May 26, 2021 - Slightly Offensive - Elijah Schaffer
44:50
Why the GOP Allows America’s Destruction | Guest: Dr. Darren Beattie | Ep 156
John Doyle guest hosts the latest episode of Slightly Offens*ve to discuss how Republicans have proven themselves to be perfectly capable of winning elections, but incredibly incapable of winning policy battles. He is joined by Darren Beattie, creator of Revolver News, to delve into how the Right needs to reorient itself toward securing actual political victories, as opposed to simply soaking up donor cash and creating lobbying jobs for RINOs who don’t care about our country. ________________________________________________________________ Become a subscriber at BlazeTV https://get.blazetv.com/slightly-offensive/ use my code "ELIJAH" to get $10 off a full year ________________________________________________________________ Slightly Offens*ve Merch: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/elijah-schaffer ________________________________________________________________ ⇩ FOLLOW DARREN BEATTIE ⇩ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie WEBSITE: https://www.revolver.news/ ________________________________________________________________ DOWNLOAD AUDIO PODCAST & GIVE A 5 STAR RATING!: APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/slightly-offens-ve-uncut/id1450057169 SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7jbVobnHs7q8pSRCtPmC41?si=qnIgUqbySSGdJEngV-P5Bg (also available Google Podcasts & wherever else podcasts are streamed) ______________________________________________________________ ➤BOOKINGS/INQUIRIES: ELIJAH@SLIGHTLYOFFENSIVE.COM _________________________________________________________________ ⇩ SOCIAL MEDIA ⇩ ➤ ELI'S LINKTREE https://linktr.ee/elijahschaffer ➤ SAV'S LINKTREE https://linktr.ee/savsays ➤ INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/slightlyoffensive.tv ➤ PARLER https://parler.com/profile/Elijahschaffer/posts ➤ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer ➤ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/officialslightlyoffensive _________________________________________________________________ The Idea Of A Free Society...For Kids! Head to https://teachrealprinciples.com for a unique book series that introduces the important ideas that schools no longer teach.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcU1p-EJlHU
Uploader: Slightly Offens*ve
Well, as President Trump would say, I think General Douglas MacArthur would be turning in his grave right about now.
Welcome back to Slightly Offensive, the best, worst show on Blaze TV where everybody gets confetti because we believe in equality.
I am your host, John Doyle, filling in for Elijah Schaefer while he goes to get his sex reassignment surgery.
And we're very excited for that.
He will be coming back next week as Ellie Schaefer.
So go ahead and leave a comment.
I stand with Ellie, hashtag I stand with Ellie.
To qualify myself to fill in for Elijah, I guess I would have to remind you that, of course, I am a black person expert, a trauma expert, a clown pill expert.
And now, in addition, specifically today, I am also a politics expert, an Elijah Schaefer expert, and then a Savannah expert.
So we're very excited.
We're very excited about that.
But anyways, we have a very special guest for you today to sort of break down the future of the country.
The reason we play the military clip is because for the longest time, we all know the rhetoric.
It was, okay, America can fall, everything can go to crap, but at least we've got the military and we love our military and we do.
Very noble people, very good people.
But if you look at what the institution has become, it sort of raises some questions.
And so we brought in none other than Dr. Darren J. Beattie, larger than life and twice as handsome, the genius behind Revolver.news.
Now, the first thing I kind of wanted to talk about, because as you know, the GOP is a joke.
And so actually, I did also want to qualify Darren a little bit and give him the title of politics expert, along with cobalt expert.
And I was hoping that as we go, you can kind of square how those two things overlap for us.
But if you look at like the conservatives in this country, the GOP, we electorally, we win a lot relative to even the left.
We don't secure a lot of policy victories.
And so when you look at something like the Drudge Report, I think that that's almost emblematic of the state of the right in this country, where it was something that got a lot of attention, got a lot of money going towards it.
But then as far as the results it was able to produce in like the 2016 and 2020 elections, it kind of deviated from what the base really wanted it to be, which leads us into something that you created.
So I was hoping you'd give us a summary of like what Revolver is, what prompted you to start it, how you got the endorsement from President T himself, et cetera.
It's important for me because, of course, I'd like to promote Revolver.news, but also it's important generally for people to understand the information ecosystem of the right, because we're not going to do anything if we don't control and command the information ecosystem.
And I think what happened with Drudge was conspicuous.
It was a disgrace and it was a disgrace at a crucial moment.
And it really invited us to reflect on, you know, how many right-wing slash conservative media outlets are really out there catering to the beliefs of the people, much less catering to the interests of the people and shaping narratives that serve those interests in a way that actually advances our cause politically.
And those are two actually, those are two different things.
And so, you know, just being new to the media business, but Revolver has been tremendously successful.
Recently we exposed one of the key ideological hatchet men in the Pentagon who's in charge with vetting the United States military ideologically.
That's related to the really shocking clip that you opened up this segment with it's.
I thought when I was watching it the first time it was a preview for a movie Eat Pray, Love And Bomb.
But it really cuts the core of a disturbing development in our politics that as much as we emphasize the partisan aspect of our politics, which is important, don't get me wrong, the left versus right, the Republicans versus the Democrats, I think the most disturbing and perhaps most important trend in our politics is the weaponization of the national security state itself,
the politicization of the national security state, and the fact that so much of it has been repurposed, redeployed domestically in order to silence, suppress, and crush those anti-establishment energies associated with the victory of Donald Trump.
And I think this is the trend that Revolver.news has been on top of from day one.
And I think that accounts for a lot of our popularity in such a small timeframe.
And I did want to get your take on something, which is the general sentiment amongst a lot of people on the right is this idea of, well, if we start creating narratives, isn't that just a form of like pseudo-indoctrination?
How does that make us better than the left if we're the ones telling people what to think instead of them telling us to think?
It's sort of this prisoner's dilemma of trying to maintain the moral vacuum.
We're not going to oppose ourselves, so we're going to effectively cede ground to them.
What do you think is the cause of that attitude on the right, philosophically or practically?
And then how do you go about sort of getting them in the right direction, so to speak?
And whether or not we can answer this question and deliver on that answer is the difference between winning and losing.
Unfortunately, institutionally, the right in the United States is not set up to win.
It's set up to provide a lot of people with sinecures.
It's devised to set up people with cushy lobbying jobs.
It's devised to serve the interests of various power sectors in our country, including the military-industrial complex, to some extent the finance industry, to some extent the energy sector.
But what it's not set up to do is actually shape the country according to the values of the majority of the country.
That's what it's not set up to do.
In that sense, it plays a decidedly subordinate role in our politics.
It's always following, never leading.
And you see this at the retail level of politics in the way it follows the left's narratives, even as it attempts to attack the left.
Now, the paradigmatic example of that is the Democrats are the real racists.
You take a term that's owned and controlled by the left, that has billions and billions of dollars of emotional propaganda valence built into it for a very specific purpose, a catalog of negative associations for the right.
You have this word, and instead of combating it intelligently, you simply say, well, it's the left or the real racists.
And by doing that, even if you obtain a very temporary and very trivial political victory over a specific figure, maybe some Democrat was caught using a slur or something like that, or promoting a tough crime bill that actually people on the right should support in any other context.
If you can score a small victory over him, you do that at the expense of further legitimizing and further entrenching the very category that's used as a bludgeon to keep you in a subordinate position politically.
And that's just one example.
And that's why it's so important for the right in the news in particular, not to be following, not to be pointing fingers and saying we're playing catch up, not to be using the left's terms that they created and saying that's what they are, shaping narratives.
And it's almost, I feel like, and I know that a lot of the baby boomers don't like to hear things from people as young as myself because they feel like, you know, I'm naive.
What do I know?
But watching the rhetoric surrounding Caitlin Jenner in California, I seriously feel as though it's been reduced to like babysitting children with some of the takes that we've been hearing.
Like it's literally like, well, you called us the transphos, but now we get to call you the transphos because we support Caitlin.
And it's like literally just waiting for them to provide to you any opportunity for you to like flip that back at them.
And I made this point in one of my videos too.
It's sort of this, and we'll get into it a little bit later, this hyperfixation on hypocrisy, which I would regard to basically be the cry of the impotent, you know, complaining that they have the power to set standards and they don't even follow them themselves instead of you being able to set any standards yourself.
But before we get into that, I do have to command the audience to go check out the slightly offensive merch in the description.
We're very excited about it.
I have some bullet points.
It is soft.
It is stylish.
It is comfortable.
And most importantly, it shows us that you support Ellie Schaefer as she makes her transition.
So we're very excited about it.
So click on the link in the description.
You can get the coffee mug, the signature coffee mug, which I sometimes pervert by putting a coffee cup into and creating like this sort of like mega beverage apparatus.
take a look and for our audio listeners as well and this is an old clip from last year in 2020 This is a woman who is sitting outside at a restaurant surrounded by Black Lives Matter protesters basically telling her that they need to stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.
And this has been going on probably for the better part of the last year and a half, increasingly so.
And Darren, you and I spoke on the phone right before everything popped off last summer, and you made a point to me, the dichotomy between don't tread on me and silence is violence.
I was wondering if you could reiterate that to the wonderful audience, because that is such a good point that so few will take into account.
I would love to, but if you'll indulge me, I'd just like to address the Caitlin Jenner point very quickly.
Sure.
I think it's very important, and it really illustrates the reductio ad absurdum of this Democrats to the real racist principle.
And the logical conclusion of this type of subordinate mindset is people on the right advancing Caitlin Jenner and saying, and as some did, advance Caitlin Jenner and compared Caitlin Jenner to the, I suppose, less attractive version of transsexual of Rachel Levine, who's serving in the Biden administration,
as though it was literally, our transsexual is more attractive than yours.
It's like a, it's like, I hate to use the word, but it's almost like a pissing contest between transsexuals.
That's what the whole thing is reduced to.
And if you really look at the Caitlin Jenner thing, it's even like one of those Russian dolls where there's this same kind of moral subservience nested in another category of moral cesurians.
So they're using Caitlin Jenner as a spokesperson to say, we're not trans folk.
That's automatically to say, I have no moral authority to speak for myself.
I need a spokesperson who represents this category of person in order to prove to my moral superiors that I'm not this category of bigot, which automatically puts you in a defensive and subordinate position.
But the position people were using Caitlin Jenner as a spokesperson for is this whole trans women in sports issue, which represents just another degree of capitulation, I think, on the right, because so many people on the right are formulating this as a Title IX issue of wanting to, you know, we're the real feminists because we're defending women's sports here, which is again,
like it's not as egregious as using Caitlin Jenner as a spokesperson.
But again, it shows that the right can't advance, the institutional right can't advance anything that actually serves its core constituency.
In fact, the most egregious perpetrators of identity politics are professional conservatives who rail against identity politics.
And that is part of our problem here.
Everything set up to be fake, symbolic, performative, designed to serve one of those power sector constituencies.
The right is simply not set up to win.
And that explains why you raised earlier, how can we win so many elections and yet we lose everything of importance because we don't have an infrastructure set up to win.
Winning elections is all about the fundraising machine.
It's all about serving, again, the energy sector, military, industrial complex, finance.
It's not designed to actually deliver the results the American people want.
And until that bottleneck is fixed, it's all going to be fake and performative.
So I think all of the real people, all the serious people, people like you, people like me, we need to focus with severity and persistence, relentless persistence on navigating these bottlenecks.
Yeah, there's literally, and that's how you know these people are just not serious.
They're acting in bad faith.
What possibly could the exit strategy be for ceding the issue of gender identity?
I mean, that which defines the right, I would argue, is fundamentally an acknowledgement of nature and of hierarchy.
And it's like, if you're willing to cede, you know, tax policy, gun policy, great.
But if you are willing to cede the reality of our existence to the left so that you can like dunk on that one aunt who made a comment to you about you being a transpho back in 2015 when the Vanity Fair cover came out, it's like, where do you think you're going to go from there?
Where do you think you're going to actually start to finally take a stand against the left?
Which gets, of course, into the don't tread on me.
You know, don't step on me.
Don't step.
Eventually I'll bite you.
It's coming.
You know, maybe it'll take you knocking on my door and taking my child away.
But then, of course, I back the blue.
So I will hand you my child and my rifles over and I will ask you to look at my Blue Lives Matter bumper sticker.
I gave a speech last weekend and I brought that point up because I think a lot of libertarian types misunderstand this about the more conservative traditional types, I guess, which is that we're not principally opposed to liberty and freedom and those things, but we recognize that there are forces that exist that seek to prevent us from enjoying those things.
And so we necessarily have to wield power in order to sort of facilitate that society.
And the founding fathers knew this.
And I would even argue that the don't tread on me flag sort of agrees with us when taken to its conclusion, which is that, okay, we thought that we could just, you know, rattle and then we wouldn't get stepped on.
But like once you're stepped on, that implies that the snake is going to bite back.
And we will march through the institutions and take them back and wield that power responsibly in alignment with what we know is true and what we know is morally correct to actually take back our country as opposed to, like you said, just getting lobbying contracts and then moving into gated communities away from the effects of the policies and all that sorts of stuff.
So yeah, there was another actually on that note.
I don't know if you saw in the White House, there were no more masks or social distancing necessary.
And this was caught on tape.
And this sort of gets back into the hypocrisy versus the establishing the moral narrative.
So we saw this and you saw articles from all your standard issue, all the usual suspects in conservative media talking about, well, the left says this, but here they are doing this instead of recognizing their own impotence and inability to sort of set narratives for themselves.
And when you really have to think about it, you have to keep your eye on the prize, so to speak.
And look, the issue comes up with vaccines.
Now, I know it's a controversial issue.
I'm not saying people should think one way or another, but I do think it's interesting how in order to make a political point, people will say something like, in fact, the great Donald Trump falls into this problem sometimes as well,
is that there's such an impulse to take the short-term political victory and say, oh, actually, under Trump with Operation Warp speed, we were able to create vaccines quickly and efficiently.
So we were better at providing people with the vaccines rather than questioning underlying, you know, is this something we want?
Are the safety protocols there?
I'm not saying one way or another.
I'm saying time after time, what happens is people just fall into the temptation of grabbing the short-term political victory.
Same thing with NATO.
Is the question with NATO really that, oh, we want to get our NATO partners to chip in more money?
I mean, that's not nothing.
It's important.
But the bigger question is, does NATO, as it's currently constructed, serve the interests of the United States anymore?
That's another question.
And so to the extent that we're in competition saying, well, we've got the European allies to contribute more to NATO than before, that's kind of detracting from the underlying and possibly more important question of, is this something we want?
And so I think a general principle to keep in mind on a whole host of issues is, are you grabbing the short-term political victory to own the Dems?
Or are you keeping your eyes on the prize in terms of actually shaping the reality that's going to control this country?
And time after time, unfortunately, I see the right really falling into the trap of taking the short-term political victory rather than keeping the eye on the prize.
And sometimes keeping the eye on the prize means praising the other side when they do what you want.
I think that we almost naturally, as right-wing people, tend to think that we're sort of the natural state of the world.
And eventually, if people just thought for themselves, they would figure it out.
You know, when you get older, they'll figure it out once they start paying taxes.
That type of rhetoric, as opposed to actually being proactive and understanding that politics is a spectator sport.
And 90% of people are basically just going to go along with whatever the narrative is and whatever the media tells them so as to, I guess, legitimize the perceived systems of authority and then also serve their own self-image in regards to, well, I was ahead of the curve.
I was right.
I'm on the right side of history.
But even in Michigan, I moved down to Texas from Michigan about four months ago.
Our governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who's been one of the most heroic in terms of how she's been treating the state with the lockdowns and everything, she even got in trouble because she went to a bar in East Lansing.
And what was interesting about this as well is I guess her PR team told her that she should come out and apologize for it, which she did.
There's actually an article on Revolver recently about the mask cult, really.
It's cult in the sense that they're following the cult of expertise rather than science as such.
And it really becomes an issue of what something signals politically and sociologically rather than the first order utility of something itself.
It's not about wearing the mask for what the mask does in terms of health benefits.
It's wearing the mask for those indirect signaling mechanisms, what it signals to other people, what it signals to oneself.
And in a weird way, again, we can look at these hypocrisies or inconsistencies, but you also have to resolve them to what does it actually mean.
And one of the most profound seeming hypocrisies of the past year, certainly I would say the most profound, is the juxtaposition of this extremely severe COVID cult of lockdowns and restrictions with mass public protests.
And again, you see the people bashing the streets and setting fire to the streets.
You would think on one hand that those are the exact opposite of the ultra-compliant people wearing the mask, but actually they're both expressions of fealty to the power structure and they're both instruments of the power structure.
It's just one is deferring to expertise of one kind and the other is deferring to authority of the other kind.
But all roads lead to the corrupt ruling class in this country.
So I think that's pretty much the ultimate last boss here is all roads lead to the corrupt ruling class of what I call the globalist American empire.
Yeah, and that's the thing too, is the reason they don't like the masks.
Like if you and I walked into a Whole Foods or something with an AR-15, people would probably get out of there because that would elicit a fear reaction.
But when you don't wear a mask, it's not a fear reaction.
It's like a, he's not supposed to be doing that.
Like they're like mad that you're not following the same rules that they have to, like as though you went in there without a shirt or without shoes or something.
They're mad that you're deviating from the systems upheld by the globalist American empires.
Like the 10th Amendment, Savannah can pull it up, literally says the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
Why are Republicans refusing to wield the power?
I mean, some of them have, like, I think in Iowa and more like Northwestern states, kind of like Montana, Idaho, those states have.
Why are so many Republicans just basically sitting back and collecting the donor money while refusing to dedicate an afternoon to actually solving the problems in this country?
Of course, as a strict constitutional matter, you're right.
But again, that's, I say it flippantly, but that's just what the Constitution says.
That hasn't really mattered in this country for a very, very long time.
If we can just say, okay, the Constitution says this, then that would solve a lot of problems.
But unfortunately, we're not in that reality, but you're absolutely correct on that.
I think secondarily, absolutely, state governments should be more creative and even aggressive in terms of exploring just how much flexibility they have in terms of exercising the state power in order to maybe not even technically contravene because again, as you mentioned, constitutionally, it's within the scope of state power technically.
So see how far that can go.
I do think, though, again, keeping with my attitude of trying to be realistic and accurate as to where the actual bottlenecks to progress are, the realities are formally we have federalism, but the reality is whenever you see a state actually starting to do something real, now 99% of it is fake and performative.
That's just the rule of politics on the right right now.
At least 99% is fake and performative.
It might even sound great.
It has great punchlines.
Maybe some of the wording of the legislation is great, but the loopholes make it such that it is effectively fake and performative.
But the space that isn't fake and performative, when that is tapped into, there is an absolute hell to pay in terms of the leverage that the state has and the state through its basically private cutouts.
We've seen the example of certain states trying to maneuver around trans issues and stuff like that.
What you see is the entirety of corporate America. coming together in order to punish that state.
And so I think when we look at these bottlenecks, we have to be realistic about where the leverage is.
And a state can only go so far until the entirety of corporate America is in lockstep against them.
And that's real pressure.
Now, maybe the governor of a state should stand up to that pressure.
I think they should.
But it's not as simple as, oh, the state should just basically do this because constitutionally they're able and that's it.
No, the system is quite robust and quite effective in terms of keeping various sectors in line.
And unfortunately, the entire corporate apparatus in this country is aligned against any kind of opposition.
That's related to another question, I think, about big tech that I'd like to bring up quickly.
And that is that most people think the bottleneck to big tech is all these big tech companies are just private companies.
They can do what they want.
And that used to be an excuse for the more libertarian-minded conservatives to say, oh, we don't want to touch them.
But now I think it's gone in the other direction where people think, oh, there's this strict and meaningful separation between the government and big tech.
But actually, if you look at how these power sectors function, big tech in its key and most important respects is essentially a cutout of the American security state.
You cannot ultimately separate the two.
And so the bottlenecks that you run into when you try to correct the big tech problem, you ultimately run into the national security state problem because big tech is an extension of the national security state.
Yeah, and that's an interesting thing that the right is going through right now because we've spent the better part of the last 45 years shilling for total free market capitalism.
And now the results of that are coming back to bite us.
And we're so confused why these corporations, which are just people, corporations are just pieces of paper, but now they're running literally like state adjacent propaganda to target children and the American consciousness.
And we literally have no idea how to push back against that because we're supposed to, I guess, be in support of that.
And, you know, hey, at least it's not state power.
Sure, it saves the, it serves the same ends as the state and as the globalist American empire, the ruling class, but at least it is nominally not directly from the state.
So we can't necessarily allude to 1984 as effectively, which I guess is something to be aspired to.
But on that, on the Republicans' proclivity towards shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm sure you saw this a few weeks ago, that influential Republicans are threatening to form a new party.
They're threatening to divorce themselves from the GOP.
What do you think about that?
What do you think about the incessant efforts to keep the party down and in this sort of ineffective, impotent state?
Well, you're referring to the never Trumpers doing that.
Well, I mean, in a way, I basically, I would basically have to welcome it.
I think from their point of view, it's not going to make a difference.
They have, again, they have two or three billionaires basically financing the entire so-called never Trump conservative movement.
That will never change.
It will never change no matter how unpopular they are, no matter how humiliated they are publicly.
Even some of these organizations like Project Lincoln, exposed for connections to all kinds of horrendous sex crime.
No matter what happens with them, they will always remain afloat in some form or another because they have the same handful of billionaires doing that.
But what that means from the standpoint of a Republican Party that we want, in a way, I think these more overt and hostile never Trumpers, they're far less dangerous than the Trumpists in name only who kind of find a way to advance the same America-last policies, but at the very end of it, they pay lip service to Donald Trump.
And those people are actually just much more dangerous and much more insidious than the people who are very overtly Never Trump.
I was thrilled at what happened to Liz Cheney being booted out.
In fact, President Trump, who loves Revolver.news, reads it frequently.
That was one of the few pieces that he publicly praised by name was our piece slamming Liz Cheney.
So I think it's a great thing that she's out.
At the same time, I recognize that Liz Cheney, in a way, she is very overt about what she's about.
We all know that she's a never-Trump, or we all know she should be nowhere near the halls of power.
But there are many people who have the same views and the same agenda as Liz Cheney, but they couch it in terms of support for Trump.
They couch it in terms of being America first.
And I think these are the elements that we need to be most concerned for.
So to the extent that the never Trump types will out themselves publicly and under their own volition separate themselves from the party, I think we should welcome that.
We know what they are.
They're not popular.
They will remain afloat to some degree because they have a handful of billionaires, but they're just not relevant and they're effectively ringers and Democrats.
What we need to worry about is making sure the people who represent themselves as Republican are actually representing the Republican voter.
And oftentimes people even misunderstand what it really means to be a rhino.
Like the rhinos that you hear about in the media are actually what we would regard to be like, you know, authentically conservative.
They've got it totally backwards as far as who should have our ire and who should not.
And that even gets into the 1.6 Commission, which you had an interesting take about because a lot of people are saying that we should just completely divorce ourselves from it.
It's a bad idea.
You actually came out, you said the opposite.
You said it's a good idea provided that it's done responsibly.
I have polite disagreement with great people that I respect.
And look, maybe this is just me being a little bit too optimistic, a little bit too aggressive.
But again, I think we're in such a difficult position right now.
Whenever you're in a difficult position, you don't want to stay with the status quo.
You want to take the highly leveraged move.
The highly leveraged move is to work with this commission and say, hey, this is a national platform on which to air out real troubling questions pertaining to what happened with 1.6.
And one way that Revolver.news distinguished itself on a very big stage was exposing the myths behind 1.6, specifically this idea that there was an officer, Officer Sicknick, who was bludgeoned to death by the MAGA mob.
We called that a MAGA blood libel and exposed the problems with it.
New York Times retracted it and ultimately, fairly recently, it came out that Officer Sicknick died of natural causes.
We have another open piece out calling into question this so-called pipe bomber.
People may have forgotten about this.
The FBI released a video saying, oh, there was a pipe bomber here.
Well, there are severe questions about that.
We go into detail about what is actually going on with this pipe bomber.
Very suspicious.
A lot of questions there that need to be asked.
Questions about who shot Ashley Babbitt?
She was actually the only person killed on the Capitol, and she was a Trump supporter and she was unarmed.
What was the decision process and justification for that?
And there are many other very disturbing questions.
I think the biggest question is: why did they have such lax security?
There was a recent video out of the authorities telling the people in the Capitol, it's okay, just stay peaceful.
And it was very clear that they had horrible security there.
And we know from multiple reports from various figures saying the federal authorities visited me, not me, but people are saying this.
Federal authorities visited me and said, Are you planning anything in 1.6?
So the authorities had 1.6 on their radar and they've been monitoring various groups.
And so if they had this on their radar to any extent, how can you account for the fact that there was not only was there no security, but there are many authorities actively inviting people into the Capitol?
That's a very weird thing.
And I would love for that question to be explored in the Commission.
So I think, again, it's one of these things that a lot of the Republican leaders, they understand that 1.6 is used as a MAGA blood libel.
They understand that the narrative associated with 1.6 is designed to demonize MAGA and Trump supporters in order to serve as a pretext for this new domestic war on terror, this weaponization of the national security state that I've been talking about.
But it doesn't have to be that way because actually the truth behind 1.6, I believe, is not bad for us.
It's not bad for Trump supporters.
It's not bad for patriots.
The truth about 1.6 is very, very bad for the people now calling for this 1.6 commission and the people associated with them.
The truth about 1.6 is good for us.
And I think if they're insisting on a national platform, I say bring it as long as we have the guts and the intelligence to ask very simple, very pressing questions that absolutely have to be asked that will blow this whole thing wide open.
I think that's correct because it's going to be written about regardless in the history books.
And so if we give them the opportunity to do that by refusing to even make an attempt to get to the bottom of it, then we're going to be screwed, blued, and tattooed regardless.
But before we continue, I do have to tell you: if you've made it this far in the podcast, it means you like the podcast, which is epic.
So you have to go to Blaze TV.
You have to sign up for Slightly Offensive with John Doyle.
And if you use the code Elijah, it's outdated, whatever.
You get $10 off your Blaze TV subscription.
We love Blaze TV.
I would definitely recommend doing so.
And that's the way that you let the company know that you like what we do over here at Chuck E. Cheese.
And, you know, we have exclusive interviews.
We've got all sorts of exclusive content on the website for you to access if you do get that subscription.
And, you know, of course, you get the whole arsenal of Blaze TV content.
You get Crowder, you get Beck, you get Levin, Rubin Report, amongst many others.
We love it.
Go do that right now.
If you don't, you're low IQ.
So to finish out quickly here, that video that we played in the beginning of the globalist American Empire's recruiting attempts of Americans as opposed to what we're seeing from Russia and China.
What's going on?
What is going on to the Army?
That was member even Q. Trust the plan.
The Army's on our side.
What is happening?
Is this a PSYOP?
Is it to demoralize America, the right specifically?
An extremely important and extremely intricate question.
I think there are a number of things that are very important to say about it.
One, again, most important development on our politics is the political weaponization of the national security apparatus domestically in order to silence and suppress anti-establishment energies, such as those associated with the victory of Donald Trump.
This is part and parcel of that development.
And I think that it's tempting to look at this as just to say, oh, the military is gone woke just like anything else.
And for that matter, I think this is the most difficult pill to swallow because I think people on the right, in terms of their political psychology, the left likes to think of itself as attacking powerful institutions.
They don't actually do that for the most part, but that's how they like to conceive of themselves.
On the right, typically, people on the right like to think of themselves not as attacking institutions of power, but venerating just institutions of power.
And the problem we have now is that our powerful institutions, including those like the military that we're most inclined to venerate, have become extremely corrupt.
And it's particularly difficult to drive that message home to an audience of the right that's so inclined to revere the military as an institution, even the national security state as an institution.
But this is what's happening.
And secondly, I think it's important to think of this not simply as, oh, another institution gone woke.
In a way, yes, this is the case.
It's another institution gone woke.
And it is very disturbing because it looks like some kind of preparation for mobilization of the security state against the American people.
And people like Bishop Garrison are part of this development.
But I think the kind of the big brain sophisticated take on this, which might be the most boring take, but also the most important one, is that it's not simply woke doctrines stitched on to the institution of our security apparatus.
I think one thing we've learned with the color revolution story at Revolver.news and others is that woke ideology is more to a degree more than we generally think is interwoven into the mechanism by which the United States exercises its power abroad and now is exercising its power domestically.
One part of the way we project power is we exploit cleavages and traditional kind of ethnic and other grievances in order to delegitimize the target of our operation.
And this is the same thing you see here.
So I think there's a lot more logic and method to this than people think.
It's not simply woke ideology haphazardly attached to an otherwise robust and coherent institution.
No, this is part of the way that the United States projects power overseas and it has been for a long time.
And now we're seeing the same thing domestically.
It's a mechanism of wielding power and controlling a population.
Well, first of all, I'd like to just second to the audience, John Doyle is a rock star.
He's an up-and-comer.
I knew it from the beginning.
We're going to be hearing a lot more from John Doyle, truly one of the most talented young voices, not just conservative, just simply the most talented young voices around.
And I think I'm very optimistic on the basis of people like you.
And as for myself, people should check out Revolver.news for the latest and cutting-edge investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including the national security states, war, and the American people, and on MAGA.
