All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:04:13
AMERICA LAST Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep33
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Biden's America Last foreign policy.
Coke wants all of us to stop acting white.
What? And Danielle D'Souza Gil joins to talk about woke Christianity.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
I hope you're enjoying the podcast.
I hope it's as fun for you to listen to or watch as it is for me to do.
Please hit the subscribe button and also the notifications so you know when each one goes up every day.
And share the podcast with friends and family.
Please help me get the word out.
I really appreciate it.
Mike Lindell of MyPillow is a guy about speaking his mind and getting the truth out.
I think you know he's being sued by the Dominion Company, this massive lawsuit.
And Mike welcomes it.
Why? Because he wants to get the truth out, and I hope he does.
I'm so angry about what's happened to Mike Lindell, this effort to sort of get him and destroy his business.
This is the left in its most venomous action.
And I hope we can all jointly come together and support Mike and block this effort to cancel him.
We do it by really supporting his products, which happen to be Awesome.
I want to talk about Mike's new Giza Dream bed sheets made with this amazing long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees they'll be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
I sleep on them every night.
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.
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 the 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 promo code Dinesh.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy. In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Joe Biden just gave a talk, perhaps his most detailed and one might have to say coherent presentation of how his foreign policy is likely to go over the next four years.
This was at the Munich Virtual Security Conference.
And I read the talk carefully because Biden focuses on the issue of democracy.
Biden basically says that the United States is going to stand for democratic values around the world and stand against the autocracies that are anti-democratic.
Now, right away the question becomes, are you really going to stand against the largest autocracy in the world, the one that governs over a billion people, that is far more tyrannical than any other we can think of in the world today, namely China?
And to this, Biden gives a few ahem's.
Well, I've gotten a lot of money from those guys over the last several years.
Guys, don't expect me to be too hard on them.
So right away, the sincerity of this project is somewhat called into question.
Biden has made very favorable noises toward China, which raised the question of whether even this rhetoric of democracy exists.
is going to be honestly applied.
Now, I think Biden intends to apply it in all kinds of places, but the places he wants to apply it to, he's not likely to be successful for the simple reason that the United States has very little of any leverage in those places.
So, for example, there was recently a coup in Myanmar in an attempt to overthrow the government.
Anti-democratic actions and movements in that country, but let's think about it.
What is the United States' security interest in Myanmar?
Zero. What is our trade leverage over Myanmar?
Pretty much zero. So what is the point of Biden jumping up and down on his podium and going, there needs to be democracy in Myanmar.
There must be democracy in Myanmar.
Well, the people in Myanmar don't care.
Why? Because what does Biden have to do with them?
He has no... Biden's not going to invade Myanmar, even if some neoconservatives' eyes are lighting up.
Oh, another war! What a great idea!
So when you don't have leverage over a country, your rhetoric doesn't really matter.
Now, the Biden administration is playing footsie with a very autocratic regime right now, and that's Iran.
And very interestingly, there have been some news reports in the last couple of weeks that key people who are now in the Biden administration, including John Kerry, Have maintained an ongoing relationship with Iran.
Kerry, for example, has had repeated contacts and meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister, this guy named Javad Zarif.
Now, why? Very interestingly, this is motivated not even directly with anything to do with Iran.
It's motivated by the idea of let's work with our enemies, Iran, to undermine Trump.
And what that means is that from John Kerry's point of view and the point of view of some of these Biden people, there is a near enemy, Trump, and there's a far enemy, Iran.
But the far enemy is far away and a distant threat, so let's not worry about it right now.
In fact, let's work with the far enemy to politically undermine the near enemy at home.
So, this is a real departure in American foreign policy.
American foreign policy was always assumed to be a bipartisan project.
Both sides kind of have the same interests.
Why? Because America has the same enemies, whether it's a Republican or Democratic regime in this country, so what?
By and large, we have countries that wish us well, and we have countries that wish us ill.
So, but with this new notion that if I'm fighting domestically with the other party, let me find people abroad who want to undo that party also and work with them.
I mean, it's so ironic that they accused Trump of violating the Logan.
Oh, Mike Flynn had conversations with the Russians!
Mike Flynn was completely right in having those initial conversations.
We're talking in John Kerry's case of something far worse, actively working during the Trump administration to undermine the United States government by working with a sworn foreign enemy that chants, debt to America burns the American flag, and whose motivation for building nuclear weapons is in part to target us.
Now, it was the British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, who said many years ago that countries don't have friends or enemies.
They have only interests.
And I think this is what is really missing from the discussion of American foreign policy.
What is America's actual interest?
This is not a matter of America first.
It's a matter of caring about America at all.
Many years ago, I was invited by a branch of the Indian government to speak to the Indians about American foreign policy.
This was under the Bush administration.
And of course, Bush had been putting out all this sort of squid-like cloud of rhetoric about, oh, India and America are natural.
Allies because of the world's biggest democracies.
And of course, the Indians were scornful.
They were like, wait a minute, you know, United States allies with all kinds of dictatorial regimes around the world.
This is all just rhetorical flim-flam.
We don't care about this nonsense.
And I said to the Indians, I said, you know what?
You're right. You shouldn't care about it.
This is flim-flam.
There might be reasons why the United States allies with dictatorial regimes.
Sometimes it is legitimate to ally with the lesser evil to fight the greater evil.
But I said here's the point. India's greatest danger in this region, in the Asian subcontinent, Comes from China.
China wants to be the big boy, the big bully in the region.
China has had a centuries-old policy of expecting tribute, literally people to go down on one knee in front of China, and that's what they want from Japan and Korea, and that's what they want from Singapore, and from Thailand, and from Taiwan, and from India.
And so I told the Indians, if you want to block the growing power of China and its designs on you, It might be helpful to have a powerful ally in the United States to do that.
And the Indians' eyes all kind of, their interests got peaked.
Suddenly you were talking their language.
Why? Because they recognize that they care about their national self-interest and they expect everybody else to do the same.
Here's the bottom line. If the United States wants to make friends in Asia, Wants to check the power of China, wants to actually fight against tyranny and autocracy, wants to promote democratic values.
There are lots of democratic countries in the Asian subcontinent.
Appeal to them, but appeal to them on the basis of self-interest.
make friends or strengthen our alliances with Japan, with South Korea, with Taiwan, with India, and work collectively, maybe even create something of a equivalent of NATO, an actual defensive alliance, a working alliance.
I realize there are all these committees and groups and ASEAN and so on, but the truth of it is they're ineffective.
You need an effective coalition to check the growing military and political power of China.
And I wish the Biden administration would take the wool out of its eyes and start thinking more realistically about protecting American interests.
Cybercrime is up 75%, and the worst type of cybercrime to worry about is home title theft.
The job of the criminals has gotten easier.
The title documents to our homes are now online.
So the thief finds your home's title and forges your signature on a quitclaim 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 It seems that at least some prominent Democrats want America not just to have a one-party political system, but also a one-party media.
They want to extinguish any independent or non-leftist media from even existing, from being able to function.
Two House Democrats, Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, have actually sent a letter to Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, Dish, Verizon, Cox...
Asking about their role in, quote, spreading dangerous misinformation.
And the committee members have all sent the letter.
They also sent it to Roku, Amazon, Apple, Google, and Hulu.
These are digital companies that also distribute cable programming.
And here's what they're getting at. They say in the letter, very concretely, why...
Why are you allowing media channels like One America News?
Why are you allowing Newsmax?
Why are you allowing Fox News Channel?
So they want to evidently shut these channels down.
And they say things like this.
They say things like, Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate disinformation?
Related directly or indirectly to the November 3rd elections, the January 6th Capitol insurrection or COVID misinformation.
Now...
First of all, let's ponder the implications of this.
Under normal circumstances, I would say this is just every party has kooks.
Here we have two certified kooks.
What's the chance that this is actually going to be taken seriously?
And under normal circumstances, it wouldn't.
But we're not in a normal circumstance in this country, I think we know.
Who would have thought that Google and Apple and Amazon would conspire together against Parler and shut down An alternative site on the bogus charge that it was fomenting insurrection.
More insurrection was in fact fomented on Facebook than on Parler.
By the way, Parler is back.
It's back online. You know, I went on yesterday and I posted some stuff on Parler and I thought, well, since it's just come back up, people don't really know.
I'm probably going to get like 12 likes.
But no, I checked this morning and I've got like 2,000 likes.
So Parler is actually flourishing.
And I encourage you, it may be a little extra work, you can't get it on your Apple app, so what?
Go on your computer, parlor.com, and start posting, start communicating.
It's really important to make sure that these strikes at independent digital platforms fail.
Fail. Think about it.
The left has pretty much all the media.
They've got the three networks.
They've got pretty much all the cable channels.
They've got NPR, National Public Radio.
They've got public broadcasting.
So they've got all this.
And we've got, you know, tiny One America News and tiny News Mac and not so tiny Fox.
But Fox is dwarfed when you add up all the channels.
And so the left wants to shut these down too.
And their pretext is misinformation.
But here's the weird thing.
They don't really mean misinformation because they're not talking about facts.
In fact, when you look at January 6th, they're the ones who have been putting out misinformation.
They're the ones who have been lying through their teeth.
They're the ones who talk about armed insurrection.
The truth of the matter is there was only one shot Fired on January 6th.
And it was fired by a Capitol Police officer at Ashley Babbitt.
That was the only discharge of a weapon on that day at the Capitol.
The tall tales about Brian Sicknick.
Oh, he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher, says the New York Times.
And they knew it was a lie.
Everyone on the left knew it was a lie.
Why? Because there was extensive video footage of what happened in the Capitol.
Where was the video of Brian Sicknick being hit on the head with a fire extinguisher?
It didn't exist. So they were making it up to create a false narrative.
So if anything, shut the New York Times down.
Shut down all the media channels that reported on the Brian Sicknick incident.
But that's of course not what these Democrats mean.
When they talk about facts, facts about COVID. Now, again, we have to distinguish between facts and values.
It is a fact that there is a virus.
But it is debatable as to what policies for masks really work and how effective are they.
Should you wear one mask or two or ten?
Should you have economic lockdowns?
These are all debatable things, so it's not misinformation to debate them.
Similarly, when you talk about...
Climate change. It is a fact that if you release carbon into the atmosphere, you have a greenhouse effect, and that has a warming effect.
But other factors can produce a cooling effect.
And so whether the earth is getting hotter or colder on the balance is debatable.
What policies we should adopt to deal with that is debatable.
And so what the left is trying to do is...
Bring together the facts and the values, create their own concocted narrative.
And if you don't go along with the narrative, you're spreading misinformation.
It is a fact that there was a temporary takeover of the Capitol for what, 10 minutes, 20 minutes?
That's it. Was that a coup?
That's debatable. Was it an insurrection?
That's debatable. Was it terrorism?
No, but in any case, debatable.
So this is not misinformation.
This is basically a bunch of sly, cunning, and deceitful people trying to take their own narratives, very often false narratives, and force them on the rest of the country as facts and In the name of combating misinformation.
What a joke. Want to belong to a senior organization you can trust?
That's 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.
AMAC stands up for 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 against the ever-expanding scope of the federal government.
They 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.
Join AMAC today. Debbie and I are lifetime members.
We're taking advantage of the discounts they have to offer.
Go to DineshForAMAC.com and join now.
The website again, DineshForAMAC.com.
It's kind of fun to watch Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, deal with the media.
And of course, it's unavoidable to compare her with Kayleigh McEnany, who was her predecessor under Trump.
I'm tempted to say that this is the difference between Beauty and the Beast, but the truth of it is actually Kayleigh McEnany was Beauty and the Beast.
She was very tough in dealing with the media as she had to be.
And Jen Psaki can normally rely on this kind of lapdog media absolutely eating out of her hand.
It's an embarrassing spectacle because it really shows you that these journalists aren't real journalists.
They're fakes. But every now and then, and usually from the direction of Fox News or one of the conservative channels, comes a tough question.
So here is the young reporter Peter Doocy putting Jen Psaki on the defensive in a very interesting way.
Listen. Kamala Harris said that...
This facility, putting people in this facility, was a human rights abuse committed by the United States government.
And Jill Biden said, under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages.
Now, it's not under Trump.
It's under Biden. This is not kids being kept in cages.
This is kids.
This is a facility that was opened that's going to follow the same standards as other HHS facilities.
It is not a replication.
Certainly not. That's That is never our intention of replicating the immigration policies of the past administration.
What kind of logic are we dealing with here?
So, Ducey is pointing out very simply that, gee, you know, under Trump, you call them cages.
Under Trump, there was all this rhetoric about putting people in concentration camps.
Under Trump, these facilities were described as jail cells.
And this was done consistently by the media, by Biden and Kamala Harris.
And here's, I have Ocasio-Cortez, AOC. The administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.
That's not really... Proper grammar, but that's AOC. This is not hyperbole!
Now, AOC is now suddenly very silent, even though, as Ducey points out, we're talking about the use of the same facilities.
The same facilities. So suddenly, and it's interesting to see how the media obediently goes along with this, and I'm looking at all these different headlines, suddenly the cages become structures, temporary structures.
Suddenly the concentration camps become emergency facilities.
Suddenly the jail cells become shelters or overflow camps.
So this is the Orwellian manipulation of language.
And when you juxtapose it under Trump, under Biden, you really see the dishonesty kind of jump out at you.
It's sort of a jack-in-the-box moment where you go, wow, you've caught these guys red-handed.
And of course, Jen Psaki is doing her best to sort of cover this up.
She knows it's true.
She knows there's a double standard.
So she brings up, well, what about the special circumstances of COVID-19?
Now, let's think about this. If you have a cage and you stick a kid in it, that's a kid in a cage.
Now, if you do that under COVID-19, you could say, listen, I have to stick the kid in a cage because of COVID-19.
There's no other place to put the kid.
But you still have a kid in a cage.
It doesn't cease to be a cage because it's COVID-19.
The same facility being used by Biden that was used by Trump remains the same facility, whatever the rationale, real or specious, that is being used to justify it.
This kind of nonsense has been going on now for years.
It's just gotten a lot worse.
I remember even under Reagan, they talk about, oh, there's a rising tide of homelessness in America under Reagan, and it continued under Bush.
Suddenly, the moment Clinton was elected, 1992, all the articles disappeared.
Suddenly there was no homeless problem at all.
Did all the homeless people find homes?
No. It's just that the media attention, which was trying to blame Reagan and Bush for homelessness, ceased to want to put that millstone around the neck of Clinton.
So all of this is really revealing about the media.
And the way the media functions in this country not as the sort of neutral arbiter or presenter of truth, but as a deceitful operation deliberately spreading double standards and lies to hurt one political party and help their own.
Today we are in a battle for truth and I'd like to recommend an insightful book to you called Reflections on the Existence of God by bestselling author Richard Simmons III. He writes on topics like life, death, sex, truth.
Reflections on the Existence of God is a collection of short essays that tackles the biggest question of all, does God exist?
The book is well researched, easy to read, and now a bestseller on Amazon.
Former White House aide Wallace Henley says, I've taught apologetics for many years.
Of all the books on apologetics, Simmons is the best I've ever read.
If you want to challenge yourself to spiritual and intellectual growth, I encourage you to get your copy of Reflections on the Existence of God by Richard Simmons III. Visit reflectionsdinesh.com to learn more about the book and get exclusive access to the first chapter for free.
Go to reflectionsdinesh.com now.
That's reflectionsdinesh.com.
Coke evidently wants you to be less white.
I don't know if Coke wants me to be less white, but I'm not white at all.
So I'm assuming that this message from Coke doesn't apply to me.
Sort of applies to Debbie because she's partly white, although she's also 100% Hispanic, which kind of shows you that these categories are sort of fluid.
But Coke posted a LinkedIn study course, evidently for training of its employees.
Now think of this, a giant corporation is posting this stuff.
With the slogan, try to be less white.
Now think of the sheer outrageousness of saying that, which can become evident to you if you just think, try to imagine what would happen to the Coca-Cola company if they put out the message, try to be less black.
Or if they told American Indians, try to be less Native Indian.
Try to be less Latino.
That's your problem. You're too Latino.
They would shut the company down.
So evidently, Koch thinks it's fine to have open season on whites.
Try to be less white.
You're the problem. And the interesting thing here is that you're inherently the problem.
You can't get out of being the problem.
Why? Because your whiteness makes you the problem.
The only thing you can do is sort of attempt to exterminate the whiteness in you.
This is the doctrine here.
The doctrine, by the way, is put out by an absolute kook.
In fact, a white woman.
Robin DiAngelo, the author of a book called White Fragility, and this woman is like making the money by condemning whiteness.
Frankly, if you want to condemn whiteness, don't read her rubbishy book.
But you can see the intellectual quality of this when you look at what they mean when they say try to be less white.
They say things like, you know, don't use racist language, treat people equally.
None of that. Let's look at what it means to be white.
Try to be less arrogant.
Evidently whiteness is identified here with, don't be defensive.
Be less ignorant.
Be more humble.
Listen. Now, let's pause for a moment because there are qualities here that you would recommend to everybody.
The idea that one should be cooperative, one should be gentle, one should be humble.
Shouldn't we be asking this of everybody?
Wouldn't you tell people who are arrogant of whatever race, say, listen, don't have too big a head.
So, the idea here, though, is to take all these bad qualities and superimpose them onto whiteness.
Now, interestingly, when this came out, Coke began to immediately sort of run for cover.
But it's interesting to think about why Coke went for it in the first place.
They went for it in the first place because they think That they will pay a penalty if they don't kowtow to the left.
The left will beat them, bruise them, attack them.
You're racist. You don't support Black Lives Matter.
Oh, yes, we do. Yes, we do.
So this is how they got into it.
And having gotten into it, they then began to try to sneak or wriggle their way out of it.
And so they basically put out a statement saying, the video circulating on social media is from a publicly available LinkedIn learning series and is not a focus.
Of our company's curriculum.
So evidently, they're not saying we disavow it.
They're just saying it's not our focus.
Yes, we use it as kind of one of our curricular materials.
LinkedIn itself took the link down.
And then, of course, the Robin DiAngelo, suddenly sensing trouble, the author, comes running out and basically puts out a statement saying, Oh, this actually wasn't my direct video.
Somebody took various clips of things I've said and put them together.
So she's even disavowing her own work.
So, the bottom line of it is, all of this is a big mess.
And it's a big mess that is all made particularly ironic because Coke has been running at commercials of these kind of cuddly, burly, white polar bears all prancing around drinking Coke.
Hey Coke, why don't you ask the polar bears to be less white?
Why don't you tell the polar bears to just try to remove their whiteness?
What do you want? Polar bears and blackface?
The point is, white people can no more become less white than polar bears can become less white.
Coke is essentially talking gobbledygook.
But it's dangerous gobbledygook.
It's gobbledygook intended to demonize, to insult, to make people feel inferior, in some ways maybe to sort of level the racial scales.
Whatever dirty game these people are playing, they need to stop.
You make a drink.
The drink is pretty tasty, although not exactly healthy.
And you might as well try to sell that sugar water better than to try to teach us lessons that none of us really need to learn.
Mike Lindell of MyPillow is not only a creative entrepreneur in the sense of that he makes great stuff, he's also kind of a brilliant marketer.
And in this conversation he's talking a little bit about his first infomercial and how people thought he was such a fool.
Until it really worked.
Listen. He texted the other guy and said, this is the worst guy I've ever seen.
He'll never make it on TV. And the guy said, he's paying you.
Just let him go with it. And it aired October 7, 2011.
In the middle of the night, I was living in my sister's basement.
And it just exploded.
I went from 10 employees to 540 days.
And we were the number one infomercial in the world.
This guy is absolutely hilarious.
And what an American success story.
I think we should support him every which way we can.
For most of my life, I thought that a pillow is just a pillow.
There's nothing special about a pillow.
But that's until I discovered Mike's MyPillow.
And what Mike taught me is that a pillow like a watch or a phone or a car can sort of be a work of art.
These pillows won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They keep their shape. They're made in the USA. And for a limited time, Mike is offering his premium MyPillows for the lowest price ever.
You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
It's normally $69.98, so that's $40.
Off the price, King pillows are only $5 more.
And all the MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to MyPillow.com and use the promo code Dinesh.
Now, Mike has pillows, but he's got all kinds of other products, more than 100 of them.
The Geezer Dream Bed Sheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, the Dog Bed, the MyPillow Towel Sheets.
So call 800-876-0227.
But if you want to get your discount, use the promo code Dinesh.
MyPillow.com. Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
The Biden administration has come out foursquarely in favor of affirmative action, which is to say racial preferences in college admissions.
One of Biden's first acts, the administration's first acts, and this was done not with a lot of fanfare, is the Biden Justice Department moved to drop A racial discrimination case against Yale University that not only accused Yale but had a tremendous amount of documentation showing that Yale is actively discriminating against white and Asian American students and in favor of African American or black and Latino students.
Yale is doing this openly, blatantly.
They've got a kind of entrenched system for doing this.
Now, the Trump administration sort of busted them on this.
There was a two-and-a-half-year investigation, and in October 2020, the Trump Justice Department filed this case.
And what they showed is that Yale has a point system in which, basically, they award you points in favor of you, if you're black or Hispanic, And they award you negative points if you're white or Asian.
And the number of negative points or positive points depends on a kind of sliding scale.
So here's what they do. They impose these points, almost like giving you a leg up in a race or tying something to your foot to slow you down.
And then they come up with a class and they show the class to the dean.
They go, we've got so many whites, so many blacks.
And the dean goes, I'm not satisfied.
I think we need to be more diverse.
So then they go back and they put more positive points for the blacks and the Latinos and more negative points for the...
I mean, can you believe this is going on in America?
The fact that how far we've gone from Martin Luther King's idea of judging us on our merits as individuals, suddenly we're in this racial Olympics in which everybody's running in their own racial lane.
This stuff has been going on for a long time.
In fact, I was all over it in 1992 with my first book, Illiberal Education.
I just want to read you a couple things from that book because it shows why this stuff is so bad and so unfair, but it also shows why it ultimately hurts minorities.
I want to just read two passages that make these two points.
So the first one, affirmative action is grossly unfair.
At the University of California at Berkeley, Ernest Koenigberg, a Berkeley professor of business who has served on several admissions committees, asks us to imagine a student applicant with a high school grade average of 3.5 out of a possible 4, so a good student, and a scholastic aptitude test, or SAT score, in the 90th percentile, so a good student, a student who is in the top 10%, you may say, of people taking the SAT. And this is what he goes.
Quote, For a black student, says Koenigsberg, the probability of admission to Berkeley under those grades and test scores is 100%.
If you're a black kid and you have those grades, you're in.
But if the same student is Asian American, he calculates, quote, the probability of admission is less than 5%.
So if you're black, you're sure to get in, and if you're Asian, you're almost sure not to get in.
Same student, same grade, same test scores, different skin color.
This is affirmative action.
When people say things like, oh, affirmative action is just, you're choosing among equally qualified applicants, that's a lie.
That might have been the original stated rationale.
That's not what's going on.
What's going on is that people with stronger academic qualifications and extracurriculars, we're not just talking about grades, We're talking about overall stronger qualifications.
Those students are being turned away for being white and Asian, while lesser qualified students who are considered to be an underrepresented minorities are being let in.
This is, I don't know another word for it, grotesquely unfair.
But is it also in a weird way damaging to the minorities who are supposed to be helped?
Here's a little anecdote that casts light on this subject.
The person I'm quoting is actually now a well-known legal scholar.
His name is Stephen Carter.
He's a graduate of Stanford.
He applied to Harvard Law School.
Later, he became a law school professor.
But here's Stephen Carter talking about when he was an undergraduate applying to Harvard Law School.
He says he got a letter of rejection.
Sorry, Stephen, we're not going to take you.
He goes, then a few days later, two Harvard officials telephoned him to apologize for their, quote, error.
Now, this is getting funny.
One explained, telling Stephen Carter, we assumed from your record that you were white.
They thought he was a white guy, so they were going to give him the boot.
The other noted that the school had recently obtained, quote, additional information that should have counted in your favor.
What's the additional information?
Carter's black. So, this is Stephen Carter now interpreting this episode, and his interpretation is crushing.
He goes,"...Naturally, I was insulted by this.
Stephen Carter, the white male, was not good enough for Harvard Law School.
Stephen Carter, the black male, was not only good enough, but rated agonized telephone calls urging him to attend." And Stephen Carter, color unknown, must have been white.
How else would he have achieved what he did in college?
In other words, my academic record, this is Stephen Carter talking, my academic record sounded too good for a black Stanford undergraduate, but not good enough for a white Harvard Law student.
Because I was black, however, Harvard was quite happy to scrape me from what it apparently considered the bottom of the barrel.
So what Stephen Carter really is saying here is there is a heavy weight of stigma That falls upon you in any affirmative action policy.
And by the way, this would be true in any state of life.
I mean, if you had two basketball teams playing against each other, and when one team approaches the net, you drop the hoop six inches.
That's affirmative action. And that disgraces the achievement of all those people because they're not playing by the same rules.
Their achievement is tarnished by the fact that they have been placed, you may almost say, in a kind of Special Olympics and then declared the winner because under these modified standards, you've come through with flying colors.
The whole thing is sick.
And it's not the way for a multiracial society to function.
We need a uniform set of standards.
And if there are groups that fall behind, we have to ask, why are they falling behind?
How can we help these groups to reach their full potential?
The answer is not to lower the net, but to improve the dribbling and passing and shooting ability of the people firing at the net.
Do you think there's a coincidence between Biden signing over 40 executive orders in his first couple of weeks of office and the price of silver skyrocketing?
No. No coincidence.
Savvy investors know that precious metals are a hedge against inflation and government stupidity.
And Birch Gold Group is not only your headquarters for gold, But silver, too.
If you want to purchase physical gold or silver, drop ship straight to your door, or help converting an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver, Birch Gold Group is your solution.
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.
And guess what? I am one of them.
There's a tidal wave of inflation coming.
Gold and silver are your hedge.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on a precious metals IRA or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
Time is running out, but you can.
Protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 484848.
I'm really happy to be joined on the podcast, as always, by my daughter, Danielle D'Souza-Gill.
We sometimes have conversations on the phone, and I realize, wow, it'd be really interesting if people on the podcast could sort of eavesdrop on these conversations.
And so, Danielle's on the podcast today, and we're going to be talking about this interesting phenomenon that UD have been telling me about, the phenomenon that I'm going to call Woke Christianity.
Now, I don't know a whole lot about this, but you have been discovering woke Christianity through the church that you go to.
You've been discovering it online.
You've been seeing it all over the place.
I'm now seeing a few articles about it.
So let's actually just start by me asking you, what is this sort of new woke Christianity?
What would you say is its defining premise or its key features?
I think this view of Christianity has sort of come more to the forefront with Joe Biden acting like he is a Catholic president, acting as though it's sort of a Christian to be liberal.
But we've even seen this from many far left churches, many who kind of split from maybe more traditional churches and are pushing Black Lives Matter.
They, you know, put the Black Lives Matter flag, the gay flag and so on outside of their church.
They have female pastors and so we've seen this happening for some time now, but I think that many on the left are trying to make this the mainstream and use a lot of Christian language in order to push a lot of more of their social policies, maybe more of their open borders policies, things like that, and are trying to kind of tap into the religious left.
So maybe a way to look at this is that the left is already dominant in so many institutions.
They control what I sometimes call the big megaphones of our culture, but conservatives have had a megaphone.
Now, I would say a megaphone that is often unused, but it's the megaphone of the church.
Because every Sunday, millions of people get together, not just in Protestant or Evangelical, but in Catholic churches.
And there is an opportunity to use the church as a vehicle to get, you may say, a conservative, at least a socially conservative message out.
So what you seem to be saying is that the left is now trying to take over one of the few remaining bastions.
Namely, the church, and bend the church to its political will.
Would that be accurate? Yes.
Unfortunately, many pastors who actually maybe do lean to the right, or let's say against abortion and so on, are afraid to talk about it in church.
But many pastors who are on the left are not afraid to talk about it.
They're not afraid to bring Politics, so to speak, into the church.
But I think that we have to embolden many people who are Christian and who realize that being pro-life is Christian to bring that into that space.
And I've asked multiple pastors, why is it that you never bring something like this up when there are references to life in the Bible?
And many of them kind of just are They say, you know, I'm afraid I'm going to lose people going to my church and I'm not going to be as popular and so on.
And so the left doesn't have that fear.
They take the bull by the horns and take on all the social issues and bring them into the church.
And it doesn't mean that we have to make everything political, but there are clear points in the Bible that relate to things being talked about today.
Now, when the left says things like, you know, they're going to focus on, you know, combating poverty, or they're going to focus on climate change, or they're going to focus on social inequality, I suppose we would find nothing wrong with applying biblical principles to those situations, right? The Bible does say we should be custodians of the earth.
The earth is given to man for his care.
And so, there's nothing wrong in saying, how can we protect our environment, our natural habitat, or Or, for example, the Bible does have all kinds of passages about helping the poor.
So the argument really focuses on how to do that.
But what I find really interesting here is that many of the people who are pushing this agenda don't seem to have Christian assumptions at all.
In other words, they are using Christian language, but they don't seem to have a basic fidelity to the underlying structure of the Bible.
So if you were to say to them something like, well, do you believe in the idea of, let's say, original sin?
Or even the idea that man, human beings, are sinful creatures in a fallen world.
We're very imperfect beings and we need redemption.
They would look at you like you're insane because that's not even what they're remotely interested in.
Right. I think that they would see it as they're the ones who are closer to perfection or something like that because they acknowledge their positions in society and they want to elevate these voices and change the table and all these things.
And I think, as you mentioned with the environment, well, how would they acknowledge the fact that the Bible says that man was put on earth and we are supposed to rule over the other animals and the rest of the earth is there for us?
But, of course, you know, they're not actually interested, I think, in exploring these issues more deeply.
They're really just trying to leverage this kind of language and use it for political means that aren't actually connected to what the Bible teaches.
And I think what's just really troubling is that many on the left are bringing politics so far to the forefront of their pulpit, whereas many on the right are often more afraid to do that.
And now, do you think that you were talking about the fact that the pastors are a little bit scared because they might scare people away because they feel it's too political, but evidently the liberal pastors don't have that same fear.
Do you think it could be not so much that they're afraid of their congregation, but they're afraid of the power of the media?
That would portray them as being, well, this pastor is kind of a racist, or this guy is preaching Christian nationalism.
So it is fear of the left's domination of the culture more than it is fear of just the ordinary fellow in the pew.
Of course, there are organizations like Ministry Watch.
They're constantly watching right-wing pastors.
They're always on them, even putting out reports, sending out emails to people saying, this person was accused of this.
Now, they don't say if there's proof.
They don't go into any of that necessarily.
But anything that could potentially make you look bad, they want to put to the forefront.
And I have yet to receive an email from them.
That blows the whistle on a leftist pastor, for example.
There are many out there that are doing really shady things and they're not talking about key issues in the Bible.
They're really focusing on leftist indoctrination.
So let's pause because you're talking about a so-called watchdog group that purports to be applying a kind of independent moral scrutiny, holding pastors to a high standard.
But you're saying they have a selective lens.
They target conservative pastors.
And of course, what they're going after presumably is the accusation of hypocrisy.
You claim to be this, but look, you're accused of that.
Or you claim to be all about being a Christian, but look, here's what you did.
So in every case, they're using the fact that the pastor is appealing to a higher set of standards and then showing you've fallen short of those standards.
But they don't do this across the board.
They're a hit group inside the church, functioning kind of the way like a media matters might function in the culture.
And I think people just need to know that these groups have now proliferated on the left and there is no equivalent of them on the right.
Of course. And I think that they know that they are kind of taking advantage of many Christians' good-hearted sensibilities in the sense that they know that nobody wants corruption, nobody wants any of these things.
Bad things to be going on.
Everybody wants to fix those things.
But let's say I were to say, okay, you know, leftist pastor, I've blown a whistle on you.
You're pro-abortion. They would laugh at me because they would say, of course, I'm pro-abortion.
You know, like Raphael Warnick, the pro-choice pastor of Georgia, he's proudly pro-choice and he puts it at the forefront.
So if someone on the right were to say, well, of course, I'm proudly pro-life.
We talk about it all the time.
We talk about, you know, XX and X all the time.
I think that that would maybe diffuse some of this power of these groups to, you know, take you down or something because you're being perceived as political.
You sent me a little Reddit thread that you were reading, and I think it's fascinating because when you look at these statements, I'm just going to read one or two of them.
This person talks about how, you know, yes, the Christians talk about sin all the time, but God is bigger than that.
God is not somebody who's going to care about such trivialities as me sinning.
And so what I find very bizarre here is these are people who, far from judging themselves by a Christian standard, Are trying to erode those standards, try to essentially say that anything goes and apply a kind of broad definition of God in which God evidently has no moral standards himself.
Right. And I think that this is kind of what the left describes this, at least in a lot of their writing, as, you know, we're more open-minded Christians.
We're the Christians who kind of allow everything, and we, you know, are more open to all perspectives on all of this, maybe some kind of pluralism.
And I think it's just, it's important to see, well, you know, none of us on the right, let's say, maybe more right-leaning Christians would say that, you know, anyone's perfect.
Of course, no one is.
But I think there's still something to strive towards.
And I think the key for the left is they want to get rid of those standards.
They would say, well, it's problematic to view this as right and this is wrong.
They would say, well, it's not really clear what's right and wrong and all these social issues, Danielle, you know, we don't know about...
All that, you know, abortion, let's say.
But when it comes to illegal immigration, well, of course, this is right.
This is wrong. You're wrong.
We're right. We have to allow everyone here.
It doesn't matter what the law is.
So I think it's just a removal of these general standards, whereas many on the right are willing to dive in and really think more about how we can apply these Christian principles.
I think the bottom line for me is that we should strive to be the church's missionaries to the world and not the world's missionaries to the church.
And woke Christianity, if there is such a thing, is in the end not Christianity at all.
Thanks for joining me, Danielle.
Look forward to having you back soon.
Thank you. I don't trust the mafia and neither do I trust the scoundrels who run Big Tech.
Neither should you. The fact is the internet never forgets.
There's never been a more important time to protect your internet activity and that's why I urge you to get ExpressVPN.
Everything you search for, watch or click online can be tracked by Big Tech companies.
They can then match your activity to your true identity using your device's unique IP address.
Now, when I switch on ExpressVPN with my computer or phone, My IP address is masked by a secure VPN server, which makes it harder for websites to identify me.
The ExpressVPN app also encrypts my network data to protect my sensitive information from being compromised.
Plus, you can use ExpressVPN on up to five devices simultaneously.
So multiple users on your network can stay safe with a single subscription.
What I like most is how easy it is to use.
It just takes one click to protect all your devices.
That's why they're rated the number one virtual private network by CNET and Wired.
Stop handing over your data to big tech companies.
Go with the VPN iTrust for online protection.
ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to get three months free on a one-year package.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to get three months free.
Go to ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh.
I've talked before about the French mathematician and philosopher Pascal because I think that his apologetics, his way of thinking about God and Christianity, is very relevant today.
In fact, I'd strongly recommend Pascal's great work.
I've got the Oxford version of it.
It's called Pensee.
P-E-N-S-E-E-S. And it is just full.
It's written in an aphoristic style, almost as if it's a collection of just random aphorisms and thoughts.
But the thoughts are so insightful that on almost every page it makes you go, wow, I never thought of it quite like that.
Pascal is really famous for his so-called wager, a kind of strange gambler's argument for the existence of God.
And before I dive into it, I want to point out that some people listening to this podcast or watching it may be a little puzzled by the fact that in the podcast when I do apologetics, I don't seem to speak the language that is customarily used in church.
I don't talk about My personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Now, this is not because I don't believe that.
It's not because I don't see myself as a born-again Christian.
It's really because I'm trying to speak secular language to people who don't necessarily accept the authority of the Bible to decide the question.
And so, if somebody asks me,"'Hey, Dinesh, what are your thoughts about gay marriage?' I don't go and say, hey, this is what it says in the book of Leviticus.
This is what it says in the Gospel of Matthew.
I try to make the argument in secular terms.
Now, if this seems like an odd thing to do today, just think about it.
Historically, it's not. I mean, early Christians, when they first had to leave Jerusalem and they went all around the world, I mean, they encountered Asian Indians and Persians and all kinds of Japanese people who had completely different cosmologies, spoke different languages. So, it would make no sense.
To try to address those people except to speak to them in their own terms, in terms that they could understand.
And the simple truth is that we're living today in secular culture, and that means that you can reach people by doing that.
And Pascal does that.
And his wager is a kind of a very interesting argument in some ways to me.
It exposes the fallacy of agnosticism.
The fallacy of agnosticism.
Why? Because the agnostic pretends to be a kind of above-the-fray guy.
Hey, Dinesh, you know, I really don't know if there is a god, and I really don't know if there isn't.
I'm simply a scientifically-minded guy, and I'm sort of waiting for the data to come in.
So this is the agnostic.
The stance is one of a kind of sophisticated withdrawal and awaiting of the final arrival of confirmation or proof.
But here's the problem. When it comes to matters of God and life after death...
And the fate of your soul, that data will never be in.
We're faced with questions in life, and we can't deny they're important.
They're questions like, why is there a universe?
What is the purpose of my life?
What happens to me after I die?
These are hardly irrelevant, and yet, think about it, what empirical test can we ever do, not just now, but in the future, to resolve them?
We can't. So what Pascal is really getting at is in life, even if you don't know for sure, you do have to make choices.
And that's true, by the way, not just about God.
It's true about a lot of things.
If I was considering proposing marriage to a woman, and let's say I'm in my 20s, and I say, well, you know, I've got to ask myself this question.
What will life with this woman be like for the next 50 years?
Answer, I don't really know.
So I'm an agnostic.
I can't be sure. I'm going to wait for the data to come in.
I'm going to keep dating until I can be 100% certain that this is the right person and I'm going to have a happy life.
Well, the truth of it is, if you keep doing that, she will marry someone else or you will both be dead.
Because that data will never come in.
You will never be sure. You'll never be able to predict in advance what your life is going to be like.
So Pascal's point is at some point you have to choose, but choose how.
And here's where the ingenuity of Pascal's wager comes in.
Pascal says you have two choices.
And in both cases, whether you go for God or against Him, you could be wrong.
So since you don't know for sure, you have to weigh the risk of being wrong.
Now let's say you believe in God, and it turns out that you die and there's no God.
Pascal goes, what's the downside?
What have you lost? What have you given up?
And Pascal says, you've given up nothing.
Your only fault is, you can call it, metaphysical error.
I was mistaken. But, says Pascal, let's say you vote against God.
I'm not going to go with God.
I don't believe in God.
And you're wrong.
So then, ooh, this is not good.
You die. Suddenly you find yourself having a lengthy conversation with your Creator.
And it's not going to go well.
So Pascal's point is that if you vote against God and you're wrong, you're facing, well, let's just call it eternal separation from God.
Damnation, if you want to call it that.
So Pascal goes, any rational person faced with these two choices, in one case, you have infinite happiness, if you're right about God, And you lose nothing if you're wrong.
And on the other side, you're facing infinite pain, separation, loneliness, damnation.
Why would any sensible person vote against God?
That's Pascal's point. Now this argument is, in terms of the calculation of it, so strong.
And it's a Machiavellian argument.
It basically says, listen, just play the odds the way any rational person would.
It's so strong that I have never seen anyone effectively refute it.
The best you can get, and I discuss this actually in my book, What's So Great About Christianity, which was my first foray into apologetics.
I would recommend it to you.
Richard Dawkins, in looking at Pascal's argument, says something like, well, yeah, but even if you convince me that I should believe, he goes, quote, believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy.
In other words, even if it's rational to believe, you can't make yourself believe.
And here I think Richard Dawkins is actually on to something very true.
And Pascal admits it. Pascal admits that belief comes from grace and the grace is given by God himself.
And so Pascal ends this section very beautifully with what he calls the agnostic's prayer.
He says, an agnostic who doesn't believe but wants to believe and sees the good sense in believing should pray the agnostic's prayer, which goes like this.
I'm going to close by reading it.
God, I don't know whether you even exist.
I am a skeptic.
Now this, by the way, is not Pascal's words.
This is the philosopher Peter Kreeft summarizing Pascal.
I doubt. I think you may be only a myth, but I'm not certain.
So if you do exist, if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now.
So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever and wherever it is.
I want to know the truth and live the truth.
If you are the truth, please help me.
And Peter Kreef's point, summarizing Pascal, is this is the best you can do.
If you are an honest seeker and you are reaching out to God, you have done your part, now all you have to do is wait for God to reach back down to you.
If you know the D'Souza's, we're very selective about our partnerships, and Eggert Watches is a company that we are excited about.
The CEO, Elon, is an immigrant entrepreneur, American success story.
His company creates exceptional products, but Elon also cares about American values and has his own voice.
Debbie and I have watched some of the powerful videos on the Eggert website recently.
What is Freedom? is the first short film.
Elon put his company on the line to take a stance against censorship.
It's not the first time he's done it.
Elon was awarded the Fox Patriot Award after he stood up for the police, releasing a film during the whole defund the police movement called Speak Truth.
Finally, Eggert has made a video celebrating men called What is a Man in response to Gillette Corporation painting this picture of toxic masculinity in American culture.
Again, all these videos are on the Eggert website.
And most important, Eggert makes incredible watches.
Debbie and I are both wearing one today.
I've shown mine before, but it's really cool.
Just take a look at the craftsmanship, the uniqueness.
It's kind of something to marvel at.
And these watches feel more expensive than they are.
Elon gave us a 15% off to share with you using the promo code Dinesh at the checkout.
So now you have two reasons to visit.
It's E-G-A-R-D, egardwatches.com.
Come for the watches, stay for the conservative films.
It's now time for our mailbox and we have a question from Emily.
Listen. Hi Dinesh, my name is Emily Sarife.
I'm a big fan of your podcast and I listen to it every day.
I've learned so much. I was wondering, recently I've seen articles where it's now racist to be good at math and having correct answers in math is a form of white supremacy.
Most people are advocating to take Shakespeare and Jane Austen, etc.
out of schools because of white supremacy.
So that leads me to my question, why is that not offensive to people?
Why aren't people offended that the left is saying certain races are too incompetent?
To get the right answer in math or understand Shakespeare.
I feel like the left is pushing this line of absurdity further and further almost to see how far they can go.
So why isn't there an uproar?
At what point is the line drawn and when will this ridiculousness stop?
So this question is very good and it is about how absurdities pile one on top of the other.
I'm going to, in a separate episode, discuss this issue of is math racist because I think that that is the tip of a very big iceberg.
The reason that the left is going after math itself Is it can't explain the fact that different racial groups do not perform equally on math tests.
See, it's one thing to say that different racial groups don't perform equally on, let's just say, vocabulary tests or even reasoning tests by saying, oh, the language is culturally biased, the vocabulary tests are talking about, you know, things that aren't part of the white experience and not the black experience.
And so there's been a lot of blah, blah, blah about this attempts to account for For differences in performance, but how do you account for the fact that you've got huge differences on a math test when we're talking about numbers?
And by the way, numbers aren't optional because if you don't get your sums right, the bottom line of it is your television isn't going to work and airplanes are going to crash and space shuttles are going to blow up.
We have to get the math right for the world to work the way that we want it to.
So this nonsense will ultimately be refuted by something called reality.
But it is sociologically interesting to know where the nonsense even comes from.
Let me address your point about the classics.
Shakespeare, the ancient Greeks, and so on.
First of all, what is so demented about what we're hearing now is that the ancient Greeks and Shakespeare didn't think in racial terms.
The modern notion that we are somehow defined by our skin color and by our biology That is actually not a universal phenomenon.
That is, in fact, something that developed in Europe in the modern era, and it developed around the time that the Europeans began to first explore the world, when they first encountered people in Java and in Tahiti and in Africa, a kind of racial way of thinking.
I discuss this in my book called The End of Racism.
The first chapter is about the origin of racism, and it's a little bit of a surprise because people don't realize racism actually had an origin.
But I think it's actually hopeful that racism had an origin because something that has a beginning can of course also have an end.
Don't be deterred in your own reading and in your own life in learning from the great books, the classics.
And that's because they have a lot to teach us.
Life only gives us a limited portfolio of experiences and that's kind of all we can learn.
And so if we didn't have books, Which talk about other times and other places.
We wouldn't know that there are other ways to think and other ways to live.
So, ultimately, I think it was T.S. Eliot who said that a classic is a work that sort of takes you out of your own provinciality in space and time.
We are all in a particular moment of space and time, but reading the classics allows us to experience other places and other times and people who have thought more deeply about life very often than we have.
So the classics remain, and they always will remain, an immense source of intellectual and moral richness, much richer than any of the slogans, platitudinizing, and sheer ideological brutality that is coming from the left.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection