Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 8, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:46

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #106

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 8th of April 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl and we're going to be discussing the George Floyd trial that has utterly imploded in on itself.
	I'm not even joking, it's really embarrassing.
	I'm looking forward to going through it, to be honest, just to demonstrate how much of a S show this has been.
	And the race report reaction, which is just getting worse and worse.
	They're not taking this lying down, are they?
	They're not taking it very well, I think, at all.
	And they had already set themselves up to say that we're not going to take this very well from the start.
	But anyway, we'll get into it.
	So a couple of things first.
	So the Helen Dale interview with Carl and Helen Dale is now up on the site.
	It is premium, so go check that out.
	And at 3pm today we have our discussion about David Lammy and whether or not he's the only true Englishman in existence, as he claims himself.
	It's not even that he claimed it.
	Everyone else is like, see, David Lammy is what an Englishman is.
	It's like, oh god, David Lammy's a prat.
	But he's our prat.
	Yes, he is unfortunately our prat.
	Yeah, so check that out at 3pm.
	But otherwise, we're going to get into it because we don't know how much time we have for things today.
	So this is the George Floyd trial, which again, I'm going to reiterate, we don't really care about who gets out of this.
	We don't care if Chauvin is found acquitted or guilty.
	As long as justice is done, not interested.
	Have no dog in the fight.
	To be honest with you, the worst part about it is that Derek Chauvin is so utterly unremarkable.
	There's nothing interesting about the man whatsoever, in fact.
	I mean, the reason the case is becoming a bit of a meme for his side is entirely because of his lawyer.
	Like, his lawyer is just a very good lawyer, and that is why there are so many memes about it.
	Just demolishing everything that's put in front of him.
	Anyway, I'll let you carry on.
	Yeah, so we'll start off with day five.
	So, I haven't done an episode on this in a long time, so I wanted to go through just some of the events of the last few days.
	So day five of the trial was the 2nd of April, and it wasn't very exciting.
	There were two cops who changed over.
	So how it works is because someone had died, they changed from it being just Minneapolis Police Department working on the case to another agency, which is like a state's version of the FBI, because, of course, you can't justify the police investigating themselves.
	It wouldn't make any sense.
	So you have a different agency.
	Do it.
	So one of the cops was just one of the cops who did a shift change.
	The other one was a homicide detective who was working on the case until he just got changed out as well.
	So they're just witnesses.
	They're not experts' witnesses.
	So what was interesting is the homicide detective gave an opinion, which the prosecution wanted, which was that he thought the knee on the neck was unnecessary.
	But then he'd only seen limited body cam footage.
	He'd not seen the full body cam footage, nor the other footage from different angles and all the rest of it.
	So it was kind of worthless, not to mention he's not an expert witness in this case.
	He may have expertise in policing as a homicide detective, but he is not there to give his opinion on that.
	He's just there to give his views.
	Although the jury may not take it that way, obviously.
	The jury may just do whatever they want.
	Oh yeah, the jury might just act in a political way, because we know what the result of this will be.
	So that's something to keep in mind as we go forward.
	So that was day five.
	I didn't find it of too much note.
	But day six is where things started to go off the rails quite a lot.
	So we've already put forward the case from the defense up until this point, which is that they're arguing that he died of a drug overdose, and they've given quite a significant amount of evidence for that in terms of just video footage, witness statements, all the rest of it.
	Toxicology reports.
	George Floyd taking the drugs, the drugs with his saliva on them, the drugs found all over his car.
	Yeah, it wasn't looking great for them.
	The fact that he was with his drug dealer, the fact that his girlfriend said that he'd previously overdosed on the very same drugs, I mean, there is quite an extensive...
	Yeah, it wasn't looking good for the prosecution, but the prosecution seemed to just carry on, and they thought they were going to get some good wins from their next couple of witnesses.
	So the first one was a...
	I believe he's the doctor at the hospital where the paramedics dropped George Floyd's body off, and he was the one who was to deal with the body, try and bring him back to life.
	Obviously failed in that.
	And one of the things that was interesting is every time he gave an opinion on anything, he would always say it with like, based on the information I had at the time, based on the reports I had at the time.
	So he would always be asked, like, did you know if he was overdosed?
	And he would say, well, based on the reports at the time, I didn't, because no one had told him anything about that.
	So that's something to keep in mind as well.
	But the media reporting on this was not interested in that sort of thing, so I wanted to load up the Wall Street Journal article just shot here.
	So you can see they changed the headline from when we saw it.
	So this one says, Derek Chauvin violated department policies, says the police of chief, and we'll get into him.
	But if you get the first image up, this is what we saw, because we managed to screencap it from Discord.
	Which is Josh posting here.
	The George Floyd emergency room doctor said he died of a lack of oxygen was the most likely cause of death.
	It's like, huh, okay, I wonder why they got rid of that.
	Because I assume they're just watching the trial, find a bit they can clip that looks good to them, publish that, and then when the cross-examination comes over, they're like, get rid of that.
	I want to demonstrate this.
	So the first clip we're going to play is him, presumably where they get this quote from, which is him saying that hypoxia is the most likely cause of death.
	So let's play.
	I felt that hypoxia was one of the more likely possibilities.
	And hypoxia as an explanation for his cardiac arrest, meaning...
	Oxygen insufficiency.
	Correct.
	Did you have any other leading theories as to why Mr.
	Floyd's heart may have stopped other than oxygen deficiency?
	Yes.
	I also considered an acidosis in particular Excited delirium, which is a controversial diagnosis, but it was in the differential in this case.
	And were you able to make any assessments about so-called excited delirium based on your examination of Mr.
	Floyd?
	Again, the patient had been in cardiac arrest for 30 minutes.
	It can be difficult based on the examination.
	Certainly there was no report that the patient was ever very sweaty, which is often the case when thinking about excited delirium.
	There was no report that the patient had ever been, that Mr.
	Floyd had ever been extremely agitated.
	In my experience, seeing a lot of cases of mental health crises or drug use leading to severe agitated states, that is almost always reported by paramedics.
	And so the absence of that information was telling and that I didn't have any reason to believe that that was the case here.
	So you can see, though, just how bored he looks.
	I wanted to comment on.
	But you can see how everything he's answering is like, well, I had no report of this.
	I had no report of that.
	I would expect to get this, but I didn't.
	So I didn't look for it.
	And that's part of the problem.
	So he's saying he had no evidence to suggest an overdose at the time when he was given Floyd's body.
	And that's because the paramedics didn't tell him of any evidence.
	You know, like, oh, that's that's bad.
	What didn't the paramedics tell him?
	It's like, well, because they weren't told by the cops.
	Well, that's bad.
	Why didn't the cops tell them?
	Well, because they turned up, they grabbed the body, and they had to leave because of the threat of the crowd.
	They say that the threat of the crowd is the reason they put him in the car and then drive him off.
	In which case, it again throws up this irritating niggle of maybe the crowd have contributed to his death, which again, no one can be charged with.
	But that's an argument the defense has been routinely making, so the prosecution getting that answer weren't too pleased.
	There's also some other parts that they weren't too pleased about.
	So, he said there, hypoxia, a lack of oxygen in the blood, is the reason for his death, which could be from strangulation, obviously.
	But taking meth and fentanyl can also cause hypoxia, which is the defense's entire argument.
	Let's play the next clip.
	You were discussing hypoxia kind of being consistent with asphyxiation, right?
	Correct.
	Hypoxia is the lack of oxygen to the brain, correct?
	Correct.
	And there are many things that cause hypoxia that would still be considered asphyxiation.
	Agreed?
	Correct.
	Drug use.
	Certain drugs can cause hypoxia.
	Agreed?
	Specifically fentanyl?
	That's correct.
	How about methamphetamine?
	It can.
	Combination of the two?
	Yes.
	I'm sorry to laugh, but it's just Nelson's demeanor.
	He seems like he's so done with this all, this whole charade.
	He's like, why do you guys keep trying to set it up as if I'm not going to then respond?
	It's so weird.
	And again, he had to ask him the stupidest question of this entire trial, I think.
	So you saw the black chap of the prosecution.
	He made the opening statements for the prosecution.
	He seemed to be the lead prosecutor.
	And he made in his opening statements that George Floyd had a tolerance to fentanyl.
	And therefore, if he took a lethal dose, it wouldn't necessarily kill him because he's built up on it.
	Which has got memed into Floyd ate fentanyl for breakfast.
	Therefore, he can't die of fentanyl.
	But this is one of the problems they have.
	George Floyd is actually Mithridate, he's the four.
	Well, he got vaccinated against lethal doses, I guess.
	But that's the meme.
	But the point that's interesting is because he's one of 12 to 14 lawyers and Nelson's just the only lawyer, they don't seem to all know what's going on.
	So he kept making this argument of, well, maybe he couldn't have died due to fentanyl because he's used it and things like that.
	So Nelson asking him, if you take too much fentanyl, will you die?
	Simply because a person has a history of chronic opiate abuse does that mean that fentanyl can't kill them?
	No.
	Why do we have to ask this?
	Like, what stupid thing to be discussing?
	Just his face, you could see it on his face.
	No.
	Like, just...
	What a dumb question.
	Oh, God, I feel bad for the guy being asked these questions.
	Yeah, like, it's really embarrassing.
	And in response to this, you know, him pointing out that...
	Oh, he said he'd most likely cause a death with hypoxia.
	Well, you know, drugs can also cause hypoxia, so we're not really learning anything here.
	Is that the prosecution that Maria's examined and tried to ask that...
	Yeah, well, fentanyl, if you're taking that, would make him sleepy, and he wasn't sleepy.
	And we've already been over this.
	Yeah, we know that he had meth in there.
	Which is the speedballs, which, as from his girlfriend's testimony, is something that makes you jittery, not sleepy.
	Yeah, and they'd had these before.
	And they knew what the reaction was.
	But seemingly, because there's so many lawyers on the prosecution side, he's not seen the whole trial, but the jury have.
	So it makes him look kind of incompetent.
	How could the George Floyd lawyers not have watched every second of this trial up until this point?
	I have no other explanation for why he's making this argument, but let's play the next clip, which should be him.
	You were asked questions just now about whether fentanyl works by causing someone to feel very sleepy.
	Remember that discussion?
	Yes.
	Did the paramedics tell you that Mr.
	Floyd was ever asleep or sleepy or anything that sounds like sleep?
	The report that I received was that the patient, Mr.
	Floyd, was unresponsive on their arrival and did not have a pulse.
	So there was no report that he had been sleepy or difficult to arouse, per se.
	Just why?
	How do you not know that this has already been destroyed in the case?
	I just find it weird.
	Was George Floyd sleepy?
	No, he was dead.
	What do you want?
	I don't know, man.
	They don't seem to be communicating with each other, which might explain why they're stumbling over each other at times.
	So the next witness they brought on was the Chief of Police for Minneapolis Police Department.
	And something to keep in mind, of course, with the Chief of Police is it is a position appointed by the Mayor of Minneapolis who is elected.
	So it's expressly political.
	And expressly political in this sense because the Mayor is a Democrat.
	The area was heavily Democrat.
	I think it was like 60% or something.
	And therefore, the chief police has to take that into account, which is part of the reason people have criticized him a lot, because in response to the accusations, he immediately threw Chauvin under the bus.
	He was like, I want nothing to do with this.
	You're out of the police department, blah, blah, blah.
	It wasn't, let's wait for the facts or any of this, which didn't look great for the officers working under him, I assume.
	But again, to notice that the jury may not know this nuance.
	It wasn't made expressly clear from what I saw.
	So they just might take it as like, this is the head cop.
	But it's also the point that the majority of his job is not cop work.
	It's political work or organizational work.
	So that's something to keep in mind as well.
	So most of this, they just went through policy.
	So it was like, right, read me this policy on Strangleholds.
	And he was like, yeah, okay.
	And it would always be like...
	Here's the start of the policy, and then here's a couple more lines, right?
	And he would say, just read the first one for the sake of time, and it would read, oh, if you are in situation X, you cannot do Y. Cut and dry, right?
	Except, of course, if you read the next few lines, it's like, as soon as practical, with necessary circumstances, and so on and so forth.
	But he didn't want to read that because that would give license to the defense.
	Which, again, is just a really stupid tactic.
	Because you knew the defense was just going to turn around and say, read line two, read line three.
	And they do.
	And it just, it looks really cringe.
	Like, I don't know why they did this.
	But I guess I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm the one in the wrong here.
	But they did get some good stuff out of him for the prosecution side.
	So there's a clip here of him saying that the hold they used, so him keeping him down like that with his knee, was not policy.
	The chief police saying this violates our policy.
	So let's play the clip.
	As you reflect on exhibit 17, I must ask you, is this a trained Minneapolis Police Department defensive tactics technique?
	It is not.
	When we read the departmental policy on neck restraints, is this a neck restraint?
	The conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure.
	When I look at exhibit 17 and when I look at the facial expression of Mr.
	Floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape, or form that that is light to moderate pressure.
	But when we look at the guy applying the pressure, he doesn't look very distressed at all.
	I mean, Chauvin's still got his sunglasses just sat on top of his head, his hands in his pockets, and he looks totally relaxed.
	But even then, that's just a guess game back and forth.
	Sure.
	There is no way, physically, to measure how much pressure he put on there.
	Well, there actually kind of is, because you can do the autopsy and find that there's no damage to the back of his neck.
	That's one way of measuring how much damage was done, but you can't measure how many newtons of force.
	Sure, but we don't need to know exactly how many newtons of force.
	The question is, is it a lot or is it a little?
	And if there's no particular damage to the target, and the person applying the pressure doesn't seem to be actually physically exerting themselves, it is a reasonable inference to say, I will come to the inductively strong conclusion that he wasn't actually grinding him into the floor.
	You certainly can, but one of the problems here is just calculating those kind of things.
	There's not much of a way...
	Like you say, we can't get the Newtons.
	You are right to say that, okay, that's a matter of opinion, and your opinion seems to be at odds with the facts.
	Him saying it doesn't align with policy either, there's a bit of a weird thing about the wording here.
	So, you know, are they trained to use this inside the policy?
	Well, why does it happen in your manuals then?
	As we've shown before, why is there examples of this?
	And it might be because they're trained to do it one way, but there are other ways which are permissible.
	And therefore, him saying, no, we're not training them to do that, well, okay, but is this permissible, the idea?
	So he may also just be objecting to the fact of the length of time.
	It's not particularly clear, but there's different ways to interpret that statement.
	But of course, the media version is just chief police says it's not our policy, which we'll get into is just not the case.
	So the defense also got the chief police to admit that he hasn't arrested anyone in years, because he's the chief police.
	Why would he?
	That's not his job.
	So he's not a use of force expert either, and his opinions on such matters are sort of to be left to him, because he's not an expert witness.
	He is again a witness overseeing the whole thing, and he does have expertise, but he is not the man to talk on use of force, because they have expert witnesses, which they're going to have in the next day.
	So they also got him to read the full policies, which was embarrassing because it was just like, no, okay, read line two, read line three.
	Right, moving on because it was pointless.
	It's just – if you have, for example, there was a section just to maybe put some more meat on the bones here is that he said, you have a duty to provide medical care to a suspect who you think is blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	And they would read that and say, you have a duty to provide medical care to a suspect.
	Chauvin didn't provide medical care.
	What a bad man.
	And sure, that's true, like that on its own.
	But the next line is just, you know, where practically possible.
	And if you've got a threatening crowd and you don't feel safe providing CPR there, or it's inconvenient for X reason or Y reason, then it gets more blurry.
	It's not as straightforward as the prosecution was making it, which makes the prosecution look stupid.
	And it's not like they hadn't called an ambulance.
	Yeah.
	They had.
	They weren't trying to kill him.
	That is definitely bunk by now.
	So that also undercut his testimony.
	It also shows the problem with the media, just showing the prosecution side of things, which is you don't get to the truth, you just get their side, which is pointless.
	Because they are there to win the case, they are not there to find the truth.
	Either of them, to keep in mind as well.
	Or the media as well.
	No, no, I mean the council.
	No, no, but I mean the media.
	I think you could say that.
	I think we can very definitely say they have a vested interest in this as well, and they want the public to come to a certain conclusion, even if the facts don't support that.
	So the next quite embarrassing moment was when the defense got hold of him, and they were able to ask him about some different pictures.
	So, of course, everyone's seen the bystander side, where they're looking at George Floyd, knee on the neck, you know, disgusting, blah, blah, blah.
	But, of course, that's not the full story.
	There are cameras on the cops, and when looking at the cameras on the cops, it becomes a bit more grey.
	So let's play this clip.
	Chief, are you familiar with the concept of camera perspective bias?
	I am not a counsellor.
	Okay.
	You would agree, Chief, that from the perspective of Ms. Frazier's camera, it appears that Officer Chauvin's knee is on the neck of Mr. Floor? it appears that Officer Chauvin's knee is on the neck Floyd.
	Yes.
	Would you agree that from the perspective of Officer King's body camera, it appears that Officer Chauvin's knee was more on Mr.
	Floyd's shoulder blade?
	Yes.
	So from the perspective of the body camera, the knee's on the shoulder plate.
	And that's the chief police saying that.
	And that's not going in the headline because, of course, it's not.
	Why would that go in the headline?
	You can't rouse up a big mob to get angry about this with that headline of, actually, it wasn't on his neck?
	The prosecution tried to defend this in being that it was a point at which the ambulance turned up and they checked his pulse from his neck.
	And, of course, if the knee's there, you can't do that, which is one of the points of how did you check it if his knee is there?
	But then they tried to defend it by saying, well, maybe he moved it when the paramedics arrived and therefore that's what's warm on there.
	And I don't know what to make of that because you can only really see it when the officer stands up a little bit to see a better angle.
	But there is more video evidence to suggest that maybe it is a bit more complex than that.
	So that's something to keep in mind.
	But then we go to day seven, because they ended there, which is where everything starts to fall apart.
	And I love this image here of the defense, sorry, the prosecution, looking like he's having a rough day because he really was.
	Sorry, buddy, but this didn't go well for you.
	So the bit of housekeeping first, day seven, we've been talking about Maurice Hall, the drug dealer who was in the car with George Floyd, pleading the fifth.
	If we can go to Jacob Sobiak's tweet on this.
	I didn't have time to play the whole thing, but this is presumably a lawyer or a representative of Maurice Hall who came to the court and explained Maurice Hall's position that If you provide someone with drugs in Minnesota and they die of it, you are guilty of third-degree homicide.
	Therefore, I am saying nothing.
	I am out of here.
	I'm not incriminating myself.
	So it wasn't just, I don't want to be involved because I might be shown to be a drug dealer.
	It was, I don't want to be involved because you guys might charge me with the death of George Floyd.
	It's like...
	Oh, boy!
	That was not a great thing to start the day on, but it is his right to plead the fifth.
	It looks so bad, though.
	It looks terrible.
	They've accepted some questions from either side that the judge is going to review if it incriminates him, and if the questions don't directly incriminate him, they can force him to come and answer those questions.
	But if they could incriminate him, he's pleading the fifth, because...
	Oh my god, you do not want to be charged with that.
	Turns out it was his black drug dealer that killed him, and what are Black Lives Matter going to do then?
	Yeah, I know, right?
	What a thing.
	So then there was a guy from the police who was not too interesting to us for the next witness, and then we're just going to go to the state witness who is a use of force expert.
	So the use of force expert they brought on here, they wanted him to explain his position.
	So they talked about the knee on the neck and whether or not that's proper.
	So let's play the first clip.
	You actually teach officers, show them physically how to do these sort of neck restraints?
	Yes, sir.
	At this time I'd like to republish Exhibit 17.
	Sir, is this an MPD-trained neck restraint?
	No, sir.
	So that there being an image of him on there and saying this is not a trained neck restraint.
	Again, the word trained in there doing some difficulty.
	But just because it's not trained doesn't mean it's outside policy.
	And even if it's outside policy, does it mean it's legally just side or not?
	And then even if it's not legally justified, did it contribute to Floyd's death?
	Because that's what the case is about.
	There's a lot of jumps you have to do first to get to the point of actual interest.
	But again, that's the quote the papers will go with, because why wouldn't you, I suppose?
	He also mentions in here, when being questioned by the prosecution, something that we got confirmed before, that if you wanted to choke him, you'd have to put pressure on both sides, and this couldn't have taken place, because there's only one knee on the back of his neck, not the front or anything.
	The veins are at the side, right?
	This very irritates the MMA fighter who was trying to claim that it was a blood hold or blood choke, something like that.
	So my understanding, I mean, again, I'm not an expert or anything, but there's two veins you have to succumb to, arteries to cut the blood off, which then makes the person go unconscious in about 10 seconds.
	Or you could choke them from the front and cut off their windpipe, which is another way of doing it.
	but neither of them seem to be the case which is uh not not great so we we have gone from he might have died of drugs therefore there's reasonable doubt to are we even sure he even had anything to do with it chauvin which is an interesting place for this to go but it's uh it's not without merit by the looks of it so then nelson got to question the uh use of force expert from the state i mean this is the state's witness and uh they asked him about training to use the knee on the shoulder so let's play
	um you have you train officers to use their knee across the back shoulder or the shoulder to the base of the neck neck of a subject, correct?
	Yes.
	That is something that is specifically trained by the Minneapolis Police Department whether it be for handcuffing purposes or simply prone control of a subject.
	Yes, sir.
	So, explicitly saying we train him to put the knee on the shoulder, which, wondering about whether or not where the camera is, maybe it was on his shoulder the whole time, or the base of his neck, which puts a whole new spin on the whole thing.
	And yeah, I mean, from the body cam footage, I mean, it does look like it's on his shoulder blade, not across the back of his neck, as the other woman's footage makes it look.
	Because of the camera angle.
	Because of the camera angle.
	And then now we're in the...
	Point of, is Derek Chauvin actually the victim of all this?
	Because it seems he may not have done anything wrong.
	So let's play the next clip where they ask him about this exact issue.
	Can you see in this photograph what appears to be the knee and shin placement of the officer?
	Yes, sir.
	And would you agree that it appears that the knee is placed in the center between Mr.
	Floyd's shoulder blades?
	It appears to be between his shoulder blades, sir, yes.
	So again, here in this particular photograph, you can see the placement of Mr.
	Chauvin's knee in between the shoulder blades of Mr.
	Floyd, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	I mean, it's not going great, is it?
	Like, that is not something you want to see if you're the prosecution.
	All of your witnesses are agreeing with the defense.
	Yeah, like, these are the state's witnesses.
	Yeah.
	And they're all betraying him one by one.
	And you can sort of see him lose his mind throughout this.
	There's also some more points about that.
	He's a force expert.
	So he mentions the fact that the knee was there for the artery.
	If it was there, then they couldn't check it, obviously.
	And if they also made the point of, well, you could justify a knee on the neck part, there could be reasons for that.
	He didn't want to disavow the whole idea of using it, but it would have to be advised against necessarily, ideally, but on the shoulder for obvious reasons.
	I don't have to explain.
	So he also asks him about holding people down for a long time, a criticism being that he's got him in that hold for too long.
	And the use of force expert confirms that no, actually, you could hold him for a long time if you've got reasonable reasons for it.
	I mean, the person being extremely high, for example, would be a good reason, because if they are unconscious and then come back to conscious, they can attack the officers.
	This is something they want against.
	So that's one thing there.
	tried to defend this from the prosecution side after that car crash, in which they said that people filming going on, what's going on, would not be enough to justify you doing that hold at all, because it's proportionate to the amount of threat, right? - Yeah. - And which the defense then just obviously pointed out that they weren't just filming.
	Like there were verbal threats, MMA bro walked towards them and had to be pushed back.
	This wasn't nothing.
	They had to reach for their mace.
	So that's just, again, why would you try and distort the situation like that in front of the jury when you know the defense is going to respond?
	It looks silly.
	So that was the end of The Use of Force Expert.
	And then they got a lady on who is a support coordinator.
	I don't know what that means, I'll be honest.
	And she spoke about a few things.
	This is where it really gets bad.
	So first thing, she spoke about something called, I don't know how to say, agonal breathing.
	So apparently it's sort of the last breath someone takes where you're sort of desperate for air and the body breathes out in a last-ditch effort to get some air.
	And he asked her about the fact of, well...
	If there's a crowd making a lot of noise, might the officers miss this?
	Yeah.
	Crap.
	Maybe you shouldn't have been shouting at them.
	That again makes the crowd look extremely bad, and again trying to make the argument, obviously for the defence, that the crowd contributed to his death.
	I mean, if it helps for the prosecution, there's rarely a moment where an angry crowd is of very much use for anything.
	Yeah, but it gives more and more weight to the defensive side to say, well, look, under the circumstances, we can't be blamed for too much here.
	So she also speaks about the lethality of fentanyl, because people have been going around this, particularly the prosecution, trying to claim that you can eat fentanyl for breakfast and live a healthy life, which is not great.
	So the state objected to him talking about this, but then he got over it and they showed a clip of how fentanyl, how deadly it is.
	So let's play this clip.
	This slide?
	Certainly.
	So this is a diagram to show you just what could be considered a lethal dose of fentanyl.
	It's more of a visual indicator because we already know how dangerous heroin is.
	And you can see a trace amount of that could be deadly with fentanyl and even more so with carfentanil.
	So if we can go to the next link, Jack Posowiak put on his Twitter page the zoomed-in image of that penny there with the amount of fentanyl that would be a lethal dose.
	So a very small amount.
	And then when we're looking at, he had, what, three times the amount in his system when he died?
	This is just to get it across the point that it is an extremely dangerous substance to the juror.
	Yeah.
	Which, yeah, it would be smart to do.
	She's also asked about the paramedics, because she's trained in this, and she admits that a crowd being violent would be a reason for just grabbing the guy and going.
	And then she is asked, would it make it impossible to treat the guy there?
	And she says yes, which doesn't go well either.
	So let's play this clip about the hostile crowd.
	And in terms of a crowd being hostile, how would you define hostility?
	That would be a growing contingent of people around if they're yelling, being even verbally abusive to those that are trying to provide scene security.
	Yes, there would be.
	If there's people trying to interfere with a crime scene or interfere with a patient, absolutely.
	Perhaps use a weapon, throw rocks or bottles, something like that could prevent someone from providing emergency aid.
	Is that right?
	Absolutely.
	This is bad.
	This is very, very bad.
	So the prosecution endlessly has been trying to back away from the idea the crowd had much of an impact.
	And then she's just openly saying, like, yeah, the reason we would have to leave so early and then not have the information on his drugs or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and not be able to treat him there is because of a hostile crowd.
	How would you define a hostile crowd, the prosecution has?
	And she defines it as it was in the instance of George Floyd.
	And you can hear in his voice him going, shh.
	I should not have asked that question.
	I was more professional and more professional.
	I'll have you know.
	Yeah, and he then tries to veer off and be like, well, what if they've got weapons or something to try and make it seem more serious?
	But she's already said that yelling, verbally abusing them, or trying to walk into the scene would be enough.
	So it's like, oh boy.
	This is so bad that Nelson has even called her back as another witness for his side.
	He was so impressed with her performance that he thinks he can help the defense.
	So it's just like, oh boy.
	So I had to clip this and put it on my Twitter account.
	When your own witness Fs up your entire case, you just see his face in there.
	You can see he's really unhappy.
	Like that did not go well.
	And then there's just the last day.
	So day eight.
	So we're just going to breeze through this because not too much either.
	But my God, that is bad.
	That her saying that this is very serious.
	So they had another use of force expert.
	This guy is particularly interesting because they paid him 10 grand to write a report with 400 odd pages and you think fair enough.
	Turns out he only wrote 26 of his pages for 10 grand.
	Nice work if you can get it.
	Quite a lot.
	And then he was paid 3 grand to come to court and give his statements about it.
	A lot of money.
	And one of the things to notice is that this is his first time coming to a trial to give evidence.
	Why?
	Why couldn't you find a use of force expert who was happy to go along with your testimony and instead you had to go for the guy who's so untrained that he's never done this before?
	And it showed.
	So then they get into it.
	He's from Los Angeles.
	He's not from Minneapolis.
	And they ask him about Minneapolis and Los Angeles practices.
	And he's like, oh, they're basically standardized.
	And then later on goes to say, well, no, some of them aren't standardized.
	There's different procedures for how to arrest someone and how to hold them and all the rest of it.
	It's like, okay, so that doesn't make you look too great.
	And then he's asked about a PDF he was sent with all of Minneapolis Peace Department's procedures.
	And he's like, yeah, I read the PDF. And then Nelson points out that, well, it had videos in it.
	How did you watch the videos on a PDF? He's like, ah, crap.
	He was sent this.
	He didn't watch the videos.
	It's like, okay, this isn't small because he's meant to know everything.
	He's written a 400-page book.
	He's the expert.
	He's meant to be the expert, which again, it just doesn't look great.
	They end up asking him about the 911 call and he admits that he didn't even listen to the 911 call.
	Okay.
	And then they ask him at another point, this might sound smaller, but it is important, in which they ask him about a specific policy, and this specific policy being 5-303, and they ask him about it, and he is unable to remember what policy that is.
	And it's like, okay, that might seem, if it was a casual conversation, acceptable, but an expert who should know everything about this...
	Who's been paid 13 grand to know everything about this.
	You really should not be this unable to give answers, and it did not look well.
	They also ended up asking him about the neck position, so if we can get the next clip up, they're asking him about where the knee is in relation to Floyd.
	Let's play.
	More of the base of the neck.
	And from Officer King's body-worn camera, it appears that it was more at the base of the neck in between the shoulder blades, right?
	Yes.
	That's the state's witness.
	Again, just giving ammunition to the defense.
	Not great.
	Well, that's only because it really seems from the body camera perspective that it wasn't on his neck and it was between his shoulder blades.
	Yeah, that's the argument.
	What's he going to do?
	Be like, no, my eyes see something different to everyone else's eyes.
	I suppose you could.
	But then the blighter of the whole trial seems to have come, which I don't even know what to make of this.
	It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
	So there was a clip in which George Floyd says something, and no one's really sure what he said.
	The defense is saying that in here he said, I didn't take no drugs, or I ate too many drugs.
	And the prosecution is saying, no, no, no, no, he said, I didn't take no drugs.
	I was like, uh-huh, okay, so did he say...
	Well, I mean, we know he did, so...
	Well, we knew he took drugs, but he also denied taking anything when he was questioned.
	So he could have said, I didn't take no drugs, but he also could have said, in this moment of panic, I took drugs, please help me, kind of thing.
	But there's no real way to tell.
	The audio's kind of muffled.
	And you'd think this would be a nothing burger and the judge would throw it out or something, but he didn't, and then they ended up playing it.
	So let's play the clip.
	I'd like you to see if you can tell me what Mr.
	Floyd says in this instance.
	Did you hear what he said?
	No, I can't make it out.
	Does it sound like he says, I ate too many drugs?
	Listen again.
	I can't talk about you.
	Did you ever hear Mr.
	Floyd say, I ate too many drugs?
	And I'm going to ask you, sir, to listen to Mr.
	Floyd's voice.
	Did you hear that?
	Yes, I did.
	Did it appear that Mr.
	Floyd said, I ate too many drugs?
	Yes, it did.
	So that's the thing there.
	My opinion on this is I can't make out anything he's saying.
	Yeah, I can't.
	It seems like, for evidence purposes, this seems like garbage.
	But it's incredibly smart legally, of course, because he got to play it twice in front of the jurors, and then he had to play it another time for another witness.
	The prosecution ended up bringing him back to deny it and say he heard that I didn't eat no drugs after he admitted that he heard I ate too many drugs.
	So...
	The jury ended up hearing that four times.
	So planting the seed of doubt, of course, smart legally, a bit scummy on my opinion because I can't make out what he's really saying, but that's there, and he was able to play it four times in front of them.
	And remember, they've got to have, what is it, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be convicted of murder and manslaughter.
	There's also the last thing I wanted to end on here, so there's more going on obviously, so we'll just end on this, which is just some images that have come out of the search of Floyd's car, this first one here showing pills in his car, as if we didn't already know this, but it's good to have video evidence of it.
	And then the next link I wanted to show was the search of the police car, which we have mentioned before, where they found the same pills containing the same substances, and in this instance, covered in Floyd's DNA and saliva.
	So they were definitely in his mouth.
	And you can see them sort of semi-chewed or bits of them here and there.
	So, that's definitely true.
	There is no doubt of that.
	That has not been presented to the court.
	But yeah, what an S show!
	Like, that's how bad it's gotten.
	What do you even argue on now?
	Because the point of him having the knee on the neck is in question.
	The point of him overdosing on drugs looks pretty strong.
	Uh...
	How would you deny that point?
	But even the state's witnesses agreeing that the crowd is largely to blame for a lot of the failures in this instance by being threatening, the reason they had to scoot and leave, and people agreeing with it looks like the knee is here, and all of those people being expert witnesses for the prosecution.
	We haven't even got to the defense's expert witnesses who are just going to give his opinion.
	Yeah, but notice at this point now, we're not even asking whether Derek Chauvin even did anything wrong.
	It seems that Derek Chauvin now, with all of these new splits in the narrative, it's like, well, hang on, what did Derek Chauvin do that was inappropriate?
	That's where the court case is at, which, oh boy, I did not expect it to go this fast and this way.
	And yeah, Derek Chauvin's looking like he's going to get an acquittal.
	That's not good.
	That's the evidence.
	This is going to go badly.
	And we already know, because BLM activists have already threatened that cities will burn for this.
	Yeah, we'll cover this tomorrow.
	Yeah, we'll cover it tomorrow.
	Anyway, let's talk about another meltdown that is currently happening, which is the meltdown with the UK's Tony Sewell's Race Relations Report, which was the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities in the UK. This was not received with a great deal of...
	Pleasure.
	On the behalf, from the point of what I guess I would describe as professional race grifters.
	But that's only because I'm rather cynical on these things.
	So this is an article from The Guardian that was published in November last year as they were making their final call for evidence in this report.
	And they published this article because a bunch of people who we will be talking about, people from The Running Me Trust, The Race on the Agenda, and Operation Black Vote...
	So all groups of people who don't have a deep and abiding interest in making sure the UK is viewed as a racist country, all of them have said things like this.
	In the past, public inquiries and commissions have failed to result in any real systemic change for BME, which is black and minority ethnic communities.
	We have raised our concerns from the outset of this commission that it must show a commitment to address issues of structural and systemic racism and should not act as a tool to distract the public from inaction on race equality.
	Right.
	So that's kind of a confused sentence, really.
	Because if you think about it, like, it must show a commitment to address issues of structural and systemic racism, which presupposes the existence of structural and systemic racism.
	The report itself hasn't presupposed these things, and it is actually trying to find out whether this presupposition is real.
	And so they're already missing the points of the report, and you can see why they're already going to be like, no, we're not accepting it, and that's what this is about.
	But next one is, it should not act as a tool to distract the public from inaction on race equality.
	Why would you distract someone from inaction?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Anyway, so the report was released, and as was widely reported, and I'll just give you a couple of quick excerpts from it.
	We've ensured that our analysis has gone beyond individual circumstances to carefully examine evidence and data, and the evidence reveals that ours is nevertheless a relatively open society.
	The country has come a long way in 50 years, and the success of much of the ethnic minority population education, to a lesser extent the economy, should be regarded as a model for other white-majority countries.
	Consider the greater presence of ethnic minorities in the current government and the opposition, this time occupying top positions such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Attorney General, Business Secretary and Home Secretary.
	So, Hamza Youssef must be going, you know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Not white, damn it.
	You know?
	Homesextory?
	Fascist?
	He would say they're politically white, wouldn't he?
	Well, where else are you going to go at that point?
	Because they're not physically white.
	But anyway, or the onward march of minorities into positions of power and responsibility in professions such as law and medicine.
	Ethnic minorities are also now well represented in the highest social class, and ethnic minority students represent nearly a quarter of those from the UK offered a place at Oxford in 2019.
	Now, it's important to note that, I mean, when we get the new census back, that'll be very interesting.
	But a quarter of people represented as placements at Oxford, I'm assuming that's actually roughly analogous to the number of ethnic minorities that we have in the country, which implies there is no problem at all.
	That would be the reasonable inference from this.
	But again, if you have presupposed structural and systemic racism, as all of these people who are opposing this report have done, then of course you find yourself with literally nothing.
	This takes away everything from them.
	It does from their narrative.
	I would say from a liberal narrative, there is a problem there.
	So you're saying that 25% of the population are ethnic minorities, therefore 25% of the applicants who are accepted should be ethnic minorities.
	Well, I mean, assuming that's 25%, because in 2011 it was 13%.
	I understand.
	But of all of these universities, we do know they enact what is called positive discrimination, which is just discrimination against the white applicants.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	We're not talking from our perspective, where you would Hire people on the basis of merit and things like that.
	It's just you said there was no problem.
	I'm like, eh, isn't it?
	Well, no, no, no.
	That's the thing.
	It's probably actually fairly representative of what the current ethnic makeup of the UK is.
	Because we always have to compare it to the 2011 one, because the census is done every 10 years, and we don't have this new census in.
	But if it's about a quarter going there, I mean, it probably is there.
	There is some affirmative action there.
	Yeah, I'm just saying I think the procedure is probably biased.
	It probably is, but it probably is also that this is actually fairly representative of the amount of the country that is ethnic minority.
	So anyway, this essentially BTFOs the entire left-wing narrative on race in Britain, and this is why they had preemptively rejected it.
	As you do.
	As you do, because they know they're a bunch of grifters.
	And so the Running Me Trust has decided to take action, as they say here.
	We promised you action!
	Sign our joint letter to Prime Minister to reject the report and implement the recommendations of these long-standing McPherson, Lammy, Marmot and Williams reviews.
	Now, the report accounts for all of these reviews.
	All of these reviews are deeply biased towards left-wing philosophy on what...
	The interpretation of the data should be.
	And an interpretation of the data that is not deeply biased towards left-wing philosophy actually shows that Britain's, as I say, quite an open country that should be a model to the rest of the world, and the left-wing race grifters can't stand it.
	But anyway, I thought we'd have a quick look at this open letter, because, I mean, you know, it's going to be informative, isn't it?
	Dear Prime Minister, we, the undersigned, reject the findings of the Independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities published on 31st March 2021.
	What a shock!
	Dear Prime Minister, you didn't agree with us and our presuppositions about your country, and therefore, you're a racist.
	You and your government should be committed to, sorry, genuinely committed to acknowledging and addressing the issue of racial inequity in the UK, and we were calling you to repudiate the Commission's findings immediately and withdraw its report.
	So they are 200% mad about this.
	200%.
	I mean, not even, like, saying, like, look, there are some points in which we disagree.
	No, the entire thing, out.
	It's like, why?
	Well, it's got data in there we don't like.
	All of this data makes us look bad.
	In fact, if you actually, like, square the data up, as Tony Sewell, you know, that famous white supremacist has done, it actually makes it look like the English are the ones failing in England, which really hurts the grift.
	Anyway, the irony of all of this report, this open letter, is it's loads of very successful non-white, non-English people in Britain, doctors, lawyers, academics, various media figures, things like that, politicians, who are all non-white, all signing lists.
	It's like, how did you get anywhere?
	If this is a racist country, how are you there?
	Anyway, they carry on.
	From the moment that membership of the ostensibly independent commission was announced, it was clear that it would publish a tailored report conforming to a government narrative around racism and class, a narrative that whitewashes over the daily challenges faced by black and minoritized communities in this country.
	Minoritized communities.
	What does that even mean?
	It means someone's done something to them.
	If you minoritize something, if you were to, I don't know, think of another word, corporatize, right?
	If you were to synthesize, if you do anything, anything, that's an active word.
	So someone has done something to these communities.
	That's what the implication of minoritized is.
	Sure.
	The state of Pakistan makes people born there Pakistani through its culture, and therefore when they come to Britain, they're minorities?
	Yeah, but that they are minorities is not the same as minoritizing them.
	It kind of implies that a bunch of white people were brought to make them minorities, or something like that.
	It's a very strange, very strange language.
	But as you can see, we don't agree with any of this because of course it doesn't agree with our presuppositions.
	But that's the point.
	It's attacking your presuppositions, which is why they're so bothered by this.
	So lacking in intellectual rigour, academic credibility and stakeholder engagement are its findings that persons cited as in the report have confirmed that their counsel was either not sought or was misrepresented in scope, and are now requesting their names be entirely disassociated from the Commission.
	Means nothing.
	I mean, I could literally say that about absolutely anyone, and it would be my statement.
	But there's no follow-up there.
	There's no proof.
	They don't go through and dissect any of the claims.
	They don't try and refute any of the facts, obviously, because these are the official statistics that they themselves work on.
	It's not incorrect.
	It's just politically incorrect.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	It's not incorrect.
	But they want their names disassociated with it because all of the rabid lefty race grifters are furious online and they're like, oh God, look at my notifications.
	You know, I don't, no, no, disavow, disavow, disavow.
	Don't want to have anything to do with it.
	The commission has failed on even the most basic level.
	For instance, in acknowledging the fundamental rights of black and minoritized communities and the impact of hostile environment policies that have threatened the citizenship and status of the Windrush generation and their descendants.
	What?
	What are you talking about?
	Where has the government ever denied the fundamental rights of black and minoritized communities?
	What does that even mean?
	Where?
	What are you talking about?
	What about the Windrush generation?
	What the hell are you talking about there?
	I mean, we can take just one statistic out of this and ask them how do you explain this, right?
	So we were talking about how the Caribbeans are the ones who do less well in education and the West Africans do better in education.
	The West Africans being the more recent immigrants of people who were never enslaved and the Caribbeans obviously being the older So they've got a more stable financial position.
	Yeah.
	But they're still performing worse in schools.
	Yeah.
	So how is this racism?
	How could there be a distinction between these two people?
	There's no genetic distinction.
	And, I mean, if there was a legal distinction, why is it in favour of the Caribbeans?
	I mean, the Caribbeans are 40% homeownership.
	I mean, it's only 60% for white people.
	Are white teachers, like, purposely grading up black Africans over black Caribbeans?
	I don't know.
	How do they tell the difference?
	But why do you think they're white teachers in these areas?
	I know, right?
	They look exactly the same to the white British population.
	Most people can't tell the difference between a black African and a black Caribbean by looking, can you?
	But most of the white British population don't live in London.
	That's another good point.
	So it's just like, who do you think is teaching these kids?
	It's not...
	Probably Indians, actually.
	But how is it that the black Caribbeans own twice as many houses as the West Africans?
	How does racism explain any of this data?
	And so, yeah, so anyway, as you can see, that's just one piece of data that just, the entire thing is just like, that doesn't make any sense.
	Let's carry on.
	Disingenuous claims.
	And all of these allegations, by the way, they're like, oh, you're lacking intellectual rigor or academic credibility.
	Sorry, Dr.
	Tony Sewell is lacking academic credibility, is he?
	You know, disingenuous...
	So says ACAB on Twitter.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	You know, but that's the point.
	All of these are just essentially, like, just slurs.
	All these are smears.
	Like you say, disingenuous claims.
	Oh, you're a mind reader now, are you?
	You think that Tony Sewell is actually like, ha ha ha, I'm going to keep the black man down by lying in my reports.
	Why would he do this?
	Why would you?
	Anyway, anyway, right?
	It doesn't make any sense, but disingenuous claims, including the Commission's assertion that its research found literally no evidence of institutional racism in the UK, have provoked public incredulity and national indignation.
	You mean people on Twitter are furious?
	Of course they are.
	Twitter's basically Tumblr now.
	Everyone who was non-Tumblr is banned from Twitter.
	The danger is that a report so lacking in credibility will be left to circulate and take us back to the colour bar of the 1960s.
	I don't think that's likely to happen.
	Why would the, and again, stress, diverse commission that produced this report wants to create some kind of racial segregation or something?
	Why would they do that?
	What are they talking about?
	From the left-wing perspective, I mean, it's obvious nonsense, but they would say that this diverse group of people are secretly white supremacists who want to uphold white supremacy because they get the benefit from it.
	Yeah, just come out and call them a house negro.
	That is the more intellectualized version of that statement.
	That's what they're doing.
	Literally, that's what they're doing.
	But anyway, while we note your apparently equivocal response to Dr.
	Sewell's findings, to be absolutely clear, the record shows that evidence of structural and institutional racism was provided to the Commission by organisations across civil society.
	Well, the question is, what is evidence?
	Now, they think that any kind of racial disparity is evidence, but the thing is, all of their racial disparities are compressed down into these very broad categories.
	Black or white.
	And as we saw, if you start granulating any of these, then you find that actually there's a huge amount of disparities within them that can't be explained through the racial narrative.
	Anyway, we are running out of time, so I'm going to have to hurry up with this.
	Right, okay, so...
	Willfully or not, it would seem reasonable to conclude that either evidence of institutional racism was ignored by the commissioners, or they have seen fit to put their names to a false declaration.
	In this regard, it is revealing that the commissioners now claim they are under personal attack.
	That's not because you have been personally attacking them.
	You're literally calling them, like, race traitors, basically.
	And of course they're being harassed online by leftists.
	And Tony Sewell was like, I've got a thick skin, I don't care.
	I stand by what I've said.
	I'm used to you people.
	In the same way, what was the previous chap who did things about race that we can't say?
	Oh, Trevor Phillips.
	Trevor Phillips, yeah.
	Exactly the same way that he was harangued and harassed because he was like, well, the data just doesn't support your assertions.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Further, as regards any notion that this commission has somehow broken new ground with its revelation that the socioeconomic factors, including class, income, education, are all vital factors in explaining inequalities, please be assured that this is in no way a new finding and has never been denied.
	You are literally denying it by saying they are not the reason that things are different.
	And we'll go through a few bits in the report, in fact.
	I'll skip over a bit of what they've said, because it's just them essentially being mad online.
	It was good, but we'll carry on.
	Anyway, therefore, we call on you to affirm your commitment to race equality in Britain in 2021 and dismiss this report.
	But the thing is, as they point out in the report...
	Most of the disparities between the ethnic minority communities in Britain appear to be the result of leading different kinds of lifestyle.
	And so this is from page 42 of the report.
	The Commission is not passing judgment about how people live their lives, nor is it saying two parents are always better than one.
	Lone parent families face greater strain, but if they have the right resources and support available, they can find a good start in life.
	Just as good a start.
	The support, nurture and care that family networks provide are something that no government intervention can match in practical or emotional power.
	But the need for support is inevitably greater among lone parent families.
	In these ethnic minority groups where family breakdown is more prevalent, the need for support from the extended family or community groups is even greater.
	During the course of its work, the commission noted that with great concern, the prevalence of family breakdown.
	In 2020, 14.7% of families in the UK were lone parent families, which is 2.9 million.
	63% of black being children in the UK were growing up in lone parent families, as were 62% of children in the black other ethnic group.
	High instances of lone parenthood were also experienced by mixed ethnicity black children.
	Black African people have a lower rate of single parenthood at 43%, but are still well above the average.
	South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups...
	You know, the two at the top.
	The two that are doing the very best.
	Would you like to take a guess at what their single parent family amount is?
	Ten percent?
	No.
	Am I close?
	Six percent.
	Ugh.
	Single digits.
	I mean, for the white families, it's something like 15%.
	So, you know, these people are forming stable families and having healthy, well-adjusted children who are succeeding in education and in the outside working world.
	And this is racism.
	Six percent.
	Six percent.
	It should be pointed out that differences in socioeconomic status between the groups complicate the picture, with high rates of family breakdown found among poor white people too.
	Well, there we go.
	Now we know why the poor whites are not famed to get ahead, because they're not marrying either.
	Anyway.
	To repeat, this is not allocating blame, but simply pointing out that children require both time and resources and is more likely to be available when both parents play an active role in their upbringing.
	Governments cannot remain neutral here.
	We urge the government to investigate this issue further and look at initiatives that prevent family breakdown.
	Hmm, I wonder what can be done.
	What's encouraging family breakdown?
	It's the welfare state.
	There's no other place to point because of the fact that there can be single mothers who are paid by the government to be single mothers.
	That's the only place you can point to.
	I mean, don't know what to tell you.
	Don't know what the government's going to do about it.
	Look forward to their initiatives.
	Doubtless going to be racist.
	Another interesting reason that contributes to the poverty of certain ethnic communities, such as the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, is that more than half the women in these two communities are economically inactive.
	Compared to only a quarter of white English.
	This helps explain why Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are disproportionately represented in the lower income deciles.
	So is the government going to force Pakistani and Bangladeshi women into the workplace?
	Sorry, ladies.
	Get a job.
	You've got to go work for Amazon now.
	Why?
	Because the race hustlers are annoyed that you're letting your communities down.
	This is a kind of shaming of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women from these people.
	Don't know.
	I mean, it's not the solution I would recommend.
	But hey, you know, forcing women into labour.
	Very progressive.
	Racism is both real and socially constructed, but society has defined racism down to encompass attitudes and behaviours that would not have been considered racist in the past.
	As in, we've been taken over by a bunch of woke lunatics.
	This is one reason for the rising sensitivity, the language of microaggressions and safety, and the stretching of the meaning of racism without objective data to support it.
	So literally what they're saying is, and we've seen people on TV arguing this, oh well I was microaggressed.
	Sure.
	But how did that stop you getting a job?
	How did that force you to drop out of school?
	Didn't.
	Anyway.
	They go on and on.
	We've got a few more minutes actually.
	There is also the question of the relative success of different groups.
	Those groups, particularly the Indian and Chinese ethnic groups, remember those 6%.
	Is that what you're calling them?
	The 6%ers, yeah.
	We're going to define all ethnic groups by the amount of single mums in the ethnic group.
	If we can start shaming them into getting married, maybe...
	Okay.
	The race grifters are freaking out that certain communities are failing, and they're failing because they're coming from broken homes.
	And if we aren't, for some reason, allowed to suspend the welfare state, then I guess it's going to have to be public shame that is the only option we've got left.
	I mean, what are we going to do?
	Have the government force them to get married at gunpoint or something?
	If you don't get married, you go to jail.
	How progressive?
	I'm a conservative.
	Well, that obviously would be quite conservative.
	I guess so.
	But what else?
	What are the options?
	It's not my policy proposal.
	We need equality here.
	It's like, okay, I didn't want to have to do this, but down the aisle, the government shotgun weddings a bunch of ethnic minority communities.
	It's like, don't worry, it's not racist.
	We're going to make the poor white people do it as well.
	Just on the Asians.
	No, no, no, no.
	We'll get the whites.
	Shotgun wedding whites from the government.
	All right.
	Literally, the military is going to be rounding up chavs and making them marry.
	But I don't love this person.
	That's not my problem.
	Not mine!
	It's the Race Equity Commission.
	The Runnymede Trust has demanded that you are forced into marriage at gunpoint.
	I don't know what else to tell you.
	But anyway...
	76% of people in Britain, black people in Britain, believe there is white privilege compared to 59% of all ethnic minorities and 29% of white people.
	Almost as many white people are unfamiliar with the term at 21%, almost exactly half of ethnic minority Britons do not think their race has been an obstacle to their personal advancement.
	Responding to the question, do you think your race has or has not directly prevented you from being able to succeed or pursue opportunities in your own life?
	40% of ethnic minority people said it has, and 38% has said it's not.
	So I guess we'll now hear from the successful minorities who succeeded in this racist country.
	This is a list of people who have signed it so far.
	They wanted to see the cathedral.
	I mean, there you go.
	Yeah, this is them essentially saying I represent that statement.
	Yvonne Field, the founder of the Ubelli Initiative.
	Do you know what the Ubelli Initiative is?
	No idea.
	No?
	Michael Hamilton, the program director of the Ubelli Initiative, could tell you.
	It's an initiative for blacks.
	It's a black support network.
	For blacks.
	What does that even mean?
	It supports blacks.
	Well, like only black people can go there and then you chat with each other?
	Well, no, they only give not just legal advice, financial advice, just personal support, all sorts of support, just for blacks.
	Just for blacks.
	That's going to end racism.
	Thanks, guys.
	If you're one of the six percenters, you're just not invited.
	Sorry.
	Anyway, the next one is Dr.
	Patrick Vernon, OBE, Windrush campaigner.
	Black Lives Matter UK. You see where this is going, right?
	Dr.
	Halima Began.
	This is the lunatic who's running the Ready Me Trust.
	Lord Simon Woolley, CBE, director of Operation Black Vote.
	Again, just very neutral.
	They haven't presupposed anything about this country.
	Identity politician.
	Oh, yes.
	Maurice McLeod, Race on the Agenda.
	So someone whose organization is called Race on the Agenda.
	Jesus Christ.
	Right.
	Dr.
	Wanda Waiposka, the director of the Equality Trust.
	An organization called Charity So White.
	Afua Hirsch, a very, very racially neutral person when it comes to these sort of politics.
	Saab Jit Ganger, the Asian Women's Resource Centre.
	Phil...
	I can't pronounce a lot of these.
	Opoku Gima, the executive director of Black Pride.
	Black Pride.
	Namiya Khan.
	What does that even mean?
	That's her organization.
	Namiya Khan, the director of the Inclusive Mosque Initiative.
	Oh, God.
	That's the woke Muslims.
	That's the woke Muslims.
	And Professor Keith McGee, Chair and Professor of Social Justice at Newcastle University.
	Now, these are all people I would consider to be career racists.
	Their job is to be a race hustler.
	That's what they get paid for.
	That's all they do.
	That's what their qualifications are.
	That's how they have their influence in society.
	These are the sorts of people who are signing this open letter.
	There's an unbelievable amount of money going on here as well.
	Millions.
	Millions and millions of pounds that are going to be just listed in the people that we're talking about here.
	And of course on Twitter there were lots of incredibly white people promoting the report.
	Ian Green looks a bit pasty to me.
	We know that the direct institutional racism prejudices the UK's black and minoritised communities.
	We know, like others, we have work to do to ensure that we are an inclusive and anti-racist organisation, and that's why we reject the report.
	Sources.
	It is known.
	Yeah, it is known, Khaleesi.
	Let's go for the next one.
	There is nothing remotely patriotic about denying or downplaying institutional, systemic, or structural racism.
	In fact, in my opinion, it's anti-British, anti-equality, and anti-reality.
	Thanks, Dr.
	Russ Jackson.
	Next one is just Osman.
	Again, you can see all the profile pictures.
	please.
	This is all very, very, very white people with very guilty consciences.
	A former colleague of mine told me once how he would regularly get stopped by the police while driving through his area with another Asian guy in the car.
	But with him, strangely, if he had a white guy in the car, he wouldn't be stopped.
	Well, there we go.
	So, here we have an outright white supremacist.
	Who thinks that white people are more privileged than other people because of their white skin.
	And they have this position of privilege and should look down on those inferior races with compassion.
	We need to help them.
	We need to use our racial power as white people, Callum, to help out the inferior blacks.
	I'd rather not if it's okay with you.
	Then you are part of the problem.
	I'd rather just treat them like people.
	No, but there we go.
	This is why you're not a white supremacist, and this person is.
	But I mean, other people who are part of the problem, if we go to the next one, just chaps like this.
	Vic Singh, typical English name.
	All the race hustlers are trying to trend the rejected report on the Twitter.
	These are people who basically make a living out of convincing people like me to be a victim.
	I'm not a victim.
	Best gif ever.
	For anyone who can't see it, it's the NPC meme with a pink haircut, with all of these male tears and feminist stuff.
	Furiously typing with an angry expression onto their computer with a cat.
	Gymnasium in the background.
	It is so accurate.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Dr.
	Rakib Ehsan, a poor oppressed person of colour in Britain.
	I see that Reject the Report is trending.
	Those who are financially and emotionally invested in the UK's identitarian grievance infrastructure appear to be rattled.
	Positive accounts of British racial relations are a threat to the financial returns from the victimhood agenda.
	Yep.
	Couldn't have put it better myself.
	That's all it's about for them.
	It's unbelievably on the point.
	If they get a piece of good news that shows that actually this place isn't racist, they're like, shit, my income.
	What am I going to do?
	Yeah, I mean, literally, that's their career over.
	I mean, what are they going to write about if Britain's not racist?
	No one's buying The Guardian anymore.
	I guess I'll apply to be a builder or something.
	Where do they take those skills?
	Yeah, but I'm really well trained in institutional racism.
	I think you've been mistrained.
	And obviously the question has to be asked, if Britain is so racist, then why are so many non-white people so desperate to come here?
	And the example of this is something breaking news from today.
	Turns out that Pakistan has been put on the red list for COVID, which means that people from Pakistan, as of 4am on Friday, will not be allowed to come to the United Kingdom because of COVID.
	This led to a massive rush of people from Pakistan desperately trying to get to the most racist country in the world.
	Don't know how to explain it.
	They just want to be oppressed.
	We love the oppression.
	I like the oppression.
	I like the oppression.
	I guess so.
	I mean, like, I love the way the Independent has framed this.
	Planespotters in Birmingham have never seen anything like it.
	It's a fleet of Polish-registered Boeing 737s flying from Islamabad via Moscow to the West Midlands.
	Trio entering airplanes and making for Birmingham, an airport from the Pakistani capital, are among the many unusual aircraft movements bringing British citizens to the UK before 4am on Friday.
	It is the moment when Pakistan, of course, and three other nations join the red list.
	Travellers arriving after the deadline will need to pay £1,750 for 11 nights of hotel quarantine.
	Before 4am on Friday, they can simply travel by public transport.
	And self-isolate for 10 days or less.
	The Independent calculates that at least 30 extra flights have been operating in the weeks since the government announced that Pakistan would join the Red List, with 5,000 to 7,000 arrivals in addition to the regular numbers.
	And they've been paying nearly £1,500 for their one-way tickets.
	They pay over a grand for the privilege of being oppressed.
	Yes.
	It's so progressive.
	Okay.
	RaceGrift is on Suicide Watch.
	I guess so.
	Anyway, let's go for the comments.
	Hey guys, I'm really enjoying the Book Club series and I'm glad to see you're doing 1984.
	Since you already did a movie book review with Demolition Man, maybe finish off the dystopian futures with Soylent Green and maybe Logan's Run?
	What is that?
	Maybe.
	Soylent Green.
	I keep hearing about it but I never actually looked at it.
	Yeah, I've never seen the film or read the book.
	But I'm not ruling it out.
	It just seemed natural to do 1984 next, because A, we'd done all the sort of intellectual groundwork leading up to it, and Huxley and Orwell had been in contact with each other discussing dystopian predictions of the future.
	So it seemed like a natural thing to do.
	But I didn't want to obsessively focus on dystopian fiction from the 20th century.
	Yeah.
	It's just something we've sort of fallen into at the moment.
	Yeah, it just seemed like natural to carry on with it.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Good afternoon, Lotus Eaters.
	Carl, yesterday you said that the Nazis didn't allow Jews in their ranks, but they did.
	They allowed 150,000 Jewish military men.
	Why do you think that happened?
	Diversity and inclusion quotas?
	I don't know anything about that.
	No, I don't.
	I'd have to go look that up.
	So, sorry, I can't answer that.
	Hey guys, I was watching the book club and I love it.
	I was thinking about the stories, not only within books, but the stories the books themselves tell.
	Do you have any books that have a meaningful or cool story behind how they ended up on your shelf?
	Thanks.
	Does she mean the ones there?
	Yeah, well, I mean, generally.
	I'll have to have a think and get back to you on that.
	I'll have a think.
	What do you mean?
	I mean, most of them are from the book club, so when we finish a book, we put it there, so then hopefully by the end of a year or something, it'll stack.
	Yeah.
	Other than that, it's no real...
	I haven't got any particular stories, but I mean, I suppose Andy knows one.
	It's quite a long story behind how I got to know Andy Ngo.
	Yeah, I suppose so.
	I mean, yeah, there are a few, actually.
	Nothing makes me think about it.
	Because you used to carry that around with you all the place.
	Which one?
	Notes on Nationalism.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a good point.
	I think Orwell's, we did the book club of this, obviously, Orwell's Notes on Nationalism is a really useful read, because Orwell, he doesn't explicitly say it, and I didn't really understand it at the time, but now I understand that what he's talking about is a distinction away from a commitment from the abstract,
	which could be the nationalistic position that would be held by the Nazis or the fascists or whoever else, any kind of Hi guys.
	Seeing as I pay 40 bucks a month and that I was a leading video comment yesterday, may I put in my resume that I'm a leading contributor to the Lotus Eaters podcast?
	I don't know if leading is accurate.
	Regular, possibly.
	I mean, what are we going to do?
	Stop you?
	Yeah, exactly.
	We're not going to take legal action or anything.
	Go ahead, mate.
	If you think we're important enough to do it, I say do it.
	Is there another one?
	Yeah.
	Morning, guys.
	I know you're not very much into Scottish politics, but I think since you're doing the 1984 review, you should take a look at Herst Sturgeon's SNP's new political video.
	Scotland's natural resources have been depleted a full third with the amount of gas she just lit.
	I will look that up.
	I haven't seen it.
	Have you seen it?
	No, I'm going to check out the YouTube channel.
	No, no, no.
	We do like Scottish politics because it's kind of ominous warning of what we could become were we to follow the national socialist route of the SNP, an international socialist route of the SNP. And so, yeah, no, Scottish politics are very instructive.
	Anyway, Problem Child says, with Carl sitting on the wrong side again, I can only assume this is some sort of dietary power struggle in the office, and Callum somehow overthrew the keto czar.
	Kind of.
	No, he forced me here.
	You see, it's like the trick is to make people think that I'm not in control when in fact secretly I'm in control.
	Whether leading from behind or whatever Lao Tzu used to say.
	Is that what you said?
	Pretty sure it's a lawsuit quote.
	I would have to look it up.
	Land of the White People says, I'm starting to worry about this new arrangement.
	Carl needs to re-establish his keto supremacy before we start getting mandatory bread products at each meal.
	I mean, A, obviously I'd be close to that.
	I'm going to start taking sponsorships from bread companies.
	You've got to understand about the keto conspiracy that's taking place behind the scenes.
	It's all about movement of pawns and the puppeteering of people.
	Before you know it, Callum will be like, you know what, I actually do need to do this keto.
	This podcast, sponsored by Hovis.
	Hovis, the finest quality bread.
	Haram.
	Christian says, if Derek Chauvin is found not guilty, I'm going to build my own water company called Hydration Industries and make a fortune selling all the water that will inevitably be needed to put out the ensuing fires across America and beyond.
	Yeah, I mean, honestly, this is what I was saying a couple of podcasts ago.
	This is going to be really bad.
	And it's the media that's doing this.
	The reason that they are misrepresenting the events of the trial and how poorly things are going for the prosecution is because they want suddenly for Derek Chauvin to get off and for the public to be not in any way informed as to why Chauvin was not charged with this.
	And so they can just basically go, see?
	Proof of racism.
	Didn't we tell you, folks?
	You know, you don't know any different.
	If you want to go out and burn down cities, well, we'll report on it and give you all the favorable coverage you need.
	Mostly peaceful response to the racism of the Derek Chauvin trial.
	That's what they're going to say.
	We have no way of influencing it.
	I would just say if you live in Minneapolis or a major city, probably leave for a weekend.
	Make your preparations.
	If you can't, just prepare yourself, I guess.
	But the interesting thing I want to see is, when the riots do break out, who are they going to blame?
	Because they used to blame on Donald Trump, remember?
	So now, is this Biden's fault?
	Well, now it's institutional racism.
	Which Biden is totally fixing, we swear.
	Just like Obama was when we got the first black president.
	Racism's over.
	It's almost like it was never there, and you guys are just making this up.
	Yeah, this was never the problem.
	Heathcliff says the BBC has published no less than 21 articles on the George Floyd trial, and not one of them mentions the toxicology report.
	Our point exactly.
	They want it to be...
	State-funded media.
	But it's the activists who are running it.
	That's the problem.
	And everyone knows...
	It's not even just private media.
	Yeah, of course.
	But the BBC is a hive of wokists, and everyone knows it.
	No one denies this.
	I mean, even the Corbyn supporters accept that the BBC has a lot of woke lefties in it.
	And, as it says, they literally present the prosecution arguments as fact with no mention of the defense, which is why your clips have been doing so well, incidentally.
	Yeah, we've been getting an amazing amount of reach with the clips, just explaining the defense's position.
	And again, we keep reiterating, we don't give a toss about who wins this.
	We've got no interest in Chauvin or the prosecutors.
	Yeah.
	We just want to see what the justice has done.
	But just showing the defense's side seemingly is in high demand.
	One of the things, I mean, this might be a bit of a conspiracy theorist in me, but I'm looking at, what was it, the YouTube algorithm got an update, a little bit of an upgrade regarding people criticizing the election.
	And we got banned, Crowder got banned, Salty Cracker got banned, a whole bunch of other people got banned all at the same time.
	Just as the trial started, and then all of a sudden, there's no ability to just talk about the defense's position.
	Yeah, it really makes you think.
	Although, what do you think of Crowder's return?
	He got back on YouTube sooner than we did.
	Well, we're on Second Strike, so we're on a two-week span.
	Yeah, Crowder, I don't know if people have seen, he decided to reenact the knee on the neck.
	The purpose of this was to show whether or not it actually could have killed him.
	That is something he did.
	We didn't do that.
	Looks like he couldn't, that's the thing.
	Because if it's right that his knee was on the base of his neck, well that's not blocking anything.
	And if it is on his neck, and let's just say for the sake of argument he's supplying a high amount of pressure, well if he's not actually, if he's going it from the back, I don't really see how that blocks the windpipe.
	Like it certainly isn't blocking the arteries.
	Well I mean, the autopsy certainly didn't show it either.
	Well, I don't know about the details of the autopsy.
	I mean, they didn't have any bruising or anything.
	That's correct.
	Yeah.
	And again, more evidence might come out.
	And I keep saying this, expecting some to come out for the prosecution.
	And every single day, it just gets worse and worse.
	What do they have?
	That's the problem.
	Like, physically, there was no damage to his neck or the back of his neck.
	He was off his face on drugs.
	He appears to have spilled drugs everywhere from his mouth.
	I mean, you saw them crushed up.
	He was obviously chewing them rampantly.
	It's like, oh, come on.
	Come on.
	This is so obvious.
	But the thing is, there's no way any of the people who are like, yeah, we saw him.
	He done did it.
	There's no way any of those people are going to accept any of this.
	Yeah, I mean, I've seen some of the comments on our videos just giving the defense's perspective of people being really angry and being like, how can you say this?
	And it's like, well, because there's video evidence, that's why.
	Pleased to be the facts.
	But the people seeing the video evidence in our clips and still being like, nope, I know what I saw.
	It's like, well, good for you.
	I'm glad that you can see something and know everything about it instantly.
	I mean, that's literally the argument of Bigfoot hunters.
	That's so true.
	That's literally it.
	I saw the footage and I don't care what you're saying.
	I know what I saw.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And the thing is, in some ways, I am sympathetic to that.
	Yeah, no, I'm becoming more sympathetic to it now.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But, you know, that's only because there isn't much scientific evidence for Bigfoot.
	You know, if, you know, like, there are people who find, like, you know, bits of hair and stuff, it's like, that's from a deer.
	It's like, yeah, but I know what I saw.
	Yeah, but that is from a deer.
	You know, or this is from a brown bear or something.
	It's like, yeah, but I know what I saw.
	I know you saw something, but, you know.
	Who builds a fursuit like that?
	And who puts massive jugs on it for no reason?
	That's going to be my argument in favour of why Bigfoot exists when we do the premium podcast.
	I am too.
	It's going to be a great podcast.
	I don't believe in Bigfoot, but I want to.
	I want to believe is genuinely my position, so I'm going to be arguing for the affirmative.
	That's also the prosecution's position at this point.
	Incidentally, yes, that's true.
	Anyway, how many prosecutors does it take to convict a crooked cop?
	Apparently more.
	Be safe, everyone.
	Yeah, apparently quite a few.
	Crowder's knee-on-the-back-of-the-neck experiment was pretty telling, says ammonium mentave...
	I can't pronounce that.
	As there's the response to it.
	I have a feeling the pulling back of the curtain will result in the removal from YouTube.
	Unfortunately, can't have people showing the truth like that.
	Crowder's obviously a marked man, so I'm surprised that he's brave enough to do that, but...
	He's got the mud club, so I think he's sort of accepting his fate.
	Yeah, probably.
	Gary says, It's not clear if Chauvin had his hands in his pockets or not.
	I've seen lots of tweets saying he did, and it shows how casual he was in killing someone.
	You can see him with his hands in his pockets.
	I can't remember off the top of my head.
	Well, that was the thing.
	His hands are literally half in his pockets.
	He's just sat there really relaxed looking.
	This is the thing.
	He's still got sunglasses on his head.
	He's just sat there for ages.
	He looks bored.
	He doesn't look like he's a man trying to murder someone.
	You'd expect a bit more oomph, I guess.
	The jury in the Chauvin trial is not in an enviable position at all, says Tom Wye.
	Yeah, not at all, because the New York Times is trying to essentially dox them, because they want to bully them into convicting Derek Chauvin, because, I mean...
	Because they hate justice.
	Yeah.
	So you don't have to bully jurors.
	I don't care if he's guilty or not.
	You shouldn't have to interfere like this.
	Another radical position.
	Don't bully jurors.
	Provided they see the trial through a similar lens as we do, hopefully an accurate enough one, will they decide based on the evidence and testimony or will they cave into the pressure to convict Chauvin?
	Any predictions?
	Well, I don't know, but...
	I don't want to predict.
	One of the things I did find really funny we were joking about, so the jurors, I think it's majority white, there are a significant amount of jurors who identify as black and then a few that are mixed race.
	What would be really funny is if all the white jurors vote guilty and all the non-white jurors vote not guilty.
	Yeah.
	But I don't want to make any actual predictions.
	No, no, no.
	We don't know what's going to happen, obviously.
	Daniel says, I have some police training from work experience, a short stint as a cadet.
	Something in Britain we are told and taught is how to restrain someone safely.
	We're taught not to put too much pressure on the chest as the weight of their own body could lead them to asphyxiating because the lungs can't expand.
	Fair point.
	That actually is also with the use of force expert, where he's like, look, we advise them not to do this, but if the circumstances provide it, it is better you do something than let this guy end up getting killed or killing someone else.
	HR Slave says, I can't help but wonder if the reason the prosecution is making such a mess of their case...
	It's because the left-wing activists have gotten so used to be able to make any outrageous claims that they like without being challenged on it that their lawyers even forgot in a court case that the other side gets to respond and ask their own questions and there's no block button in a courtroom.
	That's true.
	But that's the point.
	I think there is that, you know, it's not the primary thing.
	I think there's an undercurrent of that.
	The arrogance and thinking, well, no one on social media could challenge me.
	I was used to just having my own way with my narrative.
	I can avoid engaging with anyone I don't like engaging with.
	I mean, this is something we saw at the Kill the Bill protest.
	You know, as soon as I started engaging with them, they'd say, oh, no, I can't talk to you.
	It's like, why?
	Because I'm going to say something that you know you can't refute.
	Yeah.
	It's just embarrassing.
	Yeah.
	And it's because they just...
	It's one of the things I do like about the right wing.
	I mean, not really identifying myself as a right winger or anything, but the right wing are just happy to talk, whereas left wingers, if they get into a conversation they don't like, block.
	Yeah.
	Jump.
	Eject.
	Even IRL. And then IRL, it looks stupid.
	Lee Burdett.
	You're telling me this is the prosecution's case?
	The defense's case hasn't even started yet, and it seems the prosecution has made most of their case for them.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's that bad.
	It's not looking good.
	Like, they're getting creamed.
	Rose says, Your Honor, I object.
	On what grounds?
	Because it's devastating to my case.
	Derek Chauvin didn't have his hands in his pockets.
	He was wearing dark gloves.
	This is clearly shown in parts of the videos.
	Keep up the excellent work.
	Right, okay, I'll have to...
	Can you get a picture of Chauvin?
	Sure, sure.
	Because I was persuaded that he had his hands in his pockets.
	Gary Robbins, on the point of hearing I ate too many drugs, I refer you to P.K.'s misheard lyrics skit where the audience can be convinced that they hear something different after being told what to listen for.
	Yeah, you know, people's perceptions like this can be easily influenced and so are not normally that helpful, actually.
	Is he right?
	He does seem to have gloves, but he's also got his hands in his pockets.
	Oh, no, no, no, you're right, you're right.
	No, no, you can see he's got his hands sort of bent over on his...
	Right, fair play, fair enough.
	I was wrong.
	So which one is it?
	Well, look, the glove is just very dark and his trousers are very dark.
	So you are right, but, I mean, he doesn't look like he's putting any particular effort into anything that he's doing.
	Hmm.
	Although you've got to admit, from this angle, it does look like the knee is on the neck, and it looks like it could be on the vein or something, from this angle.
	Absolutely.
	But from the other angle, it doesn't.
	So...
	What am I going to do?
	I mean, again, we don't really care.
	Like, if he is guilty, I'm sure the prosecution will play plenty of images like this.
	Great.
	And be like, look, you know, we've got better evidence, or blah, blah, blah.
	When are they doing it?
	Yeah.
	Um...
	The Civic Nationalist says, just because the report shows there is no institutional racism, they will argue that there is, because it is they who are the racist and control the institutions.
	Checkmate!
	Boris!
	We're a bunch of racists and we control these institutions.
	How can you say there's no institutional racism?
	Got him there!
	That's a great point.
	I should do that.
	I wish I'd made that point.
	That's a really good point.
	Don't go to unions because it's full of racists.
	Don't go to the police because it's full of racists.
	Or are they saying that a particular group of people, because of their skin colour, are racists?
	I don't know.
	Seems kind of racist to me.
	Good point.
	Orson Well says, since there is widespread structural and systemic racism, then all 65 minority ethnic MPs in the House should resign their posts in protest due to holding political representation in a country maintaining worse levels of racial inequality than half a century ago.
	Well, only the left-wing ones.
	Well, yeah, only the left-wing ones.
	Only if you believe it's institutionally racist, while you're participating in this, you should resign.
	Yeah.
	I mean, all the conservative ones who are just based as heck, like, they have no reason to go.
	They've earned that position.
	Your slaves failed.
	Your ancestors failed, even.
	Kemi Baden, not 2020.
	God, if she goes for Lena, that'll be amazing.
	It'd be amazing just to watch the left-wing reaction.
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, what do you want to bet as well?
	I mean, A, I think she'll do a good thing.
	It'll probably be Priti Patel, so it'll be the first, you know, woman of colour.
	That'll be the headline.
	It'll be a conservative, just like it was the first woman.
	Base, ultra-conservative Indian lady, yeah.
	But then Kemi should do it afterwards.
	It would just be amazing.
	What are the left going to argue?
	Yeah.
	You're a bunch of white supremacists.
	Well, what's she going to want to do?
	That'll be more interesting.
	You're lost.
	That's why.
	Kevin Payton docs campaign poster which is her with her knee on her neck.
	With one of the Labour MPs.
	No.
	I can't stop imagining it.
	Kneel on the neck of Keir Starmer.
	Evan says, Hey guys, I have a question that's really important to convince people BLM is a problem.
	How do you respond to the argument BLM isn't organized enough to claim they can be held responsible for anything?
	Well, I would point to their organizations.
	Sorry, Al-Qaeda isn't responsible for anything then.
	A, there's that.
	But B, BLM have international organizations, national organizations, and literally billions in funding.
	I think it's very easy to point out that Black Lives Matter is organised.
	But as you said, by that token then, ISIS and Al-Qaeda...
	Any decentralised group is no longer a thing.
	What about the Nazi organisations by that?
	Well, no, they were centralised.
	How centralised?
	Well, a lot more than, like, anarchists.
	National action and stuff like that.
	Oh, you mean modern day ones, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, no, I don't mean the Nazi party.
	Oh, that's why I was confused.
	Yeah, obviously, but, like, the ones that are prescribed now, it's like, well, they're decentralised as well.
	I don't know anything about the, like, organisation of those groups, but, I mean, if they were decentralised...
	I can't imagine they've got headquarters.
	But if they were decentralised, the same argument would apply.
	Yeah, whereas Black Lives Matter, they probably do have a registered address that you can go down and fucking interview them by.
	They're crowdfunders.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're pretty well organised.
	Matt says, the race report is a lie, says the team of hashtag Believe in Science.
	Yeah, they do not like this.
	Believe in our science.
	Yes.
	Letter from the race-baiting industry.
	Dear government, we, the underlying, don't like any institution that brown and black people can't be successful in, in the UK. Signed, a multimillionaire doctor, a multimillionaire sportsman, a multimillionaire recording artist, a successful TV host, a very successful MP, a well-known and successful social media blogger, a multimillionaire football agent, etc., etc., and they're all people of colour.
	Let's move on to the next section as we're running out of time.
	It's just so stupid.
	It's so dumb.
	It's like, one day we'll have a black president.
	I mean, it's that argument.
	I'm just picturing Pritchard and going, no you won't.
	We Conservatives will have one!
	Well, I mean, look at it.
	Labour have failed at absolutely everything.
	Who's the first female Prime Minister?
	Conservative.
	Who's the next female Prime Minister?
	Conservative.
	They can't even get a woman leader.
	Exactly.
	They can't even get a woman leader of the Labour Party.
	It's like, well, what the hell?
	How is it that you're like, oh, we want women leaders.
	Okay, well, do what the Conservatives do.
	They've had two female Prime Ministers.
	Because first, to become the leader, you have to be an MP, and that's quite a high position in the party.
	And the way you get to that in that party is all through diversity hires, which means you don't get very remarkable people.
	Instead, you get the diversity hires.
	Whereas for the Conservatives, it's just, are you good?
	Go up.
	Don't worry, Jess.
	I'm rooting for you.
	Next time you'll do it.
	Next time you'll beat the straight white man with the knighthood and you can be Prime Minister.
	It's a heck of an insult for her, isn't it?
	You're a diversity hire.
	She admits it.
	Did she?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Read her book.
	In her book, she's like, I'm proud to have been on an all-woman shortlist.
	Oh, God.
	I'm not even joking.
	We'll do a book club of Jess Phillips' book at some point.
	It was like reading something written by five.
	I'm a proud diversity hire.
	I don't have any talent, but I've got a womb.
	That was literally her argument, yeah.
	Oh, man.
	Proud to be on an all-woman shortlist.
	I'm proud to be a womb.
	There was no all-woman shortlist for you, Vicky, trust me.
	T.F. Allspark says, Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in my life.
	I'm going to meet my soon-to-be boss.
	We will discuss my future work days and courses, as well as meeting with a potential landlord who lives close to the job.
	About three hours to go, and I'm really excited after over a year of nothing to do.
	Best of luck to all of you out there, and I'll make the best out of this chance.
	And, of course, Hail Hydra.
	Hashtag get Vicky in the chair.
	If we put Vicky in the chair, then someone else would have to run the place, and...
	That would probably lead to the collapse of the place, so that's not possible.
	Kelly M says, can us atheists start campaigning to stop assigning religion at birth if you cannot even assign gender?
	Also, loving seeing the whole of Callum's face.
	Getting more and more confident, so you'd be considered a toxic white man in a position of power.
	Sexy.
	Ooh, you've got simps.
	I disavow.
	Although I do like some of the chat here pointing out that it's like, Jess Phillip, I'm a proud wet hole.
	Ha ha ha!
	I didn't say that.
	But that's the argument.
	I'm just a woman.
	And it's like, okay, but...
	There are lots of them.
	I suppose, actually, she's not making the argument of Carly B, which is the reference to the wet hole.
	She's just a sex object.
	She's claiming to be a woman, not a sex object.
	Jess Phillips is more dignity than that.
	Yeah.
	She's just a diversity hire.
	At least she's not Cardi B, I guess.
	Low far to entry, but, I mean, I think we should give Jess Phillips the dignity she deserves.
	She's not basically a prostitute.
	Yeah.
	Unlike Kylie B, who essentially is.
	Nicholas Malston, folks, I've managed to catch up with the episodes I missed, including the latest book club and premium interview with Helen Dale.
	Oh, good.
	As always, excellent job.
	Helen Dale is based and the brave new world is terrifying.
	It feels like this book is becoming reality the longer we live, and this must not happen.
	We must better ourselves as much as possible so we could be an example and inspiration to others to do the same.
	The enlightenment starts within ourselves.
	Well, that's true.
	Tyler says, update from yesterday, I contacted the MP for North Wiltshire and he responded quite quickly, showing some resistance to the KOOF passports and also mentioned his libertarian values.
	Yeah, we told you he was based.
	I can't remember his name though.
	Can you look it up?
	MP for North Wiltshire.
	It's going to be someone like Tony Smith or something.
	Really generic.
	Hopefully that's paired with whatever Labour, Lib Dems and SMP are doing, we'll get it binned.
	James Gray.
	James Gray, there we go.
	Yeah, but he's been a staunch Brexiteer and people are like, oh, you should stand for office.
	It's like, yeah, but the guy I'm going against actually really like, he's totally like based libertarian basically.
	It's like, yeah, no, screw that, screw the EU, screw diversity, screw wokeism.
	So why would I want to oppose this guy?
	And he's been increasing his share every time he's been elected as well.
	So it's like, okay, so we're a deeply conservative area with a really based MP. I'm not challenging that.
	I'd rather move to Reading or something and challenge that.
	God, please.
	No, I'm not kidding.
	Anyway, right, so last one.
	We know Carl's game.
	Promote Callum to host presenter.
	He has to do a lot more talking in the paperwork of the show so Carl can sit back and tee off as the commentator.
	Is this work smarter, not harder?
	Harder, a tenet of dadism.
	Can't go revealing my secrets, Henry.
	I mean, you have to have days off, so.
	Yeah, at one point.
	Yeah.
	Sometime.
	In the future.
	Yeah.
	Maybe.
	I'm looking forward to it.
	I suppose I'm in charge of the schedule, so I suppose I'll decide.
	Anyway, that's probably not enough time for today, so we will be back tomorrow, 1pm.
	Yep.
	1pm.
	UK time.

▲