All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:01:47
PRESIDENT MANCHIN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep66
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, the search for the real president might be over.
His first name is Joe, but his last name isn't Biden.
Why I don't trust that little ogre Fauci.
And writer and filmmaker Lauren Southern has written a children's book.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
So who is the real President of the United States?
This is an open question because if there's one thing I think that people agree on, it's not Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is being led rather than leading himself.
Someone else is calling the shots.
But who is that?
Not just who's directing Biden, but who is sort of running the country?
Who holds the power?
Who is the person in whose hands the critical future decisions of this country depend on?
I think to get the answer, we have to watch this short clip.
Here we go. Listen. Yep,
that's it. You know, his first name is Joe, but his last name is not Biden.
It's Joe Manchin.
By a kind of interesting quirk of history, this man, this Democrat, this Democrat from a Trump state, namely West Virginia, finds himself the true kind of power broker in America.
And recently, Joe Manchin has written an article which is a kind of a warning to Democrats.
This article appeared in the Washington Post, and it begins on a troubling note for the left in the title alone.
It says, Joe Manchin, I will not vote to eliminate or weaken.
The filibuster. Boom.
So here is Manchin saying, listen, there's been a lot of talk and lots of people on the left and in the media have been trying to push me to say that if I won't abolish, won't vote to abolish the filibuster, I'm going to sort of create enough holes in the filibuster that all kinds of things could kind of get past the filibuster.
But the crushing aspect of Joe Manchin's op-ed is I'm not going to vote...
Either to abolish it or to weaken it.
In other words, the filibuster will stay pretty much as is.
Now, this means, if you think about it, that the left's hope of overturning the filibuster, getting by the filibuster, sneaking past the filibuster, and thus paving the way to do a whole bunch of other things has now been dealt a severe blow.
Why? Because the Republicans are holding firm on this.
There are no Republican votes to be had on this.
The Democrats need all 50 of their own, plus Kamala Harris, and so even a single defection.
Now, Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic senator from Arizona, has also said she will not support getting rid of the filibuster, but Manchin's statement by itself kind of doesn't.
And there goes Biden's hope for meaningful or any significant gun control legislation.
There goes the idea of passing HR1 by getting around the filibuster.
There goes the idea of doing a whole about packing the court.
Goodbye. Can't do it.
Because, once again, you need to get by the filibuster to do any of these things.
But... If that all were significant and bad enough from the left's point of view, Manchin goes further.
He starts talking about, in the op-ed, this is in the text itself, the reconciliation process.
And this is a kind of a budgetary tool that allows bills to be passed by a simple majority.
For things that are not directly tied to the budget.
You can just go with a simple majority. You don't need more than that.
And Manchin goes, I'm not okay with that either.
I don't like this idea of Democrats ramming things through just because they've got 50 plus Kamala Harris.
I might support some of these Biden measures on the merits, but that doesn't matter.
I want the process to be bipartisan.
I want Republican input.
I want Republicans to weigh in on these things.
I want compromise.
In other words, I want what the Senate is meant to be.
Unlike the House, which has basically become a, hey, we've got the majority and maybe a majority of only five or six seats, but here we go.
We're more than you, so we're going to push this through.
And Manchin is saying the Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body.
It was set up that way. It's supposed to work that way.
I, for one, am going to do my part to make sure that it does work that way.
Manchin says something interesting in an interview with CNN. He says, I've watched people who had power and abused it.
I've watched people that sought power and destroyed themselves.
And I've watched people that have a moment of time to make a difference and change things and used it.
I would like to be the third.
So you get here the sense that Manchin has a sense of his historic opportunity and his historic position.
It so happens that the weighing scale is exactly in the middle, and he happens to be that middleman, which really means, and he's no dummy, he's figured it out, he's calling the shots.
Now, interestingly, in a CNN interview, Manchin makes the point that January 6th changed him.
And you might think that because of the insurrection, the riot, Manchin would actually be on the war path for the Democrats.
But no, he draws, in fact, this conclusion.
He says to CNN, so something told me, wait a minute, pause, hit the pause button, something's wrong.
And then the key sentence, you can't have this many people split to where they want to go to war with each other.
America is ultimately a society of friends, of people who agree at least on the basics and they should find ways to work together.
And this idea of treating your opposition as a domestic enemy, to treat a domestic opposition as if it were some kind of a foreign enemy, this is a recipe for taking the country towards civil strife.
And Manchin, for one, does not want to be the guy who enables that to happen.
Manchin Now, of course, the left is in a big uproar about this.
Here's Julian Zelizer of CNN with an op-ed, and it's full of the kind of rhetorical pomposities that I can assure you will mean nothing to Manchin.
Manchin needs to understand that part of the responsibility of great leaders is to guide their constituents toward important goals and not just follow their existing preferences.
Basically, the idea here is that Manchin is in a conservative state, but far from listening to his constituents, he needs to tell them where they ought to be going.
First of all, I don't even think Manchin's decision is solely based on that.
It seems to be based on statesmanship in the first place.
The second thing...
That Julian Zelizer says is trying to win bipartisan support means putting forth legislation that would fail to meet the moment and provide Americans with what they need.
Progressive mentality here in full display.
In other words, we don't have to consult the elected leaders.
Americans need certain things.
Julian Zelizer knows what they are.
And so he just wants...
The Senate to run roughshod over the opposition because, after all, this is what Americans need, and therefore we don't have to pay any attention to Republicans.
And the tone of the op-ed is very clear in the way it concludes.
The clock is ticking.
Democrats need to solve their mansion problem before it's too late.
You can get a sense of the anxiety of the left here.
And so they're pulling out all the stops.
Their latest stop, by the way, is to bring in Jim Clymer.
Jim Clymer is, you know, the sort of black guy.
His idea is to basically go to Manchin and do the normal kind of racial intimidation.
Hey, Manchin, you know, I grew up in South Carolina.
My great-great-grandfather suffered through this.
My grandfather suffered through that.
So basic message.
We are going to start calling you a racist if you don't come on board with us.
This is how the left is.
These are very wicked people who use this sort of attempt to strong-arm guys like Manchin, who are very nice guys.
And I'm going to talk tomorrow in a little more detail about the substance of Clymer's argument.
It's essentially that the filibuster is racist because it was used in a racist way.
No, the filibuster is not racist.
And the fact that something is used in a racist way, it's kind of like saying, you know, a car should be outlawed because this guy used his car to slam into another guy.
Yeah, but that's not the fault of the car.
That's the fault of the maniac behind the wheel.
So, the fact that something is used for something in a bad way doesn't make the something, in this case the filibuster, bad in itself.
Or bad in other uses that are completely different from that original use.
Bottom line...
Manchin, I think, is going to hold firm.
Why? Because I think at the end of the day, he's thought about it.
There's been a lot of pressure brought to bear from the left.
Fortunately, his constituents are actually with him on this.
Bipartisanship, it turns out, is not only the right thing to do, it is the politically expedient thing to do also.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has a message for Trump.
He wants Trump to actively solicit that Trumpsters, the Trump supporters, go out and get their vaccines.
Here's Fauci talking about it.
Listen. I hope he does because the numbers that you gave are so disturbing how such a large proportion of a certain group of people would not want to get vaccinated merely because of political consideration.
It makes absolutely no sense.
And I've been saying that for so long, we've got to dissociate political persuasion from what's common sense, no-brainer public health things.
The history of vaccinology has rescued us from smallpox, from polio, from measles, from all of the other diseases.
What is the problem here?
So this clip is from Meet the Press, an interview with Fauci.
And Fauci asks, what is the problem here?
And I have an answer for you, Dr.
Fauci. The problem here is you.
Trump is not a medical guy.
You are. And so if people are reluctant to get vaccinated, you have to ask, why don't they trust me?
What have I, what has the little ogre done that has caused people to go, you know what?
I smell a rat.
And I smell a rat.
Why? It's partly because of the fact that when you look closely at what you've been saying, what Fauci has been saying, there have been radical inconsistencies, there have been propositions advanced as scientific that are not scientific, and there have also been, I think, a political agenda that you, Dr.
Fauci, introduced. That has caused people to be suspicious.
So let's go through those one by one.
You were asked, Dr. Fauci was asked in March of 2020 about masks.
And he goes, you don't have to wear masks.
There's no reason to. And it was pointed out to him at that time that there are people in Asia wearing masks.
He goes, no, no, no, you don't have to wear a mask.
Now, in a recent interview with Mehdi Hassan of, I believe, CNN, MSNBC, sorry, Fauci says, the reason I said that is because there weren't enough masks available.
Wait a minute. If there aren't enough masks available, your advice should have been different.
It would be good to wear a mask, but we don't have enough available.
That's completely different from telling people you don't need to wear a mask.
So this is deception. Because you didn't have the mask, you decided to sort of tell people they don't need one, and that's dishonest.
Now we turn to the signs, things like the social distancing, the six feet requirement.
Now if you go to the CDC's website, you see a lot of ambiguity on the website itself.
It says things like, it says things like, um, let me look over here.
COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person in respiratory droplets from someone who is infected.
People who are infected often have symptoms of illness.
Some people without symptoms may be able to spread the virus.
Three words jump out at me.
COVID-19 is thought to spread.
It's not known to spread.
It's thought to spread. And then let's look at the last sentence more closely.
Some people, some people, not most, not all, without symptoms may be able to spread the virus.
They may, which also means they may not.
And where did this whole business about six feet come from?
It turns out, and I'm now quoting the New York Times, according to the New York Times, the strategy, quote...
Save thousands of lives during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and more recently in Mexico City during the flu pandemic of 2009.
So that's where we get it.
It's not even based upon any science specific to COVID. It's like, we tried this a century ago.
Why not try it again?
At first, the CDC said, we don't want to have large gatherings.
And at one point, they were talking about 250 people.
Then, magically, they decided it's going to be 10 people.
10 people! Why'd you come up with 10?
Why not 20? Why not 50?
It turns out they make this stuff up as they go along.
And they don't supply to us the rationale for why they draw the lines that they do.
Now, the worst thing about Fauci, I think, is the fact that he goes dead silent when it comes to public gatherings on the left.
We noticed this during the Black Lives Matter protests, the Antifa gatherings, the gatherings for George Floyd, the 10 funerals, and so on.
Where was Fauci? Nowhere to be found.
So he jumps up like a jack-in-the-box every time some family gathering is occurring or someone's trying to meet in a church portal.
And now, look at the border.
Here's a little photo, which I'm showing.
It's a photo of migrants that are kind of packed like sardines.
This is 25 migrants in a rail car in Texas.
And you would think that Fauci would be like, wow, this is terrible.
This is a super spreader event.
All these people, one on top of the other, being held in unsanitary facilities.
Not a word. He's dead silent about it.
So the bottom line of it is, and I must say, Debbie's always liked Fauci.
She thinks Fauci has been, by and large, an honest broker, but not on this.
Not on this. So Fauci, if you want people on the Trump side of the equation to feel better about getting vaccinated, you might want to be a little more honest, a little more open, a little more scientific, and politically speaking, a little bit more consistent.
You've heard about companies that give away 1% or 5%, maybe even 10% of profits.
What about a company that gives away a minimum of 50% of its profits?
That's right, a company donating 50% of its profits to global charities and missions every year.
That company is Nutramedics.
A professional supplement brand trusted by doctors since 1993, now available to you.
Nutramedix sells all your popular supplements like vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, and melatonin, just to name a few.
Nutramedix has a giving goal as big as their heart.
To date, they have donated $15 million to global charities and missions, and their goal is to surpass $100 million in giving by 2030.
Many of you take supplements already.
Switch to Nutramedix.
It's the highest quality, and they donate 50% of their profits.
Go to Nutramedix.com, N-U-T-R-A-M-E-D-I-X.com, and use the code Dinesh10 for 10% off.
Here's a headline I never thought I'd see.
Yahoo News. The Biden administration says it may restart construction of the border wall to, quote, fill gaps left by Trump.
Wow. Really? Really?
Okay, I think we all know what's going on here.
Basically, what's going on here is that Biden, after vigorously campaigning against Trump, Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm going to look at what Trump did, and I'm going to do the exact opposite.
During the campaign, Biden said, I'm going to, quote, not build another foot of the wall.
And in fact, in Biden's budget, he halts federal funding for the wall.
But now, very interestingly, the head of the Department of Homeland Security has stepped in and said, well, we didn't really mean quite all that.
We've got some funding and gaps in the wall need to be filled.
The White House press secretary has said that, quote, limited funding has been allocated toward this construction project.
Now, this plugging of the gaps is kind of a concession, I think, of defeat.
They're obviously trying to do it as if to say, we're not building more wall.
We're merely taking the wall that's there, but that has holes or gaps, and we're kind of filling them in.
But why fill them in?
If walls are bad...
And you are against walls.
Why not take down the part of the wall that's there?
Not only stop building, but why fill in the gaps?
The filling in the gaps tells you that the Biden administration is coming to realize, grudgingly, screaming and kicking, that they need to stop building.
This very troubling flow of illegals, drug dealers, criminals, kids who are being used as, quote, passports or pawns, sex trafficking, all of this horrific stuff happening at the border.
It's gotten way out of hand.
And it's very notable that even the people in South Texas, this is the blue part of Texas, these are Democrats, are starting to speak up and speak up through their elected representatives.
And there are also the cops, by the way, and the ICE guys down there, by the way, mostly Hispanic, are also speaking out.
And the Biden people have realized, we might have gone a little too far, and we might need to sort of stem this problem, at least to create some sort of a way of dealing with it.
Now, in Biden's budget, he has allocated all kinds of money, $4.3 billion for 125,000 refugees to be resettled in the United States.
This is mainly to resettle the unaccompanied minors.
Biden also plans to give away a whole bunch of money, $4 billion over four years, to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to address, quote, the root causes of migration.
Essentially, Biden has declared an anti-poverty project outside the United States.
And who knows where this is going to go?
I'm sure the Indians in India are thinking, wow, it's really too bad that we don't border the United States because you'd be giving us money to deal with our slum problems and our poor people, and we've got hundreds of millions of them.
So this idea that Biden can somehow deal with the immigration problem by doling out taxpayer dollars to families in Nicaragua or Honduras, this strikes me as nonsensical.
But the bottom line of it is, the fact that Biden is plugging the wall...
You have to admit that it's kind of a grudging admission that Trump was right.
Trump was right in the first place.
The Biden people screamed at it.
They opposed it.
But now that they're in power, they're sort of doing it.
A few decades ago, private citizens used to be largely that, private.
What's changed?
The internet.
Think about everything you've browsed, searched for, watched, or tweeted.
Now imagine all of that data being crawled through, collected, and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record, your record.
Having your private life exposed for others to see was once something only celebrities worried about.
But in an era where everything is online, everyone is a public figure.
To keep my data private, when I go online, I turn to ExpressVPN.
Did you know there are hundreds of data brokers out there who sold businesses to buy and sell your data?
The worst part is they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or get your consent.
One of these data points is your IP address.
Data harvesters use your IP to uniquely identify you and your location.
Every time I turn ExpressVPN on, I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers.
That makes it more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data.
And the best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use.
No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, or smart TV, all you have to do is tap one button to get protected.
So if, like me, you believe your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Dinesh and get three extra months for free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Dinesh.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
We have another major racial hoax.
This one at Albion College in Michigan.
And I want to probe the hoax because I want to get to the psychology behind it.
The kind of craziness that makes someone fake Their own degradation.
This would be like someone organizing the burglary or at least staging the burglary of their own house, which people do do for insurance money.
But here the motives are not that simple.
So let's begin at the beginning.
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a big frenzy at Albion College because racist and anti-Semitic graffiti appeared on one of the school's Facebook pages.
The photos included messages like, White Power, Die N, the N word, KKK.
And so naturally the college went into this sort of formulaic frenzy.
There were calls for boycotts of classes, all kinds of activism.
The school is taking it extremely seriously.
So the campus police begin an investigation.
Turns out, a 21-year-old black kid did it.
He confessed.
In fact, his doing it was recorded, as it turns out on video.
So there's confirmation that he was the perpetrator.
So here we go again. This is like Jussie Smollett comes to campus.
And not only in the culture do we have these incidents.
We had, of course, Jussie Smollett.
We, of course, had Bubba Wallace, the NASCAR incident.
Now, the Bubba Wallace case was a little bit tricky because I don't think Bubba Wallace was the perpetrator.
I think what happened is that some of Bubba's guys went to this garage, and musically, they saw a rope that was intended.
It's one of those rope things that you use to open the garage, a garage door opener.
If the automatic opener doesn't work, you've usually got a kind of rope pull that opens the garage.
They were like, That's a noose!
And they went to Bubba. Now, at some point, Bubba must have figured out that this was not a kind of a racial message.
And so he kind of went along with it.
So I fault him for that.
But he wasn't the perpetrator of it.
In any event, on campus, these faked racial incidents are now very common.
And the question arises...
How do you explain them?
What's causing them?
I think the answer can be found, weirdly enough, by turning to the discipline of economics.
And the very simple, the stuff you learn in Economics 101, which is the law of supply and demand.
Here's the simple truth. The demand for racism on the campus and in the culture exceeds the supply.
And when the demand is more than the supply, what happens?
You have to make more. You have to create more racism to meet the demand.
And that's basically what's going on.
You have the faking of racial incidents because there's not enough racism to be found.
Now, here's the key point.
Not enough racism to be found.
On the progressive campus, racism is literally nowhere to be found.
White kids, and whites in general, bend over backwards.
They do backwards somersaults to accommodate blacks and other minorities.
If you do a little experiment, by and large, have a black guy walk on a campus and approach white students and just say, I want you to kiss my feet.
I bet you there's going to be a bunch of white students who would do it.
Now, of course, you can't do that experiment in reverse.
You can't have a white guy walk on a campus and ask blacks to kiss his feet, because that'll be a national incident in five minutes.
So the bottom line of it is these progressive campuses, people are accommodating beyond belief to minorities, and so the racism is like nowhere apparent.
So this kid decided, and I'm sure he believed the racism was there, it's just like, I never see it, no one ever calls me anything, no one ever treats me badly.
Well, you know what, maybe I need to sort of orchestrate an incident to dramatize the racism I'm convinced is there, but that is nowhere apparent, either to me or to anyone else.
So that's why he goes ahead and does it, and obviously the kid is psychologically disturbed in some way.
But the reason I'm not sympathetic to him is because he's framing other people.
He's pointing the finger of blame.
There are the white kids on campus.
They're responsible. One of them did it.
Or the school itself did it.
The school is racist. It's structurally, it's institutionally racist.
See right here. Here is the smoking gun evidence.
So this kid, whether he sees himself this way or not, is like a cop.
Who's convinced that the suspect is guilty, but he has no evidence for it.
He doesn't see any proof, and so he plants the evidence.
He plants the evidence to frame the suspect in the firm belief that, yeah, this will now prove the stuff that we can't prove otherwise.
Now, I'm reminded here of the false Me Too accusations that are made all the time, you know.
So-and-so attacked me.
The Duke team raped me.
No, they didn't. Or even, you know, Christine Blasey Ford.
Now, in those cases, there's a motive.
The motive is revenge, or it's a political motive.
The political motive is, let's make sure this guy doesn't get on the court.
Let's try to protect Roe versus Wade.
Christine Blasey Ford's own attorney said that that was part of what made her come forward.
Now, This, however, is where the Albion story becomes more interesting.
It really sort of takes off.
Because you would think that once the black kids said, I did it, the school would be like, phew, we told you, we're not racist.
But no, the school took the opposite stance.
In fact, it almost seemed like they were a little flustered at the discovery that this wasn't a true racial incident.
In fact, they issued a statement essentially saying, even though we have been found to be innocent, we're guilty anyway.
Let me read the statement. I mean, this statement could not be more dishonest.
Almost every word in it is literally false.
We know the acts of racism that occurred this week.
There were no acts of racism that occurred.
The act of racism that they're talking about is fake.
It was orchestrated to create a false impression of racism.
Yet, the college minimizes that.
In fact, they imply that it's the history of racism at Albayan that may have made the kid do it.
That's what drove him to fake the incident in the first place.
So even though the incident is false, the college decides we're going to act as if it's true.
And my question is why?
Why would you do that? Why would someone who essentially has been the victim of a false accusation then plead guilty?
It's almost as if Kavanaugh were to say, Well, you know what?
I've been exonerated. Julie Swetnick was lying.
Christine Blasey Ford was lying.
They're all lying. But you know what?
I'm a sex predator anyway.
I'm going to take the responsibility for it.
That would never happen. But it's happening in this case, and I want to say why.
The reason is actually very clear.
These schools, just like many institutions of our culture, have created massive race industries.
They're populated by deans and sub-deans and deanlets, all of whom have the job of fighting racism and promoting diversity and promoting multicultural.
All of these people have a job, which is to fight racism.
And here's the problem. What if there's no racism to fight?
People are going to say, why are we paying these people?
And then when it turns out that there is an incident, but it turns out to be false, these people are like, oh shoot, man.
They're literally disappointed that this wasn't a real case.
Why? Because they were so ready to spring into action.
Here's the proof.
Right after the first reports of the racist graffiti, here's the Vice President Sally Walker of Albion.
She goes, that the city and the school are going to, quote, move into action.
Cheryl Krause, a member of the Albion City Council, says she was almost relieved.
My first reaction when I heard about it was, oh boy, it's finally come to Albion.
A local minister, Donald Phillips, says the incident is an opportunity to, quote, define who we are, what we stand for, what we're about.
So you can see all these sort of professional race hustlers, all these people who make a living off of race, are suddenly confronted with the fact that there's nothing for them to do.
There's no need to spring into action.
You don't have to define who you are.
Who you are is just fine.
And so they go, well, you know what?
Let's pretend like it happened anyway.
Let's pretend like we still have to jump into action.
And that's really what's going on.
I think the bottom line of this, and it's...
It's kind of sad when you think about it.
And so why don't we know who this kind of young Jussie Smollett is?
But we don't. Because the college is protecting him.
The local authorities are protecting him.
And so when there's no responsibility, no culpability, no need to even publicly acknowledge what you did, no need to apologize what you did, and the people you falsely accused are happy to plead guilty, you know you're dealing with a whole bunch of dirty, rotten scoundrels. And the kid, it turns out, is only one of them.
Mike Lindell, as you know, has been relentlessly attacked, but his faith has kept him strong.
Listen to this. You would think I shot a bunch of people or something.
PR stunts like Mr.
Pillow coming out and giving a plug for his company.
And then when you got the MyPillow guy getting up there talking about reading the Bible.
Mike Lindell is a guy who holds firm and he knows how to fight back.
The left has tried to cancel him so he's building his own social media platform.
It's called Frank and it goes up this month.
More on that as we get closer.
I want to talk about Mike's products because we love, Debbie and I do, love to have his products all over our home and we especially love his towels.
We're very particular about our towels.
We actually like towels that dry us.
What a concept. MyPillow towels are soft to the touch without the lotion-y feel.
Proprietary technology makes them highly absorbent.
Other towels kind of feel good, but they don't absorb.
MyPillow towels are available in multiple sizes and styles.
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 6-piece sets or save 30% on individual towel options with promo code Dinesh.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
Bye.
What motivates people like Patrice Kahn-Kalors, who's one of the three founders of Black Lives Matter?
Now, Black Lives Matter was founded in 2016, and Patrice Kahn-Kalors' contribution to Black Lives Matter was to come up with the hashtag.
What did the hashtag say?
Black Lives Matter. And so, along with two other activists, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, Patrice Kahn-Kalors is a founder of BLM. BLM. To follow her story and to listen to her rhetoric, you get the idea that she is someone who is all about social justice.
On the surface, it appears to be relatively benign.
We're just trying to make sure that Black Lives Matter.
The further you get into a deeper vein of Marxist rhetoric.
All of these three have been schooled, you may say, in Marxist rhetoric about the working class and revolution and professional activism and social tensions.
It's all there. All the language of Marxism is there.
But... As it turns out, what these people are about and what Patrice Concalors is all about has nothing to do with any of that.
Now, it was recently reported that Patrice Concalors dropped $1.4 million to buy a Topanga Canyon, California home that is part of a community, a sort of suburban community, that is 1.4% black.
So she's decided, by the way, this is someone who grew up in a black neighborhood in the Van Nuys area of L.A. She grew up to, I believe, a single mother with two children.
By her own description, she grew up in a housing project.
And the home that she's bought is pretty close to where she grew up, but in a completely different world, a completely different neighborhood.
She's basically decided to skip town and move out of the black neighborhood and into the, you can almost say, all white.
Now, some people did a little bit of digging and they discovered that this Patrice Concalors has been on her real estate buying spree.
She's actually dropped $3.2 million to buy four homes.
Let me talk about her Georgia home.
Her Georgia home is a custom ranch on 3.2 rural acres in Conyers, Georgia.
It features a private airplane hangar.
It has a runway that can accommodate small planes.
On top of all this, Khan Kalors and her partner were spotted in the Bahamas recently looking for real estate there.
They were checking out properties at the Albany, which is a kind of real estate community in the Bahamas.
But it turns out that this elite enclave is laid out on 600 oceanside acres and features a private marina, a designer golf course, custom homes for sale, Our 8,000 square feet, six bedrooms with the media rooms and marina views, price available only on request.
So, here's what I'm getting at.
How does somebody who just a couple of years ago founds a group, Black Lives Matter, ostensibly a non-profit group?
She is actually head of the non-profit wing of this group.
It's called the Black Lives Movement Global Network Foundation.
But you can see that for her, this has been a way to make money.
This is one Marxist who loves money.
And not only is she using the money to buy, what now, four, going on five homes.
But, she's also kind of skipping the black neighborhood and deciding to go where the whites live.
Why? Because she apparently thinks it's better over there.
It's safer over there. It's a nicer neighborhood.
They've got Starbucks over there.
They've got better restaurants.
So, at the end of the day, this is not really about social justice.
It's not really even about Marxism.
All the Marxist rhetoric is just ideological claptrap.
It's all just the window dressing to fool the leftist active and go, oh no, she's fighting for social justice.
Meanwhile, she's like, thanks, I'm out of your neighborhood.
I won't be seeing you anytime soon.
Pretty soon this will be a woman flying around.
So this is the Jesse Jackson sort of shakedown model.
That was kind of started by Jackson in the 90s.
And if I go into this topic in more depth another time, I'll talk about Jackson and his shakedowns and how they work.
But even Jackson is not in the same league as BLM. BLM raised, I believe, $90 million last year.
In donations alone.
So they are raking in the money from these corporations.
And the corporations probably think, well, they're going to be using it, you know, for police reform.
No, they're using it for Patrice Khan-Caloris to buy real estate in Georgia with an airplane hangar and then go off to the Bahamas looking for property.
At the end of the day, many of us have the suspicion that this is a major racket.
And now we have complete confirmation that it is.
Chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.
Rockauto.com's prices are the same for everybody and are reliably low.
Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do.
Rockauto.com is for everybody and does not require membership or account login.
Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil and even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The RockAuto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand, specifications and prices you prefer.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Why? Spend up to twice as much for the same parts.
Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Dinesh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know I sent you.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
rockauto.com Journalist and filmmaker Lauren Southern is, at least to me, known for her fearlessness.
She is a terrific writer, and she's also a filmmaker, and she has made a couple of important documentaries, a documentary on immigration, borderless, she's made farmlands, crossfire, her articles have appeared in The Spectator, Sky News, Human Events, and more.
Of course, if you go on a Wikipedia page, you see the left ranting about, oh, she's a white nationalist, she's a xenophobe, blah, blah, blah.
She's in fact none of those things.
And importantly now, she has done something I think that is very cool, which is she has written a children's book.
The reason this is important, in my view, is because we on the right are often critiquing the left On the cultural domain.
Oh, they did this and they did that and they canceled this guy and they're out to cancel that guy.
But we don't do a whole lot of culture making of our own.
So if you don't like the way the left is writing their children's books, why don't we write a children's book?
Well, Lauren Southern has written a children's book and so I invited her on the podcast.
Lauren, thanks for joining me.
It's great to have you. This is a little bit of a departure from your normal...
I mean, did you find it difficult to sort of shift gears and write for kids?
Yes and no.
My son is one years old now, and he's getting to that age where I want to start reading in books.
And I don't know if this is a new phenomenon, or I'm just noticing it now because I'm a mother.
But if you walk into the kids' section of a bookstore, almost every single kid's book right now is woke.
And not just slightly left-leaning, but full-blown radical activist.
Anti-racist baby.
It's been featured in...
It's had its own Netflix show, CBS, all these different shows, top seller.
It's about a baby that goes to BLM protests, the ABCs of equality, P is for privilege, Z is for Zays or Zem, the pronouns.
These are the books, culture, media, want me to be reading to my child.
I prefer to give them something a little more wholesome, maybe just the basics of morality, the basics of politics.
Before I throw him into the world of radical activism, which is clearly just being taught to kindergarten children to use them as pawns, not to actually educate them.
Now what is the, when you talk about the left trying to teach one, let's just take anti-racist baby for a moment.
Right. All these terms that are being used in books like anti-racist baby and And the ABCs of Equality are terms you don't teach a kid with the intention of trying to help them understand the world better.
If you want to teach a kid how to understand the world better, you say, let's talk about reason, questions, wisdom, words that you can apply to trying to understand politics, rather than repeat after me, I am a feminist, repeat after me, Black Lives Matter.
That is to use these kids as pawns in the games of adults.
And that's really, really tragic.
And as you've mentioned, I've walked by these bookshelves so many times and said, I wish someone would do something about this.
I wish someone would fix this.
And it finally got to the point where I realized maybe it's my job.
Like you mentioned, maybe it's conservatives job.
We have to take it up and just do it ourselves.
Anyone can do this. Any of us can help influence culture.
Now you say, and this is in one of your tweets, you're talking about the theme in the book, and you say, it's okay to be masculine.
Bravery is good.
Don't fall for the trap of groupthink.
Pursue virtue and wisdom.
Would you say that that's a fairly good introduction to the themes of your book that you're trying to inculcate in young people, in infants, on up, the sort of ingredients of basic civic morality and also what it means to grow up?
Absolutely. A lot of it is just about morality, words like wisdom and virtue, and then a bit of it is about politics as well, because unfortunately, children are being politicized today, and they are going to need the tools to learn how to navigate that.
I've included words like tyranny, words like slander, and even utopia, where it just kind of tells kids, you know, if anyone tells you, There's a perfect version of the world.
Just think about it a little, because that's not real.
You can't just be ice cream every day and never have to work, and odds are they want to sow more division.
And we really need to give kids the tools to engage with all of the propaganda they are going to meet at every level of schooling, media, celebrities, internet.
And this book, it's not some crazy just...
Partisan book of all of my opinions.
It's tools for how kids can think, or not how they should think, but how to think.
Well, let's take a sample so that we can get a flavor for what's in the book.
I'm sort of thumbing through and I see X is for censorship.
And I wonder if you would sort of read that section so that we can get a sense of what you're trying to communicate to kids.
X is for censorship.
So I guess that's the X-ing out of people's views, right?
So let's hear what you say about it.
So this is a bit of an odd one, because there's not very many words for X. It's the only one we decided to not quite put an X word, but X is for censorship.
Xenio, Zulos, Xylophone, or Xenon.
There are so many words I could lean on.
X isn't only a letter, though.
It can be very dangerous, so you should know.
X is the symbol of censorship.
Free speech and thought are what it seeks to strip.
Censorship's dangers are vital to know because XXXX. Oh, are you getting curious what's blocked by that X? Sorry, they censored that part of the text.
You'll never know what it said or might say.
This is why censorship's never okay.
Yeah, that is awesome. And I think what it does, you know, the reason I think it's cool is because the idea that censorship is bad, the idea that we should be able to speak our minds, we think of these as sort of, you know, they're part of the kind of natural diet of liberalism.
But liberalism didn't exist from the dawn of mankind.
Liberalism is a hard-won achievement inside of Western civilization.
The idea that, for example, we should be tolerant of other people's opinions or that we have the right to speak our own as long as we're not causing physical harm to someone else.
So, I think it's really cool that you've introduced that.
Now, you showed the book and it actually has very, I think, eye-catching art that goes with your prose.
And it's kind of funny, I was chuckling because I see that this fellow named Mr.
Alexopoulos, apparently some sort of a Greek, says that he's been drawing these R-rated comics, but then you apparently signed him up to draw for you, and it sounds like you've sweetened him up a little bit.
I have. He has done just, well, this one's a bit scary.
That's groupthink, all the little computer people in the sky, this free thinker hiding from them.
But he's just done an absolutely gorgeous job on this book.
I'm even making him more wholesome in the process of making wholesome books, which is excellent.
There's Q is for question.
I love this. It's conservative art and you don't see enough of it these days.
I think that in the process of making documentaries, you and I have probably learned a bit of it, how to communicate to people's souls through art and stories.
But there's so much more the conservative world can explore in the realm of media and art and music that we haven't touched for so long because we've just thought we can communicate through statistics.
But the truth is most people, they don't care about an idea until Or they don't care about a statistic or data until you show them why they should care.
As Dallin said, a million deaths is a statistic, but one death is a tragedy because people can actually connect to it.
They can actually understand why it matters.
And we really need to learn how to do that as conservatives.
Put down the tools and pick up a paintbrush for a bit.
Even if we won't make much money from it, perhaps it's our duty.
Well, you know, it's become a bit of a conservative cliche that facts don't care about feelings, but I think that anyone who's in the poetic or creative, artistic, or certainly movie-making realm realizes that a movie is an emotional experience.
And if you aren't able to deliver that emotional experience, you could almost say that people's feelings don't care about the facts.
In other words, in order to have persuasion, you need to have the facts and feelings both on your side.
Absolutely. Mix them together.
And one last point I wanted to make here, because I know this will be something people will bring up, saying, how dare you try to indoctrinate children, Lauren, with books and emotion and feelings?
Well, this is such a toxic idea, I feel, that has been taught to parents that you should never push your worldview on your kids.
You should leave them to explore on their own.
They'll just find their own path.
Don't teach them religion, morality, anything that's pushing your ideas on children.
If you don't raise your kids as a parent, The world will raise them.
Celebrities will raise them.
The state will raise them.
Media will raise them. Kids are sponges.
They just are curious.
They want to know everything and they don't have the context yet to know which ideas are good and bad.
And it's your duty as a parent to instill good values in them.
To redirect them away from really dark paths that the world can take them and that they will stumble into as you grow up because kids need guidance.
They need us as parents to teach them morality.
They need us as parents to teach them healthy ways to pursue politics.
And I really, really appreciate you having me on to talk about this because so, so important.
Absolutely, Lauren. Hey, listen, it was great to have you.
The book is The ABCs of Morality by Lauren Southern.
Thanks for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Do you think our nation's economy is going to be insulated from Biden's planned massive tax increases?
Think again. There's only one way to protect your savings.
Do what over 10,000 other smart investors have and convert a portion of your retirement accounts into gold and silver with Birch Gold when inflation hits and it will.
Gold and silver are your safe haven.
And Birch Gold Group is the company I trust to help you convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and Through April 30th on qualifying purchases when you buy physical gold or silver or open a precious metals IRA with birch gold, they will send you a free home safe.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRAs Or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
With 10,000 customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless 5-star reviews, they can help you too.
Text to NASH to 484848 for your free safe with qualifying purchase.
I just read a remarkable article in American Greatness.
This was written by Robert Curry.
And he's talking about the roots of Trump's problems with the election last year.
And his article is strikingly called, Blame It on Richard Nixon.
And I was first thinking, Blame it on Nixon?
Where is he going to go with this?
Well, it turns out he goes to two very interesting places.
Robert Curry does. First, he goes, In 1960, there was very good evidence that That the election was stolen in favor of Kennedy and over Nixon.
Stolen where? In two places, in Illinois and in Texas.
In Illinois, essentially, the Kennedy family was able to use the mafia and the Chicago machine, the daily machine, to rig the vote in Chicago.
And Lyndon Johnson's corrupt operation was able to rig the vote in Texas.
So the bottom line of it was that Nixon most likely won.
So why didn't Nixon fight it?
Well, it turns out he didn't fight it because he was too much of a gentleman.
He didn't want to put the country through it.
And so he essentially gave in.
Now, Curry here makes a very telling point.
He goes, this fake gentlemanliness, which is, by the way, almost a chronic malady of the Republican Party.
Some years ago, Condoleezza Rice was invited to speak at a college.
There was a little bit of an uproar.
There's no way she's going to speak on this campus.
And what does Condoleezza Rice do?
She gracefully backs out.
Oh, I don't want to speak on any campus where I'm not welcome.
This kind of...
Really, I find it disgusting.
Why? Because the simple truth of it is when you surrender like this, you make it impossible for any other conservative to speak on that campus.
If you, Condoleezza Rice, are unacceptable, you who are in the mainstream of the Republican Party, if they won't have you, there will never be another...
Person right of center who gets to that campus.
And you have enabled it!
That's the point that Curry's making with regard to Nixon, that by appealing to these lofty motives of healing the country, basically Nixon was saying, I'm okay with a crook having stolen the election from me, so Kennedy was the real crook.
Thoroughly corrupt, by the way.
But Nixon was, in a sense, someone who was an accessory to the corruption.
Had he fought it, says Robert Curry, we might not be dealing with these voter integrity issues now.
In a way, what Nixon did was he told the Democrats, it's okay to cheat at the national level.
You can get away with it.
Even if there's evidence that will bust you, we are too nice a team to really want to bust you when it comes down to it.
And let's remember the Democrats historically are the party of voter fraud.
I mean, this is the party of Tammany Hall.
This is the party that was basically suppressing the black vote in the South in the early part of the 20th century.
So the Democrats specialize in voter fraud, and the point is that Nixon made it okay for them.
They saw that they could get away with it, and this emboldened them to want to try to keep doing it.
The second point that Curry makes, I think is also kind of striking, is he makes the point that when...
When Nixon won the election, subsequently, in 1968, the Democrats immediately mobilized the deep state, the organs of government, including the FBI, to kind of get Nixon.
Now, Nixon made it sort of easy to get him because he participated, or at least was aware of Watergate.
But the point here is that the FBI directly colluded with the media In order to expose Nixon and kind of bring him down.
And the left's assumption from the beginning is, we hate this guy.
He doesn't really belong in the White House.
And so even though he was elected, it turns out really decisively in 1972, in a landslide, no, it's our job to get him on something and root him out, and we will use sources inside the government to collude with the media and the combined force of the deep state, and the media will achieve the desired result.
Well, says Robert Curry...
That happened again with Trump.
When Trump was elected in 2016, big surprise, alright, let's mobilize the deep state, the FBI, let's mobilize the media, let's put the two together and see if we can impeach him.
And if we can get him the first time, let's try to impeach him again.
So the idea here that the left gets to sort of have veto power, even over democratic elections, and use the powers of the state...
Where the powers of the ballot box are not enough, both these precedents, says Robert Curry, trace back to Nixon, and therefore Nixon, although now in the grave, bears some grave, if I may use a pun, responsibility for some of the troubles that we as a country are going through now.
Do you ever feel the urge to push back against the leftist media narrative of cops being your enemy?
If you support our American law enforcement, I want to share with you a very special and very stylish new way to show that you have the back of the police.
Egert Watch's CEO Elon is an unapologetic supporter of police.
He designed a commemorative police watch that is beautiful.
I noticed 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. Egert 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 checkout.
Visit eggertwatches.com to make your order.
It's time we support companies that stand up for what we believe in and Eggert is a company I'm proud to recommend.
Hey, it's time for our mailbox.
And if you want to send a question, send it please in audio or video.
Just record yourself on your phone and email it.
QuestionDinesh at gmail.com.
Today's question is from Ari.
Listen. Hi Dinesh, my name is Ari.
I'm Caitlin's 13-year-old sister, and we really like your podcast.
Thanks for all your time and work.
I've been thinking about this for a long time, so could you clarify what the founders meant when they said, all men are created equal?
They couldn't mean we all have equal skills, because that isn't true.
We also don't all have equal opportunities.
I'm pretty sure we don't have equal potential.
So what could they mean by, all men are created equal?
Thanks again for all your work.
Ari, I'm only laughing because you're 13 and you say you've been thinking about this quote for a long time.
What do you mean?
Since you were seven? The other thing is, and Debbie brought this to my attention, when you emailed us, you said that you're halfway through my book, The Big Lie.
And I find this just downright awesome.
You and your sister at your age to be delving into books at this depth.
I won't be surprised next if you're checking out my references and reading the original sources that the book refers to.
This is just great. And I'm very proud of the book, The Big Lie.
I think it really blows the whistle on the issue of who the real fascists are and who the real fascists were even then.
Now, turning to the all men are created equal, of course, you're quite correct.
People are not equal in size or speed or intelligence or industriousness.
And they're not even equal in moral character.
Not at all. So what does all men are created equal mean?
It really means, I think, that...
It means two things. One is it means that all people have equal dignity.
Equal dignity. And the equal dignity actually comes from the source of the creation.
In other words, the dignity is conferred on us.
By who? By the Creator.
That's why the Declaration of Independence makes specific reference to the Creator.
Because if it were not for the Creator...
Let's just say, for example, that we are just evolved creatures in the world...
Collections of chemicals, walking carbon molecules.
Well, then there's no basis for asserting that we're equal in dignity.
Where would you get such a ridiculous idea?
But if we are God's creation, if there is some intelligent being responsible for us, it is that intelligent being who sees us, despite our differences, as being equal in moral dignity.
Now, the second point, the political point of the declaration is that we are equal, we should be equal, in rights.
And what that means is that the state, which is to say the organs of government, the federal government, but by extension the state government and local government, should treat citizens equally.
Now, that also needs some qualification.
There are obviously things like age requirements to vote and so on.
But by and large, citizens who are in the same situation should Should be treated the same.
It's kind of like saying that in an Olympic race, we fully recognize that there are people who differ, not just in size and strength, not just in even speed, but even in access to training and you have a coach and you have a Nordic track in your basement.
But the rules don't care about any of that.
We draw a straight line, the clock goes on, the gun goes off, the person who hits the finishing tape gets the gold medal, the person second gets the silver and third gets the bronze.
So that's a really good symbol for equal rights under the law.
The law is treating all the participants equally.
And I think at the kernel, that is the meaning of the all men are created equal.
God sees us as equal and so we're entitled to equal dignity.
And the law sees us as equal and therefore should not play favorites.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection