Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 5, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:38:24

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #103

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters for Monday the 5th of April 2021.
	We do not take Easter bank holidays here, so we hope you're enjoying your one.
	Atheist pride worldwide.
	It's more about I like to flog the content creators down in the content minds and I don't see why they should get a day off.
	Mind that juicy content.
	We have people at home who've got nothing better to do because we're still in lockdown, even though yesterday only 10 people died within 28 days of a coronavirus test in the UK. So, you know, you may as well just enjoy your serfdom.
	Anyway, before we begin, we have loads of new premium content went up the We're good to go.
	By calling him Doctor, as uncomfortable as that makes him.
	But he's done a really great article about how critical theorists in academia use their scholarship in a particularly activist manner in order to assassinate the reputations of conservatives via biography and via their scholarship.
	And it's a great piece, obviously.
	And so I think it's really worth your time.
	There's also a new piece up by V. And I love V's writing.
	I didn't realize that he could write.
	He never says that he can do any writing.
	But he's got a very storyteller way of taking you through his points and then tying it up at the end.
	It's really, really excellent.
	And he's talking about the sort of religiosity of modern-day scientists, which is something I've experienced firsthand having to work with Josh.
	So, anyway, now that I've left that dunk hanging in the air, let's move on to what's happening in the George Floyd trial.
	Yeah, so we've been covering here the George Floyd trial to an extent of, like, we don't care about whether or not this guy is guilty or not.
	We don't care if he goes to jail.
	Well, if you kill George Floyd...
	As long as justice is served.
	If he killed him, then he should go to jail.
	If he didn't, then he shouldn't go to jail because he's not the one who killed him or the rest of it.
	And that's our position.
	We don't have a dog in this fight at all.
	Clearly a partisan right-wing position we hold here.
	Yeah, we just don't care.
	But what I can see is that among the right as well, generally, they don't seem to have a dog in this fight.
	They don't really seem to care either.
	But the left do have a dog in the fight.
	They've got a lot riding on this case, unlike everyone else on the planet who is just like, I just want to see justice.
	Well, this is because they framed it as if Derek Chauvin is a white supremacist and he murdered George Floyd because George Floyd was black.
	But none of the evidence seems to suggest that.
	Yeah.
	So I wanted to just go through some of the media reporting because I've complained about the media reporting on this.
	So I thought I'd demonstrate some of it that I thought has been just awful.
	So the first one here is from Vox.com.
	So a partisan left-wing outlet and, you know, openly communist at times in which they just bring on communists to tell them what they think.
	So this is the partisan left, right?
	So if we can scroll down, so this is the title, Sympathy and Authority of the Derek Chauvin trial, and then if you, just a little bit further, you can see, I'm not going to read the intro because it's boring, but just look at this.
	Like, this is what they want you to see.
	Look at all these people crying.
	Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.
	Yeah, I mean, it's literally the Simpsons meme in an article where they're just like, well, look at these witnesses who have come here.
	We could look at the toxicology reports, but there is a crying woman here, and she's a woman of colour.
	Are your heartstrings not pulled?
	Yeah, and this is embarrassing for the prosecution because so far their evidence for what they're claiming, which is the knee on the neck is what killed him, has been lackluster.
	And instead they've brought witness after witness who can't really provide any expert testimony on this because they're still waiting for that expert testimony, which is their witnesses down the line.
	Was it not that the autopsy showed that there was no damage to his neck and no bruising on the back?
	There was no bruising, but my understanding is there are other ways of looking at this, but we just haven't got there yet.
	So all of their witnesses so far have just been, well, I was sad at what I saw.
	It was like, okay, that's not evidence.
	Look at this one line here.
	The prosecution's witness testimony so far has been evocative, sympathetic, and demonstrative of the powerlessness black Americans have faced at the hands of police and the criminal justice system.
	That's not exactly neutral or objective.
	It's not even evidence.
	It's just not in any way, any kind of evidence.
	The witnesses have been crying.
	Okay, I don't care.
	Also, black people are being oppressed by the police, and we're trying to use this as an example of that, but this doesn't appear to be an example of that, at least on the face of it.
	Much journalism.
	So let's just go through the text, because I think it's worth it.
	so they're saying here as prosecutors walked the witnesses through a minute by minute snapshot of the arrest the witnesses accounts remained consistent they were distressed that they could not intervene and they're still upset about it today yep they cried It's not evidence of him acting unlawfully.
	It is not evidence of...
	Him being the killer of the man, there's nothing.
	This is a waste of time.
	They also seemed ready to push back against racist caricatures when the defense, cross-examined, portrayed the witnesses as an angry crowd, yelling and endangering the police officers who were arresting Floyd.
	I don't know what that's got to do with a racist caricature, because as the prosecution has pointed out, that crowd of people was very diverse.
	It was, you know, let's say, largely brown-skinned to lightly brown-skinned and then white-skinned.
	There were people of different races there.
	So, I don't know.
	They're just saying that the black people are there and people think black people are angry.
	That's Vox saying this.
	I'm just like, I wouldn't have taken that view, but whatever.
	Maybe Vox do think that black people are angry.
	But this is true that the defence are saying that the crowd was angry, which demonstrably seems to be true.
	I mean, even by their own point that they were upset and frustrated with what was going on.
	And then this was endangering the cops, which seems to be true because they had to hold them back.
	The ambulance had to drive on a few blocks because they were afraid of the crowd.
	The ambulance were also threatened because why did they not treat him there?
	They instead decided to move him a few blocks outside of the crowd's view.
	It's like...
	Yep.
	So then they go on, when Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, asked Donald Williams II, a mixed martial arts fighter who was at the scene at the arrest, is it fair to say that you grew angrier and angrier?
	Williams replied, you can't paint me as angry.
	You can see how they just dropped off the rest of that interaction, because we've seen the full footage on them.
	I became more professional and more professional or something like that.
	Yeah, which is so cringe.
	It was just like, no, you obviously became angrier.
	Like, you were calling him a bum, then an effing bum, and then a effing P-word, A-word, B-word.
	So, that's just an obvious lie, but Fox don't include that, because why would they?
	And you looked furious when you were on the witness stand, even though you weren't under...
	On trial?
	He seemed really angry that he was being cross-examined?
	It's like, what did you think?
	Just a witness.
	You just need to tell us what you saw.
	No, but he was acting like he was angry that he wasn't just being believed.
	Like he wasn't listening and believing.
	It's like, sorry, that's not what a cross-examination is.
	And then there's the bit, as you said, the prosecution's witness testimony so far has been evocative, sympathetic, and demonstrative of the powerlessness black Americans have faced at the hands of the police and the criminal justice system.
	And as you said, much journalism.
	Much journalism.
	That's the nothing burger.
	And then they go on to interview...
	Well, they say they bring on someone to interview.
	And this is John Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a civil rights scholar.
	So that's how they describe him.
	They didn't even capitalize the J in John.
	This is as bad as the Guardian.
	Yeah, well, I can't talk about spelling.
	No, you can't, but I can.
	But John Powell, they describe him just as a civil rights scholar.
	If we just go to their link, which they link here, you can see his account.
	No, it's not just civil rights, like as he describes himself here.
	Professor of Law, Professor of African American Studies and Ethnic Studies, Robert D. Hans Chancellor's Chair in Equity and Inclusion Director, Othering and Belonging Institute.
	A perfectly down-the-middle, just-the-facts kind of guy.
	Totally not an activist for intersectionality.
	Radical centrist.
	Absolute radical centrist.
	So we can go back to the article just so we can hear what he had to say.
	So the lady interviewing here, she's also a radical left-wing activist.
	I've seen a lot of her work.
	She's always race grifting, which is embarrassing to see.
	So she asks, what do you think of the prosecution's case so far and their choice of witnesses caught to testify?
	And Powell, the professor, responds...
	From what I can tell, they're presenting a very strong case.
	Nope.
	No, they're not.
	There's been no evidence yet.
	It's a very strong emotional case.
	Yeah.
	Their witnesses are extremely sympathetic, and they will continue to be both sympathetic and authoritative.
	In many ways, it's very smart...
	So, they are sympathetic.
	That's the evidence.
	Like, that's not evidence.
	That's just them crying.
	And you think the jurors will, you know, associate with them crying and say, therefore, you must be true.
	That's the level.
	So, this is just the liar, is what I'm getting at here.
	Like, this is the liar outlet in which they can't present you what the evidence is because that would...
	That would hurt.
	So instead we have to go for, well, what are the feelings of the case?
	I've just noticed as well that they're never capitalising the J and John, so I'm guessing this is a kind of bell hooks, sort of miniature revolution against the English language, where they don't capitalise the capital letter of their name.
	Sorry.
	Don't know why.
	It's a weird thing.
	Resistance to white supremacy.
	So John continues.
	Secondly, it's an array of witnesses.
	Prosecutors putting up not just authoritative people like experts and police dispatchers, but everyday citizens.
	Young people.
	Old people.
	That, again, is just a lie.
	There have been no expert witnesses.
	There have just been witnesses.
	Because we have not got to the expertise of people saying, this is how someone dies of association.
	I study this.
	It's people who are at the scene and just tell you what they saw.
	Although, mostly crying.
	So he continues, we don't know the defense's case entirely.
	You would be if you paid attention.
	I was going to say, I know the defense's case, why doesn't he?
	But they have to do three things.
	Number one, don't believe your eyes.
	Number two, my experts are better than their experts.
	And number three, and the witnesses are not credible or biased.
	Okay.
	Well, we have seen at least two of the witnesses heavy biased to the point of being uncooperative with the court, which they had to be chastised for.
	Yeah.
	So that's definitely true.
	My experts are better than your experts.
	We haven't got to the experts yet.
	Don't believe your eyes.
	Well, that's Vox's position.
	Because, I mean, if you had been watching the defense's case, you'd know entirely what their case is.
	My eyes showed me George Floyd saying I can't breathe when he was sat in the police car unassailed by any of the police.
	and he had foam on his mouth and he had drugs on him and he had massive amounts of fentanyl in the system and things like this.
	I guess he just switched off for those bits.
	Yeah, I guess he didn't look at those bits.
	I mean, this is what's embarrassing as well.
	Every live stream of this case has tens upon tens of thousands of people watching it.
	And that's why I don't think this is going to work at all.
	Because if you look in the comments of these sections or look at the full body video and then look at the comments, overwhelmingly people are like, ah, okay, this was more complicated than it was made out to be.
	And that seems to be the truth.
	I mean, as a perfect example of this, let's just go to fox.com journo.
	I don't know how you say his name.
	Aaron Rupa?
	Rupa.
	Rupa.
	So this is him taking footage of one of the witnesses saying that he was sad that he was screaming out mama when on the ground saying, I don't have a mama either.
	Being the nickname for his girlfriend.
	Yeah, that's the bit that they don't retweet, which is we can get it up.
	I put this on Twitter, which is just...
	Sorry, the next one.
	So this is just his girlfriend literally saying that, yeah, the nickname for me is Mama.
	So when he's on the ground shouting Mama, it's not to his mother, because his mother is dead.
	She's been dead for two years.
	And this isn't to have a go at her or their pet names, don't care about that.
	It's just that's the context, which, again, just gets thrown to the wayside.
	And then I want to go to the cope.
	So that's the, you know, just outright, let's lie about this.
	Let's pretend the defense has nada.
	And then there's the cope, in which they're like, okay, yeah, the defense has a bunch of points, but other things.
	Just no defense, really.
	So this is the Guardian.
	George Floyd's girlfriend shared his opioids pain.
	They suffered so much by taking opioids.
	Derek Chauvin refused to see it.
	What?
	So they argue in here.
	Ross, the girlfriend, said she noticed a white substance around Floyd's mouth and got him to the hospital.
	This is when he overdosed.
	Where he stayed for several days after apparently overdosing.
	Yes, this was the first overdose, right?
	It wasn't the first time.
	Oh, it's not even the first overdose.
	So he may have overdosed previously, I assume.
	Right, this is just a previous, the most recent overdose before the one that appears to have been the one that killed him.
	Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, drew attention to a similarity between Ross's description and the police's account of Floyd's condition as they arrested him, a man complaining that his stomach hurt and had white foam in and around his mouth.
	So, the Guardian conceding the points here, that, well, that's the defence's case.
	At least they're giving the defence's case.
	I mean, and it seems to be fairly strong.
	The defence has made a simple calculation.
	So doubt into just one juror about the cause of death.
	After all, the official autopsy showed that Floyd had a mix of drugs in his system and Chauvin would walk free.
	And also the fact that the autopsy doesn't show damage to his neck.
	So it's like, but they're actually giving the case here, which is, here's the evidence that they think actually he died of a drug overdose.
	This is the defence risky gambit is showing reality.
	Yeah, she's just explaining all of this, and I'm just, okay, yeah, okay, honest, honest.
	But if the defence claim is that Floyd was evidently overdosing, or at least under the influence of drugs, definitely was, why did Chauvin and his fellow officers not act on that at this time?
	It's like, what are you talking about?
	And then she goes on to just argue that they need social workers at these police stations, and a social worker would have been able to deal with him as a drugged-up individual, and therefore wouldn't have led to his death.
	Well, how would that have prevented it?
	But if he's overdosing, how would a social worker...
	The four-time lethal level of fentanyl in the system.
	How does a social worker deal with that?
	Put the hand down his throat?
	I don't know.
	Like, she's just a nonsense argument.
	And also the point that they didn't act on it.
	Yeah, they did.
	Like, the whole reason they focused all their attention on him was because he was obviously delirious, and then they restrained him, and as you can see, the restraint that they used was what was advised if someone is overdosing on drugs, or at least very high on drugs.
	He was on his left side, put in the recovery position.
	Yeah, but also you keep him down, or in the car, but they couldn't get him in the car, because you don't want him running into traffic, you don't want him harming anyone else or himself.
	And he had asked to be put on the floor.
	Yeah.
	And also, they had called EMS to come out and take him away to the hospital.
	Not because he's a criminal and criminals get put in the hospital, but because he was clearly in danger and they wanted to take care of him.
	Doesn't really sound like they weren't seeing that he was on drugs.
	Guardian, but...
	The police called an ambulance.
	Why?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Send him to jail.
	Yeah.
	It's like...
	No, I don't think so.
	So this is the cope in which they have to accept the case's points.
	Then they're just like, nah, but there should have been a social worker.
	But what difference would that have made?
	I don't even know what they're meant to have done.
	They're just meant to have been like, they're there, don't overdose.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	It's utterly pointless.
	But then there's the ignorant.
	So then I want to go on to the ignorant, which is the, let's say, right-wing press on this.
	So I think a lot of the right-wing media types have sort of ignored this case or had other people look at it because they think, eh, it's probably the fact that they're on the neck, people have seen the video, and then that's enough of all they see, and then move on.
	So I don't want to have a go at Julia Hartley Brewer, who's the person here.
	I like Julia.
	Because she's not actually the one even talking here.
	She's asking this other person, can you tell me what's going on with the case?
	And this other person, presumably a worker for Talk Radio, has watched all of the footage of the court case, like I have or many other people have, and then said, this is what's going on.
	And it's just pathetic, the version of events that she gives.
	So let's play the first clip of her telling you what happened.
	Now, the defence case is that this is a man who was addicted to amphetamines, that he had been taking heroin.
	We heard evidence from his girlfriend that they had both been addicted to opioids, hadn't they?
	And the defence seems to be that, well, this man had health problems, that he was on drugs, it was possibly a drugs overdose that killed him, not having his neck knelt on for nine and a half minutes.
	Have they produced any evidence yet?
	We've only seen the prosecution case, but any evidence yet to suggest that he would have died anyway at that time if someone hadn't put their neck on him for nine and a half minutes?
	Because it seems a pretty tall story to me.
	It does seem a very tall story.
	And the crux of it is this.
	If Derek Chauvin and George Floyd hadn't crossed paths at that moment, George Floyd would probably be alive today.
	Now, the defence haven't yet put forward their evidence to suggest that it was a drug overdose, it was a heart condition, it was hypertension that killed him at this moment.
	Now, the defence, what they seem to be doing is trying to pick holes in witness statements or trying to come with this line that the anger of the crowd distracted the police officers.
	And that's why they made the mistakes that they did.
	And that's why Derek Chauvin kept his knee on George Floyd's neck for nine minutes until Now, we had another police officer who didn't know what had happened at the time, who found out later in the day.
	And he actually said on the stand, look, if you do have a suspect that is quite big and seems to be out of control, you get them in handcuffs, you get them on the ground, you get them restrained, and then you don't need to use the excessive force that Derek used at that time.
	Yeah, that will certainly be, I think, well, yeah, but that's the key thing the jury is going to have to decide.
	That they have presented.
	Yeah, I mean, like, opening that with it's a pretty tall story, and then giving you none of the evidence that they have presented, but instead giving the evidence, so the witness testimony from one of the cops...
	Implies they've only read the Vox.com account of things.
	Yeah, we've only...
	You know, that journalist there, I mean, sorry to be rude, Afor, I have no idea who you are, but the idea that it's the only thing that's been presented is stuff like the prosecution saying that this was an unjust use of force, and then a cop saying this, who, again, wouldn't be an authority on this, that's why it's not an expert witness...
	I mean, it's almost like you're just not paying attention.
	Like, there's no way you watched all of the clips and all of the footage out of this and came to that conclusion.
	I mean, it's just silly.
	I mean, saying like here, Floyd would be alive today if they had not crossed paths.
	What are you talking about?
	How can you survive with four times the amount of fentanyl it takes to kill a regular person in your system?
	Floyd caused the cops to come out.
	He was in the store.
	He gave a counterfeit $20.
	They weren't just like, hey, a black guy, let's get him.
	Yeah, and then the store, who's got black employees, I can't remember what race the manager is, but as if we need to talk in these terms, for Christ's sake, called the police.
	The police came out and then interacted with Floyd on that basis.
	He's the one who caused the police to be there.
	And it was a diverse police squad as well, wasn't it?
	Yeah, and then there's the allegation, so he overdosed, so he put his stash in his mouth, and that's what caused the overdose, because in response to the police turning up, well, what's that going to do with Chauvin?
	I mean, this is the defense's case, and I'm not trying to be rude.
	I understand that more evidence might come out and Chauvin might be definitely guilty, and again, I don't care, but the fact that people are so unable to give the defense's point of view is just embarrassing and kind of negligent.
	But it's because they'd have to sit through like 30 hours of trial footage, and who wants to do that when you could just read the Guardian's account of it?
	It's almost like it's your job.
	Well, I mean, it's their job.
	I mean, there's a reason I have, because I'm doing segments about it.
	It'd be pretty stupid if I didn't watch the stuff, so they'd come out here and tell you all about it, wouldn't it?
	I mean, it would look embarrassing.
	It would look like that.
	It would look like that.
	That's right.
	And I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and we were talking about this.
	Like, why?
	Because it's not just talk radio either.
	LBC, all the British media, they're very bad at covering American stuff at the best of times.
	Oh yeah, they don't know anything about it.
	But they're all in agreement that basically the prosecution's case is the only case worth listening to.
	And the defence is just, what are they talking about?
	Drugs?
	Some silliness.
	The reason they're doing that, I think, might be just dishonesty, especially among the left-wing press in the UK. So they're preparing you, because they might think that actually there's a chance he might get off if he did die of drugs, and then Chauvin gets off with not acting wrong.
	Then they want you to understand that America must be a racist place.
	Yes.
	Look, all this evidence about him killing him, and yet still went through the court case, and still he wasn't prosecuted.
	And there is a natural sort of tendency in Britain for us to go, yeah, well, that's America.
	And the thing is, I don't think America is as bad as we think that America is.
	I mean, I've been to America lots of times.
	It seemed pretty normal, to be honest.
	Everyone was just going around doing normal things.
	But even if you want to condemn the United States for certain things, I mean, compared to what?
	But then you look at, okay, well, the New York Times police shootings in 2015, whatever it was.
	Oh, look, 998 or something deaths in police custody.
	It's like, okay, but how many of them were unarmed?
	And it was in the double digits.
	It's like, so there we go.
	But I think the media here, especially, sort of preparing for if Chauvin gets convicted, then they can say, ha ha, look how strong the case was.
	But if he doesn't, then they can be like, look at the United States, the state of that country.
	They're racist.
	Yeah, because they are the politically correct crowd.
	And not to be too rude to talk radio, I know they do try and do their thing.
	No, but they still live within the Westminster bubble where everyone is still politically correct and aren't allowed to actually look at the facts.
	Right.
	But it's sad to see.
	So let's understand the case that the defense is actually making because no one else seems to be able to just put it out.
	So this hopefully will be in a format that people can share and so you can show people what the defense is claiming.
	And again, we don't really care about Derek Chauvin.
	If he's guilty, he's guilty.
	If he's not guilty, he's not guilty.
	We have no dog in the fight.
	But what is the case?
	Because no one is able to show, apparently.
	So, this is the first piece of evidence, which is him in the store where he gave the counterfeit $20 bill, in which he is clearly high.
	So let's play the first clip, just so you can see how he is.
	So, for people listening, he's sort of dancing around on the spot.
	It's actually very humorous.
	Very abnormally.
	You can see the clerk staring at him before he looks away there.
	He's standing around, looking around.
	Looking confused and rubbing his face.
	Looking like a high person.
	Can't seem to keep his balance properly.
	Someone walks through, he walks back in a very childish way.
	But it's the way he's holding his hands across his body and things like this.
	He's obviously...
	Yeah, and it's not just our opinion that that looks high.
	The clerk in the store was interviewed by the prosecution, so not trying to be pro-Derek Chauvin at all, and gave his description of him saying, yeah, he did seem high.
	When you did interact with Mr.
	Floyd in the store, what was his demeanor like?
	He seemed very friendly.
	Approachable.
	He was talkative.
	He seemed to just be having an average Memorial Day just living his life.
	But he did seem high.
	So, I mean, we can pretty fairly establish that he was high in the store.
	Which is, you know, one thing.
	But the reason this is a note is because the drug dealer...
	For presumably the drugs he was taking that made him high there, was in the car with him when the cops turned up to talk to him about the fake $20 bill.
	So we can play this clip just to confirm it.
	So this chap here, that's Maurice Hall.
	He's pled the fifth in this whole case.
	He was meant to be a pretty important witness about whether or not he died of drugs.
	And was all of a sudden going, nah, I'm not saying anything.
	I don't want to incriminate myself.
	Understandably so, though.
	Being a drug dealer in a case like this, I mean, absolutely, I understand his legal argument for it, but it looks very bad because why would you not want, you know, the full truth here?
	And this is not just the defense saying that he's the drug dealer in the same car.
	The girlfriend has been able to confirm that he is Floyd's drug dealer.
	So, let's play.
	Do you recall the FBI agents asking you, did Mr.
	Floyd purchase controlled substances from Mr.
	Maurice Hall?
	Yes.
	And do you recall saying yes?
	I did.
	So that's Floyd's girlfriend saying that that chap in the car right next to him was his drug dealer.
	And he's high in the store.
	So presumably he brought drugs, took them, went to the store to give a fake $20 bill to people, and then came back out.
	And then the police turned up, and if you're a man with a bunch of illegal drugs, and the police are approaching your car...
	One of the things you might do is try and down your stash.
	Because, I mean, it's better to take the drugs than to be found with them.
	Except maybe you're not thinking about how much you're taking.
	So this is one of the points made by the defense.
	As you can see here, there's clearly something in his mouth.
	It doesn't look like a broken tooth or anything.
	It looks like a pill.
	It's a small, white pill-shaped...
	Blurry object.
	So this is the argument from the defense that here the cops approached him and he panicked and downed his stash of pills because he didn't want to be caught with them, which would be an understandable thing for someone to do in that circumstance.
	Ill-advised, but not irrational.
	Yes.
	So then there's also the point here that the pills, which they seem to be getting, are not normal.
	So the girlfriend confirms that in March, two months before, they started getting these abnormal pills, so not the normal opioids they get, but something else.
	So, let's play.
	Now, then in March of 2020, you got some pills, right?
	You remember describing that?
	Yes.
	And can you describe what those pills were like?
	They look different to me than a normal pill.
	They seem like they were thicker.
	So they were different.
	But it's not just that they were different in shape, they were different in substance.
	So they're describing what they did to her.
	Usually an opioid to me is a pain reliever.
	It's something that is kind of relaxing, takes your pain away.
	The pill that time, it seemed like it was a really strong stimulant.
	I couldn't sleep all night.
	So it's a stimulant, it's not a relaxer, which is exactly what would explain Floyd's condition, him being very stimulated, let's say, throughout the entire interaction with the police and beforehand.
	And they'd taken these pills two months ago, and Floyd had overdosed on these exact pills.
	So let's play.
	He wasn't feeling good.
	His stomach really hurt.
	He was doubled over in pain.
	So we cut that there because his stomach being an intense pain, that's an important point, keep it in your mind.
	So she also says when they took him to the hospital with his overdose, he had foam around his mouth.
	Let's play.
	And when you took him to the hospital, did you notice foam coming from his mouth?
	Um, I noticed like some kind of like, you know, foam building in the corners of his mouth, kind of dry.
	A dry white substance?
	Mm-hmm.
	Yes.
	So she confirms when he overdosed.
	Intense stomach pain firm around his mouth.
	These are the symptoms that led to him being overdosed.
	While then concluding that he was overdosed and taking him to the hospital.
	And you would think, okay, maybe they stopped there or something.
	Maybe the pills he took in the car were something else.
	Apparently not.
	She confirmed that between March and May, the month in which he was killed, they would still obtain these pills.
	So let's play.
	Would you agree with me that the FBI agents asked you from March to May if you continued to purchase those pills from the same source?
	Did they ask you that question?
	They did.
	And you responded once in a while when we were desperate.
	Agreed?
	That's what it says, yes.
	What she means there is when she says that's what it says, she's talking about her transcript of a previous interview with the FBI or something.
	Yeah, she was being a little bit combative and saying, I don't remember.
	Read the transcript.
	Which may be that she just doesn't remember.
	Sure.
	Not trying to be mean or anything.
	But then they read the transcript and, yep, she confirms that they would get those pills once in a while when they were desperate.
	And presumably for Maurice Hall, their drug dealer, who was in the car with George.
	So two months ago, they started getting these new types of pills, which were some kind of speedball that made them jittery and a stimulant.
	And then up until this point, they're still getting the pills.
	He's in the car with the drug dealer, goes into the store, is clearly high from taking pills, goes back to the car and is seen putting pills in his mouth when the police approach.
	And then we have the interactions with the police.
	So the defense's argument is that quite clearly taking the same pills, he's quite clearly having the same overdose because he has quite clearly the same symptoms.
	So if we can play this clip, him complaining about his stomach hurting.
	So why is he complaining about his stomach hurting when on the ground?
	Might be a miss slip, but he says it.
	So, there's an inference there.
	There's also the point about the officers noticing foam in and around his mouth.
	Let's play this clip.
	Are you on something right now?
	No, nothing.
	It's because you're acting real erratic.
	I'm scared, man.
	Let's go.
	You got foam around your mouth, too?
	Yes.
	Yes, I was just hooping earlier.
	Okay.
	Car.
	Okay, can I talk to you, please?
	Yes, you get in this car.
	We can talk.
	I am.
	I'm claustrophobic.
	Yeah, you can see that.
	Let's get the next image up, just so we can show a close-up of his mouth there for people to see.
	You can see white substance in and around his mouth there, which, as the officers know, you can hear on the body-worn cameras, there's foam around your mouth.
	And he says yes.
	So it is definitely foam around his mouth, the exact same symptoms in which he OD'd two months earlier, taking the same pills from presumably the same drug dealer.
	Yeah.
	And this is not the only thing that brings the whole case of him dying of knee-in-the-neck into question.
	But whether or not he started to OD when he was not on the ground is one of the defense's arguments.
	So if we can play this, this is him talking about him not being able to breathe when he's not on the ground and instead in the car.
	I can't choke!
	I can't breathe!
	Please!
	Please!
	Ah!
	Ah!
	My wrist!
	My wrist, man!
	And I'm on the ground!
	I'm on the ground!
	I can't breathe I can't breathe for what?
	I can't fucking breathe come on out thank you so he's thanking them taking him out of the car because he requested to be put on the ground Yeah.
	And in his words, because he couldn't breathe in the car when no one had anything around his neck.
	Yeah.
	So the defense saying, well, this is evidence for him clearly overdosing before he's even put on the floor.
	And it doesn't get much better.
	So they searched the police car in which he's having that tussle, and they were able to find exactly the same pills that he overdosed on two months earlier with his saliva in the police car.
	Let's play.
	The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension conducted two searches of Squad 320.
	You will learn that in the second search of Squad 320, agents recovered several pieces of partially dissolved pills.
	You will learn that these pills were again analyzed, were again shown to be consistent or similar to the pills found on the Mercedes-Benz, in that they contained methamphetamine and traces of fentanyl.
	Moreover, these pills contained the DNA and saliva of George Floyd.
	Pills in the car.
	Same pills.
	He's got his saliva on.
	They're clearly falling out of his mouth.
	Yeah, and then we go to the evidence the defense presents, which is the toxicology report.
	So this is the report on his dead body, what he had in his system.
	And if you read these notes, you can find out yourself on page 2, in which they're listing how much fentanyl is in his system, and they list 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his system.
	And they note that you would find a dead person at 3 nanograms per milliliter.
	So he's 3, almost 4 times the amount over for someone taking a lethal dose.
	which is pretty good evidence for the fact that he'd swallowed a bunch of those pills also the fact that there's meth inside there which means it is the speedball it is the kind of pills that would give him a stimulant so yeah he swallowed a bunch of those pills it is without question that is what happened but i mean how how quickly does a body metabolize these pills i guess is the question because even if he'd taken them they might take like half an hour to kick in or something And so he may have already taken too much anyway.
	So he was there for a significant amount of time, interacting with the store, so on and so forth, then taking them, and then it's about, what, 10-20 minutes until he's on the ground and then is passed out.
	And the debate is about whether or not it was the knee on the neck, the constricted airflow, and he suffocated to death, or was it that he was overdosing and therefore he died?
	And if this is the defense's argument, and I can't get over how the media is unable to present this, anyone watching the case would be able to present you this.
	I'm embarrassed that they can't.
	So just a reminder to share this so people actually know what the defense's argument is instead of just hearing the prosecutions.
	And that's one part.
	Did he die of that or did he die of this?
	That's the feeling.
	And then there's the argument about, okay, even if we just accept for a minute that he died of overdose, well, Chauvin could still be acting in an improper manner, could be still using disproportionate force, could have contributed to his death.
	That would be the argument.
	And the defense, again, makes their argument, which no one is repeating, no one is showing up in the mainstream, which is that he was following procedure as he was taught.
	So this is an argument laid out by one of his supporters or what do they call it in America?
	And lawyers or whatever the term is.
	I can't remember.
	But if you scroll down, you can see an image that they present in this article arguing that he didn't do anything.
	And you can see there, they are in handcuffs.
	Now what?
	So it's an image of officers demonstrating with another officer what you do when you've got a suspect who is delirious.
	You put them in handcuffs, you put them down.
	You can see one of these officers with a knee on the head slash neck of the officer putting him in his place to keep him safe.
	I mean, they're putting him in the recovery position.
	And we saw that Floyd was in the recovery position when they were laying him down on the ground.
	He was very clearly on his left-hand side.
	His right leg was over his hip sort of thing in order to make sure that if he vomits or whatever, he doesn't choke on the vom.
	The police officers called the EMS to save his life.
	They knew he was delirious.
	They made a code 3 or whatever.
	Come here with your lights on as fast as possible to save this guy because we think he's in a bad way.
	And this hold to keep him there is for his own good, because it's to make sure he doesn't run in front of a car, he doesn't run off into pedestrians or do anything stupid.
	It's to keep him contained for his own safety, then to move him to the ambulance for his own safety, to save his life.
	This is not homicide.
	This is not someone trying to kill him, they're trying to save him.
	And did not the autopsy show that there was no significant or no bruising at all or anything like that to his neck?
	The defence says that there was no bruising on his skin or his muscle below around his neck.
	Was there any damage to the windpipe or anything like that?
	We don't know.
	We're waiting for the expert witnesses.
	Again, we are making this video at a time in which it's sort of six days, seven days in, I can't remember off the top of my head, of witnesses.
	But I just can't get over how none of this is being presented to the public.
	I mean, you saw Talk Radio, LBC, The Guardian.
	No one is able to present this evidence in a proper way and say, look, this is what they're claiming.
	You can disbelieve it.
	You can claim that the video shows enough for you to say that it's asphyxiation.
	Sure.
	And again, we don't care.
	There may be better experts who come out later on in the case.
	But this needs to be shown to people, because if it is that he died of an overdose, and he's acquitted on that fact, people need to know, so then they don't go out and burn stuff down.
	So they know what really happened, and don't just assume, America's a racist place, never gonna get justice.
	So yeah, please, please share this, and let people know what the argument is.
	They don't have to agree with it, they should know what the argument is though.
	Well, let's talk about a piece that was published in The Guardian by Sacha Baron Cohen.
	Now, Sacha Baron Cohen, I've been a fan of for decades, to be honest.
	I really liked Ali G. I thought it was really hilarious.
	It was clever to pose as some inner-city youth.
	And at the time, in the late 90s, there was a sort of...
	The blossoming of, I guess, what we could call like chav culture, where, you know, it's like the weird...
	I can't...
	I'm not going to try and talk in that fashion because it would sound terrible.
	But, you know, the sort of chav culture had come up, so, you know, what are blood and stuff like this, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	In it blood, that sort of thing.
	And he's dressed in a ridiculous fashion.
	And for some reason, he's able to meet with people who are...
	Quite credible, quite credentialed.
	And, you know, people who are part of the power structures.
	And make them look like fools.
	And this is part of a sort of time-honoured British tradition of comedy of doing this.
	You may remember Brass Eye did something very similar.
	Getting them to, you know, promote like this anti-pedophile campaign called Nonsense.
	And things like this.
	And this drug called Cake, which is totally made up, but kids are eating cake.
	You need to see things like this.
	And Sash Baron Cohen is part of that sort of comedic tradition.
	And it's not to say that it didn't have political undertones, which of course it did.
	But I find very interesting how he's germinated and bloomed into the new messiah of the ADL, which is, I didn't really see that coming.
	So anyway, as of this year, 2021, Sash Brown-Cohen is worth about $160 million, apparently, according to Parade magazine.
	And he made his money by being this kind of trickster.
	And, you know, that's fine.
	I think that's a perfectly valid way of making money.
	Like I said, I've enjoyed many, many of his films, of his TV programs.
	He's a funny guy.
	He's a really funny guy.
	And he's got a great education as well.
	He went to Christ College at Cambridge.
	He's done very, very well for himself.
	I'm all for people succeeding.
	And it's all fun and games when you're being a trickster at the expense of people like Jacob Rees-Mogg, who he did an interview with like 20 years ago, like before Jacob Rees-Mogg was even in politics, I think.
	And, you know, so that's all fun and games when you're having a laugh at the expense of the aristocracy.
	But then you come to the sort of...
	So you see how young Mog looks on this.
	And it's really interesting watching Mog trying to deal with this guy, because he actually has a surprising amount of sort of patience and humility with him.
	And it's very...
	I'll let you watch it in your own time, but it's a really, really...
	It just makes Jacob Rees' Mog look good.
	It did make him look good.
	I'm not going to lie.
	And, you know...
	Sacha Baron Cohen was obviously...
	I think he came away from that a bit frustrated because I think he was looking for a bigger reaction than he got.
	It was good comedy, at least.
	It was very good comedy.
	And then we get to the sort of Borat era of his film production.
	And it just strikes me as being weird how he treats poor Eastern Europeans and, I mean, Kazakhstanese Eastern European, would you say?
	Or Asiatic?
	Asiatic.
	Yeah, like Eurasian, I guess we'd call them.
	Sort of poor Eastern Europeans and Eurasians in the same sort of category.
	And so in the original Borat movie, wasn't it?
	It came out in 2006.
	He was playing a Kazakhstani who was, of course, very backwards, regressive, misogynistic, kind of rapey.
	The idea the Americans have of a foreigner.
	I think he chose Kazakhstan because the least number of people would know anything about it.
	Exactly.
	And therefore he could be as outrageous as possible.
	Exactly.
	And don't get me wrong, this is funny, but if you're a left-wing comedian, you do have to be cognizant of the concept of punching down.
	Because this is very, very important.
	If you're punching down, then that's not good comedy.
	It's good comedy when you're punching it up and you're challenging the power.
	You're, you know, showing the man who's really, you know, in charge and things like this.
	And so when he is treating, like, this impoverished Romanian village in the way that he did, it really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
	Because I think What kind of person does this?
	So we should mention, like, he's showing it to be Kazakhstan, but it's actually a village in Romania.
	Yeah, but the point is, it's a poor village somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
	And no one's going to know the difference.
	And no one's going to know the difference.
	And, I mean, you know...
	For the purposes of a movie, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
	But the thing is, these are people with real lives and they're really kind of upset about it.
	Because he made a lot of money lying about these impoverished Romanians.
	As you can see, this is just an image from a BBC sort of mini documentary that they did following up.
	But this is the article that they published in 2008.
	And I read this and I was just like, wow, that is actually horrible, what Sacha Baron Cohen is doing here.
	So, they say three years ago, the film crew claimed to Glod, which is a very tiny village somewhere in Romania.
	It's an absolutely tiny village called Glod.
	They asked the villagers to take part in the film, and the villagers claim they were paid three euros each.
	So it must have cost them about €100 in total.
	Yeah, paying for these actors who don't really know what's going on.
	For just, you know, Romanian villagers to stand in the background as extras, basically.
	Paid €100.
	Glod was to become the fictional Kazakh home of Borat, and the film took €150 million at the box office, and at least €4 million of that went to Sash Baron Cohen.
	So he made millions of dollars.
	They made €100 collectively.
	And he humiliated them on the global stage for some reason.
	Don't know why he did it.
	Like, the villagers of God say they were tricked into appearing in the film.
	They claim they were told it was going to be a documentary, but instead have been portrayed as backwards people and criminals.
	This is, of course, disputed by the film company, but, I mean, why would I believe them over these villagers?
	What are the villagers standing to gain by lying about this?
	But what does the film company stand to gain by lying about them?
	Well, we know, hundreds of millions of dollars.
	You know, they don't stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
	But the main concern was the chap who we showed in the screenshot a minute ago, who was a chap called Spiridom, who was the town mechanic.
	Now, it's important to note that rural Romania is Eastern Orthodox Christian, and they are not...
	They're not like metropolitan atheists.
	They actually have quite strong moral convictions around certain things.
	And the one that Spiridom was most concerned about was the fact that he, a mechanic, was portrayed as a gynecologist and that he does abortions.
	And he says, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a gynecologist, and I'm not a criminal.
	I don't do abortions because I doubt abortion is legal.
	Yeah, so just for a bit of context, it's not just he's standing there looking like a mechanic with a wrench or something.
	They ask him, take your welding tool and a visor, and you start welding something on your workbench when we point at you.
	So they point at him and go, oh, the abortionist, and then he's welding something, and that's the joke.
	I mean, don't go wrong, it's funny.
	This is why I like Sacha Baron Cohen, because he has this edgy humour that is funny, and But I mean, I would have assumed they would have paid the guy that they were making the joke about at least more than three euros.
	But that's just because I'm not a dick.
	Anyway, but he says that's what bothers me the most, because they basically portrayed him to the entire world as someone who may...
	Do abortions, which of course he feels is a moral wrong.
	If it was a documentary, as they told us, I wouldn't mind, but it was a lie.
	And so they lied to a bunch of just Romanian peasants, which is just an awful thing to do, to make millions of dollars.
	And in another scene, Cohen stands alongside a local girl, just some random girl, and describes her as the number four prostitute of the whole of Kazakhstan.
	Again, it's funny, but it's like, she's not an actress.
	She didn't know.
	She didn't speak English.
	It's very deceitful.
	It's incredibly deceitful.
	Incredibly exploitative.
	And again, in the context of punching up and punching down, mocking Jacob Rees-Mogg?
	Good.
	Mocking random Romanian girl.
	Not just mocking, exploiting.
	Making money off the exploitation and mockery of a random Romanian girl?
	A bit harsh.
	You know, a bit below the belt, as it were.
	The village tried to sue the film company, and this was thrown out by a US district judge lawyer because she said that their allegations were not specific enough.
	And I'm like, you seem pretty specific to me.
	Like, they lied to us, manipulated us, and then made loads of money off us while making us...
	Humiliating us before the entire world.
	We'd like some reparations if that's okay.
	And the judge's like, no.
	Peasant, what are you going to do about it?
	It's like, Jesus.
	Anyway, so this is the sort of backstory to Borat.
	And this is in the context of a Guardian interview that Sacha Baron Cohen had done last month.
	I think it was last month.
	It's listed as February.
	But I think it was only published recently.
	For The Guardian.
	And so this is his first out-of-character interview with the British newspaper.
	And I find this really, really interesting because Sacha Baron Cohen acts as if he is somehow the victim of, like, whatever's going on with the world.
	And he is some brave freedom fighter, when in fact he was a wealthy Westerner who was...
	We're exploiting impoverished Eastern Europeans, and just the notion of what a Kazakhstani is, in order to make millions and millions of dollars.
	And it's like, this is not the first time we don't.
	I mean, like, when he was playing Ali G, he's exploiting, like, the dispossessed chav underclass of the inner cities.
	Again, like, I mean, and I'm not even against him doing these things, but it's like, don't act like you're a noble crusader for justice when you're doing this.
	Especially within a left-wing frame in which he puts himself.
	Exactly.
	Oh, very much so.
	Very much so.
	He's very woke.
	And it's very interesting watching him trying to justify his wokeness through this lens.
	So basically what I'm saying is he's an absolute enormous hypocrite.
	And he's making millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, off of his hypocrisy.
	And what I suppose you could describe as kind of victimization of these communities.
	But more importantly is that if I were making the jokes he was making, man, would I be in trouble.
	I mean, we'd probably be leveling hate crimes against me.
	So I wouldn't be able to make these jokes.
	But anyway, the article begins by framing it as on the filming, the shooting of the new Borat movie.
	Because, of course, he goes out and essentially triggers the MAGA chuds during the 2020 election campaign while filming for it.
	And so he's like, oh, this is the hardest movie I've ever had to make.
	The director was taking risks with a history of film that hadn't been taken before.
	Being chased by an angry mob armed to the teeth when people are triggered in a crowd, certain things can happen that they wouldn't do individually, and that's true, which is why you play up and provoke the mob, because you want them to do these things.
	You'll catch them on camera, you'll edit them into your film, and you'll make lots of money.
	That's your job.
	That's what you do.
	But anyway, today he's speaking from his safety of a home that he shares with his wife, Isla Fisher, and their three children.
	Palm trees wave behind his head.
	He's having a croissant.
	So he's in some California mansion.
	So he's going to be talking about the threats he faces from his California mansion.
	After exploiting these Romanian peasants.
	Someone please think of Sasha.
	I know.
	It's a tough time.
	But...
	Wait.
	He's better than you think.
	He's in fact somewhat messianic.
	I'm not even joking.
	I've had threats since Ali G. And in my experience, publicising them only does one thing.
	It leads to more threats.
	We are in a very violent time.
	If you are protesting against racism, you are going to upset some racists.
	That's an amazing statement.
	I just kind of feel that could be repackaged by someone like Adolf Hitler or something.
	Well, if you're persecuting a few Jews, you're going to upset some Jew lovers, aren't you?
	It's like, yes, you are.
	But you're also going to upset a lot of other people because of your methods.
	You know, they're not going to be like, yeah, but it's just the racers are upset.
	No, it's not.
	It's other people who are upset by this.
	It wasn't just Jew lovers who were upset by Adolf Hitler conducting a Holocaust.
	A lot of people were upset by that.
	Even people who may not have themselves liked the Jews were like, well, okay, I'm not a fan, but do you need to do what you're doing?
	But anyway, so the only person who's upset is, of course, the kind of person who hates other races indiscriminately, not people who just oppose identity politics.
	And the thing about this is it only says it's a very violent time.
	It's like, yeah, it is, in a way.
	I mean, not like on a day-to-day basis for, like, interpersonal violence.
	That's actually at an all-time low.
	And you can look at the charts since the late 80s, early 90s.
	It just plummeted off cliff.
	But if we're talking political violence, I would say there's been an uptick of political violence.
	And we can actually quantify the number of incidents of political violence, the damage from them, the deaths caused by them, and we can identify the political movements that are doing them.
	And the left, Black Lives Matter and Antifa are really a lot higher than the Richard Spencer side of the political sphere.
	But anyway, the left-wing political movement is soaring ahead in all categories.
	So we go on, and Sacha Baron Cohen had a panic attack one morning because he was busy deceiving a pair of Trump-supporting conspiracy theorists.
	He was apparently in a remote log cabin with Jim and Jerry at the start of a planned five-day stay.
	And he says, it was 6am and I started pacing around my room thinking, how am I going to keep in character?
	They're going to see through me.
	It was bloody terrifying.
	It's like, well, maybe if your career wasn't based on deceiving people at their expense, so you can have a laugh, then you wouldn't have had that problem.
	But you are being paid millions of dollars for it, so maybe you should just shut up and get on with it.
	Get on with your lies, you know?
	I mean, why can't you hire actors to do this?
	Why not have them pretend to be surprised?
	Why does it have to be really deceiving Trump supporters?
	I mean, we hear that these guys were conspiracy theorists, so we know they're bad people.
	Anyway, the previous morning, the director, Jason Walliner, realized that though the pair hadn't heard of Borat, they did know of Kazakhstan.
	Cue two hours of Baron Cohen furiously mugging up, which means studying, on Belarus?
	There's so much reality setting off camera, says Walnia.
	No one would ever imagine a fake would go to such lengths.
	Borat's clothes were never laundered.
	All washing was prohibited.
	He smelled terrible and we concocted a spray to heighten it.
	Okay, that's what they think of people in Kazakhstan.
	People in Kazakhstan stink.
	Or Belarus?
	Or Belarus.
	I mean, whichever.
	I don't know why.
	Why they brought a Belarus?
	Well, no, I don't know why they're mugging up on Belarus.
	But the point is, people in the East are smelly.
	That's Sacha Baron Cohen, a multi-millionaire who lives with a beautiful wife and his three kids in a California mansion surrounded by palm trees.
	Those Eastern Europeans are smelly.
	I know because I went there and exploited them myself, you see.
	Like, he's had first-hand experience.
	Of the smell of Eastern Europe.
	Again, like, if this is social justice and progressivism, it looks really classist, you know?
	Every second had to...
	And again, going after the Trump supporters, like, as if they're just these two kind of redneck hillbilly Trump supporters.
	It's like, yeah, these guys are idiot conspiracy theorists as well.
	I am the true good person here.
	Dude, you seem like a dick.
	Every second had to be consistent.
	Every move.
	Sitting, eating, drinking, immaculate.
	If they went to the toilet after Borat, they had to believe somebody from a very primitive Central Asian country had just been.
	What does that mean?
	There had to be some potpourri in there I chucked in.
	I can't remember whether I flushed.
	That's right.
	Central Asians don't flush toilets.
	And they stink.
	It's amazing.
	I can't stand it.
	I'm actually kind of annoyed about all of this, right?
	And again, it's surprising for someone who is purportedly as woke as Sasha.
	Then Donald Trump came to power.
	The moment they issued the Muslim ban, I was so repulsed that I thought I had to do something.
	Yeah, well, shit on some more Kazakhstanis.
	Is that what you had to do?
	That's what you had to do?
	Oh, how can I mock Muslims as being smelly and backwards?
	Kazakhstan's a Muslim country.
	I mean, does he know that?
	He probably didn't even know that.
	But anyway...
	So I went back to creating characters with the aim of infiltrating Trump's inner circle.
	And this led in 2018 to Who Is America?
	An extraordinary TV series in which a host of new stooge interviewers bagged dozens of Republican scalps.
	Trump was really just following step by step the classic authoritarian arc of how to transform a democracy into an autocracy.
	He was completely following the path, says Baron Cohen.
	Which is why Trump was voted out of power in exactly the same way as Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
	You're an idiot, Sasha.
	Hence Borat 2.
	Its mission, to sway voters in advance of the presidential election, was baked into the concept.
	So this film was political advocacy.
	That was the point of it.
	It's not just pure comedy.
	Not even pure comedy.
	It's about political advocacy.
	That was the point, as they tell us.
	Sucks.
	Because your pure comedy is good.
	You infuse it with political propaganda purposes, and then it's like, oh.
	Oh, I mean, like I said, there's always been a kind of undertone of politics in his comedy, but this is just explicit activism at this point.
	and it's at the expense of some of the least prosperous people in the world but not his uh anyway he told prescribed prospective crew members we are concerned about what will happen if trump wins and want to make this movie as a protest would you join us if they risk if they were risking violence or imprisonment it was helpful they knew that was more at stake than slapstick borat subsequent movie film was released 10 days before the polls closed did it work perhaps the biden team were reports cohen
	Very happy about the footage of Rudy Giuliani horizontal on a hotel bed with his hands down his trousers.
	Trump's personal attorney had already been booked on countless new shows to peddle tales of Hunter Biden's laptop.
	So that's the kind of thing that Sacha Baron Cohen was distracting attention from.
	hunter biden's laptop he was proud that he managed to help suppress the story of hunter biden not only taking massive fat stacks from the chinese government on behalf of the big guy but also the other malfeasance i mean the drug use i don't care about really uh but the apparent having a bit of a tete-a-tete with his like 14 year old cousin or something a bit weird might be something the media everyone will talk about
	except that twitter deliberately buried the story and baron cohen was happy to be the guy who took a lot of flack from them because apparently rudy giuliani was doing something inappropriate with the journalists in the hotel room which isn't true none of that was true rudy giuliani the the picture of him lying back tucking in a shirt was because he'd just taken the mic out of his trousers and he's like 71 years old so he's not as nimble as he was before so he'd taken the mic out pulled out his shirt tucked it back in and this was framing him as i don't know inappropriately going after this journalist and
	But I mean, the thing is, he's a divorced man, he's single.
	Go for it, mate.
	She's up for it.
	I mean, actually, yes.
	I mean...
	What's he done wrong?
	What's the crime?
	Is Sacha Baron just like, no sex outside marriage?
	All of a sudden become very conservative?
	I guess so.
	But anyway, suddenly he was having to explain why he wasn't playing with himself.
	Well, it's only because you were being so obviously disingenuous.
	This is such a lie.
	Because he wasn't.
	He wasn't, yeah, exactly.
	It was such a close election that everything in those final weeks was crucial.
	Giuliani was discredited, but he wasn't destroyed.
	His behaviour on brand enough for Trump to stick with him.
	It's just the dirtiest tricks that they're admitting to here.
	Yeah, what we're going to do is we're going to try and make people think he was playing with himself in front of a female journalist or something.
	Was he?
	No, of course he wasn't.
	But we want people to think that he was.
	And we want him to be defending himself from this allegation, because otherwise he might be talking about how Hunter Biden's a deeply corrupt organ of the Democratic Party and deeply connected to Joe Biden and how he's also maybe accused of...
	Molesting a 16-year-old or 14-year-old.
	This is also missing the entire point of the comedy.
	The comedy of him dressing up like a Kazakhstani and then being like, oh, I'm retired, and him going, oh, you're retired, or something like that.
	It was funny because it was real.
	There was a miscommunication, obviously made up, but it was the funny of the interaction.
	But I mean, just making up that he was touching himself when he wasn't, that's...
	A little comedy there.
	It's just like, oh, okay.
	And just like framing and editing to make people think that he was.
	And suddenly there's a huge news story that is distracting from like, you know, everything else.
	And it's like, so it's unbelievably dirty, but it's also protecting someone who is unbelievably corrupt.
	So why are you doing this?
	Is this what justice looks like to Sacha Baron Cohen, isn't it?
	Anyway, the government is always proud of its misogyny, says Baron Cohen.
	What?
	Do you think Kayleigh McEnany was like, yes, we're proud misogynists.
	Thank you very much.
	Next question, please.
	Like, anyway, it got elected after it publicized Trump's suggested grabbing women's genitalia.
	The government, right, A, Trump wasn't the government when he was on the campaign trail, when the grabbing by the pussy comment came out.
	They didn't publicize that.
	The media did.
	You are defending someone who gets paid by China and is being accused of molesting a child.
	That's what you're doing, Sasha, right?
	Yeah.
	He appealed to the people with a feeling of emasculation who are threatened by the rise of women, predominantly white men who felt they'd lost their advantage.
	Yes, very woke, Sasha.
	Very woke.
	You get your brownie points there.
	Three of the four female writers nominated by the Writers Guild of America had worked on the film.
	They were driving force behind the Moonblood Dance.
	I haven't seen the new Borat film, by the way.
	Which ends with Borat's daughter, Tutar, proudly displaying her inordinately stained knickers and thighs.
	This is women's empowerment.
	It was all part of the film's empowerment agenda, you see.
	Why should a woman be embarrassed about what's completely natural?
	Menstruating, adds Baron Cohen.
	And Maria Baklova, she's from Bulgaria, who plays Tutar, says, Women should not try to change our bodies to please society or men.
	We are both so happy that we can make every little girl proud she has a period.
	That's right.
	Covering you in fake period blood...
	is empowerment and honouring the fact that women have periods.
	If I'd done it, I'd be deplatformed as a misogynist.
	But when he does it, he makes stacks of cash.
	It just doesn't make any damn sense.
	Josh made this comment earlier when we were talking about it, which is that there's not really an equivalent for males except perhaps walking down the street and suddenly there's a brown stain in your trousers.
	Just like, look at this empowerment.
	It's like, what do you mean?
	It's a bodily excretion.
	It's not something you should be showing off.
	Or like teenage boys can get uncontrollable erections sometimes.
	Maybe that, if you're in the middle of church or something and suddenly you had a huge erection, you'd be like, okay...
	That's empowering.
	You know, no shame here.
	Pick up the boy.
	Show everyone.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Look, look, my son has an erection.
	What's wrong with you?
	Yeah, exactly.
	This is so weird, but it's like periods.
	Yes, something that society just stigmatizes all the time, right?
	No!
	When was the last time you heard someone being stigmatized for having a period?
	Well, bodily excretions are profane.
	I mean, in all human cultures, everyone thinks of them as profane.
	Yeah, they're gross, but like, you know, no one's like, women are bad people for having periods.
	No, in the same way you're not a bad person for going to the bathroom.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	I mean, maybe in Bulgaria they are.
	I mean, I don't know, but like, I can't even imagine it.
	But yes, it's...
	There's people in the chat like, I'm going to proudly S myself next time.
	This is empowerment, you see.
	It's like fist in the air.
	Solidarity, brothers.
	Do you know the self-puck meme?
	Have you seen the wieners out with butters?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's very empowering for women to just be splattered in period blood.
	And Sasha Baron Cohen would know.
	Everything was intentional, says Baron Cohen.
	It was crucial that the film's fairy godmother, Tutar's babysitter, Janice, appalled by Borat, who teaches Tutar self-worth, was a woman of colour.
	We ultimately knew that it would be women and people of colour who would swing the votes.
	Well, according to the official party line, it was actually the white suburban middle class that swung the vote for Joe Biden.
	And according to the polling, Trump was gaining in every category, apart from straight white males, in which he was like five points down.
	So that's just not accurate.
	But I mean, I guess if your narrative demands it, then it was women and people of colour who swung the vote against Donald Trump.
	Also released shortly before the election was another film he did called Trial of the Chicago 7, a courtroom drama in which Baron Cohen plays Abby Hoffman, the counterculture campaigner and sometimes stand-up...
	Stop.
	Sorry, just the chat talking about never wipe.
	Best known for co-founding the Youth International Party, the Yippies.
	So this was a communist back in the 70s.
	Baron Cohen first encountered his work while writing his undergraduate thesis about Jewish involvement in the black civil rights movement.
	Quote, he was so pivotal, an exuberant fool, but underneath a very specific, brilliant, intelligent activist.
	The point of the movie was for you to come out and go, I would love to have been one of the Chicago Seven.
	I would love to go out and protest when I felt democracy or justice was in peril.
	Okay, then.
	This is where it starts getting really weird, actually.
	So this, up until this point, like, none of this was about Jewishness or ethnic activism, but now it all becomes about ethnic activism, and how Sash Baron Cohen is actually the second coming of Messiah.
	I'm not overstating that, either.
	In November 2019, on one of his free days from the Chicago 7 shoot, he made his first ever public speech out of character.
	This was the famous one of the Anti-Defamation League, which I'm sure you remember, and was an astonishing broadside against social media sites which sanctioned hate speech, in particular Holocaust denial, which really was a reference to Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.
	Facebook, Baron Cohen said, was the greatest propaganda machine in history and Hitler would have loved it.
	And he's not wrong there.
	And Zuckerberg agrees.
	And this is why Zuckerberg was like, maybe we shouldn't just be deplatforming things because we disagree with them.
	But we'll talk about that in a minute.
	I think, yeah, I've got a link to talk about that in a minute.
	So anyway, this was the third prong of Baron Cohen's new activism, and one that continues to skewer.
	It's the one with the most quantifiable effect.
	The speech went viral, a chord was struck, and the member of the Silicon Six, the billionaires running the tech companies who Baron Cohen accused of profiteering through the dissemination of dangerous untruths, rang him saying he wanted out.
	Facebook made changes.
	Others followed suit.
	Along with the ADL, which of course is headed by Jonathan Greenblatt, Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, and mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, who has written a book criticizing the site's business model in a consortium of civil rights organizations.
	Baron Cohen founded an action group called...
	Excuse me?
	Stop Hate for Profit.
	Under their agus, the campaigns were launched.
	In June, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Starbucks were persuaded to pull ads from Facebook until inclusivity and ethics goals were met.
	How powerful is Sacha Baron Cohen to be able to do this?
	How would you do that?
	Unbelievable.
	How would you do any of that?
	How would you get one of the Silicon Valley tech billionaires to phone you up and be like, you know what, you've got a good point.
	Let's go and petition Microsoft Coca-Cola and Starbucks to stop advertising on Facebook.
	I can't imagine there's anything I would be able to do to get Coca-Cola to stop advertising on Facebook.
	It's mad.
	So anyway, what he's talking about is Mark Zuckerberg saying, look, maybe Holocaust deniers are just misinformed.
	Maybe they're not bad people.
	This was in 2018, and this dragged on for a while until Zuckerberg was essentially forced to change his position.
	As he says, I'm Jewish, and there are sets of people who deny the Holocaust happened.
	I find it deeply offensive, but at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things different people get wrong.
	I don't think they're intentionally getting it wrong.
	Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people's accounts for the things they got wrong, it would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying things that you care about.
	That is a remarkably liberal perspective from Mark Zuckerberg.
	Honestly, I'm of the opinion that he is actually a fairly alright chap who has found himself riding the tiger, a giant dragon in fact that has grown up underneath him, and he can't bear himself to let go of it.
	I don't think he naturally wants that, because why would you stand up and say, you know what, I'm pro-Holocaust denial on Facebook?
	Because that's what he's just done there.
	Anyway, going back to the Guardian interview.
	Obviously, enough pressure was mounted.
	People started pulling their advertising out of Facebook.
	And so he was just like, right, okay, fair enough.
	We'll take down Holocaust deniers and QAnon.
	So anyway, in September, Baron Cohen called the cavalry for a one-day freeze of Instagram and Facebook accounts.
	And how has he got this kind of influence?
	I just don't get it.
	Like, this guy, like...
	He's a shitposter.
	That's what he is.
	That's what he was.
	That's his job.
	To make fun of things.
	And he was good at it.
	But it's like, right, okay, well, now I'm gonna bring down Facebook.
	What?
	I can't sit by and stay silent while these platforms continue to allow the spreading of hate, propaganda and misinformation.
	Kim Kardashian West informed her 270 million followers and various other celebrities, and Baron Cohen had discovered that the best way to undermine social media companies was to use their own algorithms against them.
	A career spent undercutting the entertainment establishment had won him the respect and friendship of enough of its stalwarts to mean that he could bring things down from within.
	Shortly after, Facebook banned QAnon and Holocaust deniers.
	They took down a Trump post saying that flu was worse than COVID. They banned political ads after the polls closed on Election Day.
	What difference would you make to have political ads after the Election Day?
	They added labels and notifications about the actual election results.
	Facebook and Twitter did in a few weeks more than they'd done in a few years.
	Very powerful indeed.
	It had worked, but it nearly never happened.
	Months of coercion was needed, says Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL, who tried to persuade Baron Cohen to come out as himself after so many years of careful concealment.
	He reconciled himself to a ruined career.
	Ah yes, there's one thing that ruins your career, it's public left-wing activism.
	Having my own TV show was unbelievable.
	Sorry, eventually I was like, okay, because I'd achieved more than I'd ever dreamed of.
	Having my own TV show was unbelievable.
	The fact that I got to make my own movie was beyond my wildest dreams.
	And then, in the end, I didn't feel like I had a choice.
	If social media wasn't reformed, Trump would definitely win.
	Because he would only do so by propagating...
	If we'd...
	If social media didn't become the arbiter of truth and demand that anything non-left-wing must be verboten, then Trump would win because people would be able to see their own...
	They'd be able to see what they want and then see what is true and what is not true.
	Yeah, but I mean, according to Sash Banco, anything that Trump and Trump supporters say and believe are lies, definitionally.
	But the point is, they're allowed to lie to each other, you see, and he doesn't like that.
	But anyway, he would do so by propagating lies about vote fraud and the danger of certain ethnic minorities, violence of the Black Lives Matter movement and Avanti Far.
	Ah, yes.
	No danger of anti-foreign BLM, is there?
	He's mostly white movements.
	But also just mostly, well, I mean, incredibly dangerous to the point where we can quantify the number of deaths that they caused.
	And if we're going to tally up the number of deaths from left-wing activism or right-wing activism, I'm afraid that left-wing activism is much, much higher.
	I thought I would feel really upset with myself if on November the 4th I hadn't done my tiny bit to try and stop Trump getting re-elected and dismantling American democracy into something similar to what we see in Russia and Turkey.
	I felt that other populists would do the same around the world.
	Fair enough.
	There's nothing like the prospect of guilt about the death of global democracy to motivate you.
	Hmm.
	The level of intensity in preparation anxiety was remarkable, says Greenblatt.
	He was surprised that such a seasoned performer could be so nervous.
	The ADL speech was an acknowledgement that Baron Cohen's powers of private persuasion had been inadequate.
	For years, he had ineffectually bent the ears of the rich and famous.
	Bigwigs in Silicon Valley, Jeff Bezos, Jean-Claude Juncker at the Children's Hotel in Austria...
	I dread to think what that is.
	How exactly does he get access to Jeff Bezos?
	How does he get access to Jean-Claude Juncker?
	That's weird.
	Just amazing.
	The areas he has connections with.
	And then he goes and exploits piss-poor Romanian villagers.
	It's amazing.
	Anyway, he of course is friends with David Baddiel and Seth Rogen, Amy Silverman and Amy Schumer.
	Does he see himself as part of a new Jewish movement of comedians who have become increasingly forthright in smacking down hate speech?
	He says, Walnia points out how much more recent trauma of the Holocaust was when they were both growing up.
	He was born in 1971, so I mean, I guess, but you're looking two generations removed from the Holocaust by the time he's like in his 20s.
	So, I don't know.
	But anyway, this may have given him a fearlessness in the face of institutions, which I think is a good thing.
	Jonathan Greenblatt goes further.
	He says, He is, he says, after a little reflection, a quote, Zadik, which is T-Z-A-D-I-K. This is a Hebrew word for a righteous person.
	That's no small thing.
	It's a very rare designation.
	It is the word generally reserved for biblical figures and spiritual masters.
	As I understand it was defined by Maimonides, Saladin's physician, and like 11th or 12th century Middle Eastern Jewish philosopher as one whose merit surpasses his iniquity.
	It's like, great.
	But I mean, is it this guy?
	Like, this guy...
	Can we go to the next one?
	Let's put the next link, John.
	This guy, from the Borat film, where he's having a naked wrestling match with this giant fat guy.
	This guy.
	He's on par with Joseph interpreting the Pharaoh's dreams, is he?
	Or Moses bringing down the tablets, is he?
	This guy.
	The guy who sang Throw the Jew Down the Well.
	That's the guy.
	He's Daniel in the lion's den.
	He's David versus Goliath.
	He's Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
	Jonathan Greenblatt.
	Are you serious?
	Like, I would be deeply offended if I were Jewish and you were comparing this guy to the prophets of this religion?
	Like, Samson, is he?
	Like, what?
	I'm...
	Well, what do I know?
	What do I know?
	I'm not an expert on Judaism.
	Anyway, going back to the Guardian interview, because God, who wants to watch that anymore?
	Whether he likes it or not, Baron Cohen is a transformed man, at least in the eyes of others.
	The veneration among his acolytes is hard to understand.
	He's got acolytes now.
	He's joined the prestigious ranks, and now he is some sort of religious teacher?
	Sorkin tells me he's on the side of the angels.
	To Baklova, he's my teacher, my mentor, my non-biological parent figure, the smartest person I've ever met, a true vision of a hero.
	From McNamee, he's indisputably a thought leader and a catalyst for action who stands alone in a world of celebrities affecting real change.
	He's got serious political chops.
	I don't see any limit on what he could do.
	He sounds like he's about to become the son of God.
	Generations will look back at this period as absolute madness.
	Why are we portraying Sacha Baron Cohen as the Messiah?
	What would your rabbi say about that?
	Very disappointed.
	Probably.
	He's a very naughty boy.
	Which he unironically is.
	But anyway.
	Anyway.
	I just can't go through this.
	Exactly what Baron Cohen's role in the revolution will end up being is history unwritten.
	What?
	Revolution from his California mansion.
	With hundreds of millions of dollars.
	What revolution?
	Who's he going to take down?
	Yeah.
	What's your plan?
	Well, I was going to take down Facebook, but they just did what I asked.
	So, okay, well, who's next?
	Well, I was going to take down Donald Trump, but then he got elected out of office.
	Okay, what's next?
	Dunno.
	What you got?
	Yeah, what's left?
	I guess you go dunk on those Romanian peasants again, Sasha.
	You know, you go make some more money out of the Kazakhs.
	Study up on Belarus.
	They all stink, I hear.
	Like, what?
	Anyway, I think Sasha would go to jail for the revolution or suffer blacklisting or surveillance.
	I sure know he'd give his life for a big laugh.
	What are you talking about?
	He's unbelievably ensconced in a Hollywood power structure.
	He makes hundreds of millions of dollars.
	He's world famous.
	He's obviously not going anywhere, and he has the power to use political activism to, I mean, literally influence the lives of billions of people.
	But he's a he's a revolutionary.
	Anyway, we've got a video comments there, John.
	Watching Vosh's moral idiocy has led me to realize the importance of social trust and the danger of just trust the experts.
	Nowadays, the experts adopt a philosophy of social planning and consequentialism.
	The ends justify the means and so the integrity of the means no longer matters.
	If that is the case, though, why would we trust the experts to describe their ends or facts or consequences honestly?
	If honesty itself is just a means to an end?
	Well, I think the answer there is that we wouldn't.
	And, I mean, I don't disagree with your assessment at all, to be honest.
	I'm very concerned about this kind of blind love of scientists who preach the good word of scientism, which is actually what V's article is about.
	Because he's a scientist, he's a doctor, and he is sceptical on the moral integrity of scientists.
	And if you give them a free pass, then I think that a certain percentage of them are going to take advantage of that.
	And so, yeah, I agree with you.
	I don't think we should.
	I mean, this has been the narrative that's been coming out of the left-wing media as well.
	Don't use critical thinking.
	Don't go and do your own research.
	I've seen articles that say literally all this sort of stuff.
	It's like, sorry, I just don't want to be a sheep.
	If that's okay?
	And the thing is, I'm not saying that people who are uninformed doing their own research won't end up leading to remarkable conclusions that are obviously not true, but putting this artificial divide between these things and acting like there is a received truth that comes from science that can be found nowhere else is putting it in the realms of religion, and I don't think it's a good idea.
	Yeah, I mean, you're abandoning the thing you're trying to promote here.
	Yes.
	Like, I'm going to promote science in which there is only one truth that can never change.
	It's settled.
	You're an idiot.
	There's no such thing.
	Anyway, next one.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	While recovering from COVID, I've been catching up on your backlog, and...
	Well, I thought if I could, I'd actually respond to, or really make a request of, a video commenter who fashions things out of historical...
	Items of importance, I guess.
	I would ask if it could be avoided.
	Can we please not destroy old rifles?
	I mean, I understand it's with respect, but they're rare.
	I don't actually know what he's referencing.
	There was a lady who makes rings out of historical things.
	And I guess he doesn't like that.
	It's not really anything to do with us.
	It's a very strange medium of communications here.
	I look forward to her response.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Carl, you've stated on a number of occasions the key to bettering all of society is education.
	However, the woke have taken over our educational system, at least here in the United States, and I think that any effort to get educated through the standard system now is counterproductive.
	What do you say to The best path forward to reclaiming our education I wouldn't say it's counterproductive.
	I would say you need to know what to avoid.
	I mean, don't get on the social studies course that wants to tell you about gender discrimination, all this sort of nonsense.
	Avoid woke courses.
	But if you want to do a course in mathematics, I'm sure that most of it is still talking about mathematics.
	So if you want to know about that, that's probably the best thing to do.
	Like you did, was it physics?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there's some encroachment there.
	The stupidest thing, I keep bringing it up because it was the stupidest thing of the whole course, was when you write lab reports, they don't want you to use any language that referenced yourself, which I can kind of get, like you need to speak objectively because it's a physics course, right?
	But then they also said no gendered language.
	So I couldn't say she did this or he did this.
	It had to be something else.
	And this just led to weird communication problems.
	And eventually I just started putting the worker did X instead.
	Comrade.
	Yeah, literally.
	Because there was no other way to look at it except purely scientific.
	I was like, why would I want to do that?
	Why is it wrong for me to say my co-worker here, she's a she, so I could write she did this.
	I mean, I name her in the top of the document.
	Even if it wasn't from within your own personal perspective.
	I mean, if I was looking at, like, two dogs fighting and one was male and one was female, I could say she did X. Yeah, you can still be an observer at that point.
	Yeah, because she is still a she.
	So it was obviously the point of trying to get in nonsense there.
	The worst I saw was in the law department.
	So I knew someone who did law at my university and they offered a module.
	It was literally called like gender, sexuality, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And they took it for an easy A because it was just obviously complete garbage.
	But that's how it is.
	Yeah.
	But, I mean, that's not to say there's not a great deal to be said for your own autonomous learning, which you obviously should do, like I do.
	Just read things that you're interested in, and that's probably better for you in the long run, and it's probably going to be more sustainable.
	Anyway, Armin says, It's so ridiculously off.
	Kazakhs are Asian, Oriental few Brits.
	It's also one of the wealthiest countries in the post-Soviet sphere, with lots of oil to prop it up.
	Sacha Baron Cohen literally took the least appropriate Muslim country to portray as this backwards Persian asshole.
	Is there any racism or Islamophobia in confusing any Muslim country with a bunch of backwards, poor, dirty brown people?
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Like, it's just...
	It's so bad.
	Like, I couldn't do it and, you know...
	I would be in trouble.
	Phil says, I just want to hop on the bandwagon of flexing on Carl with our skilled manual labourer jobs.
	Oh, man.
	There is genuinely a part of me that wishes I did an outdoor job.
	Like just making a thing from end to finish.
	Even if it's just building houses.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Just making things.
	My cousin does.
	And you can see that he posts pictures of stuff that he's built.
	Even if it's just driveways he's paved or whatever.
	And I'm just like, man, you can see the satisfaction in it, you know?
	But Phil says, I build robots at work all day, then I go home and work in my wood shop.
	That sounds awesome.
	In all seriousness, no, you guys are doing great work and spending the weekend binging premium content was excellent.
	Keep it up.
	Thank you very much.
	Really appreciate it.
	We have the Brave New World podcast up, but we're going to have the David Lammy podcast.
	What's an Englishman?
	The true Englishman one up.
	Which is just David Lammy and no one else.
	Which is just David Lammy.
	He is the only Englishman, turns out.
	But we'll have another premium podcast up because this was a really interesting topic that we just wanted to gently and carefully and delicately pick through.
	But I think we did good justice to it.
	A student of history says, even if he was in Kazakhstan, a lot of these countries are typically of Turkic and Mongoloid descent and of Islamic faith, and I doubt they'd be chill with those portrayals.
	So yeah, kind of a dick move to F with the pause as a rich comedian.
	He seems like a self-righteous arse, but simply my opinion.
	Well, that's exactly how he comes across to me.
	But the thing is, I just can't get over how he's just so willing to exploit these really poor people and then claim, like, oh, I, a Jewish man, am the victim here.
	It's like, what are you the victim of?
	Mean words on the internet.
	Call the ADL. Lawsuits from the Romanians, I guess.
	How dare these peasants sue me?
	I guess.
	I mean, they weren't even suing him.
	They were suing the movie studio.
	But anyway, Callum McAllis says, with the nearish future of interplanetary travel and possibility of human colonies being set up on untarnished planets, what would your governance slash laws include or exclude if you were setting up a new colony of humans?
	Also, when this really does occur in the future, do you think it will mimic national differences like we see in nation-states?
	Or will this cause exaggeration of what we currently see due to nations being less dependent on one another, e.g.
	USA planets not having to rely on Chinese planet slave labour?
	Well, I mean, there's just too many variables to be able to predict anything, but I can't imagine that the culture of the colonies on other planets will be dramatically different to the culture of the place that they left and came from.
	I imagine it's logistical questions as to whether X can trade with Y or anything like that.
	What would I set up?
	Governance laws?
	I'd probably prohibit a welfare state.
	It's just nothing's good come of them.
	It's good intention.
	What if we just use the government to help everyone out?
	Yeah, that sounds nice.
	Doesn't work.
	But, no.
	But, no.
	It doesn't work.
	It's not like we've always had the welfare state in existence.
	So, I mean...
	The welfare state's about, well, less than 100 years old.
	And it's already produced really bad results.
	I mean, that's...
	It hasn't suddenly cured homelessness or hunger either.
	No.
	But it has generated an underclass of people who literally have no futures and end up forming ethnic gangs that stab each other in the streets in broad daylight.
	I mean, I just think that's terrible.
	So, I guess I'm a racist that way, aren't I? Anyway, Gordon says, watched Harry Potter with my girlfriend at the weekend and came to the realization that J.K. Rowling wrote a pro-gun story.
	All students carry wands and teach themselves lethal spells to fight a Voldemort in a student militia.
	Base J.K. Rowling.
	Yeah, Academic Agent was talking about this as well.
	It's actually, it's also deeply reactionary as well because it's incredibly hierarchical.
	It's privileged.
	It's exclusive in every way and people are born to it whether you like it or not.
	It's like, oof.
	I assume he was watching Order of the Phoenix as well, because I don't know if you remember, if you haven't seen it, but they bring in a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher who's like, oh, you don't need to learn how to fight people, just learn theory.
	And they're like, no, but I need to be able to defend myself.
	And she's like, no, no, just theory.
	And then she takes over the school and she's really tyrannical, and she disbands them from being able to work with each other.
	So it gets taken over by a leftist.
	Yeah, because Voldemort's out there and she's like, no, there's no worry out there.
	Shut up.
	And they start forming like a gun club in a secret room in which they all train each other how to do spells to fight Voldemort.
	I haven't seen it, but that is actually quite based.
	Fair enough.
	Laurentum Electricist.
	The allergies catchphrase, is it because I is black, is a joke about the absurdity of how some people frequently perceive disputes to be about race when it's actually irrelevant to the context.
	That's correct.
	Sacha Baron Cohen surely knows what he's doing here, actors going to act, especially for money, and especially at the expense of poor people in Eastern Europe.
	Alexander Drake says, It seems pretty clear that it was the unconstitutional war on drugs that killed Floyd, not Chauvin specifically.
	If he didn't have to worry about getting in trouble for having drugs, he wouldn't have had to have ingested his whole stash to hide it.
	That's a fair point.
	Which means he probably wouldn't have OD'd.
	And again, it could have been any cop that drove by, and he would have done the same, or comes again, would have done the same.
	That being said, my sympathy for cops is zero.
	As Michael Malice points out, there's no law too outrageous that won't get enforced.
	If the jurors decide to throw Chauvin to the walls to appease the race-grifting crowd and stop the riots from happening, I won't be shedding any tears.
	Well, that's kind of the same position we're in.
	We don't care about Chauvin at all.
	No, if they throw him to the walls for the reasons of PR, not for justice.
	Yeah, but that will be an injustice.
	And we care about the injustice.
	We don't care about Derek Chauvin.
	If he's actually guilty, if they're able to prove, okay, no.
	Oh yeah, sure.
	Almost certainly it was your knee that killed him, he didn't actually overdose.
	Sure, whatever.
	Yeah.
	I don't care.
	Yeah, exactly, yeah.
	Do whatever is necessary for justice.
	Throw him behind bars for however long it takes.
	Give him what he deserves.
	Exactly.
	That's what justice is.
	And if it turns out that George Floyd was actually massively overdosed on fentanyl and was going to die regardless of what was going to happen, and Derek Chauvin...
	Followed police procedure and actually didn't do anything wrong, despite what everyone is saying about him, then he deserves to walk free and not be assassinated by a radicalised BLM activist who reads too much left-wing news on Twitter.
	That's my dark prediction of the future there.
	Darkest timeline, some radical shoots Chauvin.
	Charlie the Beagle says, I saw on the news about the man who crashed his car in DC and then killed and attacked a cop.
	Ah yes, another white supremacist.
	Now, you know it wasn't a white supremacist, because the news story just gone down the memory hole.
	The Irish News kept reiterating the Capitol Hill riots, but when the suspect was named and it was found that he was a black nationalist, there has been silence.
	I suppose we can't have black people looking bad on international TV. Yeah, well, that's the point, isn't it?
	I mean, like, he was a Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, acolyte.
	So it's like, how do you categorize these people?
	They hate everyone.
	Like, they just hate everyone.
	We're the original Native Americans.
	We hate the Jews.
	We hate the whites.
	We hate everyone else.
	We're the real Israelites.
	I mean, they're just awful.
	It's awful about everything.
	It's weird.
	It's such a strange confluence of, look, everything that everyone hates, that's us.
	Okay?
	Also, you're all bad.
	It's also a really weird identity.
	As much as the KKK confused someone like me, I mean, why are you banding together on the idea of being white?
	That's just strange.
	But then when you look at the Nation of Islam, it's like, yeah, we're all black and we're all Muslim and we're also the tribes of Israel.
	It's just like...
	What?
	It's like pumped up to 11 of just like nonsense identities.
	Shut up, Native Americans.
	We're the true Native Americans.
	Okay.
	Jordan Peterson recently said, responding to the chaos-seeking masses yelling, I want freedom, with the following, no you don't.
	You want a tiny bit of freedom metered out in a very calibrated dose on one dimension now and then.
	You want everything else to be as stable as possible.
	Can you comment on this in reference to Liberalism and the Brave New World podcast series?
	Thanks.
	Um...
	Well, I mean, he's not wrong.
	The concept of freedom has just been totally bastardized, because what it was supposed to mean was the absence of tyrannical coercion, as in, I don't want a dictator controlling every aspect of my life.
	But that's not to say that I don't want any order or structure around me.
	Yeah, I mean, it could also be societal coercion.
	So like in On Liberty, John Mill points out the tyranny of the majority of the public, whatever he is.
	Well, that's what we're seeing with social media now.
	It's what Sacha Baron Cohen is.
	So this is the horrible thing that the left always try and mischaracterize the free speech activists.
	Well, it's not the state doing it.
	It's like, yeah, well, you know, go back and read something for once in your life.
	People weren't just complaining about the state doing X. Yeah, and the thing is, it's not just that.
	If I'm being tyrannized, even if it's not the state, the quality of being tyrannized is the problem.
	So it's okay if it's not the state doing it.
	It's not okay that I'm being tyrannized.
	But instead, it's become like, I should be able to do literally anything, even if it's physically impossible.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	I've been working on a kind of theory about this, and I think it comes from two different perspectives on the concept of freedom.
	There's the kind of English perspective, which is freedom of the agent.
	And so the full package of what a person is shouldn't be unlawfully or unfairly coerced by an arbitrary authority.
	But then you've got the kind of continental view, which is the freedom of the will And that means that nature is the problem.
	Because the freedom of the agent is a tacit acceptance that the agent is a material body, it is a part of nature, it is something that exists in the world naturally, and it's a coercive intention from someone else that is keeping you in chains.
	But if you're saying, well, nature is oppressing me, and the very fact that I'm a biological creature and my mind wants to be something else, well, too bad.
	But then biology is a class traitor that must be overcome.
	Yes.
	Nature is a counter-revolutionary.
	That's their position.
	And that's, I think, the main distinction.
	So if you ever say freedom and anyone asks you to follow that up, just say freedom of the agent, not freedom of the will.
	Because there can't be an absolute freedom of the will because the will is a property of the agent.
	Don't know why we're having this conversation.
	Actually, I do know it's French.
	French people.
	Thanks to the alternate video player, says Tyler.
	And Germans taking it too far, of course.
	I do not know how long it's been there, but when you start in the morning, I deliver reports.
	And now the original video player doesn't allow me to backtrack while you're live.
	Well, that's why we have it.
	Michael Waters says, I mean, if technically the police didn't respond to the call from the store, he wouldn't have smashed the stash.
	So then, technically, it's not Derek Chauvin, but policing in general on trial, which, to be fair, it is policing in general on trial.
	That's how they're framing it.
	But the thing is, we don't know that he took loads of extra, and we don't know how much he'd already taken, and so we don't know what condition he was in.
	I mean, maybe he had twice as much to kill a regular person, then he smashed the rest of his stash, and now he's got four times as much.
	Like, we don't know.
	You know, it could have been that he was a dead man walking.
	We just don't know.
	The presumption is he was a responsible drug user and took an amount to make him high and then smashed the rest, and that's how he ended up with more than three times the amount to kill him.
	I guess we'll find out.
	SGL says, So according to the Mirror, the SAS can no longer refer to the SBS as the shaky boat service in a banter crackdown.
	Banter crackdown.
	Yeah.
	I don't get what the point is in the military sometimes.
	I don't mean the military in general.
	I mean these types who are like, yes, we must have more HR in the military.
	I mean, to combat rape?
	Sure.
	To combat bants?
	What's wrong with you?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but we don't live in a world where we can actually just broadcast what we want.
	Like, we're very heavily constrained on the things we can say because of the platforms that we use and the very intrusive nature of their speech policing.
	I mean, awesome.
	John says he's not that spicy.
	It's just racism.
	He's a man of colour, if that helps.
	Does that help?
	Does he have Asian privilege to be able to say it?
	No, the public are being racist against John.
	Oh, that's a good point.
	They are being racist against John.
	Anyway, Tom says, the media are sowing the proverbial wind with their biased coverage of the Floyd trial.
	Yes, they are.
	And this is what they've been doing the whole time.
	This is why any of this is happening.
	And should shown be acquitted, there will be no one there to explain to the public that they have been just consistently lied to.
	It makes you feel powerless.
	It's not just the US media either.
	It's the mainstream in Czech Republic also.
	For some inexplicable reason, only cover the arguments of the prosecution.
	It's amazing.
	It's not like it's just on terrestrial cable like the LA riots or something, and that's the only time to say it.
	It's all live-streamed on a million channels.
	On YouTube, on Facebook, everywhere.
	I don't know why they think they can get away with this.
	Because nobody's going to be watching like seven hours a day.
	That's what you'd think.
	And I thought it was going to be like a thousand people watching a stream.
	I check out MSNBC's stream.
	30,000 people six days into the trial.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	That's ridiculous.
	That's a lot of people who are invested.
	And that's just one stream.
	You go to Washington Post, it's another 20,000.
	You go to Fox News, it's 10,000.
	Okay.
	Some guy says, I'm quite worried since I'll be in a big city by the time all this comes to a head, and I'm anticipating the riots will be far worse than last time.
	Yeah, I mean, just make sure that you have your personal defense sorted, and I would advise leaving the cities for a while if you can.
	I don't...
	Especially if you're in Minneapolis.
	Yeah, God, yeah.
	If you're in Minneapolis, just...
	Yeah, just make plans.
	That's what I would say.
	Alex says, every time a lefty is freaking out or losing their mind, they just tell your soma.
	What?
	I don't know what you mean.
	I'm sorry.
	Just tell your soma.
	I'm assuming it means take soma?
	Take some soma, yeah.
	But yes, I mean, to be honest with you, that would be the only thing that would solve the problem at this point.
	Matthew says, everyone should watch V's video from today where he discusses why 4chan did not become a haven for SJWs.
	I will watch that, actually, because I'm curious as to what his reasoning is.
	What?
	Why didn't 4chan become a haven for SJWs?
	Because they enforced US law and nothing else.
	Like, they don't enforce community standards that are made up by a committee.
	Okay, well, I'll find out by watching V's video.
	But it's, you know, it's a free speech platform in the sense that we will apply US law and we will do nothing else and therefore all opinions are allowed.
	And SJWs can't frithe in that environment because they get absolutely destroyed by literally anyone.
	That's my reasoning too, but V might have a different take.
	I haven't watched this video yet.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'm excited.
	Finn says, really beginning to wonder if Karl is keto just so he doesn't have to deal with bread tube.
	That's a big flex on bread tube, isn't it?
	Keto tube.
	Yeah.
	Good afternoon, gentlemen.
	Do you have any thoughts on secular holidays?
	The notable one is Remembrance Day, but it's interesting how holidays like Easter have become more and more commercialized and secular through those means.
	Well, I mean, I think a lot of people who are, I guess, what we call post-Christian still grew up with all of these holidays.
	I mean, this is how I feel about Easter.
	I don't celebrate Easter, but it's nice to do something.
	My wife set up a little Easter egg hunt around the house for the kids, and they loved it.
	I mean, it's English culture as well.
	Yeah, it's English culture, yeah.
	No, I won't get into it.
	Okay.
	Sunny says, I've been thinking about the death penalty after the discussion last week.
	Personally, I've always thought having to spend the rest of your life in prison was a worse penalty than a quick death.
	Considering that, do you still think the death penalty is better?
	We're not here to torture people.
	Yeah, we're not here to torture people.
	And again, I think there is an aspect of retributive justice that actually, in certain circumstances, demand that someone pay for their crimes for their life.
	If you do something sufficiently horrible, then yeah.
	And we should be like, no, we're killing you because you're a terrible human being.
	You should know this.
	There's also the practical point of if you give someone a whole life order, this is the example we've given, in which they spend the rest of their life in jail versus killing them.
	Well, the whole life order doesn't really do anything.
	Like, you might get some personal revenge out of the fact that you lost someone and then this guy gets the whole life order, but the taxpayer's paying for that revenge.
	Yeah, you're paying for that the whole time.
	George says, That's where we're kind of at, isn't it?
	TwoNumberNine says, Afternoon, Carl and Callum.
	No questions.
	Wanted to let you know that this podcast has inspired me to try and get in shape, so thanks for that.
	I haven't fully embraced keto, but I've cut out sugar, and as I do agree, this is evil.
	Keep up the great job, gents and Vicky.
	Well, I mean, I agree.
	End keto fascism.
	Nope.
	The keto world order is upon us, and it's good for you.
	You'll learn to love it.
	It's a threat.
	Yep.
	That oil guy, hey man, excellent job on the Brave New World Book Club.
	My main takeaway is that you want the merch to be eye-wateringly expensive so people appreciate it.
	This is just as well acquiring Hugo's used sports socks as proving to be prohibitively expensive.
	Have a joy-joy day.
	What?
	I don't know what you're talking about there.
	Hugo's selling his socks now?
	I have no idea, but step up from OnlyFans.
	Luke West says, if a black man dies in the middle of a forest and no leftists hear it, is it still racist?
	Yeah.
	The consensus is yes.
	Anyway, thanks for watching, folks.
	We will be back tomorrow covering, presumably, more things that have gone on.
	Callum's going to get the defence for the George Floyd Derek Chauvin defence.
	He's going to record afterwards after we've got the clips in order.
	Sorry about the technical difficulties today.
	A bit unusual.
	Normally we're such a smooth operation.
	John.
	Yeah, we'll be lashings for you after this.
	Anyway, if you would like more from us, you can, of course, go to LoadsOfThese.com.
	We've got loads of free content and, of course, loads of fantastic premium content.
	And as we are funded entirely by you, our subscribers, it's the best way of supporting us.

▲