by UnHerd
Wednesday, 21
April 2021
Video
17:00

Bret Weinstein: Democrats are riding the BLM wave

But they don't have the power to control it
by UnHerd

Writing about his native Portland in UnHerd this week, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein painted a bleak picture of the city. What was once a liberal paradise moulded in the image of 1990s Portlandia quickly descended into something much darker: a city overrun by Left-wing rioters appeased by a weak mayor, and a police force who look on and do nothing. 

This crisis, according to Weinstein, is largely a result of the city’s mono-political climate in which one party, namely the Democrats, are allowed to operate unchecked. Yesterday, Bret joined Freddie Sayers for an UnHerd members event to discuss whether the events in Portland were a sign of things to come. His answer was chilling:

I’m very worried about this. I think it’s actually worse because what is probably hard to see from across the pond, is how much Biden represents a kind of systemic corruption on the Democratic side of our politics. What I know that they will do and what they are already doing is basically attempting to ride the wave, this BLM movement, and they don’t have the power to control it. So in effect, they’re going to deliver a lot of legislation in this direction, for cynical reasons.

But the outcome for us will be a game theoretic failure nationally. It’s a very frightening situation. The degree of control over government — it’s not just the Biden administration, but Biden and both houses of Congress, under Democratic control, means that we do effectively have the same conditions that brought such a terrible situation to Portland.

- Bret Weinstein, UnHerd

We filmed this conversation hours before the Derek Chauvin verdict was delivered, but not long after the President told reporters that he was “praying for the right verdict”. Now that the verdict is out, Bret’s comments feels especially pertinent:

The trial revealed the complexity of this situation. That the political establishment is now urging the jury towards a particular verdict, especially in light of one of our best traditions in the US — that one must be convicted by a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt should be likely in this case given the complexity of what we saw unfold.

And yet, we have a political establishment that has advertised that it wishes to see this principle violated, presumably so that there is no violence on the other side. But once you have a violent mob in a position to get the President of the United States to urge a jury to reach a particular verdict, what you effectively have is a kind of governmental witch hunt.

- Bret Weinstein, UnHerd

Join the discussion


  • I have only one argument against this reasonable proposal: President Kamala Harris

  • Ben Shapiro had the best and to my mind, the most honest analysis of the trial and verdict yesterday on You Tube. I was walking with my dear friends when we heard the verdict which was greeted with cheers. I risked speaking up and said there was no cheering from my corner…only deep sadness and dismay at what we have become.

  • In Alice in Wonderland they do have ‘sentence first-verdict afterwards’ why shouldn’t the President?

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up