EPISODE 510: UKRAINE POWER PLANT ATTACK: HOAX OR WW3? DELEGATE DRAMA, AND AN EL SALVADOR SOLUTION FOR FRANCE
On today’s episode of Human Events with Jack Posobiec, Poso breaks down the latest from Vladimir Zelenskyy and his ominous warning that Russia may attack a nuclear power plant and the possible fallout from such a strike. Jack is also joined by Richard Baris and the pair engage in an elevated conversation about California changing their delegate system possible and how that could impact the DeSantis campaign. All that plus an update on the French riots with none other than Revolver News founde...
We are in the fight for America's future and we are assembling a team to fight back.
Turning point action this July 15th and 16th is where the assemblage will take place.
Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino, Steve Bannon, myself, Charlie Kirk, Senator Hawley, Senator Vance, Matt Gaetz, Benny Johnson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Scott Pressler, Mike Lindell, Harmeet Dhillon, You need to be there.
Go and sign up immediately.
TPaction.com is the site.
TPaction.com.
Use promo code POSO and you will get a discount.
Secure your tickets immediately.
Don't be coming to me saying, can you get me in after this thing sells out because it will sell out fast.
And I will see you down in Florida this July 15th and 16th for the greatest assemblage of patriots this country has seen since Valley Forge.
We are in a fifth generational conflict.
We are in a fifth generation.
For every lie they tell, we're going to get in their face and yell two truths.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
In the history of the White House, has cocaine ever been discovered before by the Secret Service and made public?
It's not so much as, can I get Joe Biden to win Idaho?
It's, can I beat a Democrat in the primary for Idaho?
In other words, this is Gavin Newsom running for the Democratic primary for president.
I've watched California, Southern California, devolve into a third world country.
What this judge is purporting to do is to micromanage, really, the day-to-day interactions between essentially the entire executive branch and the leading social media companies.
The warmongers, globalists, and deep staters are absolutely livid that I refuse to bend the knee to their next endless war in Ukraine.
I want peace.
They want money and they want conflict.
Ukraine and Russia have accused the other of planning attacks that could set off nuclear disaster.
Kiev warned again that Russia is threatening to attack Europe's biggest nuclear power plant.
Moscow has accused Ukraine of doing the same.
In this case, President Zelensky is making a very specific accusation that this is a false flag operation.
Look, if Trump wins, it would be the end of democracy in the United States.
It would be the end of Ukraine.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Today is the 5th of July, the day after the 4th of July.
Happy Birthday, America!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard.
This is...
Folks, we have to look at what's going on across the world, but right now, immediately, I need to address the situation at the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant.
I've been speaking out against this, about what's been happening, and explaining what was going to come for weeks now, here on Human Events, and also in my multiple media appearances.
We're going to have Rich Barris on later, we're going to have Darren Beattie up after him, but this comes first.
The President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, came out yesterday.
He didn't congratulate the United States on 247 years of American independence.
He came out with a warning.
He said that Russia was mining The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear power plant in all of Europe, one of Ukraine's four nuclear power plants, but the only nuclear power plant that Russia controls.
Why would Russia mine their own nuclear power plant, you ask?
It's very strange.
Well, there's just a little problem with that because no one's actually been able to see any information about these mines that Zelensky claims that there is intel.
intel that have been placed at the nuclear power plant.
In fact, the head of the IAEA mission to Ukraine is now coming out publicly and saying they don't see any evidence of mining at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
He has no idea what they're talking about.
I'll tell you what's going on.
What's going on is that yesterday is the one month mark of the Ukrainian counter offensive.
That was a complete failure.
They failed to take back meaningful territory.
They didn't even burst through Russia's minimal first defense lines.
They didn't even make it through the initial defenses.
They said they were going to split the Russian-held territory in half.
They said they were going to go down all the way to Mariupol.
They were going to break the land bridge.
They were going to be at the Sea of Azov by the 4th of July.
Instead, they called it off.
They said it was an operational pause.
But the NATO meeting that is coming up next week is coming very close.
And the United States and the rest of Europe is going to go to Ukraine and say, do you have any territorial gains?
Do you have any evidence that you have an ability to push back Russia and this territory that they've taken?
As they keep claiming.
They say they're going to take them out to the Sea of Azov.
They're going to take back Crimea!
But unfortunately, reality is reality.
The fundamentals have not changed.
And the fact of the matter is we now have the information that there was a blown peace deal just a few weeks in, one month in, March of 2022.
There would have been a peace deal, but the West blew it up.
So I'll say this to Vladimir Zelensky.
Find peace for your people.
End this war.
Stop having to send Ukrainians home in body bags.
Boys, men, women and children caught up in this, stop this war.
Stop it now and stand up for yourself and for your countrymen.
This is how you can become a true leader to go down throughout the ages as the man who saved Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, coming up we have Richard Barris.
He's got huge news for us.
Stay tuned.
And then Darren Beatty's up with a special announcement.
Human Events continues.
I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec, here we are back on Human Events Live with Jack Posobiec, and I have a question for you.
Are you tired of progressive corporations and exhausted with trying to keep up with all the virtue signaling when you're simply trying to buy some products for yourself and for your family?
You know, for us, it's really simple.
My wife, Tanya Tay, she loves this stuff.
She says, I always want to support you guys.
I want to support people that are aligned with our values.
But at the same time, it's very hard because she doesn't always know which company is good, which company is bad, which one is on the good list, which one is on the bad list, etc, etc.
And so what does she do?
She goes to Public Square.
And did you know that today is the one year anniversary of The launch of Public Square.
So, in order to celebrate the one-year anniversary of Public Square, and this is the list of companies that support our values, that refuse to play politics, that refuse to go in on gender identity pushing, abortion pushing, canceling people for their beliefs, canceling people for Payment processors.
You go to PublicSquare.com, PublicSQ.com, you will be able to get access to this list.
And by the way, if you have a business yourself, you can get it as well on there so other people can find you.
There's places for discounts, deals, all that great stuff.
And there's going to be some announcements from Public Square coming up very soon.
One-year anniversary.
Congratulations to Michael Seifert and everyone over there.
Join the Public Square revolution.
PublicSquare.com, PublicSQ.
I want to go now to our guest, Richard Barras.
Rich, man you have been blowing it up all over social media.
My phone's blowing up, your phone's blowing up.
You came on here about a week ago now and we were talking about the situation regarding the apportionment of delegates for the 2024 election and in fact prior to that There have been some people saying, oh, Rich has this reporting that he's talking about.
They're changing the system.
California, there's some other states you're looking at as well, but specifically California.
They said it won't be changing.
Rich Barris is fake news.
And yet now there's an email that's going out saying that they are changing the way First, there's so much to unpack here, Jack, and I hope you guys had a great Independence Day.
I did.
There's so much to unpack.
who to trust so the way we're gonna do it is rich you tell our audience the situation as the people's pundit sees it first there's so much to unpack here jack and i hope you guys had a great independence day i did there's so much to unpack let's just start let's just start with the fact brother that every single cycle there are rule changes Most of the time they're not big.
When there are state versus RNC or state versus DNC fights, you know, they usually make big news.
So anyone who is immediately having this knee-jerk reaction to me talking about this stuff, I feel at this point just must have had something to hide because of course that happens.
And in the case of California specifically, I see that the leaders, the party leaders in California want to blame the Democratic governor for this.
The leader of the party in California has been touting the moving of the California primary to earlier on the calendar and wanted it to happen.
So it's dishonest, Jack.
I mean, that's the bottom line.
But when you move from after March 15th, To before March 15th.
You do have to make sure that your rules abide by the RNC's rules.
Otherwise, you'll be penalized delegates.
It happened with us in Florida.
In 08, we fought them on it.
In 12, we fought them on it.
They did penalize Florida in 12.
And then in 16, they blinked.
Because Florida basically just said, and this is important for everybody to understand, we're a huge state.
We're very important to the election.
You need us.
You've already tagged us twice.
We don't care.
You know, you do it.
You tell Floridians how unimportant they are.
And so it's important to understand that states end up doing what they want anyway.
And in a similar situation with Missouri, they had to move their primary up to March 12th, or they wanted to.
It wasn't they had to, but that then triggered that March 15th rule.
So they went to a hybrid system.
South Carolina is on February 24th.
What the confusion is, Jack, is this idea of what is proportional versus what is winner take all.
That's the bottom line.
Proportional under RNC rules does not mean proportionality like Iowa.
It doesn't have to mean that.
Like Nevada.
They actually states have quite a bit of leeway or parties have quite a bit of leeway on how they can do their hybrid system.
And in many cases, there's a split.
Maybe the at large delegates are awarded on a two to one where I mean, the district delegates are awarded two for the leader, one for the second place, but most of them on March have what is called a winner-take-most majority, winner-take-most provision.
And if you set minimum thresholds for delegates to be able to qualify for delegates, you must hit 15% or 20%, and you have majority thresholds for taking all of those delegates in a specific district, then you can do that.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as you meet on March 12th and amend your bylaws, which they didn't address this on March 12th.
As of now, the only state that is proportional, like an Iowa kind of proportional system, is Alaska, or one that's expected to be.
That's the only Super Tuesday state that is.
Texas, also 162 delegates, massive state.
They have winner-take-most provisions, even though they have a little funny way that they allocate that at-large that they think feels proportionality.
But the winner-take-most hybrid, Jack, is to recognize when a candidate has dominant support.
And to reflect the will of the voters, when a candidate thumps you, 55 to 20, you shouldn't get half as many delegates as they do.
And that's the way most obviously voters would believe that.
So to put, to reconceptualize this for the audience, this was a state where it used to be winner-take-all.
Winner-take-all, we all understand, is this the first past the post, oh excuse me, winner-take-most.
So it's, in a pure winner-take-all, it would be Let's say if you got, and you and I were just discussing this regarding the Iowa 2016 results the last time you were on, how we were saying yes, technically Ted Cruz won the caucus, but actually the way the delegates are apportioned is that everyone received a number of delegates out of that top and it really was a three-way split.
Well, in a winner-take-all or winner-take-most situation, you wouldn't see that.
You would see the winner, even if they were 34%, 36%.
I'm saying in an absolute winner-take-all, you would get 100% of the delegates.
Now, in a winner-take-most, maybe you get 80%, 90%, etc.
But what you're saying is that California, because they're moving up the date of the California primary, the way that they apportion the delegates is different.
And what does this mean?
This means that that state will come ahead of many of the other winner-take-all states that are coming up.
And that means that it looks like, because Donald Trump, as you've been reporting and others have now reported after you, I should point out, That it looks as though he is the runaway frontrunner, as Steve Cortez mentioned the other day on Twitter Spaces, which has picked up a Newsweek.
So he's the runaway frontrunner, but even if he wins by double digits, that it's possible the No.
2 could get a similar number of delegates because of these new rules, because of this change.
Is that right?
It is, and let me just try to explain that really quick.
So the way the at-large is, according to the emails that were published and put up, and what we're seeing now from the rules change, the at-large, meaning statewide delegates, look like they would be proportionally allocated based on what are called rounding rules.
It's all very boring and complicated, but it would be much more like Iowa, but they would still have the district delegates, and instead of there being a winner-take-all provision, which there was, They would be split, basically.
So, let's say Donald Trump gets 55% in that district, Ron DeSantis gets 18% or 21%, let's be fair here.
Uh, he's still gonna get half the delegates Trump gets, two to one.
And what's the thinking behind that?
This was published in the LA Times and other local media, so everyone pretending like they haven't been talking about this for almost a year is just full of it.
This is the deal.
They think that DeSantis would do better in moderate, even left-leaning districts.
Why does that matter?
Urban population centers have higher populations even though they're less Republicans.
There are higher population centers and their districts are more closely, you know, they're closely aligned within a small geographic area.
When you're looking at more of the rural areas like Kevin McCarthy's area is suburban and rural and Bakersfield Where there are many more Republicans than, say, the Bay Area, you're still only fighting over three delegates.
So if Trump wins it, he would get two.
The second place would get one.
However, if the loser, the second place loser, wins the liberal urban areas where there are concentrations of districts, they can actually do disproportionate damage to the delegate count.
So this was an article, I think in the LA Times, like three months ago.
This has been Something people know and understand.
Now, that being said, if you look at the PPIC polls, the Emerson polls, there is a flaw on that if you're a pro-DeSantis person, and the flaw is Trump is ahead in all of these areas anyway.
But if it did turn to more of a traditional jack, you know, the moderate, non-MAGA candidate gets the urban districts and the MAGA conservative candidate gets the suburban and rural enclaves, that's what would happen.
It would be a very disproportionate allocation.
So what you're looking at now is an allocation, put it this way, and in just one minute before break, we're going to hold you over.
Would this rule change, given the current numbers, would this rule change help DeSantis or not?
Absolutely.
Without a doubt.
Not even a question.
Trump is over that 50% threshold right now in polling.
If he hit it statewide, that's a wrap.
All of the other rules don't apply because the winner-take-all provision kicks in.
You know, New Jersey, Florida are true winner-take-alls.
You could be a hybrid like South Carolina and still qualify for proportional allocation.
So there's no such term in the rules that we use or the Green Paper uses like a hybrid or a winner-take-most.
That's just something, that's the way we refer to it.
It's Rule 2-2.
You know, even proportional states are allowed to set winner-take-all measures if they use the majority threshold.
So that's what, again, I mean, I'm looking at the calendar right now.
Tennessee, Oklahoma, even North Carolina, which is a blend.
Their at-large is allocated a little bit differently.
Massachusetts, Maine, Arkansas... Rich, let me hold you right there real quick if you can put a quick pin on it.
We've got going straight to a break.
Don't stop.
I love the energy.
You must stay here, folks.
Human events will return in just a few seconds.
Richard Barris breaking it all down for us after the break.
Do not go anywhere.
When I'm working long hours, I'm always listening.
Alright, Jack Posobiec back, Human Events Live.
We're here with Richard Barris.
Now Richard, last time we just left, I want to go right back to you.
You continue telling us about the various states, the way the apportionment works, and how essentially these rule changes, and to your point, to your credit, you've said that rule changes do occur during every year, every contested year.
And it's not like there's some huge conspiracy behind rule changes, but the point is that we're trying to get to the bottom of what effect these rule changes will have on the primary, which of course leads up to the convention, the convention floor there in Milwaukee.
Because I've already heard and I've already seen across Twitter and out there in the information battle space, people are already talking about contested convention.
I've already seen that balloon has been launched that's being floated right now, this idea of a contested convention.
And actually, you know what, Rich?
Let's set the table for people.
Because what would be the conditions to set up a contested convention and what does that actually mean?
So there are 2,467 delegates that are up for grabs.
Out of that, a nominee must get 1,234, which is just over a majority.
If they are to clinch the nomination, it doesn't matter how dominant one is over another.
If they don't reach that number, then it will be a contested convention.
Delegates in almost all of these states, Jack, are bound to the results of the caucuses and the primaries until a certain vote, and then They're unbound and they can do whatever they want.
So this rule change, if California does move to a truly proportional, and by the way, I misspoke before Alaska is not the only one on super Tuesday.
Virginia also is done proportionately, although they have different rounding rules.
They have a different equation for the rounding rules.
If they did this, it would do something.
We just call it dilute the delegate count.
So it would, It's getting a lot closer to a Democratic nomination contest.
Let me just put it that way.
It is, where Democrats have superdelegates and all their contests are proportional, truly proportional.
Very few exceptions with winner take most.
It is a whole lot of Iowa's folks, right?
And then the superdelegates decide who the nominee is if nobody clinches that.
Most of the time, we have seen them clinch that number because the superdelegates are pledged.
They'll say, I'm already with Hillary Clinton.
I'm already with Barack Obama.
But if you have these big states, California's 169 delegates.
Texas is behind them with 162.
If all of them were to dilute the process, Republicans don't have enough delegates to meet that with proportionality like that.
It's just not the same system as Democrats.
So there would be fewer and fewer winner-take-all states.
There are some big ones.
New York has winner-take-most provisions.
New Jersey is just winner-take-all.
It doesn't matter how much of the vote you get.
So is Florida.
But still, again, there's a lot of delegates, Jack.
It would slow down. - Let's go back to it.
If you don't clinch, if you don't clinch, if any nominee, whether it's a Santas, whether it's Trump, for you know, whether it's Mickey Mouse, for the purposes of this conversation, right?
I don't know if Mickey is running.
Probably not right now, though I would imagine he's not a big fan.
He gets votes every year.
He does, he does.
That's where the joke comes from.
Hulk Hogan, too.
Let's get the Hulkster in there.
Come on, Terry.
That if, if They don't clinch, and it does become essentially a contested convention.
Or if you have delegates as, and I'm gonna have to say it, as Ted Cruz famously said at the RNC of Cleveland, Ohio, which I was at, I was in the room when this happened, he said, vote your conscience.
So if they go in as unpledged delegates, they form up with other delegates, it goes to an open convention, what happens there?
Then they vote how they want to vote, and we have to be honest.
What that means is that, especially in a state like California, I mean, there's a lot of people who, you know, openly say their true feelings about the MAGA movement, but they're not Mega friendly, Jack.
Anyone who claims otherwise is really telling tales.
And we could drop the pretentious nonsense about this idea that there aren't people out there who have been talking about a brokered convention for a while.
They have been.
And so, whether you think that that's their intention or not, I'm not here to speak to their intentions.
I don't know what's in their minds and their hearts.
But this does, if you move California to a truly proportional system, With the at-large delegates, and then you do a district delegate split, you do get that possibility that much closer.
A lot closer.
So, on March 5th, you know, the bottom line is Trump's expected to sweep almost every state on March 5th.
California is one that DeSantis has a lot of allies in California.
A couple of months ago, it looked like he could beat Trump there.
Now, he's down considerably.
35 points, roughly.
38 and some.
So, if you're a DeSantis ally, you most certainly want to see this delegate change.
There's no ifs, ands, or doubts about it.
If you're a DeSantis ally and a supporter, you gotta get him to March 15th.
If he gets clobbered on March 5th.
Or March 19th, excuse me.
If he gets clobbered on March 5th and then he goes in, there's a couple contests on March 12th, right before Florida.
He doesn't take Georgia and something else.
It's just going to be a bloodbath.
This race is over.
It's over very soon because the next week is his own state where, by the way, we just polled and he's down 30 points, almost 30 points.
So this It looks to me, again, I can't speak to the motivations here, man.
I'm not in the room.
I'm just telling you what the impact is, and if you are someone who supports DeSantis, you like this rule change, without a doubt.
However, again, I don't know that it does anything better for the process, because more proportionality is going to inevitably lead the Republican Party down the road of superdelegates.
That will happen in the future if they make more proportional.
Well, and this is why, by the way, that the Democrats introduced the superdelegate system after the 1980 election, because they had a guy, Ted Kennedy, who was primarying Jimmy Carter.
They viewed Jimmy Carter as weak.
They never wanted a guy who, by the way, and I know I'm going to get blown up every time I say that the Jimmy Carter was kind of a populist Democrat, that they never wanted a guy like that in office again.
Yeah, he was.
He was a populist, tear-at-your-heart-string Democrat.
It's not somebody that you would have thought.
He was governor of Georgia, and that just wasn't jiving with the Democratic Party at that point.
And by the way, some of the conventions from the You know, the flower movement folks ended with violence and police and, you know, this proportionality leads to division because there's no clear winner.
And then their answer to that was, well, let's get the superdelegates to override so we can end the system quicker and the process quicker and have more control over it.
I mean, if that's the way the Republican Party wants to move, oh, you know, more power to it.
I can't take that ride with you.
You know, voters should decide the nominee, Jack.
Voters should decide the nominee, as well as the president.
It's like, you don't want the Justice Department determining who your nominee is?
Believe me, you do not want the party determining it either.
Well, and of course, and we should bring this up as well, since we're getting into these questions of, it seems like with the potential rise of superdelegates, I'm not saying that's happening, but that potential rise, with the idea of the Justice Department trying to take Trump out of the race,
And by the way, and we just have to say it, there's this new warning, this plot by Norm Eisen and others, Jack Smith is part of it, because these guys work hand in glove, that they think that if they can indict Trump for something regarding or related to January 6th, that it'll trigger the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment.
I've been pounding the table this for weeks.
That then it will disqualify Trump from standing for federal office because he participated in a rebellion against the United States.
This is a Civil War provision that's been on the books in the Constitution since the 1800s.
That's what they want to go back to.
And that question then, of course, will come down not just the delegates in the party infrastructure, not just the Department of Justice, but would the Supreme Court of the United States Then come in and put their thumb on the lever, their thumb on the scale, to tell us who we can and can't vote for for president.
Does Chief Justice Roberts want that to go down on his, you know, in his chapter of the history book?
He's so concerned.
Yeah, he's so concerned about the image of the court.
He upheld Obamacare for it.
This would be one doozy of a way to end an already questionable tenure.
I don't know, Jack.
That's a question he would have to ask himself.
But I'll tell you this.
There have been two things.
This is something else people have to understand because context is important.
There have been Republicans for a while, establishment Republicans for a while, who have considered something like a superdelegate system.
And there have been rumblings when, you know, donors get in a room and they say, what are you going to do when you're down?
People open up and they do say things like, well, there is that clause in the Constitution.
I don't see why the party can't adopt it if, you know, he ends up getting charged with something like sedition.
Not that the case would be decided or would come to a conclusion by that time, but if you think anything is beneath some of these people, you got another thing coming.
You just fell off the truck.
I don't know what to tell you.
They know that the system at this point is favoring the voter.
And their popular opinions and views of the voter, and that's not going their way right now.
So there are people out there who would come hell or high water, do whatever they could to prevent this guy from winning the nomination again.
That's just the truth.
I mean, people really have to understand the context.
So again, this is one state, but it's a big state.
It's a lot of delegates.
And it also is one heck of a narrative You can already play the media ahead.
It's going to say, oh, there's no clear frontrunner.
The horse race is neck and neck.
Nipping at the heels.
We'll see what happens.
It's great for media, by the way.
We're just about out of time.
Where can people go to follow you, get all your coordinates?
And I know you're going to be doing even more videos on this.
I am.
I'm going to do one a little bit later today.
We had some stuff going, you know.
We had some stuff with the fam earlier today and yesterday, so I had to change the time of the show.
But people can check me out at peoplespundent.locals.com.
I'm probably going to do an hour-long video later tonight about this.
Different rules, and try to define some of these terms instead of confusing people.
Well, I think it's great and I appreciate the work, I appreciate the passion.
Look, people need to understand that the grassroots of this country are upset and they feel like they are not trusting those in power.
Rich, much love to you and Laura and the whole family right back here with Darren Beattie.
Stop buzzing in my ear about the boring people at your office.
I'm trying to listen to the new human events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back.
We're bringing on now one of our favorite guests, Darren Beattie of Revolver News.
Now, Darren, I know you and I have been watching this situation in France play out over the last week or so, the last few days, with great question, and I've seen a lot of conservatives out there don't seem to be getting the right
Answer I don't even think they're asking the right question when they're looking at this now this all started with a I would say a George Floyd Derek Chauvin kind of situation where you had an officer who had to discharge his firearm on a driver who was of Algerian descent about 17 years old he was killed you can see in the video that he was actually attempting to run over a the other officer who was on the hood of the car.
And of course, the French media won't report this.
Yet I seem to see a lot of conservatives saying this is happening because it's a Marxist plot, it's Antifa, it's those type of things.
Is this really political violence that we're seeing in France right now?
Or is something else at play?
Well, it's an interesting question.
And I guess it depends what one's definition of political violence actually is.
I I mean, it exists within a political context of the French government, much like the governments of pretty much every other Western nation, deliberately enacting a policy of self-dispossession when it comes to their own country and their own people.
And so you have a substantial percentage of people living in France, particularly in the cities like Paris, We're from vastly different cultures, and not only from different cultures, but who have been kind of enabled by continuous propaganda, removing any accountability from their actions.
And so it's almost inevitable that you would see the kind of behavior that you see in France.
And of course, there's similarities to other displays elsewhere in the West.
But this is basically what you get.
It's quite a spectacle.
You see everything burning.
It looks, you know, it's hard to gauge because it has every appearance of being a real kind of constitutional crisis.
But it is kind of interesting how these things can always kind of be quelled and how ultimately the rioters more or less are on the side of the regime because it's the regime that let them in in the first place.
And it's the regime through its nonstop propaganda that Basically removes any accountability from the actions of these populations.
Well, so then the question then becomes, what could the regime do to prevent, not only, and it looks as though they have sort of quelled this current uprising, they shut down the internet over the weekend in a few areas they actually went in, and in some respects the French police and the French regime has been willing to use great violence, and we've seen this, by the way, against Antifa on Bastille Day, you saw it in some of the videos that got out, I suspect that's why they cut internet.
Over the weekend so that they could send people into a few areas.
But that doesn't really solve the problem long term, does it?
No, it just contains it until the next inflammation.
And again, it's, you know, if if they really wanted to solve it, they could.
You know, it's not as though these populations possess actual power and force.
If the French government and really the overwhelming majority of the French people decided they wanted to put an end to this for good, they could do it within a matter of weeks.
Of course, there would be international condemnation, whining about human rights, but just the physical element of doing that is well within the capacities of the French regime and the French people if they wanted to do it.
So the fact that they don't and they allow this problem persists means that for, you know, a couple of things.
One is that these populations are useful to the regime in some ways, even though they get out of hand, as we saw in the recent riots.
And secondly, they would rather allow these abuses to continue than cross a line that would cause the regime to be condemned internationally as a human rights violator.
So really the squeamishness and lack of political will And the usefulness of the regime are all what prevents any kind of meaningful resolution to this persistent issue.
This is something that came up all the way back in May 2017 when Le Monde was going after me and other French papers for leaking the emails of then-candidate Emmanuel Macron and showing his direct ties and direct financial ties to many of the international banking structures that are headquartered within Paris, along the Champs-Élysées,
The very same areas that, coincidentally, were also being smashed and attacked by the populations that he has been offering to import.
Now, at the same time, Le Pen was the runner-up in that race.
He then became the subsequent runner-up.
The right-wing party in France continues to go through name change after name change.
But there seems to be a nascent right that wants to break out.
I'm not sure if they'll be able to use this situation to their advantage or not politically.
But we do look at a similar situation because this is what the regime has wanted.
And in many cases, these very voters are, and there was a video that I posted on Twitter, and of course it got community noted and they tried to limit the reach of it, of an older woman standing or actually kneeling as police are coming out in riot gear, pleading with them to not of an older woman standing or actually kneeling as police are coming out in riot And this is the image that I think a lot of people need to see to understand that this isn't some organizing
Oh, I thought we were going to play the clip, but... Oh no, sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, no, it's absolutely true.
block of voters, many of them are 60 and up, who have actually voted for this and want more of it to come into France?
Yes.
Oh, I thought we were going to play the clip, but no, it's absolutely true.
And with these kinds of people, they'll find any excuse to get on their knees, whether it's the Black Lives Matter or whether in the case this woman begging the police not to stop a riotous population from burning down the entire country.
It's really disgraceful what it goes to show.
It's like it's not simply an issue of the regime itself protecting it, it's in many of the populations.
So you have the extreme level of this woman begging the police not to intervene in any sense.
I would be willing to guess that probably the majority of the population wouldn't have the stomach to do what would actually be required to do.
And I don't think that any country in the West really possesses the stomach to solve these problems.
And that's why we're left with half measures.
And we're left with, not just for reasons of political correctness, but for reasons that people aren't really willing to solve the issue.
There's constant obfuscations as to what's really going on, the cultural element, the ethnic element, religious element, and even a racial element.
All of these things people have to, it's easier to deny that those elements are there because there's simply an impasse at any kind of solution that acknowledges those elements.
And so you're left with the same problem.
Another point on Macron Because he is an interesting figure geopolitically.
He is somebody who at least plays footsie with or gestures toward this idea that's described as strategic autonomy, of kind of liberating Europe from its geopolitical vassalage to the United States, which is at the very least, it's interesting.
But this kind of thing really goes to show you the limitation of his vision, because You can't really contest sort of the global order of what I would call the globalist American empire without addressing these issues which are very much Western problems associated with that sort of dominant system.
If he's not willing to deal with the underlying problem of the riots in France, he's not really a critic of the order as he sometimes presents himself to be.
And on a reciprocal basis, you see some politicians who are on the right domestically, who lack that vision of independence in the geopolitical sense.
And I'm convinced that in order to really present the public with a new vision and a new possibility, one has to maintain independence, not only from the geopolitical perspective, but also domestically.
And unfortunately, there isn't really a single leader that I can think of Who exhibits those traits in the West.
We're coming up on a quick break.
I think the closest leader that I could say, and you could argue whether it's the West or not, but at least in the Western Hemisphere, is El Presidente of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who has shown us that there is a quick and simple way to deal with crime.
How Bukele ended the homicide rate in El Salvador with one simple trick.
It's called incarceration.
There are ways this can be done, and this is why the human rights groups completely hate him.
Stay tuned, we are coming back here.
Darren Beattie with more.
more.
When I grew up in the hood, I rolled with bloods and them boys had a saying.
You can't be listening to all that slappy whack trimatazolitzabam ship, nippy bam bam like human events with Jack Posobiec.
So Darren, let me ask you another question.
Let's say the similar situation in France were happening in El Salvador right now.
How do you suppose that El Presidente Nayib Bukele would deal with it?
Well, Bukele is one of the exceptions here.
He is truly remarkable.
What he's done is, you know, El Salvador isn't just any country.
This was the hotbed of one of the most brutal and violent gangs in the world, MS-13, and just crime-ridden country.
And this one guy demonstrated that, you know, it is actually possible to contain the worst type of violence, as you said, through incarceration, through a little bit of toughness.
You know, we saw this in the Philippines too with Duterte, but I think Bukele is even more competent, has handled it even more responsibly.
And of course, you have the usual suspects whining about it.
The U.S. State Department is on his, you know, on his case.
And of course, U.S. government, anyone who, because it's embarrassing to us for somebody like this to step up and show how easy it is if you actually have a competent government that cares about its citizen.
And, you know, as for all of these human rights groups complaining, You know, you gotta use human rights in quotation marks.
Everyone should legitimately care about human rights in the true sense, but it doesn't serve human rights to allow the most brutal type of violence to metastasize in the way that it was in El Salvador.
It's not human rights to allow these problems to persist in France.
It's not human rights to just simply sit back and allow violence to continue and allow your own citizens to be terrorized.
And so these human rights organizations, which are part of their own sort of NGO constellation, their own sort of networks, really exist to prevent any leader from challenging the prevailing Western order that really requires this kind of combination of
anarchy and tyranny that certain demographics, certain population groups, basically the criminals get a free pass while law-abiding, responsible, good, traditional citizens bear the full weight and full force of the government's hostility.
That's unfortunately where we are in the United States right now, but it's very encouraging to see at least somewhere there's competent, smart and tough leadership.
So I fully congratulate Mr. Buckele on his amazing accomplishment.
No, I think we need to find a way to franchise the Bukele solution.
Perhaps a Bukele masterclass is in order for advanced reasoning.
But Darren, it's interesting because one of the other subjects that you and I and another individual that you and I hold in the highest esteem and so close to our hearts, Nini Yankovich, was dealt A glaring blow over this weekend because a federal court in the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Terry Daugherty,
has granted a temporary injunction barring federal agencies, including HHS and the FBI, from contacting social media companies for, quote, the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.
Darren, how important is this ruling?
This is an enormous blow to the censorship industrial complex And as you mentioned, the ruling in this injunction basically prohibits Biden administration, Biden's goons, both individually and institutionally, from putting their thumb on the scale from effective from bullying social media companies into censoring things that they don't like.
Basically a restraining order.
It would be nice if we had a restraining order with Biden to keep him away from children, but at least we have a restraining order keeping Biden officials away from social media companies that they've been pressuring to censor.
And I really encourage, if people want something encouraging, if they want something positive and uplifting, read this memo.
Read the judge's memo.
It's 155 pages.
Skim it if you like, but it really is a tour de force.
It takes you all throughout the censorship industrial complex, all of the major figures, and it has the receipts.
It has the details.
It's just amazing.
Emails presented of Biden White House officials really bullying Facebook.
It's incredible.
Facebook, this is how obsequious they are.
Say, oh, we're so sorry.
We've done everything we can.
And then the Biden person's like, how dare you?
I saw one post that was favorable to vaccines.
What the hell are you guys doing?
Do better.
And Facebook bent over backwards.
They said, we're even going to the lengths of censoring and throttling information that doesn't technically violate our terms of service just to keep you folks in the White House happy.
So it really illustrates directly and conspicuously a dimension of the censorship story, which is it's not just the freaks like Yole Roth and, you know, the censorious commissars embedded within the trust and safety communities, departments of these tech the censorious commissars embedded within the trust and safety communities, departments
A big part of the story was straight up bullying and intimidation on the part of Biden government to censor anything related to COVID vaccines, the lockdowns, masks, of course, The Hunter laptop was viciously suppressed, all the way up to the 2020 election, of course.
So, none of these commissars are happy.
I'm sure Nina is, you know, she's probably eating comfort food right now and singing a few go-tunes from the Moaning Myrtles.
Another one is Renee DiResta, who is Arguably even higher up in the censorship hierarchy.
This is a huge blow to her and her organization, the Stanford Internet Observatory.
So this is a great development.
We need to keep the pressure on.
The war is not over, but this is definitely a battle well and deservedly won.
Well, I just can't imagine how Joan Donovan is going to explain all of this to her refrigerator.
Darren, where can people go to follow you?
Where can they get the latest from Revolver News?
She is the refrigerator!
You go to revolver.news, revolver.news, we got some new stuff, WhiteHot, and the Soros Minions, they cancelled us from five different email senders, we're finally back up and running, so go there, sign up for our newsletter, and I'm on Twitter, at Darren J.
Darren Beatty, always a pleasure, my friend.
Sorry, William Perry.
Sorry, Chicago Bears.
No, no, you are no longer The Fridge.
It is Joan The Fridge Donovan.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will be back here tomorrow, 2 p.m.
Eastern, Real America's Voice, streaming live on Rumble.
We're live everywhere.
Make sure to subscribe to Human Events on podcast.
