All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 21, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
59:43
THE DAY AFTER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep9
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What happened to free speech in America?
Did Mitch McConnell sell us out?
Plus an interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene, a freshman congresswoman who wants to begin impeachment proceedings against Biden.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Thanks for watching.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
This episode is sponsored by MyPillow.
Now, many of you know that Mike Lindell, the founder and CEO of MyPillow, has been under the gun.
Many of his retailers refuse to carry his products, and this is because of a kind of intimidation campaign that's been carried out by leftist groups who are trying to destroy Mike, an immensely successful entrepreneur who came up from nothing.
He was a crack addict, and he's now built a massive business.
So they want to make him an example.
They want to teach him a lesson.
I think we need to teach them a lesson by supporting Mike.
And you're supporting not only a great guy, but you're supporting a patriot and a Christian, and you're supporting a guy who makes great stuff.
So let me tell you about Mike's products.
Mike has come out with the world's most comfortable bedsheets.
He finally found the best cotton in the world.
In a region where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together.
It creates the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
His new Giza Dream Sheets are made with this long staple cotton, and he guarantees they're the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
So the first night you sleep on these sheets, Mike says you'll never want to sleep on anything else, and my wife Debbie and I can verify that.
The Giza Dream Sheets are available in a variety of colors.
Like all of Mike's products, they come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
So right now, you can buy one, get one free by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
For a limited time, you can buy one, get one free.
Just call 800-876-0227.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
What happened to free speech in America?
I see this barrage of attacks on free speech aimed really at the right.
This idea that conservatives and Trump supporters need to be silenced, need to be censored, need to be purged, need to be treated as a cult.
All of this reflects, if you may say, a new wave of intolerance in the country.
But where did it come from?
We used to live in an America where you could have debate.
Even CNN used to have a show called Crossfire.
Michael Kinsley on the left, Robert Novak or Pat Buchanan on the right.
I would go to college campuses and debate professors about this issue or that.
And then suddenly it kind of all went away.
I was talking to a friend of mine who's a kind of digital mogul.
He's based in Canada. And he goes, what happened in America, Dinesh?
He goes, I thought you guys were fighting over the Second Amendment.
I didn't think you were fighting over the First Amendment.
But the First Amendment now is under attack.
And I wonder if this is something that is new or if it is something that is a permanent feature, you might say, of the human problem.
The legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the point that free speech is a very fragile value.
In fact, he says that no one really believes in free speech.
Seems very strange to say, but when Dershowitz teaches his class, and this was at Harvard Law School, he would come in and say, how many of you guys in the class believe in free speech?
Every hand goes up, I believe in free speech.
And then he would say, alright, well, let's take some specific examples.
And he would start pressing people's hot-button issues.
How many of you think, for example, that racist speech should be outlawed?
And a bunch of hands go up.
How many of you think that speech demeaning to women should be outlawed?
And some more hands go up.
And down the list he goes and some of the issues might become...
How many of you think that blasphemy should be outlawed?
How many of you think that insulting remarks about really fat people should be outlawed?
More hands go up. And eventually he looks around the room and he realizes very few hands are down.
In other words, free speech is something that people affirm in theory.
But when push comes to shove, they don't believe it.
They are intolerant.
Now think about the concept of intolerance because these days we hear things like, we've got to shut up the intolerant.
The right-wingers are so intolerant, we've got to shut them down.
So intolerance toward the intolerant.
But the concept of intolerance is meaningless if it's applied only to people you agree with.
If someone says something and you're on board with it, there's no question of tolerance.
Tolerance only arises when you are listening to opinions you hate.
So you can't say that you're going to be intolerant toward hateful speech.
Tolerance only applies to speech and to things that you object to, you despise, you hate.
Now, I keep hearing from the left this notion that conservatives and Trump supporters are victims of misinformation.
Here is the Obama guy, Ben Rhodes, with a recent clip I want you to see.
How do you identify armed militias who are intent on doing harm?
But there's a broader societal issue that is going to take many years to detox the disinformation, the lies, the hate that has been spread.
A whole segment of the American population has been radicalized by what has happened over the last four years and by the fact that Donald Trump is no longer there.
They can no longer see Donald Trump representing their grievances in the highest office.
And so those grievances are going to go back underground.
And I think there's a lot of work to be done to deal with the broader societal issues That go beyond what even national security, homeland security professionals could do.
They want to treat us as cult members and they want to deprogram us.
And the basic premise of it is this, and you hear it every day on MSNBC and on CNN, the basic idea is the right, the conservatives, have been getting all this misinformation.
And the underlying assumption is that we've been listening to people like Trump.
We've been listening to people like all these right-wingers, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News.
And if only it could be the opposite.
If only we would listen to CNN. If only we'd read the New York Times.
If only we'd be exposed to PBS or CBS or listen to what the Hollywood.
But wait a minute. We do.
Conservatives know what the left is saying.
They're acting as if we live in an echo chamber and we simply listen to our own guys, but the truth of it is, liberal culture is all around us.
We know exactly what they're saying, and we don't accept it.
This is what drives them insane.
They basically think that all they believe is based on facts.
And we believe that, A, sometimes their facts are wrong, but even when their facts are right, their values are wrong.
So we don't just contest their facts, we contest the interpretive framework in which their facts are presented.
And we refuse to go along.
And it's our stubborn refusal to essentially sign on to their BS that drives them insane.
Look at Trump's support.
It's essentially holding immovable.
It's holding firm. Look at the way in which conservatives, even though they are subjected to liberal indoctrination in the schools, liberal bombardment in the colleges, liberal bombardment from the media, at the same time, they still hold recalcitrantly to their conservative principles.
And we don't believe our conservative principles because we watch Fox News.
We watch Fox News because we have conservative principles.
We don't believe conservative things because Trump says so.
It's because we're conservatives that we listen to what Trump says, and we agree with him, certainly on many things.
So the bottom line of it is the reason that the left has to go to censorship is despite their intense, unceasing, fanatical efforts to bring us over to their point of view, to what they consider to be the enlightened point of view, from their point of view, We refuse to be enlightened.
Of course, we are enlightened.
We're more enlightened than them in reality.
Why? Because we actually know where they're coming from.
They really don't know where we're coming from.
Whenever I do debate on the rare occasions today I debate a leftist, I realize everything he says I've already thought of.
In fact, while he's speaking, I've not only thought of all the objections to his point of view, but the objections to that and my objections to that, and all before he finishes a sentence.
By contrast, the things I say, and I can just see it in their faces, I look at their expressions and they go, what?
You really believe that? Where did you get that?
The consternation, the sort of slack-jawed incredulity tells me they don't know what we think.
They don't know what we believe.
They haven't read the books we've read.
They don't know the history we know.
And so they stare at us with a kind of idiotic incomprehension.
And then immediately that incomprehension goes to anger.
So this is the tyrannical impulse on the left that is expressing itself in the movement for censorship.
It's a despicable movement.
We're going to block it.
We're not going to shut up.
You can try all the techniques that you want.
You've done it already, and it's gotten you nowhere.
So you might as well learn that we're here to stay, and you're going to be hearing from us.
I'll be right back. Have you got problems with the IRS? Hey, I've had my share of problems with the big bad US government.
They tried to make an example out of me.
But I know firsthand the importance of having proper representation to protect your freedom and your finances from being taken by the IRS. So Ryan Danica and the Christian folk at South Coast Tax, they'll discuss your unique situation, they'll create a tailored framework for how to attack the situation head-on with the IRS and allow you to have a true, fresh start.
South Coast Tax has a settlement average that's amazing.
Three cents on the dollar, a 97% reduction rate, along with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
With 20 years of experience alone, Ryan told me he has yet to see a tax situation that has stumped him, and that's pretty impressive when you consider the size of the tax laws.
So call Ryan at 800-TAX- And you'll see for yourself that this will be the best move you ever made and the first step in getting your financial freedom back.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a newly elected congresswoman from Northwest Georgia, is on a rampage.
Joe Biden has been in office one day, and I think she's had enough.
She's ready to impeach him.
Welcome, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Thanks for coming on the show.
I really appreciate you doing it.
Had enough of Joe Biden already?
I had enough of Joe Biden before he got here, and I'm definitely day one.
Especially all the things he signed in, executive order yesterday, I think all of America's had enough.
So are you actually introducing legislation, or are you actually introducing articles of impeachment, or are you just talking about it?
No, I'm actually introducing articles of impeachment on Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, when he was vice president for the United States, he perfectly demonstrated That he was willing to abuse the power of the vice presidency, and he did so on camera, on tape, admitting it himself when he said he would withhold a billion dollars just to make sure a certain prosecutor got fired from his job, all because it was affecting his son Hunter Biden's deals with a certain energy company in Ukraine.
This is an abuse of power and there's a clear pattern.
There's an investigation ongoing right now into Hunter Biden's laptop, and that investigation really needs to happen, and the American people deserve to know.
And it's already been demonstrated that we can't trust Joe Biden because he will do anything and everything, abusing the power of the presidency, abusing the American people, all to help his family in their corrupt deals, business deals, with foreign Foreign countries, energy companies.
Now, you recently tweeted out the tape, and some people have seen it, but I think it's worth taking another quick look at as a reminder, if only.
So let's run the tape.
No, I said, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president. The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here, and I think it was, what, six hours?
I looked, I said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a bitch.
Got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Now, I don't think that there is much doubt that this guy has had a long career of corruption.
But is it your position that he should be impeached for what he did before?
Or are you saying that because he did what he did before, he's compromised in executing the duties of his office now?
Both. He abused the power of the vice presidency before.
And he has compromised going forward now, and he continues to deny everything, even when evidence has been shown through Hunter Biden.
You know, there was the famous interview with Tucker Carlson with Tony Bobulinski, where Bobulinski, who was Hunter Biden's business partner at the time, and explained exactly what happened and how James Biden, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden are all involved in this corrupt business deal's With the Chinese energy company.
And so this is a danger to America.
You know, Nancy Pelosi lowered the bar of impeachment to the basement, and she's done it twice now.
And here in the House of Representatives impeached President Trump twice for nothing.
Now we have a real situation where we have a man that is now President of the United States clearly It's not there mentally, and that's another issue that's not involved in these articles of impeachment, but it is an issue.
But he's compromised with his relationship with his son and his son's continued abuse of power and corruption and willingness to dangle his father and all of his connections and his power out to his business partners, and this endangers all of America.
Now, is it part of your motivation?
And I don't think this would necessarily be a wrong motivation, but is it part of your motivation that you're just downright mad at what they tried to do to Trump?
And your idea is, hey, you know what?
Two can play at this game.
You guys want to try doing it to Trump?
We're going to do it to you.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that motivation, but is that part of your motivation?
Actually, I think that's a completely separate issue.
You know, the whole reason why I ran for Congress is because I've been a business owner for over two decades.
And in the private sector, in the real world where most Americans live, we have to do everything right.
We follow the rules. We dot every I. We cross every T. We pay our taxes.
We obey every single thing.
But there is so much corruption and abuse in government that it's just sickening.
You know, look at our national debt.
That right there is one perfect example of just how they abuse Americans and our hard-earned tax dollars.
But more than that, this place doesn't function well, and I can tell you that as now a new member of Congress.
I'm appalled at the way Congress functions.
And so, no, that is truly a separate issue.
You know, that's why I objected on the 6th.
On January 6th, we objected to these Electoral College votes for Joe Biden that we believe were fraudulent in six states.
But that is a completely separate issue.
My issue is with corruption and power.
And Joe Biden is clearly corrupt.
He's admitted it himself right there on the video clip that you played.
And then the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, it really needs to go forward.
And we can't have a president that's compromised like this.
Now, if I can ask you directly, is this something that you're willing to sort of take to the mat?
And what I mean by that is, I think you know there's a Democratic majority in the House.
They will do everything they can to block you.
They have a narrow, but nevertheless, with Kamala Harris in the Senate.
So it seems to me that the best option here, if you can't win over five or six Democratic congressmen and hold all the Republicans, is to sort of take the case public. In other words, it's almost like to conduct an impeachment trial in the public square.
And I want to ask if you'd be open to considering that. In fact, I'd love to have it right here on the show.
In other words, I'd say bring in the Ukrainian prosecutor, bring in the evidence.
You know, one of the advantages of being a congresswoman is you have a public stage.
Are you willing to use that stage, not just to talk about this as a positioning maneuver, but to bring out the evidence, let the American people see it, prevent the press from being able to hide it the way they did during the campaign, so that people can really realize, maybe to their dismay, we've put a burglar in charge of Fort Knox.
Oh, Dinesh, absolutely, 1000%.
You know, I have a saying, I say it all the time, and I said it during my campaign, and it's something I hold very dear to my heart, is it's people over politicians.
And so that's why I've been posting everywhere, text impeach to 55444, because I want citizen co-sponsors.
To me, it's not about everybody here in Congress and what they want to do and how they want to vote.
It's really about the people.
I'm 100% for a public trial, so to speak, for President Joe Biden and where we can bring out the evidence and let the people be involved.
And that's exactly how it should be.
This is how this country was founded.
But it has grown into a disgusting swamp where nothing gets done and no one ever faces justice.
They just continue.
To evade the truth.
And you see it every single day.
So I love that idea. I think it's great.
I think we need on our side not only ideas, but the boldness to carry them out.
I think you're on a big one here.
And I urge you to run with it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, thank you for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate having you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dinesh.
Thanks for having me.
AMAC, it's the fastest growing conservative 50 plus organization in America.
Over 2 million people have joined and carried the AMAC membership card.
AMAC was built by folks who feel the same way that we do.
We're not alone. AMAC believes in, they stand up for, the values that have made America great faith, family, and freedom.
They believe in the sanctity of our Constitution, including the First and Second Amendments.
They're fighting the good fight against reckless government spending and the ever-expanding scope of the federal government.
Their small business...
Secure borders. They support our military and they respect our veterans.
AMAC works hard to deliver real value to their members, providing the best benefits, discounts, and services that you can find in one place.
So join AMAC today.
Debbie and I are lifetime members.
Go to amac.us and join now.
Join AMAC today. Go to amac.us.
Join today. Is Biden a legitimate president?
This may seem like a little bit of an odd question.
Certainly many conservatives are asking it.
They're asking it in part because they have concerns about how Biden got here, but they're also asking it because it's a sort of retaliatory move against liberals and Democrats who basically said of Trump, not my president.
So if Trump wasn't their president, why should Biden be ours?
I want to tackle this problem in a very unique way.
I would say philosophically.
I was reading a remarkable book by Perez Zagoran.
It's called Hobbes and the Law of Nature.
And I realized that the theme of this book is, well, the theme of Hobbes, legitimacy.
How do governments become legitimate?
And I want to apply the theory of this book and the theory of Hobbes to ask, is Biden legitimate?
So Hobbes is, you may say, the first of all the liberal philosophers.
This may seem really weird because Hobbes of course is a defender of absolute government, of government having virtually all the power, of turning over all our rights, you might say, over to the government.
But Hobbes is a liberal because he believes that in the end, government must be based on the consent of the governed.
Government must be based upon people freely entering into a social contract in which they voluntarily and freely and rationally Give over to the government their rights.
So this rooting of legitimacy in popular consent is very important.
Governments gain their authority by the consent of the governed.
And that phrase comes right out of the Declaration of Independence.
So Hobbes says we live in a state of nature in which life is, in his own words, life would be nasty, brutish, and short.
And we don't want that. And our life is also in constant danger and it's difficult to provide for our ordinary means of sustenance.
And so we create civil society.
And because Hobbes believes that this civil society is so much in danger of division and civil war and conflict and strife, Hobbes believes we have to have a state.
That sort of makes virtually all the decisions for us.
And Hobbes is pretty extreme about this.
In fact, he even refuses to give sanction to the name tyranny.
He says tyranny is just kind of an opinion of a bunch of people who don't like what the government is doing.
They just give a big severe name to that tyranny.
Hobbes supports censorship.
The government gets to say what can be said.
And so it might appear that Hobbes is the worst guy in the world to consider and to consult.
For whether or not a government should be legitimate.
In his opinion, it would seem the Biden administration can do pretty much whatever it wants.
Government can do whatever it wants.
But there's a very interesting qualification in Hobbes that weirdly is now relevant today.
Hobbes says that the government, the power of the government, is limited by certain things.
First, he says the government does not have the right to kill you.
In other words, you've entered into a social compact for the protection of your life and for your safety.
If the government does not provide that protection, then you're back in the state of nature.
Then you don't owe that government any allegiance.
And so if your life is in danger, if your basic security and the security of your family is in danger, especially if it's in danger by the government itself, In a sense, Hobbes is saying all bets are off.
And then Professor Zagoran adds to this something that I had sort of missed in Hobbes.
And he says it's not just about protecting your life.
He goes, Hobbes very clearly says that the point of government is to allow you to have, you may say, a commodious life, a prosperous life, a full life.
So government isn't just protecting your basic security.
Government has to give you the space, says Hobbes, For you to make private decisions, not decisions that endanger the government, but decisions that allow you to live your life the way you want.
The decision, for example, of let's say where you eat and what you eat.
The decision, for example, of whether to keep your body healthy and exercise.
The decision, for example, about how many children you should have and how you should raise them.
Parental sovereignty over their children.
The decision, for example, of what to believe privately.
Not necessarily things that you can say in criticism of the government, but your private beliefs on a whole bunch of subjects.
And Hobbes says that the government exists to protect all this.
To protect not just the fact that you have a life.
But to some degree that you are also able to pursue prosperity and happiness.
There's that phrase again from the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness.
That's what government exists to do.
And so the point I want to make is that it's one thing to be a political minority in America.
It's one thing to be the opposition party.
It's a whole other thing when the government takes steps That seriously endanger your life, your safety, the safety of your family, or your basic right to conduct yourself, live your life the way that you want, raise your children the way that you want, believe in conscience the things you want to believe.
Even Hobbes draws the line there.
And so even under Hobbes, we have an argument for Resistance, and resistance in this case means nothing more than refusing to accept the legitimacy of a government that doesn't do for us what we entered into the social contract for a government to do.
You might even have, echoing through the centuries, the faint words of Thomas Hobbes saying of Joe Biden, he's not your president.
I'll be right back.
Has Mitch McConnell sold us out?
We have been seeing recently statements from McConnell and statements by McConnell in the media that not only cause conservatives and Republicans alarm, but almost appear calculated to be conducting a suicide mission for the Republican Party.
For someone as wily and cagey as Mitch, who's been in office so long, who's navigated so many battles, could it be that Mitch has sort of lost his mind?
Lots of people seem to be losing their minds in the age of Biden, starting with Biden himself.
Has Mitch gone there too?
What's up with Mitch McConnell?
Here is Mitch on the Senate floor, essentially blaming the Capitol Hill incursion directly on Trump.
The last time the Senate convened, we had just reclaimed the Capitol from violent criminals who tried to stop Congress from doing our duty.
The mob was fed lies.
They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.
And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government, which they did not like.
Talk about exasperating, infuriating, and flatly untrue.
If there is direct incitement, where is it?
Let's cite, let's go to the videotape, let's cite the quote.
Where did Trump incite people?
Where did he tell them to go take the capital?
Is it the case if I say X and people do Y, and if Y comes after X, therefore Y was caused by X? Really?
Really? I've also been seeing in the press, here's a report, McConnell says he hasn't decided whether he personally will vote to convict Trump.
He hasn't decided.
He's waiting for the evidence to come in.
He hasn't made up his mind. And then Mitch McConnell praises Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as, quote, son and daughter of the Senate.
So he's speaking of them with avuncular affection.
Son and daughter of the Senate.
Welcome now to the White House.
Now, Is it the case, again, that Mitch is basically putting a knife in the heart of the Republican Party?
Because if these statements are taken on face value, it looks like we don't have a real opposition.
Those of us who are looking to fight against the depredations of the left don't have a party to support us.
And I know there are many people who do feel that way.
I also know, however, that Mitch is not a guy who can be taken quite at face value.
He says things while he does other things.
He's a little bit of a real politique figure.
You have to watch carefully not just what he says, but what he does.
Now let's look at something that Mitch could have done that would have been absolutely lethal, I believe, to Trump.
If Mitch McConnell had had a Senate vote, On impeachment, the day after the House vote, if he had changed the calendar, met with Chuck Schumer and did what Chuck Schumer wanted, and had that vote, I think that there is a real possibility, I don't know if it's a probability, but it's a real possibility, that Trump would have been removed from office.
That would have been, obviously, crushing.
Mitch didn't do that, and he essentially didn't do that by moving into a passive, inactive mode.
He sort of became a victim, you may say, of the cumbersome Senate schedule.
Kind of reminds me of that poem from Andrew Marvel to his Coy Mistress where he goes,"...had we but world enough in time." But at my back, I always hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near.
Basically, Mitch turned to Nancy Pelosi and goes, I'm sorry, Nancy, but I'm out of time.
We can't do this in the schedule that you want.
So Mitch blocked it.
And having blocked it, it's really not going to be meaningful anymore.
We'll talk more about impeachment later, but essentially impeachment is a dead horse.
The Democrats even don't quite know what to do with it.
I don't even think Nancy Pelosi has delivered the articles of impeachment yet to the Senate.
So Mitch kind of killed that one.
I also read in the Insider Washington Press that Mitch is working out a deal with the Democrats to protect the filibuster.
And I begin to wonder, I'm not gonna...
I am speculating here that Mitch might have agreed to play nice with the Democrats in exchange for protecting a very valuable thing, the filibuster.
It's valuable because why?
If the Democrats try to do anything crazy, from backing the court, the Republicans can block them.
The Democrats essentially have no real majority in the Senate.
It's 50-50.
They have to haul in Kamala Harris to be the tie vote, but they certainly don't have 60 votes.
So if the filibuster is intact, Mitch gets to block a whole bunch of stuff.
And that's really what Mitch is sort of good at.
He's not Trump. He can't give a speech.
He doesn't know how to respond to the media.
But Mitch does know how to block.
Mitch does know how to tackle.
Mitch would not have gotten through all those Supreme Court nominations and all those other judicial nominations if he didn't know how to get the job done.
So I think what's going on here, just one way to look at it, that Mitch McConnell is doing what Mitch McConnell does best.
He's not good on the rhetorical front.
In fact, he's downright horrible.
But he's pretty good at the backroom game of cutting favorable deals for our side, blocking bad things that are coming down the pike.
And if he does just that over the next two years, I think Mitch McConnell will have, at least to some degree, redeemed himself.
We'll be right back. We are now at the mercy of one-party control and an agenda driven by tax and spend economics.
I don't need to get into all the social ramifications, but fiscally we can expect compounded growth of our national debt and the systematic devaluation of the U.S. dollar.
So there's really one question.
What is your plan?
What are you doing right now to protect your savings and your retirement?
I'm actually very excited to have Birch Gold Group as an advertiser because Birch Gold Group will help you diversify a portion of your savings.
An IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
They are the premier precious metals IRA company in America with an A-plus Better Business Bureau rating, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers.
There's a tidal wave of inflation coming.
Gold is your hedge.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRA or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
Time is running out, but you can protect your savings now.
Text Dinesh The Terminator is back.
Yes, I'm speaking of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He was back right around the time of the Capitol Hill incursion, and he had some very severe words that involved Nazis.
I grew up in Austria.
I'm very aware of Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass.
It was a night of rampage against the Jews carried out in 1938 by the Nazi equivalent of the Proud Boys.
Wednesday was the day of broken glass right here in the United States.
The broken glass was in the windows of the United States Capitol.
But the mob did not just shatter the windows of the Capitol.
They shattered the ideals we took for granted.
They did not just break down the doors of the building that housed American democracy.
They trampled the very principles on which our country was founded.
What is up with this guy?
First of all the whole analogy that he makes is downright preposterous.
Kristallnacht was a campaign by a party in power, the Nazi party, to go after a vulnerable group, namely the Jews.
So let's start with that.
The Capitol Hill incursion was the opposite.
It was a group of people who are powerless.
These are people who came from all over the place.
They were just frustrated and super mad that their concerns were being paid attention to by nobody.
And so they were like, let's go talk to the people in power!
This was not a case of the powerful picking on the powerless, but...
The real power in this case belonged to the people in the U.S. Congress.
They are the ones who had all the protection.
They are the ones who had all the guns.
Maybe their protection failed, but it didn't fail so much that they couldn't point a gun and shoot at one woman through the neck, killing her.
Unarmed, she was.
So, where's the analogy to Kristallnacht?
Not to mention, where's the follow-up?
The Nazis ultimately...
Conducted an ongoing campaign of ultimately turning the Jews into non-persons and then sending them off to the gas chambers.
So the analogy just breaks down at point one.
It's absurd. It's ridiculous.
But, it's really strange coming from Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Why? Because dimly in my mind I remembered something and it caused me to go search.
And here I have in my hand an article from the New York Times, October 3, 2003.
And I'm going to hold it up.
It's when Arnold was running for governor.
It basically talks about the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was an admirer of Adolf Hitler.
Boom. Now we know, and this has been widely reported, that Arnold's father was a member of the Nazi party.
But what was not known beforehand was what Schwarzenegger himself thought about Hitler.
And I'm now going to quote from this New York Times article.
It refers to transcripts From interviews with Arnold Schwarzenegger that was submitted in a book proposal, and I'm quoting Schwarzenegger now.
He goes, I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power.
And I admire him for being such a good public speaker.
It's almost like Arnold was identifying with Hitler, seeing himself as a kind of a nobody who came to this country from another country with no education, no power.
He was a bodybuilder, for God's sake.
And then, through eloquence...
And force of personality, Arnold became the governor of California.
It's almost as if Arnold, while not endorsing Hitler's views, admired Hitler's personality.
Arnold goes on. He talks about that he wished he could have, quote, the feeling that Kennedy, this is JFK, had, you know, to speak to maybe 50,000 people at one time and having them cheer.
Or like Hitler in the Nuremberg Stadium and have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say.
This is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now, of course, he denied those remarks.
He said, I don't remember having said that.
He didn't say he didn't say them.
He said he didn't remember saying them.
But then a little bit later, it was pointed out that Arnold Schwarzenegger went to a ceremony, actually a wedding, for Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, who has been accused of having Nazi ties, and raised the toast to Waldheim.
So this is the guy who With very suspect roots lecturing us on how ordinary citizens who want to go and make their voices heard in the capital are somehow now the Nazis.
This seems to me a shameful analogy.
And it raises a bigger question.
The Nazis, of course, targeted the Jews.
And I made the point that there's no way we can look at the congressmen and senators of America as the Jews.
That analogy is crazy.
But a deeper question is raised by all this, which is why did The Nazis target the Jews.
What was the root of their rage, you might say, against the Jews?
It's a very illuminating and not often asked question, but it shows some light on who the Nazis were, which side of the aisle, if you will, they came from, and what they truly believed.
I'll get into all that when I come back.
Why? Because a bunch of retailers from Bed Bath& Beyond to Kohl's have all said, oh, Mike, we can't carry your pillows.
They're just being browbeaten and intimidated by the left.
Now, I don't know if this is quite how they would look at it.
And I'm going to contact the CEOs of Kohl's and Bed Bath and basically say, hey, guys, you're welcome to come on my show.
If you've got a sort of good reason For why you've decided to become part of this cancel culture.
And it doesn't really matter as far as I can see what Mike thinks or believes or whether he's a Republican or a Trumpster.
What the heck does this have to do with his sheets?
So if you've got a reason I haven't thought of for why you're doing what you do, apart from the fact that you're a bunch of spineless Guys who just can't take any kind of pressure or whatever, in which case you deserve to go under, come on my show.
Explain yourselves. In the meantime, I think the more important thing for us to do is to support MyPillow and support Mike because he's a great guy and he's tough and he's holding firm.
You might have seen him on his interview with me yesterday.
He's not giving in and that's a very important quality that we need today more than ever.
Courage. Now, Mike also has great products.
He's come out with the world's most comfortable bedsheets.
He found the best cotton in the world, in a kind of region where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together, creates the perfect weather conditions for growing cotton.
And his new Giza Dream Sheets, the bedsheets, they're made with this long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees they'll be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on them, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Giza Dream Sheets are available in a whole bunch of colors, and like all of Mike's products, they come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
So right now, you can buy one, get one free by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
So for a limited time, buy one, get one free, call 800-876-0227, or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
Why did Hitler and the Nazis target the Jews?
This may seem like a really odd question because we might answer, well, they did it because they were anti-Semitic.
But, of course, that only raises a deeper question.
Why were they anti-Semitic?
Well, Dinesh, it's obviously because they were racist.
Well, let's think about this for a minute.
Racism generally is a hatred, a contempt directed at groups who are seen as somehow inferior, who are seen as not being successful, and you blame their skin color or you blame their biology.
For their perceived inferiority.
But in the case of the Jews, the German historian Goetz Ely points out the Jews were immensely successful.
In fact, Hitler's point and the Nazi point was the Jews control the banks, the Jews control finance, the Jews control the media, the Jews control this, the Jews control that.
So far from seeing the Jews as a group at the bottom, the Nazis saw the Jews as a group at the top.
So why then did they hate them?
A lot of history is asking the right types of questions.
And here, God's Eli, the historian I mentioned, has a book.
It's called, Why the Germans?
Why the Jews? Why did Nazism take root in Germany?
And why were the Jews the target?
And Eli makes a very profound point.
The Nazis envied the Jews.
They hated the Jews because they were successful.
And they blamed the Jews for being the embodiment, interestingly enough, of capitalism.
The Jews were seen as the entrepreneurs par excellence.
That's why they controlled the banks.
That's why they controlled the finance industry.
The basic idea here is that capitalism is the evil, and the Jews are the people who promote it in Germany.
You see here how the Nazis are reflecting a deep socialist point of view.
And in fact, I'm now quoting from Eli.
He says, it is necessary to focus on the socialist aspect of national socialism.
By the way, this is something that progressives in America try very much to deny.
Now, if this idea of the Jew as a quintessential capitalist seems far-fetched, so the Nazis seem to be so out there in believing it, let me suggest that it was also believed by Karl Marx.
I'm now going to read a direct quote from Marx's 1844 essay quote.
It's called On the Jewish Question.
And he goes,"...what is the worldly religion of the Jew?" And then Marx answers, Huckstering!
What is his worldly god?
Money. And so here's Marx, himself a Jew, albeit a secular Jew, saying you can't pay attention to the theological views of the Jews.
Most Jews don't even believe that stuff.
Jews do have a god, and that god is money.
Jews for Marx, no less than for the Nazis.
Are representatives of capitalism.
So you see here how the Nazis and Marx are on the same side in viewing the Jew as the entrepreneur who needs to be targeted, who needs to be gone after.
Now Marx didn't of course support Nazi remedies, but Marx did support removing, if you will, the capitalist mindset from society so people like the Jews, even from his point of view, would not exist.
I'll be right back. Trump created the 1776 Commission, kind of as a response, you might say, to the left-wing New York Times 1619 report.
The 1776 Commission was assembled to sort of give, you might say, a more...
Thorough or a more accurate picture of American history.
I was actually invited to be on the commission.
The invitation came at a time when I was busy promoting my movies and we're also in the COVID era, so I didn't do it.
I wasn't part of it. But I have read the commission report.
And the commission report is causing waves.
In fact, you can tell what's happening because the Biden people are going nuts.
The first thing they did when they got into the White House, the first day they took the commission report off the White House website.
Take a look. So when you search for it, it's gone.
It's already gone. And Biden, one of his first executive orders is to dissolve the commission.
And what this really tells you is that these guys are scared of what the commission has to say.
And so when this happens, typically, they not only take these kinds of actions...
But they deploy the usual gaggle of left-wing historians.
This is a group of about eight people.
Now, they've got about a hundred people behind them, but it's the same predictable figures, people with names like Kevin Levin and Eric Roushway and Kevin Cruz.
And these people act like they are the historical community.
They're not. They're the left wing of the historical community.
But they go after people in the mainstream that they disagree with, and so they've got the whole historical community kind of intimidated.
And I want to zoom in a little bit to how they look at the world, because I want to argue that their whole project, far from being one of historical revelation or historical presentation, is one of historical cover-up.
It's what they don't want you to know.
Now, Kevin Kruse has an article about the 1776 report on MSNBC, MSNBC.com, and he's analyzing the report, and his argument is a very interesting one.
He says the report is significant not because what it says is wrong, But because it leaves out a whole bunch of stuff.
And so he, for example, says the report talks about Martin Luther King.
It talks about King's commitment to colorblindness.
And Kevin Cruz says, wait a minute, particularly in his later life, toward the end of his life, Martin Luther King became more left-wing, began to talk in, you may say, socialist vocabulary, talked about something he called the Poor People's Campaign.
Martin Luther King even implied, in principle, that he might be okay with some form of affirmative action.
In other words, remedies directed, as he put it, for the Negro.
And Cruz has all the supporting quotations in here.
And he also says that Martin Luther King jumped on board with Lyndon Johnson's defense of affirmative action.
Now, very interestingly, Cruz leaves something out.
He can't name a single quotation by King where King specifically uses affirmative action.
If King was so on board, you'd think he'd say, let's take affirmative action, but he never does.
And so Cruz leaves that out.
He can't supply the quote, so he pretends it doesn't exist.
It would also be interesting for Cruz to supply an actual quote where King supported a race-conscious policy, a policy that was not just directed at poor people, because of course there are poor people white and black, and in fact numerically more poor whites than poor blacks.
King never supported a specifically race-conscious program, and Kevin Cruz just leaves that out.
In his article, he talks about a whole bunch of people.
He starts talking about the defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun, the Dixiecrats, the defenders of segregation.
At one point, he refers to George Wallace.
But you know what he never says?
These guys were Democrats.
That's the point he wants to leave out.
Why? Because it muddies his whole narrative.
The whole idea that the resistance to the civil rights movement came not from the Republican Party, but overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, from the Democratic Party, This is something Kevin Cruz doesn't want you to know.
If I point it out, he goes, oh, well, of course we teach this in school.
But interestingly, it would not have been hard for him to point it out in his article.
So the point I want to make is that while Kevin Cruz is faulting the 1776 report for what it leaves out...
There's a whole bunch of stuff that he leaves out.
And this is kind of his pattern.
He wrote a book several years ago.
In fact, this was kind of his first book that brought him to public attention.
It's called White Flight. And of course, its theme, you know, I could write this book in my sleep.
The basic idea is that whites are racist.
And so when blacks moved into the inner cities, whites basically began to run away to the suburbs.
And this is White Flight. And Kevin Cruz focuses on Atlanta.
Once again, what's significant about his book is what it doesn't tell you.
The phrase he never uses and never discusses is something called black flight.
And that is that you've got middle class blacks, and this is true, by the way, not just in Atlanta.
You see this pretty much in Detroit.
You see it in Baltimore.
You see it in pretty much every major city, which is that once blacks achieve the middle class or the upper middle class, many of them move to the suburbs.
Why? Better schools.
It's safer. So there are all kinds of motives having nothing to do with bigotry that cause people to leave the cities and move to the suburbs.
These are broad patterns in American life.
Non-white immigrants come from other countries, from India, from China, from Thailand.
They move to the inner cities.
They achieve a measure of prosperity.
They move to the suburbs. So, Kevin Cruz doesn't talk about Vietnamese flight, or Thai flight, or Asian Indian flight.
Why? Because he wants to peg it all on white flight.
The whites are the only racists.
Their motive is racial.
Apparently, nobody else has a racial motive, but the whites do.
So, this is deception.
It's deception covered up with the kind of camouflage of credentials.
And of course, Cruz writes in that lumbering academic style.
It's not really written for any audience because he didn't expect anyone to buy the book.
But it's written for the tenure committee.
It's written for other people to go, this guy, you know, uses very boring academic words.
He must be a real intellectual.
Now, Cruz and I have kind of got into it on Twitter on a bunch of issues, and I'm not going to go into all of them.
But the point I want to make is that it's really hard to debate this guy, and I mean this literally, because when we get into an issue, you know, his cheering clack will go, Kevin Cruz really owned you, Dinesh, on Twitter.
And then if I go, well, how did he own me?
What did I say that he proved wrong?
They're like, well, I don't know really, but you've got to look at his Twitter feed.
And so I thought, you know what, let me invite this dude I'll come to his home campus, Princeton, where he has the home team advantage.
He's been indoctrinating his students there every single day.
I will get to talk to them for one day.
And you think this would be an easy slam dunk for him?
If I'm such a fool, he'll be able to point out all my errors.
But of course, the moment I proposed it, Kevin Cruz goes, well, I'm not really sure the debate is an appropriate forum.
Let's just continue to argue it out on Twitter.
So here's a guy who's scared of debate, and this circles back to the point I made at the beginning of the show.
The left is frightened of what we can do to them.
This is why Rachel Maddow won't put me on our show, or Jake Tapper, because these people love to pontificate, but the moment they're subjected to critical scrutiny, they melt.
They fall apart. And what Kevin Cruz fears most is being exposed as a fool in front of his own students.
Now, one of the issues that the two of us kind of got into that is kind of worth pointing out because it illuminates a much broader point about American history, is which party bears true responsibility for slavery?
Not just which party promoted slavery, but the deeper point, which party owned the slaves?
Now, very interestingly, this is not talked about.
If you go into Kevin Cruz's books, you won't find it.
Actually, you won't find it anywhere.
It's not talked about in the textbooks.
It's not talked about on the History Channel.
It's not talked about on Wikipedia.
Why? Because if it was talked about, the conclusion would be damning.
That slavery isn't so much of an American offense.
Oh, Dinesh, America did slavery.
No, America didn't do it.
Some Americans did it, and other Americans fought them.
So let's start with the year 1860, the year before the Civil War.
At this point, guess how many slaves there were in America?
Answer? Four million.
Guess how many of those slaves were owned by Republicans?
Answer? Around 10.
Around 10. Now, I say around 10 because this number comes out of an ongoing debate, not just between me and Kevin Cruz, but a whole bunch of slavery scholars that Cruz rounded up to refute my contention that the Republicans didn't own slaves.
And they were able to point out, hey, Dinesh, we found one here.
Hey, Dinesh, we found one over there.
They found, for example, one guy named Francis Blair, a Republican who did, in fact...
Owned slaves. So they're like, gotcha, Dinesh.
Here's a Republican. He owns slaves.
Now, I looked into it, and Francis Blair, it turns out, was a lifelong Democrat.
And he became a slave owner and he ran plantations.
But then he got into a dispute with the Democratic administration, the Pierce administration.
And so he became a Republican in 1860, in part because he didn't want secession.
He wanted slavery, but he was afraid of secession and war.
And so he became a Republican, although after the war, he went back to being a Democrat.
So this is like... Their best example of a guy who was a Republican who owned slaves.
But here's the broader point.
Even the leftist historians were forced to concede that the total number of Republican slaves that they could find with all their research is about 10.
And again, mostly Democrats who at the last minute pivoted to the Republican Party for other reasons, and some of them went back to being Democrats.
So let's draw, let's step back from all this and draw the real conclusion.
The real conclusion is that out of the four million slaves in America in 1860, virtually none, very few, a handful, you could maybe count them on two hands, were owned by Republicans.
The vast, vast majority, I can't say all the rest were owned by Democrats because there were some other parties, but the vast, vast majority of slaves were owned by Democrats.
So the Democratic Party bears the responsibility for slavery.
They own the slaves.
They beat these people.
They stole their labor.
And yet, think about this.
The Democratic Party has never admitted this.
It has never publicly confessed it.
It's never officially apologized for it.
It's never paid one penny in restitution for it.
And why do people like Kevin Cruz want to cover it up?
The answer is really simple. They belong to that party.
In other words, if they were to admit it, then they would have to explain why they are in the party that did not only the slavery, but did the lynchings, did the Ku Klux Klan, passed all the segregation laws in the South.
This is their party.
We can, on another occasion, debate whether the parties switch sides.
That's a whole other issue.
There's plenty of deception involved there.
The point I want to make here is that the left is all about the cover-up game.
The reason they want the 1619 Project...
Is slavery started in 1619?
Well, I guess it did, but the number of slaves in America in 1619 was, what, 4?
10? 13?
Even in 1776, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, there were about half a million slaves in America, and that's a pretty big number, but it's not even close to the 2 million in 1830.
Now, the Democratic Party, the massive plantation system in the American South, Required a party to defend its interests.
That's what the Democratic Party became.
And the key point is the Democratic Party, not just in the South, but also in the North, was the defender of slavery.
The Northern Democrats were in it with the Southern Democrats.
When Abraham Lincoln named what he called the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the four bad guys of slavery, three of the four were Northern Democrats.
Only one, Tawney, the guy who wrote the Dred Scott decision, was a Southerner, and he was from Maryland.
Well, I guess it was counted as the South.
But the others, the former president, Franklin Pierce, the sitting president, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce from New Hampshire, James Buchanan from Pennsylvania, and the third, Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln's great antagonist from Illinois.
So notice, these are Northern Democrats who Lincoln thought did the most to protect slavery in his time.
Bottom line, there may be a few things wrong with the 1776 report, but it's nothing compared to the systematic pattern of concealment, deception, and lies that the careers of people like Eric Rauchway And Kevin Levin and Kevin Cruz.
▲
Export Selection