All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2022 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
49:09
Episode 51 LIVE: Revolver News Roundup (feat. Darren Beattie) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Matt Gaetz was one of the very few members in the entire Congress who bothered to stand up against permanent Washington on behalf of his constituents.
Matt Gaetz right now, he's a problem for the Democratic Party.
He could cause a lot of hiccups in passing applause.
So we're going to keep running those stories to get hurt again.
If you stand for the flag and kneel in prayer, if you want to build America up and not burn her to the ground, then welcome, my fellow patriots!
You are in the right place!
This is the movement for you!
You ever watch this guy on television?
It's like a machine.
Matt Gaetz.
I'm a canceled man in some corners of the internet.
Many days I'm a marked man in Congress, a wanted man by the deep state.
They aren't really coming for me.
They're coming for you.
I'm just in the way.
Welcome to Firebrand Live.
We are simulcast streaming out of our office in the Longworth Building here on the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. We've got the publisher of Revolver.News, Dr. Darren Beattie, with us.
He'll be joining in just moments.
We're going to break down a number of very hot stories on Revolver, updates on Assange and Pompeo, whether or not the Johnny Depp trial We're going to go over the failures at Evaldi, the bad laws the Congress is working to pass even with a significant vote today on red flag laws that we certainly are opposed to and want to break down.
And we got the haters active on the Facebook live stream.
Ryan Gill says, has anyone ever told me that my head is too big for my body?
The answer is, of course, yes.
I know I have a giant head.
It is where I keep my giant brain.
Patrick Davis calls me a pretty princess beavis.
Don't know quite what that means, but I've been called worse.
And Edward says the negative comments are for the sissies.
We are going to break down the red flag law issues, the Evaldi issues.
But first, we've got breaking news.
Just moments ago, I'm reading now from not that reputable news source, but they seem to have some quotes that are pretty attributable.
Talking Points Memo headline.
FBI arrests a top GOP contender for Michigan governor for January 6 charges.
Ryan Kelly, 40, of Allendale, Michigan, was arrested this morning on misdemeanor charges stemming from the January 6, 2021 Capitol breach.
Bill Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said in an email, he was arrested in Allendale.
Mr. Kelly is to make his initial appearance this afternoon in the U.S. District Court in western Michigan.
The story continues.
The criminal complaint listed four charges against Kelly, knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, knowingly engaging in an act of physical violence against a person or property in a restricted building or grounds, and willfully injuring or committing depredation against any property of the United States.
An FBI agent's affidavit noted the Bureau received, quote, That Kelly had been at the Capitol on January 6th, including one just 10 days after the attack.
One of the people who identified Kelly was a confidential human source who'd been working with the FBI since 2020, quote, to provide information about domestic terrorism groups in Michigan, close quote.
The source allegedly spotted Kelly on a news media video.
Here is the background of the political context of this arrest.
We get this from Grant Hermes, a politics reporter at Local 4 Detroit, that actually Kelly was the leading Republican for the upcoming primary, one of five candidates knocking down about 19% of the vote according to this political report from Detroit.
And we are 54 days from the August 2nd Republican gubernatorial primary in Michigan.
54 days.
Now, 45 days is really the FBI standard, DOJ standard for not engaging in law enforcement activity that is intended to impact the outcome of an election.
So just outside of that 45 days, nine days outside of it, the day that the Democrats are planning their January 6th rollout hearing endeavor, You get a raid and an arrest of the leading Republican in Michigan and it's never been bad when we've relied on the confidential sources in Michigan reviewing domestic terrorism, right?
Oh wait!
There was the Gretchen Whitmer faux kidnapping debacle where the FBI inspired the kidnapping, encouraged others to reduce the thoughts that had been really inspired by the FBI assets and agents to writing.
It resulted in nobody being convicted in that matter that went to trial.
It resulted in, I think, a real black eye for federal law enforcement engaging in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
And now you have sort of the remnants of that strategy manifesting in this affidavit resulting in the arrest of the leading Republican candidate.
Dr. Darren Beattie, how should we think about this?
Well, it's remarkable on a number of levels.
First of all, I'm just learning about this now, and so my analysis might develop as I learn more about it, but from my initial review of this story, it's first interesting to see exactly what they're charging with.
He didn't go into the Capitol, so it's one of these trespassing issues on the grounds, and he was allegedly kind of Maybe suggesting that people move to a certain area and these kinds of things.
Kind of flimsy charges which, again, are really nothing compared to the behavior caught on camera with respect to the infamous Ray Epps and the still-identified Scaffold Commander and these other absolutely major players And
Darren, let me stop you right there.
Because Ron on Facebook commented, It's not just sort of the timing, but it is the manner of the arrest, right?
To show up at somebody's house with a search warrant.
These are misdemeanor charges.
And so Ron on Facebook asks, well, is this typical for a misdemeanor to have such a provocative use of law enforcement when typically for a misdemeanor you simply ask someone to surrender themselves and they willingly do so?
Do you think that there's a theater element potentially that we have to look at that sort of extends out from the theater around the Roger Stone arrest?
Absolutely.
There's definitely fear and there are really two components of it.
One is, who are the people who are actually the big fish and major players that they have zero interest in?
In fact, the very people who act like this Michigan candidate and others who committed misdemeanor offenses and even lesser offenses, that these people are serious domestic terrorists.
The same people who have that posture like Kinsinger, like Liz Cheney, Basically, uniquely suspend that aggressive, severe posture with respect to Ray Epps and others.
Epps being the only person caught on camera repeatedly telling people to go into the Capitol, who was there at that decisive initial breach of the Capitol grounds with the fencing that allowed the rally to turn into a riot.
For this individual and for scaffold commander specifically, covered extensively in our reporting, there's no interest.
And so that's who they're not interested in.
Who they are interested in tends to be just kind of bit players, people who are just loitering around doing basically nothing too bad, but especially people who are involved in the political process.
And we've seen this beyond this Michigan case.
We've seen still more outrageous ways that the regime has exploited January 6th to go after its political enemies with reference to Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others, and ultimately Trump.
I mean, recent developments in the January 6th trials, the seditious conspiracy cases against Rhodes and Tario, this is completing the picture advanced by the January 6th committee chair, Benny Thompson, who has this quote unquote, Ali Youp theory of Benny Thompson, who has this quote unquote, Ali Youp theory of the case whereby various people in Trump's inner circle played a decisive role in this so-called conspiracy to go into the
So this is really about kneecapping the GOP and especially the populist sort of Trump adjacent element of the GOP, kneecapping that movement so it has minimal success electorally as the midterms approach.
Dr. Darren Beattie is the publisher of Revolver.News.
That's where you can find the most thorough investigative reporting on the people who were animating and inspiring the highest acuity of criminal activity on January 6th.
There remain a number of key questions that we've asked the FBI, that we've asked the January 6th committee about people like Ray Epps and Scaffold Commander and Ski Mask Guy, the very people that were cutting down the fences that may have resulted in people inadvertently being in technical violation of federal law, but in fact having the very people that were cutting down the fences that may have resulted in people inadvertently being in technical violation of Tonight is the big reveal.
It is the last best hope for the Raskinites and the Cheneistas and the Schiff Brigade to be able to get the country to focus on January 6, 2021, so that every day is January 6, 2021.
And yet you also at Revolver.News have covered this FBI botched plot to entrap people into a kidnapping plot of the governor of Michigan. Darren, is there any chance that it is a coincidence that on the day of this big reveal of the last best hope, you have this law enforcement activity in Michigan directed at the leading Republican candidate for governor?
No, there's no chance that it's a coincidence.
It's coordinated.
And that's very, very clear.
Do you expect a lot from these tonight?
Do you expect the Democrats and the Republican puppets to effectively create captivating moments?
No, I don't.
And it's nice the way you describe it, because they present this as a bipartisan committee when it's a bipartisan committee in the sense that it has a bunch of Democrats who hate Trump and his supporters, and it has two Republicans who hate Trump and his supporters.
And that's the bipartisan committee that they've established.
But no, I think there's actually waning public interest in this.
I don't know if They depend on public interest in order to be successful, but I really doubt they create any kind of viral I never underestimate my enemy, and I know they failed so many times.
They seem to get a little better each time, incorporating multimedia, trying to build narrative, curate leaks, have a willing media ready to spread their lies.
So I don't know that I share your optimism in their failure.
I think actually they may We may see the best version of them and certainly the most vicious and one of the best prepared.
On the live stream right now, we've got Adam Anderson.
When will you start fighting for a convention of the states?
You know what?
I was the sponsor of the legislation that had Florida join the convention of the states.
I believe there should be a convention of the states to ensure that we have a balanced budget amendment.
And that we have federal term limits for Congress.
But one thing that I don't want to negotiate away, our Second Amendment.
And in the Capitol today, the Second Amendment has been under attack.
Breaking news just now, just before we stepped into this discussion.
The House of Representatives has passed a national red flag law.
Every Democrat voted for that national red flag law.
And they were joined by Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, and Fred Upton From Michigan.
So an interesting group of five Republicans supporting these red flag laws.
Four people who voted for impeachment and one who, after his opposition to the Second Amendment was expressed, dropped out of his own reelection in the Buffalo, New York area.
So when they send Republicans to take away our Second Amendment rights, they aren't exactly sending their best and they are sending I made that point on the floor of the House moments ago.
Take a listen.
If House Democrats were so worried about violence, they wouldn't open the borders, open the prisons, and then disarm law-abiding Americans who want to protect themselves and protect their families.
Chairman Nadler says that Republicans shouldn't lecture about constitutional rights, but it was the last Democrat Speaker, Mr. Cicilline, who in the House Judiciary Committee said, spare me the bullshit about people's constitutional rights.
So pardon us, for standing up for the Constitution in the very due process that ensures that we're able to have a civil functioning society in this country.
Speaker Pelosi asks the question, well if you knew when the next act of violence would be, why wouldn't you want to stop it?
What is this, the United States Congress or the plot for the movie Minority Report?
The best you could ever hope to have in terms of warning is what we had in the Parkland case, where a neighbor saw Nicholas Cruz preparing for a school shooting, called the FBI, and because they were so focused on the bureaucracy, they didn't take action.
And so that's why I'm against federalizing the regular police and it's why I'm against federalizing the school police because the more the FBI was involved, the more they botched the case and maybe there were people dead who didn't need to be.
These red flag laws violate our Second Amendment rights, our Fifth Amendment rights, and when they are done at the national level, they violate our Tenth Amendment rights.
And it is crazy that we are considering legislation to bribe the states to take rights away from our fellow Americans.
And it's nuts that Republicans in the Senate The very Republicans who say they're the classic liberty-minded conservatives, they're now working with Democrats on this very endeavor to federalize the school police and to engage in this bribery for the sake of deprivation of rights.
Let me give you this warning, my friends.
It is no victory, as Mr. Carbajal said, that in my beloved Florida, we've used red flag laws 8,000 times.
There weren't 8,000 school shooters we stopped, probably not even 8,000 criminals.
What we do see is that these red flag laws are used in divorce proceedings.
They're used in every type of dispute.
And it shouldn't be a cudgel that way.
We'll stand up for the right to it.
There's no bullshit that we will.
I was then subsequently admonished for using profanity on the House floor, but I was quoting someone else.
Dr. Beattie, we see on Revolver News, you've got the piece up, the Texas school shooting is proof our society is crumbling into an existential crisis.
Does that existential crisis require red flag laws?
No, I think it requires a...
Pretty radical self-reflection with respect to mental health in this country, with respect to the social fabric and also maybe with respect to the priorities of our own intelligence apparatus which should probably focus less on penalizing normal Americans who want to express totally valid and mainstream political beliefs and maybe they should focus more on Identifying and
when disturbed people like this are identified to preventing them from engaging in these kinds of horrific displays of violence.
Nancy Pelosi always likes to say that she's on a crusade for the children.
This is all about the children, and yet they have no problem with masking policies and mandates that limit the social-emotional development of children when they need to gain empathy for others.
And in this piece in Revolver that talks about the existential crisis, you go through the fact that we got a quarter of Young people living in single-parent homes, and I know there are many heroes right now as single parents that are doing the best they can and that are doing a good job instilling strong American values in their children.
But you also talk about this feature of loneliness in the piece, that there is a Sort of a government-backed mandate of loneliness that occurred during these lockdowns.
Do you think that no matter what we do with guns, what we've done to our society may increase the frequency of this violence going forward?
I certainly think so.
And first of all, I should say that this is actually a guest piece.
A first piece by someone called Ramsha...
Afridi and so shout out to her for this excellent piece and I think yes the loneliness these social conditions are absolutely a factor and as we cover in Revolver's piece on this is also you know people are blaming the cops which in you know was very valid for their inaction and some might even say cowardice here luckily there was a heroic I'm not a border patrol guy who stepped in
and helped, but the performance of the police department here was an egregious and really devastatingly Embarrassing failure for the department.
And the question is, what's wrong with these people?
And yes, we can blame the cops.
We can blame their training.
We can blame everything associated with that.
But we also have to look at what types of virtues society is encouraging.
And basically, you have this one-two punch where anyone, any display of courage, especially by a man in these sorts of Kind of chaotic civil situations is just as liable to be punished as it is to be celebrated.
And so in order to have a society in which You know, men display the virtue of courage, especially in these types of situations.
You have to have the preconditions for that.
And so many cultural factors that have been intensifying over the past several years have severely undermined those preconditions for the displays of cowardice that society really needs and should expect in tragic situations such as this shooting.
Dr. Beattie is describing the thesis of a piece up at Revolver now.
Let's go ahead and go to that headline.
The cowardice of Evaldi police is exactly what America asked for.
And there's an excerpt from this piece I want to get across.
I'm quoting here.
Across America, police routinely retire at age 55 or even younger.
In much of the country, they receive generous pensions upon retirement.
In nearby Austin, a policeman who retires after 30 years of service will receive 75% of their base pay every year until death.
The reason policemen are pushed out of work at an early age and the reason they were awarded such generous pensions far above the typical Social Security benefit is because we trust them to risk their lives protecting others.
Yet America has largely abandoned that expectation.
Why have we abandoned that expectation, Dr. Beattie?
Well, for some of the reasons I've described, you're just as likely, the kinds of, put it this way, when I talk about the preconditions, the type of person who would be inclined to risk themselves in that situation is not the type of person who's necessarily going to be celebrated and elevated.
In the contemporary cultural environment.
And in fact, I think it's equally likely and maybe more likely that such a person would be weeded out of the department or simply be so turned off by the prevailing cultural attitudes within that prevail within the department.
That they wouldn't even want to participate.
And so you have to think of factors like that.
We say that we want courage and self-sacrifice in situations like these, but are the types of people who would actually Would actually behave in that fashion.
Are those the kinds of people that we celebrate in a, you know, holistic context?
And I think the answer to that is no, especially when it comes to police officers who, as you know, have been demonized in all sorts of contexts.
And that has a tremendous effect on not only the type of person who wants to be involved in that profession, but the way that people behave once they're in the profession.
David Allen on Facebook says, F all of you.
All of you guys need to go down in flames.
So David is obviously having a terrific day.
And we also hear from James saying criminals are not going to care about this red flag bill.
Certainly something I agree with.
But the point you make, Dr. Beattie, about maybe some eroding capabilities where we otherwise could have relied upon them.
That seems to increase the importance of the force multiplier that comes with a good guy with a gun.
In Florida, we have a Sentinel program.
I think more than 45 of our 67 counties participate in it, where if you have specialized training, former law enforcement, former military types, you can actually have part of your community be that force multiplier in the education setting so that our schools are not soft targets. you can actually have part of your community be that This is an issue that I think is best set out at the state level, and it has created some divide among Republicans in Congress.
So there is a procedural mechanism called the motion to recommit, where essentially the minority can present...
Not just a no vote on a piece of legislation or moving on to that bill, but can present an alternative piece of legislation.
And here, I'm unequivocally opposed to the gun control package the Democrats put forward, unequivocally opposed to red flag laws, but the Republican alternative was a series of grants from the federal government to states and school districts for school resource officers, for school hardening, and the like.
And I think Did not vote for that alternative because I don't think that we ought to federalize the school police.
I don't believe that you want your local constable's office or your local sheriff's office entirely dependent upon federal grants because before you know it, There'll be some rule promulgated and that law enforcement officer there as a consequence of a federal grant is not going to be able to walk across the transom in the school without announcing their pronouns in advance.
So do you think Republicans get it wrong when our reflexive response to some of these horrific acts of violence is to excessively entangle the federal government in what ought to be state police powers?
I do.
And in fact, I'd have to say that I think most of the proposals put forward at best don't do anything and in many cases could actually make the general situation worse.
And I think that's the case when it comes to further aggrandizing and empowering federal forces as opposed to local.
I don't think it's a federal local issue.
It's an issue that's sort of deeper than that.
And also I'd like to point out that Just at the time that we're seeing increasing incompetence when it comes to law enforcement officials on maybe both levels, local and federal, you're seeing the aggressive demonization of so-called vigilantism.
Are we all vigilantes now, Darren?
I mean, Nancy Pelosi said every Republican is a cult member.
So aren't they trying to say, they're trying to highlight very minimal acts of vigilantism in some areas that we certainly all want to stop, but then they want to cast that as an aspersion onto everyone who voted for Trump or has an America First hashtag.
Right.
Well, at the same time as we're seeing this incompetence, we're seeing such an aggressive Policing and aggressive hostility toward vigilantism.
You see it in the response to somebody like Kyle Rittenhouse.
And this gets to a core of people who say, yes, the Second Amendment is important, but, you know, Second Amendment isn't just about, oh, whether you're able to, like, Purchase an AR-15 and take a photo of it for Instagram with an American flag in the background and just leave it at that.
The Second Amendment is, in effect, neutered, impotent, and worthless if, in practice, you're not able to use it in a self-defense situation.
If anyone who uses a firearm or self-defense situation gets the Kyle Rittenhouse treatment, or even the McCloskey treatment, then we don't really have a Second Amendment.
And I think that's not enough.
The Second Amendment types don't really focus on that element enough.
They're focused on, oh, can we, you know, How many bullets can we have in this magazine?
Or can we have this specific type of gun or not?
Or what are the restrictions in acquiring a firearm?
I'm not to say that those aren't important, but they're really moot if in practice you're not really able to use your firearm in a self dispense situation without the full force of the state and the media coming after you to destroy you.
A fully vindicated Second Amendment is what we stand for.
And if the Congress is to be doing anything, It would be vindicating the rights of our citizens when they're infringed upon by states or local governments that think that they have the final say on what are natural rights.
George O'Neill says, if I have 50 guns and the government takes 40 away, how many do I have left?
And he responds to his own question.
I have 50 left.
Because I lied about only having 50. They leave the gun conversation there because there's a certain arrogance that comes with policymakers who believe that the laws they pass have their own fiat.
There is the whole element of...
The citizenry and their ultimate final say on some of these questions.
Dr. Beatty, on Revolver.News, you have highlighted a piece from Zero Hedge entitled, Spanish Court Orders Mike Pompeo to Testify on CIA Plot to Kill or Kidnap Assange.
Why did this piece stick out to you?
Well, we've been following this very closely and Revolver.News, since we're sort of I like to think we're at the forefront of exposing misbehavior on the part of the national security state and so we're very much in the sphere of WikiLeaks,
even though we don't do the same thing, and I certainly hope I don't end up with the same fate as Assange, but I certainly have an affinity for him and what he's doing and for the absolutely outrageous treatment that he's received on behalf of the U.S. government and other entities.
And the story came out a while ago that...
Pompeo sort of denies it and so maybe it's not truth or the full truth but It certainly seems within the ballpark of ideas that were entertained along the lines of assassinating Assange, certainly spying on him, taking stuff from him.
And Spanish court really wants to hear more about this.
And Pompeo is allegedly a central figure in this, which would make sense given what his role was at the time.
He's the head of the intelligence agency, head of the CIA and so forth.
And so this is just something that we're tracking very closely because Assange is really, you know, for all the talk about how important journalists are, and what they mean by that is that journalists should be able to attack and smear and destroy people without any repercussions, without being criticized at all.
And, you know, you can be a Washington Post reporter and smear people, but the second somebody questions your intelligence, your credentials, or your professionalism, That amounts to harassment that has to be treated like some great tragedy.
That's what the regime means when they say journalists are important.
But what it should actually mean is that people like Assange are important.
And that it is a genuine threat to journalism.
It's a genuine threat to the people learning the truth that they deserve to know about their own government to see what's happened to Assange.
And so for that reason, I think it's something that everyone should care about.
And just as a side part, the role that Pompeo may have played and, you know, kind of go out on a limb here.
I know many of your listeners might disagree and that's fine, but I think despite the fact that he served in the Trump administration and he did some good things, in fact a lot of good things, Pompeo himself is an ambiguous figure I think with respect to the deep state and I think in many ways he does kind of toe the deep state line and this Assange storyline certainly confirms that aspect of
Pompeo's orientation and career.
Despite the spiciness of the headline, it does not appear that Mike Pompeo is going to be testifying anytime soon.
There seem to be serious questions over whether or not they have the jurisdiction to force that testimony, but it's interesting that the questions are being asked.
Dr. Beattie, you've got another big piece up at revolver.news.
I thought America was done with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
I thought we celebrated the verdict.
The right guy won.
The right gal lost.
But you say that we must continue to relive this.
How GOP legislatures can copy Johnny Depp and defang the lying press tomorrow with one simple trick.
And in the piece, you write, Captain Jack Sparrow's big win is proof that America's courts remain a venue where Americans can defend their reputations and win justice for themselves without playing the ever-changing rules of a sinister and malicious media.
And the legal argument that you make is that there are a number of categories that constitute defamation per se.
That is, you don't have to prove that if people do these things to you that it is harmful, that they are so by very nature harmful that that element of the claim is met.
Things like alleging a person is involved in criminal activity if they're not, claiming a person is unethical, incompetent, Claiming that they contain some sort of loathsome disease, has engaged in sexual misconduct, and your argument is that this list needs to expand throughout the several states to include the type of doxing that has often ruined lives.
Why should the list be expanded?
Yeah, so first of all, we like the spoonful of sugar and the medicine at Revolver.News, and we thought, given that amazingly, or maybe not amazingly, but the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial exceeded by far Any of the things that we, you know, Ukraine, all of that, it exceeded everything in terms of media coverage and interest.
It was the hottest thing in the news cycle for the American people.
That's just a fact.
And so we thought, hey, that's the spoonful of sugar.
But the medicine is very important medicine.
The medicine is something that could be a genuine game changer in terms of the Journalists, precisely the journalists I was talking about before who think they can ruin people's lives and the second they're attacked at some kind of great tragedy, to engage in a specific type of smear journalism.
And that's, I mean, I think you've been subject to it a little bit.
I certainly have.
And that is when the media will attack you by just doing multiple headlines.
And they just include a term like racist, like white supremacist, all these types of terms.
The two worst things they can say about you are that you're a racist or a rapist.
And they're only one letter apart.
And if they're not going to call you one, they're going to call you the other over time.
And a lot of people are sick of it.
And a lot of people wonder whether or not the courts are an appropriate area.
You seem to be you seem to be a cheerleader for state court actions.
Well, I think there's there's a really interesting thought out exercise to be conducted.
One could say that there shouldn't be any kind of, you know, one could have a general critique of defamation laws.
Mine is more of a kind of comparative observation.
If we're going to have categories that fall under defamatory per se, that means that they're considered such a severe tack on one's reputation that you don't have to prove damages, you don't have to prove anything else.
It's simply the nature of the accusation is so severe that it's considered per se defamatory.
And the categories that currently are considered defamatory per se are really categories that have Fairly minimal reputational damage, certainly compared to accusations like racism, white nationalism.
For instance, one of the categories this defamatory for say is to question a woman's, not anyone's, to question a woman's chastity.
That's right.
Now, the idea that in 2022, the era of slut pride parades and all of these things that questioning a woman's chastity is a incurs greater reputational damage than the media smearing somebody as a racist the era of slut pride parades and all of these things that questioning a woman's The entire, especially when the entire legal architecture, and we've covered this in Revolver News and other pieces,
the entire legal architecture post civil rights with the implementation of disparate impact is oriented around the premise that racism, quote unquote, the entire legal architecture post civil rights with the implementation of disparate impact is oriented around It is There's a great book called Glass Jaw, and I forget the author, but it's from a PR professional.
It's an absolutely fascinating book, and he goes into a lot of high-profile cases.
He was involved in doing crisis management for all types of companies, celebrities, prominent figures in all different types of circumstances.
And even this guy acknowledges the one thing, the one type of PR mess that is almost impossible to clean up is the PR mess of racism.
It's just too damaging and that's the way it is.
It's really the summa malum.
It's the worst possible thing that you could be in contemporary American society and all of the dominant institutions Are really animated by that notion.
But isn't that why these changes in the law won't occur?
Because it's become such a valuable tool of the media and the left, and frankly, even the establishment right, to try to get rid of people that are challenging a prevailing narrative to call them racists.
They would never want special protections in the state law because they don't want to be especially cautious about that.
Well, exactly.
But on the flip side, that's why, if achieved, this would be a game changer.
And the fact that it could occur at the state level through state legislatures means that it could be a promising approach in some states.
And furthermore, I should point out, it really illuminates some of the nature of the power of these accusations of racism, white nationalism, because nobody knows what those mean.
In fact, they derive a lot of their power from its ambiguity.
And so to reorient defamation law to consider these more as factual accusations, and therefore they need to be subject to more sort of operational definitions and more precisely defined, that could also defang these effects.
So say, okay, you call me a white nationalism, what specifically does that mean?
Because now all it means is that The regime media doesn't like you for whatever reason.
And so I think it's just a very interesting exercise.
It's a very important point.
Most people don't know this, but this goes to the core of how the hit piece media can destroy people but also intimidate people because, frankly, and it's unfortunate, but a lot of people are terrified of the media and Their behavior is conditioned by the fact that they want to avoid precisely these kinds of damaging attacks.
So it would be an absolute blow to the power of the regime to kneel on the necks of its enemies, so to speak.
The world, according to Dr. Beattie, you cannot have your slut pride parades and your gender-based chastity protections and defamation law, while at the same time being able to call people racists with impunity.
Brian Stork on the livestream says, Darren Beattie is a honey badger.
I could not agree more.
Go ahead and put the Gas Daddy tweet up right now.
Dr. BD, this is really an inflection point in our country right now.
According to Gas Buddy, the national average has reached $5 per gallon today.
So on the same day as the January 6th hearings, the same day the leading Republican candidate for governor of Michigan is arrested for misdemeanors in like A pretty intense law enforcement operation.
You have gas at five dollars a gallon nationally.
I never thought I would see this.
Here's the question that Republicans struggle with frequently in Washington.
Do you treat these January 6th hearings with a lot of dignity?
Do you engage?
Do you push back?
Do you show the inconsistencies?
Do you reveal the biases?
Do you do what we did during the Russia hoax and then the subsequent Ukraine hoax?
Or do you just ignore that stuff, make them look like fools for talking about it, Impress these kitchen table issues that, frankly, I do hear more about at my office than, you know, what happened on January 6, 2021, one way or the other.
You know, what should be the Republican effort on these, you know, exploding crises across the board?
Do we have to pick and choose, or do you divide the energy by pushing it all of it?
That's a great question, and I would say this.
I would say...
For the most part, the GOP should stay out of it.
And I only say that because most people in the GOP are not going to message well when it comes to January 6th.
Wow, that is such a sad comment.
It is depressing that you led with that, Darren.
I would make a special exception for figures such as yourself, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the others who understand the January 6th issue and understand specifically, really, look, there's only one angle that really, really undermines the regime.
There's only one angle that actually threatens the regime, and that's the angle that explores federal involvement in January 6th.
I think everything else is pretty much, I don't want to be categorical about it, but everything else is pretty much a distraction, and you'd be better off talking about issues that the average American cares about.
But I think there's still a very special place for this specific counter-narrative, and that is exposing the federal involvement.
But in order to do that effectively, you have to be informed, should probably read the Revolver news pieces.
And there are a lot of landmines there in terms of engaging in effective and informed rhetoric.
And so I would say for the most part, the GOP should stay out of it.
But for a select few who are brave and informed and intelligent and and know how to engage in in in rhetoric.
There's still a very important role to further the truth about what really happened on January 6th and specifically what the feds knew when they knew it and what they did.
Revolver.News is the website Dr. Darren Beattie is the publisher.
The January 6th committee meets tonight.
I tell you what, if I were in charge of the response here, I would war room the whole thing out.
I would have every potential witness, every statement that they made before, during, and after January 6th.
I would have all the videos of these Members of the committee inflaming their leaks and trying to precondition the American public.
And then you know what?
I would be clear about the fact that what you're watching isn't the crime, it's the cover-up.
This January 6th committee is compromised to cover up a variety of failures and misdeeds that occurred throughout the apparatus of the federal government.
They are well chronicled at revolver.news.
I encourage everyone to check out those stories.
Thanks for joining me so much, Dr. Beattie.
Look forward to chatting with you soon.
Thank you.
Let's roll the credits.
▲
Export Selection