Nov. 22, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
47:59
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is what you're fighting for. | ||
| I mean, every day you're out there. | ||
| What they're doing is blowing people off. | ||
| If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians, get total control and total power. | ||
| Because this is just like in Arizona. | ||
| This is just like in Georgia. | ||
| It's another element that backs them into a corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations. | ||
| This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged. | ||
| As we've told you, this is the fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| War Room Battleground. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Welcome to War Room Battleground. | ||
| It's not Stephen K. Bannon, it's Natalie G. Winters, filling in today, Tuesday, November 21st, in the year of our Lord, 2023. | ||
| We have what is, I think, a very packed show. | ||
| We're gonna get you all the news going all the way from Wuhan, Anthony Fauci, our taxpayer dollars, frankly, our entire federal government's involvement. | ||
| For the laboratory over there, there's some interesting new reporting that we've been talking about for a while here on this show, and we'll bring it back home to, I guess we could call it the surveillance state. | ||
| I'm not talking about the Chinese Communist Party, I'm talking about what our American elites are doing here, specifically to the MAGA movement. | ||
| We'll talk all things censorship, surveillance, misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, all these words that mean probably something other than if you were to look them up. | ||
| In a dictionary, but I'm sure that's exactly what our power-hungry elites, these authoritarian power-grabbing monsters, want us. | ||
| To think, but before we get to Darren Beatty to talk about all of that, we have the one and only Dr. Naomi Wolfe, who is of course a good friend of the show, really leading the charge on not just vaccine research. | ||
| I don't want to sell her short. | ||
| She can, I think, kind of find really the truth, the actual information, data, details behind really any story when it has to come. | ||
| Uh, to the all-out assault on our freedoms and liberties being ushered in by, you want to call it the administrative state, the deep state, you, you can take your pick. | ||
| There are a lot of, a lot of terms for it, but if we have Dr. Wolf, I would, I'll walk through the Vanity Fair article just to give the audience a little bit of a tee up, but then I would love, again, just like us in the war room, You know, one of the voices who I think has been since day one sort of calling out the murkiness surrounding the origins of the pandemic and how it really has been capitalized upon by the power-hungry elites I was just talking about. | ||
| But there's really bombshell new reporting coming out of Vanity Fair today. | ||
| Interesting they drop it right before we're going into Thanksgiving, but showing that officials from the United States government were told | ||
| By directors from NIAID, that is of course the NIH agency led by Anthony Fauci, to quote, delete information from official government reports about the type of research that was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, specifically reverse engineering genetic strains of Ebola virus, in some cases with fatality rates up to 50%, one of the other bombshells contained in this article. | ||
| Show that in mid 2019 just months before COVID-19 became COVID-19, officials from the Department of Energy actually sent warnings to the National Institutes of Health, to NIAID, to Anthony Fauci's NIAID, saying that the research our taxpayer dollars were funding was actually being co-opted and weaponized by the Chinese Communist Party's military | ||
| for their own goals, aims, and objectives. | ||
| And I think, frankly, Dr. Wolfe, the buried lead of this story is that they asked Anthony Fauci for comment, and you know we don't refer to him as Dr. Anthony Fauci, but I'll call you Dr. Naomi Wolfe. | ||
| That was an intentional juxtaposition. | ||
| And he says no comment. | ||
| I've never seen Anthony Fauci miss an opportunity to give an interview, to talk to the media. | ||
| So I'm just curious, your thoughts on what seems to be the never-ending saga about the true origins of COVID-19 on this report. | ||
| Yeah, it's, well, this Vanity Fair piece is about so much more than just the origins of COVID-19, right? | ||
| And it really worries me considerably. | ||
| One thing that is clear is, well, as you pointed out, Dr. Fauci wouldn't comment and ordinarily it's dangerous to be between Dr. Fauci and a microphone or a television camera. | ||
| And that's not okay because he oversaw Much of what this article has revealed. | ||
| The other thing that is an important takeaway, I think, Natalie, is the way that the scientists who are interviewed and the scientists working under Dr. Fauci's and Dr. Francis Collins' oversight, collaborating with our worst enemies and with, you know, what they acknowledge to be bad actors around the world. | ||
| You know, they pretty much say it doesn't matter how bad these people are. | ||
| It's important to share, share, share so that science has larger data sets. | ||
| To work with, um, the scientists keep giving us some like attitude or tone that they're the ones who have to set the agenda. | ||
| Why are any of these little people with restrictions getting in their way? | ||
| The science, you know, can't be stopped for any reason whatsoever without any acknowledgement or recognition that it's nation states that make the laws about how science is done, especially with public funding. | ||
| So that's like. | ||
| Not overtly the theme of this article, but that's what the reader takes away is that there's a rogue global scientific body that, you know, just like these rogue nonprofits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the rogue WHO, that nobody elected, right? | ||
| There's a rogue scientific establishment, especially virology and epidemiology, it looks like, who are just going to do what they want to do And pish-tush to all those little people who want to make laws to restrict what they're doing. | ||
| The third thing I call your attention to, which is not okay at all, is that there's this kind of, I think, you know, these people scare me so much, right? | ||
| And this is Vanity Fair. | ||
| And Vanity Fair has been calling me an anti-vaxxer and smearing RFK Jr. | ||
| and all the bad things all along, right? | ||
| So suddenly, they're following Natalie Winter's wonderful reporting in the National Pulse two and a half years ago and, you know, waking everyone up to the fact that there's a national security threat in China. | ||
| Well, what worries me is that the, gee, they are playing with Ebola discourse in this piece. | ||
| I'm worried that it's like scene setting or stage setting for the next pandemic, which these awful people keep assuring us is going to B, zoonotic in origin, it's gonna cross from animals to humans. | ||
| They have no way of knowing that, and if that happens, that happens. | ||
| Humanity has lived through many waves of disease before, but they're, I am worried, setting the stage for, oh gosh, Ebola, blood coming out of every orifice, you know, that quote was very clear to spell that out. | ||
| You know, 50% fatality rate, you know, remember Bill Gates saying, well, the next one, you'll really pay attention, like you plebes weren't scared enough, With this COVID virus, the next one's really going to get you. | ||
| You'll have blood coming out of your orifices. | ||
| I mean, that's a leap. | ||
| It's an inference, but these people tend to signal and set the stage so that people have a built-in narrative to kind of fall into when the fear porn is switched on, on all channels. | ||
| Last thing I'll say, and then I will pause, I promise, is that buried in there is a paragraph about the plasma DNA. | ||
| And that they were experimenting with, and I believe Canada shipped plasma DNA to Wuhan. | ||
| And for people who haven't read this, it's stunning. | ||
| Like Canada packed, you know, deadly viruses in like someone's purse, practically, in a bunch of dry ice and put that person on a passenger flight to Wuhan. | ||
| And everyone was kind of holding their breath till the plane landed. | ||
| I mean, the description is insanely risky. | ||
| And stupid and obviously a biosecurity threat and just unbelievably childish, irresponsible treatment of deadly pathogens. | ||
| And I would not want to be sitting next to that person, you know, in coach class. | ||
| I might knock over their deadly vials when I reach for, you know, my Coke across the aisle. | ||
| So that's disturbing. | ||
| And then the plasma DNA is very disturbing because Kevin McKernan, Who's an independent scientist whose lab I visited to record this. | ||
| He found plasmid DNA fragments which are not supposed to be there in the COVID-19 injections. | ||
| And our reporting has shared, you know, my own reporting broke the news that these COVID injections were manufactured, formulated, the IP was secured and transferred, you know, distributed, packaged by China. | ||
| So now we've got Canada sending China the plasma DNA. | ||
| We've got plasma DNA fragments showing up in the COVID vaccine where it's not supposed to be causing What oncologists are worried will be, you know, catastrophic physical harms, turbo cancers. | ||
| And so it's very interesting that Canada is the source of, you know, from that article, plasma DNA that no one should have been shipping to our worst enemies. | ||
| And sure enough, this is what happens when you ship deadly bioweapons to your worst enemies. | ||
| Oh, they come back into the bodies of us. | ||
| That's what I take from that article. | ||
| Yeah, the next time someone tells you that the administrative state doesn't exist, or that there really is some rogue element within our federal government, I think maybe at the Thanksgiving table people should print out this article, because it shows you that there is this group, this kind of scientific elect, for lack of a better term, who's not elected, make no mistake, who think that they know what global scientific regulatory policy should be, and frankly, They're globalists to their core. | ||
| They don't care about borders. | ||
| All they care about is research dollars and they think that scientific collaboration with the nations whose really sole purpose in modus operandi is to destroy the United States of America and our American way of life is worth it in the name of science, right? | ||
| These people are scientists. | ||
| I think it's a weird cultish Religion to them. | ||
| And frankly, it's really the playbook of the elites, right? | ||
| It's not just outsourcing these viral pathogens and deadly Ebola strains. | ||
| They've done it with everything. | ||
| Intellectual property, our jobs, our factories, right? | ||
| It's their playbook. | ||
| There's so many conflicts of interest, whether it's on the financial front, the blackmail front. | ||
| Hunter Biden is a textbook example of that. | ||
| But speaking of conflicts of interest, now, even for myself, who has seen a lot of crazy stories, I, when I was first on this, I didn't even believe it because it's so absolutely ridiculous. | ||
| So I want you to walk us through it slowly. | ||
| Disclaimer, it's not misinformation. | ||
| This is all true. | ||
| But you have some haters. | ||
| That's probably no secret to anyone who watches this show. | ||
| A fellow Naomi, by the way, Naomi Klein, who does not like what you've been doing. | ||
| I guess she does not like the truth. | ||
| But can you tell us a little bit, first of all, about how she's been attacking you, how she's been trying to discredit you, and why you think, potentially, there may be some, whether it's financial, ideological, personnel, rationale, and motivations behind some of these moves. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| So, you know, caveat or preamble, I had really, really tried, Natalie, to, you know, rise above, pay no attention to The fact that Naomi Klein, the other Naomi, she likes to call me the other Naomi. | ||
| I don't like to other anyone, but Naomi Klein, she's a well-known liberal or left-wing climate activist. | ||
| She wrote some very important books, one called No Logo, and she came out kind of out of the blue with a book I haven't yet read. | ||
| I hope not to read it just because I don't need crazy, you know, in my daily life, but Um, it's a whole book, uh, which is predicated on the notion I gather that, well, Steve Bannon, RFK Jr. | ||
| and I, um, are kind of generals in this army of evil. | ||
| I guess you're, you're there too. | ||
| Um, who are trying to kind of destroy civilization. | ||
| We're the mirror world. | ||
| And, uh, I kind of took a, took a dive into the mirror world and MAGA and, You know, hatred and armed people. | ||
| I mean, this is truncated in Cliff Notes, right? | ||
| But it was like, why would someone so distinguished spend the peak years of her career and especially these important pandemic years, which is disaster capitalism, her initial subject at its peak, right? | ||
| The exploitation of a disaster for profit. | ||
| Why would she spend, you know, two years or whatever on a screed against me? | ||
| So I may have found the reason. | ||
| It turns out that her husband Avi Lewis, who is the son of a well-known leader of kind of left-wing politics in Canada, he got a gig as a spokesmodel for PharmaCare, which is, you will not even believe what it is, as a policy, it's like the most Corrupt policy you could possibly imagine for the pharmaceutical industry. | ||
| And so PharmaCare is a bid to nationalize all of the pharmaceutical needs of all of the people in Canada. | ||
| And so what would that be? | ||
| Well, the people of Canada spend $42 billion a year on pharmaceuticals. | ||
| So PharmaCare would transfer the market forces that lead companies like Pfizer to rise and fall, to collapse with our work here, for an example, it would take all the risk out of manufacturing pharmaceuticals and distributing them because the taxpayers of Canada would write a gigantic check via their government to this policy and pharma would pocket the check. | ||
| So Avi Lewis is the spokesmodel for this, Mr. Naomi Klein, and he's been convening | ||
| Town halls and groups and events and roundtables in cities across Canada, right starting at the point that Naomi Klein was turning her book in to be printed and published and distributed and continuing on, you know, as her book was celebrated around the world in major news outlets that have taken the pharma money or taken the Bill and Melinda Gates | ||
| Overcoming Vaccine Hesitancy Money, the BBC, The Guardian, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and none of them disclosed that the Klein-Lewis household had this relationship with Big Pharma, what looks like a professional relationship with Big Pharma. | ||
| So that was shocking enough, but I did a little more digging this morning before my second cup of coffee, and it's all right there, and it's like, New York Times, where were you that you missed this gigantic conflict of interest that Natalie Winters is one of the last living real journalists? | ||
| You know you're supposed to disclose, right? | ||
| If your spouse gets any checks from the pharmaceutical industry, if there's any financial relationship there at all, or even a professional relationship, you are supposed to disclose it to readers. | ||
| If your screed is aiming at taking out someone who's doing Important work, along with the volunteers and Amy Kelly, to reveal the harms of these mRNA injections. | ||
| There's no such disclosure. | ||
| But her father-in-law, Avi Lewis's dad, was the Canadian ambassador to the UN. | ||
| So, globalist, right? | ||
| Socialist, globalist. | ||
| You know, this is our enemy cadre right now, the socialist globalists. | ||
| But in addition to that, when he was done being ambassador to the UN, He started a global health organization that sought to inject African children with malaria vaccines and now has a nonprofit which seeks to bring COVID treatments, including vaccines, to Africa and to underserved communities. | ||
| And he got a $25 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. | ||
| So it's It's two generations of buckets and buckets, if not millions, in pharma money flowing into that extended family. | ||
| And I don't know that that's a reason for a distinguished intellectual to take time from other pressing pursuits to try to take me out reputationally. | ||
| But as an old school, classically trained journalist, that is one hell of a set of ethical conflicts of interests | ||
| Conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed and every single news outlet that has celebrated and praised and featured and excerpted and promoted this book-length hit job now, in my view and Columbia Journalism Review's view, classical journalism should update their articles with a disclosure that there are these relationships in the family with big pharma and specifically with vaccines. | ||
| It's so funny because these mainstream news outlets will spend, I mean, months and months calling your high school best friend, the brother of your high school best friend, right, to write these hit pieces on people like yourself, people like Steve, even random appointees in the Trump administration. | ||
| Yet they conveniently don't have the time to ever include the disclosure of the conflict of interest. | ||
| That's pretty sizable, not just from a familial Thai perspective, but I'm sure financial, too. | ||
| You know, my background is, of course, is in Chinese Communist Party influence operations, so I understand how they do it, and I think there's sort of similar tactics deployed. | ||
| I'm just curious to sort of go more meta on this. | ||
| You know, what you're talking about, for lack of a better term, I sort of see it as, you know, the horizontal integration or familial integration of how Big Pharma can sort of compromise a family, right? | ||
| Whether it's the husband, Yeah, the husband is pumping the policies that are favorable to them, essentially a lobbyist. | ||
| The father-in-law, they probably want to work with the son because that's who his father is, is, you know, sort of representing those interests on the globalist world stage, not the global world stage. | ||
| And then the vertical integration aspect of it, as I see how, you know, Naomi Klein's work is then amplified through the mainstream media kind of echo chamber, right? | ||
| The New York Times of the world. | ||
| And you are right, it is curious when you see outlets like Vanity Fair, who You know, demean yourself, demean myself, call Steve and RFK Jr. | ||
| crazy, suddenly sort of pick up on like 10% of the actual story that we've been talking about. | ||
| I think it's a bit of, you know, narrative control. | ||
| When too much of the truth has gotten out, they got to step in and censor it a little bit, so they try to look even-handed. | ||
| But I'm just curious, speaking on that vertical integration part, right, sort of the media aspect of it, why they're so desperate to publish someone Like Naomi Klein, right? | ||
| To attack people like you. | ||
| Do you think that there are similar conflicts of interest that are held by these major corporations, like the New York Times of the world? | ||
| In other words, do you think using the individuals that you just named as sort of Representatives of all of these different silos of influence and interests, do you think that this has played out on a much larger and bigger scale to really go after anyone who has dared to speak out about COVID-19 treatments in a way that doesn't boost the bottom line of Pfizer or Moderna? | ||
| I mean, yes. | ||
| I think we could produce a dozen examples just sitting here. | ||
| What comes to mind, you were just talking about Dr. Fauci not commenting. | ||
| Well, Dr. Fauci early on in 2020 and Francis Collins conferred to take out reputationally basically three distinguished epidemiologists and public health professors, Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Kulldorff. | ||
| And they conspired about it, and then the nation kind of did their bidding. | ||
| I mean, we saw the emails, right? | ||
| You know, you, Steve Bannon, me, as you mentioned, you know, we could go on and on. | ||
| Dr. McCullough, who said, you know, he's got the credentials being erased after his name. | ||
| All the honest doctors who are dealing with lawfare and trying not to have their licenses taken away. | ||
| I think it's a giant machine of reputation management and perception management. | ||
| For example, I contacted the Washington Post and one other news outlet and basically said, you know, you've just spent, I think the BBC, you've just spent an hour or a feature on this book that tries to destroy me, you know, tries yet again to destroy me. | ||
| you know, good luck, reputationally, will you give me equal time? | ||
| You know, I have a book out, you know, which rebuts hers. | ||
| Will you give me space? | ||
| And these are people who used to call me, commission me, assign features to me as a matter of course, I didn't even get a response. | ||
| So in addition to the smear machine, which you're absolutely right, is global and kind of working effectively, there's also a silence machine, right? | ||
| I don't get to present the other point of view. | ||
| I don't get to call up Vanity Fair. | ||
| I mean, I'll try, you know, and or call up, you know, any of these outlets. | ||
| I mean, there's no point. | ||
| They won't cover you fairly. | ||
| They won't cover me fairly. | ||
| They won't cover the Great Barrington Declaration people fairly. | ||
| And that I just recognize that those are our battle conditions. | ||
| But I guess I would also say, I think you should really take heart from the Vanity Fair piece, because when you said like truth management or information management, I do see that, Natalie. | ||
| They are, you know, beating the drum, which you were way ahead on, way ahead on, that China's our enemy. | ||
| And the way China wages war includes Bioweapons and pharmaceuticals, that has penetrated public consciousness apparently enough so that Vanity Fair, the mouthpiece of the establishment, has to kind of let a little bit of sunlight onto that question, you know, as you say, in order to kind of manage it, right? | ||
| To make it a conundrum that's ethical. | ||
| Well, will science lose? | ||
| Will the science lose if we clamped down on this from a national security perspective. | ||
| But yeah, I think there's a gigantic global bought off stack of prejudice and smearing. And Dr. | ||
| Wolf, we're coming up against a break. | ||
| I'm so glad you had the time to spend with us. | ||
| And I'm sure the audience loves your dog. | ||
| He's very cute. | ||
| But if people want to follow you and stay up to date with everything you're working on, where can they go to do that and get the book? | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| So please order Facing the Beast. | ||
| It's about us and you and the posse and what we've done together, as well as about this dark time. | ||
| And you can order it on Amazon or from Chelsea Green. | ||
| You can go to dailyclout.io. | ||
| Support us, donate, become a member. | ||
| That's the only way we made it, got the truth out during this last two years with your help. | ||
| And Substack, Outspoken is my Substack. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| Have a nice Thanksgiving. | ||
| You too. | ||
| And everyone out there, you too. | ||
| And Warren Posse, it's why you guys got to go to AmFest.com with all this talk about these evil, scary globalists who hate you. | ||
| I'm sure you probably want to spend some time With people who think like you do, in other words, normal, sane people who don't think that there are 17 genders, don't think that we should be giving reverse-engineered strains of viruses with 50% lethality rates to the Chinese Communist Party, and frankly, people who know what the CCP stands for and want to take down the CCP, so that's why you guys gotta go to AmFest, Steve is a confirmed speaker. | ||
| I'll be there. | ||
| I'm pretty sure we'll be hosting the show live. | ||
| You'll get to meet us. | ||
| Not sure why you'd want to meet me, but you can meet Steve. | ||
| He's very cool in person, even cooler than on the show, and he's pretty cool on the show. | ||
| But you gotta go to AmFest.com if you want to go. | ||
| It's in Phoenix, Arizona. | ||
| It's very fun. | ||
| I was there last year. | ||
| It's mid-December. | ||
| I'm inclined to say the 16th through the 19th. | ||
| But like I said, if you go to AmFest.com, you can get all the information. | ||
| And most importantly, you can see Steve speak live and in the flesh. | ||
| I'm sure he'll have some nice words for the Murdochs. | ||
| We'll be right back after this break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Today I'm directing the Division of Homeland Security. | ||
| and emergency services to develop media literacy tools for K-12 in our public schools. | ||
| This will teach students and even teachers to help understand how to spot conspiracy theories and misinformation, disinformation, and online hate. | ||
| Start talking about what we're seeing out there. | ||
| Give the teachers the tools they need to help these conversations in school. | ||
| And by teaching younger New Yorkers about how to discern between digital fact and digital fiction, we can better inoculate them from hatred and the spread of it, and help prepare them for a very fast-moving and often confusing world. | ||
| Welcome back to the War Room. | ||
| What you just watched is not a deepfake. | ||
| It's not AI. | ||
| It's not a joke. | ||
| Absolutely ridiculous. | ||
| Not sure how that could go wrong. | ||
| The same people who want to indoctrinate your children with far-left, weird, grooming gender ideology now want to be the arbiters of truth and misinformation and disinformation and conspiracy theories in the classroom. | ||
| pretty bizarre, but I guess totally on brand for these far left authoritarians to be going after the minds of K through 12 students because I'm sure not only do they detest the nuclear family, but they want these teachers, they want these institutions to be able to really inculcate these, probably anti-America, that's probably too euphemistic a term, but just absolutely deranged values. | ||
| They want you, frankly, to have kids that hate you, and I'm sure as much as it makes me sad to say, I'm sure there are a lot of you who watch this show who are celebrating Thanksgiving probably with a young kid, probably around my age, who probably went off to college or was in high school and got radicalized to believe a bunch of crazy stuff when they came home, when they came back on their breaks or whatever it was. | ||
| You didn't even recognize them. | ||
| But hey, now those very same people are going to be telling them. | ||
| What's a conspiracy theory? | ||
| What's misinformation? | ||
| And what's disinformation? | ||
| It's all the more important why you guys have to go to Birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| There's no misinformation on that website, just solid quality information to help you and your family really plan your own financial future that's not going to be beholden to the genius that is Janet Yellen, to the geniuses that are running the Biden regime. | ||
| Now, our next guest is someone who, if we lived in a fair and just world, would probably be an actual guest lecturer in K-12 classrooms on how to spot Actual misinformation and disinformation, particularly misinformation and disinformation that comes from the federal government on basically everything, especially January 6th. | ||
| That is, of course, a good friend of the show, Dr. Darren J. Beattie, with emphasis added on the J, as he noted. | ||
| I use middle initials for people who are very important. | ||
| But Darren, there's a lot that I want to get into. | ||
| I know there's a lot of pieces that are coming in white-hot on revolver.news, so we can start there and we'll see how much time we have. | ||
| But I would love to have you walk through what is a very wonderfully written piece on the Chauvin verdict, but more precisely the trial, and how it sort of reflects the new America that we live in. | ||
| Well, indeed, and always great to be back with you, Natalie. | ||
| The piece that you talked about is, again, white hot, and it's very appropriate for us to understand. | ||
| People might know recently Um, the Supreme Court denied, uh, cert, uh, to the appeal in the Chauvin case, which is very disappointing and cowardly, but perhaps not surprising when you consider, um, some of the Supreme Court's track record, which is mixed to say, to say the least. | ||
| Um, but a lot of conservatives are starting to revisit the verdict and people who are squeamish about doing the right thing, or at least saying the right thing at the time, are now kind of more comfortable with a, you know, late but still worthwhile re-evaluation of what happened. | ||
| And so we go through the jury, we go through the trial and some of the just egregious blunders that occurred on the part of the jury. | ||
| You know, just some examples, there were, you know, old, you know, single Mothers who didn't quite understand the law, who didn't understand the purpose of the jurors, didn't understand that they were trying to, you know, find facts and not, you know, basically say whether Chauvin was sympathetic enough. | ||
| We had cases of one juror who is a Black Lives Matter sympathizer. | ||
| We go through other cases with jurors in some instances who are recent immigrants who barely speak English, let alone have any kind of Relation to or knowledge of or skin in the Anglo tradition, which kind of gave birth to the modern jury system, a jury of your peers. | ||
| And so we go from that to say, you know, what does it actually mean to have a jury of your peers? | ||
| You know, what does that mean in terms of the history of the Anglo legal tradition? | ||
| And, you know, it varies according to its practice in England and its practice in the United States, but in all instances, There's this notion that the jurors should have some kind of skin in the game. | ||
| There should be an embeddedness in the community and in the polity that serves as a proxy for a sense of responsibility and maybe an elevated level of judiciousness, or at least, you know, judgment for a juror to actually fulfill the required functions assigned to him. | ||
| And these are totally absent in the modern practice of the juror. | ||
| They can get anybody. | ||
| You can get an illiterate. | ||
| You can get people who, you know, have no idea what the actual function of a juror is to say, OK, are we supposed to determine facts here according to the law or how we feel? | ||
| And the case of the Chauvin verdict is such a powerful example of the erosion of the rule of law in America because It was such a profound and direct clash between the proper practice of a trial by jury in terms of this Anglo tradition and the extraordinary political pressures involved in a case like Chauvin's. | ||
| We've seen a case with Kyle Rittenhouse, for instance, which also had tremendous political pressures. | ||
| But Rittenhouse was saved, I think, by the fact that The people that he defended himself against happened to be white, white Antifa people. | ||
| In some cases, I think, pedophiles and really disgusting people. | ||
| In the case of Chauvin, the extremely vexed issue of American racial politics was enveloped within it. | ||
| And it's almost practically impossible for the right verdict to be rendered in that case. | ||
| So it's a great example of the erosion of the rule of law. | ||
| And also just how the modern jury system functions. | ||
| And the title of the piece is called Trial by Ordeal. | ||
| And this is supposed to invoke this old concept of a trial by ordeal in medieval times and in feudal times in which the defendants or the accused would be, for instance, submerged in water. | ||
| And they say, well, if they drown, they must be guilty. | ||
| But if they happen to survive, you know, they're innocent to sort of Random events that are sort of appeals to heaven in the expectation that, oh, if the person gets lucky, that's sort of divine providence saying that this person is innocent. | ||
| It was a crapshoot. | ||
| And in a weird way, we've regressed back to that practice because functionally, the jury system is a complete crapshoot. | ||
| You don't know, you know, you can get A, you know, 50 some year olds, a single mother works at a nonprofit who has, you know, no idea of what, you know, jurors supposed to do. | ||
| You could get a recent immigrant who has, you know, barely even knows English, let alone knows how to, you know, function on a jury. | ||
| Total crapshoot. | ||
| So in a weird way, we're back to this trial by ordeal thing where a random selection of America's dramatically depreciating human capital becomes this appeal to heaven, this total crapshoot, according to which people's fates are determined in our new and by no means improved legal system. | ||
| And the real dark part of this, if people aren't depressed enough hearing about this, the real dark part about this is this is the best that you can get. | ||
| You're better off with a jury than you are with a judge, because the system is very predictably and reliably set against you. | ||
| At least with the jury, you have a chance of getting a fair hearing. | ||
| And that's kind of the real, the real dark part of the story. | ||
| So people found this really interesting, really troubling, but also interesting because we get deep into the history of it and kind of contextualize the Chauvin trial across a lot of levels. | ||
| Very dark indeed, and I think when people like myself and yourself, when you sit around and think about what the Founding Fathers would think if they came back to America today. | ||
| I mean, I don't even think there are words to describe what their reactions would be. | ||
| It really is quite Sad in this piece. | ||
| I read it. | ||
| It's actually quite wonderfully dark, but very, very accurate. | ||
| But speaking, because you can sort of extrapolate this as a metaphor for how we've strayed from the founding of this country, for all intents and purposes, of course, the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, that government shouldn't really be involved in the business of censorship, is something that you've obviously dedicated a lot of your time and career and work on. | ||
| I'm curious now, I believe it was last week, maybe a little under a week ago, the FCC voted to basically okay a new plan from Joe Biden that is very euphemistically coined digital equity. | ||
| Now, a lot of naysayers, the detractors to this digital equity plan say that it's sort of just a blank check for the federal government to be able to regulate Everything about the internet, not just, you know, comment sections and content, but quite literally, internet service providers, where routers and networks are, and it's sort of, from the analysis I've seen, a very regressive take, in other words, | ||
| If these companies don't have the same internet speed, say, where I am versus where you are versus, say, you know, low-income neighborhood, or whatever the politically correct term would be, that they could face financial fees or certain regulatory actions because it's not equitable. | ||
| It's absolutely mind-boggling. | ||
| Like I said, it's really just a blank check. | ||
| So, of course, it'd be supported by the Biden regime. | ||
| But I'm just curious, from your perspective, as someone who's really monitored you know, the CISA censorship kind of effort, of course, that is very nicely, dovetails with the January 6th stuff. | ||
| But I'm just curious your thoughts on sort of what seems to be launching the censorship campaign into overdrive, now touching, really fingering the FCC to be involved in this effort too. | ||
| This is a really important topic, and I'm so glad that you're on top of it, Natalie. | ||
| And it's just amazing to see that there's quite literally nothing within the scope of American institutions that is not sacrificed on the poisonous altar of diversity, equity, and inclusion. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| This poison has infected every aspect of our political life, of our cultural life, and Really on the deepest level imaginable. | ||
| And, and here you have yet another instance where, you know, you never know if it's serious or not, because there's some, there's some theories that say, Oh, it's just window dressing. | ||
| Uh, DEI is just a cynical ploy for people to grab power. | ||
| And in this instance, that might be right. | ||
| On other instances, it seems entirely sincere as deranged as that is. | ||
| And that's probably in the air traffic controller. | ||
| You know, if you have a cynical approach to DEI, You know, maybe you're going to have ultra diverse commercials, but when it comes to the basic preconditions of having the trains run in time, so to speak, or the planes not colliding into one another, you make sure that, you know, diversity takes a back seat. | ||
| No pun intended. | ||
| But in this case, we might have a little bit of both, but it's clearly pretextual on some level. | ||
| And as you point out, This gives tremendous power, tremendous leverage to the government over every conceivable aspect of the Internet, not just the content of the Internet and the way we're accustomed to thinking as it relates to, say, a social media platform, but this gets into the very, like, physical architecture of the Internet and the bandwidth and just a full range | ||
| Of what the Internet is built on. | ||
| And that, of course, is not not great news. | ||
| The last people we want to have more leverage and authority over these matters is the federal bureaucracy. | ||
| So this is a very dangerous development. | ||
| I've heard a lot of different I.T. | ||
| professionals and really sophisticated people in the tech space who have expressed deep concern about this. | ||
| So Hopefully we're able to push back in a meaningful sense and the poisonous specter of DEI doesn't further erode what freedoms we're able to enjoy through the internet. | ||
| It's a power grab that I think almost rivals the pandemic. | ||
| And frankly, one of the words that they created, not COVID-19 or not gain-of-function research during the pandemic was, you know, the term infodemic. | ||
| And I think we've sort of seen those fake and unfounded fears brought to life, right? | ||
| They justify the need, the existence of whether it's this weird digital equity plan, CISA, idea just a disinformation governance board under the pretext that you know the greatest national security threat that we face right now is misinformation which of course is absurd at face value only people who thought that maybe that the people on the show injury uh... but i'm i'm curious there's other story that i think sir loops and ties | ||
| very nicely on on revolver today that had to do with what seems to be a and multi-year program that has been allowing law enforcement officials to access basically phone records uh... all americans not just people that they have warrants for under surveillance It seems like sort of a fast and loose application of who law enforcement can monitor. | ||
| You're the January 6th expert in all the evidence that they've used or manufactured to, you know, carry out and prosecute all those cases. | ||
| I'm just curious your thoughts on that story. | ||
| Well, it's just more disturbing evidence of how far we've fallen and what a police state, a surveillance state we've become. | ||
| You know, this is, we're, you know, decades out from the so-called Snowden revelations that, you know, the NSA was encroaching on our liberties in this fashion. | ||
| But at least the NSA, there's The perception that it's extremely far removed and, you know, it doesn't touch upon the day-to-day kind of law enforcement activities that are sort of even more so an invasion of our privacy and our liberty. | ||
| Not that the NSA encroachments are good, but there's some sense that the NSA was more distant and detached and whereas now we're seeing that Similar types and scale of violations are being practiced across the board throughout the federal government. | ||
| And here we have it even at the law enforcement level, at the local law enforcement level, at the federal law enforcement level. | ||
| And so it's very dangerous in any case, but it's particularly so given the new function of these organizations, which have been so dramatically Weaponized politically and, you know, the whole January 6 issue is a great instance of not only how they've been weaponized, but also as a, you know, pretextually the, you know, what the justification is for further weaponization. | ||
| So yes, very, very troubling development. | ||
| And also, you know, I was, I had a brief, but I think impactful part in a recent film called Police State. | ||
| And one of the several points I made in this film, I think is quite appropriate here, is to say that we have the worst of all worlds. | ||
| It's not simply the case that we live in a police state. | ||
| We don't even get the benefits of a police state. | ||
| In order to have clean streets, we have to wait for a visit from President Xi. | ||
| You would think at least that we're going to live in a surveillance state, in a police state, with Minimal liberties, we could at least have clean and safe streets, but we don't even get that. | ||
| We get the worst of both worlds. | ||
| We're North Korea and Mogadishu at the same time in some respects. | ||
| And that really underscores not only the injury, but also the insult of the particular blend of dystopia that we're devolving into, and we may already be. | ||
| Um, in the United States of America, what I've come to call the globalist American empire. | ||
| And Darren, I've got to let you go. | ||
| Cause we're coming up against a break, but if people want to follow you do all that, where can they go to do so? | ||
| Excellent. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Revolver.news, as you point out, white, white, hot, um, this latest piece on show and getting a lot of feedback. | ||
| So please go read it and share it with friends and enemies alike. | ||
| I am always on. | ||
|
unidentified
|
X. Sounds so weird to say that still. | |
| I'm on X. I'm at Darren J. Beattie, and we are WhiteHot all the time on Getter. | ||
| Very active account at Revolver News, so check us out there. | ||
| He is a must-follow. | ||
| Darren, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| Thank you, Natalie. | ||
| And Warren Posse, you guys know what else is coming in. | ||
| WhiteHot, Warpath Coffee, how's that for a segue? | ||
| You gotta go to warpath.coffee, that's a pretty good domain name, and you can use promo code WAROOM to get what is, I think, a pretty cool discount on some pretty awesome, some pretty quality coffee. | ||
| They're one of our newer sponsors, so make sure you go and show them some love so they can understand the power of the Waroom audience. | ||
| I think Kevin McCarthy may just be able to tell them a little bit about how strong and committed Of an audience you guys are, and Mike Johnson too, I guess. | ||
| Warren Posse, thank you so much for hanging with me. | ||
| If I don't see you before Thanksgiving, I hope you have a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving with your family and friends. | ||
| And print out that article and tell them that the Deep State exists. |
Export Selection