All Episodes
Previous Next
March 17, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:03:21
ALIEN INVASION Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep48
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Are we in the middle of an alien invasion, or perhaps I should say a national home invasion?
The ignorance of Joy Behar and Daniel D'Souza Gill on the fake news and a weird group called Evangelicals for Biden.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
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.
I don't know if you've noticed, but we are in the middle of an alien invasion.
Or perhaps I should say a national home invasion.
Now, some people kind of deny this, but pictures don't lie.
These are people swarming to the border, illegals, coming not just from Mexico, by the way, but from all over South America, and there are even some people who are sneaking in from other countries via Mexico.
And the numbers are up, up, up.
In December, 71,000 people.
We're apprehended on the southern border.
That number went up to 75,000 in January, 100,000 in February, and it looks like it could be close to 150,000 in March.
This is a serious problem.
Here is Texas Governor Abbott talking about the problem in Texas.
Let me begin by making one point very clear.
There is a crisis on the Texas border right now with the overwhelming number of people who are coming across the border.
This crisis is a result of President Biden's open border policies.
It invites illegal immigration and is creating a humanitarian crisis in Texas right now that will grow increasingly worse by the day.
Now, I use the phrase home invasion, but it needs to be qualified in a couple of important respects.
First of all, in the most case, for the most part, these aren't kidnappers or hostage takers.
They aren't even criminals in the violent sense.
Now, there are some of them. There are criminal gangs involved.
There's MS-13.
There are bad guys. There are sex traffickers.
There is an element of that.
But I'm assuming that the majority of people aren't home invaders of the classic sense.
They're more like squatters.
They're more like people who decided, you know what?
Let's go into this big home called America.
It looks kind of luxurious.
And let's sort of sit on the couch.
And let's take advantage of the perks of the home.
Let's eat some food from the refrigerator.
Let's kind of move in.
So that's what's going on.
Now these are people who are acting against the law.
But here's the second wrinkle.
Not only are they not home invaders in the classic sense, but to some degree you'd have to say they were invited.
So how is it possible to be invited into a home against, you may say, the rules of the house?
Well, that's because you've got a sort of head of the household, or kind of a crazy uncle, you might say, in this case Joe Biden.
It's hard to deny that he told them it was okay.
He told them to come.
Now, how did he do this?
He did it partly by making all these emphatic election declarations.
I will reverse the Trump policies.
He turned people away.
I'm going to stop that.
I'm not going to make them wait in Mexico or other countries for their court dates.
I'm going to catch them and release them into the United States where they can kind of melt into the general population.
This was Biden. Even his homeland secretary on March 1 offered this kind of mixed message, you might say, to these illegals, to these aliens.
He goes, we are not saying don't come.
We are saying don't come now because we will be able to deliver a safe and orderly process to them as quickly as possible.
In other words, you're invited.
The invitation may not be for today or tomorrow, but you're our guest.
You basically start packing.
Start planning on your relocation.
We've got a system. We're kind of streamlining it to make it easier for you.
So this is a very scary situation.
Because, and of course it's covered up with a web of lies.
You get this idea from the media.
Oh, Biden is just such an unbelievable humanitarian.
He's brought to tears by what's going on at the...
He can't bear to separate families.
You know, so he's driven by these kind of marvelous motives of sort of the milk of human kindness.
Now, the reason this is all so bogus is we all know, Biden himself knows...
That if these illegals showed the slightest tendency to swing to the right, to vote Republican, not only Biden, but the Democrats would shut the border down so fast they wouldn't even know what hit them.
The border would be turned in effect to Washington, D.C. Tall fences, military presence, no one gets in, you're not welcome, turn around and go home.
The Democrats know how to do this.
They can close the border.
Trump had closed the border, but for the most part, over the past four years.
So the Democrats had to actively undo that.
You may say they had to actively take the wall down, or take what the wall stands for down.
And there's an international left, by the way, that's facilitating this whole process.
I mean, think about it. These big caravans that come from Honduras and South.
How did 2,000 people get organized to move hundreds of miles all by themselves, spontaneously, and then they show up at the border wearing Biden t-shirts?
I mean, if you went to, let's say, a slum in India and said, hey guys, show up at the U.S. border, but make sure you wear those Biden-Harris t-shirts, the Indians would look at you like, we don't even know what you're talking about.
Somebody supplies them with t-shirts.
As these caravans move, the left provides medical care, it provides cell phones and phone cards, it provides all kinds of maps.
In other words, the international left with American support is guiding people These caravans to the U.S. border and then of course you have the Biden administration in a sense.
So Biden has created this crisis.
It's not a crisis that he has to deal with.
He made the crisis.
Now why did he do that?
What's Biden's motive here?
What would be the reason for a family member, the head of the family, to sort of provoke, to create a home invasion?
Well the answer is really simple.
There's a dispute inside the household, inside the American house, you might say, over who should be in charge.
Who should be making the rules of the household.
And Biden primarily cares about that fight.
He doesn't care about the actual aliens.
In fact, that's why he doesn't want to go to the border.
People go, it's such a mystery.
Biden doesn't go to the border.
Biden doesn't go to the border because he doesn't care about that.
That's not what it's about. What it's about is a fight inside the household over who should rule.
And what Biden wants to do is he wants to bring in more people, allies if you will, potential allies, who someday can vote, who will help to consolidate his hold and the hold of his side.
On power, inside the household.
So this is a domestic fight.
This is a domestic fight.
And you might think about, well, what can we do?
How can we help?
We seem to be watching helplessly while this home invasion goes on, this alien invasion.
And the truth of it is there's not a whole lot that you and I can do.
We have to remember that we warned, conservatives warned, Republicans warned, I warned, that if this election turned out the wrong way, it would go very badly for America.
And a lot of bad stuff would occur.
And so, you know what?
We're taking it.
I mean, hey, bend over America.
A lot of bad stuff is going to come down the pike, and there's not a lot we're going to be able to do about it.
We'll do our best. But the truth of it is we want the American people to see this and go, hey, you know what?
We didn't sign up for this.
We want the American people to realize that this Democratic administration, these are a bunch of very bad characters.
And even though they're covered by the media and the media puts this kind of veil all over them and this halo, it's not that hard to see through the halo.
So it's time in the midterm to hold the Democrats accountable.
I just hope enough Americans can see.
Let's throw Mark Kelly out in Arizona.
Let's turn the Senate back over to the Republicans.
This at least provides a legislative mechanism to block the Democrats in what they're doing.
Otherwise, America is kind of in for it.
The Democrats have a plan, they were kind of clear about it, to change not just the makeup, the DNA of the country to establish permanent one-party role.
And the only question for the American people is, is this organized decline of America, this destruction, you may say, of our borders, our boundaries, of the House itself, something that you in America have signed up for?
Unlike the left-winger David Hogg who can't even make a pillow, Mike Lindell has gone from making pillows to making all kinds of stuff from robes to blankets to dog beds, and he has a new product I want to tell you about, slippers. We have the pajamas.
We have the robes. But now we have the slippers also.
Mike Lindell has women's and men's.
He has the moccasins.
He also has the slip-ons.
Debbie and I just got ours.
And if you order now, you'll get 40% off with promo code Dinesh.
So don't wait. Go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
But make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
Joe Biden is getting ready to raise taxes.
Raise taxes at least on the rich.
Now, we haven't had a tax hike of the sort that the Democrats have in mind really since the early 1990s.
1993 was the Clinton tax hike in Clinton's first term.
There have been some tinkering with taxes since then under Obama and then also under Trump, but no fundamental alteration of the structure of tax rates.
To put some of this in historical perspective, tax rates after World War II were extremely high.
In fact, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%.
So at high enough rates, you'd pay 90 cents on the dollar, on the last dollar you earned in income taxes.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, the top rate was 70%.
The reason we know that Reagan had a real revolution, the Reagan revolution, is that the top rate was brought down over two terms from 70% to 28%.
A huge change.
And it produced a massive economic boom in the 1980s that actually pushed through even in the 1990s.
Now, the rate has gone up since then from 28 to now a top rate of somewhere around 37 to 39 percent.
It's just under 40 percent.
This is just the federal rate, by the way.
So, rates have crept up, but they haven't gone close to 70, and they're not going to.
What Biden wants to do, It's a kind of spate of tax proposals that would raise the corporate tax rate, currently 21%, to about 28%.
By the way, this would put it way higher than even the Scandinavian rates, which are around 22%, same as the United States' current rate.
He wants to raise the estate tax, or at least include more people in it so that fewer people can leave all their money to their kids.
He wants a higher capital gains tax rate for people, at least high income earners.
And most significantly, he wants to raise the rate on people earning over $400,000.
So this is the sort of tax the rich scheme.
Very interestingly, Larry Kudlow, the prominent supply-side economist, recently made a statement that really challenges the underlying logic of this whole business.
Basically, what Kudlow is saying is if you want to raise more revenue for the government, don't raise tax rates, cut them.
Here's Kudlow, listen.
The way you get upper-income people to pay more in taxes is lower their tax rate.
Now, for people who don't know anything about economics, people who don't know anything about supply-side economics, people who've never heard of a Laffer curve, they're gonna go, what is this guy even saying?
Isn't it a fact that if the government wants to raise more revenue, you have to raise the rate?
Because after all, think about it this way, if there's only $100 in the economy and the tax rate is 37%, you've got $37.
If you want to get $42 or $48, you've got to raise the rate to 48%.
Of course, the underlying fallacy here is that there is a fixed $100 that is there to be taxed.
And what Kudlow is getting at, and this was the essence of the famous Laffer curve, really devised by the economist Arthur Laffer in the Reagan years.
And Laffer made a simple thought experiment.
He said this. He said, try to imagine A tax rate of 0%.
How much money will the government take in under that rate?
Answer? Zero.
Why? Because you have a 0% rate.
No one's paying any taxes. But then Laffer said something very startling.
He said, now let's imagine a tax rate of 100%.
How much money would the government take in in revenue under a 100% tax rate?
And his answer was, also zero.
Also zero. Think about this.
His reason is that if you take away people's entire earnings, no one will produce anything.
Why would anyone go to work?
Why would anyone start a business if you take your profit and then turn over all of it?
To the government. So the simple truth is that the government's revenue at 0% and the government's revenue at 100% tax rates is identical.
And Laffer's point was, and this is the beauty of the so-called Laffer curve, there's a certain point at which once you start taxing people more, They produce less, and therefore they end up paying less into the system.
That's the basis of Kudlow's logic that, gee, you know what?
Rich people are already paying a lot.
You're already taking 37 to 39 cents on the dollar, and that's not even counting state tax rates and other forms of taxation.
So if you want to motivate people to be productive, to be entrepreneurial, to create a bigger pie, Reduce tax rates.
Boost their incentives for them to be more entrepreneurial.
And with a bigger pie, even at a lower rate, you'll end up taking in more.
Of course, that implies a vision of a dynamic economy.
It implies an understanding of how capitalism actually works.
And in the case of Biden and his team, you've got a bunch of Democrats who have no interest in any of that.
They've never heard of entrepreneurship.
Think of Biden. He's never been an entrepreneur in his life.
Essentially, his form of getting rich has been cashing in from foreign governments.
So for these people, it's all about raiding the safe.
It's all about looting Fort Knox.
It's all about raising rates so you can confiscate more.
That's how they think.
This is why they're so destructive to the great American engine of growth and prosperity.
They want to leech off of it, but they have no idea of the forces that create this prosperity in the first place.
From Discovery Plus comes the new movie, Resurrection, on Discovery Plus.
Spring is finally upon us, and what better way to experience that sense of rebirth than with the story of the resurrection.
Following his crucifixion, Jesus' followers are hunted and desperately searching for understanding, but when word spreads that he has risen from the dead, they realize that hope didn't die on the cross.
It lives on in them.
Here's a glimpse. Listen.
The tomb is now open and the Nazarene is gone.
Impossible! Jesus has risen.
You will preach the gospel to all creation.
Now spread his word.
This could trigger rebellion.
Lock down the city. Tear the place apart.
Go! What if you've chosen the wrong man?
Believe and follow me.
Stream the global premiere of Resurrection on March 27th only on Discovery+.
Learn more at discoveryplus.com slash resurrection.
I'm kind of chuckling because Senator Ron Johnson is being accused of racism for saying something that turns out to be pretty innocuous.
In fact, that is the norm these days.
You say something relatively sensible or at least arguable and the usual shrieks of racism inevitably ensue.
And the correct response to those is laughter and chuckling and chortling.
Why? Because to take them seriously is to give these people way too much importance.
So here's the New York Times editorial board member Mara Gray.
And she goes, you know...
She talks about this disgusting and grotesque outpouring of racism, which apparently she thinks that Senator Johnson is now echoing.
Now, what are these offending remarks by Ron Johnson?
Well, basically he said this.
Kind of a statement of the obvious.
He goes, Truly violent Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters who have been storming and burning and killing people and attacking cops and dragging people out of cars.
Now, Johnson didn't lay it on thick the way I am now, but that's what he was talking about.
The fact that this is a scarier bunch and scarier in part because they have the active support of the Democratic Party.
You have people like Kamala Harris putting up money to bail them out.
You've got Democratic leaders who organize these protests.
So that's what Johnson was getting at.
Now, here comes Joy Behar, kind of our national nitwit.
And you can count on Joy Behar with a kind of mom attitude of like, you know, I'm trying to say sensible things the way I see it.
And of course she... She's sort of like the crazy mom that teenagers have to sort of roll their eyes over.
So she'll say something absolutely nutty but with this fake moral authority.
So let's listen to Joy Behar in one of her classic moments.
Listen. It's funny, when I was watching this, it's so aggravating to listen to this idiot.
I mean, he and I are very different.
I'll tell you this right now.
If I was surrounded by people carrying weapons, people erecting nooses, screaming, hang Mike Pence, bludgeoning a police officer to death, I might be a little scared.
But Ron, no, he's not scared of those people.
He's scared of this fictitious idea of Antifa, a thing that doesn't even exist.
What I love is not only the insane commentary, but the idiotic hand gestures where she's running her arm.
And you notice the hand gestures have nothing to do with what she's saying.
It reminds me kind of of Richard Nixon when he would talk, and he would make these theatrical hand gestures.
But the hand gestures were just gesticulations and kind of juttings of the arms.
Unconnected to what he was saying.
He was one of the most awkward characters in national politics.
Well, let's focus on Antifa.
Antifa is just an idea.
Now, if she was the only one to say it, I would say that this is kind of like a very Beharian piece of classic stupidity.
But the truth of it is other Democrats have said the same thing.
Jerry Nadler, Antifa is really imaginary.
It's not a real thing. Joe Biden, Antifa is just an idea from the debates.
So this has kind of now become kind of a trope on the left, that there's no such thing as Antifa, really.
So, what do we make?
What do our lying eyes make of months and months?
I mean, in Portland, 120 straight days of vandalism and burning, all by Antifa groups self-proclaimed.
What do we make of all these Antifa chapters around the country that organize these things, that have chat rooms that say, show up at so-and-so date?
What do we make of all the bricks strategically placed to throw into buildings that suggest organized activity?
Here is Andy Ngo's book, Unmasked.
It's not about an idea.
It's about real people, terrifying people.
Andy Ngo talks, for example, about what happened to him on June 29, 2019.
He got a brain hemorrhage because he was beaten by an Antifa gang.
Rose City Antifa, one of the Antifa groups, claimed responsibility.
So Andy Noh wasn't beaten by an idea.
He was beaten by real thugs.
And then I turn to a second book.
If you say, well, Andy Noh is a bit of a right-winger, you know.
Well, here's the...
Anti-fascist handbook written by an Antifa guy, an Antifa sympathizer anyway.
This is the academic Mark Bray.
And Mark Bray reports on Antifa.
And I'm going to read a few lines which show that Antifa is not an idea.
These are real organizations.
And they're not just in America, they're worldwide.
Today there are Antifa groups across Latin America, East Asia, Australia, and America.
He talks about all the different varieties of Antifa.
Some Antifa groups are Marxist, others are more anarchist or anti-authoritarian.
Then he goes, the Antifa I interviewed agreed that these ideological differences are usually subsumed in a more general strategic agreement on how to combat the common enemy.
And the common enemy, Mark Bray makes it really clear, isn't just fascists.
It's anyone on the right who's seen to be Sort of in alliance with the fascists, even though we'll leave aside the issue that the fascists were on the left.
They were self-described national socialists from Mussolini to Hitler.
Anyway, let's go on to Mark Bray.
He admits that Antifa likes to sort of travel, you may say, on the down low, under the radar.
He talks about the general reluctance of anti-fascists to risk exposing their identities.
Most militant anti-fascists operate in various degrees of secrecy.
But this is not to say they don't exist.
Just because they operate like any conspiratorial group, any mafia outfit, any rogue operation, any group of thugs or gangs, yeah, they operate in secret, but that doesn't make them an idea.
They remain mafia, they remain gangs, they're real people, and they do evil things.
He talks about the fact that the reason that he could interview Antifa is he talks about the, it was reliant on the relationships I had established with more than 15 years of organizing.
He had, in other words, anti-fascist credentials, enabling him to interview all these people in Antifa.
And he goes that he interviewed people in Canada.
These are Antifa people in Canada, Spain, the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Greece, Serbia, and Kurdistan, not to mention the United States.
Bottom line, here is documentary proof from a guy who's sympathetic to Antifa writing about Antifa.
I mean, I feel silly having to say this.
Antifa is not an idea.
This is a group of organized thugs.
And what makes them particularly gruesome is that they are linked with an organized political party called the Democratic Party and an organized political movement called the left.
The very movement, by the way, that Joy Behar belongs to.
We've all heard the saying, eat all your veggies.
Yet even as adults, we still have excuses why we don't eat them.
They taste gross. It's so much trouble to prepare.
Fresh fruits and veggies are so expensive.
Your mom wanted you to eat your fruits and veggies because she knew that's how we get and stay healthy.
While your mom never listened to your excuses, Balance of Nature has listened.
All ten daily servings of fruits and veggies are in six small capsules.
There are absolutely no trouble, always fresh, nothing artificial, and ready to take.
And the cost? Literally pennies per serving.
Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies, no hassle, no weird flavors, and just pennies per serving.
Join me and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself.
For a limited time, all new preferred customers will receive an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order.
Use discount code AMERICA. Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code AMERICA. I want to talk in a little more detail about the concept of woke supremacy and also its sort of cousin, which is critical race theory.
Now, I've argued that this woke supremacy is actually a form of white supremacy.
And the reason that we know this is because you can see that there are whites who are sort of At the helm, they are the ones who are organizing the woke movement and making all the important decisions.
Let's look at two of those kind of whites or white groups at the top of the totem pole.
Well, let's start with Joe Biden.
Now think of it. Joe Biden is hardly woke.
Joe Biden was palled around with segregationists.
This is the guy who called blacks super predators.
So if anything, this guy has been an out-and-out racist in his career.
But suddenly Biden gets to sort of be redeemed and have his slate washed clean.
How? By becoming the leader of the woke movement.
It's almost like he's awakened from his dogmatic slumber.
And now, this very guy, the guy who said of Obama things like, you know, that guy is kind of clean cut, man.
He's, you know, I'm really surprised he can formulate sentences.
I mean, he's clean. He even bathes.
So this racist, this guy with this condescending view of blacks, now gets to lecture blacks and say things like, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black.
Think about it. Think of the arrogance of a guy who is in bed with a segregationist lecturing blacks on how they have an obligation to vote for him or they don't qualify as black.
So this is woke supremacy.
This is how a guy like Biden gets to turn the tables and essentially say to blacks, if you're voting Republican, you're the problem.
I'm not the problem. I'm not the guy who made all the deals with Eastland and all the bad guys.
No, you're the problem because you don't recognize that I'm now woke and I'm the leader of the woke movement.
Or think of these digital moguls.
First of all, pasty white guys across the board.
Think of a robot like Zuckerberg.
I mean, this guy doesn't even look human.
But I mean, he's certainly as white as white can be.
Or Jack Dorsey, the weirdo who's running Twitter.
I mean, these digital moguls are all white.
They're all running these organizations, but they're woke.
This is how they get to be at the top of the totem pole.
Now, I admit that when they show up for hearings, sometimes they've got sort of a black woman or a minority in tow, kind of like the Lone Ranger in Tonto.
You know, Tonto just kind of behaves himself and plays along, but the Lone Ranger is calling the shots.
That's the point.
Now, how did we get all this business with critical race theory?
How did we get here?
Critical race theory actually grows out of something called critical theory.
Critical theory grows out of a group called the Frankfurt School.
The Frankfurt School was associated with a bunch of people, names like Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Eric Fromm, a guy named Max Horkheimer.
So these were left-wingers.
They were Marxists. And their idea was that they were taking up Marxist idea, which is, the point is not to analyze the world, but to change it.
And their idea was, we want to develop this notion called critical theory, in which we critically scrutinize bourgeois institutions, capitalist institutions, and by sort of exposing their contradictions, we help to sort of bring them down.
We help to create an awakened consciousness, you know, the early idea of woke, We want people to wake up to how evil capitalism is, how evil the church is, how evil the family is.
This is what these guys were all about.
And then in the last couple of decades, you had sort of minority scholars, black scholars, Latino scholars, mainly black, but some Latino also, who basically got in on this.
And they said, listen... We have critical theory, but it's missing an important element.
It's missing the element of race.
You keep talking about class distinctions and Marxism.
We want to introduce the element of race, so we're going to modify critical theory into critical race theory.
So you might say that the blacks and the Latinos were on the verge of taking this movement over.
Critical race theory.
When suddenly the whites had a brilliant idea, the leftist whites decided, listen, we too can be woke.
All we have to do is mouth the slogans of the blacks and Latinos.
Oh yeah, structures are all chronically racist.
It's not a problem of individuals built into the institution.
So as long as we mouth this vocabulary, we too can be woke.
Now, if the black intellectuals have said, you have to be black to be woke, it wouldn't have worked.
In fact, if they had said that, then the whites running these colleges and running these digital companies and running the country would basically have said to the blacks, we're getting off the bandwagon.
Why? Because you need to make room for us.
In other words, you need to make room for a young white girl who's 20 years old to scream at black cops and call them all kinds of epithets and names to have the moral authority to lecture them because she's woke and they're not.
She's fighting the system.
They're part of the system.
Now, if you tell that white girl, hey, listen, you're white.
You don't know anything about racism.
You've never experienced it.
Kind of get the heck out of it.
That's kind of what Malcolm X, by the way, said to a young white girl who came up.
She goes, what can I do to fight racism?
And Malcolm X said, nothing.
And the girl left.
Because Malcolm X's view is, what do you understand about any of this, you twit?
But the point is to let the twits in, to give the twits the moral so they can feel their lives, you know, which are normally kind of drab, full of all this drama.
So the point I want to make is that the whites figured out, the leftist whites figured out, we don't have to actually give up power.
What we have to do is mouth the same slogans as the Latino and black activists.
We need to be woke, as if we were walking from a slumber.
And if we do that, we can continue to keep power in all these institutions.
We create false villains.
The villain is the system.
It's the admission standards.
It's the curriculum.
So we give in on all those things.
We change the names of things.
We're no longer going to call this team the chiefs.
And in this way...
Very cunningly, the same leftists who normally would be under scrutiny, who would be under challenge for being racist, for being in charge of these racist institutions.
This way they can keep control of those institutions on the grounds that they don't have to give them up.
Because it doesn't matter what they did in the past, they're now woke.
Debbie and I truly love to have all of Mike Lindell's MyPillow products in our home, and we especially love his towels.
We're very particular about our towels.
We actually want them to dry us.
What a concept! MyPillow towels are soft the touch, without the lotion-y feel.
Proprietary technology makes them highly absorbent.
Other towels feel good, but they don't absorb.
Mike Lindell's towels are available in multiple styles and sizes.
They're machine-washable and durable.
10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee for a limited time, 2-for-1 low price, and free shipping on the 6-piece sets.
And you can save 30% on individual towel options with promo code Dinesh.
Call 800-876-0227, check out Mike's wide range of products, or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
It's always fun for me to have my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, on the podcast to talk about all the crazy stuff going on around us.
Dee, welcome to the podcast.
How are you doing? Doing great.
Thank you. Well, I want to start by asking you about this crazy business with the Washington Post.
Two months after they reported that Trump made a phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State's office and told them to, quote, find the fraud, as if Trump was sort of trying to rig the Georgia election.
And this was such a big deal that the House managers put it in their brief.
They talked about it in the impeachment proceedings.
So this was a huge story.
And it was also amplified by other organs in the media.
So think of how crazy this is, because they supposedly corroborated the story.
How crazy is that? Yeah, that's crazy.
I mean, Washington Post supposedly reported it.
Other sources supposedly corroborated it.
Meanwhile, all along, they knew that it wasn't even true.
And now they come out with this information long after the proceedings are over.
We don't have the presidency or the Senate.
Now they give us this information, but it's much too late and their damage of their coverage has already really been done.
Well, we know from the other outlets that they were clearly lying because there is no way to corroborate a story that is false.
There's no corroboration involved.
So they pretended like they corroborated the story.
Now let's turn to the Washington Post because the Washington Post, like you say, they held the story until now when it doesn't matter.
They finally revealed that they did have a source.
The source is the Deputy Secretary of State, a woman named Jordan Fuchs.
Now she wasn't on the call.
She didn't get direct information from Trump.
She was told about the call.
And then the Post claimed that we were a little imprecise.
But of course, they weren't imprecise because they precisely quoted Trump saying, find the fraud.
As if Trump was instructing the Georgia office to locate fraud, whether it was fraud or not.
So, I think what's going on here, which to me is very disturbing, is you've got the liars in the media, the fake news, but you also appear to have some collusion from the Georgia Secretary of State's office.
This guy, Brad Raffensperger, who's the Secretary of State.
Clearly no friend of Trump's.
But evidently this guy knew for two months.
I don't know.
Yes, this is the perfect time to use the term rhino, Republican in name only, because someone like that is Republican in name only.
He obviously didn't mind knifing his own side.
He didn't mind, you know, lying, taking down Trump using this kind of false allegations, false reporting, this false reporting.
And all this time knew it was a lie and didn't care because he thought he could further his own career somehow or thought he could gain some points with the media or something, be the media's favorite Republican, who knows.
And we have these people in high position.
It's really horrible because we should have people in those positions who actually care about our ideology and are Trumpsters.
I think part of what makes all this so disturbing is that the recording of the call only sort of accidentally came out.
It was kind of almost found, you may say, two months later.
So evidently the Georgia people had tried to suppress the actual recording.
Raffensperger, by the way, had released parts of the recording but deceptively edited to make it look like Trump was the bad guy.
So clearly something insidious is going on.
So it's one thing to have these kind of sly never-Trumpers on the outside, but to have people in the Republican establishment.
I'm thinking here of Governor Kemp.
Raffensperger is pretty much Governor Kemp's guy.
This is supposed to be a red state, Georgia.
And yet, critically, it has been turned over to two Democratic senators who are now doing enormous damage in Washington, D.C. So this was a very costly election to lose, not just for Trump, but for the Republican Party also on the Senate side.
Right, and I think so many Trumpsters are frustrated with them and don't want them in power, but we have to figure out ways to primary them to make sure that they're not actually in power anymore.
But unfortunately, they've done so much damage already from their influential positions.
They just happened to be in these positions at a time when we really needed good people there, and they weren't.
When we come back, I want to dive into a little different topic, a very strange topic, the disillusionment of a group called Evangelicals for Biden.
I've been telling you about Birch Gold Group for a little while now.
I buy my physical gold from Birch Gold, and so should you.
And I'm excited. Birch Gold has actually passed a milestone.
10,000 customers.
That's 10,000 people that have a real plan against radical leftist policies driving up our national debt and devaluing our dollar.
If you want to buy physical gold or silver, or if you want birch gold to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver, now is the time.
Through April 30th on qualifying purchases, when you purchase precious metals with birch gold, they will send you a free home safe.
That's right, a free safe to securely store With 10,000 customers, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and they can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with purchase.
We are back with the inimitable Danielle D'Souza Gill, and now talking about a topic that relates to a book that you wrote, Dee, the one that we can see right behind you, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America.
And the reason we're talking about abortion is there is evidently a group I mean, I'm a little surprised it even exists.
It's apparently called Evangelicals for Biden.
Now, it's got a couple of evangelical theologians.
Apparently, Billy Graham's granddaughter was part of this group also.
And this group supported Biden.
They apparently thought, oh, Trump is too much.
We can't support Trump.
We're going to support Biden.
And now they have sent a letter to Biden saying, oh, we're so disillusioned.
We're so disappointed because the COVID relief package that you just pushed through does not respect the Hyde Amendment.
In other words, it circumvents the Hyde Amendment, which means that COVID relief money can, in effect, go.
To abortion providers and organizations that support abortion.
So, I kind of want to go to two places here.
One is, what do you make of evangelicals for Biden?
What evangelical with his or her head, screwed on right, would consider voting for an abortion radical like Biden or a radical abortion party like the Democrats?
Yeah, I think unfortunately they don't even think about the policies and somehow think that magically Biden and Harris are going to become pro-life or magically they're going to become moderate or something on that topic when they're so radically pro-abortion or radically in favor of federal funding for abortion, funding for abortion overseas.
They're in favor of late-term abortion.
They don't want really any restrictions on abortion.
And yet, somehow in their minds, they rationalize voting for someone like that because they think Trump is mean or they think that his tweets are mean, and yet they don't realize how mean these abortion policies are.
And I also think that for some reason, they think that this division we have in our country is caused by Trump, when in fact it wasn't caused by Trump.
It was around long before Trump.
And I think it was actually really caused a lot by the media and obviously Obama and many other things in the last decade.
But they think Trump's the cause of the division.
So they think, okay, well, if we go for Biden, he's about unity.
And they don't realize that actually, even with Biden, we still have so much division because Trump wasn't the cause of that.
I mean, I would find evangelicals talking about, oh, you know, Trump is such a bad man.
I can't support a man of low character like Trump.
And I'm just thinking about the biblical characters, you know?
These are the kinds of people who would say, well, I can't support King David.
You know, he was such a shameless adulterer.
I can't support, you know, Peter because he betrayed Christ three times.
I mean, I don't even know if these people would say, well, I can't support Jesus.
You know, he was really angry, you know?
Um, Right.
Right.
These people are on a high horse, acting as if they are so above the fray that, and in their unwillingness to support what they see as a bad guy, they end up supporting a party that is horrifically, in its policies, antithetical to the principles of Christianity.
How do you even make sense of this kind of logic, or maybe I should say illogic?
Well, they should look at the people on their own side.
They should look at the character of those peoples, too.
Biden isn't exactly the best guy out there.
What about Tara Reid?
Also, Governor Cuomo.
There are plenty of Democrats with skeletons in their closet who do shady stuff.
So it's not like, oh, you know, we're the shady people, but we have the right principles and they're the good people or something.
It's like, nope, they actually have just as many We're good to go.
Actually, you guys have a lot more.
So it's not just the fact that we have the better policies, which we do.
Let's turn to the Hyde Amendment here for a moment, because a lot of people may not know what the Hyde Amendment is.
Basically, the Hyde Amendment says that in government policy, you cannot force people, which is to say taxpayers, to pay for something that they find morally abhorrent, namely abortion.
So you can't use taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion.
Now, some people would say, well, if abortion is legal, if it is, in fact, as the court has said ever since Roe v.
Wade, a right, why shouldn't the government fund it?
Why shouldn't the government enable people, for example, who don't have the money to have abortions to do it?
Because after all, it's a right and it's legal.
What would be your answer to those people?
Well, once Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, the Hyde Amendment basically followed it because once that came about, they were like, actually, we don't want people paying for this.
States do pay for it, but just through federal funding, we don't want people to have to pay for this.
And that's because most people, even today, don't support federal-funded abortion.
They don't want to be involved in other people's And choices about their body or elective procedures and so on to use the left's language.
They say, well, if that's your decision and that's your choice, why am I involved in it?
Why am I paying for it?
And that is kind of a libertarian argument.
And yeah, I mean, the left has really skirted the Hyde Amendment by including funding for abortion clinics in this COVID relief bill, although this has really nothing to do with COVID relief.
Final question about these evangelicals for Biden.
Do you think that their motive is, if we go beyond a supposed moral revulsion for Trump, is it partly that they just want to be woke, they want to be cool, they want to be in the culture?
They don't like this idea that the evangelicals are sort of out of it, culturally speaking.
And so this gives them a way to sort of be in the game.
So it's really about their own vanity and their own relevance, and not really about the gospel at all.
Yeah, I mean, it's so sad to hear something like that because what we know about Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, and then to kind of hear this, what the granddaughter is thinking, it's really sad.
But I think that there's just this loss of the countercultural nature of the gospel and how we are supposed to be countering a lot of these views of the world that are put out there.
We have to say, actually, no, you know, we're different.
We believe something different.
And A lot of the time we want peace and we want unity because that feels nice and that's what Biden was putting out there, but that's not really countercultural in terms of the beliefs that he's putting out, which are really just wrong.
So yeah, it might make them feel good to support Biden or think that that's kind of the greater good or something, but it really isn't.
It's really the greater evil.
Yeah, absolutely.
Hey Dee, thanks for coming on the podcast.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you. Do you feel the urge to push back against the leftist media narrative of the cops being your enemy?
If you support our American law enforcement, I want to share with you a very special and stylish new way to show that you have the back of the police.
Egert Watch's CEO Ilan is an unapologetic supporter of the police.
He's taken a very strong stance against the defund the police movement.
He designed a commemorative police watch that's beautiful.
I notice all kinds of special details like the engraving and the quote on the back.
Elon shared with me that in consulting with officers on the watch design, they asked for an image of St.
Michael on the piece. Eggert Watches gives away 15% of all sales from this model to police charities.
If you haven't seen Elon's Speak Truth short film on this topic, it's a must-watch and you can find it on the Eggert website.
Remember to apply this podcast's unique promo code Dinesh to your police watch order so you can save over $30 at the checkout.
Visit egardwatches.com to make your order.
It's time we support companies that stand up for what we believe, and Egard is a company I am proud to recommend.
This segment is called Reading Gatsby in Tehran.
It continues my discussion of multicultural education, or at least authentic multicultural education, why we study other cultures.
And there are sort of two types of multicultural education.
You can go and study the great works of other cultures and get an insight into them that way.
And also by getting an insight into them, getting an insight into yourself.
But here's another way.
You can look at the way that non-Western people read Western classics.
In this case, we're going to look at the American classic by F. Scott Fitzgerald called The Great Gatsby.
But we're going to relocate the discussion away from America, not some American campus where we hear a lot of familiar things about Gatsby.
Oh, he's a white male, blah, blah, blah.
We're going to go to Iran, and we're going to listen to a group of Iranian Muslims talking about the Great Gatsby.
Now, this is really a genuine multicultural education.
By the way, it's not the kind of education the left shows the slightest interest in.
The left's idea of multicultural education is something more like the Disneyland, it's a small world ride.
Where other cultures are presented kind of cosmetically.
They are not allowed to speak really for themselves.
They're presented in a kind of pageantry or tableau.
They serve a kind of Western ideological purpose.
That's because non-Western cultures don't supply what the left really wants.
They'd be really happy, for example.
They're looking for the kind of one-legged Indian transsexual that they can feature at the forefront of the American curriculum.
But that guy's in short supply.
You'd have to go all over India, talk to a billion people to even find him if he even exists.
So the left is like giving up on that.
They don't even try.
But we're going to try. We're going to actually listen to...
In this case, Persians, the Iranians, talking about the Great Gatsby.
And fortunately, we have a way to do that.
It is Azhar Nafisi's book, now about a decade old, called Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Now, Azhar Nafisi, interestingly, sort of has a foot in each culture.
She's a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
She's kind of a well-known feminist.
She was actually thrown out of the University of Tehran because she wouldn't wear the veil, and she fled to America in 1997.
So she's a leftist feminist in an American university and she's reporting on a reading group in Tehran that is reading The Great Gatsby.
And what's interesting about this is that the discussion is kind of going swimmingly well.
In fact, it's being kind of controlled from a sort of feminist angle.
With the usual familiar tropes about Gatsby that you hear in a typical American campus when an Iranian, and this guy is a little bit of a fundamentalist, jumps in and spoils the party.
And this is when learning really begins because of what he says.
Basically, what he says is, I hate Gatsby.
And so, of course, a lot of the other people in the reading group are like, what do you mean?
What do you mean you hate Gatsby?
And he goes, Gatsby is deeply immoral.
Gatsby wants to have an affair with Daisy, who is another man's wife.
This is disgusting.
So these aren't his actual words, but I'm summarizing them.
And of course, the reaction to this is what's classic.
So right away, one of the women...
One of the feminists in the group says something like this.
She goes, you don't read Gatsby to learn whether adultery is good or bad, but to learn about how complicated issues such as adultery and fidelity in marriage are.
A great novel heightens your senses and sensitivity to the complexities of life of individuals and prevents you from the self-righteousness that sees morality in fixed formulas about good and evil.
In other words, the kind of mindless gobbledygook that you would hear on any American campus.
Oh, morality doesn't really matter.
We need to be aware of the complexities.
Blah, blah, blah. But the guy won't give up.
He comes back very simply and he goes, Wait a minute.
Let's check out this character Gatsby.
How does he make his money?
He's a crook. He's in league with other crooks. He's in league with this guy Meyer Wolfsheim Who's a kind of Jewish swindler who apparently fixed the world series?
Who carry who wears a necklace with a tooth at the end of it?
So these are the gangsters that Gatsby hangs out with he makes his money in a corrupt way Then he takes up with a married woman and then once again, we have sort of a an intervention in which the author jumps in Who says Oh?
Niazi the guy the fundamentalist misses the whole point of the novel and Niazi jumps back and goes I'm not missing the point Gatsby wants to take up with another man's wife and then his quote, why doesn't he get his own wife?
Boom! You know, this is the kind of analysis that we need to hear.
In fact, it sort of reminds me...
Many years ago, I read an essay by the Earl of Shaftesbury on Othello.
And we expect the kind of normal discussions of Othello and jealousy and so on.
But the Earl of Shaftesbury went in a different direction.
He goes, Othello is basically the inevitable outcome of what you get when you have a perverted older man...
Who is himself full of illusions about himself, illusions of greatness.
I'm the great Othello. And he takes up with this sick, twisted, demented girl, Desdemona, who for whatever reason is discontented with her own family and wants to take up with someone who's exotic, who's the other, who's a different color, who's from Africa, who has nothing in common with her.
And the Earl of Shaftesbury goes, look!
You put these two freaks together, you're going to get a freakish outcome.
No wonder the novel ends up in a...
So, this is the kind of criticism that sort of blows the lid off the type of normal cliches that you get in literary analysis.
And here we have it happening in Iran with Gatsby.
Now, of course...
Azhar Nafisi, the author, jumps in to say, no, no, no.
You know, the real villain in the novel isn't Gatsby.
You know, it's this Tom Buchanan guy.
Because, see, Tom Buchanan is a little bit of a racist.
He represents old money.
He's very selfish. Listen to what Fitzgerald says about him.
He says, basically, that Tom and Daisy are very careless and they broke things.
But Niazzi won't give up.
He goes, well, why is Gatsby any better than Tom Buchanan?
Yeah, Tom Buchanan's old money, Gatsby's new money, but they're both crooks.
They're both swindlers.
They both came about their money under suspect circumstances, and they both ultimately produce tremendous destruction in their wake, including Gatsby.
They ruin other people's lives, and they do so.
Now, Gatsby is supposed to be redeemed by this dream.
You know, the narrator...
Nick Carraway, whom Azhar Nafisi calls the most reliable voice in the novel.
I don't think so. Just because he's narrating the novel doesn't make him the most reliable voice.
In fact, he could very well be colluding with Gatsby's immorality.
At least that would be... The fundamentalist point of view.
Now, my favorite part is at the very end, where Azar Nafisi talks about what she calls the moderate Muslims.
So the fundamentalist Muslim makes this case, and she goes, a few of the leftists, now by leftists she means moderates, some of the moderate Muslims defended the novel.
She says, I felt they did so partly because the Muslim activists were so dead set against it.
So the moderate Muslims don't like the fundamentalists, so they defend Gatsby.
But what's funny is their reason for defending Gatsby.
She goes, they said we needed to read fiction like The Great Gatsby because we needed to know about the immorality of American culture.
This is the moderate Muslim position.
So the radical Muslims think America is the great Satan.
And the moderate Muslims go, well, that's kind of true.
But by reading novels like Gatsby, we're exposed to how immoral these people are.
What I find fascinating is that this is the rebellion of traditional morality.
Against, you may have to say, Fitzgerald.
And against America. I conclude with this thought.
We often think that the moral corruption of America started in the 1960s.
But I've often thought to myself, if the 60s were so bad...
If the 50s were so wonderful, how did we get the 60s?
In other words, didn't the moral rot of the 1960s have some deeper roots?
The question to think about, the question I think about as I read this discussion of Gatsby is, is it possible that Fitzgerald, who represented something earlier, not the 60s, not the 50s, but the roaring 20s, That a lot of these bohemian ideals that today have played themselves out into mass culture have their roots not just in the America of the 1960s, but in the America of the 1920s, if not earlier.
Digital media censorship has become a major problem, but even if you keep your accounts, you don't have to give big tech websites access to your data.
That's why I choose to protect my online activity by using ExpressVPN.
You can do social media for free, but ever wonder how these social media companies make all their money?
Well, by tracking your searches, video history, and everything you click on, and then selling your valuable data.
When you use ExpressVPN, you make much of your online presence anonymous by hiding your IP address.
That makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.
What's more, ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your data to protect you from eavesdroppers on your network.
And the ExpressVPN app is easy to use.
You just tap one button on your phone or computer and you're protected.
Take back your online privacy with the virtual private network I trust at expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
You can get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free on a one-year package.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Dinesh to protect your data today.
Hey guys, I hope you're enjoying the podcast.
Make sure you subscribe, hit the notifications button, give me a five-star review if you're listening on Apple, and please share news about the podcast with others.
Now, if you want to send a question, you can send a written question.
I prefer audio questions because I can play them on the podcast or even video questions.
Just send them, email them to questiondinesh at gmail.com.
We've got a really good question today, so let's hear it.
Hello, Dinesh. My name is Ryan, and I live out here in California.
In the last four years, especially now in the post-Trump era, I find myself getting into conversations with friends, family, and coworkers where we hit a stone wall regarding what is truth about whatever topic we're debating, such as election integrity, the China virus, securing our borders, Second Amendment rights, etc.
Naturally, me being a conservative and continued Trump supporter, when I cite my trusted sources, such as yourself, And I use them for my arguments to those with opposing viewpoints and opinions.
My sources are quickly labeled conspiracy theorists, misinformation, biased, or right-wing echo chambers.
How do you recommend continued debating when it seems increasingly apparent that we can no longer agree on what basic truths are anymore simply because I do not get my news and information from the mainstream media?
Thank you very much, Dinesh.
I eagerly look forward to hearing your response.
This is a fascinating question about the way in which it seems like the left and the right are living in two alternate universes, drawing on separate tracks of information and maybe even scholarship, and then distrusting the sources on the other side.
Now, I would argue that this parallelism is not It's not equivalent.
Why? Because by and large, we know what the other side is saying, but they don't know what we're saying.
They'll say things like, oh, Dinesh, we can't trust his sources.
But they haven't read my sources.
They haven't actually read my books.
They'll often say, well, he's a conspiracy theorist.
And you say, well, you know what? Name one conspiracy that Dinesh has ever advocated or ever attempted to document.
You They'll be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
It's sort of like when black guys would say, you know, name one racist thing that Trump has said.
Black Trumpsters would say this to people on the left.
They'd be like, well, you know, he's very racist.
Well, name one racist thing he said.
Well, they can't. So this is how it is.
But we can. That's the point.
We can actually cite things.
And I try in my books not to, and this is true not just in my political books, but my apologetics books, I try to cite mainstream sources that are not involved in the partisan fight.
So typically I won't cite a conservative source.
I'll cite a history source that is unchallenged, sometimes the original source.
And in this way I'm trying to bring the two sides at least into, even if they disagree, Dramatically, they're able to agree on certain basic facts, and therefore the disagreement becomes meaningful at some level.
I think back almost wistfully now to my debates with Christopher Hitchens, because those debates, at the end of the day, revolved around facts we could agree on.
At one point, I remember Hitchens said to me something like, you know, he was quoting Richard Dawkins, he goes,"...if you rewind the tape of evolution, it would come out completely differently.
Human beings wouldn't even exist." And I said, that's not true.
And I cited two sources.
I cited the Belgian chemist Christian Dedube, winner of the Nobel Prize.
I cited Simon Conway Morris, the Oxford paleontologist, expert on the Burgess Shale.
And I quoted them about the so-called arrow of evolution.
Evolution moves in a kind of predictable direction toward more complex forms of life.
From unicellular to multicellular, from multicellular to animal, from animal to human, ultimately the evolution of consciousness and self-consciousness.
And this is directional evolution.
And Hitchens came to me after the debate and he goes, where the heck did you find out all this stuff?
Now, I commend Hitchens because he wanted to know.
Hitchens didn't say, oh, Dinesh, those are your sources.
I have my sources. I rely on Dawkins.
You rely on these. It's not like that.
Hitchens was kind of stunned that I cited sources of credible people that made an argument with a different conclusion than he had in mind, and he wanted to know more.
It is that curiosity, that willingness to engage, that is not missing today from the right, but totally missing from the left.
▲
Export Selection