All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:03:55
DEMOCRATS AND NAZIS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep12
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A new MAGA party?
The programming of Katie Couric.
Plus, I open up a boot shop in historian Kevin Cruz's rear end.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
This episode is sponsored by MyPillow.
CEO Mike Lindell has just been kicked off Twitter, so the leftist attack on him continues.
They are trying to put this guy literally out of business, not just to shut him up, but also to take him out.
And I think we need to make sure that that does not happen.
Mike is going to find his own voice, and he's got a big voice, and he stands up for what he believes, but he also has great products, and we can support him by buying his stuff.
I do. You should too.
He's got towels and blankets and robes and dog beds and pillows and body pillows and pajamas and throws and flannel sheets.
Mike is offering a special buy one, get one free on his sheet sets.
He's come out with the world's most comfortable sheets.
He found the best cotton in the world.
It's in a region where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
His new Giza Dream bed sheets are made with this long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees they will be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on his sheets, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
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, buy one, get one free.
call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
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.
What happened to political debate in America?
We look around and we see that it just doesn't exist.
And I'm not just talking about formal debate, the straight debate under Marquis of Queensberry rules.
I'm talking about any kind of real exchange of ideas, any kind of real public scrutiny.
of what is going on in the political square.
All of this appears to have sort of mysteriously vanished.
It's the dog that didn't bark in American politics.
My own career has been defined by debate.
You'll notice I sometimes hearken to my own example.
It was said of the philosopher Rousseau that he saw in his own life the great movements of Western civilization.
I have to confess, I'm a little like this.
I tend to see things happening around me, and then I tend to interpret them in a larger context.
So when I published my first book, Illiberal Education, it flung me onto the debate stage.
I was debating with professors on the campus.
I debated probably two dozen of them.
Notably, the literary scholar, the great Milton scholar, Stanley Fish.
We did a half dozen or so debates on leading campuses.
Later, when I published The End of Racism, I remember debating Jesse Jackson at Stanford.
I also debated the former Vice President Walter Mondale.
I was invited in the 90s to go to Davos by the World Economic Forum, and I took part in an amazing debate.
It was a debate over, is Western civilization a good idea?
And it was me on one side, and my partner was the former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and on the other side was the African Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka and the political scientist Benjamin Barber.
So this was fantastic. The Queen of Sweden was in the first row, and I didn't know Sweden had a queen, but there you go.
This was debate.
This was argument, back and forth, each side getting to interrogate the other.
And then later, when I started doing work in Christian apologetics, I did debates with leading atheists, notably Christopher Hitchens.
Perhaps until his death, the leading atheist in the world.
We did about 10 debates.
And if you haven't seen them, by the way, just go search for them on YouTube.
We did a famous debate in New York at the King's College, another one at Notre Dame.
These are very eye-opening because both of us are arguing totally in secular language.
No appeal to scripture, no appeal to sacred authority.
It's an argument on the basis of reason alone.
Now, I love this stuff.
This is part of what's defined my career.
I've never been afraid of opposition.
In fact, I invite it.
But now it's sort of all gone.
This doesn't happen anymore.
You'll notice that I've been inviting these leftist historians to debate me to come on the show, and they all run for cover.
They don't want to debate. They're scared of debate.
They'll do their long, silly Twitter chains with one irrelevancy on top of another.
But when it comes to having their ideas tested in the give-and-take of exchange...
They want nothing to do with it.
So what really has happened here?
Let's think about this. It's a broader phenomenon, not just involving me.
In the 90s, there were powerful arguments made back and forth about America's place in the world.
I think of Francis Fukuyama's great book, The End of History, a book that was wrongheaded in many ways, but scandalously brilliant all the same.
The idea that sort of liberal capitalism had now become the global norm.
And that it should, this was implied in the book, be part of the mission of American foreign policy to be a sort of instrument of bringing about this end of history, this fulfillment of the liberal capitalist idea.
And people argued about it from all over the spectrum.
And then in domestic policy, there were arguments about taxes and arguments about the Laffer curve and arguments about welfare and so on.
And now that's all gone.
Now, essentially, you have nothing more than, we're going to raise the minimum wage.
We think it's a good idea.
We're going to open the borders.
We think that's important.
And the only justification is some emotional appeal.
Look at all these kids in cages!
So our immigration policy hinges on a visual image of a kid in a cage, even though those kids were actually put there by Obama.
So it has to be somehow transplanted onto Trump.
So what's up here?
How did we get to this pathetic point where we can't even argue, where literally words themselves, reason itself, has ceased to be the adjudicator of our politics?
In some ways I think what we have seen is an emergence of a deep cynicism, and this is really true perhaps across the political spectrum, a deep cynicism in the idea of objectivity itself.
Is there such a thing as truth?
What can reason do really?
Is objectivity even a desirable norm?
And because people have lost faith in this, and I say this not just to indict the left, because to some degree, it may even be true on the conservative side.
It may even be true, for example, of Trump, this idea that I don't need to argue my position out.
I just need to state it, and then I need to do it.
And so it's kind of an assertion, you might almost say, of force, rather than an appeal to shared public reason.
That I see having diluted on both sides, both on the right and on the left.
But I think that the main culprit here is the left, because the left is the one that has attacked the idea of objectivity relentlessly.
Who's to say what's true?
This notion of intellectual and even moral and cultural relativism.
But this attack on relativism is a ploy, This appeal to relativism is a ploy.
A ploy to do what?
To justify the naked and raw assertion of power.
Interestingly, this whole clash, which we may think is somewhat new, isn't it for the first time in Western history or in American history that the objectivity is being questioned, that people are saying that justice is simply the interests of the strong?
But no. There it is in the first book of Plato's Republic.
These are very ancient arguments in the West.
In fact, if we think back to Socrates, we're sort of struck by Socrates' naive faith.
And when he asks simple questions, what is truth?
What is justice? That Socrates believes that there is such a thing as truth.
He may believe it's really hard to get at and that ultimately he's the wisest man in Athens because he knows how little he knows.
But even so, he never, you may say, loses faith.
In the notion that there is a quarry called truth, and that it is the job, ultimately, of the morally serious person to pursue it.
Now, his antagonist, Thrasymachus, later Calicles, denies this.
Thrasymachus insists that justice is the interest of the stronger, to put it very bluntly, might makes right.
And it's important to realize that had Thrasymachus and Calicles' position triumphed, The whole debate would come to an end because if might makes right, why argue?
Why talk? All you have to do is beat the other guy up and that's the end of the matter.
But interestingly, even Callicles and Thrasymachus engage with Socrates.
Even if they believe that might is right, they believe in arguing about it.
Why? Because in a sense, they're not talking about physical strength.
They're talking about intellectual might.
Might, you may say, in the forensic sense.
So where I'm going with this is that I think we've reached a pass in which the left is now, particularly because it feels it has a majority, not just a political majority, but a dominance in the culture.
They don't need to talk.
Words have lost their meaning for them.
They just want to do things.
And the reason they want to do them is because they want to do them and because it benefits them.
So they are just going to ride roughshod over opposition.
And in some senses, when they can, they'll even silence opposition.
Why shouldn't they? What's the point of it?
They don't want to hear from it. It's just a nuisance to them.
It's an interruption from them going ahead with this march toward perhaps the United States of socialism.
That's their destination.
And so what you see here is not only an assault on the right, the censorship of conservatives, But an assault on the idea of reason itself.
If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must try Genesis 950.
The reviews are amazing. This is one product that actually works.
With water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine, and it's green so it's safe for your family and pets.
Genesis 950 is made in America.
If you're tired of pet cleaners that don't work, it's time to buy Genesis 950.
One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, kitchens, floors, upholstery, and grease stains.
Consider Genesis 950 before purchasing new carpets.
Genesis 950 has great customer service.
Order one gallon direct at Genesis950.com to receive a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon code using code Dinesh.
That's Genesis950.com, coupon code Dinesh.
The coupon's only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis 950.
Much cheaper than replacing your carpets.
According to the Wall Street Journal and also the Washington Post, Trump has been talking to his aides about starting a new party.
Perhaps it would be called the MAGA, the Make America Great Again Party, or perhaps the Patriot Party, but it would represent a third force In American politics.
Now, this has already kind of lit everything abuzz.
Everyone is talking about what would the implications be of a third party.
To some degree it's a dismaying idea to conventional Republicans for the simple reason that it would It could even eclipse the Republican Party.
There are some surveys that suggest that the MAGA Party would be the second party and the Republican Party the third party in America.
But before I go too far down this road, I want to hit the brake for a second and start with a very simple question that we rarely ask when we see these news reports.
Are these reports true?
If not, who concocted them?
And with what motive?
So let's start with the reporting in the Washington Post.
I have in front of me the article.
Trump is apparently talking to his top aides, and evidently these top aides are talking to the Washington Post.
That alone is fishy because the Trump team hates the Washington Post.
So I right away begin to suspect that they have made the whole thing up.
And my suspicions are fortified when we begin with statements like this.
Multiple people in Trump's orbit.
Multiple. Who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations say that Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial.
So the appeal to anonymous sources, decoded, we're making this stuff up, is to supply Trump with a supposed motive and its motive is purely vindictive. I'm gonna force these Republicans, I'm gonna blackmail them into vindicating me by my threats to start a third party. Now the people who write this, they're writing it because they've got a clear motive.
See, they're putting out Trump's motive, which is fictitious because they made it up.
And concealing their motive.
What's their motive? Their motive is to antagonize the leadership of the Republican Party to say, that Trump, if that's his motive, we're going to convict him.
So the goal of the Washington Post Is to put out this idea of a third party to drive a wedge between Trump and the MAGA movement on the one hand and the traditional Republicans on the other and to create recriminations between the two.
To get the traditional Republicans to say, well, Trump wants to teach us a lesson?
Well, we'll teach him a lesson first.
We need to sort of remove this baleful Trump and MAGA influence from the Republican Party.
And of course, the left is having parties over this.
They're salivating, they're laughing, they're chortling, they're chuckling.
They would love to see it happen.
Now, they know, and we should know.
We're kind of the stupid party, so we're always late to figuring this stuff out.
We're still thinking, you know, oh my gosh, what if Trump starts a new party?
Instead, we should be thinking that here is a case where this new MAGA party...
It would be, in fact, a real response to the frustrations that many patriots, many Trumpsters feel about the way in which the Republican Party has treated them.
It has treated them like upstarts.
It has even implied that they are part of some racist terrorist movement.
This is horrific to do to people who just voted for you.
Voted not just for Trump, but voted for Republicans up and down the line.
So the MAGA movement has shown its loyalty to the Republican Party, and what does it get in return?
So I'm not that surprised to see prominent Trumpsters.
I mean, here is our buddy, my friend, and Debbie's Terrence Williams.
I will be joining the Patriot Party.
He's wrong. I'll try to talk him out of it.
But I know why he feels that way.
Here's a kid who sort of bet the ranch on Trump.
Here's a kid from an orphanage, and Trump spoke to him.
He loves Trump, and he feels betrayed by the Republican Party.
Here's Chad Prather, the radio host.
I'm sick of Republicans and Democrats equally.
I mean, what's crushing is that word equally.
It's not that he's sick of Republicans, but he's even more sick of the Democrats.
No, he's equally sick of them.
They absolutely do not serve the American people.
So this impulse is very understandable.
And this is a big topic I don't want to, I'm not going to exhaust today.
I mean, we can think back and realize how catastrophic a third party would be.
It's not catastrophic in other countries, by the way.
In parliamentary systems, you can have third parties and fourth and fifth parties.
And then you can create ruling majorities by coalitions of parties that come together to create a joint or team majority.
And then the advantage of that is that each component, each party within that coalition can make demands on the coalition as a whole.
And there's a kind of rationing out, you may say, of...
of concessions to each of the different parties which have competed on similar but somewhat different objectives or different platforms.
That could work abroad.
It works to a point in Israel.
It works to a point in England.
It's not gonna work here because the third party is just gonna divide Let's remember that however different the Trumpsters are from traditional Republicans, and they're very different.
They drive different kind of cars, and they celebrate on weekends differently, and they talk differently, and they have a different style and a different culture, perhaps.
But they don't have different values.
When you look at their belief in upward mobility, capitalism, and free markets, they're the same.
When you look at their belief that America should be strong in the world but act prudently, they're the same.
If you look at their belief in families and communities and traditional values and the importance of religion, they're the same.
So this is not a good idea to fork.
These two groups.
Look what happened when Perot ran and Perot split the Republican vote.
In fact, I'm looking right here at a map.
This is showing the Clinton-Bush result when Perot ran.
Electoral votes, Clinton 370, Bush 168.
Talk about a landslide, an embarrassment.
We don't want to go back to those days.
If the Republicans convicted Trump, and I do not believe that they are stupid enough to do this, the momentum is entirely against it, except for that very strange bird, Romney, who I think is dealing with some serious psychological issues of his own,
issues of This kind of private vendetta that he has against Trump, this peculiar apostle messianic complex he has about himself.
He's turned himself into a ridiculous figure.
I just hope the Utah Republicans toss him out at the soonest opportunity.
But nevertheless, apart from Romney, it's not even clear that a single other Republican is going to vote to convict Trump.
And that, to me, is very welcome news for the simple reason that it means that at least at this point, When the Democrats are trying to prevent Trump from running again.
Think about it. Think about the lack of faith that they have in democracy.
Shouldn't the American people decide who their president is going to be in 2024?
I don't know if Trump is going to make a comeback.
It's not impossible.
Hey, you know, Winston Churchill, to give another example, Winston Churchill was tossed out rudely by the British people right after World War II, right after this great victory.
And yet, they brought him back.
I'm not saying Trump is Churchill, but I'm saying that could be the kind of thing we see in America, a political comeback.
It's happened before.
I don't know if Trump will do it, but I will say that that should be a verdict left to the American people themselves.
The Republican Party can act to prevent the creation of a new party by standing by Trump in his hour of need.
You never thought COVID could cost you your home, right?
It just might, because cybercrime is up 75%.
And by far, the most serious cybercrime to worry about is home title theft.
The job of the criminals is a lot easier than you think.
The title documents to our homes, they used to sit in an office, but they're online now.
The thief finds your home title, forges your signature on a quit-claim deed stating you sold your home to him.
Then he takes out loans on your home and leaves you in debt.
You won't know until late payment or eviction notices arrive, insurance doesn't cover you, and neither do common identity theft programs.
That's why I protect my home with Home Title Lock.
The instant Home Title Lock detects someone tampering with my home's title.
They help shut it down.
Go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim.
Then use code RADIO to receive 30 free days of protection.
That's code RADIO at HomeTitleLock.com.
HomeTitleLock.com Social media is now censoring the left.
This will come as a surprise to many people, but it's occurring not just on Twitter, but also on Facebook.
And it's more than an isolated case.
Here are a couple of reports.
There's a leftist complaining, we have just confirmed, he says, that Facebook has disabled the page of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality at the University of Michigan, as well as the accounts of all admins.
And then kind of comically, This is an unprecedented attack on the speech rights of an official campus student group.
Yes, indeed.
Here's the Socialist Workers Party in Britain tweeting, Facebook has shut down a major left-wing group in Britain.
Why is Facebook silencing political activists who speak out for Palestine and Black Lives Matter?
Read the press release here.
Interesting.
And then here in America, Disclosed TV reports, Twitter has suspended multiple Antifa accounts from its platform.
And then in the New York Post, Twitter suspends Antifa accounts with more than 71,000 followers, meaning a bunch of accounts collectively with 71,000 followers.
Now, what's really going on here?
First of all, I think one immediate and interesting lesson for the left is, you know what?
You cheered when social media was sticking it to the right.
Then you were all about, oh yeah, it's hate speech.
Go for it, guys.
Shut them down. And of course, the censorship of the right has been vastly greater.
Thousands of accounts, probably collectively millions of followers.
So there's no equation here.
But it is interesting when the left gets a taste of sort of its own medicine.
The medicine it's been happily doling out now comes to haunt the left itself.
The important point to realize for liberals and leftists is, listen, if it happens to you, you're not going to have any great recourse either.
What does Mark Zuckerberg owe you?
You think you have some leverage over him?
What about Jack Dorsey?
You can complain angrily in BuzzFeed, but what would he care about that?
These digital moguls have this power over you, no less than over us.
So that's kind of worth keeping in mind.
But I want to think about the deeper ramifications of why it may be in the interest of the left.
Why it may be in the interest of the left to sort of stick it to Antifa?
Maybe not shut Antifa down, but weaken Antifa, keep Antifa less visible than it has been.
And the answer is this.
Antifa served a purpose when the left was out of power.
In the same way, there's a very close historical analogy here, in the same way that the brownshirts were very useful to the Nazis in the early years of the Nazi movement.
This was true also of Mussolini's Black shirts.
But once Hitler came to power, and remember, we're not talking about the Holocaust or so, we're talking about the early rise of Nazis.
Once Hitler came to power, he realized, I don't need these brown shirts anymore.
In fact, they're kind of a problem for me.
Ernst Röhm, the head of the Brownshirts, is a very charismatic figure.
He could become a legitimate rival to me.
And if my muscle is over there, he could really be the power guy in Germany.
Hitler realized, I actually do have troops.
I don't need these street troops.
I've actually got the police.
I've got the German army.
And so what does Hitler do?
In the Night of the Long Knives, he arranges the murder, the arrest, and then subsequently murder of Rome.
Essentially, he works to dissolve the brown shirts because he doesn't need them anymore.
He now has the state itself to be his weapon.
It could be that in America, the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, namely Antifa and Black Lives Matter, has become a little bit of an embarrassment, especially now that the left is all about, you know, it's law and order!
Well, we've got to arrest all these right-wing rioters.
They can't really have Antifa guys setting fire to churches.
This is not going to look good, and it's going to bring out the blatant double standard of the left.
And so they may have decided, look, these guys are a little bit of an embarrassment now.
Let's stop returning their phone calls.
Let's shut a few of them down on social media.
Once we're in power, the rules of the game are different.
We're now at the mercy of one-party control and an agenda driven by tax and spend economics.
I don't need to get into the social ramifications, but fiscally expect compounded growth of our national debt and the systematic devaluation of the U.S. dollar.
So the real question is, what is your plan?
What are you doing right now to protect your savings and your retirement?
I'm 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 There's a tidal wave of inflation coming.
Gold is your hedge.
Debbie and I are investing through Birch Gold, and you should, too.
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 to 484848.
Katie Couric recently appeared on the Bill Maher show to say that she thinks that Trump supporters, particularly Trump supporters in Congress, people like Josh Ted Cruz, are victims of the worst kind of misinformation and they need to be deprogrammed.
Here's her quote. She says, it's really bizarre, isn't it, when you think about how AWOL so many of these members of Congress have gotten, she means Republicans, but I also think some of them are believing the garbage they are being fed 24-7 on the internet by their constituents and they bought into this big lie.
And the question is, how are we, we, going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump?
Now, first of all, let's just back up for a minute, because here's Katie Couric.
Katie Couric! Dingbat Katie Couric, lecturing people like Hawley and Cruz What's really going on in society?
According to Katie Couric, she is well informed.
She's a free thinker.
She has an independent mind and imagination.
But these other guys, no, they're part of this cult.
They can't even think for themselves.
So let's pause for a moment.
Katie Couric, basically high school cheerleader.
And I'm nothing against cheerleaders.
My wife Debbie was a cheerleader.
I married a cheerleader. But we're talking about somebody who went into journalism at a young age, knows nothing compared to people like Cruz, Solicitor General of Texas, Constitutional Scholar, Ivy League graduate, Josh Hawley, Harvard.
You've got these highly distinguished people, and then you've got this twit.
I mean, this is downright shocking, I think.
Katie Couric reminds me a little bit of Meg Ryan in the movie French Kiss.
She's actually a person of a very American type.
People all around the world who, by the way, have traveled a cosmopolitan or sophisticated see this type and react with a certain kind of almost cynical chortling Because you have the naive person telling the sophisticated person that they lack sophistication.
Here's a little scene from the movie French Kiss where Kevin Kline, playing the sophisticated French guy, has to deal with the Katie Couric equivalent, Meg Ryan.
Stomach is so sensitive.
It's where I put all my stress.
Oh! Beautiful!
Gorgeous! Wish you were here.
Wow. How long since you've been back?
About six years.
Six years? Was your family a nightmare or something?
You know, I don't really want to talk about it, okay?
Some healthy person is someone who expresses what they're feeling inside.
Express, not repress.
In that case, you must be one of the healthiest people in the world.
Now, Katie Couric wants to program these Trump supporters.
It's interesting to ask the question, how did Katie Couric get programmed?
How did she become the leftist ideologue that she is?
I don't think it's because she's thought it through and is committed.
She's been reading Marcuse and she's been reading leftist tracts.
No, not at all. It's the politics of social climbing.
From a young age, you have this effervescent young woman who goes into journalism and she goes, what are the rules of the game here?
How do I succeed? And she quickly realizes that you succeed by being a leftist.
She realizes if you start talking about the communist plot, suddenly all the other journalists look at you and go, hey Katie, are you from Iowa really?
In other words, the idea is that she's unsophisticated.
She's a bit of a bore. But if Katie Couric then suddenly realizes that, you know, if I start talking about the rising tide of homophobia in our society, everybody goes, Katie, man, wow, that's deep.
So Katie realizes which way, you may say, which side of the bread carries the butter.
In other words, how she is going to line herself up to get the kind of prizes and advancement that she needs.
So this is what this is about.
This is how these people become so dug in in the leftist cause.
It's not a commitment to ideology per se.
It's a form of careerism for them.
So the best thing that we can do in response is hurt their careers.
Now, Katie Couric is in line.
To be the replacement for Alex Trebek on Jeopardy.
She's been called upon to do guest hosting for Trebek.
And she loves that idea.
And that show, of course, has been kind of legendary.
It's got a very devoted following.
But here's the interesting thing.
The following of Jeopardy is largely conservative.
There have been reports. I have one right here.
This is from page 6 in the New York Post.
The Jeopardy producers are very worried that their conservative-leaning audience is not going to be happy with Katie Couric.
And I think this is an opportunity for us to teach them a lesson.
Them meaning leftists.
A lesson. It's time to cancel Katie Couric.
Now, I realize that the moment I say this, people are going to be, and this is kind of the never-Trumper chorus.
Oh, Dinesh, you're supposed to be against cancel culture.
How's it that you're advocating cancel culture?
This would be kind of like, you know, the guy who goes up to Abraham Lincoln and says,''Oh, Mr.
Lincoln, you were against the South resorting to force in the Civil War.
How is it that you're resorting to force also?'' Well, Lincoln's answer is,''I'm resorting to force to teach them a lesson.
I'm resorting to force.
I'm using bullets, not because I believe in bullets.'' But because it is necessary to use bullets to return the ballots.
That was Lincoln's position.
My position? The left will learn that cancel culture is not a good idea when we start canceling some of them.
So this is retaliatory action aimed at teaching the other side a lesson.
And there's a way to do it.
And that is not simply to talk about, oh, I'm not going to listen to her show.
No. What you need to do is contact Sony.
Sony has its offices in Culver City, California.
And I'm about to give you the phone number.
Here it is. 310-244-4000.
310-244-4000.
If you're a Jeopardy listener and viewer, as I am, I like the show.
It's one of the few shows that actually has some ideas on TV. It's a show that engages the mind, how rare today.
Hey, let's let Sony know what we think about having, you know, dingbat Katie Couric.
Step in for an intellectual show.
This is an embarrassment. They can find better guest hosts or hosts than her.
She is all about canceling other people.
She's part of that left-wing movement.
And it's about time that we give her a taste of her own medicine.
Mike Lindell of MyPillow started out with pillows but has expanded and he now has all kinds of stuff from throws to flannel sheets, pajamas.
Dog beds, robes, blankets, and weighted blankets, and also towels.
He's offering a real special, buy one, get one free, on his sheet sets.
Mike has come out with the world's most comfortable bed sheets.
He found the best cotton in the world in the region where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
His new Giza Dream bed sheets are made with this long staple cotton, and he guarantees they'll be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
I'll testify to that.
I sleep on them. The first night you sleep on Mike's sheets, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Giza Dream sheets are available in a variety of colors.
Like all of Mike's products, they have a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
So right now, You can support Mike.
You can sample his great products.
You can buy one, get one free on the sheets by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
For a limited time, buy one, get one free.
Call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com but make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
As many of you know by now, I'm in a sort of a one-man battle against a whole team of leftist historians and writers.
It's one of me and about 150 of them, which I think is a little bit of an unfair fight.
I mean, unfair to them. I think I need about 300 of them to be able to take me on.
The 150 is just, you know, for me it's a little bit like Joe Louis knocking out the bum of the month.
And if my rhetoric seems a little intemperate, it actually matches theirs.
They use very intemperate language.
One of these professors, Manisha Sinha, basically acting as though I'm some sort of a stooge for Trump.
Kevin Cruz is a historian.
Dinesh, you pathetic fool.
So this is their language.
And in some ways, it inspires me to respond in kind.
Yesterday, I guess I was a little harsh on Cruz.
One of my friends in Texas got, Dinesh, you.
Yeah. You really opened up a boot shop at his rear end.
This is sort of Texan talk, meaning you gave him an intellectual thrashing.
And I want to kind of continue this today, but continue in a sober tone.
And so I'm not going to start with Cruz.
I'm going to start with Nicole Hannah-Jones, the prime author of the New York Times' 1619 Project.
Now, Nicole Hannah-Jones is not An historian.
She's a journalist. She has a master's degree, I believe, in media or in education.
It's kind of funny because when people like Cruz are talking about media, they're like, you're not a historian!
You don't know anything! But, of course, they welcome non-historians on their own side who are cheerleading for them.
Well, Nicole Hannah-Jones is one of those.
And she responds in the back and forth, responding to my She says,
and I'm now quoting her, I thought the 1776 Commission was supposed to be about American history.
And last I checked, Democrats were Americans.
No. So what she's really saying is, what's wrong with taking the crimes of the Democrats and attributing them to America?
If the Democrats were the party of slavery, why don't we just say Americans did slavery?
If The Democrats were the party of segregation.
Why don't we say America did segregation?
Her point is that since Democrats are a subclass of a larger class of Americans, it's reasonable to put the onus or the blame on the whole society.
And I think where she's going with this is that the whole society then owes blacks, and the whole society needs to pay in some form of reparations or affirmative action or other measures that are taken to cure the effects of these American sins.
Now, of course... When we think about this, we realize that this is a very foolish way of looking at it.
Because particularly when you have issues in which the subgroup, which is fighting for a cause, in this case, the cause of promoting slavery, promoting segregation, promoting Jim Crow, and they're being fought by other Americans who are on the other side.
How can you put the blame on those Americans for these crimes that are committed by some people?
You know, one can take a small example and try to consider this.
Let's say, for example, Nicole Hannah-Jones, or I were to say, that the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor.
And Nicole Hannah-Jones goes, no, the Asians were responsible.
I go, no, the Asians didn't do it, the Japanese did it.
She goes, yeah, but the Japanese are part of this larger subcategory called Asians, so there's nothing wrong with blaming the Chinese and the Indians and the Koreans for Pearl Harbor.
And I'm like, yes, there is, because they didn't do it.
When you are talking about assigning blame, it's very important.
By the way, when there's any injustice, it's very important to correctly identify not just the victim, The problem with saying, listen, the perpetrator belongs to this larger subgroup and the subgroup should pay, or the larger group should pay, is that you're now making innocent people pay for the crimes that they were not part of, that they were not involved in, that they didn't in fact do.
The reason this is even an issue and the reason that Nicole Hannah-Jones is pulling this kind of let's voice the blame for the Democrats on America is because she belongs to the Democratic Party.
She's on the team that did all this.
So she'd have some explaining to do.
If, why, Nicole, are you part of a party that did all this to blacks?
You're motivated by the desire to fight for black rights and black justice.
It is your team that still never admits what it did, that has never paid one penny in compensation.
You're trying to foist the blame on America.
It was the Democratic Party that was the party of the plantation.
The Democratic Party was set up to protect the plantation.
Even the Northern Democrats saw their role as one of protecting the plantation.
We have a little hint of this in one of my movies where we show Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, celebrating his achievement.
Slavery is the theft of a person's life and freedom and the fruit of their labor.
As Lincoln put it, you work, I eat.
A toast to the Democratic Party.
The real architect of the Democratic Party as the party of slavery.
This was really pulled off, not directly by Jackson.
Jackson was a Southern slave owner, but it was his vice president, Martin Van Buren, a very wily New Yorker.
Martin Van Buren made multiple secret trips to the South.
He met with Thomas Ritchie, who was the head of the Richmond Junto, the editor of the big Richmond paper, the spokesman, you may say, for the plantation.
And basically, Van Buren said this.
He goes, listen. You Southerners who want to protect the plantation need Northern allies.
So if you are Democrats and you belong to the Democratic Party, we Northern Democrats can protect you where slavery is being attacked.
It's being attacked in the North.
And so if you have Northern allies, then you don't need to step up and defend slavery.
We'll do it for you.
So this, again, little window of history, a very incriminating letter in which Van Buren talks about this to Ritchie, that is in the historical record.
But hey, you're not going to find it, and it's certainly not highlighted in a whole bunch of textbooks.
You know why? Because it establishes that all these crimes weren't American sins.
They're not even fairly blamed on the founders.
They are fairly blamed on the party that emerged in the 1820s.
Which was for 50 years the stalwart protector of the plantation and ultimately suffered a devastating blow with the Civil War when the plantation went away.
Got problems with the IRS? I gotta tell you about a time not so long ago when the big bad US government tried to make an example out of me.
I know firsthand the importance of having proper representation to protect your freedom as well as your finances from being taken by the IRS. Ryan Danica and the Christian folks at South Coast Tax will discuss your unique situation and create a tailored framework of how to attack the situation head-on with the IRS and allow you a true,
fresh start. South Coast Tax has a settlement average of 3 cents on the dollar, or 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 considering the size of the tax laws.
Call Ryan at 800-TAX-3156 or check out their website, southcoasttaxresolution.com, and you'll see for yourself it will be the best move you ever made and the first step in getting your financial freedom back.
That's 800-TAX-3156.
Leftist historians, starting with Kevin Cruz at Princeton, have challenged me to provide even one example of textbooks that ignore or conceal democratic complicity, deep complicity. In the horrific crimes of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, racial terrorism, and so on.
And this is a very interesting battle because Cruz and others are actually admitting that the Democratic Party did all these things.
They're just claiming that, yeah, of course we teach this, Dinesh.
Of course we do mention it.
And what Cruz has done is he's kind of gone through multiple textbooks, taking a line from one over here and a line from one over there, and he threads them in his familiar interminable Twitter chains, as if to say, wow, here it is!
It's all in one place! You know, I've got Dalek and I've got Eric Foner.
Eric Foner admits that the Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democratic Party, and Dalek admits this, and so-and-so admits that.
As if to say that threading together these lies one by one somehow goes, yeah, we obviously give the whole picture.
Now, the reason I know they don't give the whole picture is I'm on the campus a lot.
I talk to students and when I tell them this, they look like I slap them.
And I'm not just talking about students who are at the worst college.
I'm talking about the students at the best colleges.
The students of people like Cruz.
If Cruz is teaching it, his students aren't getting the message.
He's obviously an incompetent teacher because the message isn't getting through.
But I think I need to continue my documentation of my point and I'm going to pivot today by widening my line of attack because it's one thing.
It would take me forever to take one textbook and another textbook and do this.
It would take me literally months. I can't do that.
So what I'm going to do is I'm actually going to take big themes.
And I'm going to ask, where are these themes being taught in major textbooks?
I'm kind of going to flip the challenge on Cruz.
He's challenging me to provide one example of a textbook.
I've provided at least two.
And now I'm going to talk about big themes that I believe are ignored in most, if not all, of the major textbooks.
And I'm going to focus really in on an area that Cruz himself covers, and so do some of these other historians, which is the area of FDR, the era of segregation.
But I'm going to talk really now about the worst form of racism, at least in the modern era, which is fascism and Nazism.
Now, it turns out that fascism, Nazism, progressivism, and communism all emerged from the left.
We know this because all the leading founders of fascism were on the left.
And we also know it because the fascists on the left Now, where do I get this from?
Well, I get this from a whole bunch of sources.
Here's one of them. This is the book, Three New Deals.
It's by the German cultural historian Wolfgang Scheibelbush, a book very little known and hardly taught in America, but a very telling book by a respected European historian.
Here's another important source, John Patrick Diggins.
The book is called Mussolini and Fascism, published in 1972, I believe, virtually ignored in American textbooks, and as far as I can tell, taught virtually nowhere.
Now, the reason that these books are so interesting and in a way so damning is that they go into the way in which, first of all, FDR admired Mussolini.
FDR called him that admirable Italian gentleman.
FDR sent members of his brain trust to fascist Rome to study.
Italian fascism.
Why? Because he saw it as more progressive than the New Deal.
He wanted to import fascist ideas to America.
You have all kinds of members of FDR's brain trust praising fascism.
One of them, Rexford Tugwell, calls fascism the most impressive piece of social machinery he's ever seen.
He goes, it makes me envious.
He wants to do it in America.
And there's a wide array of quotations by liberal pundits, writers for the New Republic and other sources, all praising Mussolini and fascism.
And it's all in these sources.
And yet, American students are not taught about this.
Now, it's not just that the American leftists admired the fascists.
It's the other way around. Mussolini reviewed FDR's book in an Italian magazine.
And the summary of the review was this.
Hey, guess what? This guy is one of us.
He's a fascist. This is Mussolini talking.
So, not only did FDR admire Mussolini, Mussolini admired FDR. And now we turn to the Nazis.
When FDR came to power, was first elected in 1933, the Volkischer Beobachter, the official journal of the Nazi Party, said this.
They said that FDR's, quote, fundamental political course is thoroughly inflected by a strong national socialism.
So, this is the official Nazi newspaper saying, we've read this guy's stuff.
He's a Nazi. He's one of us.
He's a national socialist.
And then, they go on to say that they talk about Roosevelt's measures.
They go, he is carrying out experiments that are bold.
We fear only the possibility that they might fail.
So, in other words, the Nazis are cheering on FDR. They're basically saying that they're rooting for FDR. They want him to succeed.
And then, June 21st, 1934, Volkyshire Biot-Bachter, They talk about Roosevelt's adoption of national socialist trains of thought in his economic and social policies.
And they use a very interesting name for FDR. Fuhrer.
He's the American Fuhrer.
They link him directly to Hitler.
Now again, all of this, you know, the landscape would change dramatically after Hitler invaded Poland and World War II got started and FDR fought against him.
We know all that. Blah, blah, blah.
I'm talking about early Nazism and early fascism.
And it's very clear that there were powerful affinities.
Now here's my point. The left has worked really hard to hide those.
They've worked really hard to keep them out of the textbooks, keep them off the History Channel, not teach about them.
Students don't know about them.
If you didn't know about them and this comes as a surprise to you, guess what?
That's because your teachers have been keeping something from you.
People like Cruz. So my challenge to Cruz and to other leftist historians is very simple.
This is not just about one writer, Robert Dalek.
Of course, he talks about virtually none of this in his book on FDR. If he even alludes to it, it's the mildest allusions.
And this is the thing with Cruz.
He'll produce one line and go, see here, he does mention it here.
My point is, all of this, which is very interesting, bears directly on the relationship of the Democratic Party and racism, and the thrust of it is largely ignored.
Bottom line... The professors are indeed lying to you, and when we come back, I'll give an even more crushing example that to my knowledge appears in no American textbook.
Want to belong to a senior organization you can trust?
I want you to know about AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens.
AMAC is the fastest growing conservative 50 plus organization in America.
Over 2 million people have joined and now carry the AMAC membership card.
AMAC was built by folks who feel the same way we do.
We're not alone. AMAC believes in and stands 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.
We are pro-small business, secure borders, support our military, and respect our veterans.
AMAC works hard to deliver real value to their members, providing the best benefits, discounts, and services you can find in one place.
I want you to join AMAC today.
Debbie and I are lifetime members.
Go to amac.us and join now.
Join AMAC today.
The website, again, is amac.us.
Is it true that American history textbooks conceal the vicious history of the Democratic Party in slavery, in segregation, and in racism?
I want to raise the debate to a whole new level now by looking at a critical incident That reveals democratic complicity and reveals, in effect, the close ties between the Democrats and the Nazis.
Yet, to my knowledge, this is not taught in any textbook.
And as a result, most students and most young people, most people generally, know nothing about it.
I actually showed a scene in my movie Death of a Nation, which if you hadn't read my work, knew nothing about it, this scene would be a little bit of a bafflement to you.
So I want you to watch, if you're listening in audio, this is some of these, the voices are in German, but I'll explain in a moment.
That's our plan.
Subjects without rights.
America?
The... How do Americans identify a Nebel?
The A-Tropfen-Regel.
Every trace of blackness means that one is black.
Humanity.
Even if someone looks white and looks like a white, Can he still be seen as black?
The rule is to be streng.
So this is an amazing, a mind-blowing scene.
Let me set the context.
The date is June 5, 1934.
You have the senior members of the Nazi party who have been charged with drafting the Nuremberg Laws, and they're meeting in a room, and they're trying to figure out they want to create the world's first racist state, and they're super excited about it.
One of their members, a guy named Kreiger, Heinrich Kreiger, points out to them, hey guys, I know you're having trouble thinking of a precedent for the world's first racist state, but I have one for you.
It's the Democratic Party in the United States.
And the Nazis are like, what?
The Democrats? And then Kreiger basically goes on to explain, he asks this question, he goes, what is it that we Nazis are trying to do here?
We're trying to do three things.
He goes, number one, we're trying to confiscate the property of the Jews.
Number two, we're trying to separate the Jews from the rest of us.
We want to outlaw intermarriage between Jews and other Germans.
And number three, we want to segregate the Jews.
We want to confine them to ghettos We don't want them to be part of a general population.
And Krieger goes, I studied in Arkansas and in America, the Democratic Party has done all this.
Number one, the left and the Democratic Party has pushed through.
Anti-immigration laws that use race as the basis of citizenship.
So in other words, it gives us a precedent to call the Jews not really citizens of Germany, even though they live here.
Number two, the Democratic Party has all kinds of ways in which they're able to confiscate the property of blacks in America.
Well, we can use that precedent here in Nazi Germany.
Number three... They have segregation.
The Democratic Party has segregation throughout the South.
Segregation laws. We can use those laws as a model for the Nuremberg laws.
And the Nazis become super excited.
They can't believe it.
They actually have Krieger round up the Democratic Party laws and they are passing them around.
And they're discussing the Democratic laws.
And in one, and this is perhaps the most crushing part of it, at one point they talk about this issue of who is a Jew?
Who is a Jew? And so then they ask Krieger, they go, how do they do it in America?
How do the Democrats decide?
Who counts as black?
And Krieger goes, well, in America, the Democrats have the one-drop rule.
In other words, one drop of blood, a single drop of blood makes you black, even if you're 99% white.
And the Nazis look at each other and they're horrified.
They go, oh, no, no, no, that's too extreme for us.
We can't go that far.
The amazing thing is the Nazis found the racism of the Democratic Party in America a bit much for them.
And so they adopted, by the way, a different rule, which is I'd call it the 75% rule, which is that you're a Jew if you have three Jewish grandparents.
Now, where do I get all this stuff from?
Well, I get it from a remarkable book put out by the Yale legal scholar, James Whitman.
Here's the book. Hitler's American Model.
Here's a telling line.
He talks about, I want to point out here—well,
first of all, I want to commend Whitman for his scholarship, but I also want to point out his camouflage.
He is on the left.
He doesn't want to put the blame on the Democrats.
He knows that every segregation law in the South, without exception, was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, enforced by Democratic officials.
But what Whitman very cleverly does is he puts the blame on America.
It's American law.
Instead of saying Hitler's democratic model, it's Hitler's American model.
He's doing kind of what Nicole Hannah-Jones is doing, which is he's sort of...
Using the left-wing anti-Americanism and using the Nazi ties with the Democratic Party, but blaming America.
But here's my point, and here's the kind of lesson I draw from all this.
Where is all this taught on the American campus?
In other words, if it is the case that one of the most notorious racist pieces of law, the notorious Nuremberg laws, which were called a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust, if those were lifted directly from American segregation laws, democratic segregation laws, and progressive immigration laws, progressive laws that limited immigration, if this was the case, shouldn't Americans know about this?
They don't. It's not taught.
I can assure you that if I go on a college campus and start talking to students, they'll look at me like I'm insane.
And that means it's not taught, and it's not as far as I know in any textbook.
So, Kevin Cruz began by challenging me to find a single textbook.
That showed democratic complicity in racism and slavery.
And I have supplied at least two.
But now I have a challenge for him.
And you can see how I've widened my circle because I'm not talking about one textbook.
I'm not saying, here's a textbook, it doesn't talk about this.
As far as I know, no textbook talks in any comprehensive detail about it.
It's not because there's a lack of historical record.
The record is all there.
It's deliberately being concealed.
Why? Because the left-wing historians that dominate academia don't want young people to know that there was a symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party on the one hand and fascism and early Nazism on the other.
Both sides borrowed from each other.
They were ultimately, you may say, ideological bedfellows.
And so, this is the sordid history of the left and the Democratic Party that is being concealed.
And it leaves me with the thought that there is a deep need among conservatives To do a new scholarship that brings all this to the surface, it doesn't even require original research.
It merely involves looking at the record, and my work points in all kinds of directions are supported with massive amounts of footnotes.
By the way, if you want to know more about this, My book, The Big Lie, The Nazi Roots of the American Left.
This was in some ways, some books that I've written in the past where I largely know the territory I'm going to cover, and I find out some new things, but the basic contours are familiar to me.
This was a book in which I knew very little, and as I began to dig into it, I was like, wow, look at the record, and look at the way the record has been concealed.
So part of intellectual liberation is familiarizing yourself with the real record.
▲
Export Selection