All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
59:08
STREET JUSTICE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 74
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today I'll discuss the Makia Bryant police shooting in Columbus, Ohio, refuting a lot of the nonsense about that from the left.
Now, the Democrats say that the system is to blame, and in a way they're right.
It's a system they created.
I'll go into it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I'm Dinesh D'Souza.
Thank you.
And of course, Black Lives Matter is on the scene.
They're overturning cars.
They're making the usual hoopla.
It's almost as if these people live on indignation.
They move from one indignation tourist site to another.
It's kind of like, wow, we've exhausted this one.
Where can we get our next indignation shot?
Okay, let's all head over to Columbus.
There's a lot of action going on there.
Now, what happened in the Makia Bryant situation is this.
The police were called to the scene.
Someone said that there was a stabbing going on.
And so the police rushed to the scene.
There is a woman, young Makia, with a knife in the process of lunging and stabbing another black girl.
And so the police draw their weapon and they shoot her, dead.
Now, this is a tragic incident, of course, but it would appear to be clearly justified by the fact that Makia Bryant was about to either seriously wound or kill another girl, another black girl.
Even so, here we have Makia's mom saying that, oh, Makia was really an angelic child, a model of teenagehood.
Take a look, listen.
Micaiah was named after a male prophet in the Bible.
She was a very loving, peaceful little girl.
She was 16 years old.
She was an honor roll student.
And Micaiah had a motherly nature about her.
She promoted peace.
Now, I don't think themes like she had a motherly nature and she was, you know, an apostle of peace kind of go with the imagery of your kid, you know, lunging at somebody with a knife.
That just doesn't really gel for me.
I mean, I understand that, you know...
Every mother kind of feels that way about their own kid, sort of no matter what.
So much less excusable is what the other people are saying.
Now here's Brie Newsome, who's a Black Lives Matter activist, and she goes, teenagers have been using knives in fights for, quote, eons, eons.
And she goes, well, why is the cop getting involved?
Sort of let the knife...
Proceed. Let it go on.
These are just fights. And then here's Valerie Jarrett, very telling.
She goes, the police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times, quote, in order to break up a knife fight.
No, this was actually not a knife fight.
If it was a knife fight, then you'd have two people, both poised with knives, kind of going at it, kind of gang style.
That was not the case here.
When one person has a knife and is stabbing someone else and the other person is unarmed, that is not called a knife fight.
That's called an attempted assault or stabbing or perhaps even attempted murder.
Now, here's Kathy Griffin sort of picking up the same notion.
She goes, yeah, one of them has a knife.
Oh, that never happened in your school or neighborhood?
No, it didn't.
This was not common in the school I went to, and I grew up in a third world country with a lot of kind of hoodlum-y kids in my school, but no, they didn't pull out knives and go at each other, and if they did, the authorities would intervene in precisely the same way.
Now, the White House, of course, has to weigh in on all this.
Rather than wait for facts, let the investigation proceed.
Here's Jen Psaki. She goes, you know, the death of Makia Vrine is tragic.
I agree. Quote, she was a child.
So suddenly, Makia is demoted from like 16 to maybe 7.
And Cori Bush, Representative Cori Bush, who always counted to take an idea to the range of the idiotic, goes, she was a 16-year-old baby.
What? She was a 16-year-old baby.
So just as babies, in a sense, are sort of, hello, goo-goo, gaga, where's the milk?
You can't hold a baby accountable.
I think that's really where she's going.
And what we have to realize here is that there's a vicious distortion by the left of what's going on and a vicious transference of genuine blame and responsibility.
Let's think about it. Who's the real victim here?
Is it Makia Bryant?
No. No.
It's the girl that Makia Bryant was trying to stab.
That's the victim. Who's the perpetrator?
Makia. Who came to the rescue?
The cop. So that's the actual situation.
And look how it's being turned around.
Now, of course, LeBron James has to weigh in.
He puts out a tweet. And he, of course, jumps right away.
All caps.
Accountability! Accountability.
Accountability for who? For Makia?
No. For the cop.
So, this is kind of, I think of myself, you know, LeBron James, I realize, you know, he's a professional basketball player.
He may not have a whole lot upstairs.
It's like an empty attic with like bats flying around.
But I'm like, what is his mode of reasoning?
How does he get to this conclusion?
How does he think this way?
And I think I know how. He starts by putting the blame on the cop.
That's his starting point. So, the cop is the bad guy.
Since the cop is the bad guy, he then reasons, Makia, who's the target of the cop, has to be the victim.
She's the real victim.
So the cop is the perpetrator, Makia is the victim.
What about the other girl? Well, LeBron James can't be bothered to think about her.
He has to sort of move her offstage.
Her life doesn't matter. So yeah, black lives matter, but not all black lives matter.
The only black lives that matter are the ones that allow you to indict the police.
So it's not that LeBron James is reasoning, or to the degree he's reasoning, he's reasoning backward, starting with the bad guy, the cop.
So what you end up with is a distorted scheme in which policeman, bad guy, real bad guy, victim, real victim, non-entity.
This is the perverted world we're living in now.
And even though this is the public narrative, the media is on board, elected officials are echoing it, it's bogus, it's nonsense, it's a lie.
Don't fall for it. Whenever there is a police shooting, there is a big outcry on the left, and the system is to blame.
And by the system, they mean the system of justice, or the system, they may say, of injustice.
It's police unleashing their racist fury on black and other minority victims.
And typically, the conservative response is to say, no, no, no, it's not the system that's to blame.
It is the perpetrator.
The perpetrator has got to take responsibility for his, or in the case of Makia Brine, her actions.
True. There is an element of truth in what the left is saying.
The system to a degree is to blame.
Why? It's not the system they mean.
It's not the cops. It's not even the systemic oppression of the police.
Not at all. What it is, is the system of life itself.
In the inner city.
The culture that produces all this mayhem and murder.
And not just murder in which teenage gangs are shooting at each other, but very often a four-year-old, a two-year-old is caught in the crossfire, tragically killed.
And interestingly, while the left rails about the injustice of the police, which is rare, episodic, a case over here, let's run to another state over there, five years ago it happened over here, What about the rampant injustice of the streets?
What about the gruesome, continual casualties that are piled up every day?
Just take a single city, Chicago or St.
Louis, and you can count them on and on and on.
No media interest.
No interest on the part of the left, whatever.
So I want to actually go into the system that is to blame, by the way, a system created deliberately by the Democratic Party.
Why? Because the Democratic Party loves the fact that this culture, although dysfunctional unto itself, delivers 90% of its votes to the Democrats.
Think about it. If you were a Democrat, why would you want to change that?
If you made those neighborhoods, if they somehow could be transformed into flourishing, entrepreneurial, kids were getting a good education, a lot of them may just dust off their hands.
I don't really need the Democratic Party anymore.
So they have a vested interest in this dysfunctional culture.
They actually cherish it.
Now, I want to talk about that culture a little bit by looking at an important book by the urban anthropologist at Yale.
His name is Elijah Anderson.
Here's the book, Code of the Street.
And the beauty of being an urban anthropologist is that Elijah Anderson doesn't actually offer policy remedies.
He just watches. He observes.
He's kind of like a guy who's in, he's like a, you know, an anthropologist in Tahiti.
He's observing what's going on and he's recording.
So let me just read a few lines from his book, Code of the Street, a very important book, and react to them.
First of all, he goes, the code of the street emerges where the influence of the police ends.
So defund the police means you're going to unleash this code everywhere.
And personal responsibility for one's safety begins, resulting in a kind of people's law.
In other words, no cops, you're on your own.
In a sense, he goes, this is as primitive as it gets.
His word, not mine.
Then he says, you have whites in the inner city, but they're typically outnumbered by blacks.
And he goes, both groups, the whites and the blacks know, quote, the reality that crime is likely to be perpetrated by young black males.
Not just by blacks.
Not by 75-year-old black men is no reason to worry about.
Young black males are the main group of perpetrators.
Now, who are these young black males?
Essentially, he goes, these are the kids who live on the street.
They don't really live with their families.
They don't really have families to live with, per se.
The street is their family.
The gang is their family.
And he goes, these are people who, quote, hang.
Hanging is their thing.
And out of that hanging comes a weird, almost aristocratic culture of performance and of respect.
And of taking things to show that you can do it.
One way to campaign for status, I'm quoting him now, is to take the possessions of others.
To enhance one's own worth by stealing someone else's.
You also want to steal their honor.
To sort of lord it over them.
This is almost like an aristocrat from the old days.
And he goes, anything.
It could be sneakers. It could be a pistol.
It could even be someone else's girlfriend.
You show your power over them by taking their stuff.
And he goes, raising oneself up is essentially defined by putting someone else down.
That's how you earn respect.
It's a zero-sum game.
And he goes, quote, So he has no illusions.
This is a very dysfunctional culture.
He goes, one of the things that this culture shows is, quote, nerve.
And nerve means you're not afraid of death.
You call people out into a challenge.
You know they may draw a knife or a gun out and kill you.
But he goes, this is what gives you this exhilarating sense of power.
Now he goes, these people aren't like 24-7 criminals or gangsters.
He goes, they engage in what he calls code switching.
So you may have a guy who's a gangster in the evening and by night.
But then he's a UPS driver by day.
In other words, he says in other settings, the guy may have a part-time job, he may be polite and deferential.
That is a role that he plays at the same time that he's got this whole other life.
Now, Elijah Anderson describes what he calls an oppositional culture.
And what is an oppositional culture?
Take everything you associate with decency, with normalcy, with upward striving, with old immigrant neighborhoods where Italian families would say, you know, hey, stop acting like a gangster.
You know, Mario Cuomo is the governor of New York.
He's an Italian. Try to be like Mario.
So, in other words, this aspirational culture in most immigrant groups trying to be like successful members of the group The oppositional culture is the opposite of that.
So if studying is a good thing, the basic idea is be stupid.
Don't study. If being successful by rising up and getting a good job and trying to get a promotion, don't do any of that.
It's much easier to take the shortcut and deal drugs, for example.
This is the oppositional culture.
And then for me, what is particularly telling and very reminiscent of what we've seen with George Floyd, we're probably going to now go through the same thing with Makia Bryant.
What he calls the culture of lying that goes when one of these bad guys is killed.
Mostly they're killed, by the way, not by cops.
They're killed by another bad guy from the neighborhood.
But he goes, when they're killed, all kinds of nonsense is spoken at the funeral that bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
So the guy may die in a gangland shooting.
You know, he tried to stab somebody else and the cop killed him.
But when it's the funeral...
They go, all these people show up.
And they all vent their anger at the newspaper because the story wasn't big enough.
Or they vent at the police calling them incompetent and racist.
And he goes...
They begin to talk about why the person responsible for this deed hasn't been brought to justice.
He goes, they speak of the deceased, and now the critical lines.
They wonder aloud why this tragedy happened, but in fact, they know why.
They know the boy was a drug dealer.
They know that he violated the code of the street.
He messed up somebody else's money.
So here you have the funeral.
And of course, sociologists are on hand.
They blame the system. No jobs, no education, drugs, and so on.
And Elijah Anderson says, the minister preaches about the young man.
People sing songs.
There are testimonials about the boy's life.
But here too, nothing is said about the drugs or the gangs or any of the other negative things he was involved with.
Only the positive is accentuated.
And we've seen this now with George Floyd.
We're seeing of Makia Bryant. The idea that they were angelic.
They were marvelous. They were wonderful.
They were apostles of peace.
And this is so senseless.
Subtracting the code of the street, subtracting their role in playing out that code, a code that sometimes demands a fierce accountability.
I guess the defining feature of Mike Lindell is this guy is under attack.
Now his social media platform, Frank, is under attack from hackers, all kinds of trolls.
The good news is tons of people are trying to sign up on Frank, and so it's going to be a huge platform.
Let's support Mike Lindell.
Let's go to frankspeech.com and sign up.
I also love Mike's products.
I want to support him in every way.
We've got his robes, the MyPillow, dog beds, the throws, the blankets, the towels, the sheets.
Right now, Mike is offering buy one, get one free on his sheet sets.
He's come out with the world's most comfortable bedsheets.
He found the best cotton in the world in a place where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea, they kind of all come together to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
His new Giza Dream bedsheets are made with this long staple cotton, and my guarantees, and he's right, they're the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on them, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Giza Dream sheets come in a variety of colors, Like all of Mike's products, they have a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Right now, you can buy one, get one free by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
For a limited time, buy one, get one free on the sheets.
Discounts on all his products.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
But make sure to get the discount, make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
One of the things I find really fascinating about the left is its ability to turn thugs and criminals into martyrs.
Now, I try to look at this not just as someone who is outraged by it, but with a little clinical detachment to ask, how did these scoundrels pull it off?
How do you take a guy?
I mean, take somebody like even George Floyd, obviously a suspect character, a guy involved in a home invasion in Houston.
This is a guy who's like trying to pass off checks.
That's how the cops, you know, counterfeit checks.
That's how the cops got called in the first place.
And then he's high up on drugs.
He's resisting arrest.
How do you take a character like this and make him an object of public devotion?
The new Martin Luther King.
Nancy Pelosi.
Thank you, George Floyd, for dying.
And in dying, you have helped us to see the light of justice.
I mean, to say this with a straight face.
How do you pull this kind of stuff off?
Well... To understand this, I actually have to go back when I was researching my book, The Big Lie.
I came across a marvelous incident involving Joseph Goebbels and involving propaganda.
Now, Goebbels, who was kind of the greatest propagandist of all time, in fact, I'm pretty sure he's the unofficial model for the left, and he was, of course, himself on the left, a socialist by his own admission.
Goebbels, I mean, think of how effective this guy was.
He was able to keep the Germans...
Their allegiance to the Nazis to the bitter end.
Even though the Nazis were losing the war, everything was collapsing around them, they didn't give up until the last stone was dropped and until ultimately U.S. troops were standing right over them and then they were like, okay, we give up now, but not until then.
And that was the achievement of Goebbels.
Now, Goebbels says somewhere that propaganda is always a means to an end.
What he's getting at is it's not a matter of truth or lies.
It doesn't really matter whether you're saying the truth or lies.
He goes, the propaganda that produces the desired result is good.
And all of the propaganda is bad.
So if it works, it doesn't matter if it's a lie or if it's true.
Or if it's half truth and half lie, that's what you go for.
Now, early in the Nazi regime, there was a brown shirt, Nazi brown shirt, 21 years old, a guy named Horst Wessel.
This guy was kind of a street thug, you know, and he would get into fights with people on the left.
And I realize, you know, whenever I mention the Nazis, there's always going to be people who go, Oh, Dinesh, there you go again with these Nazi comparisons.
Are you comparing Horst Vessel to George Floyd?
Well, I mean, I realize the comparison may be offensive.
It's actually offensive to Vessel.
Why? Because Vessel, although kind of a hooligan, he wasn't a home invader.
He wasn't passing off fraudulent checks.
He didn't do the stuff that George Floyd did.
But what he did do was he was dating a prostitute.
I realized this concept is a little hard for me to grab my head on.
He was dating a prostitute.
Well, the prostitute moved in with him in his apartment.
Apparently, his landlord was like, I'm not going to have that, you know.
So, the landlord tried to throw the prostitute out.
They got into a fight. Anyway, Horst Vessel got killed in this domestic fracas.
But it came to the attention of Goebbels, and Goebbels put his thinking cap on, and he goes, you know what?
Why don't we turn this guy, this hooligan, this street thug, into kind of a symbol of Nazi martyrdom?
So he rounded up, Goebbels did, some of the other guys, and they found an old German song, and they wrote a Horst Vessel song, which the Nazis proceeded to sing.
All the way through their regime from 1933, all the way to the war, in fact, it carried on through the war, Horst Wessel Song became a kind of Nazi national anthem, an unofficial anthem alongside the German national anthem.
And this became, there was a cult of Horst Wessel.
I don't think anyone, you know, particularly, I don't think there was a group of Nazis who went down on a knee for Horst Wessel, kind of the way that Schumer and Pelosi and all these guys took a knee for George Floyd.
I don't think anyone said, you know...
Oh, Horst Wessel, thank you for dying, and in dying you've helped elevate the Nazi spirit.
I don't think you quite had that, so the analogy doesn't work 100%, but it kind of works 90%.
It kind of shows you how devious people, cynical people, people who in the end don't really care about Horst Wessel or about George Floyd, these people are pawns for their ideological agenda.
but if they can elevate them into saints, oh, they use that as a form of propaganda to do what?
To bludgeon the rest of us, to try to make us villains.
Even if we've had no role in these incidents, we are nevertheless under indictment. The real criminal in their view isn't George Floyd, it's us. It's American society. It's systemic injustice.
And of course, these crusaders in trying to fight this supposed injustice really want to accumulate power for themselves.
Do you take supplements? It's time to switch brands, switch to a brand that's really good for your health. It's called NutraMedix, a professional supplement brand trusted by doctors since 1993, now available to you. What I like most about NutraMedix is our shared values.
Every year, they donate a minimum of 50% of their profits to global charities and missions.
That's right, 50% of profits.
The goal is to surpass $100 million in giving by 2030.
I really want to support a company like that, and you should, too.
If you take supplements, switch to Nutramedix.
That's the product I use, especially now.
I recommend Nutramedix Immune Support Kit.
Take a look. I've got it right here.
It's just... A kit in itself.
It's got vitamin C, vitamin D, K, and zinc.
It's going to give your immune system the boost it needs.
All three come in easy-to-swallow capsules.
Order now. You'll get 10% off by using the code Dinesh10 during checkout.
Go to Nutramedix.com and order the immune support kit.
Support your health while supporting charities and missions around the world.
Go to Nutramedix.com.
That's N-U-T-R-A-M-E-D-I-X.com.
and use the code Dinesh10 for 10% off.
I'm really happy to have on the podcast, Andrew Torba, who is the CEO of the social media platform, Gab.com.
Gab.com has been growing rapidly and gaining new followers and new people on the platform.
I'm one of them.
I'm kind of a newcomer to Gab and thrilled to be growing my platform on Gab.
Andrew, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for coming on.
Tell people who don't know about Gab.com and what makes the platform attractive and what makes it distinctive.
Thank you for having me.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Gab, I started Gab about five years ago when I was living and working in Silicon Valley.
I saw the rise of censorship coming out of the big tech platforms.
God blessed me with the foresight to be in that position at that time and to have the vision to build what I like to call a digital Noah's Ark to protect free speech.
So, Gab is a free speech social network.
That's at least what we started out as, but What we quickly became is the home of free speech online and really free speech infrastructure.
So we have Gab, which is a social network.
We have Dissenter, which is our free speech web browser.
We have Gab TV, which is our free speech YouTube.
We have a variety of other products that we haven't released yet, but basically we're building this whole free speech ecosystem and we've really transformed and become the free speech alternative to Silicon Valley.
Now, we all know about the Silicon Valley censorship.
And we also know that when Parler tried to set itself up as an alternative, there was this kind of coordinated attack that came from Google, from Apple, from Amazon.
My question is, did you anticipate that this could happen to Gab?
Did you take measures to insulate yourself against it?
What makes you confident that this won't happen to you?
Well, it did happen to us.
It happened to us two years before Parler was even in existence.
Gab was booted from the app stores.
We were booted from payment processors like PayPal and Stripe.
We've even been banned from banks.
So, you know, we've been going through this no-platforming for about five years now.
I would argue that we're the most no-platform startup in technology history.
And, you know, because of this, it actually made us much more resilient.
So, you know, we spent the past two years prior to the president being banned, building our own infrastructure.
So we own our own servers.
We built out our own email systems.
We built out our own payment processing systems.
All of this stuff over a period of about two years to the point where we're the most resilient free speech platform on the internet, specifically because we went out and built our own infrastructure.
This is actually super exciting to hear.
I'm really thrilled that you were able to navigate around all this because it can easily knock you down and out for the count.
As you probably know, there's a whole bunch of efforts to sort of try to deal with this.
I assume nobody's going to be repealing Section 230 anytime soon.
There have been talk about states trying to define these social media platforms as public carriers and then forcing them to serve all customers, kind of the way a toll bridge has to serve any car that comes across.
They can't say, we don't like the way you drive.
Why don't you swim across the creek instead?
All of this going on, do you see any prospect that there will be some remedy for For the censorship on Twitter, Facebook, Google?
Or do you think, hey, the best we can do is build Noah's Ark because those people represent the flood.
So if you want to be safe, get on the ark.
Absolutely. Dinesh, I believe that anytime government gets involved with anything, it's going to be disastrous, right?
So I believe that we are builders, especially as conservatives.
As a Christian, I believe that we are builders.
We're not destroyers.
We're not going to call and beg the government to come in and save us because, again, they always make things worse inevitably.
So I believe the best path forward is to have this digital succession, if you will.
And this is happening not only in the digital landscape, but also in the real world, too, where we see people that are boycotting specific We're good to go.
We're actually making our enemies money to use to silence us and to push their propaganda and their agendas down the throats of billions of people around this planet.
So if even one person opts out of that system, it makes them that much less money.
So that's the way forward, I believe, is to build and to exit their system and to start building our own.
Now, what do you suggest?
I mean, I'm just going to be honest with you.
My sort of strategy, and it may be an interim strategy, it is the strategy of this podcast, you know.
I post the podcast on YouTube, but I also post it on Rumble.
And I stay on Twitter, even though I'm also active on Parler.
And now I'm active on Gab.
My basic idea here is that until there is a sort of self-sufficiency on the conservative platforms, I need to maintain this sort of constructive engagement with the other platforms just to be able to reach the audience that wants to get my podcast.
Am I following the wrong strategy?
No, no, I don't. I don't think you're, especially someone in your position, that's probably the proper strategy, right?
But what you want to do is you want to inform your audience that, hey, I am over on Gab.
I am over on Rumble. I am on these other platforms.
Because if and when, and it's inevitable, and this is the mistake that a lot of bigger influencers make, is when they come for you and they wipe out all of your following, everything that you've posted for 10 years plus, all the work that you've done, it's just gone in the blink of an eye.
You wake up and it's all gone, just like they did to President Trump.
And, you know, if you haven't had a base, if you haven't been building up on the all tech platforms, then you're essentially starting from zero and your whole audience doesn't know where to find you.
So the most important thing is say, hey, yeah, I'm here and I'm on these platforms, but don't forget to follow me over on Rumble.
Don't forget to follow me over on Gab so that you start slowly building up that audience over time.
So when the hammer comes down, you're prepared and it doesn't impact you as much.
Well, I'll start out by saying right now, guys, time to follow me on Gab.
I think that this is actually excellent advice because, you know, there are some conservatives and they're sort of like the gazelle or the wildebeest who's hoping that, wow, the lion got that wildebeest.
You know what? Yeah. I'm still standing.
Maybe I've got a few more weeks to go, but ultimately you say it's going to be your turn too.
Let me ask you a final question.
You know, we get your emails and Debbie, my wife, is always reading them to me.
She goes, oh man, this guy's talking about his faith.
You know, you are very upfront about Jesus and you're very upfront about both your conservative beliefs and your faith.
So you're not one of these guys.
Is that because you have your own platform and you can be that way?
But And I also want to ask you, is your conservatism and your faith part of your motivator for what drove you to start Gab and now to run Gab?
Absolutely. I mean, when I was living and working in Silicon Valley, in the belly of the beast, I was living a double life.
I had, you know, a technology entrepreneur, Andrew, and I had Christian Andrew, and I refused to live that way anymore.
I wanted to be my authentic self, and I wanted to I want to be hopefully an example to other Christians, and absolutely, it's a big part of why I'm doing what I'm doing is to protect the ability to share Bible verses and share the gospel, which we now see Big Tech labeling as hate speech, right?
This is a big motivator for what I'm doing, and it's a big part of who I am.
It's my entire identity, so I'm going to wear it on my shoulder proudly, and I'm not going to have a problem with anybody that has a problem with that.
They're just going to have to deal with it because that's my free speech.
Andrew, I really want to commend you.
You are a, I would call you a counter-culture maker because the left has sort of tried to take over and they've largely taken over the culture and certainly the culture of Silicon Valley.
It's very important for us not just to complain about that, but to build our own stuff, just like you said, in all kinds of domains.
I've tried to do it with books and movies.
You're doing it with a platform.
I'm going to try to build myself up on your platform.
Thanks for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for having me, Janice.
Have a good day. When inflation comes, and it will, gold and silver are your hedge.
They're 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 silver.
Now, here's the deal. Through April 30th on qualifying purchases, when you buy physical gold or silver or open a precious metals IRA... With Birch Gold, they'll send you a free home save.
Debbie and I are waiting for ours.
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 five-star reviews, they can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with qualifying purchase.
The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a notorious racist and eugenicist.
She started her organization based upon the idea that the world is divided into two types of people, the fit and the unfit.
The people who are fit are white and healthy and rich.
And the people who are unfit are black and brown and poor.
And so she supported measures like segregation, forced sterilization, and so on.
Measures that were later, by the way, adopted and approved by the Nazi Party, which looked upon Margaret Sanger as a kind of a heroine, a pioneer.
But nevertheless, Planned Parenthood has done its best to cover up for Margaret Sanger.
Now, in my movie, Hillary's America, I have a scene where Margaret Sanger...
Gives a talk. It's kind of illuminating.
Listen. Thank you for coming.
Thank you. I'm Margaret Sanger.
Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Hello. In the mid-1920s, Margaret Sanger spoke to a group that came to hear her in full regalia.
Eugenics. This means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society and the gradual suppression, elimination, and eventual extirpation of defective stocks.
Those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
If you're listening by audio, I need to describe because the scene is, I think it has a kind of a genius.
You see Margaret Sanger talking and then the screen pulls back and you see all these hooded women of the Ku Klux Klan.
That's who she's talking to about the virtues of American, but she actually means white civilization.
So now, very interestingly, Just a few days ago, the head of Planned Parenthood, Alexis McGill Johnson, writes an op-ed in the New York Times.
I'm the head of Planned Parenthood.
We're done making excuses for our founder.
Very telling article.
She actually goes into Margaret Sanger's racist history.
She goes, that's a question we've tried to avoid.
But she goes, wait a minute.
Margaret Sanger, when she was doing the first human trials for the birth control pill...
She decided, let's do it in Puerto Rico.
That way, if there are bad side effects, it's the brown people.
Who really cares? She mentions Sanger speaking to the women's auxiliary of the KKK. She talks about how Margaret Sanger approved a sterilization decision called Buck v.
Bell, 1927, U.S. Supreme Court.
And so she goes, basically, Alexis Johnson goes, Margaret Sanger harmed generations with her beliefs.
So, the official disavowal by Planned Parenthood.
By the way, earlier, New York Planned Parenthood, which already sort of figured out that in the era of Black Lives Matter, this woman was an out-and-out racist.
So, they had decided to disavow Sanger.
This is now a year ago.
So, they kind of led the way here.
And Ellen Chesler, some of these feminists, white feminists who have been defending Sanger and saying, oh no, she's not a racist.
Ellen Chesler, she's at the Roosevelt Institute.
She's written up this big fat biography of Margaret Sanger.
She goes, oh no, no, no. It's true that Margaret Sanger might have appeared before the KKK, but she appeared there to argue with them.
Really? You go to a KKK meeting to argue with them?
Oh, you KKK people are completely wrong.
First of all, if that happened, Margaret Sanger might find herself hanging from a tree.
So I really doubt that.
Produce the transcript of the speech, Ellen Chesler.
Let me see where Margaret Sanger disputed the racism of the KKK. You know you're lying, and I know you're lying about it.
Now, a lot of conservative groups aren't really content.
They're like, big deal.
They're like, this is just brand refurbishing by Planned Parenthood.
But I think it's very significant.
Now, here's Roland Warren, the CEO of Care Net.
He goes, for me, it's like changing the name of Auschwitz.
And what he's getting at is he goes, wait a minute, look, Planned Parenthood has a lot of its clinics, even now in inner cities, of 40% of all the babies killed.
Planned Parenthood are Black or Latino.
In fact, the percentage of Latinos is even more than the percentage of Blacks.
But see, Blacks and Latinos together are about 25% of the population, but they're 40% of the casualties of Planned Parenthood.
So if you're going to use the kind of racial disparate standard, then this is systemic racism.
Just read the critical race theory literature.
If something has a disproportionate impact, On blacks and other minorities.
And in this case, we're literally talking about homicide.
Homicide that has a disproportionate impact.
Then Planned Parenthood is officially a racist organization.
It doesn't matter what you do to disavow your founder.
You're engaging in systemically racist practices.
And I suspect that Alexis Johnson knows this.
And to try to cover that up...
She's deflecting attention by saying, let's blame the founder.
Let's throw Margaret Sanger off the bus.
But in doing so, we can continue our practice of making money off dead infants, very often brown and black dead infants in their cities.
So Planned Parenthood remains a horrific organization despite its effort not to clean up its act, but to clean up its image.
We really need to know which companies will stand up for truth in these troubled times.
Debbie and I are excited to partner with an extraordinary watch company that stands alongside our belief in traditional American values.
To America, their CEO Elon has his own unique voice and he isn't afraid to use it.
Elon was given a Fox Patriot Award to recognize his messaging in the midst of the defund police movement.
To see all the powerful short videos his company has put out, just visit their website at eggertwatches.com.
And most important of all, Eggert makes incredible work.
Watches. Debbie and I are actually both wearing one today.
Here is mine. And we've been ordering for family members.
My brother in India, Shashi, he saw the ad and he goes, Hey, Dinesh, what about those Eggert watches?
I want one! The craftsmanship and uniqueness is something to marvel at.
They feel much more expensive than they are.
Check out the entire Eggert collection as a friend of the program.
Elon has given us a wonderful discount 15% off to share if you simply use promo code Dinesh at checkout So go to Eggerdwatches.com. That's E-G-A-R-D watches.com What the heck is wrong with the GOP with the Republican Party Um...
Yes, the GOP is known to be slow on the uptake.
Yes, it has the reputation of being the stupid party and so on.
But... Here you have these January 6th defendants, and I've talked about it only because their cases are so egregious.
There's a huge discrepancy between the rhetoric.
You know, they're guilty of sedition.
Well, if they're guilty of sedition, how come none of them are charged with sedition?
If you actually look at their charges, their charges are virtually comical.
One guy is charged.
Actually, many of them have the charge parading through the Capitol.
That's their crime.
They were parading through the Capitol.
They didn't do anything.
They didn't knock anything over.
They didn't break a window. They didn't beat anyone or get into any fights.
They did no harm at all.
All they did was, quote, parade.
And yet, these people, some of them, have been locked up.
And some of them in solitary confinement.
And here's Judge Emmett Sullivan.
This is, by the way, Michael Flynn's judge.
A totally shameless, corrupt guy.
And his justification for locking these people up has sort of got to be read to be believed.
First of all, he appeals to Trump's tweets.
He goes, Trump continues to make forceful public comments about the, quote, stolen election.
And his argument is, since Trump is saying that...
We need to keep these people locked up.
He goes on to say, I'm not quoting him, this is Judge Emmett Sullivan.
While the certification of the 2020 election is now complete and President Biden has taken office, the court is not convinced that dissatisfaction and concern about the legitimacy of the election results has dissipated for all Americans.
So he's literally saying, you have to wait until every American accepts the legitimacy of this election before we can get these guys out of the lockup.
I mean, this is a shocking, tyrannical statement by a guy who is wearing judicial robes but is, I would have to say, not really a real judge.
This is a kind of thug in uniform.
Now, to my embarrassment and surprise, in some ways I'd have to say pleasant surprise, I find that two prominent Democrats Have actually raised questions about this solitary confinement.
Number one, Elizabeth Warren.
Number two, Dick Durbin.
I'm now going to quote Elizabeth Warren.
Solitary confinement is a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging.
I mean, that's an understatement.
You put someone in a room for 23 hours a day, you're basically messing with their head.
You're trying to make them go nuts.
Their only benefit, by the way, is if they have extremely low IQs because then they don't feel the psychological pressure of, what am I doing here?
That kind of madness that can come with this kind of confinement.
One hour a day outside and 23 hours in the dark, in a lockup, no human contact.
And, continues Elizabeth Warren, we're talking about people who haven't been convicted of anything yet.
Boom! This is the key point.
These are people who haven't even been tried.
They haven't been convicted, yet they're being treated like death row inmates.
And the dog that hasn't barked, the big question that's come to mind, I've seen the writer Julie Kelly talk about this, but I want to highlight it here.
Where on earth is the Republican Party?
I mean, what kind of a party?
What kind of a bunch of losers goes dead silent when people on your own side, they may be overzealous, and hey, no one is saying that they should escape accountability, but this isn't accountability.
This is political prosecution.
These people are being held like political prisoners.
They are literally being tortured.
So here's the GOP. We're a little concerned about the fate of Navalny in Russia.
Well, I am too. But I'm more concerned about the fate of Trumpsters who are sitting in the dark staring at the floor.
23-hour confinement, no trial, no conviction, and in that sense, presumed innocent.
So where are you, McConnell?
Where are you, Lindsey Graham?
Where are you, Marco Rubio?
I mean, I don't see how a party has long-term viability.
Look at the way the Democrats protect their own team.
They'll go to bat for absolute...
Reprobates. As long as those reprobates are on their side.
Oh, this guy's Antifa. Yeah, he blew up a bridge.
Yeah, he set fire to a church.
But he's one of us.
Let's protect him. And I'm not saying we should go to bat for hardened criminals.
But I'm saying these people have not been proven to be hardened criminals.
They're not even facing the charges of being hardened criminals.
In some cases, they're facing trespassing.
There are no charges of sedition.
None of that. So the bottom line of it is I couldn't say how disappointed I am with the Republican Party.
In a way, it's a party that has a sign on its back, we deserve to lose.
We don't support our own team.
And particularly at this time of crisis, to think that these are our leaders, these are the people we're counting on to sort of lead us out of the desert and back to the promised land.
Wow. It looks like certainly in many cases we're going to need some new leaders to show us the way.
Every time Debbie uses Genesis 950, she says the same thing.
This is amazing. Sahir, this is amazing a lot.
If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must try Genesis 950.
This is one product that actually works.
With water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine, and it's green so it's safe for your family and pets.
Genesis 950 is made in America.
One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, and grease stains.
Debbie uses it to clean the kitchen and recently got ink on her pants, and Genesis 950 took it right off.
Genesis 950 is great customer service.
Order one-gallon direct at Genesis950.com to receive a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon code using the code Dinesh.
That's Genesis950.com.
Coupon only available for one-gallon purchase.
Genesis 950.
It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets.
I want to talk in this segment about how Charles Darwin, yes, that Charles Darwin, the guy who discovered the theory of evolution, how Darwin lost his faith.
And I talked yesterday in the podcast about evolution and about how, as a theory, evolution is quite compatible with the idea of theism, with the idea of a god who decided to build The universe and life this way, but doing it not ultimately through, you may say, individual special creation, not by making every car, you may say, individually, but by creating a car factory.
And either way, there is intelligent design.
Either way, there is a transcendent being in charge.
Many people think Darwin lost his faith over evolution.
He recognized the power of the theory of evolution, and like Richard Dawkins, he said, no, no, no, that shows that there's a blind watchmaker and it's not God.
Actually, Darwin didn't think that.
Nor, by the way, did Darwin become, in the end, an atheist.
He became an agnostic, an important distinction, at least in his mind.
Here's Darwin. I'm going to quote him now in one of his letters.
He goes, He goes, I think an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
In other words, I don't know.
Now, interestingly, when Darwin was young, his father, who was, by the way, kind of a free thinker, a non-believer, his father told him, you might want to consider becoming a clergyman.
Now, his father's motive was actually completely opportunistic.
His father said, clergymen have a really nice lifestyle.
They're often given a parsonage or kind of a clergy home to live for free.
They have a housekeeper who makes their meals.
So the guy was thinking about the clergy as kind of a relatively comfortable, respectable middle-class preparation, middle-class life for young Charles Darwin.
And Darwin actually followed that path at Oxford.
He was at Cambridge. He was preparing for ordination.
Later, however, Darwin, quote, lost his faith.
Now, how did he lose his faith?
It had nothing to do with evolution.
What it had to do with is two things.
One, Darwin lost a child, his daughter Annie, I believe age 10, who died of disease in 1851.
And Darwin took this as a really heavy blow.
Essentially, what he said is, why would God allow this to happen?
So, Darwin denied that there could be a God who would allow this to happen, and he turned in rebellion against God.
Kind of an understandable. There are other people who feel this way.
Why would God do this to me?
And then Darwin had a second reason, which is kind of related.
And Darwin, he said, I realize when I look around me that my own father and my grandfather's, famous grandfather Erasmus Darwin, a noted naturalist in his own right, and a lot of Darwin's friends were non-believers.
They were, quote, free thinkers in the language of the day.
And Darwin goes, well, if Christianity is true, then when they die, they could be going to hell.
And Darwin says, but as far as I know, they're like really nice people.
They actually live fairly decent lives.
And so this seems like such a disproportionate, such an excessive, such an unfair, only a tyrannical evil god would take someone who is basically a decent person, although a non-believer, and fling them into everlasting damnation.
So these were really Darwin's motives for turning against at least the Christian god.
Interestingly, when Darwin talks about evolution, you don't find this rebellious agnosticism at all.
In fact, he says, yeah, you know, it's true that I'm just describing how life forms give rise to other life forms.
He goes, and I don't talk about God when I do that.
But he goes, wait a minute. A lot of physicists believe in God.
They believe that God has arranged the universe the way it is, and yet when they're describing the rotation of the planet, so when they're describing the movement of the celestial bodies, they don't necessarily make any references to the divine.
Why? Because they're describing a natural process, a process that could have a supernatural author, but nevertheless the job of science is to describe the natural process as it works, the kind of how of nature works.
Rather than the why.
At one point, Darwin says, very interesting, this is in a letter to the Harvard biologist Asa Gray, who was a supporter of Darwin's theory of evolution, although a devout Christian and a believer, Asa Gray was.
And Darwin, writing to him, says, I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created So here's Darwin's point.
You've got these little critters inside the caterpillar, kind of like eating them from the inside.
Or you've got this cat who's playing with the mouse before eating him.
And Darwin goes, wow, how cruel, how horrible, why would God do that?
Now, here I think Darwin, himself a biologist, I'm a little surprised at this, is committing what you could call the fallacy of taking human emotions, human feelings, human anticipate.
Think about the cat playing with the mouse.
This, if you look at it, for a human, this seems like, oh, wow, how cruel, how wicked.
But do you think the cat is sort of like, you know, Johnny?
You know, who is, you think the cat has human feelings?
Let me play with this mouse before I eat him.
No, that's not what the cat is thinking.
We actually have no idea what it is like to be a cat.
And so this notion that somehow the cat is engaged in some diabolical toying with the mouse, it looks like that to us, but that isn't necessarily what's going on.
Similarly, you think of a caterpillar with some creature inside.
We think, oh, ouch, ouch, ouch!
Something is eating me from the inside.
That must really hurt.
So the suffering that we humans experience, if it were to happen to us, we think, oh, that poor caterpillar.
He's really doing a little ouch, ouch, ouch.
No, he's a caterpillar. We don't even know if caterpillars have feelings in quite the same way.
We don't even know if caterpillars are conscious in quite the same way that we are.
So here's Darwin, who's actually a noted biologist, and he's committing this human fallacy that you get from Disney movies where Mickey Mouse is basically a human being in mouse form.
And Donald Duck is a human being in duck form.
It's projecting human feelings onto creatures that are very different from us.
Bottom line, we all understand why Darwin lost his faith.
He lost his faith because...
Of a kind of wounded theism.
It's not that he really came to see that there's no need for God in creation.
None of that. Rather, he became angry with God.
He became angry with the Christian scheme of salvation.
And he decided, if this is what Christianity is, then I want none of it.
Mike Lindell, the entrepreneur par excellence, has done it again.
He has new products coming out all the time, and his latest is the new MySlippers.
Mike has taken over two years to develop.
He's designed, these slippers are designed to wear indoor or outdoor all day long.
They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They use this quality leather suede.
For a limited time, Mike is offering 40% off his new MySlippers.
The MySlippers are so comfortable, you'll want to get some for the whole family.
Debbie and I just love ours.
I got the moccasins, she got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code DINESH. You'll get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream bed sheets, MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com and use promo code DINESH. Hey, this podcast is unfortunately being restricted on some social media platforms, including Facebook, I believe also YouTube.
My secret weapon is you.
First of all, make sure you can get the podcast and get it easily.
So to do that, please subscribe.
Please turn on the notifications.
Please tell other people about it.
Help me spread the word.
I really would appreciate it.
It's time for our mailbox.
Let's go to our question for today.
Listen. Hi Dinesh, this is Mark from Australia.
My wife and I really love listening to your show and occasionally watch you on Rumble.
I have a question.
I see that the 18th Amendment, which was introduced by the Democrats, was also repealed.
Do you think that's why the Democrats feel that the Constitution is so flexible?
Well, the answer to that is no.
The 18th Amendment, which, by the way, was the amendment that repealed prohibition.
Prohibition had been passed as part of the Constitution, and the amendment to repeal it had, at the time, built up wide popular support.
So, the Constitution, by the way, has within itself a procedure of amendment.
Constitutional provisions in that sense can be repealed, but they have to be repealed by following the process, which is to say you need supermajorities in both houses of Congress, you need the approval of the President, and you need massive approvals from the states themselves.
So once you get through all of that, you can in fact change the Constitution.
But today the Democrats can't do that.
They don't have that kind of broad support.
They don't have the ability to make amendments that way.
And so what they try to do is short-circuit the process.
And they try to use interpretation as a strategy to change the Constitution while pretending to interpret it.
It's kind of like you read a sentence and the sentence clearly says X. But you scratch your head and put on a show and say, no, it actually says why.
And then you come up with an ingenious explanation for how it really means why.
And so in this way, you inject things into the Constitution, like a generalized privacy right for abortion.
It's not in the Constitution. Or you take constitutional provisions and you twist them and distort them to mean something other than their founders intended or something other than the plain language in fact says.
So this is a kind of sleight of hand.
I would call it a left-wing usurpation of the Constitution and It is turning the Constitution into a meaningless document, a dead letter.
People do it, by the way.
They do it with the Bible.
They do it with other documents as well.
Oh, the Bible says that it's against certain types of sexual activity, but in fact it's not.
In fact, it actually means the opposite.
It is actually commending those types of activity.
So what you're getting at here is interpretation that is being used as a weapon of distortion and of inversion.
It occurs with Scripture, but I think with very serious consequences, it also occurs with the Constitution.
We should recognize this for what it is, a judicial sleight of hand that should be blocked.
▲
Export Selection