Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 3, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:00

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1014

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 3rd of October 2024.
	I am joined by my esteemed guest.
	By your esteemed guest?
	My esteemed ham.
	Harry Robinson.
	Hello!
	I'm getting a full name intro today, for some reason.
	I don't know, I just felt like it.
	And who are you?
	A shell of a man.
	Josh.
	Now, I never introduce myself.
	I don't need any introductions.
	But today we're going to be talking about how the death penalty is good, and Harry's going to say how a certain fella being put to death is a good thing, which I'm inclined to agree with.
	That's right.
	You, the viewer, watching this right now.
	Pfft.
	Scary.
	Scary stuff.
	I'm going to be talking about how resistance to wokeness in gaming has seen lots of successes, and it gives you a model for success in other areas as well, which I think is very interesting, and actually there are lots of unique things about it.
	That I think are worthy of examining for the broader culture war as well.
	And you're talking about the grand vision of David Lammy, geopolitical of course, because he is...
	He's one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
	He is.
	He has an IQ that is so large that they had to redefine the upper bound.
	It's at least in double digits.
	It's true.
	Maybe even single.
	Only at most, actually.
	At most in single, in double digits.
	So, also an announcement, Tomlinson Talks had to be re-uploaded, so if you watched it and had any technical difficulties, there should be some new files there and it should be fine.
	So, yes, also make sure to check it out more generally if you haven't seen it.
	And I think to take us away with, with a little burp...
	Nice and ready for your sake.
	It's already begun.
	Murphy Harry is joining us today.
	That's how I should have introduced you.
	I'd be a terrible news broadcaster, wouldn't I? What we do cut out at the start is when we sat with Harry, tapping him on the back.
	I had his Lucas aid.
	What you didn't catch was that right before we started broadcasting, Josh let out one that put me to shame.
	That is true.
	I had a great big bowl of Korean rice.
	Josh ate a lot of Korean, and understandably it's backing up on him right now, so there might be a little brown stain by the time we're done.
	You might hear a bit of barking coming out of me.
	No, I had chicken.
	Or so I thought.
	They said it was chicken.
	It tasted like it as well.
	Alright, okay.
	A lot tastes like chicken.
	Anyway.
	I'm sure you didn't eat a dog, Josh.
	Don't worry.
	Thank you.
	Alright.
	That's a goose.
	Right, we should actually get serious and start now.
	Alright, so.
	The death penalty is a good thing.
	And to explain why it's a good thing, I'm going to talk about a particular case where the death penalty was applied last week to a convicted murderer who was, yes, very, very guilty, called Marcellus Williams.
	And this execution that was performed on him was just, righteous, and correct.
	It was justice being done.
	Of course, if you believed the mainstream media and believed everything that the media were reporting about the case that led up to his death penalty conviction, then you would believe that they had put an innocent man to the lethal injection.
	This is not true.
	Was the message, he was a good boy, he didn't do nothing.
	That was the spirit of the message, although they tried to wrap it up in a lot of very, very poor, very faulty legal arguments, along with a lot of pointing at DNA evidence when it really didn't apply to this particular case.
	because they were hoping that normal people who read about it in the newspapers and on the BBC and on The Innocent Project, our favourites, The Innocence Project...
	Covered them before, haven't we?
	...who you can guarantee if they are supporting someone's cause, that person is not innocent because they were putting forward this case, presenting a particular version of this case that left out many of the key details.
	Well, The Innocence Project have actually got innocent people arrested in the place of the person who is actually guilty, which...
	Perhaps that's why they call...
	Which they're not.
	That's the last thing you'd want to do.
	The Innocence Project as an organisation exists purely to get black people out of the consequences of their actions.
	That's what it is.
	But anyway, first, speaking of the death penalty, I hope you've bought Islander.
	I hope you've bought Islander.
	I know last time I said that if you've not bought it yet, I'll track you down.
	We're past that point.
	If you're still waiting on buying it, which you can do by going to the website, it's £14.99.
	Excellent deal.
	You've got articles in here by me, by Carl, by The Academic Agent, by The Distributist, Seth and Molyneux, many others.
	But if you haven't bought it yet, you're not going to have me to worry about.
	I'm going to send Josh after you.
	Yeah, you've had the good cop, now you've got the bad cop.
	Just look at what I can do to this mic stand.
	I can choke it out, you see?
	In person, he's much more fearsome.
	Urgh.
	He will track you down and he will politely ask you to buy a copy of Islander.
	Very politely, yes.
	This is my promise.
	Anyway, so, now that you've bought a copy of Islander, so, Marcellus Williams, here's how it's being reported and here are the general details that you'll get from the mainstream media.
	So he was executed last Tuesday, the 24th of September, in the night in the US state of Missouri after spending more than two decades on death row.
	Far too long.
	Williams had two previous executions stayed and maintained that he was innocent in the case of a 1998 fatal stabbing of a white woman called Felicia Gale in a St.
	Louis suburb, and a wide swath of people had opposed his death sentence.
	Now remember this, he maintained that he was innocent, he kept saying he was innocent, and as we'll see, the mainstream media takes this as a guarantee that he was innocent.
	An attorney representing Williams argued that there was racial discrimination in selecting jurors, and that the DNA evidence in the case was mishandled.
	These are all sleight-of-hand arguments being made that I'm drawing your attention to right now for when we actually go through the details later.
	To bring up someone who actually didn't do nothing, Derek Chauvin's trial, they actually hand-picked black people to be on the panel, which I found interesting, and now they're saying that there was racial bias in the selection of the jury because perhaps they didn't do this?
	There was one black person on the jury, everybody else was white, so therefore this was racially biased.
	There's Probably still over-represented if they're doing it as a percentage of the population.
	Well, it's in St.
	Louis, Missouri, so I don't know the racial breakdown in that state.
	But either way, actual Justice Warrior has a very good video on the same subject where he breaks down how in the American jury selection process, you actually have the right to exclude people from the jury without giving a reason.
	You can just, as part of the selection, say, we just don't want this person on there.
	We just don't like you.
	That's how it works, and that's how it should work.
	Williams was denied a last-minute reprieve from the US Supreme Court after Missouri's top court and governor rejected his clemency request earlier this week.
	So this has gone through over 15 years, I think, of litigation regarding the state of execution, whether the death penalty should be applied.
	Every single time it's been looked into, re-litigated over and over again, it has been upheld.
	So that should say something that the media is not telling you.
	In a rare move, the three liberal justices on the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson, said on Tuesday that they disagreed with the conservative majority and would have granted a stay of execution.
	They did not give a reason.
	Of course they didn't, because being liberals, their reasons were that he was black and therefore is innocent of all things at all times.
	True.
	At his trial, prosecutors said that Williams broke into Ms.
	Gale's home in August 1998 and stabbed her 43 times with a large butcher knife before stealing her purse and her husband's laptop.
	Ms.
	Gale was a social worker and former reporter at the St.
	Louis Post-Dispatch.
	Lawyers for Williams said that there were concerns over the handling of the case, arguing black jurors were wrongly excluded from his trial.
	Whatever you want to make of that argument, they were wrongly excluded, which they weren't.
	There is a fact I want to highlight here, which is that black jurors in the US are notoriously biased towards black suspects.
	Look at the OJ trial.
	They're just like, he's innocent, he's black, he's just like me, therefore he cannot do crime.
	Well, some of the black jurors who were selected for the OJ trial later came out, one of them gave a black power fist...
	For one, and then turned out later to have been a member of the Black Panthers in his youth.
	No way.
	One of them came out a few years ago in a CBS documentary and said explicitly that 90% of the jury's feeling was that he was guilty, but that they needed to let him off as revenge for Rodney King and the LA riots.
	These aren't good people.
	They're willing to let murderers go free because of their own perceived indiscretions.
	Consider that one of the jurors for Derek Chauvin, that you mentioned, later turned out to be a BLM activist after the trial was concluded.
	That's not exactly a fair juror, is it?
	That's enough to bias someone's assessment of someone's innocence or guilt, isn't it?
	So I know this is painting with a very, very broad brush, but experience has shown, with a few major cases, that a lot of them can't be trusted with this kind of responsibility because they have incredibly strong tribal in-group preference that means that even if they do think that the person is guilty, they will get them off because they see the consequences for that person as directly part of their experience in America.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's also worth mentioning as well, 1998 fatal stabbing.
	This has been going on for so long, why is he not dead and already in the ground long ago?
	Well, as in, this should have happened that same year, ideally.
	I understand trials take time, maybe the year afterwards.
	He was predicted in 2001.
	It shouldn't take that long.
	Well, there's reasons for that, which we'll get into.
	Because immediately after the murder, Marcellus Williams was not on the police's radar.
	At all.
	And it was exceptional circumstances that put him on their radar.
	That you will not get from any of these reports.
	But the BBC article carries on to say they also said there was no forensic evidence linking Williams to the crime scene and that the murder weapon had been mishandled, raising questions over DNA evidence.
	Now, bear in mind, this happened in 1998.
	The trial originally took place in 2000-2001.
	When he was originally indicted for it.
	And touch DNA, which is what they're complaining about, was not on these people's mind at the time.
	And the mishandling of the evidence was that procedure at the time was after it had been scanned for any evidence they could find on it in a lab, then you were alright, as the police investigated, to touch it with no gloves.
	Because they'd already done all the tests that they needed to.
	That's what the mishandling was.
	It's not really mishandling by the standards of the time, it's that the methods have developed since, and by our modern standards it has been mishandled.
	But that's only a testament to the fact that this has dragged on for so long.
	Yeah, these are all very, very modern arguments that are consistently used by the Innocent Project, where they go back to cases from the 90s...
	Cases from before we had anywhere near as rigorous DNA testing or touch DNA testing which is what they use a lot of and they go back and they reanalyze the DNA and they get it retested obviously on evidence that a lot of the time is decades old at this point so the DNA evidence that's on there will have decayed they'll get some faulty results back and then say the results were inconclusive therefore they're innocent That's a really consistent tactic that they use.
	His execution has been stayed twice, once in 2017, once in 2015, due to the discovery of male DNA on the murder weapon that did not match Williams that later turned out to have been the police officers who touched it after the crime scene investigation.
	Unsurprising, really.
	I imagine that they could even sample the DNA from the police officers involved and get a match.
	Yeah, so activist lawyers, activist groups have been able to consistently have been able to pry this case back open on BS claims like that.
	Well, there's actually other DNA on the knife, so it must have been somebody else.
	And then it turns out to have been, no, it was because of the fact that there was a police officer touched it after it had already been tested.
	That's what lawyers do, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	That's their profession.
	That's to be scumbagged, yes.
	The Midwest Innocence Project, a legal group whose attorneys represented Williams, worked to reach an agreement with the prosecutor's office that Williams would enter a no-contest plea to first-degree murder in exchange for life in prison rather than an execution.
	But the Missouri Supreme Court blocked the agreement and ruled the death sentence would stand.
	Mr.
	Williams' story echoes that of too many others caught in our country's broken criminal legal system, said the Innocence Project.
	A black man convicted of killing a white woman, Mr.
	Williams, maintained his innocence.
	Until the very end.
	And again, if he was actually innocent, the Innocence Project would not have been supporting him for so long.
	There's more information on the Al Jazeera website regarding this.
	So this is another, not mainstream source, but another very biased source.
	This gives a bit more information, so yep.
	It says that lawyers argued that there was no forensic evidence connecting Williams to the crime scene and the murder weapon had been mishandled.
	According to a report by the Associated Press, Williams' defense also argued that both Marcellus Williams' girlfriend and Henry Cole, who presented witness testimony against him, had felony convictions and were seeking a $10,000 reward.
	They also noted that other evidence, such as a bloody shoe print and hair found at the crime scene, did not match Williams.
	So this is some of the arguments that they're using against the case.
	was made against him Amusingly in this, they offer a little punchline here, which was that officials said that Williams' last meal before his execution was chicken wings and tater tots.
	No comment.
	Okay, what does the Innocence Project website have to say about this?
	Who is Marcellus Williams?
	Well, they do their little thing where they have a list, a numbered list, where they explain how he's definitely innocent.
	Number one, crime scene covered with forensic evidence contained no link to Mr.
	Williams.
	He'd been seeking to prove his innocence throughout the 23 years.
	The perpetrator, so they're saying, you know, obviously someone killed her.
	The Innocence Project doesn't know how.
	Would the Innocence Project step forward to say that they would help?
	That they've identified other suspects?
	No.
	I mean, you've suggested that they have actually done that before and got it wrong, so thank God that they did.
	Well, it was that guy who they went on Joe Rogan with, didn't they?
	Oh, that What gentleman?
	Yeah, he had another man's severed head in a fridge.
	And this was after his Joe Rogan appearance, wasn't it?
	I think so, yeah.
	It might have even been before.
	I can't remember the timeline of it.
	It was quite a while ago now.
	But basically, yeah, he had been out of prison for a very short amount of time and beheaded someone.
	Very innocent.
	So, the perpetrator left behind considerable forensic evidence, including fingerprints, footprints, hair, and trace DNA on the murder weapon.
	So, they're just ignoring everything to do with the mishandling of the DNA. Well, they're saying it was mishandled, but at the same time they're saying, well, there was DNA on the murder weapon, which we already know was the police officers.
	So...
	And also, this was done at a house.
	So, there's fingerprints, footprints, hair, at a house...
	No way.
	I know.
	I know.
	Remarkable.
	Which could only belong to the murderer.
	And none of that happened to fit Mr.
	Williams.
	So, obviously it can't have been him.
	They use the argument of the racial bias against him, saying that, oh, well, you know, there was 11 white people on the jury and only one black person, so automatically those white people must have nothing but hatred in their hearts.
	They're not able to look at a case objectively, unlike if the jury had been composed of 12 black people.
	Because everyone knows they're objective.
	Yes.
	And therefore, it must have been a racial lynching.
	And number seven, here's another way that he's innocent.
	He's a devoutly religious man and an accomplished poet.
	During his 23 years in prison, he's devoted much of his time to studying Islam and writing poetry.
	Well, speed the process up, I say.
	Because no one guilty of murder has ever been Muslim, is the argument they must have been making.
	Yes.
	ISIS? No.
	No.
	Atheists.
	Well, they must have been.
	If they murdered people, they must have been.
	The Innocence Project also makes claims, along with a lot of the other articles, that the witnesses, who are Marcellus Williams' ex-girlfriend and this other man, Henry Cole, gave details that were already known to the public by the time that they spoke to the police.
	We'll find out as this goes on that was a complete lie.
	That is a complete lie.
	The Innocence Project is not above lying.
	In fact, it is their stock and trade to lie on behalf of guilty, guilty men and murderers.
	But then you get the typical outpouring of leftist emotional BS regarding this, summed up quite nicely with this little Wojak meme.
	Interesting hat.
	This person on death row is innocent, same as the last person on death row, and the next person on death row, in fact, everyone in prison is innocent.
	Also, there's no criminals at all.
	All crime is committed by 10 to 15 white police officers, which I think is exaggerated, yes, but an accurate representation of leftist thought processes on how crime exists.
	Crime exists because police officers exist, police officers commit crime, and pin it on innocent black men.
	I think that's literally how they think the world works.
	Even when they're videoed by third parties with no horse in the race and you can see the crime going on, secretly a white person behind it.
	AI and CGI. We're just that sneaky.
	You're really falling for those tricks, Josh.
	No, but obviously this is the mindset, and obviously these people are insane.
	AOC had a big brain Latina take on this, saying we must abolish the death penalty because the leftist hates nothing more than seeing consequences applied to guilty people.
	If anything, it needs to be massively sped up.
	Yeah.
	There is this sort of statement put out here.
	I hope Marcellus Williams knows the support he had.
	This is insane.
	And then if you go to this other person's same posts, such a victim mentality.
	Women have to carry around pepper spray, tasers, watch their drinks, can't walk alone at night.
	They don't know if we care.
	Well, we don't know if we're safe.
	And we have to look over our shoulders 24-7.
	I wonder why that is.
	I wonder why.
	I wonder why you're not safe.
	I wonder if there's anything to do with criminals being on the streets that you support being on there and your lack of safety in society.
	And then you also get the headlines, the disgusting headlines from places like The Atlantic that literally just says, why are innocents still being executed with Marcellus Williams?
	In the thumbnail.
	So this isn't even trying to say, well, some consider he's innocent, some might think he's innocent.
	They're saying, yeah, he's innocent.
	Which he's not.
	He was convicted.
	He is a convicted murderer who is now dead, rightfully so, because he murdered an innocent woman for the sake of stealing a laptop and a purse.
	Anyone who defends these sorts of people, murderers, I feel like nobody goes quite hard enough because they're basically enabling people to get away with murder, which is one of the worst things you could do with your sense of agency in a society.
	People like this, in a just world, would be exiled, would be imprisoned themselves.
	I agree.
	Other headlines that I saw was that USA Today said, Missouri set to execute loving father whose DNA wasn't on murder weapon, according to attorneys.
	MSNBC said, Prosecutors say Marcellus Williams is innocent.
	No, they don't.
	That's a lie.
	That is an outright lie.
	He's scheduled to be executed anyway.
	And there was an opinion essay for The Hill that said that the execution was a tragedy and called it legally sanctioned murder.
	I mean, it's a legally sanctioned killing, but it's just and it's correct that it happened.
	So what actually did happen?
	Well, thankfully, it's a really easily accessible case.
	Now, this is quite a long page, but I think it's...
	Important to go over some of it, particularly the key details surrounding the case and why we know it was Marcellus Williams, so that you can understand what actually happened and all of the ways that the mainstream media, the BBC, the Innocence Project, AOC, all of it are misrepresenting the facts of the case and why it was that he was able to be convicted in the first place on the strength of Of witness testimony.
	And also the lies that they're saying and saying that there is no physical evidence.
	They said there's no forensic evidence tying him to the murder scene, so that is DNA. But there is physical evidence tying him to the murder scene.
	And I think it's pretty damning, and you'll understand that these people, as Josh has intimated, are scum and also deserve to be punished for defending murderers and trying to get them back on your streets where they can go out to hurt more people.
	So, I'll read through the case.
	On August 11th, 1998, Williams drove his grandfather's Buick LeSabre to a bus stop and caught a bus to University City, which is a suburb of St. Louis in Missouri.
	Once there, he began looking for a house to break into.
	Williams came across the home of Felicia Gale.
	He knocked on the front door, but no one answered.
	Williams then knocked out a windowpane near the door, reached in, unlocked the door, and entered Gale's home.
	He went to the second floor and heard water running in the shower.
	It was Gale.
	Williams went back downstairs, rummaged through the kitchen, found a large butcher knife, and waited.
	Gale left the shower and called out, asking if anyone was there.
	She came down the stairs.
	Williams attacked, stabbing her and cutting her 43 times, inflicting seven fatal wounds.
	Afterwards, Williams went upstairs to the bathroom, washed himself off, took a jacket, and put it on to conceal the blood on his shirt.
	Before leaving, he placed Gale's purse and her husband's laptop computer and black carrying case in his backpack.
	The purse contained, among other things, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch ruler and a calculator, which were marked as such because they were property of the St. Louis Dispatch.
	Williams left out the front door and caught a bus back to the Buick.
	After returning to the car, Williams picked up his girlfriend, Laura Asaro.
	Asaro noticed that, despite the summer heat, Williams was wearing a jacket.
	When he removed the jacket, she noticed that his shirt was bloody and that he had scratches on his neck.
	Williams claimed that he had been in a fight.
	Later in the day, Williams put his bloody clothes in his backpack and threw them into a sewer drain, claiming he no longer wanted them.
	Throwing them into a sewer drain, that's not suspicious behaviour at all, is it?
	No.
	Asaro also saw a laptop computer in the car...
	A day or two after the murder, Williams sold the laptop to a man called Glenn Roberts.
	The next day, Asaro went to retrieve some clothes from the trunk of the car.
	Williams did not want her to look in the trunk and try to push her away.
	Before he could, Asaro snatched a purse from the trunk.
	She looked inside and found Gail's Missouri State Identification Card and a black coin purse.
	Asaro demanded that Williams explain why he had Gail's purse.
	He then confessed that the purse belonged to a woman he had killed.
	He explained in detail how he went into the kitchen, found a butcher knife, waited for the woman to come and get out of the shower.
	He further explained that when the woman came downstairs from the shower, he stabbed her in the arm and then put his hand over her mouth and stabbed her in the neck, twisting the knife as he went.
	After relaying the details of the murder, Williams grabbed Asaro by the throat and threatened to kill her, her children, and her mother if she told anyone.
	On August 31st, 1998, Williams was arrested on unrelated charges, They don't say it in here, but in another article I found what they were.
	It was arms robbery of a donut shop.
	And incarcerated at the St.
	Louis City Workhouse.
	From April until June 1999, Williams shared a room with a man called Henry Cole.
	One evening in May, Cole and Williams were watching television and saw a news report about Gail's murder.
	Shortly after the news report, Williams told Cole that he had committed the crime.
	Over the next few weeks, Cole and Williams had several conversations about the murder.
	As he had done with Laura Asaro, Williams went into considerable detail about how he broke into the house and killed Gail.
	So bear in mind, this is over a year...
	Almost a year after the crime was committed, the police are still looking for the culprit, and the news reports are still talking about it, and nobody knows who did it.
	And Williams is not implicated in the slightest up until this point.
	So it carries on.
	After Cole was released from jail in June 1999, he went to the University City Police and told them about Williams' involvement in Gale's murder.
	He reported details of the crime that had never been publicly reported.
	So those things where the Innocence Project and other news reports have said that, oh, it was details about the crime that had been publicly reported, that's a lie.
	That's an outright lie that is contradicted by the public legal record.
	In November of 1999, University City Police approached Asaro to speak with her about the murder.
	So Cole comes out, gives them the information...
	And then that information leads them to Asaro, who then tells the police that Williams admitted to her that he had killed Gail.
	Gives the same story.
	The next day, the police searched the Buick LeSabre and found the post-dispatch ruler and calculator belonging to Gail.
	The police also recovered the laptop computer from Glenn Roberts.
	The laptop was identified as the one stolen from Gail's residence.
	So you can see, none of the evidence, the trail of evidence, is to do with DNA. At all.
	It's all, one witness comes forward, says this is the man that did it, the police follow up on these claims by finding the woman who is said to have already heard the story, she gives the same story, leads them to the car that has Gail's property in it, and they also find the third man he sold the laptop to.
	Who still has the laptop, and Williams does not deny that he sold the laptop to Glenn Roberts.
	Also, it's so undeniable in how it all fits together.
	This is resounding evidence, you know, that they get given information by one person that leads them to someone else who independently corroborates the information, which then leads them to her property, that then leads them to the person he sold the laptop to...
	Who then gives them the laptop and confirms who sold it to them.
	And then that man does not deny that he sold it, but, in his pathetic attempts to clear his name in the case, he claimed that he was selling Gail's laptop on behalf of his girlfriend, who he said owned the laptop.
	Which is an obvious lie.
	His argument to say that this is true was that, well, she's been seen about that summer with a laptop.
	Yeah, but not that laptop.
	The laptop that has been confirmed.
	So maybe it was you or I, we both have laptops.
	Yeah, clearly.
	And he tried to, in the court case, there's a transcript of it in this, which is included in here.
	The Defence Council tries to get...
	Glenn Roberts to say it and the court snaps them down because of this.
	He smacks them down and says, you are trying to elicit a desired response that the witness is not trying to give you.
	He's not forthcoming with it.
	You're trying to elicit it from him.
	So we're going to strike this because it's not admissible as evidence because you're just trying to get the answer you want from him.
	So that's pathetic.
	There's other bits down here where it goes over ten ways that he tried to say that he was innocent or tried to argue against the case that was made for him.
	And you'll see as we go through this, all of the Innocence Project objections to the case are answered through this.
	So all of the different questions that people have that the news is reporting on saying, oh, doesn't this suggest that he's innocent, have already been dealt with.
	When's this from?
	When's this from?
	Oh, back in 2003.
	They're just lying.
	The information is out there.
	Long before.
	It's easily accessible.
	You can just Google it.
	It wouldn't be hard if you just Googled the name of the case.
	It'd be one of the top search results.
	Yep.
	So, Williams alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to evidence regarding Williams' attempt to escape from the St.
	Louis City Workhouse.
	So, when he was originally indicted for this case after the police got all of the evidence in 2001, he tried to escape the St.
	Louis City Workhouse.
	The state's evidence showed that Williams had attempted to escape approximately three weeks after he had been indicted on multiple charges, including the first-degree murder of Felicia Gale.
	The evidence also showed that on the day of the attempted escape, Williams had been sentenced to 20 years in prison on separate charges.
	During the escape, he also assaulted a guard with a metal bar.
	But he's definitely innocent.
	Williams alleges the trial court erred in failing to sustain his motion to suppress evidence of the post-dispatch ruler and a calculator seized during a warrantless search of a Buick he was driving on the day of the murder.
	So he's saying, oh, well, this can't be used as evidence because you didn't have a warrant for it.
	The police had relied upon consent given by Williams' grandfather, Walter Hill.
	Williams argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion because Hill did not have the authority to consent to his search.
	It was his car, wasn't it?
	It was his grandfather's car originally, so it was his property.
	It was his car, but his grandfather seemed to have been looking after it whilst he was in...
	I thought it was his grandfather's car.
	Let me go back...
	Just to double check, I think he borrowed his grandfather's car.
	Oh yes, you're right, you're right, drove his grandfather's car.
	You're right, I completely mixed up.
	So a warrant is irrelevant because his grandfather would be the one to consent to the search of the car, which they did ask him and he gave consent.
	So...
	I'm not even a lawyer.
	There you go.
	Yep.
	The state also introduced evidence regarding Williams' robberies of a bakery in a fast food restaurant and from a homeowner whose residence William had burglarised.
	Williams argues that this evidence constitute victim impact evidence from previous convictions.
	The court's very, very clear when they talk about this.
	It does not.
	In a death penalty trial, the defendant's character and prior record are central issues of the penalty phase.
	And to add more context to that, he already had 14 felony convictions in Including four burglaries.
	So on any of those four, he could have murdered somebody.
	This was just the first time it had happened.
	The world's better off that he's dead.
	Yeah, if you're trying to set off a pattern of behaviour, it couldn't come clearer than that.
	And on the subject of the jurists that were struck from it, the state articulated three race-neutral reasons to justify striking the first person from the panel.
	The prosecutor first explained that the person's earrings and clothing indicated that he was trying to be different and was liberal.
	The prosecutor stated that the person also resembled Williams, had the same glasses and a similar demeanour, which of course would actually impact his ability to rationally think through, because if you resemble someone and behave more like somebody, you're more likely to sympathise with them, and you want someone to be as objective as possible.
	So that's why he got rid of them.
	Of course, leftist media outlets are trying to say that this was just a way of trying to sneak racism in, because saying that he looked like somebody meant, oh, it's because he was black, wasn't it?
	Well, no, because otherwise, if it was just because he was black, he would have used the same logic for the other black jurists that he struck down.
	But that's not what they did.
	Prosecutors struck another one down because he was not definite enough on whether he could consider the death penalty, and because he was court-martialed while in the military for stealing money...
	So, a criminal.
	So you don't want a criminal judging another criminal.
	And the prosecutor struck the third person down because he was fired from his job for physically attacking a fellow employee and because he appeared upset after other jurors laughed at him as he answered the prosecutor's questions concerning that incident.
	So, emotionally unstable, physically violent.
	Yeah, you don't want any of these people on the jury judging a death penalty case.
	The other jurors laughed at me.
	I know.
	Oh, the hair and shoe prints?
	Well, Williams points to several unidentified hairs and shoe prints that were found at the murder scene.
	There was evidence that several workmen had been in Gale's home in the month before the murder.
	Furthermore, Gail's husband testified that hundreds of guests had visited their home over the years and that the carpets had never been professionally cleaned.
	There was also testimony that people lose a hundred or more hairs every day, which they do.
	The existence of several unidentified hairs thus shows nothing more than the coming and going of numerous visitors over the years.
	The Innocence Project would have you believe that all of this evidence, all of these footprints, and all of these hairs would point to, I don't know, potentially some grand conspiracy for dozens of people to have gone in and murdered Gail.
	It was a hair monster.
	Clearly.
	But there must have been some grand conspiracy for dozens of people to come in, kill her unseen, and then get away without leaving any evidence.
	Just some very hairy people.
	Or, or they were footprints and hairs that belonged to people who'd visited.
	Oh, so he was lying.
	Moreover, both Cole and Asaro testified that Williams told them he was alone when he killed Gail.
	One of the other things they miss out on all of the other ones, the reason that there was no DNA evidence on the knife, was because he was wearing gloves.
	I could have guessed that anyway.
	Yeah.
	If you're a burglar, generally speaking, you wear gloves.
	That's how it works.
	Yeah, and there's actually more information in this actually quite comprehensive and useful National Review article, I never say that very often, do I, talking about it, where they say that for all the attention the new DNA received in the media, testing actually showed that the murder weapon had been handled before the 2001 trial, thereby contaminating the evidence with the DNA of an assistant prosecuting attorney and an investigator who had handled the murder weapon without gloves prior to the trial, and Colford, Williams' former cellmate, testified that he said he was wearing gloves when he committed the murder...
	As I just mentioned, they say, Meanwhile,
	the Innocence Project has further argued that the case rests on the unreliable testimony of two incentivised witnesses.
	This is the, oh, they only did it for $10,000 reward, right?
	But the Governor's Office notes that William's girlfriend never requested a reward for the information about the murder that Cole provided, and that Cole provided information about the crime that was not publicly available at the time, but was consistent with the crime scene evidence and William's involvement.
	Cole, being a criminal...
	Did, after he gave the evidence, expect a reward, but he was only going to get that reward if it led to a conviction.
	So, if he was giving them the wrong information, that's not an incentive to go to the police in the first place if he's just feeding them lies.
	Well, that would be terrible to have a financial reward to be given the wrong information, wouldn't it?
	Exactly.
	So, the whole case is clear-cut, it is pretty black and white...
	And it's obvious that Marcellus Williams was guilty as sin.
	What happened to him, the death penalty last Tuesday, was just.
	It was correct and fair.
	It was a proper application of the law, because if we can get more murderers off of our streets, our streets will be safer.
	One of the most surefire way to get obvious, clear and convicted murderers off of our streets is to give them the lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber, whatever the preferred method of execution is.
	And it is good that he is dead.
	It's only a pity that it went so long through the courts and trials and appeals system and that it didn't happen sooner.
	There you go.
	Right.
	Something a bit more uplifting now.
	Oh, yes, rumble rants, of course.
	thanks for reminding me i'll read through them the first two are from that's a random name first saying look nothing like an execution to celebrate my birthday well happy birthday to you i gave you some good news now if only we could reopen the coliseum and have our politicians play with the lions i'm just kidding of course those poor lions deserve better I'll read through them.
	It's not good for their diet.
	Yeah, they're all fat politicians.
	Crimes happen because the law is what defines crime.
	If only we could abolish the law, then all those poor orcs wouldn't be getting arrested over nothing.
	Good point.
	And Peter J. Harvey says, I think we should abolish the death penalty.
	It should be replaced with a hard labour concentration camp.
	Death is a cheap way out.
	Blimey, those are spicy comments today.
	You're going to get us in trouble at this rate.
	Anyway, I have some good news.
	So, we've been talking about the culture war, obviously, for quite a few years now.
	It's actually approaching four years since we started Lotus Eaters.
	And we've actually got some evidence here of how resistance works.
	And it's from the games industry.
	And part of the reason I think that this has worked so well is that people have just been having none of it.
	People who like video games really like video games and they're very defensive over it.
	And certainly there have been some fatalities in the sense of good franchises have gone down because of woke decisions and bad decisions.
	But the lesson to be learnt here is that in many ways voting with your wallet is far more powerful than voting at the ballot box.
	For destroying this sort of thing.
	And I think that this meshes in quite nicely with my understanding of a lot of the motivations for putting wokeness in media.
	It's basically about resource extraction.
	They want to have an ideology that makes it easier to take resources from people.
	And because it's an inherently extractive ideology, if you can program that into people, it's easier to take more money from them.
	I do think that's part of it.
	It's certainly a part of it.
	There's more to it than that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I was going to say, my theory of wokeness is it's basically an ad hoc ideology off of the back of demographic change.
	There is an aspect of it.
	It's an ideology built for the new demographics.
	It's not any one thing.
	All explanations of complex phenomena have multiple factors, don't they?
	But...
	We're going to be celebrating the slow demise and gradual death of Ubisoft, who I despise because they had a good thing going.
	You can see here all of these games.
	I remember pre-ordering Far Cry 3 and getting it in that little thing, and it came with a survival manual, and I was like, this is great.
	Far Cry 3 is great.
	It's one of the only games that platinumed.
	Assassin's Creed Black Flag, another great game.
	I know Ghost Recon and Prince of Persia.
	The old Splinter Cells are great for all of the stealth friends out there.
	I've never played Beyond Good and Evil, but I've heard good things.
	And then you look at some of the modern games, and yes, there's no one looking back at these fondly.
	I know Assassin's Creed Shadows isn't out yet.
	But no one cares about these games, because they're not very good.
	I'm surprised they missed out, for the sake of symmetry, Far Cry 6 on the bottom row, because I saw some clips from that.
	You're playing as a communist revolutionary, and there is a trans character in that that at one point murders somebody for misgendering them, and this is presented as a good thing.
	What lovely morality.
	They have.
	So, it's also worth mentioning, one thing that isn't bad is Islander magazine.
	And now Harry's got a copy there.
	Hold it up so everyone can see.
	Look at how good that is.
	That's a good magazine.
	You should buy it.
	It's only going to be up for sale for a week or two, if that.
	I've lost track of time now.
	But...
	£14.99, great British pounds.
	I don't know what that is in inferior currency, but in our great currency here, £15 is not that much.
	You can buy that.
	Once every quarter, you can justify that, I think.
	It's a good magazine.
	It's very interesting.
	Lots of interesting people in it.
	Please buy it.
	It's good for even those of our audience who can't read.
	There's lots of pretty pictures in it.
	There are pretty pictures.
	And you will look smarter even just holding it open and looking at it.
	People will ask because, you know, you don't get to see the back cover, but the front and back cover, very nice.
	Don't show them.
	They've got to buy it.
	Back cover only comes with pay.
	Along with the contents as well.
	But anyway, it's worth mentioning that recently Star Wars Outlaws launched, and there are some questionable decisions about some of the design.
	Here is the actress, here is the character.
	See if you can tell which is which.
	Yeah, I know.
	There are some interesting choices here.
	Like, the lady they had to work with versus the character itself.
	I'd be furious.
	It's a bit of an insult, isn't it?
	It really is.
	Why have they given her, like, that chin?
	Mm-hmm.
	But it was pretty badly received from fans of Star Wars and video games, and there are even accusations from some people that they're paying people to review them, because the Warhammer game, Space Marine 2...
	Was very popular and lots more people were playing this.
	You could even see the Steam charts and everything like that.
	People enjoyed it.
	It was a good game.
	I haven't played it myself.
	Samson gave me a big thumbs up so I think he approves.
	This gets a lower score than Star Wars Outlaws.
	Some people get, you know...
	Clearly a merit-based scoring system.
	Mmm.
	It's funny that, isn't it?
	And actually, it was reported as selling quite poorly, and there haven't been any official figures that I've been able to find, but rumours are that it only sold a million copies in the first month, which, for Ubisoft and Star Wars combining, you would think it would do a bit better than that.
	What kind of game was Outlaws, anyway?
	Like, genre-wise?
	Well, I just saw it as Ubisoft and was just like, nope.
	Samson, tell us.
	It's probably some kind of...
	Third-person action-adventure game.
	Is it an Ubisoft open world?
	Is it Ubisoft slop open world where you've got landmarks and you can go to outposts and towers and unlock bits of the map?
	It is, but it's also, like, less than that.
	It's less than that.
	Disneyfied Ubisoft.
	That's like...
	How is it less than the usual Ubisoft slop?
	That's like double evil, isn't it?
	Disney and Ubisoft combined, creating something that's worse than both individually.
	So, some good news.
	There have been many job losses.
	They had their third round of job losses this year at the company, which is...
	Kind of funny.
	Is this going to be part of that amazing thing that Western Studios keep doing, which is they finish a game and then fire half the staff who are working on it?
	No, it is...
	Here is Ubisoft's stock price.
	So, in the past five years, it has lost 83.29% of its stock price.
	Oof!
	Peaking here, I think...
	When was that?
	January of 2021.
	Yeah, about January of 2021.
	Which is still the peak of lockdown, so I imagine most games companies probably peaked their stock then.
	But we can even flick to all.
	And you can see a rise and fall.
	It's going back down to pre-mid 2010s.
	Yes.
	Oof.
	So maybe they'll start getting good again.
	Maybe.
	But this has caused obvious upset with a lot of the shareholders of the company, as you can imagine.
	And in fact, they started demanding that the company go private and that they replace the CEO, Yves Guillemot, I think his name is.
	I don't know.
	I don't care either.
	Which I thought was funny.
	And then they actually decided to launch an investigation into the company.
	This was late in September.
	Because it's struggling so much.
	And the Why are all our game studios being ran by fat black women who are constantly on break?
	They're not making games!
	The CEO that they were talking about replacing wrote an internal memo, and I'll try and find...
	Where is it?
	Listening to pay your feedback.
	He basically reminds people, I'm trying to find the exact words, but he's just like, we're an entertainment company.
	I know you've got some strong opinions about things, but perhaps it's best we remain an entertainment company rather than inserting our own views.
	Where is that?
	Um...
	Here we are.
	Okay, lastly I'd like to address the recent polarised coverage around our creative choices.
	We are an entertainment company as such.
	Our objective is not to endorse any specific agenda.
	Our mission has always been to entertain players and enrich their lives with original and memorable experiences that resonate with a global audience.
	So obviously that's CEO speak for please, for the love of God...
	Please stop being woke.
	Stop losing us money!
	We need money, because ultimately, when it comes down to it, people care more about money than principles most of the time.
	That is the world we live in.
	I mean, certainly if you're the CEO of a company, I'd hope that that's what you care more about.
	So the fact that this is the last thing mentioned in the memo I thought was kind of funny and it's sort of what everyone's been saying in the first place.
	But I personally, you know, similar to the UK government, I want them to continue making mistakes so eventually the whole thing comes crashing down.
	I don't want them to get better.
	The name Ubisoft is just like, I'm a leper.
	If you say I work for Ubisoft, I want the same reaction of, I don't want to be in the same room as you.
	Disgusting.
	Spit on the floor or something.
	Treat Ubisoft like an AIDS patient.
	So it takes a princess shaking their hand to de-stigmatise them, as Diana did.
	Maybe, maybe.
	But yeah, you're right.
	Ubisoft should die.
	All of its IPs should be sold off to independent studios that will actually do something good with them.
	Yeah, they're just hoovering up resources to better people at the end of the day.
	And I think that some of the developers that might work for them as well...
	Probably not all of them agree with what's going on and their approach to things.
	Well, Ubisoft comes to you, they say, right, we really like what you're doing as a studio, we want to buy you so that we can give you more resources.
	You're a little studio, you've maybe got 10, 15 staff members, you've been really holding your nose to the grindstone, really struggling.
	You think, oh my god, that's such a great opportunity.
	Then Ubisoft goes and turns around and says, but you will have to stick to woke DEI initiatives from now on.
	You're going to have to hire at least 50 diverse members of staff.
	So the devil pops out from the ground, comes out of this hellish hole, and says, would you like to sign a contract?
	You'll make lots of money.
	Exactly.
	Just don't do it.
	It's like the old campaigns against taking drugs.
	You know, just don't do it.
	Just say no.
	Just say no to Ubisoft.
	It's worse than drugs, Ubisoft.
	So anyway, here's a post about...
	Of course they've got a Funko Pop!
	Here's a post about...
	If you translate it, Samson, this is a massive faux pas.
	The game's not even released yet.
	Please spread the word.
	Assassin's Creed Shadow figures from Ubisoft are famous Japanese hate and criminal companies.
	LAUGHTER A figurine of a destroyed Tori gate has been released, which is believed to be based on the one-leg Tori gate that was destroyed in the Nagasaki atomic bombing.
	I feel like this is reading into it a little bit.
	No, no, no.
	As in, normally they're meant to be an intact gate, but this is a memorial to the bombing.
	So, an American company...
	Bastardises their history.
	Well, yeah, true.
	And then reminds them...
	I suppose.
	...of the time they atomic-bombed civilians.
	It's the only half Tori Gate in Japan, as Samson says, yes.
	Oh, okay.
	So this is about the most insensitive thing that they could have possibly done.
	You know, the Japanese are already annoyed at what's being done to their history, on the whole, and then they do this.
	It's the single worst thing they could have done.
	Are they trying to get the game outright cancelled?
	Are they trying to start an international incident?
	No.
	It gets worse than that as well.
	Are anybody in charge of Ubisoft related to the guy who was flying the Enola Gay?
	Is this some generational thing?
	They're trying to redeem it, yeah.
	So anyway, a supposedly Japanese journalist.
	Oh, one of these ones.
	So I'm going to read from this just directly.
	Assassin's Creed Shadows is actually well received by Japan and the people protesting just Google Translate poses.
	Or they are just Google Translate poses.
	That's a quote from this journalist.
	And this Japanese journalist, Kazuma Hashimoto, is actually a Californian who works for Ubisoft as a culture correspondent.
	Of course.
	Let's take a look.
	Here he is.
	Oh, yeah.
	There you go.
	Oh, queer, he, him.
	Funny how that works, isn't it?
	Yep.
	Makes sense.
	Also writes for Polygon.
	Of course he does.
	And IGN. Yes.
	That's the least surprising thing ever.
	But the one journalist coming out and defending it happens to just be paid by Ubisoft.
	And the funny thing is that all press previews have now been cancelled of the game.
	Which just signals that it's going to be great, isn't it?
	It's going to be a really good game, obviously.
	They cancelled press previews of the game.
	That's always a great sign.
	And do you know what else is a great sign?
	Announcing a delay.
	Because, you know, when developers started announcing delays, people said, oh, this is good.
	They're waiting until the game's, you know...
	Properly developed, and then people, time after time, were tricked into buying a game, thinking, oh, well, this is going to be polished.
	When actually, when there's a delay, it's a sign that the entire process of creating the game was a complete mess.
	Pink cyberpunk.
	Yeah, that's what I had in mind.
	And the whole thing is basically irredeemable.
	So they've moved the release date from November to February.
	Just keep delaying it forever.
	Don't release it.
	And so, do you know the reason for the delaying of this game?
	Are they going to de-black Yasuke?
	No.
	That's what they should have done.
	They need extra time to address issues of historical inaccuracy.
	So they might.
	They might turn around and say, okay, we're actually going to put a real historical Japanese figure in it instead.
	You're just going to play an Assassin's Creed game where you sort of turn up, mill about a bit, and leave.
	I know.
	Why don't they just go whole hog?
	If you want to get the Assassin's Creed fanboys on, just put Altier in it.
	Or Ezio.
	Go all the way back to the start.
	Put Ezio in it.
	That would actually be more popular.
	Yeah, Assassin's Creed is actually a franchise that has always had people of colour.
	Italians, obviously not white.
	Altier is an Arab.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, you don't need to prove your credentials here.
	You've already got them.
	If you make a good game, people don't care.
	There we go.
	It's as simple as that.
	You even played as a Native American in Assassin's Creed 3, which I actually quite enjoyed.
	Yeah, and the historical accuracy of the time periods it was looking at was one of the big main appeals of the games back when it was coming out.
	Yeah, well, I could navigate in Venice when I went there for the first time.
	Oh, I've got another example.
	He plays a Welshman in Black Flag.
	Yes, they're not white.
	No, not still tawny.
	Uh-oh.
	Ha-ha-ha.
	So anyway, I want to go to another example where this sort of thing works, where people just not engaging, not buying stuff, sees results.
	And this one's even funnier than the Ubisoft.
	This is, of course, a Sony game.
	So you remember I talked about Concord and how the characters that you could play as are great big hulking woke idols for some reason?
	We min, question mark?
	I know.
	And yes, this is the lead artist here complaining about it, saying pretty soon these weirdos will have no games to buy at all.
	Yeah, because you'll have crashed the industry, idiot.
	And this was quite prophetic, because here is V talking about the fact that...
	I've never heard of it, but I want to play it.
	Completely knocked Concord out of the water, despite it being a flagship Sony project.
	Only 134 people were playing at one point.
	Squirrel with a gun.
	That looks amazing.
	Oh my god.
	But obviously it's just a silly, low-effort game, isn't it?
	Like Goat Simulator.
	Some people are going to be angry about that.
	I like Goat Simulator.
	Let me...
	I'm just going to...
	Oh, wait.
	Let me...
	Let me screenshot this.
	I'm going to send this to Samson because I want this to be seen by people, but you carry on, Josh.
	Well, I can't.
	I've got to wait now.
	I want to see the squirrel with a gun thing.
	Sorry.
	Come on.
	Look at you derailing.
	I'm sorry.
	I am.
	I am doing.
	Don't worry.
	Look at how slow he is.
	Here we are.
	There you go.
	Sorry, people in the audience.
	There you go.
	I do respect your time.
	My colleague's less so.
	Drop that there.
	Look when Samson gets it up on screen.
	I can't go on to the next link.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	There you go.
	Don't you want to play that?
	Is that Mark Zuckerberg with a wig on?
	That might be.
	Mark Zuckerberg praying while being held up by a squirrel.
	You can play a squirrel that executes tech CEOs.
	Well, I'm sold on the game.
	Now I see why it's so popular.
	There you go.
	I want to play it.
	And yes, actually, it got to the point where the game was taken off of the PlayStation accounts.
	They took down the servers, and now you simply can't play it.
	Everyone was refunded.
	And yes, this flagship game, which has lost Sony 200 million pounds.
	Oh no, dollars, sorry.
	Just assume everything's in our money for whatever reason.
	Actually, it's Sony, it's Dora.
	Dora.
	There you go.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Harry.
	That was terrible.
	I'm going to read some of this, but I can't read all of it.
	Comes out, nobody cares.
	Kills itself.
	Finally, some proper representation.
	That's one man's opinion.
	I would never find that funny.
	This was like when Suicide Squad had that thing in it that said, Suicide Squad says trans rights.
	This is definitely going to get taken down now, isn't it, if this goes on the internet?
	Any algorithm's going to pick up that.
	I was quoting the game.
	That's true.
	Even after the game got taken offline, there were still seven players shown as being in-game, and someone was theorising that it's PlayStation forcing the developers to play the game as a punishment for all eternity.
	LAUGHTER Like in Cockwork Orange where they open his eyes and force him to watch horrible things.
	These are some good memes.
	And there were also some other things.
	There's a guy here saying, nice to get out of the house and leave the internet behind for a bit.
	Did a bit of shopping and finally bought Concord.
	Can't wait until Saturday, but looking forward to trying it out.
	And then GameStop said, I have some bad news for you.
	Even GameStop's getting in on it.
	And then they're saying, you are the ones that sold it to me.
	What the hell is that meme?
	This is why people like their stock, Harry.
	Yeah, I suppose it must be.
	And then finally, a former CEO of Sony decided that, you know, they hadn't made themselves look bad enough, said games industry layoffs not the result of corporate greed and those affected should drive an Uber.
	Nice bit of sensitivity there.
	Drive an Uber.
	Well, you know, that's life.
	You'd be replaced by a Tesla soon, anyway.
	Basically saying, you suck.
	You suck at your jobs, therefore you get fired.
	This is the good side of capitalism happening right in front of us right now.
	But people didn't necessarily appreciate this.
	And also it's worth mentioning that Sony, of course, developing the next Ghost games, of course, Ghost of Tsushima, really well received.
	I'm still waiting for it to become cheaper on Steam so I can finally play it.
	And I don't earn enough to pay, you know, £40 for a game because that's crazy.
	£40?
	What kind of discount are you getting on your games?
	It's already been out.
	It was like a two PC adaptation.
	It came out on console first.
	And one of the things they said, we recently revised the diversity, equity and inclusion statement for the first time in 10 years to showcase its attitudes to diversity.
	This is Sony.
	So yes, expect terrible things from Sony.
	Looks like America finally got to the japs.
	I think Sony has American offices as well, so a lot of this will be coming from there.
	That's pretty much it.
	I know Samsung sent me a video of some bigwigs in Japan basically saying this is all coming from America.
	Yeah, I've seen that same video.
	So, it's also worth mentioning as well, other games, I'm going to scathe them as well.
	Dragon Age Veilguard gave you top surgery scars, or the option to have them, should I say.
	Surely even trans people don't want to have the scars.
	Surely if you were actually trying to transition fully and completely, you would wish the scars weren't there?
	Do you know how I got these scars?
	That's what they want to say.
	And yes, here is the games director.
	Ugh!
	As a...
	definite woman.
	Almost certain woman.
	As a what-is-a-woman woman?
	Yes.
	Dragon Age has long been a place where alphabet folks can see people like themselves represented respectfully.
	This is actually true.
	For a long time, Bioware have had the screw-a-man option.
	Like, be-gay options in their games.
	They've always had that for a while.
	And finally, I wanted to...
	Obviously, voting with your wallet works, and these companies are suffering for what they've done, which is great.
	But another option, the Morbius option, be Morbius-pilled.
	Harry knows what's coming.
	So, there's a petition.
	This is, of course, Star Wars Acolyte, which is a TV show.
	I find it quite amusing when people generate false interest in a money sink for a large company and then take no interest in it.
	Morbius, that film.
	Was it a Marvel film?
	I don't know anything about this stuff.
	It was a superhero slob.
	It was a slop superhero film whereby lots of people pretended to be interested in it, they memed it, and then no one went to see it, and it lost the studio money.
	It turned out not to be morbid time for Sony.
	I would like to see more of this.
	I feel like there is great potential here.
	When Disney ruins your favourite franchise, show a lot of enthusiasm for it, and then just don't watch it.
	Don't buy stuff.
	Don't watch it.
	These companies suffer.
	The people responsible for the decisions suffer.
	And you get a bit of revenge.
	Just saying.
	There you go.
	And let's end on a happy note, eh?
	We've got a bunch of super chats.
	Bloody hell, we do.
	Fred Nought says, I agree with Josh, but with short rope to save money and make it more entertaining.
	That was about my segment.
	It was, yes.
	That's a random name, says, for context, Space Marine 2 was made by Eastern Europeans and isn't woke.
	It's always Eastern Europeans and Asians these days, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	just proximity to the mongols makes you based apparently um meanwhile uh star wars outhouse i'm not reading the rude word was made by the typical femgroid here in montreal is it any wonder ubislop is on suicide watch that was a good comment yeah Yes.
	Frednaught says again, alright boys, here's the plan.
	We buy up all the Ubisoft stock and demand they reinstate Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multiplayer in perpetuity.
	Then we'll agree to buy one game from them per decade.
	But it has to be a good game.
	Keith Kaiser says, I purchased Islander 2 about a month ago.
	I heard it's been dispatched to some people.
	When is it going to arrive for everybody else?
	So normally it should arrive at most between two to three weeks, but sometimes it can be held up depending on where you are.
	But we are dispatching stuff.
	If you don't receive it sooner, you can contact our email addresses.
	I'm not sure the correct email address.
	Perhaps contact at lotuseaters.com.
	To chase it up if it potentially hasn't been delivered at all.
	So yes.
	Sorry to hear that, by the way, as well.
	But it does take a while, unfortunately.
	Boycotting Ubisoft isn't enough.
	We've got to make our own games.
	That's already going on.
	But yes.
	Speaking of which, let me know what you guys would like to see in my game.
	It's a sci-fi strategy game.
	Think Total War in space.
	I love Total War.
	So...
	What I would say is try and make it very immersive.
	Have lots of factors that dictate your strategy based on the environment and don't just gamify it.
	You know, one of the things that I quite like about Total War is, the more recent ones, is that there are lots of different changing features depending on the environment where you are.
	Make it feel like you're immersed in the place and it makes the strategy a lot more rewarding.
	And Frednaught says it's acolyting time.
	Damn right it is.
	Oh yes it is.
	Alright.
	So, David Lammy has not bought Islander.
	David Lammy could not read Islander.
	You could read Islander, and you will when you pay £14.99 for it on the website and get it, and you can read it, and you'll look very smart, very clever, and very handsome when you're doing so.
	Got that out of the way nice and quick.
	David Lammy is our current Foreign Secretary.
	He is a man who once stated that he was pretty certain that trans women can grow cervixes if they get a hormone treatment.
	He is also a man who very recently, when speaking about the Israel-Palestine situation...
	Accidentally said that the Lebanese need to return to their homes in southern Israel, presumably right around the Gaza Strip is where he was intending there, and probably most notably made an appearance at the UN last week where he said this.
	But I say to the Russian representative on his phone as I speak...
	That I stand here also as a black man, whose ancestors were taken in chains from Africa, at the barrel of a gun to be enslaved, whose ancestors rose up and fought in a great rebellion of the enslaved.
	Imperialism, I know it when I see it.
	That's enough.
	That's enough of that.
	We know that David Lammy, who's a black man, is a black man.
	Who has experiences as a black man that interest him on the world stage as a black man.
	I think David Lammy might be signalling that he's a black man.
	I don't know where you got that idea from.
	I don't know.
	Certainly not my eyes.
	No, certainly not.
	But if you listen to him, he drops a few hints here and there.
	Really?
	I struggle to pick them up.
	So we probably spoke about this at the time.
	This was David Lammy on the world stage speaking to the Russian representative as a black man and telling Putin that he needs to stand down.
	He's going to call out imperialism.
	We can't go back to a world where borders are aggressively redrawn and we don't want a world where imperialism is the norm anymore.
	Imperialism is the norm for the world in general history.
	Might makes right, and that's not changed.
	That is an iron law of reality.
	And also, in this speech, David Lammy basically criticised the Russians through his own worldview.
	Well, yeah, through a woke, progressive worldview.
	So, to a Russian mind, that would just be David Lammy pats himself on the back trying to look tough while saying nothing of substance.
	Well, I put it this way.
	I had to comment on this, saying that...
	The leftists like David Lammy, you can tell when they're making these speeches that they imagine themselves giving the climactic speech in a film.
	They've got the music swelling behind them, they're back in school, and they're speaking to the bully.
	And they're letting the bully know, you can't bully me anymore, I'm a good person and you're a bad person, and they change the hearts and minds of everyone around them, and they change the mind of the bully, and everybody gets home.
	You know what happens in reality?
	The bully bullies them more.
	Yeah.
	I can only imagine that on the other side of the phone, the Russian representative started absolutely pissing himself.
	If he could understand what Lammy was saying.
	He's like got Putin next to him.
	He's talking about how he's a black man now.
	His ancestors were enslaved.
	They're having a good laugh.
	Because you know what Russia hears when they hear something like that?
	They hear, oh, you're the descent of slaves, so you're weak.
	That is true.
	That's literally what they hear.
	Because they like power.
	They like strength.
	They like being strong.
	And they will look at you and go, you're descended from losers, so we can dominate you easily.
	They look over at the West and they go, okay, who are the people in charge of the West right now?
	Virtually signalling weirdos who all want to talk about what victims they are, constantly complain about their mental health, and then talk about how they're enslaved by ancestors.
	And they shrug their shoulders and they go, what are they going to do to us?
	They can't do anything!
	One of the most frustrating things about wokeness is not only that it has made my life tangibly worse, but also it makes us look awful on the international stage.
	Just how weak and pathetic and effeminate and contemptible, basically.
	Well, it makes a virtue of weakness.
	A vice, yeah.
	Yeah, and vice as well.
	And to every other nation, every other empire, like Russia, in the world, on the world stage, well, that makes us easy pickings.
	And sadly, as you can see from this Politico article, who's telling Putin here?
	Is it David Lammy telling Putin that you're a slave-owning mafibus?
	No, it's the UK, because he represents us as our foreign secretary.
	So this is the man representing us, our interests on the world stage, and doing that.
	What on earth is he thinking?
	Is it that David Lammy has not yet graduated to triple digit IQ? Is it that David Lammy is an incompetent buffoon who embarrasses us all through our association with him?
	I've seen him on Mastermind.
	He got none of his own specialist topic questions right.
	Or is it that this is all part of David Lammy's master plan?
	Oh, he's like that Chinese magician in The Prestige where he pretends to be feeble and weak, but actually it's all an act because he's secretly very powerful.
	He pretends to be an idiot, yes.
	This is the Lammy Doctrine in action.
	This is a New Statesman article, and you can see that David Lammy is now a serious man conducting serious business, because they took a serious photograph of him in a serious suit, which you may have noticed is black, including his shirt, which is black.
	David Lammy, a black man wearing a black shirt and a black suit, very symbolic of him being black, which is something that he wants you to know.
	A black page.
	Yeah, there are other photos.
	Oh, well, there was Donald Trump.
	This is a very, very long article.
	Here's a photograph of David Lammy contemplating his place in the world.
	That really took me by surprise.
	It's gone on like a nice, it's like a lovely scenery and he's dressed in like funeral wear, like casual funeral wear.
	But David Blair, I keep calling him David Blair, Tony Blair funeral wear, where he's got top buttons.
	I can't see that company slogan catching on.
	Tony Blair's funeral wear.
	Here was the front cover for this particular issue.
	So this was all the way back in April.
	In the lead-up to...
	Oh, wait, sorry.
	June, July.
	This was in the lead-up to the election.
	Wait, no.
	Yes, it was.
	Where they were trying...
	Whoever was in charge of Labour's PR at the time decided...
	We've got to work with David Lammy.
	We've got to sell David Lammy to the British public.
	How are we going to do that?
	What is he?
	Is he Boris Johnson, friendly buffoon, lovable fool, trustworthy, but a bit funny?
	Trustworthy?
	Well, that's the way he tried to sell himself, right?
	Or somebody put their hand up and said, he said as a joke, he said, what if he's a Machiavellian genius?
	And nobody got that it was a joke.
	And that's what they ran with.
	That's the PR that David Lammy went with.
	That would explain the Blair funeral wear, you know.
	It was the Blair Funeral.
	Yeah, and they say, Labour's foreign secretarian waiting on why Britain must adapt to the world as it is, not as liberals wish it to be.
	David Lammy, Machiavellian realist.
	I also like how he's wearing the same thing throughout the entire article.
	You know how Lord Ali bought all of the Labour Party members lots of suits?
	He only bought one for David.
	He probably thought, well, this guy's not going to go very far, is he?
	And now he's Foreign Secretary.
	You know what?
	If someone bought David Lammy a bunch of suits, I'd say, you know what?
	I'll let you off.
	Because clearly he's only got the one.
	Clearly, yeah.
	It's obviously a joke.
	So the man who called Trump and was a reply guy, a serial reply guy for Trump back in 2019, called him a neo-Nazi sociopath, is now an uncompromising realist on the world stage...
	With fingers in all of the different pies.
	Because that's what this article is.
	It's obviously a puff piece trying to sell a particular image of David Lammy as a man with fingers in every pie across the world, who has friends in every nation, who is the right man to be foreign secretary for our country now.
	Not only that, he has his own doctrine, which he has dubbed progressive realism.
	And this article...
	Doesn't really explain what it is, but in fact has a lot of other people, like Jonathan Powell and other people related to the Labour Party, trying to maybe get a guess at what progressive realism means, and the rest of it is about him being black.
	Progressive realism is like hard water or something like that.
	I know that's a natural thing.
	It's quite an oxymoron.
	It sounds oxymoronic, doesn't it?
	Maybe it's not, like hard water.
	And I think to sum up the article, it ends like this.
	This is the final paragraph.
	David Lammy is as comfortable among the tight terraced streets of Tottenham as he is inside the Washington Beltway.
	Local and global settings.
	Can he bring them together to create a foreign policy that resets Britain's relations with the world and works in the social and economic interests of the British people?
	And then it ends with him saying a lot of, uh, the world is what it is.
	David Lammy, sighing, melancholic, thinking of how...
	How depressing and grey yet hopeful the world can be, going, ah, the world is what it is.
	Again, like a child who's only just learned a particular word or phrase and has to keep saying it over and over again because they're so excited.
	David Lammy wrote a little piece saying, oh, you can read...
	This was back in April, saying, oh, you can read my article that I wrote for Foreign Affairs talking about it.
	My new essay in Foreign Affairs magazine outlines the case for progressive realism.
	This is the underpinning of how my next Labour government will deliver our goal of a Britain reconnected...
	As I laid out in my pamphlet for the Fabian Society last year.
	Yes.
	You're not familiar with them.
	No, go ahead.
	No, you go ahead.
	No, no, no.
	You go on.
	You can probably explain it better.
	So the Fabian Society are basically a socialist society whereby they're associated with all of the worst figures in British history, and the fact that he's written for them is like a self-own for anyone who isn't a socialist.
	It's a self-report.
	It is, yeah.
	Certainly.
	So I thought, let's take a look.
	Okay, so unlike some foreign secretaries, David Lammy is a philosopher.
	And he has his own doctrine that he outlined in an article for Foreign Affairs, which is one of those lofty journals that people write in as a way to communicate with other elites across the world, to communicate intentions.
	I mean, Richard Nixon's written for it, William Burns, the head of the CIA, has written for it.
	Everyone who is anyone has written for it, oftentimes flatly outlining their plans for the world going ahead.
	So, excellent.
	David Lammy, all by himself, managed to write this article.
	Round of applause, everybody.
	So what does it say?
	Well, I drew out some of the excerpts.
	So...
	Of what's important here.
	He first criticises the Conservatives' approach to global relations during their 14 years in power, saying that Conservative officials proved especially callous in their approach to the Global South.
	Instead of fighting for the hearts and minds of the new global middle class, I don't think a globe can have...
	I think a middle class is more, you know, kind of localised to one nation or region.
	Surely global middle class just means the average person in the world, doesn't it?
	So that's like the least specific he could possibly be.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but instead of fighting for the least specific person imaginable, they addressed this group in often offensive tones, such as when the Foreign Secretary, then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, publicly recited a colonialist poem by Rudyard Kipling during a 2017 visit to Myanmar, and the government compromised one of publicly recited a colonialist poem by Rudyard Kipling during a 2017 visit to Myanmar, and the government compromised one of the United Kingdom's greatest strengths, its soft power,
	So if this is an outline and a demonstration of what progressive realism is going to be, so far in this article we get hectoring tone police politics, wokeness, and the support of soft power like the BBC.
	business as usual.
	So this is a very, very new doctrine, still working out some of the kinks.
	Let's carry on.
	So here's an accurate definition of what he means.
	Progressive realism advocates using realist means to pursue progressive ends.
	Which is, again, a contradiction in terms, but okay.
	For the British government, that requires tough-minded honesty about the United Kingdom, the balance of power, and the state of the world.
	But instead of using the logic of realism solely to accumulate power, progressive realism uses it in service of just goals.
	For example, countering Climate change, defending democracy, and advancing the world's economic development.
	Climate diplomacy is at the centre of progressive realism, and a Labour government would make advancing the fight against greenhouse gases central to our agenda.
	So it's not realism then, is it?
	It's complete fantasy.
	Can you advocate an advance for the economy of the entire world?
	Is that realistic?
	I support everyone being rich.
	This is my foreign policy.
	I am a realist and a Machiavellian, don't you know?
	And also, it's globalist climate technocracy.
	That's what he's saying.
	He's going to advance the fight against greenhouse gases and for climate diplomacy.
	He's going to pick a fight with the air.
	Yes, as a realist.
	He's going to have a tough conversation with the air.
	Say, you need to stop being so warm.
	You better cool it down.
	CO2, you better lose that carbon bond.
	Yeah.
	Better become oxygen.
	We might put some sanctions on you.
	Immediately starts choking.
	Actually, it'd become water, wouldn't it?
	Well, perhaps.
	It immediately starts drowning.
	A progressive realism worth its name begins by being honest about assumptions the West has made in the past that turned out to be wrong.
	And he lists the rise of China and the other members of BRICS and Russia elsewhere.
	The fact that we live in what they're now dubbing a multipolar world.
	So, progressive realism, the realist aspect of it seems to be just acknowledging that reality exists...
	Kind of.
	And that Britain and the US and the Anglosphere and the West as a whole are not the only players in the game anymore.
	So that's the only realist part that I can identify.
	Great start.
	Great start, David.
	The failures of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya undermined liberal interventionism.
	A British government that adheres to progressive realism will not repeat these errors.
	Okay, so no more liberal interventionism, no more reckless gallivanting across the world and starting wars in the Middle East.
	Fantastic.
	That's actually a good thing, yeah.
	That said...
	Uh-oh.
	That's not a good start.
	The last decade has made it clear that inaction has high costs to...
	Ugh "Americans increasingly need convincing that Europeans do enough to protect their own continent's security, and as the United States becomes more focused in Asia, it will have less bandwidth for action elsewhere.
	The United Kingdom is ready for difficult conversations about burden-sharing, as long as they are part of a serious process that reinforces collective security.
	The European Union and the British government have no formal means of cooperation." Just get them on the phone.
	To address that problem, the United Kingdom must see a new geopolitical partnership with the EU, so closer bonds back with the EU again.
	But hang on a minute, aren't we a member of NATO, which a decent portion of Europe is as well, which is a military alliance, presumably to coordinate a sort of military defence if Europe is attacked?
	Is that not what that is?
	So basically, yeah, he just says that complements both parties' unshakable commitment to NATO. So it wants to both have the NATO connection and a closer tie to the EU. But the EU isn't martial.
	There have been attempts.
	They just want to be back.
	They want a European army, don't they?
	Essentially, it's what he's saying, yes.
	And above all else, the United Kingdom must continue supporting Ukraine.
	So I'm very glad that what he's outlining there is that for the sake of spreading global democracy, we're going to relocate the international intervention from the Middle East to European shores.
	One thing I have realised about this European army thing that he's pushing for is that if you have an army that's aligned to the continent of Europe, if there is, say, an uprising in a nation or unrest, you can just send in that European army that has no allegiance to the place and fire upon them and put them down.
	So it's basically a permanent way of keeping a nation subservient to the EU. Yes, and this is something that Macron has been gesturing towards for a while as well, because Macron has been saying that America, we can't always rely on them, so we need to make Europe a more secure place in terms of our collective security.
	And so it seems that they all want this, so progressive realism is not anything new, it's just a restatement of the regime's goals, as far as I can tell so far.
	Realism also means recognising that the Indo-Pacific will be fundamental to global prosperity and security in the decades ahead, so the United Kingdom must strengthen its engagement with that region as well.
	So again, global prosperity, this is not a realistic term, this is a progressive and idealist term.
	Didn't Keir Starmer's government, which Lammy of course is a senior part of, give away an island to Mauritius?
	Today.
	I guess that was the only realistic thing to do.
	Yeah, we just gave it away to a China-aligned country.
	Just throwing that out.
	Only smart thing.
	In the 21st century, a Labour government would see its mission as supporting state sovereignty against forces such as Russian, neo-imperialism, climate change and corruption.
	So this is globalism again.
	This is the same thing we've always been dealing with.
	Here you go.
	Here's what Josh was talking about then.
	Starmahan's Chagos Islands back to Mauritius.
	Thank you.
	Thanks for that.
	So this is progressive realism in action.
	And Mauritius only recently said they needed closer ties to China.
	Fantastic.
	So there we go.
	Just giving islands to our enemies.
	Great.
	And then there's just more stuff talking about.
	Progressivism.
	Finally, progressive realism means anticipating how the dynamics between continents are about to change.
	By 2050, more than one in four people on the planet will live in Africa.
	The continent can and will generate vast growth.
	Not by itself.
	Not if everyone's leaving.
	And the United Kingdom must once again become a leader in development, but to do so, it has to adopt a model that emphasises trading with other countries to build long-term win-win partnerships, rather than allowing an outdated model of patronage.
	No, if you want Africa to be prosperous, you need to recolonise it.
	That is the sad truth of Africa.
	It is something that China recognises with its Belt and Road Initiative, which is a kind of...
	Half and halfway of trying to inject resources and some kind of leadership into Africa.
	The attempt is that they colonise it and make it a bastion of China alignment, whilst also extracting resources from there, whilst they're there.
	And even then, you've got people digging up their roads to sell on the...
	Anybody who knows anything about Africa knows that if you want it to be prosperous, you basically need to go in and take charge.
	That is just how it works.
	So overall, the Lamy Doctrine seems...
	All of the unique points are retarded.
	And everything else is a restatement of progressivism as it exists already.
	I don't see the realism part of it, but that would explain why he's going out onto the UN and shouting about how black he is at Russia and Putin.
	Interestingly, in the follow-up to this in Foreign Affairs, they received a letter about this saying, wait a second...
	So what you're saying is that he's advocating the use of military power to defend or promote democracy and human rights.
	Isn't this just neoconservatism again?
	Is it not?
	Neoliberalism, perhaps.
	Neoliberalism, neoconservatism...
	What's the difference?
	Basically the same thing.
	And the critic also did an article complaining about it where they pointed out that if you want to be realistic about things, the Lammy and Starmer and all of the Labour Party right now are far too obsessed with petty legalism and the rules-based international law to actually be able to pursue any kind of true Machiavellian realism on an international stage, which is also true.
	But let's be honest...
	If anybody is going to make Britain a leading superpower on the world stage again, it's not this guy.
	No.
	This man...
	This man...
	Shouting about his blackness to Russia is not going to do it.
	And the fact that they tried to push this progressive realism, Lammy doctrine, secret Machiavellian David Lammy, at any point is pathetic and embarrassing.
	I do not want this man representing me or my country on the world stage.
	No thank you.
	Okay, do we have some extra time for comments, Samson?
	No.
	Should we read some- Okay.
	Okay.
	Do we have the- I can't see the rumble rants.
	Oh, there's one.
	Here we go.
	That's a random name, says, Grievance politics don't work on Eastern Europeans.
	We never enslaved anybody.
	Well, gulags, they kind of did, but still.
	And unlike Lammy's retard ancestors, we actually did free ourselves from our oppressors.
	Lammy just wants to steal our IQ. Okay.
	Well, yeah.
	I imagine that Lamy's probably like an IQ vampire, except he doesn't actually suck the IQ from you for himself.
	You just reduce IQ being in proximity with him.
	And Glee777 says, David contributing nicely to carbon on carbon crime.
	So, I've got two comments I'm going to read first.
	Harry's threats of violence made me purchase Islander Magazine Vol.
	2.
	I'm glad to see that they're working.
	And there is a comment here that is calling me out.
	So George Hap says, I am confused how a libertarian can support the death penalty.
	The state does everything wrong, but somehow giving them power to kill people is okay.
	Look at the January 6th prisoners.
	They apparently committed treason.
	Should they be put to death?
	When the law is not applied fairly, giving more power to the state is unwise.
	Well, actually...
	I agree with what you're saying there, and the position I've held for years, and I've talked about this in the office before, is that I'm against the death penalty not because I think people don't deserve to die, but because I don't trust the state enough to do it.
	But I've come to realise that in British politics actually the death penalty...
	It's one of those things that might be quite difficult to get on the cards.
	So if, you know, say, magically I became Prime Minister, it would probably be one of the last things I'd do.
	So everything would sort of be fixed with the system before this sort of thing could come back in again.
	And so I feel like you could justify it a bit more.
	And I certainly don't think that you could argue against the death penalty in the case of Marcellus Williams, who is such an open and shut case.
	So simple, easy-to-follow case for his guilt that it's untrue.
	Yeah, and my sort of contention is that it's for murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
	That's what the death penalty is for.
	But no, I do agree.
	I'm very suspicious of the government.
	If the government introduced it now in Britain, I would immediately leave because I'd be worried that it'd be used to kill me.
	So I get what you're trying to say, but there are a few more layers to why I'm okay with saying it, because I agree with it in principle, but you've got to have the right political context for it not to target you.
	So basically the short answer is I agree with it in theory, but not in practice at the minute in Britain or in the United States.
	But anyway, sorry, do carry on.
	Oh, I think we've run out of time now.
	Okay.
	Sorry we didn't get through more comments.
	Yeah, sorry folks, but Samson is a hard slave driver.
	We've got another show after this, I think.
	Which is why.
	It's not Samson's fault.
	Let him off the hook a little bit.
	He's got two other shows, so we must end.
	We're very sorry, but we gave you a very informative podcast, so don't be too mad.
	Blame me, my first segment went outrageous.
	We do still read the comments after we come off of the show, so we do see them.
	We do love you.
	We do.
	And on that lovely note, with warmth in our hearts, we say goodbye.

▲