as some right-wingers.
	I feel like Europe has to be focusing on itself and not internationally.
	And I do question this diversion, but it's a price worth paying, I think, in the sense of it's better to try and save your own people and your own country first before you start caring about other countries.
	It's self-preservation, right?
	It's not exactly that radical.
	Another thing that I've seen going around is they've been trying to encourage Moroccans to sway the election because normally they're quite politically inactive and inactive in general, it seems, other than crime, which I'll be getting on to.
	They have in the Netherlands a disproportionate number of Indonesians.
	Anyone know why on the panel?
	I'm sure people in the audience might.
	Empire, surely.
	Yes.
	Well done, Luca.
	They're a former colony.
	So it sort of makes some degree of sense why they would be overrepresented.
	Doesn't necessarily mean they have to be there, but it makes sense why they would be.
	And also Moroccans, and I'm not sure for what reason that is, but they are the second largest minority.
	And so I think the Labour Party Green Coalition is looking for their votes.
	And these groups tend not to cause as many issues as some of the groups in Britain do.
	Although, particularly the Moroccans are associated with trouble.
	And I'm going to go quickly to this government report from 2016.
	This is government data, their own statistics.
	I'll just scroll down if I can.
	It's got lots and lots of stuff.
	But this is the most recent example I could find.
	In 2015, individuals with a Moroccan background were roughly five times as likely to have been suspected of a crime compared to the native Dutch.
	It is 4.64% to 0.83%.
	And this is, of course, probably got even worse as time goes on because if it mirrors that of other European countries, their over-representation will only go up.
	And then for Moroccans aged between 18 to 25, one in 10 have been suspected of a crime.
	And that's just suspected.
	Of course, that's not prosecuted.
	That's not proven.
	But it also might suggest that more people have been committed, more people have been committing crime, sorry, but it just hasn't been linked to anyone.
	And so it could be worse.
	It could be better.
	It's difficult to tell because it's only suspects.
	But it's still a very alarming figure.
	It suggests a very real, material, measurable problem based on data is not people sensationalizing.
	It is a problem that has a tangible effect on people that live in the Netherlands and they are right to be angry about it.
	Let's have a look at some instances of problems.
	And they're not as severe as some European countries.
	But here are some Syrian children throwing water balloons.
	They don't have to become as severe.
	Yes, of course.
	There's still problems, right?
	But these Syrian children have been invited into the country, presumably under the auspice of their safety, and they're repaying the locals by throwing water balloons that don't seem to be bursting, so they might be quite hard and painful at young Dutch women.
	This sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated.
	It's not just children having fun.
	It's part of a climate of hostility.
	I'm not just saying this flippantly.
	It's pretty obvious considering how many Syrians have behaved in Europe, you know, involved in many killings of European peoples.
	And here's another one that's worth mentioning that crime and the nature of crime is escalating in the Netherlands.
	No details have been released about this because it's involving a 15-year-old boy, but it's also worth mentioning that the Dutch police don't necessarily mess around either.
	So this is from the past weekend, the 21st of September.
	This 15-year-old armed with a hanggun tried to steal an electric bike and he was pursued, he refused to give up and the Dutch police shot him dead, apparently in front of many children.
	So they take it very seriously.
	And of course, gun crime is something that's not common in the Netherlands, really.
	Not common in Britain either, but is increasing.
	And it is increasing because we have more porous borders.
	And it might not necessarily have been someone who migrated to the Netherlands because we don't know the details of the person.
	But what we do know is that by having these routes of people illegally entering the country, as well as the legal connections that are already there, it makes it easier to ferry weapons into a country.
	And what we're seeing is an explosion of gun violence in Europe, where it was previously somewhat unheard of.
	You know, it did happen every now and then, but it's very rare.
	And I think in Britain, you know, before mass migration, we can pretty much name every single instance of there being gun violence by name.
	And it's etched into our consciousness because it was so rare.
	It was so unheard of.
	And it'd be in the news for weeks.
	And now it's just another weekend story.
	And this is obviously a very tragic thing.
	And although the police, you know, shoot people in the Netherlands, they also do silly things like this.
	This is what I've dubbed the poll of colour blindness.
	So they're using a button on a poll that randomly decides to check people or not to avoid ethnic profiling.
	And here's the thing.
	I think that it's good to notice patterns in crime because once you notice the kinds of people that perpetrate crime, you're more effective at directing your limited resources to combating it.
	You need ethnic profiling to do a better job at policing.
	It might make people uncomfortable, but that's the price you have to pay if you want to save society.
	Feelings shouldn't come over the safety of your own people.
	It's pretty obvious, right?
	And I think the most egregious in recent times is this, of the case of Lisa, a 17-year-old girl who was riding her bike back home from a party in Amsterdam.
	And she called the police to tell them that she was being followed.
	And then seconds later, the dispatcher could hear her screaming for help as the migrants started stabbing her in the neck, seemingly for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
	Well, you covered that on the previous segment, didn't you?
	Just totally unprovoked.
	Murders.
	And the 22-year-old asylum seeker, so yes, they've come to seek asylum, apparently, had raped another young girl five days earlier and was behind an attempted sexual assault on another girl 10 days earlier.
	These are the people you're inviting in your country.
	So I entirely understand why people are very angry about it and want something to be done about it.
	And one final thing I wanted to touch on, just to correct the record, is this.
	Some slop that needs correcting.
	It was reported that the Netherlands Parliament just voted to designate Antifar as a terrorist organisation following Trump's lead.
	And this is actually not the case.
	And I hate to resort to that.
	Oh, well, it didn't stop at getting 100,000 likes, though, did it?
	I never mind eh.
	But the person sharing that doesn't understand that, as it explains here, the Dutch Parliament only passes a motion, it only passed as a motion requesting that the government do that.
	And motions in Parliament are basically talking points and do not oblige the government to do anything.
	And so all they said is, it would be good if you could do this, please.
	And, you know, if Wilders does get in again, I'm sure he'd be quite receptive to it, but it hasn't happened yet.
	But what is going on and what could make this redundant is that Hungary is urging the EU to designate Antifart as a terrorist group.
	And of course, well done, Hungary, as usual.
	But because the Netherlands is a member of the EU, this would apply to them anyway.
	So it could be the case that if this does go through the EU Parliament, then it wouldn't need to go through the Dutch one.
	But with all of that out of the way, Ikstone de Nederlanders.
	And to the rest of you, yes, I support the Dutch people.
	I think they've got a very good and noble country.
	Beautiful.
	Everything works.
	Very orderly.
	And I think that you have a right to preserve it.
	And I wish you all the best.
	I've never been, you know, always meant to.
	Just never got around to it.
	My advice is go to Holland, but don't go to Amsterdam.
	There's a place called Olkma or Haarlem, not like the New York one, that are similar to Amsterdam, but less touristy and a little bit less busy.
	And you know how tourist traps can be in European countries where it's just set up to exploit you.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, we know all about being exploited, don't we?
	We've got just some rumble rants from Open Course.
	Oh, yeah, Sean, do you want to go from your segment?
	O P H U K. There's a girl who got raped by a Muslim invader near AZC, Asylum Seeker Center in NL.
	Her father tried to get publicity.
	He was arrested.
	The asylum seeker did it, was moved to another facility.
	And then they say a girl in my city was gang thingied.
	I forgot we were on YouTube by three Moroccans.
	As long as the trial was going on, there were Moroccans parked across from where she lived to intimidate her and her family.
	Police wouldn't do anything.
	Yes, it's a really appalling situation, and I don't wish it on anyone, least of all people so undeserving.
	And all the establishment will do is just moralize at the people who do claim they'll fix the problem for you.
	Ryan Hennigan says, people who commit violent felonies against citizens while seeking/slash granted asylum should be returned to the governments they are fleeing.
	I would say that is the most charitable thing you could do for them.
	And we've got one on YouTube here.
	Luke Stewart says, I personally think autism is genetic.
	My dad likely is autistic as well.
	But unlike me, he was born into a country that wasn't destroyed by globalism and free trade.
	But if pregnant mums stopped taking painkillers for a quick fix.
	Well, we'll talk about it now, shall we?
	All right.
	Brothers, sisters, lament with me for the golden age of autism may be coming to an end.
	How much undo now?
	How do we feel about this news, gentlemen?
	Want to hear it?
	It surprised me, is what I thought of it.
	When I read it, I was just like, surely that can't be the case.
	And I did some digging.
	Yes.
	I was just like, okay.
	Well, it surprised me too.
	And I suppose what surprised me even more than the news itself was that Trump decided to announce this at all times at Charlie Kirk's funeral when he just dropped this nugget.
	And tomorrow we're going to have one of the biggest announcements really medically, I think, in the history of our country.
	We're going to be doing it with Bobby and Oz and all of the professionals.
	I think you're going to find it to be amazing.
	I think we found an answer to autism.
	How about that?
	Autism tomorrow.
	We're going to be talking in the Oval Office in the White House.
	And that seems to have been exactly what they went on to do.
	Because as it turns out, you can just do things.
	And if Donald Trump wants to ban autism from America, then let him ban autism from America.
	Obviously, just Justin S posts, but you have dragged out the wrong way.
	If you have here anyone should be grateful for those who are trying to get the answers to this complex situation.
	And the first day all of these great doctors behind me were there, I told them this is what we have to find out.
	Because when you go from 20,000 to 10,000 and then you go to 12, you know there's something artificial.
	They're taking something.
	And by the way, I think I can say that there are certain groups of people that don't take vaccines and don't take any pills that have no autism.
	That have no autism.
	Does that tell you?
	So because we're on YouTube as well, I just want to say I'm not offering an opinion on whether or what is apparently Trump's alleged claims about vaccines and autism.
	I'm just merely reporting on what's being said.
	Yeah, I think that the link between the two, the researcher that published the original paper was found to have made up the results and lost his license to practice and admitted to it as well after the fact.
	So I don't think that that link is necessarily true.
	And also, my understanding as a psychologist is that it's a largely heritable condition, meaning that it has links in family lines, right?
	And so I'm not entirely convinced that there is an environmental cause behind it.
	I think that it could be entirely genetic, plus a few sort of extraneous variables that might make the onset of more severe symptoms, if you will, more noticeable.
	But at the same time, I don't think that this needs much explanation.
	I think it's something that's always been present.
	There's also the notion that maybe how we're measuring it has changed, which it has.
	I know all about how it is measured, and we have changed how it is measured.
	There is more awareness of the condition now.
	And so it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a growing population of these people.
	It means that the number of people we have measured with it has grown.
	And I think what Trump was alluding to is there are populations that don't have the condition.
	But it could be that they have a culture whereby they don't see it as a problem.
	And I would also like to sort of put up a little bit of a defense because it's talked about as this medical thing.
	And obviously, it is debilitating in the sense that it can be a social impairment.
	But there is an argument in evolutionary psychology that having people who think slightly differently and slightly more systematically benefits the group as a whole.
	And therefore, it benefits their survival as well as other people to have these sorts of people around.
	And you only need to look at some of the people who are pushing the frontiers of human excellence to see that actually there's a disproportionate number of autistic people there who are obsessed about a specific area and doing some great work to push the frontiers of humanity.
	Absolutely.
	And that's a good thing.
	So I don't want it to all sound negative.
	I think that I've got some in my family.
	I'm not, though.
	No, no, no.
	To be clear.
	But I think it's not necessarily something that needs to be a death sentence or something to be terribly concerned about.
	Plenty of people can live normal lives.
	And I think there's an example of someone, a university professor who was a psychologist herself, who nobody could even tell that she had autism because she basically wrote learnt how to respond to certain things and lived a perfectly normal life.
	So it's entirely possible.
	I think the way that they have handled it isn't particularly good because when you are making really large announcements about conditions and medical conditions, you announce the results.
	You don't announce that we may have found an avenue which we're going to start an experiment and see how it goes and maybe the experiment will work.
	You need to have results.
	It seems to me that this was a mistake.
	Yeah, well, I can certainly agree to that.
	You can see here as well, Josh, what you were saying about the fact that it seems to be more and more diagnosable and that the whole thing about, because this is what Trump cites in it, the fact that, well, in the year 2000, it was one in 150 people.
	And now today it's one out of 31.
	Yeah, it could be overdiagnosis in that people are wrapped up in it, that are in a normal spectrum of thought, or it could be that we're just more aware of it.
	These don't necessarily have to have an external cause.
	And I think that this is something that needs to be investigated and you can't jump to conclusions about because it's very serious.
	And if you get carried away, you could end up hurting more people than you help.
	And I'll just play this from RFK.
	I have instructed NIH, FDA, and CMS to help doctors treat children appropriately.
	Jay will help tell that story, which started with sound science, the kind that restores faith in government.
	The announcement, this announcement also represents a historic collaboration between NIH, FDA, CDC, and CMS.
	We expect this to be the first of many announcements over the coming years that deliver actionable information to parents on underlying causal autism and the potential paths for prevention and reversal.
	So you can see this is the framing here is about giving greater transparency between what goes into the medication and apparently what is causing some problems in medication.
	So the thing that everyone is focusing on is, of course, Tylenol, meaning paracetamol, and a particular thing inside the paracetamol culture, and antisur.
	I've lost the word here.
	Sorry, it's too many syllables for me to pronounce.
	Shall I have a look?
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	Talks about this thing and that because the concern is from their point of view, what they are saying is that pregnant women are taking paracetamol for pregnancy pains as a painkiller.
	And this particular thing within the paracetamol is reacting to it and causing autism.
	Now this is not then saying that this is the one cause.
	They're not saying that this one little thing is what was plaguing us this entire time, but they are saying they do believe it to be a cause.
	And so what they are interested in setting out is a drug called Lecovarin, which is typically used to treat the side effects for medical conditions.
	And they want to use this.
	I will say that from my perspective because I'm a known scientist of sorts.
	I'm very strict on this.
	And I require years and years and years of research before people make statements of this sort.
	Because just turning this into a political thing doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.
	Because as you said, they're saying there may be a high correlation between this condition, autism and paracetamol, because there's one of these factors.
	There's a myriad of factors that may be affecting us.
	Correlation also doesn't equal causation.
	Correlation also.
	It could be the fact that women who are pregnant with autistic children have more complications in pregnancy generally, just as other factors and therefore they're more likely to seek these things out.
	There are lots of different possible explanations that should be explored before people jump to conclusions.
	This is one of the things that they say as well, isn't it?
	That the high fevers that women can experience during pregnancy, the paracetamol helps with that, bringing the fevers down.
	And the fevers could in some way obviously put undue stress onto the child.
	Well, one of the things that I was able to identify studying psychology was that in utero illnesses shape lots of potential disorders and it could be the illness itself rather than the treatment, right?
	That is the thing that's causing these sorts of things.
	And it's also worth mentioning as well that autism is an interesting disorder more generally because it's sort of diametrically opposed to schizophrenia, which is why the two tend not to co-occur with one another.
	In the areas of the brain where they're overactive in schizophrenia and overstimulated, where they're generating things that aren't actually there, they're understimulated in autism.
	And that's another heritable condition, schizophrenia.
	And if these two are sort of opposites in terms of neurology, then these seem to suggest a more biological basis, or at least, you know, a sizable influence of biology before these external variables should be considered.
	One other thing that I just wanted to add with all of this as well is the fact that I think that, and as I say, I am no expert in this.
	I just merely wanted to report that this is something that the White House are putting out, of course, and this is a route that they're going down.
	But I do believe that we can't lose sight as well of the fact that we're coming out of a pandemic and the lockdowns, right?
	And there are a lot of narratives going around during the lockdowns that people found many, many sometimes justifiable reasons to be skeptical about.
	And let's just say that the pandemic wasn't exactly a golden era for trust in big pharma.
	And to clarify what I was saying as well, I do want more transparency about medication.
	I think that's actually a really big and important thing because I think at the minute things have passed too quickly into the hands of the public and I think that more testing does need to be done in lots of different areas because I think that the urgency aspect, although it is important to get medication to people who need it, we do need to make sure that the harm doesn't outweigh the benefits.
	Exactly.
	And I want to say something that some may not want to hear, but the fact that so-called experts made huge mistakes and sort of discredited some institutions doesn't mean that we can dispense with expertise.
	What we need is better experts who are more accountable to the truth.
	And they are not coerced by the government in order to get to say what the government wants.
	Scepticism is important, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater in the sense that you've got to just critically evaluate evidence and do what you think is best.
	But don't just say, well, they made one mistake, therefore it's bad.
	Or vice versa.
	You know, don't just believe everything everyone says.
	You you've got to think critically.
	So the White House have put out this on their autism action plan, which I have to say was not on my bingo cards personally.
	This is a bit wild.
	And as it says here, in step one, informing doctors and families, the FDA will issue a physician notice and initiate a safety label change on acetominithin.
	So yeah.
	You can now see why I didn't remember that name off by heart.
	Oh, believe me, the names of various drugs, I had to butt my head against this.
	Right.
	Doing psychology, so particularly the clinical stuff.
	Some of them are ridiculous.
	You like them, do you?
	Yeah, some of them are Greek.
	Oh, right.
	Oh, well.
	Oh, I see what's going on.
	That's cheating.
	You like the words, I see.
	Research shows a potential association between acetaminophen during pregnancy and adverse neurodevelopment outcomes.
	Prudent use is needed during pregnancy and for infants and toddlers.
	Sorry.
	HHS will launch a nationwide public service campaign to inform families and protect public health.
	And obviously, they have much more to say about it.
	Feel free to read it if you wish to.
	But obviously, then we start getting to the boyback from just the other newspapers and those institutions that, again, not many years ago were telling us to believe things that were demonstrably false, right?
	Or that were worthy of skepticism.
	Believe women.
	You remember that?
	Well, not the one I was thinking of, but another very strong point there.
	A very strong point there.
	And yeah, exactly as you were saying, Josh, they go down to say, well, first, the definition of autism has broadened as scientists have expanded their understanding of its wide range of traits and symptoms.
	And that led to changes in the criteria doctors use to diagnose autism and improvements in screening.
	And at the same time, parents increasingly sought a diagnosis as autism became better known and schools began offering educational services they hoped could help their kids.
	Now, I remember being at school when I was a wee nipper about 15 years ago.
	And back then, the amount of extra time that children were having in their exams was basically non-existent, maybe one in a class.
	And now, well, from newspapers and from accounts of my own younger family, I'm led to believe it's significantly more.
	I've heard about this as well, in that they're given extra time.
	It does sort of, as charitable as I am willing to be, it does seem a little bit unfair that it's a test of merit and you give people extra time.
	It sort of defeats the purpose of the test.
	But that's more a comment about testing than autism.
	And then obviously, West Streeting basically said to ignore whatever Trump says.
	Our health secretary.
	Yes, yes, our health secretary.
	He is a good picture.
	Oh, you have to admit.
	Well, they often are very, very good pictures, truth be told.
	So it goes on to say that Trump has pledged to ramp up production of this drug.
	I'll just scroll down a bit.
	I'm sorry if that's distracting.
	The children in the class are misbehaving again.
	We need a test or something.
	It says that early medical trials have shown that lecoverin could help children with the autistic spectrum disorder with how they speak to and understand others.
	However, researchers argue that there needs to be, there's a need for larger studies.
	And that Mr. Trump announced a wide-ranging effort to study the causes of autism, including a long-debunked theory that blames vaccines and called the moobs by his administration historic.
	But this is the thing that when I scan through a lot of articles basically tearing Trump apart over this, and the common pattern is, and I think that this is where the mistrust largely comes from as well.
	You see a great deal of, oh, well, this is nonsense and this is nonsense and this doesn't make sense and it's just Trump being Trump.
	But then they never counter by saying, well, what is the correct response?
	They only ever say, well, he's wrong.
	They don't say why they're right or back themselves up with any data.
	And fundamentally, when you look here, you can see this is not from any mere fringe.
	This was an analysis, a research done for Harvard.
	Now Harvard University would of course be one of those that merely four years ago these same people would have been telling us to put absolute trust in.
	Yeah, I mean to play devil's advocate I sort of think that you know the person who's making the claim has the burden of proof.
	So if Trump and RFK go out and say we found it, we found the cure.
	It's this.
	I think also yeah they have to back it up so I can understand people who are asking them where's the evidence.
	Absolutely.
	I think also Trump's probably putting it in Trumpian terms where he might unintentionally be misrepresenting it in a way that RFK might not being an actual doctor.
	And I think that the two would probably communicate it very differently if I could understand what RFK is actually saying.
	Yes.
	So yeah, there you are ladies and gentlemen.
	I what was this?
	Oh yes, this was it.
	Just Tyler Knoll is bad.
	And then just saying leave my multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry alone.
	Now obviously I'm as I say I'm not coming down on one side of this or another because as is most likely apparent to you, this is not my expertise.
	This is not my usual wheelhouse.
	Nonetheless, I obviously just wanted to report that this has happened and I encourage you to have the conversation amongst yourselves.
	Also, I mean I'll just say from my part, it's some things are not just Twitter sphere battles.
	No, I agree.
	No, I absolutely agree.
	I just thought it was a funny meme.
	No, no, I wasn't implying you know this.
	Anyway, I'll just...
	Free the autist, that's my message.
	Free the autists.
	I'll just read through some of these rumble rants here.
	We've got a drunk changeling says, I was told that the accounts will serve Dino Nuggies every night.
	Dino Nuggies.
	Oh, dino-nuggies.
	I'm sorry.
	I can't even read.
	Can't even read.
	Can't even read.
	Blankfield says, Stelios, Islam calls for conquest and subjugation of Western countries.
	Is liberalism the due response?
	That's a huge conversation.
	Yes.
	I say to a large degree yes, because the liberalism that I'm for is not the liberalism you may think of.
	It's not the kind of let's not be judgmental about anything kind of liberalism.
	Stelios has drone strike liberalism in mind, you know.
	And I'll just say one thing is that if you look at the tradition, again, I'll say this.
	You are making me telling this.
	You see that?
	That's a response.
	If you actually read the old texts of the tradition, the main canonical ones, they're incredibly cognizant of the importance of cultural differences.
	So if right now we have a kind of multicultural establishment that tells you don't focus on cultural differences.
	Yeah, I think that, yeah, just jettisoning that establishment is consistent with my views.
	Right.
	Yeah, okay.
	I'll just quickly go through the YouTube ones.
	I've got Tom G says, gonna start microdosing paracetamol to max out my autism levels before they start trying to purge us.
	The Trump administration's coming for our audience.
	Please stay safe out there.
	Luke Stewart says, I also know a lot of people who tend to take more pills at a time than said instead of the two twice, they'll take three or four.
	Yes.
	That's not a good idea.
	No, don't do that.
	I've actually taken some paracetamol today because I've got a bit of wisdom tooth pain because I'm still not wise yet and they're coming through.
	Norm says autism cured the internet most affected.
	Genuinely, yes.
	Indeed.
	And also, just let me just very briefly say something in addition to my answer.
	Oh, please.
	Deportation started being seen as extreme right in the last decade.
	It's not that they stopped in 1945.
	No deportation ever again.
	No border policy ever again.
	It's just the last 10 years are incredibly crazy.
	And people have completely forgotten what's going on.
	How to be normal.
	Yep.
	Luke Stewart says, I blame the autism spectrum.
	I'm a high-functioning, low-maintenance with a couple little quirks, but I know people who are quite the opposite, high-high maintenance, and they weren't, they say we're the same.
	Yeah, there's a massive difference whereby there are people who can function perfectly fine with autism and can exist in society without any real problems.
	Maybe they struggle a bit with understanding what people mean, but within an acceptable realm for most people.
	And then there are people that need full-time carers and can't exist in the economy.
	These two are not the same.
	And then I'll just quickly ramble through some of the others.
	Alsman says from your segment, Josh, Wilders is worse controlled opposition than Farage.
	I think he's more keen to deport people than Farage is, but I don't know.
	After the recent announcements, who knows?
	And then I'll quickly.
	Luke Stewart also says, I personally think autism is genetic.
	My dad likely is autistic as well, but unlike me, he was born into a country that wasn't destroyed by...
	Oh, we've read this.
	We've read this one, yes.
	There we are.
	All right, then.
	Get it twice.
	Over to you, Stellios.
	All right.
	Right.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the apocalypse has been cancelled.
	The civil war has been averted.
	We're going to talk about the worst cancellation ever, also known as the non-cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel.
	Right, so what happened?
	Jimmy Kimmel is just, I think it's just, it's someone who's not funny and he's paid to be a shameless propagandist.
	He's also very insincere.
	Whenever I see him doing interviews, he goes, and his face just stays still and he makes the laughing noise.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So basically.
	Thanks, Luca.
	What he said, you know, what he said was that the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA, right?
	And there was an outrage.
	And what's more, he said this long after the evidence pointed to the contrary.
	Yeah.
	He just put that out because he wanted that narrative to be in people's minds.
	Which means he's completely out of touch.
	Because, for instance, on the 12th, on Friday, the 12th of September, there were lots of the accounts saying, can you see how MAGA silent MAGA is right now?
	Yeah.
	No, we weren't.
	No.
	Never stopped talking actually about it.
	Bullshit.
	Trying to find the truth.
	Also, he wasn't the only one.
	Secular talk.
	Don Lehman, Jamal Hill.
	So that was a talking point.
	There were many people doing that propaganda.
	Right.
	So what I wanted to say is that there was lots of, there was a kind of panic to several people, and including some good people, also some friends of mine.
	And they were suddenly taken by the left's attempt to narrative control and think that Trump is about to destroy free speech entirely.
	It's all an issue of, you know, all an issue of destroying, you know, having zero principles, being entirely after power, being completely like the left.
	No, nothing of the sort.
	I said several things, but one thing is Trump has no good reason to engage in top-down cancellation of his critics for several reasons.
	I'll just give you two.
	Temperamentally, I think he absolutely loves the back and forth.
	He absolutely loves the back and forth.
	It's more like he knows how to put on a good show.
	Part of his image is that he is the joker against the Batman of the corrupt establishment, part of which are the corrupt journalists.
	So he wants them.
	He couldn't care less if ABC is paying millions of dollars to a shameless propagandist like Jimmy Kimmel, because he knows really well that being against this establishment is actually boosting his image.
	Yeah.
	And what's more, the words of the media just don't have the same effect on them that they had back in 2016 when they were at all at war with him.
	And also the more demonstrably propagandistic your opponents are, your critics are, the better for you.
	I also think that there's a phrase which I'm not entirely sure how I think about it, but it calls to mind.
	It's like, for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law.
	And it's sort of, this reminds me of in a film, you know, the hero will have the villain, you know, caught and he's about to kill him.
	And he's like, no, this man who's killed lots of innocent people, I'll become just like him.
	And it's always frustrating because then he goes on to kill another innocent person.
	And then I'm always frustrated.
	Like, well, this hero is an idiot then.
	He's just resulted in killing someone.
	You don't, you know, relent when you've got the ability to stop someone who wishes you and other innocent people harm.
	You are then, you know, it's the same as the Soros.
	You never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
	It's like it's the same as the Soros DAs.
	They're not actively going out and killing people, but they're releasing people that do.
	You know, maybe not killing people, but beating people up and stealing and all sorts of horrible things.
	So why would you then relent?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Do you want to win?
	It sounds like you don't.
	Right.
	We have FCC chair Brandon Carr denying that there was government censorship that led to Jimmy Kimmel's suspension.
	He says it's because of his ratings.
	Now, let me say I suspend judgment on this case.
	If there was any kind of attempt to censor him, I think that's a mistake.
	I'm pro-free speech.
	I have been pro-free speech.
	And I gave you the reasons before.
	And also, I'm not afraid of criticizing Trump.
	I'm not one of those people who are saying, trust the plan, never criticize Trump.
	You know very well that I've said both good things about it about him and also critical.
	I suffer neither from Trump derangement syndrome nor from Trump deification syndrome.
	But let's be honest.
	In this case, this wasn't what the left tried to make it.
	His ratings went down the toilet.
	Yeah, this show is awful.
	Yeah.
	It's not funny.
	It's uncomfortable watching him on camera.
	He's not cut out to do it.
	And he's just a robot, isn't he?
	He's just a stooge.
	And what do you want me to say?
	And what's more as well, it's not just about him, is it?
	It's also about all of the celebrity guests that he gets on as well.
	And people generally are becoming a bit fatigued with celebrity guests and their opinions.
	I've got a lot of fatigue at the minute.
	Yeah, me too.
	Not physically, but mentally.
	Right.
	Also, Disney has been losing billions for years.
	And you'd expect a company that loses billions for years or is in an adverse, is in a dire economic situation trying to cut what doesn't work.
	It's also worth pointing out they lost money in the pandemic, which when everyone was at home is a real mistake.
	You really fumbled.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Also, now let's go and make fun of some Democrats because they were they what they did was simultaneously hilarious and infuriating.
	Now let's try to let's try and laugh with it because I want to start with Conan O'Brien.
	I like Conan O'Brien.
	He's a good late night host.
	This is sad.
	He can be funny.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel and the promise to silence other late-night hosts for criticizing the administration.
	First they came to late night hosts.
	Yeah, then they stopped coming because all problems were solved.
	Administration should disturb everyone on the right, left and center.
	It's wrong and anyone with a conscience knows it's wrong.
	168k.
	Now, let us focus a bit on Mr. O'Brien's profile.
	And I want to see something here.
	Last he said something 20 hours ago.
	September 19 about Jimmy Kimmel.
	September 15, completely unrelated.
	September 10, something about autism.
	He didn't write anything about Charlie Kirk.
	Yeah.
	So he didn't say that, for instance, the assassination of someone for his views is something that should disturb everyone on the left, right, and center.
	No, what should disturb everyone is the quote-unquote cancellation of one of his chummy late-night hosts.
	Who was a blatant liar about what happened?
	Yes.
	And not just a blatant liar about something, about something irrelevant.
	With his lies, he was sustaining this atmosphere of polarization and an escalation.
	I'm amazed he survived purely on his ratings alone.
	His existence has sort of been a mystery to me that has been plaguing me for years.
	Is that this guy clearly isn't good?
	And this is a good opportunity to get shot of him.
	And they didn't take it.
	There are so many better people out there that could take his place.
	Yeah, but the FCC wasn't created last week.
	And the Democrats have been known for trying to censor channels and try to do propaganda here, for instance.
	So could it be the case that someone with such bad ratings is surviving because he's doing regime propaganda?
	Well, I would say that that's absolutely the only thing it could be.
	Yeah, right.
	So let us remember what they were saying.
	Cancel culture is good for democracy.
	Caveat, it's only when the Democrats were doing it.
	Right.
	Harry Sisson, the towering intellect, the intellectual politics.
	The tighten of politics.
	When he's addressing the nation, everything stops.
	Right?
	You always go for Harry Sisson's take on your planning a segment, don't you, Stellias?
	Always trust everything in that.
	Because I don't want to go, you know, with the average or low level opponent of mine.
	I want to go straight to the, he says, we're witnessing the most brazen attack on free speech in modern American history.
	Elon Trump and MAGA said they were free speech warriors.
	It's the exact opposite.
	Don't they think that perhaps when they went after Trump and tried to basically deplatform him from the presidency, wipe him from all social media, that was, you know, then a sitting president, that was probably worse than Jimmy Kimmel?
	I don't know.
	Maybe it is.
	And here I have this from a Greek friend of mine who is basically and shows the distinction between what Harry Sisson said in 2022 and what he says now in 2025.
	Almost like they don't have principles or something, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Now, also, when we're talking about escalation, you know, we have to ask the Germans.
	They know about it.
	They know about polarization.
	And we need to ask the Germans, right?
	So this person here was Jürgen Naudit.
	He's talking about Stephen Miller's speech, who said that we will prevail over the forces of wickedness and evil.
	They cannot imagine what they have awakened.
	They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, etc.
	And he says, this is 100% Gables.
	Terms like forces of evil, the good and the virtuous, as well as the notion of an inflamed army.
	Have they heard of Ronald Reagan before?
	Yeah, that's exactly what I quote posted this.
	He's talking about good and evil all the time.
	And also, isn't Stephen Miller Jewish?
	Yeah, but I don't know.
	Maybe I want to ask this person if he thinks Gables was evil.
	Is that a fair question?
	Yeah, no, no, it will battle.
	Or would it be totalitarian of me to say Gables evil?
	And also, you know, this is coming from the same people who are like, well, Antifa are obviously good.
	It's in the name, they're anti-fascist.
	So everything they do is good, and everything they do against their opponents is, you know, their opponents are bad.
	Yeah, and also the Democrats and the progressives and the EU, they have never mobilized emotions and demonized opponents.
	No.
	Never, Louis.
	No.
	They're very principled people, Stella, never say that they have.
	Never.
	Never in my presence.
	Sir.
	Suggest this.
	Right.
	Now we have to talk again to the big guns.
	We have to talk about Angelina Jolie.
	Which one?
	And even more.
	I know.
	An intellect even more towering than Harry Sisson's.
	She's who I go to for all of my political commentary.
	Exactly.
	She says basically that she no longer recognizes her country under the current Trump administration.
	I don't think I recognize her anymore, judging from all that foot.
	Now I can't get a Mexican toilet cleaner anywhere.
	I can't recognize my country.
	It's entirely my humor.
	Yes, I know.
	Right, okay.
	Right.
	Hillary Clinton says, in America, we defend free speech in terrible times.
	Do we?
	We defend free speech.
	Not Benghazi, though.
	Even when it's offensive, we defend free speech.
	We is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	A lot of faith.
	She's so in favor of free speech that she deleted all her emails.
	Also.
	That were, I believe, demanded by Congress at the time.
	I'd like to reply here, but for some reason I can't.
	Because she believes in free speech.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Just so much free speech, you can't deal with it.
	David Packman says, one of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to terrify people into self-censorship.
	ABC ending Kimmel's show is the perfect example of this.
	What about if I said I was against Black Lives Matter in 2020 and I held a normal job?
	Would I have been safe then?
	What did he say for Roseanne Barr?
	Big win in the battle of ideas and free speech.
	Roseanne Barr said what she wanted to say.
	ABC made the business decisions that were right for them.
	The internet is just the most marvelous library of receipts, isn't it?
	It is, yes.
	The Democrats have never attacked free speech.
	That's why Ilhan Omos asks, does the First Amendment protect your freedom of speech?
	Yes.
	Does it protect you from being shamed or shunned by others?
	No.
	Lil Hanna Omar knows all about that.
	Ask her brother.
	Bottom line, your opinions have consequences like everything else in life.
	Now, taking out of context, I don't think it's that wrong.
	Yeah.
	What she's saying, generally speaking, is okay, but we know why she's saying it, which is not okay.
	Right.
	Now, I have to go to actual intellectuals, right?
	Steven Pinker, are you sure?
	Steven Pinker, because Steven Pinker and other and some other people, they were so eager to go and say and say basically, no, I'm not part of the, I'm not part of that, of MAGA, basically.
	That was the whole thing.
	I'm not going to go down with you.
	They were so much into the both sides argument that they didn't even have some time to look at what was going to happen.
	And, you know, just it's just wait and see.
	Also, ask yourself whether there is any reason for Trump to want a very bad critic of his to stop criticizing him.
	He says, cancel culture, typically associated with the left, is exploding on the right.
	I have a chapter called Canceling Instinct in my new book, which tries to explain this human impulse, not restricted to any political faction.
	Right.
	It is not restricted to every political faction, but the very fact that this is being presented as a both sides issue is mistaken, to say the least.
	Another stinker from Pinker, I would say.
	Well, I mean, Brett Weinstein says, seems like all the free speech warriors have forgotten how free speech works.
	And I told him basically, sorry, he has forgotten how freedom of association works.
	Yes.
	Because the overwhelming amount of cancellation from the right wing is bottom-up, just like we're boycotting, you know, crazy businesses.
	Most of it is bottom-up.
	And it looks like in this case, there wasn't even a heavy-handed government coercion.
	Because if it were government coercion, and then ABC said, well, look at these dire consequences I have from all these people protesting the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel, the response would be, well, then you shouldn't have broken the law.
	So it looks like, no, sorry, it wasn't a both sides issue.
	not at all.
	And I have also, sorry, if I may just say as well, as we've said before, these are not the same thing.
	It is not the same thing as the left canceling yours five years ago for questioning the BLM narrative.
	And someone live on air in front of many, many viewers, openly lying about why someone was killed.
	Yeah, Jimmy, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences.
	Didn't you know that?
	I'm sure people like you and maybe even you yourself have said that exact thing, right?
	So why don't you lump it and leave it, Jimmy, I'm afraid.
	Well, so I had this thread and I said basically one thing in response to people like Steven Pinker and Brett Weinstein that basically treating it as a both sides issue is just completely mistaken and ignores the reality on the ground and ignores key differences such as the extent of cancellation, the manner of cancellation, the rationale for cancellation and who did it first.
	And it's entirely a leftist op.
	And you could constantly, you could definitely see it from the very beginning because it was so abstract and it ignored the reality on the ground in the same way that people who are talking about social justice, they completely ignore the process by which outcomes come about and only focus on outcomes.
	And they didn't even think of the number of outcomes.
	And let me just give you a very small number, the extent of cancellation.
	It's nowhere near comparable.
	Nowhere near comparable.
	I tell you a commentator that has been good on this, Conan the Barbarian.
	He says, crush your enemies.
	See them driven before you.
	Yes, exactly.
	And hear the lamentation of their triggered folk.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Making it up on the flu.
	No, let us set the record straight and just recognize leftist psyopses when we see them.
	Right, so the extent of cancellation is nowhere near comparable.
	We have the left trying to cancel people on a top-down manner, in a top-down manner.
	There's no grassroots, strong support for this, but it's mostly top-down implemented for a decade.
	And now we're talking about someone who wasn't cancelled.
	So it's not comparable.
	And with respect to people who cheered about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I have said that this is an issue of freedom of association and it has been a bottom-up phenomenon.
	It was driven in a bottom-up manner.
	People said, listen, you're liaising with psychopaths.
	Do what you want.
	Do you want to associate with them or not?
	It's your choice.
	That's what happened.
	So these things are not comparable.
	And I want to show this video because, no, the Democrats engaged in complete demonization.
	They said, also was this other guy who looks like an ice cream, who was basically, has very white hair.
	Okay.
	Yeah, he was saying basically, we need to do what the Germans did to prevent Hitler in 1930.
	Oh, that black guy on that other segment.
	I think Ellie missed all.
	Yeah, something like that.
	Yeah, they were saying that was one of the replies.
	Right.
	So he was saying, yeah, they need to do this.
	Because why?
	Because someone wasn't canceled, but the left engaged in that psy-up where they were constantly screaming.
	And I want Steven Pinker to write a book about not about the cancelling instinct, but about the instinct to empathize with performative victimhood.
	That would be a good book, actually.
	Yeah, that's something that happened.
	So what the left did here was they engaged in performative victimhood.
	They constantly screamed that they're the victims of it, not Charlie Kirk.
	They were the victims of it.
	And they constantly did this.
	And suddenly, the conversation left from left-wing radicalism and the extent to which the legacy of Obama, who I think is one of the most divisive presidents of the U.S., the legacy of Obama and its victimhood narratives have incredibly polarized U.S. society.
	It left from that and it was all on whether Trump violated the First Amendment.
	That was a psyops.
	It's a product of a society that rewards weakness, that everyone's competing to be a victim, whereas it should venerate strength and strong people don't go, well, I'm such a victim.
	I'm the victim of this.
	It's pathetic.
	Yeah.
	So, Steven Pinker, you should write a book about the human instinct to show empathy to performative victimhood.
	Right.
	And we have here this beautiful video where we see lots of people talking about the need to censor.
	Let's play a bit.
	You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation out there.
	There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.
	There are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda.
	And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrent.
	If people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major bloc.
	It's really hard to govern today.
	This is a matter of corporate responsibility.
	Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site.
	It is a matter of safety and corporate accountability.
	The First Amendment is not absolute.
	It does not protect any single thing anyone says.
	And there are limits, and that's important.
	And what this committee has been trying to do for the last year and a half is to chill the federal government from monitoring what is going on on social media.
	When you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence.
	Very clearly incitement of violence.
	I believe that when it comes to broadcast television like Fox News, these are subject to federal law, federal regulation in terms of what's allowed on air and what isn't.
	My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.
	The party of free speech, the party who is protesting.
	Look again, like again, what they were saying here.
	I like that John Kerry was talking about inaccurate predictions, this sort of end of climate change here.
	He's saying we'd all be underwater by now if his predictions were correct.
	Is he taking any of those back?
	Look at that.
	I think so.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But this doesn't apply to Jimmy Kimmel for some reason.
	Yeah, this doesn't apply to Jimmy Kimmel.
	Well, when it comes to Jimmy Kimmel, I'm with the Democrats.
	I'm a Democrat, actually.
	Right.
	So we had a man who was rearrested by FBI after multiple shots fired at ABC affiliate in Sacramento.
	Right.
	Is this for taking Jimmy Kimmel off air or because he hates Jimmy Kimmel that much?
	I don't know.
	There were people who protested the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel.
	Maybe, you know, some people who watch him.
	Well, at least unlike Jimmy Kimmel, I'm actually interested in getting to the root of who it really was.
	Yeah.
	Just lying about it for a narrative from Jimmy Kimmel himself.
	And now the question now we have the $50 million question.
	Did Trump cancel Jimmy Kimmel?
	Drum roll.
	No, he canceled it.
	Now we go to ads.
	Now we're back from ads.
	The answer is no.
	Jimmy Kimmel will return.
	Return.
	The TV after highly criticized suspension.
	Was it late night criticized, though?
	Late night hosts reinstated after brief suspension related to comments on MAGA and Charlie Kirk that Disney called insensitive.
	Now, I'm not going to pay the Guardian.
	It's okay.
	But they are bringing him back.
	They are bringing him back.
	But the Emperor.
	Back to his low ratings again.
	Yeah.
	And I want to say two things.
	No, actually, a bit more to people.
	And especially those who were die-hard centrist about it.
	And I respect them caring about free speech.
	Also, guys, let us first see what is going on.
	Let us assess the situation and then see what's, you know, and then make your criticism.
	Number one is that the narrative control attempt that the left did was to sway the conversation away from what matters to what doesn't.
	And also to keep gaslighting people.
	And we have here one brief survey.
	I'm sure there could be more.
	That's by Yugov, The Economist, that says more Americans see left-wing beliefs behind Charlie Kirk's shooting than see right-wing beliefs.
	But when it comes to the Democrats, the Democrats see more right-wing beliefs than they see left-wing beliefs.
	Most of them.
	So something other than political beliefs still beats on CNN.
	I think one of Kamala Harris's exes said that this was a heartbroken story because it was an emotional, not a political assassination.
	Why did he not like his depiction in South Park?
	Does he not like debates?
	How could it be something other than his political beliefs?
	So that's why they were doing it because people, most people don't follow news to the extent that we do.
	That's not an accusation.
	It's a matter of fact.
	We're doing this for a living.
	Most people don't.
	And they look at headlines.
	So there's a propagandistic battle for headlines because most people are just going to remember the headline.
	And the quantity of messaging can sometimes entirely overturn the quality of it.
	This is what they bank on so often.
	I mean, just goodness me, the fact that you still get people today talking about like Trump saying there were good people on both sides.
	Right.
	That whole thing that was bumped out, even taken out of context.
	Totally taken out of context.
	Easy to find that it was taken out of context.
	But you just, the Democrats would just say it and say it and say it and say it until eventually people just take it.
	And because that's what they heard.
	You throw things at a wall and see what sticks.
	And that's exactly what they tried to do with this narrative on Charlie's Killer.
	Yeah, and as a German said, it's 100% Gables.
	Throw them out hoping some of it will stick.
	But that's actually it.
	Right.
	And I want to end with talking a bit about demonization because the Democrats are doing it to a very large extent.
	And it happens for various reasons.
	Number one, it presents violence as justified because it constantly breeds victimization and the belief that is implied that you're in a position where you have to defend yourself.
	Therefore, violence is justified.
	That's one of the things why demonization is employed in rhetoric.
	The other is to make your opponents sound less human.
	Therefore, you thinking that exercising force against them is not that much of a big issue.
	And the third one is because it presents a usual day as a massive political win.
	Because let's say if the MAGA people don't want to destroy things, I think that if we look at how people reacted to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and compare it with how they reacted to BLM and all these issues, we'll see that no, they don't want to burn things.
	No, they don't want to destroy things.
	So if the propaganda, the propaganda of the Democrats constantly says, it's Weimar, we are just a few nights before the night of the long knives.
	You know, they're about to destroy the establishment.
	They're about to bring forward the Armageddon, the civil war, and these guys are not, and they end up not attacking.
	Then the propaganda presents them as, look, they're afraid of us.
	They're afraid of you being victimized by our propaganda.
	So keep being victimized so you can avert the Armageddon.
	So where there wouldn't have been a problem and where there won't be a problem, they are presenting it as something that they themselves did.
	So they say, hook on to this propaganda and you averted the Armageddon.
	And I think that this is just a very pernicious and polarizing way of both governing but also being the opposition.
	It's incredibly polarizing.
	And I hope more and more and more Democrats and supporters of Democrats wake up to this and start understanding that they need to turn their back to this victimization nonsense.
	Very good.
	Do you want me to go through your rumble rants?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Habification says, there was a leftist terror attack yesterday.
	Oh, you've covered that on the segment.
	Great.
	Thank you, though.
	Habsification also says, we should take into consideration that the 2010s was a transitional period of old media, new media.
	The 2020s accelerated it, and we're currently living through the fourth industrial revolution.
	Thanks, Klaus Schwab.
	I know that's not how you meant it, though.
	But no, you're very right.
	He is.
	Blankfeld says, Stellios, I'd like to see a debate of your version of liberalism and force doctrine.
	I appreciate that it's too much to go into here.
	I suggest you'd argue these principles better than I. Am I misunderstanding?
	I mean, I don't know if you're misunderstanding or not, but I'll be very glad to again debate the issue and talk about it in a proper format.
	And a great one here from Scott Saigai says, if they didn't like it, they can just start their own multi-billion dollar TV network.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Yeah, we've heard that one before.
	And yeah, okay, let's go over to the video comments, Samson.
	Excuse me.
	So we're going to see.
	There's patience.
	Anticipation is building up.
	Do it.
	We do.
	Okay, great.
	That's the Wiltshire flag.
	Let's have a break from the doom and the gloom in the facetious memory and talk about something cool.
	We've all heard of the diversity-built Britain 50 pence coins, but last month, while counting up the cash at work, I came across this unique 50 pence coin from 2005, which you can see here.
	On the back is a definition from Johnson's dictionary, 1775 AD, which reads, quote, 50, adjective, Saxon, pence, noun, plural, plural of penny.
	I thought it was a cool part of our history, and it was nice to see it commemorated.
	Now, you know about it too.
	Have a beautiful day, ladies and gentlemen.
	The base 50p.
	Yeah, thanks for that, Sky.
	It's really cool.
	No!
	Thank you.
	You've done such a good job.
	You will go to jail now!
	What the- That's very funny.
	I did have great pleasure scrolling through the Reddit thread for H-1B visas and just looking at the ceiling.
	It was wonderful.
	The one in particular where it's just like, I'm going to off myself if I have to go back to India.
	Oh, dear.
	Sophie.
	I do feel like a part of what is happening here is that in the past, the left used cancel culture to get rid of that much more capable competition to get positions they otherwise never would have gotten because they're not qualified.
	And now all of these positions are filled by unqualified people and their bosses are just itching for a reason to get rid of them that can't lead to a discrimination lawsuit.
	And now the idiots gave them a reason.
	So yeah, I am very much not sorry.
	No, I'm not sorry either, Sophie.
	And I like your art, by the way.
	Yeah, it's very good.
	All right, that's all of them, is it?
	Website comments, it is.
	So shall I read some Dutch ones?
	Sure.
	Can you read them in Dutch?
	I'm not that good.
	I've just been to France as well, so French is in my mind.
	Yeah, it's terrible.
	I even had snails while I was there as well.
	They're actually traitor.
	They reminded me of mussels.
	So it's sort of seafood-esque.
	And it's all in the seasoning.
	It just tastes like herbs and garlic.
	Speaking of you in France, before you do the comments of your segment, there's an honorable mention about it.
	An Indian lesbian called Minjita says, I'm glad you survived your trip to France, Josh.
	Did you come back in a dinghy?
	I did think about it.
	I thought that my prospects would be better if I came back in a dinghy.
	But the problem is I went to the south of France rather than the north of France.
	So if I got in a dinghy, I might end up in Spain, and that'd be even worse than when I started.
	Or Libya.
	Yeah.
	I'd be sold in a slave market in Libya.
	But yes, France was actually very nice.
	I was talking to Beau about it off camera.
	I was just like, I didn't see a single diversity, you know, except two at the airport in Nice the entire time.
	So you go to the expensive parts and all of a sudden, you know, back to European, you know, ways once more.
	But anyway, enough of that.
	Some more stuff about the Netherlands, shall we?
	I'll go to Amar Award.
	Please try to refrain from quoting Norm MacDonald, but I think the worst part about the colourbind policing is the desensitization and normalizing of diverse consequences.
	We don't have to live like this, and we know that because the time in which we didn't is still well within living memory.
	Very well put, and I think it's always good to quote Norm MacDonald, one of my favourite comedians, rest his soul.
	And Jeron van Calkarin says, those sadly were mostly football hooligans, but I would not be surprised if there were many glowies too.
	This kind of behavior just messes up the conversation about migration.
	I'm glad you agree.
	Cool.
	I also have a comment from my section by an Indian lesbian called Mingjita.
	And she says, why would Trump want to stop autism?
	Autism probably won him the last election.
	Maybe he's just creating a way to infect the entire world with autism.
	Now, that is a super villain plan.
	That would be a great plan.
	Government by Fortune.
	And when everyone's autistic, no one will be.
	Michael Drabelbis says, the autism spike more likely stems from older people having kids.
	That's also a factor, yeah.
	Yeah, and as well known, the mother's age does play a role in the health of a child.
	The older the mother, the more likely problems will arise in the child.
	Yeah, you agree with this, Josh?
	I do indeed, yeah.
	It's a well-demonstrated effect in lots of different conditions.
	And in fact, you know, you've got cases of women in their 60s now having children because also people's health is better.
	And so it widens the reproductive window.
	This is something that the eggman, Stefan Molyneux, doesn't talk about that much.
	But it's true that because we're now healthier than before, at least some of us, maybe not some of the land whales I saw on holiday in France, but yeah, it means that people are fertile for longer, which takes some of the pressure off.
	But obviously, you know, if you do start a family, it will make you happy.
	And I think it's the thing that will make me the most happy in life once I get there.
	Based ape here with a truly base comment, which is, the trick to fixing autism is just to refuse to get a diagnosis.
	I've been undiagnosed my whole life.
	I have no idea what's wrong with me.
	Just some random flavour of retard.
	Life is better this way.
	Based.
	Fantastic.
	Okay, do you want to go to your stilios?
	Yeah.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex.
	I like how senior this sounds.
	Right.
	For everyone saying that Kimmel didn't violate the FCC guidelines because it didn't cause significant public harm.
	Look at how many people still believe the shooter was right-wing.
	If the FCC wanted, they'd be well within their rights to crush ABC.
	Jimbo G, this could actually be a wonderful opportunity for Kimmel to come out and say, I must say that despite saying it was one of theirs, it looks like that it's not the case and I apologize.
	Obviously, this will never happen, but with apparently only 30% of Americans believing he was a leftist, it would be the noble thing to do.
	I wonder what he'll do.
	He'll probably make jokes about being cancelled, not mentioned why, and carry on as normal.
	I think he'll want to acknowledge it slightly so it's not the elephant in the room, but not dwell on it enough that it overshadows his return.
	For all five of his viewers.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	These people crying about employees being fired over social media posts are not taking into consideration private company policies.
	A company is allowed to have a social media clause in employee contracts and they are allowed to fire employees when they violate this clause.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	George Hap.
	Of course the leftists would be happy that Disney didn't fire Kimmel because they agree with him.
	What people should pay attention to are the ones supposedly on our side who jumped to his defense when they didn't do so for right-wing cancellations, like Mr. Weinstein.
	Did he not speak in favor of the people who got cancelled?
	I think there have been certain instances where because he disagreed with their politics, he wasn't so fussed about it, basically.
	But I don't know that much about him.
	I've not followed him particularly closely, so I could be misremembering them.
	No, you know, you know what?
	What I take issue with is just you can be it's very easy to get things right when you speak in general terms.
	So, you know, lots of the times when people who have a big following, they speak very generally and take the both sides' argument.
	Yeah, it's wrong.
	Yeah, okay, it is wrong.
	We have been defending free speech for years, right?
	But guys, let us also look at the particular, the case, the reality on the ground, instead of just being ideologues about it.
	I'm okay with crushing our enemies.
	This is fine with me, to be honest.
	Baron von Warhock.
	Yeah, but I think him speaking is one of the ways to do this.
	Or he's so bad that he destroys himself.
	Isn't he?
	There's a case for it, yeah.
	Isn't he?
	Baron von Warhock, when it comes to Jimmy Kimmel, I guess it's true what they say.
	Sam turds are just too big to flush down the drain.
	Too big to fail, yeah.
	Okay, and White Ryder says, I've said it many times before, political actors, mayors, senators, congressmen, members of parliament all need to have their ability to block people and limit replies on Twitter removed.
	Their job is to work for their constituents.
	They should not be able to deny the right of reply.
	Well, they are for free speech and democracy, after all.
	Yeah.
	Democracy dies in darkness.
	God forbid that there isn't going to be any dialogue anymore.
	Fazitoaster, they did this to themselves, hoisted by their own collective pithard.
	I feel no sympathy for the left after their actions over the last 15 years.
	Oh, not me.
	Well, that's all we've got time for today, ladies and gentlemen.
	I hope you enjoyed the show, and we look forward to seeing you at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

▲