Dr. Michael Baden had determined that George Floyd died by cop. This the courageous onlookers who captured the snuff film could have told him.
The nation’s foremost forensic pathologist was called in to weigh-in, scientifically and independently, about the demise of the Minneapolis man, who millions across the world have, by now, watched slowly suffocate to death on camera, on May 25.
“Look at him. Get off him now. What is wrong with y’all. Leave him. You’re killing him. Bro, he’s not moving. Check his pulse.” At this point in the video, blood is bubbling out of his mouth. These good Samaritans loudly protested this police porn. There was a trickle on the asphalt, as Floyd likely lost control over bodily functions, near the end.
Baden, who confirmed mechanical asphyxiation due to pressure on the neck and back, was asked to perform an independent autopsy because the initial, official one was comical, suggesting the cops’ actions were secondary complicating factors.
The Hennepin County medical examiner made it sound like George Floyd should have been able to endure eight minutes and 46 seconds with a knee on his neck and three Minneapolis police officers pushing down on his diaphragm, subsequently reducing blood flow to the brain. Floyd failed their “fitness” test because he was on drugs, drunk, COVID-positive, and in really bad physical shape.
I’d hate to have my physical fitness and sobriety tested that way.
The reality is that millions around the world witnessed George Floyd expire on camera because he was made to star in his own State-sanctioned snuff film.
Floyd’s death was a case of, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” Which is the colloquial used when one is staring at an immutable reality, yet choosing to see an alternate universe.
The world saw that Mr. Floyd was not in the throes of death until that knee appeared on his neck and those hands pressed down on his diaphragm. Put it this way: correlation in not causation, but it was not a complete mystery when eight minutes and 46 seconds into the boot-and-back treatment the man dies.
The nonviolent offense for which Floyd was tackled and terminated was paying for cigarettes with an alleged counterfeit bill. It’s entirely possible he was guilty of using counterfeit money. It’s also possible he didn’t know the bill was fake given how many hands paper money passes through. If it was this kind of a misunderstanding, it could happen to anyone.
Uncle Sam—who has its proverbial boot on the American taxpayer’s neck—counterfeits trillions with impunity. The Federal Reserve Bank and all the other banks are forever injecting funny money into credit markets. With government imprimatur, the banking system known as fractional reserve banking is engaged in counterfeiting, when inflating the money supply and issuing paper notes not backed by real assets. The central bank’s phony money creation is counterfeiting by any other name, except that it’s legal—because perpetrated by the State.
Next, they’ll tell us that, just as the State can forge and devalue the coin, so it can also kill us with impunity. That’s what the four brazen cops were broadcasting—that murder under the “color of law” wasn’t quite murder.
Another of our deformed society’s Big Lies kicked in when, like locusts, rioters and looters descended on America’s cities—from Minneapolis to Miami, from Los Angles to Louisville.
The specter of looting and rioting is another case of, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?”
Fake Newsers, Fox News Included, then began energetically, sans evidence—other than some bricks in a trash can—to promote a fake conspiratorial narrative:
Looters were never local, but always mysterious outside agitators; well-organized “Antifa.” The fiction was promoted as enthusiastically by Fox News as it was by CNN and MSNB.
Anything to avoid the reality of crime, while signaling your own virtue.
Even John Robert Lewis, a black civil right leader, got fed up and told MSNBC that looting was local.
Seattle’s Komo New, at one point, divulged that 82 people had been arrested, after the city center was destroyed. All were homeboys.
If rioters everywhere are from somewhere not here, what’s the logic?
If so-called organized, George Soros-activated ANTIFA terrorists intend to ignite the country and operate networks and chapters across it—why would they need to migrate, to lob rocks at a Macy’s in a town away from home? Why not riot in your home town if so organized?
The truth is that conservatives, like liberals, refuse to candidly confront the indisputable realities of race and crime in America, reducing, instead, the reality of crime to a political theory—too much welfare, too little capitalism, not enough Trumpism. Or, the Democrats made blacks do it, which amounts to a dog-ate-my-homework argument.
The statistical relationship between race and crime, however, is as strong as the relationship between Officer Derek Chauvin’s knee and the late George Floyd’s neck.
This correlation, writes Unz Review editor Ron Unz, “so substantially exceeds the poverty/crime relationship that much of the latter may simply be a statistical artifact due to most urban blacks being poor.” To discount the immutable reality of race and crime in urban America is to discount “the real-world impact of these grim statistics.”
Never, ever are righteous individuals within a community to be fingered for what the wicked among them do. Still, seekers of truth should be able to talk about trends within communities without fearing a loss of reputation and marginalization. These are the sort of trends social science measures. Or, once measured.
As I put it in the book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”:
Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested. (pp. 41-42)