Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 29, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza

01:02:26

KNOCK, KNOCK, WHO’S THERE? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 79

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Knock, knock. Who's there?
	Biden. Biden who?
	Biden my time until they carry me out on a stretcher.
	My analysis of Biden's speech and a lot more.
	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.
	It's always a little bit dangerous to try to analyze a Biden speech.
	This is a little bit like being in an asylum and you hear people say things and they're somewhat incoherent and you feel bad about subjecting that to sort of intellectual scrutiny because...
	You don't expect that.
	This is not a person who's really all there.
	But let's remember that Biden's speech isn't Biden's speech.
	He didn't write it. He didn't think of it.
	People drafted it for him.
	So this is the little cabal that is putting Biden forward.
	They're the ones steering the boat, you might say.
	So this is their words, not Biden's.
	And it reflects the kind of collective wisdom of the guys who are running the country.
	I want to focus on Biden's statement, probably the most striking line from his speech, that the January 6th was, quote, the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
	And inherited a nation, we all did, that was in crisis.
	The worst pandemic in a century.
	The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
	The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
	The walkthrough.
	The jostling of people waving banners.
	Oh, Trump's the greatest!
	This is the worst attack on our country since the Civil War.
	Since 1865.
	Let's focus for a moment on this bogus insurrection because there was no insurrection.
	It's now become very obvious.
	The only person killed was Ashley Babbitt, a Trumpster shot by a black Capitol policeman.
	Whose identity they've tried very hard to conceal and who has had no accountability, not even a real investigation with regard to whether that was justified or even necessary.
	So a few other people died, but for other causes.
	The big lie around Officer Sicknick has now been blown up.
	And that lie had two parts.
	Number one, Officer Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by Trumpsters with a fire extinguisher.
	New York Times, a malicious lie, and they knew it was a lie at the time.
	Why? Because everything that happens in the Capitol is recorded.
	It's on video. So, where was the video?
	They never had it, and they knew they didn't have it.
	So, they relied on, quote, their usual ventriloquist journalism, unnamed sources have told us this, and so on.
	Of course, the unnamed sources are lying, if they even exist at all.
	But this was then, of course, trumpeted all over the media.
	It became the kind, it was in the House impeachment narrative, and it's now all blown up.
	So then the left quickly has to retreat because all their language are a coup, a riot, a terrorist action, all relies upon there being at least one intentional death.
	And so then they go, well, you know, there was a couple of guys who like bear sprayed Officer Sicknick.
	He was probably poisoned by the bear spray.
	Turns out that's not true.
	A, it's not even clear he was bear-sprayed.
	Number two, he didn't die of it.
	In fact, the medical examiner clears that that's not the cause of the death.
	Forget about it. Bear-spray doesn't normally kill people anyway.
	So all of this has sort of come apart.
	And this whole idea that this worst...
	Who conducted it? The guy running off with Nancy Pelosi's podium.
	Well, it actually wasn't her podium.
	But the guy was sort of...
	The people taking selfies.
	The people chatting with the cops.
	The guy in the horns and animal skins.
	Was he the leader of the insurrection?
	Be serious. Now...
	You only have to have a little grasp of history.
	And I was a little sorry to see this absolute intellectual prostitute, Michael Beschloss.
	Joe Biden is absolutely correct in saying tonight that January 6th was the worst attack on democracy.
	This is like, I would call him a human parrot.
	Pair it with a PhD.
	And all that Biden has to do is say something ridiculous, and this ridiculous man then repeats it parrot-style.
	In a sense, trying to give it a veneer of intellectual respectability.
	But of course, if we had Michael Beschloss on this program, which I'm sure he's too cowardly to ever consider doing, I would ask him, hey, Michael Beschloss, let's look at this.
	What about 9-11? That was an attack, using airplanes as bombs over thousands of casualties, brought down the icons of New York City.
	So, are you saying that the January 6th walkthrough was worse than 9-11?
	Really? By what measure?
	Well, let's go further back to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
	Wipes out a third to a half of the U.S. Navy, draws the United States into a world war in which hundreds of thousands of American troops are deployed, some 50,000 to 60,000 American deaths as a result, innumerable more injuries.
	So are you saying January 6th was worse than that?
	For a historian, I mean, it's one thing for Biden.
	I mean, with Biden, you don't expect any gravitas.
	You've basically got this sort of figure who's a ghost-like figure who stands up, you know, propped up and, you know, basically speaking.
	But with all these other people, they should know better.
	And they do know better.
	That's the point. What about FDR? Are you saying that the democratic 20th century attack on the upholding of segregation laws, the deprivation of voting rights for blacks...
	FDR's deal with racist Democrats to block anti-lynching laws.
	The way in which FDR agreed to exclude blacks from New Deal programs to appease the racist wing of his own party.
	Later on, the way in which racist Democrats blocked in all kinds of ways the filibuster and other ways the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	Are you saying all that was a lesser attack on democracy?
	Than a bunch of people who walk into the Capitol and stay for what?
	20 minutes? 30 minutes?
	So there is a complete dislocation here of perspective.
	Just an absolute inversion of reality.
	And those of us who can see with the naked eye and have all this documentary evidence now behind it, we realize that we are living in a low, dishonest period.
	This is a phrase that the poet W.H. Auden once used.
	He was referring to the 1930s, a low, dishonest decade.
	And I would have to say that the Biden administration is making 2021 a low, dishonest year.
	And it just takes a measure of detachment to step back from all this ricocheting craziness because it can make you crazy.
	The president says it.
	The press secretary echoes it.
	The media starts cheering and jumping up and down and juggling like the courtiers in the French court.
	And if someone is a sucker, you can be drawn into this fake world that they've created.
	But that's why you need to step back and go, that's actually not what I saw.
	That's actually not what happened.
	You people are lying.
	Not just you and you and you, but all of you.
	And you can fool some people about it, but you can't fool, as someone once said, all the people all of the time.
	I want to continue my examination of Joe Biden's inane assertion that January 6th was the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War.
	Now, I'm not alone.
	Other conservatives have Talked about the insurrection, and they've also talked about other episodes, attempted presidential assassinations, or presidential assassinations carried out of JFK, for example, or the attempted assassination of Reagan.
	There have been all these horrific events between 1865 and now, and so there's been a focus on how Biden got it wrong there.
	But what no one is focused on is this question.
	Was the Civil War itself an attack on American democracy?
	That's sort of taken for granted that it was.
	And I actually want to look a little more closely to see if that's even true.
	Is even the reference point...
	True. Now, it seems at first glance that of course the Civil War was an attack on American democracy because one guy, Lincoln, the Republican, won the election, and that's what precipitated the war.
	So the war was an attack on the outcome of a Democratic election.
	But it's, of course, not that simple because when Lincoln was elected, the Democratic South did not go to war.
	What did they do? They did something first.
	They seceded.
	They essentially decided to exit the Union.
	They didn't do it all at once.
	It was South Carolina that went first.
	And then there were four or five other states that followed, and then there were a few more.
	And so ultimately you had about 10 states that seceded.
	But these were states that seceded not because they were, quote, against democracy.
	Now they did think that Lincoln's election was going to tip the balance of power against And they must have thought that that tipping of the balance would get even worse over time.
	So this was part of their motive for secession.
	But I also think it's fair to say that the Democratic South believed that it had every right to secede.
	They believe that, hey, we joined this union voluntarily, so why can't we get out of it voluntarily?
	Why would you want to force us to be in a union that we don't want to be part of?
	It's like someone who sort of walks out on a marriage.
	They go, I've had enough. Why would you want to force me to stay in it?
	The Constitution, by the way, is a little silent on this topic.
	It doesn't say anywhere that you can or can't secede.
	Lincoln believed that there was a good constitutional argument for why it didn't make any sense that you could.
	But that's an argument for which there are, obviously, there's the possibility of counter-arguments.
	Now... Why did the South, the Democratic South, want to secede?
	They wanted to create their own society.
	Did they want to repudiate democracy?
	Well, not really. They wanted to create a special type of democracy.
	I would call it a racial democracy.
	A democracy for whites, in which blacks would be excluded.
	Now, there's a lot of debate about the Civil War.
	People go, well, that wasn't really what the Civil War is about, Dinesh.
	It's not about racial subordination or slavery.
	It's really about tariffs and it's about a bunch of other things.
	No, it's not. After the war, these ex post facto rationalizations all came into play.
	And I'm not saying that there weren't multiple factors as there are with any important event.
	But there is a core reason that the Democratic South wanted to secede.
	And that reason was given by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens.
	Alexander Stevens, in an important speech, now known to historians as the Cornerstone speech, delivered March 21, 1861.
	So right at the beginning of the war, Stevens says, why are we fighting?
	He's talking to his fellow southerners, so he's obviously telling why this is happening.
	And I want to just quote a few lines because here is what the Civil War was all about.
	Here's Stevens, our new government, the Confederacy.
	It's founded upon exactly the opposite idea.
	Opposite to what? Opposite to the idea that all men are created equal.
	Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
	This, our government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical and moral truth.
	So there you have it.
	That's basically what the Democrats wanted to do in the South.
	That's the kind of society they wanted to set up.
	So, in a weird way, you know, we hear these days so much about institutional racism and systematic racism.
	You want systematic racism?
	Here it is. This is what the Democratic South wanted to do.
	Create a systematically racist society.
	But the important truth of American history is that they didn't get to do it.
	Why? Because Lincoln and the Republicans stopped them.
	So whenever you hear people saying, America did this, America owes a great debt, America should pay, no.
	The Democratic South, the people who did it, They should pay.
	Because some Americans did these things, but other Americans successfully thwarted their efforts.
	And that's why systematic racism, far from being a reality of our time, is in fact merely an option that was conceived by Democrats in the South, attempted through the Civil War, but ultimately ended up in ruins and the surrender at Appomattox.
	You know, I love the MyPillow pillows, but so does Debbie, and so I thought I would bring the Debbie on to give you her direct scoop on this stuff.
	You know, honey, when I started sleeping on Mike's pillows, I began to sleep through the night.
	Because, you know, I'm going through menopause and all that change and all that, right?
	You said the word. Oh, yeah.
	No, I literally tried a bunch of pillows, different things.
	Nothing worked until I got Mike's pillow.
	And I got the right kind of pillow.
	He has different types.
	I'm a stomach sleeper, so I got that pillow.
	And I call him Magic Mike.
	Well, Debbie also has the Body Pillow.
	And the cool thing about all these pillows is they won't go flat, as you know.
	You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
	And they maintain their shape.
	They're made in the USA. So for a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering his Premium MyPillows for his lowest price ever.
	You can get a queen-size Premium MyPillow for $29.98.
	Now these are normally $69.98.
	That's a $40 savings.
	And the King Pillow is only $5 more.
	All the MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
	So go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
	You'll get deep discounts on all the products, the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
	Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
	Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
	Is Nick Fuentes the new Rosa Parks?
	This may seem like a preposterous thing to say.
	I don't know if you know who Nick Fuentes is.
	He's this smart-alecky kid, probably in his mid-twenties.
	You see him on social media a lot.
	He's a smarmy fellow, kind of self-important.
	And he is a performance artist.
	He likes to sort of be outrageous.
	He is a white nationalist of a sort.
	He has said some very cruel and insensitive things.
	At one point I saw a video of him and he was literally making fun.
	He was talking about putting...
	Cookies in ovens, but he started talking about putting six million cookies in six million ovens, and it was sort of creepily evocative of the Holocaust.
	And so this is a guy who is out to cause trouble, at least cause trouble by saying things that set people off.
	And then he sits back and snickers about it.
	So I don't find him to be a particularly pleasant or attractive character at all.
	He apparently has a kind of young people's following because they think he's sort of this cool cat who, you know, operates without any bounds.
	But this is not a guy who's trying to contribute to any sort of debate.
	Um...
	But nevertheless, something very remarkable happened to him.
	He was going to a conference.
	I'm now going to just read his tweet.
	I'm on my way to a press conference to discuss how I've been banned from nearly all social media and tech services.
	And then I find out I can't even get there because I've been put on a no-fly list.
	And then he concludes America is not a free country.
	And I have to say that I think that this is shocking.
	At first I was like, is this really true?
	I saw someone saying on social media, he hasn't been put on a no-fly list.
	He was apparently rude to some stewardess.
	And so one airline has decided that they don't want to carry Nick Fuentes.
	But it's not that. Because when he tried to board his Southwest flight, and he has a video of this, so I know it's true, the Southwest person says, listen, it's not up to us.
	You have to go talk to TSA. TSA has put you on this no-fly list.
	Now, interestingly, Nick Fuentes has not been convicted of any crime.
	So here's an American citizen who, without any sort of due process, just because they think he is, quote, a hater, he's an extremist, and those, of course, are highly subjective definitions, he's being deprived of the right to fly.
	So where does this really go?
	Where does this kind of thing end?
	And does it stop with Nick Fuentes?
	Okay. I mean, next they'll say, oh, Dinesh, well, you're an extremist.
	Your podcast says all kinds of things that really challenge the status quo.
	So, because you're an extremist, you can't travel by airplane.
	Debbie, your wife, she has a concealed CHL, a license to carry.
	She can't carry it because she's married to an extremist.
	So, this kind of thing, I think, is very dangerous.
	Nick Fuentes is, of course, sort of playing this up.
	People are rushing to his defense.
	And I think that the simple fact of it is he has now become, in a weird way, the left has done this, has made him the poster boy right now for free speech.
	Because very clearly, he's being targeted because of his beliefs and because of his speech.
	In that sense, he does resemble Rosa Parks.
	It's nothing to do with, just like no one said, it didn't matter whether Rosa Parks was this or that, whether she's young or old.
	She was the woman who would not sit in the back of the bus.
	Now remember, Rosa Parks wasn't even thrown off the bus.
	She was merely asked to sit in the back.
	But she was allowed, you may say, to travel on the bus.
	Nick can't get on the plane.
	He's not allowed to travel at all.
	So this is a case where the comparison, although outrageous, isn't really entirely out of place.
	Now, of course, here's Nick. Someone on social media goes, you know, compares him to Rosa Parks, and Nick goes, modern-day MLK. So he's playing it up.
	He's playing it for all it's worth.
	And maybe in his fevered young mind, he thinks he is some sort of Martin Luther King, which he's not.
	Now, many years ago, I read a very interesting book by the New York Times writer, Anthony Lewis, a leftist in his own day.
	The book was called Gideon's Trumpet.
	It's about this nasty guy, in fact a criminal named Gideon, but he was too poor to be able to afford a lawyer.
	And so he had petitioned the Supreme Court in the end to say, listen, if I can't afford a lawyer, I'm not able to defend myself and I deserve to have the court...
	Appoint and pay for one.
	And that's really the beginning of the practice which we have now, of course, doing this and requiring that indigent or impoverished defendants are provided with a lawyer.
	But Anthony Lewis made this striking comment that stayed with me.
	He goes, you know, many of our most basic rights...
	Are protected because of the efforts of some not very nice people.
	And what he means is it doesn't really matter whether Gideon was a great guy.
	He was probably a jerk.
	He probably did all kinds of bad stuff.
	But nevertheless, it is Gideon and the fight for Gideon that ensured that we have this practice in America of allowing people to have the ability to defend themselves.
	This is also, by the way, how the left defends.
	It's how it makes heroes out of people who are outright thugs.
	George Floyd. Is the left celebrating home invasion?
	Are they celebrating, you know, fentanyl?
	Are they celebrating resisting arrest?
	Their point is no. None of that matters.
	We don't care if he was a home invader.
	We don't care if he was, you know, shot himself up with drugs.
	The bottom line of it is Derek Chauvin should not have done that to him.
	And, of course, the left goes on.
	This is their view of Daunte Wright.
	It's their view of Makia Bryant.
	Yeah, these may not be the nicest people, but they did not deserve what happened to them.
	And that's the point I want to make here about Nick Fuentes, is it doesn't matter what you think about Nick Fuentes.
	You don't have to say, I distanced myself from Nick Fuentes.
	You don't have to do any of that.
	The simple truth of it is Nick Fuentes is an American citizen.
	The simple truth of it is he has not broken the law.
	The simple truth of it is he should be able to have the rights afforded to all Americans, and that includes the right to get on a plane.
	Did you know that a third of Americans regularly suffer from nausea?
	Here's someone who does.
	Yeah, you know, when I would fly, I felt like throwing up and actually sometimes I would throw up.
	In fact, one time I did and I was so embarrassed.
	I just, I was like, I don't think I can fly anymore.
	Until I discovered a device that took away my nausea and I've used it for decades.
	A pilot friend of mine told me about it.
	Well, this is why I'm so excited about our new partner for that device.
	It's called Reliefband.
	It's the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband.
	It's been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraine, hangover, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and more.
	The product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, and provides all-natural relief with zero side effects for as long as needed.
	The technology developed 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients, but now, through ReliefBand, it's available to you.
	Now, ReliefBand stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to a part of the brain that controls nausea.
	Then it blocks the signal your brain sends to your stomach, telling you that you're sick.
	ReliefBand is the only over-the-counter wearable device that's been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat nausea and vomiting.
	It's worked for me, and I know it can work for you.
	Right now, ReliefBand has an exclusive offer.
	For my listeners, go to ReliefBand.com, use promo code Dinesh.
	You'll get 20% off plus free shipping and a no-questions-asked 30-day money-back guarantee.
	So head to ReliefBand.com, R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com, and use promo code Dinesh.
	I'm really excited to have Laura Loomer on the podcast.
	Laura Loomer is, many of you know, an investigative journalist.
	She's a former congressional candidate.
	She is an author of an upcoming book called Loomered, which I believe you can pre-order.
	But for me, she embodies bravery and guts and taking the fight to the other side.
	And she's really paid an amazing, I mean, a price for it.
	In a sense, what the left has tried to do, using all the different organs of government and the private sector, is to turn this young woman into a non-person.
	It is actually outrageous, but it may be a grim preview of what is coming for many more people than Laura Loomer, including perhaps me sitting here behind this desk.
	Hey Laura, thanks for coming on the podcast.
	Great to have you.
	I want to start by talking about the latest episode, which is you have apparently been prohibited or put on a list in which you can't buy a gun.
	So you've lost your Second Amendment rights.
	Tell us, how did that happen?
	Right, yeah. So along with being the most banned woman in the world and not having any access to social media, I've also had my Second Amendment rights stripped.
	And here in Florida, where I live, you don't have to register your guns, right?
	So I had a gun. And when I was running for Congress in 2019 and 2020, I was getting a lot of death threats.
	And so I said, I want to get a concealed carry so that I could carry my gun on my personal body.
	When I applied for my concealed carry permit, I got a notice in the mail back to a few weeks later that said that I was denied.
	And they didn't give me a reason why.
	And so I said, there must be some mistake.
	And I asked them to re-review my application.
	And then when they returned it again, they said, no, there is no mistake.
	You are not allowed to have a concealed carry.
	And when I inquired the reason why, they said it's because I've been put on the NICS database.
	Well, the NICS database stands for the National Incident Criminal background system and basically it's controlled by the FBI and so the only people who have the authority to really put you on this list is the FBI and when I inquired about when I was put on the list and where I was put on the list it said that I was put on the list while I was living in New York and so I was able to get I had I had a gun that I had purchased from a friend when I had moved from New York to Florida But if you recall,
	in 2018, I confronted then the former FBI Director James Comey at his book signing.
	And so my lawyers and I believe that I was maliciously targeted and stripped of my Second Amendment rights in an act of retaliation by the former FBI Director James Comey because I don't have a felony, I don't have any domestic violence charges, and I've never been deemed mentally unfit by a federal judge, which are the ways that you get put on the NICS database.
	Okay. So, Laura, what can you do about this?
	I mean, here you have an apparently arbitrary exercise of power.
	You haven't, as you say, you don't have the criminal record that might disqualify you from owning a gun.
	Who do you appeal to?
	Who can you take this fight to, to make sure you get your Second Amendment rights back?
	Well, what's really concerning about this, Dinesh, is that no one ever told me that I was on the list, right?
	And so there's this sinister aspect of being stripped of your Second Amendment rights, but also, too, this act of the federal government trying to entrap people and politically persecute and target conservatives.
	And so, as you know, after January 6th, a lot of people and conservatives were door-stopped by the FBI. And just imagine if they would have come to my place and I had a weapon on me and no one had ever told me that I was on this list, right?
	I'd be in prison right now for a federal firearms felony.
	So it's also entrapment in a sense.
	There's no due process, first of all, of being stripped of your Second Amendment right.
	And also, there's no one to inform you that you've been put on the list.
	I never would have known unless I applied for a concealed carry.
	And so I have a lawyer now and we...
	We've had to submit information requests for the records from the FBI. We have not yet heard back.
	But this is a warning of what's to come for all Americans.
	We've seen now that the Harris-Biden administration, as I like to refer to it, they are trying to implement hate speech laws, and they've been very aggressive in talking about using executive orders and executive actions to strip Americans of their Second Amendment right.
	And people are being put on no-fly lists.
	And I believe what is happening to me is the next step in cancel culture for conservative Americans.
	And so it's costly.
	And your average person cannot afford to pay $20,000 in legal fees to get their Second Amendment rights back.
	Did you have to sort of get rid of the gun you had?
	Because obviously suddenly you're in danger that they might find it on you and go after you for it, right?
	Absolutely. What was really scary about it is that no one ever told me that I was on the list, and so I had a gun.
	And so I had to immediately get rid of it.
	Otherwise, I would be in violation, and I could be serving up to four years in prison.
	And look, as somebody who served time in prison yourself, you were a victim of political persecution.
	You were a political prisoner.
	They targeted you, and what they did to you, they're trying to do to me, and they're trying to do to the millions of other Other Trump supporters who are trying to fight against election fraud and cancel culture.
	And so I have a lot of respect for you because you are one of the only conservatives who has really been brave enough to stand up for people regardless of what they've said.
	And you really have fought for the principle of free speech.
	And so I just want to thank you for that because you've been loyal to me.
	I appreciate that.
	Hey, Laura, I just want to go through the way in which they have banned you.
	They've banned you on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram.
	And that's bad enough.
	But you say they've also banned your ability to do business on PayPal and Venmo and GoFundMe.
	You say that Chase Bank shut down your online banking, which, by the way, happened to me recently.
	I talked about it on this podcast.
	You also say that Comcast has blocked your congressional campaign from sending out texts and emails to voters.
	And you said you're banned on Uber and Lyft.
	So does this mean if you order Uber Eats, you can't get a sandwich delivered to your apartment?
	I can't even order food delivery.
	And so when people talk about censorship, it's not just as surface level as saying, oh, I can't tweet.
	I can't post on Facebook.
	I can't do online banking.
	I can't order food delivery.
	And in District 21, where I'm also running for Congress again now, Comcast has a monopoly.
	So 90% of my constituency has to use, they are literally forced to use Comcast Xfinity when they live in a condo or homeowner association like most people do here.
	And so I can't even message to the constituency when Comcast blocks my messaging as dangerous content while donating to my opponents.
	I mean, this is egregious censorship on levels of telecommunication, food delivery, payment processor systems, and these are civil rights violations.
	Now, you must be, from the point of view of the left, an extremely dangerous person for them to go to such lengths against you.
	What do you think is it about you?
	Is it the fact that you have been sort of, you may say, on the journalistic warpath against radical Islam?
	If you had to point to a single sort of ideological offense, What is the worst thing that you've done that you think have set these people off to such a degree?
	I mean, you know, you've got lots of people, for example, I'm a good example, and I've been out there and so on, but I have my, you know, I by and large can, I can travel on Uber.
	I don't have this extensive network of banning.
	So I ask myself, what is your intellectual crime that you think has made you such a tar?
	Why are you the most banned woman in the world?
	Well, I speak truth and also, too, with my lumering and my investigative journalism, I have shown that I'm not afraid.
	And so I've taken on some of these untouchables, whether it's Hillary Clinton and putting it.
	I put a camera in the faces of the political elites, James Comey, Hillary Clinton.
	I asked them the questions that the media refused to ask them, right?
	I put illegal aliens on Nancy Pelosi's lawn when she was refusing to allow the funding for the wall.
	But yes, you're right. You're not allowed to talk about Islam in this country, it seems.
	And as the journalist who broke the story about Ilhan Omar marrying her brother and being the first to confront her about it, that really set them off.
	And when you look at the destruction of American values and the uprooting of Western civilization and the defiling of our constitutional values, it's really this unholy alliance between the communists and the jihadis, right, otherwise known as the Red-Green Alliance.
	And that is something that the radical left wants to keep the total kibosh on, right?
	And if you talk about that, that is the quickest way to get banned.
	The quickest way to get banned and shut down is to raise awareness about the Islamification of Western civilization.
	She's very brave. Her website is Loomer.com, and that's also the title of your new books, to tell people how they can pre-order the book and support your work so that you were able to at least counter to some degree the systematic campaign against you from the other side.
	Thanks. I have a book coming out in October.
	It's called Lumard, How I Became the Most Banned Woman in the World.
	And it really describes how we got to this point, what happened to me, and how it can happen to you as well, and what I predict is going to happen with regards to cancel culture.
	And it's available for pre-order right now online at Barnes& Noble, Walmart.
	Laughably, it's also available online for pre-order at Amazon until they decide to probably eventually ban my book as well.
	We'll see. But I'm really looking forward to the book coming out.
	And I talk about you extensively in my book because you and your daughter were there for me the day that I famously handcuffed myself to Twitter to raise awareness about the attack on conservatives.
	And so I'll forever be grateful to you and your family for your loyalty, Dinesh.
	Really appreciate that, Laura.
	Hey, thanks for coming on the program.
	We'll have you back on. Thanks for coming on.
	If people want to support my congressional campaign, too, they can go to Loomer2022.com.
	I'm running for Congress in Florida's 21st Congressional District, which is home to President Donald Trump.
	Awesome. Thanks, Laura.
	Debbie and I just had a very interesting discussion with Dr.
	Douglas Howard, who founded the company called Balance of Nature.
	What a remarkable guy.
	I mean, he really convinced us that we're not eating enough fruits and veggies Even though sometimes we think we do, but we really don't.
	Well, there's an easy way to eat the stuff you don't like.
	You don't have to do that. It's the balance of nature solution.
	Can you imagine how you would feel if you were eating 10 servings of fruits and veggies every single day?
	Debbie started first and now I'm kind of doing it too.
	We take these six daily capsules and we're set.
	We get all the vital nutrients sourced from 31 fruits and veggies every day.
	Debbie also, well you swear by the...
	No, the fiber and spice powder, I have never been...
	Okay, this is too much information, but I've never been more regular.
	Join us and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself.
	For a limited time, all new preferred customers get an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order.
	Use discount code America.
	Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code America.
	Who will fact check the fact checkers?
	Well, I will.
	And this is more than an enterprise of showing that the fact checkers are mistaken.
	It's partly a decoding of what these fact checkers do.
	And what these fact checkers do is conflate the distinction between fact and argument.
	Now, arguments depend on facts.
	But very often what you can do is in the name of quote correcting a fact, essentially present your side of the argument. It's an argument masquerading as a fact check. Recently Ted Cruz posted the following statement. He said you didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. He was talking about packing the court and he went on.
	Cruz went on to say that the Democrats are trying to pack the court.
	We could have tried to pack the court.
	Republicans could, because we had both houses of Congress and the presidency, but we didn't.
	So this is a manifestly factual statement by Ted Cruz, which is to say, did...
	Republicans tried to pack the court when they could?
	Nope. But Cruz then interprets what he just said by saying that we didn't try to, quote, rig the game.
	And this is the phrase that PolitiFact now fact-checks.
	Did Republicans try to rig the game?
	And they declared Ted Cruz's statement false.
	Why? Let's look at the PolitiFact reasoning.
	Their reasoning is the following.
	Cruz's comment ignores that Republicans gave diametrically opposite treatment to President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and President Donald Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.
	Um... And then PolitiFact trots out three left-wing law professors.
	Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies, he says that, quote, Republicans were, quote, temporarily altering the size of the court.
	I guess this was by keeping Garland off and then putting Barrett on.
	They were minus one with Garland and plus one with Barrett.
	Of course, the size of the court remains the same.
	It's nine. So there was no attempt to change the size of the court that way, but he's using language in a slippery way to apply that somehow Republicans were changing the size of the court.
	Paul Finkelman says it's a, quote, And then Emily Berman says, yeah, it actually is sort of rigging the game.
	So this is the left-wing take that somehow Republicans are rigging the game by what they did to Garland and Amy Coney Barrett.
	And of course, the hidden assumption behind that, which is never stated, is that somehow the Republican Senate is supposed to be neutral, indifferent.
	Between a Democratic appointee like Garland and a Republican appointee like Barrett.
	And my question is, why?
	Why? Why would a Republican Senate do that?
	If you had a Democratic Senate, it certainly wouldn't do that if the roles were reversed.
	So the point I'm trying to make is this.
	There is a process clearly specified for putting judges on the court when there's a vacancy.
	The president nominates.
	Obama nominated Garland.
	But it's up to the Senate to set the schedule, to hear the evidence, and to make a vote.
	And that schedule is in the hands of the majority leader.
	So... Mitch McConnell was entirely within his rights and within his power to do what he did.
	It's entirely appropriate.
	It's not rigging the game.
	It is playing the game.
	It is playing the game according to the rules that are used by both sides.
	And similarly, when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, obviously the Republican Senate isn't going to treat their nominee the same way as Merrick Garland.
	They're going to try to move it along as quickly as possible.
	Again, this is called playing the game.
	So what's going on with the fact-checking side is they set up a false...
	Criterion. Republicans must be neutral between Republican nominees and Democratic nominees.
	Then by that bogus standard, they declare that Republicans must be rigging the game.
	But Republicans are playing the game.
	That is entirely different from saying, listen, we have nine justices on the court.
	How about if we add a number that is just sufficient to give us an immediate majority?
	That is moving outside the rules of the game.
	That is changing the game.
	So Ted Cruz essentially is stating the plain truth of the matter.
	PolitiFact is lying through its teeth.
	It's lying in a sophisticated way by producing these experts to make left-wing arguments.
	But arguments aren't facts.
	Arguments don't, by themselves, prove facts to be non-facts.
	So what's going on here is an intellectual sleight of hand, and we should be aware that very often when we see fact-checking, what we're getting is not fact-checking at all, but something entirely different.
	For years, actually decades, I never invested in gold, just the stock market.
	But now I'm really worried about the regime we have in Washington.
	Did you hear Biden's speech last night?
	No sense of fiscal responsibility.
	So if and when things get crazy, as I expect them to, you need to invest part of your savings in precious metals like gold and silver.
	I am. Why? Because it's a hedge.
	It's a protection. 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, through April 30, at just a few more days, 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 the 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 Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with qualifying purchase.
	I want to talk about Joy Reid and the way in which Joy Reid is going around boasting about the fact that even when she is outdoors, she still wears two masks, even though she's been vaccinated.
	Now, I have to say, Debbie and I are pretty cautious about COVID. Debbie's kind of a germaphobe, and so we have been quite careful.
	We do wear masks, and we're now, you know, we're in the clear.
	But there is precaution, and there is, let's call it, COVIDiacy.
	COVIDiacy is being an idiot about COVID. Take a look at what Joy Reid has to say about all this.
	Listen. And Dr.
	Gupta, I am among the fully vaccinated, joined Team Pfizer, and I did go jogging today in the park.
	And I did, this was the mask that I wore with a doctor's mask under it.
	And most of the people that I saw that were in the park, the park was packed.
	I would say like 95% of the people still had masks on.
	Now, I'm trying to understand, well, it's not just what she's doing, which makes no sense.
	I mean, even the CDC has said that if you've been vaccinated and you're outdoors, you don't have to wear a mask.
	But apparently for Joy Reid, it is not just that she does it, but it's sort of a point of pride with her.
	Look, I'm wearing, not just one, two!
	It's almost like it's a kind of a one-upsmanship.
	You're wearing one, so I'm wearing two.
	I'm sure if other people were wearing two, she'd wear three.
	So there's something weird going on here.
	And when people behave in seemingly irrational ways, there's usually something more to it.
	It's kind of like if you see a guy and he broke his leg and he has a cast and everyone's sympathetic and we all understand he has a cast for six weeks.
	But six weeks passes and eight weeks passes.
	Then you notice he's not removing his cast.
	Everywhere he goes, check out my cast.
	I'm not going to take my cast off.
	And you think, why on earth would the guy want to keep wearing his cast?
	Is it that, well, maybe he doesn't want to go back to work.
	Maybe he's extremely lazy and his mom wants him to get back on the treadmill.
	He doesn't feel like doing, oh, my cast.
	So there's a hidden motive.
	And I'm wearing my cast is a masquerade of virtue that is slyly trying to conceal what the person doesn't want to do.
	So I say to myself, what's going on with Joy Reid?
	And she's not alone. There are many people like her.
	They're like, you know, I'm wearing my mask.
	I'm in my car. I'm wearing my mask.
	And I'm like, why are you doing that?
	I mean, it's sort of like, why do people wear masks who don't have to wear masks?
	Well, one answer, I guess, is that they're extremely ugly.
	Ugly people love masking.
	Everyone's masked. No one's going to be like, oh my god, I've got to cross the road.
	It's not going to happen if you have a mask.
	That's why ugly people love masquerade balls, because you get to put on a mask, you're a cat, or you're like Batman, and you don't get the normal revulsion that you'd get otherwise.
	So is that what's going on here?
	I think that what's going on here is that Is that there's an attempt on the part of people like Joy Reid to establish their moral superiority.
	Their moral superiority is done by conforming to the regime.
	So the regime says, wear a mask.
	They wear two masks.
	And by wearing two masks, their point is that they are somehow a kind of higher caliber of citizen than all the other reckless people out there who are, you know, infecting other people and so on.
	So this is a way of joy reading others like her.
	Issuing self-congratulations to themselves, that they are the most altruistic.
	They are the ones willing to put themselves out the most.
	Even though what's going on is actually unrelated to safety, it is nothing more than a crass moral exhibitionism, and I, for one, am not impressed.
	Those of you who know me or who have seen me speak over the years and even over the decades, I've been kind of a Rolex guy.
	When my first book was a bestseller, Illiberal Education, I kind of splurged and bought a Rolex.
	I actually bought it in Zurich, Switzerland, and I don't wear any other kind of jewelry.
	I'm not exactly into the chains or any of that stuff, I think you know.
	So the Rolex was kind of my only piece of jewelry.
	And then I was exposed, through this podcast, to Eggert watches.
	And I now have a sampling of them.
	I'm actually wearing one now.
	You can sort of check it out.
	And just kind of look and see how cool it is.
	Look at the engraving.
	Look at the detail. I mean, not just on the surface, but also on the sides.
	And so I now find that when I go out to dinner, go out to someplace nice, I mean, I look at my Rolex, which I've had now since 1992, and then I look at my Eggert, and I'm like...
	Which one should I wear? And I think about it and I kind of laugh because the Rolexes, I bought it for like $3,500, but it's now worth like $10,000.
	I have a $10,000 Rolex and I've got these Egger watches and they're beautiful, but they're much, much cheaper.
	They look expensive, but they're not.
	So, that alone tells me that these Eggert watches are amazing.
	My brother, by the way, who watches this podcast is like, where can I get my watch?
	So, check out the entire Eggert collection.
	As a friend of the program, Elon has given us this wonderful discount, 15% to share with you.
	You just have to use promo code Dinesh at the checkout.
	So, go to eggertwatches.com.
	That's E-G-A-R-D watches dot com.
	I like to talk in this podcast about politics.
	That's the main focus.
	But I also talk about Christian apologetics, occasionally about science, frequently about history.
	I'm also interested in anthropology.
	A lot of stuff.
	But an important part, I think, of a rich intellectual life is literature and the window that literature opens on the world.
	I want to do a segment about why we should read The French writer Marcel Proust.
	And I'm sort of inspired to do this segment by a book I came across.
	Really a book that's fun reading.
	I'm going to show it to you. It's called How Proust Can Change Your Life.
	It's by the French writer Alain de Botton.
	And, you know, these Frenchmen like to hang together.
	So when I first saw the book, I'm like, well, obviously he thinks we should all read Proust because he's French, Proust is French, you know, one kind of croissant eater recommending another.
	And the reason this is a challenge, I mean, normally I wouldn't even raise the question, but Proust is widely known to be the most boring writer and the most long-winded writer of all time.
	Certainly in Western civilization and certainly in the Western canon among the classics.
	In fact, one professor of mine used to have a phrase.
	It was called, I'd rather be reading Proust.
	And so you could say to him something, you know, invite him to do something.
	And if it was unbelievably boring, he'd go, I'd rather be reading Proust.
	And it was kind of a joke. So it's kind of like today you might say to him something like, you know, did you watch the Academy Awards?
	He's like, I'd rather be reading Proust.
	Or did you listen to Joe Biden's speech?
	I'd rather be reading Proust.
	Meaning, you know, it's kind of like saying I'd rather watch paint dry.
	And Proust is a bit like that.
	His brother, Robert, basically said that the only people who can read Proust are people who are either sick in bed and have nothing else to do.
	Or he goes, the best time to read Proust is when you have a limb encased in plaster.
	In other words, if you have a cast on your leg and you're bored.
	But this isn't just his envious brother or something.
	The first publisher who looked at his book, this was his book on remembrance of things past, Proust's great classic, Alfred Humblot from the publishing house Ohlendorf.
	He goes, he says he only got to 30 pages.
	And he says, basically what happened in the 30 pages is, quote, a man is describing how he tosses and turns in bed before falling asleep.
	30 pages for that.
	Jacques Madeline, a reader for the publishing house Pasquale, made the following comment upon reading the manuscript, which he rejected.
	He goes, at the end of 712 pages of this manuscript, after innumerable griefs at being drowned in unfathomable developments and irritating impatience at never being able to rise to the surface...
	One doesn't have a single but not a single clue of what this is about.
	What is the point of this?
	What does it all mean? Where is it leading?
	Impossible to know anything about it.
	Impossible to say anything about it.
	Proust, I think, is known for writing perhaps the longest sentence of Western classics.
	I believe it goes on for 49 lines.
	One single sentence.
	So all of this raises the question of you've got this mind-numbingly boring guy.
	And he was also kind of a weirdo.
	He barely traveled.
	He sort of sat in a room.
	He had some strange relationships.
	Why read Proust at all?
	How is it the case that a man from the 19th century is known today across the pond, not just in France, but in the entire Western world?
	Well... I want to give you an answer to that question, and it's this.
	That Proust has this kind of very sharp ability to capture emotional transactions occurring often in ordinary life.
	His novels really don't even have plots.
	Nothing really happens.
	But even though nothing is happening, in the interstices of ordinary conversation, you get insights into people and into character.
	I want to give you just a couple of examples of that.
	So here you have... The Duchess de Gourmand.
	A very haughty, arrogant, cultured person.
	And the question is, how does Proust give you a window into a personality?
	And so here she is, the Duchess de Gourmand.
	She's at dinner with the Madame de Gallardone.
	And the Madame de Gallardone commits a faux pas, a goof.
	How? She refers to the Duchess de Gourmand by her first name.
	She leans forward and calls her.
	She just uses one word, Orianne.
	That's her name, Orianne.
	Then Proust writes this.
	At once, he says the Duchess...
	Looked with amused astonishment toward an invisible third person, whom she seemed to call to witness that she had never authorized Madame de Gallardonne to use her Christian name.
	So basically, here's what's going on.
	Here is the Madame de Gallardonne who says, Looks away to a third person who doesn't exist and goes, can you believe that this woman had the audacity to use my first name?
	So in a single brush of his pen, you get, it's like the sky opens and you understand the personality.
	She's a woman who has a tremendous sense of her own stature.
	She is outraged by minor infractions, which are not minor to her, of etiquette.
	In a sense, you get the picture.
	And this is what Proust was really good at.
	I'll give a second example.
	A little more malicious, involving the same character, the Duchess de Gourmand.
	So she apparently had a very loveless, unhappy marriage.
	Her husband, who was some sort of a count, was having all kinds of affairs.
	He was a cold, insensitive man.
	So she had no marriage to speak of.
	And it made her, of course, very lonely and very angry.
	Well, the Duchess de Gourmand had a kind of manservant.
	And this poor guy had the good fortune of meeting a woman who worked as a servant in another great household.
	But because these are servants, they're obliged to their masters and mistresses, it's very difficult for these two people to even get together to spend any time with each other.
	And so they have to kind of work around schedules and find, well, I can meet you at so-and-so time.
	So apparently this servant, a man named Poulain, makes an appointment to meet the girl he's interested in at a certain time.
	Now, we come to a dinner party in which the Duchess de Gourmand is entertaining her guests, and one of her guests says that he has shot a bunch of pheasants, and he wants to bring pheasants to the Duchess de Gourmand so she can taste these marvelous pheasants that he has shot.
	And the Duchess of Gourmand goes, oh, that would be wonderful.
	This is a great favor that you're doing for me, but I cannot put you to the additional trouble of bringing the pheasants to me.
	I will send my servant Pulan to come get them.
	And at this point, says Proust, all the people in the dinner party were very impressed at the Duchess de Gourmand's sense of etiquette.
	The fact that she didn't want two favors from this man.
	Favor number one, the pheasants.
	Favor number two, he's going to come and drop them off.
	So she was willing to accept one favor, but she was willing to go have her man pick up the pheasants by himself.
	Now, this is the punchline Proust observes almost...
	Slyly, that this was not, in fact, the Duchess de Gourmand's real motive.
	Her real motive was to prevent her manservant Poulain from meeting up with the girl he was interested in.
	They had arranged a rendezvous at a given time, and by taking away that time, by dispatching this man at that exact same time to do this errand, so here you have a woman herself unhappy in love, Who doesn't want anyone else to be happy either.
	So although she accepts the congratulations of the dinner party guests, oh yes, I'm so gracious, oh I'm so thoughtful, oh I don't want to accept two favors, only one, her real goal is this great aristocratic woman who's in a sense lacking for nothing except one thing is trying to crush the hope of aspiration of this poor man who works for her from finding a little piece of happiness through love.
	And this is the reason to read Proust because somewhat like Jane Austen, it's not the great plot that matters.
	Now Austen is very clever, she builds her plots around important events, weddings, funerals, there's a threat to happiness, there's a threat to a man's fortune.
	Proust doesn't do any of this.
	He doesn't even care about it.
	He just describes the sort of embroidery of ordinary life.
	But when you read that life, and if you read it attentively, in it, you see little beautiful pictures and, in a sense, sharply etched portraits of not just the character that people show to the world, But the true character that lies within.
	So I jump out of the shower this morning and I see I've got a white towel.
	Generally, we don't have white towels in our home.
	So that tells me that Debbie has gotten all the MyPillow towels.
	She's exhausted all the colors and finally she decided, let's get the last one.
	Let's get the white. Now, we're very particular about our towels.
	We actually want them to dry us.
	What a concept. But that's what's so great about these MyPillow towels.
	They're soft to the touch, without the lotion-y feel.
	They have proprietary technology, which makes them really absorbent.
	The towels kind of feel good, but they don't absorb.
	MyPillow towels are available in multiple styles and sizes.
	They're machine washable and durable, 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
	For a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering two-for-one low price and free shipping on the six-piece sets, or you can save 30% on the individual towel options.
	You've got to use promo code Dinesh.
	Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
	Thanks so much for watching the podcast.
	I really appreciate it.
	You know, it's an hour out of your time every day and so it's a big commitment.
	I hope you're finding it enjoyable, interesting, informative, educational.
	Please share information about the podcast with others.
	I'm trying to get the word out and I'm counting on you to help me to do that.
	Let's go to today's mailbox.
	Let's hear what our question is for the day.
	Hi Dinesh, I have a question about the media in this country and I'm curious as to why they have veered to the left to the degree that they are.
	They're almost a propaganda arm of the left and the Democrats to the point where Even Biden and all the mistakes that he's made in two months has nothing to fear.
	Thanks, Dinesh.
	The simple truth is that the media, collectively, is to the left of Biden.
	And how did it really get this way?
	I think in the same way that it's happened in academia.
	There is a little bit of a natural disposition of a certain type of person to go into media.
	Now, what is that?
	It seems to me that there are sort of two types of people in the world.
	The people who want to sort of lift themselves up and those people by and large tend to go into the entrepreneurial sector and they want to sort of improve their circumstances, have a better life.
	But there's a second type of people who like to pull people down.
	And the second type of people are less interested in money.
	They are interested in money, but money is not their main objective.
	Their main objective is power.
	And the power that they like most, and this is the defining characteristic of the media, is the power to disgrace.
	To inflict pain, to humiliate.
	And so they go into the media because they get to exercise that kind of power.
	In the post-Watergate era, we went into the phase of advocacy journalism, but even then it was constrained by this need or this public presentation of being fair-minded, being objective, at least hearing both sides.
	And now we've seen a move into complete ideological propagandizing.
	Same in academia. The balancing effect that was caused by older generations of liberals who did believe in things like free speech and open debate.
	We've got to hear from the other side.
	Those people have sort of phased out.
	They've retired. And so now you've got leftists, hardened leftists who only hire people like themselves.
	And so they've created, they see the media as a battering ram.
	And a battering ram against whom?
	Well, against us.
	That is their mission.
	Biden of course has nothing to fear.
	The stupider he sounds, the smarter they will try to make him out to be.
	There's no resemblance between anything Biden does.
	And the media is completely untrustworthy.
	These people are fundamentally dishonest.
	I've gotten to know many of them over the years.
	Their personal lives are thoroughly corrupt.
	Deceit is their name of the game.
	These are very low, dishonest people, for the most part.
	There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but the problem is that the industry pulls even the good people in a bad direction.
	So the bottom line of it is we're dealing with a group of people in an industry that would be better off if we didn't have it, if it were somehow just wiped out.
	We don't need the media.
	Why? Because we have press releases from the DNC and the New York Times is not particularly different.
	So part of my task, I think, has been to demystify the media, to show people we don't need to attach any credibility to them.
	We don't even need to react to what they say.
	Republicans go, ah, ah, ah, the New York Times said this.
	Who cares? Who cares what they say?
	CNN said this. I heard this with Jim Acosta.
	Why are you reacting to Acosta in quite that way?
	Acosta is a clown.
	He's an amusing character. He's an overgrown fetus.
	You should be laughing at him.
	Why are you paying attention to him as if the guy actually is making points?
	So bottom line of it is we have to learn how to respond to this new situation we're dealing with in which we have a media that's not really a media.

▲