All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:05:59
THE PERSECUTION OF TRUMP Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 95
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The New York State Attorney General prepares to go after Trump while covering up for Governor Cuomo.
UNC Chapel Hill discovers that Nicole Hannah-Jones is not a scholar.
I think we already knew that.
And the greatness of Booker T. Washington.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The New York State Attorney General, with a whole team of prosecutors, the people in the Southern District of New York, this is the same gang that prosecuted me a few years ago.
They're preparing to go after Trump.
They've always wanted to go after Trump.
And it looks like this is an investigation.
It's now a criminal investigation.
They began with sort of a civil investigation.
Let's sort of see if we can find some deals where we can sue Trump.
But now, it's been confirmed by the spokesman for the New York Attorney General's office.
This is a guy named Fabian Levy.
We are now investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA.
So the Manhattan DA, this is Cyrus Vance, is also in on it.
This is basically the Democrats' hit squad.
And apparently what they're looking at is they're trying to get the Trump Organization on tax and insurance fraud and whatever else they can find.
This also appears, by the way, to be part of the motivation for raiding Giuliani's office.
They'd like to get Giuliani, but of course the crown jewel that they're really after is Trump.
Now, Trump is, of course, outraged by this, and I think rightly so.
I want to highlight a few lines from Trump's statement, because I think they reflect how Trump thinks about this.
First of all, he says, listen, this is just an ongoing thing.
He goes, after being under investigation, it was the Russia hoax, impeachment one, impeachment two.
And he goes, now they're trying to get me on a criminal investigation.
He uses the phrase, it's an investigation in desperate search of a crime.
And that's evidently clear because there's no crime that's been specified.
We're going to look to see if Trump did this.
We're going to look to see if he did that.
No, it's we're going to look to see and see what we can find.
Now, Trump points out that Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, quote, literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump even before she knew anything about me.
She said if elected, she would look and quote, into every aspect of Trump's real estate dealing.
She swore that she would quote, definitely sue Trump.
She boasted on video she would be quote, a real pain.
And she said, just wait until I'm in the Attorney General's office.
And she said, quote, I've got my eyes on Trump Tower.
Now, look at this.
You've got somebody running for office who's promising the constituents of New York That she will initiate a prosecution.
So she'll find something. And this is really, this is a kind of American version of, you'd have to say, Stalinism.
Because here she is campaigning and saying, quote, it's important everyone understand the days of Trump are coming to an end.
So this is what it's about, clearly.
What? It's about trying to prevent Trump from ever making any kind of a comeback.
Think of how terrified they are of this guy.
They want to keep him off the ballot.
They want to make sure the American people don't get a second look at Trump and go, yeah, you know what?
We think we'd like to have Trump again.
They want to make sure that doesn't happen.
This is all motivated by that.
And then Trump goes on to say, I think correctly, that this is not only a witch hunt against him.
He calls it the greatest political witch hunt in the history of the United States.
I'd have to agree. It's hard for me to think of another comparable situation.
And he says that the idea here is not just to go after him.
But to go after the millions of voters who support him.
To go after the entire MAGA movement.
And we can see this is part of not just the New York Democratic cause, but also the Biden administration's cause.
That's why they're doing, for example, what they're doing to the January 6th protesters.
The whole idea here is to criminalize political dissent.
Trump may be sort of the head criminal, but all of us, any of us who support Trump in any way, we're part of this kind of criminal syndicate, we're part of this criminal operation, we're treated not as critics, but as political enemies.
So there's a kind of sadness to all this, but there's also something that makes you and makes me extremely angry.
It makes me extremely angry because this is what our country has become.
And can you think in American history of any effort to go after an ex-president in this way, even with Nixon?
And Nixon, by the way, was Nixon...
I kind of admit it. He knew about the cover-up.
He may not have known about the original Watergate prosecution.
But Nixon actually was implicated in things that were bad.
Or at least bad for that time.
Today, I guess, when you look at what's being done across the political spectrum, there's far, far worse.
Watergate, in retrospect...
Doesn't appear even to be that big a deal.
But nevertheless, there was no effort.
Nixon essentially retreated, and that was that.
Nixon went on to write books, Real Peace, become sort of a respected analyst.
But there wasn't an effort to say, let's put this guy in jail.
Let's make sure that he never comes back.
Let's make sure that people don't even have any affection for him.
But with Trump, there is a level of demonization and a level of attack.
That I think is unprecedented in American history.
And it's a testament, really, to the threat that Trump poses to these people.
When you think about it, although they're going after him with criminal prosecution, the real criminals are sitting in the Manhattan DA's office in the Southern District of New York and in Washington in the Biden administration.
While the New York Attorney General Letitia James and her kind of corrupt band of prosecutors are relentlessly trying to concoct, to fabricate, to frame Donald Trump, at the same time they are trying to cover up For Governor Cuomo.
They're conducting a non-investigation, which is intended to give cover to Democrats who are pretending to be outraged by the Cuomo scandals.
And by the Cuomo scandals, I really mean two.
One is a multiplicity of sexual harassment scandals, a whole bunch of women who have accused Cuomo of harassment in various degrees.
And second, a really big scandal, and that is the deaths in the nursing home scandals.
Both these are supposedly under investigation, but what I want to tell you is that there is no real investigation.
There's a pretense of an investigation, and the real job of the investigation is to delay, to buy time.
Oh, we're looking at this.
We're taking a really hard look, and They keep saying, well, we're expanding the investigation, all of which is a pretext to say this is why it's taking so long and it's going to take longer and even longer until everyone sort of loses interest.
The original charges seem to become a little dimmer in the memory, and Cuomo not only stays in office but gets re-elected.
There's kind of a mini Cuomo scandal that's in the headlines, which involves his brother, Chris Cuomo of CNN. And the scandal is that Chris Cuomo has apparently participated in conference calls with the governor and the governor's office and his staff about how to deflect sexual harassment allegations.
In other words, how to deal with them strategically.
And apparently the brother has been saying, and this is according to A source, as reported in the Washington Post, that what Cuomo should do is decry the sexual harassment scandals as, quote, cancel culture.
Cancel culture. As are these women who are making these allegations are trying to cancel Governor Cuomo.
Of course, the real issue here is, here's Chris Cuomo.
He's on CNN. He's supposed to be a journalist.
He's supposed to be a reporter.
And here he's colluding with his brother, Listen, let me give you some tactical suggestions about how to kind of rebuff these women and make them look like fools or liars.
So all of this is going on.
Of course, CNN is in the middle of it.
And again, what CNN wants to do is protect Cuomo.
So they've said, well, we think this is a bit of a mistake of judgment and we're going to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But you have to remember the kind of salivating coverage that Chris Cuomo has been giving his brother today.
I'll just read one quote when his brother was, you know, sort of this kind of hero of COVID. We know, of course, now that that's all a big lie.
But here's, I'm quoting now Chris Cuomo on CNN. I hope you're able to appreciate that what you did in your state, he's talking to his own brother, and what it means for the rest of the country now, and what it will always mean to those who love and care about you the most.
I'm wowed by what you did.
And more importantly, I'm wowed by how you did it.
What is this?
Is this journalism? This is a desecration of journalism.
And it's embarrassing even around the dinner table.
But as a function of CNN, this just shows you that CNN is not even really a news network.
Now... Let's focus in on Governor Cuomo's offense.
His offense, by the way, is not even the sending of the COVID patients to nursing homes to die.
That is a bad judgment.
It's a horrible decision.
I think he did it in part because he didn't want to take advantage of the US Navy ship that Trump sent.
He didn't want to, quote, accept any favors from Trump.
He's like, we'll do it on our own.
We'll figure this one out.
That's a bad decision. But you don't go to jail for a bad decision.
What you do go to jail for...
The Cuomo people hid the data.
They hid the bodies, so to speak.
They went after people who were trying to put the data out.
They lied not only to the Trump people, but then they told the Democrats in New York, the elected Democrats, listen, we're only holding this data back because we don't want to give ammunition to Trump.
But that was not the real reason.
The real reason was that Cuomo was peddling a book.
He was presenting himself as the savior of COVID. Then they knew they had all this horrible data that showed the situation in New York was not only worse than anticipated, but worse than other states.
So Cuomo was no hero.
He was not doing a good job, but he knew it was important, at least temporarily, to hide that while he went on book tour and made himself sort of Sir Galahad riding on a white horse.
So it's this fakery, it's this cover-up that is culpable.
DA, the Attorney General, they have no intention of going after Cuomo.
They keep delaying. I'll just give one kind of example of this.
They announced, by the way, this investigation has been going on for two months.
And some of these women who have made sexual harassment claims said that they just now, two months later, have received subpoenas to come in and testify.
Now? It takes you two months to send out a letter saying, hey, we want to talk to you.
Well, the reason it takes two months is because it's going to take them another two months, by the way, to call them in, another two months to transcribe what they say.
The whole idea here is delay, delay, delay.
So, this is not an investigation.
It's essentially giving permission to New York Democrats to say, we take sexual harassment complaints very seriously.
We're very concerned about the Cuomo administration's suppression of data.
We're really going to be looking at...
So, it is essentially to sort of...
Protect this pretense, a political pose, a form of sort of public theater.
That's what's going on.
But what Letitia James and her gang is trying to do is not prosecute Cuomo, but get him re-elected.
I want to talk to you about MyPillow and how it changed Debbie's sleeping habits and kind of mine too.
She's going through that sort of change of life and so she was just suffering from terrible insomnia and keeping me up too.
But finally we discovered MyPillow.
Debbie also has the body pillow and now she sleeps right through the night.
Now the cool thing about these MyPillow pillows, they won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want and they maintain their shape.
They're made in the USA. For a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering his premium MyPillows for the lowest price ever.
Queen size premium MyPillow, $29.98.
Normally $69.98.
That's a $40 savings.
Kings are only $5 more.
All the MyPillow products, 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
By the way, you'll get deep discounts on all the other MyPillow products, the Giza 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.
One of the standard rhetorical tactics to take an event and try to inflate its menace is the old, it could have been a lot worse strategy.
I always laugh when I see this because it's sort of an effort to say, well, it wasn't an insurrection, but it could have been an insurrection.
It wasn't a coup, but it could have been a coup.
It wasn't a riot, but it was heading that way.
We see this now with January 6th.
As the facts collapse all around the left, they want to continue with the overheated rhetoric.
So now we've gone into the what-if mode.
And here's the latest, I mean, you can only expect AOC would try to get out front on this one, and sure enough, here's a very amusing audio clip of AOC in theatrical mode, as always, talking about the fact that, well, it could have been worse.
Listen. This was an all-out attempted coup.
Mike Pence was taken out of the Senate chamber something like 60 seconds before these terrorists and insurrectionists got into the Senate chamber.
60 seconds could have meant potentially the difference between what we have right now in a martial state.
Could have. It could have. It really could have.
It could have been a martial state.
Well, let's think about what that martial...
Just 60 seconds separated us from total disaster.
And we could have been in a very different situation.
What was that? Well, you know the guy with the horns and the animal skins?
His name is Jacob Chansley.
Right now, we could have been living under a regime, a martial law regime, with a dictator.
The shaman guy.
Jacob Chansley.
Her Chansley.
This is AOC. Hard to say if she's really being serious, because this is a woman who sort of always hovers on the kind of edge of lunacy, and there's a little element of parody so that it's difficult to separate.
But, you know, I think we have to say that she believes it.
Why? Because she's a loon.
Now, all of this is context for the Democrats' so-called January 6 Commission.
And this passed the House, by the way.
And what's disgraceful is that a bunch of Republicans, 35 of them...
Voted for this commission, knowing that the commission is a complete joke, that the commission's job is to create a narrative.
And by the way, think of how horrifying this is.
The commission may be a joke, but the narrative they're trying to reinforce is being used to justify political prosecutions, keeping Trump supporters in solitary confinement, literally torturing them even though they've been convicted of nothing, criminalizing dissent.
Encouraging a regime of censorship throughout the country.
All of this is hanging on the January 6th narrative.
And these Republicans are complicit in supporting that narrative because they know that that's what the Democrats are doing with this commission.
It will be staffed by Democrats.
The whole idea here is to reinforce this fake narrative and use the narrative as a bludgeon against Republicans.
So why would they do this?
I think these are people, really, who have to be run out of the Republican Party.
They have to be primaried, challenged, and defeated.
Every one of them. I'll read a couple of names.
Liz Cheney. Big surprise.
This woman is so out of control, it's not even funny.
She's just maddened, I think, with hatred of Trump.
Representative Adam Kinzinger.
Well, yes, of course.
Maria Elvira Salazar, Republican of Florida.
A little bit of surprise to me, but maybe this is something I didn't know about her.
And the list goes on.
Representative Tom Reed of New York, Tony Gonzalez of Texas, Chris Smith, Republican of New Jersey, 35 of them.
And there's a little piece of good news in all this, and the good news is McConnell.
Now, McConnell, of course, had himself kind of gone along with some pretty incendiary rhetoric about January 6th, but it looks like McConnell has kind of come to his political senses.
He's come to realize that the Democrats are not content with saying that this was a breach of the Capitol.
Some people broke laws and they need to be held accountable.
No, this is an effort to turn this into 9-11, turn this into another Oklahoma City bombing, and Biden's own words, the worst attack on our government since the Civil War.
And so McConnell's realized that this is really not some kind of objective investigation.
In fact, I'm quoting McConnell now.
If it's going to go forward, it needs to be clearly balanced and not tilted one way or the other so we have an objective evaluation.
I think McConnell's realized that's not happening.
And so he's come out against the January 6th Commission, which, very interestingly, probably sounds the death knell for it.
Now, the good thing about McConnell, and we've got to appreciate his virtues, is that McConnell is not the same as...
As McCarthy in the House.
The House leadership, it appears, is weak.
You can't have a strong, unified Republican House and lose 35 Republicans.
It's one thing if you lost three or four of them.
They're incorrigible.
You can't win them all.
But when 35 Republicans defect, even though that's a small percentage of the total, that's bad news.
I don't think McConnell will have those kinds of defections on the Senate side.
And I think the press realizes this.
Here's a headline in the Washington Post.
McConnell comes out against January 6th commission, imperiling its chances of becoming law.
Well, imperiling here is a polite word for kind of killing it.
Why? Because for this commission to become law, it has to go past the filibuster.
In order to go past the filibuster, it needs 60 votes.
That means it needs 10 Republicans.
McConnell's opposition basically guarantees there's not going to be 10 Republicans.
Now, let's remember there were seven Senate Republicans who did vote to impeach Trump.
It's possible that all seven, although perhaps not all seven, will vote for the January 6th commission.
But even if they did, They would still need three more votes, which evidently aren't there.
So it doesn't look like, at this point, we're going to have a January 6th commission, which is a very good thing, because it's not a real commission.
It's not a real inquiry.
It's ultimately a sort of, well, you can use the word, it's a trumped-up operation intended to reinforce a fake narrative, and that narrative then used to justify some very bad things.
Leftist pressure continues to mount on the Biden administration.
More student debt forgiveness, stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, a $2 trillion infrastructure plan.
The question comes to mind, what's the economic impact?
Who's going to pay for this? Clearly, these Biden people think they're playing with monopoly money.
Listen, if all your investments are tied to greenbacks, you're sitting kind of on a ticking time bomb.
It's time to invest a portion of your savings into gold and silver.
Now, Birch Gold Group This is the company I purchased from.
This is the company you can trust to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
That's right. Through a little-known tax loophole, you can convert your retirement savings tied to the stock market into an IRA backed by precious metals.
It's your hedge against inflation and government irresponsibility.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRAs or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today with 10 And invest in gold and precious metals before it's too late.
Do you know who Nicole Hannah-Jones is?
She's the lead author of the New York Times' so-called 1619 Project.
And the 1619 Project was an effort to move the kind of founding date of America from 1776 back to 1619.
Why? Because supposedly that's when the first slaves came to America.
So that's the kind of We're good to go.
If you think about the American founding, first of all, the impetus for the founding was coming from the northern states, from places like Boston.
Remember the Boston Tea Party, the kind of agitation in New England.
So this was the home of the abolitionist movement.
Others have jumped into this and said, listen, whatever you think about the founding, and there was the three-fifths compromise which came later as they fought over the Constitution, and you had the sort of tension between the North and the South over political representation.
By the way, the three-fifths clause was never about the intrinsic worth of blacks.
But nevertheless, there was an attention paid to the issue of slavery as part of the challenge of getting a union together.
But the founding really wasn't fundamentally about that.
It's funny how kind of Nicole Hannah-Jones and our modern type of obsessions with race are being projected back on the founding.
It's almost as though you sort of have today sort of a dwarf, and he goes to a party, and nobody's really paying any attention to him.
Everyone's basically enjoying themselves.
They're eating, they're joking, and so on.
And he goes running around going, You people are obsessed about height!
No, they're not obsessed about height.
You're obsessed about height and you're projecting your obsessions about height onto them.
So this is sort of the way it is.
But leading scholars have come out and said this 1619 project is a sort of partisan ideological pandering project.
Intellectually, it's a joke.
Historically, it's unbalanced.
And we're talking about a number of the leading scholars of the founding and of slavery.
The Princeton historian Sean Willence, who says that, quote, this is a sham.
James McPherson of Princeton, Gordon Wood of Brown, James Oaks, Victoria Burnham.
I'm now quoting... I'm now quoting one of these historians who says, this is a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.
So this is the career of Nicole Hannah-Jones, who got her PhD from, well, nowhere.
She's not a scholar.
She's a journalist.
A journalist posing, you may say, as a scholar.
But apparently UNC didn't get the memo.
This is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill because they wanted to give her a tenured professorial position.
And a number of people inside the university, not to mention some alumni, were like, wait, what?
What kind of academic sort of malpractice is this?
Of course, Susan King, who's the dean of the UNC Hussman School, was pushing this.
But ultimately, the trustees went, no way.
It's one thing to offer her a five-year contract, but we're not giving her lifetime tenure.
So, sure enough, the left now, the UNC Chapel Hill is canceling Nicole Hannah-Jones.
They're not canceling her. They're just not hiring her for a full-time tenured position.
She has no automatic right to tenure.
They've decided, listen, we're going to hire her for five years, which I think is itself a mistake.
But nevertheless, not to give her this tenured position.
And so the left is in sort of protest mode over this.
Now... The key thing about the 1619 Project and about this whole narrative that the left is pushing is it is about concealing inconvenient facts.
The basic idea here is that white people bad, black people great.
And you can disrupt this narrative just by pointing to counterfacts that you'll find carefully erased, omitted, never mentioned by the 1619 narrative.
Even though this was this extensive and all this study guide, all this material surrounding it, here's a simple question.
Between 1820 and 1860, and I've done this work in my book called The End of Racism, I document this in excruciating detail, citing innumerable sources questioned by nobody, I point out that there were black slave owners in the American South.
Not one, not two, not ten.
There were, in fact, 3,500 black slave owners in the South.
Think about this. Black guys who owned plantations, who owned, in some cases, one, five, ten, fifty, four hundred slaves.
3,500 black slave owners in America who, between 1820 and 1860, which is when the Civil War got going, owned more than 10,000 slaves.
I'm not saying this was a majority of slaves.
It was a minority.
But the very fact that blacks, free blacks, owned black slaves in America, and by the way, most of these black slave owners fought on the side of the Confederacy, wouldn't this be a lot of sort of interesting wrinkle in the slavery debate?
What it really seems to show is the desire to enslave other people to make them work for free is not a black or a white thing that when the blacks got a chance to be in on it, they did, they took full advantage.
This tends to sort of change the Manichean idea that this is white people bad, black people good.
It kind of shows that there's a lot of bad to go around.
This wasn't a simple matter of one color, one group being the owners and one group being the victims.
True, the slaves were virtually all black.
Initially in American history, there were some Native Americans taken as slaves, but of course slavery became, in that sense, a black institution.
But on the slave owner's side you had blacks and whites.
You'll notice this is never going to be acknowledged as part of the leftist narrative.
Why? Because it topples over the apple cart.
It disrupts it. It confuses people.
People go, what? How come I never know about it?
The reason you never know about it is they don't teach it.
The reason you don't know about it is that they keep it out of the textbooks.
It's certainly not in the 1619 Project.
So the bottom line of it is, now does Nicole Hannah-Jones know about it?
I suspect she does.
If she's done any kind of reading in this subject, she'd know about it.
She's just camouflaging the facts.
She's keeping it out. She's whiting it out, you might say.
And which means that she is not only a partisan, she's a liar.
She's a liar who doesn't want to include facts that disrupt her narrative, the very definition of a fanatic or an ideologue.
So UNC Chapel Hill has sort of split the difference by saying, no, tenure for you, but we're going to give you a five-year contract.
And that means that UNC Chapel has opted not for a lifetime of lies, but only five years of lies.
Debbie and I have gotten to know Dr. Douglas Howard, who founded the company Balance of Nature.
What a remarkable guy.
He convinced us we're not eating enough fruits and veggies, even though we thought we were.
You don't need to eat the stuff you don't like.
Turn to the Balance of Nature solution instead.
Can you imagine how you'd feel if you were eating 10 servings of fruits and veggies every single day?
Debbie started first, and I'm doing it too.
We take six daily capsules and we're set.
We get all vital nutrients sourced from 31 fruits and veggies every day.
Debbie, by the way, also swears by the fiber and spice powder.
She says she's 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. In the last segment, I tried to complicate the simple-minded narrative of white people,
slave owners, black people, slaves, by pointing to the presence of 3,500 black slave owners in America, free blacks who owned more collectively, more than 10,000 black slaves.
In this segment, I want to talk about the distinction, the distinction between race, on the one hand, And skin color on the other.
We tend to think of these two as the same.
And we hear all kinds of nonsense about, really, both.
I hear things like, race is a social construct.
Well, no it's not.
At least it's not purely a social construct.
Any more than skin color is a social construct.
Well, Dinesh, the fact that you're brown is a social construct.
You're not really brown. That's just society decided to label you as brown.
No, I actually am brown.
It's not a social invention.
This is actually a biological fact.
It may be socially acknowledged or denied, but that's a whole different matter.
Now, people also say things, and I see this in the literature all the time, there's no such thing as a pure race.
There's no such thing as a pure race that just don't exist.
There are no fixed categories of race.
This is actually not true. The proof is that I am, in fact, a pure-blooded...
Asian-Indian. How do I know this?
Because my daughter has done her ancestral DNA, and it shows that 50% of her DNA is Indian, which makes me 100% Indian.
No admixture, apparently.
Now, admittedly, Indian or Asian-Indian is not a race, but the point I want to make is that whatever race I am, I'm not mixed.
Now, Let's consider the very interesting case of me and Debbie.
Because if you were to look at just color, just look at us on first glance, it would appear that I am a person of color.
I'm brown. And she's white.
That's how it looks to the, you may say, to the naked eye.
It would seem to follow that I am sort of Asian by race and that she is Caucasian.
But here's the problem. Asian is not a race.
If you take people as different as the Indians and the Chinese, completely different looks, appearance, completely different features.
In fact, to be honest, not even much of a common history.
So we're stuck in the same continent.
But that's a geographical location.
That's not a biological designation.
The simple truth is that there are, and there's a whole scholarly literature on this, there are really three races in the world.
And I'm going to use the kind of old names because this is how they were put forward really many decades ago.
There's the Caucasian race, there's the Negroid race, that's the technical term for it, and the Oriental race, and sometimes people use other names for it, but the most common is in fact Oriental.
Now, These terms are a little dated, as I say, but nevertheless, there are prominent anthropologists and biologists like Vincent Sarich at Berkeley who say, listen, these are valid categories.
They're not social constructs, and the proof of it is this.
If you take 100 people, and let's just say you kind of strip them naked, and then you bring in people and say, listen, can you divide these 100 people accurately into these three groups, Caucasian, Negroid, and Oriental?
Therich goes, of course you can.
Anybody can. It's so easy to do.
There's going to be hardly a mistake about it.
And we're talking, by the way, not about people who are mixed race, but people who belong to one or another of these groups.
Now, what about the American Indians?
What race do they belong to?
Well, racially, they belong to the Oriental group.
What was sometimes called the Mongolian or the Mongoloid group.
Why? Because it was the Mongolian people who apparently crossed over, maybe crossed over the Bering Strait many, many thousands of years ago and came to the Americas and that's the ancestral roots of the Native Americans.
You'll notice that there are people in Africa, in places like Egypt, think of like Anwar Sadat, for example, who are dark-skinned, but who are not Negroid in their features.
So what race do they belong to?
Well, they belong to the Caucasian race.
Why? Because they're not Oriental, and they're not Negroid, which leaves only one race, the Caucasian race.
I was myself a little puzzled to find out when I first looked into this.
Asian Indians are members of the Caucasian race.
Again, we shouldn't confuse race and skin color.
Asian Indians are all kinds of colors.
They go from really white to black.
And by white, I mean as white if not whiter than American whites.
And I mean as black if not blacker than American blacks.
If you look, for example, at a lot of Bollywood actresses, you'll notice they're very light-skinned.
They look European.
They don't even look Indian.
But they are Indian.
They're just very light-skinned Indians.
And I think on the Indian spectrum, I would fall somewhere exactly in the middle.
Now, here's the funny thing.
Even though I would be racially, quote, Caucasian, kind of funny, Debbie is not, or at least not entirely.
Debbie did her DNAancestry.com, and she discovered that she, well, she's about 75% white.
And by white, I mean here ancestry in places like Portugal and Spain and Italy, also a little bit in France.
But she's 12%.
Is it 12%? She's 13% native.
And she's 10% black.
And by black, I mean with ancestry in places like the Cameroon and where else?
Nigeria? Long ago, Nigeria.
The Congo, Nigeria.
Senegal. Now, you might say, how the heck did this happen, Debbie?
You seem to have had some very adventurous ancestors.
Well, Debbie's dad is Venezuelan, but he grew up in the Dominican Republic.
And the Dominican Republic is majority black, so there's some black ancestry there.
And Debbie's mom is Mexican-American.
She grew up in the Rio Grande Valley, which, of course, used to be part of Mexico.
This was also Indian country, and so that's where the Indian heritage comes from.
So, the great irony at the end of the day is that although Debbie sort of looks white and I look brown, the simple truth of it is I'm more Caucasian than she is.
She's smiling here.
I'm 100% and she's 75%.
So, I'm only mentioning all this because I want to show a distinction between race and color.
The weird thing is, in a sense, if you confuse race and color, if you think color is the same as race...
If a Caucasian means white, then technically Debbie is a person of color and I'm not.
Now, of course, that's absurd.
And the point I want to make at the end of the day is all of this, while interesting, I find it interesting, is also kind of irrelevant.
And by irrelevant, what I mean is it should be morally irrelevant and it should be legally irrelevant.
Why? Because at the end of the day, what does all this matter?
We are all in the world, in the end, a minority of one.
We're individuals. And it's celebrating that individuality and celebrating not so much what we are as who we become, what we make of ourselves, what we can do.
At the end of the day, it is that difference that makes all the difference.
The movie Trump Card continues to sort of lay out the script for the Biden administration and also to point to the stuff that's going on on the international stage.
It's amazing how prophetic it's turned out to be.
Well, the movie was based on my book, United States of Socialism.
But there's an incredible deal on getting DVDs for Trump Card.
First of all, take a look at this clip.
What is the fundamentalist and jihadi agenda for America?
The future of America has to be Muslim.
What you're saying is that there is serious Middle Eastern and specifically radical Islamic intervention into U.S. politics.
Exactly. And I think it's more dangerous than the so-called Russian collusion.
So here's what the DVD of Trump Card looks like.
Very cool. And here's how you can get it at an incredible bargain price of $9.99.
You've got to get one for yourself and more as gifts.
They're on the website of Salem.
That's the organization that co-sponsors this podcast.
Go to SalemNowStore.com.
S-A-L-E-M-NowStore.com.
Trump Card DVDs, $9.99 while they last.
Go for it. When I ponder the absurdities and the destructive absurdities of critical race theory, the whole notion that sort of the way to help African Americans as a group to advance is to pull every other group down.
Hey, let's stop all the advanced courses.
Let's stop teaching people calculus.
It's almost like you want to hide black disadvantage by making everybody else fall behind also.
I mean, what a pathetic, disgusting thing to do.
And I think to myself, what's the solution to all this?
How can we find a recipe for success?
Not just black success, but success in general, by looking to someone inside the African-American tradition.
And fortunately, there is such a man.
I would call him the second greatest African-American of our history.
Now, who's the greatest?
Some people may say, well, it's obviously Martin Luther King.
No, it's not Martin Luther King.
And by the way, it's not Rosa Parks.
Let me move from seat number 12 to seat number 4.
No, it's Frederick Douglass.
He was the greatest. Runaway slave, champion of abolitionism, later a diplomat, by the way, a Republican.
But who was the second greatest black American?
I give that title to Booker T. Washington.
I would put Martin Luther King probably in the third rank.
Now, interestingly, I encountered Booker T. Washington When I was in India, one of the very few books about race or about American blacks that I read before I came to America, and in a way I didn't even read it as a book about race at all.
I read it as a book about somebody starting at the very bottom of the heap, the bottom of the ladder, you might say.
Who made his way up.
And the book, of course, is called Up From Slavery.
One of the great books of American history.
By the way, suppressed by the left.
And by suppressed, I mean they deride Booker T. Washington because he doesn't represent their kind of philosophy.
By the way, they're not too excited about Frederick Douglass either.
In one of the Antifa raids, they knocked down a Frederick Douglass statue in upstate New York.
I want to talk on this podcast about the great debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois, a debate that sort of encapsulates the two roads, the fork in the road, the choices available to blacks and really to any group in trying to get ahead in life.
But I figured that before I even do that, I'm going to sort of save that perhaps for next week.
And just begin with an introduction to Booker T. Washington's great book, because I want to give you a feel for the tone of it, what it sounds like, and why it had such a powerful emotional impact on me.
I mean, there were two or three times I literally sort of was in tears reading this book in my teenage years.
So I'm going to begin at the very beginning.
I'm now quoting Washington.
I was born a slave on a plantation in Franklin County, Virginia.
I'm not quite sure of the exact place or exact date of my birth, but at any rate I suspect I must have been born somewhere and at some time.
Right away we're placed in, we get to the nature of slavery.
You don't even know your own birthday.
And then a little later, Booker T. Washington says that, you know, now as a grown man, and in fact as a well-known figure, a public figure, people will often ask him, when you were a kid, you know, what kind of games did you like to play?
And here's Booker T. Washington.
He goes, until that question was asked, it never occurred to me there was no period of my life that was devoted to play.
From the time I can remember anything, every day of my life has been occupied in some kind of labor.
He talks about cleaning the yards, carrying water to the men in the fields, going to the mill, taking the corn to be ground.
The mill was three miles from the plantation, so this is slavery.
Now, when Washington talks about emancipation, which by the way came when he was a kid, you might think that he would go into sort of full victimology mode, Nicole Hannah-Jones mode.
Woe is me!
And he would have a lot more than Nicole Hannah-Jones to complain about, but here's what he says, which is a very interesting pivot.
He goes, labor was something that both races on the plantation sought to escape.
Very interesting observation.
He goes, my old master had many boys and girls, meaning many children of his own, but not one as far as I know ever mastered a single trade or special line of productive industry.
The slave owner class, what did they learn to do?
Nothing. The girls were not taught to cook, sew, or take care of the house.
All of this was left to the slaves.
And that's the key. The slaves did all the work, which leads Booker T. Washington to kind of a surprising conclusion.
Quote, Why?
Because the slave owner and his sons had mastered no industry.
On the other hand, the slaves in many cases had mastered handicrafts, and none were ashamed and few unwilling to labor.
The slaves were used to working, and they were good at doing stuff.
They were masons and tinkers and builders and farmers, so they knew actually how to get by and how to build their lives after slavery.
And this book goes on to talk about how Washington developed his philosophy, his philosophy of you have to go from one step to the other.
He says, quote, As by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.
In other words, your success in life is not measured by where you started.
And it's not even measured by where you end up.
It's measured by the distance traveled in between.
A very good measure to keep in mind as we look to people.
What have they accomplished given where they started?
Then says Washington, and I think this is also the key to his philosophy, Think of critical race theory.
This is it in a nutshell.
Let's provide elaborate explanations for why the people who are doing nothing with their life Can't do anything with their life.
Why they are made to be in this position.
Why society is to blame.
And since society is to blame, nobody can lift them up but society.
In other words, these are passive people who are not expected to be agents of their own life.
I mean, how? What soul-crushing, terrifying advice to give to someone?
Basically saying, you're inert.
Somebody else is responsible for your advancement.
And yet, this is the recipe of the Democratic Party.
It's not Booker T. Washington's recipe.
He goes, quote, I have always had a high regard for the man who could tell me how to succeed.
How to succeed.
And that it seems to me is a summary of what conservatism needs to be.
It needs to provide to all Americans a very clear picture of where the ladders of success are and how people can climb them.
And I think if we do that, this is a winning formula going forward.
Now, when Booker T. Washington starts a school, an industrial school called the Tuskegee School, he describes a woman who came to him, and she was, I'm not quoting him, she was clad in rags.
But they were clean.
And she says to him, I'm not quoting and I'm going to actually use the language from the text itself.
She says, I knows you is trying to make better men and better women for the colored race.
I ain't got no money, but I want you to take these six eggs.
These six eggs.
What I's been saving up, and I want you to put these six eggs into the education of these boys and gals.
And here's Booker D. Washington.
By the way, he gets huge grants later from Andrew Carnegie and other philanthropists.
But he goes, This is the biblical story of the widow's mite.
And Booker T. Washington, you can see here the courage and the humanity of this man.
Now, I'll close this section with Booker T. Washington getting an honorary degree at Harvard.
Finally, his achievement was recognized, and Harvard sends him a letter saying, basically, you're the first black man to get an honorary degree from any Northeastern institution.
And Booker T. Washington, it kind of hits him.
He's sitting back and he goes, As I sat upon my veranda with this letter in my hand, tears came into my eyes.
My whole former life, my life as a slave on the plantation, my work in the coal mine, the times I was without food and clothing when I made my bed under the sidewalk, my struggles for education, the trying days at Tuskegee, days when I didn't know where to turn for a dollar, the ostracism and oppression on behalf of my race— All of this passed before me and nearly overcame me.
So here's a man who has literally come, to use the title of his book, Up From Slavery.
And he speaks with a kind of clarity and moral authority and decency that I think elevates him into a class of his own.
Later he got into a sort of ferocious debate, which I'll talk about, with another prominent black American, another great man, W.E.B. Du Bois, a northerner, a free man, different than the southern Booker T. Washington.
But I think at the end of the day, you'll see that it was Washington who came out ahead, even in that debate.
Here is a man who represents that fork in the road, almost the road not taken.
The critical race theorists, the leftists, all want to take blacks down a path.
I think in the end, it leads to isolation, it leads to division, and leads as a group to ossification, to being stuck where you are.
Booker T. Washington shows the way not only forward, but But the way upward.
And it is to him that we need to turn to figure out not just how blacks, but many others, can write, you may say, the charter of their own emancipation proclamation.
Have you noticed that it's kind of hard to find a good movie to watch at home these days?
I mean, the stuff out there is really horrible.
You turn on the TV, it's like, you know, the travels of a gay Native American through the Southwest.
Well, it's time to watch a really good movie, a thriller, one that affirms Christian and conservative values, and I have exactly the solution for you.
Here it is. It's called Infidel.
It's a political thriller about a patriot, a man of faith.
This is, by the way, played by Jim Caviezel, who was Jesus in The Passion of the Christ.
Caviezel was also the Count in The Count of Monte Cristo.
Just a great actor and an all-star cast.
A really good movie.
Just to get a feel of what it's like, take a listen.
He won't talk to me anymore.
He knows What does that tell you?
He is the one that said, go to Cairo, talk about the faith.
You're not suspicious? I'm asking you, don't go.
I will call you.
It's gone viral in the Middle East.
That you're preaching to Muslims.
Well, I was invited.
Nobody may meet. Who's there?
Don't! This is a movie that confronts radical Islam.
Hollywood makes a movie about terrorism, and the terrorists are always like Eastern European or Russian.
Now, Infidel won the Movie Guide Freedom Award, and you can watch this movie in video on demand on iTunes, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Redbox.
You can get the DVD through Walmart or Target, just to name a few.
Now, for more information, go to infidel911.com.
That's infidel911.com.
Yesterday on the podcast I did what I thought was kind of a whimsical section on what's in a name.
What's in a name? And I want to sort of continue that because after that segment I was thinking a little bit more and I thought, wow, names are interesting because of sort of what they reveal.
By the way, the classic what's-in-a-name story, if we were to think back to ancient history, comes from Homer's Odyssey.
In which Odysseus, the hero, is trapped, is caught by this kind of giant called a cyclops.
A kind of one-eyed monster who imprisons Odysseus in a cave.
And Odysseus, of course, who is known to be clever and a schemer.
One of the most devious of the Greeks.
He's the guy who, by the way, later thought of the strategy of the Trojan horse.
Which produced the victory, the fall of Troy and the victory of the Greeks.
Anyway, Odysseus is here captured by the Cyclops.
And the Cyclops asks Odysseus, what is your name?
And Odysseus somewhat mysteriously says, my name is Noman.
Noman. Kind of a weird name, but the Cyclops is like...
And then later, to plan his escape, what Odysseus does is he pokes the eye of the Cyclops and then makes a run for it.
But the Cyclops knows what's going on, knows that Odysseus is trying to escape, and the Cyclops goes running out to call all the other Cyclops.
And he screams in pain, and the other Cyclops say to him, basically,"'Who is hurting you?' And, of course, the Cyclops replies, no man is hurting me!
No man is hurting me!
Referring to Odysseus, of course, but the other Cyclops go, well, okay then.
It's fine. Nothing's wrong, apparently.
And Odysseus is able to make a run for it, get away to his raft, and escape from the Cyclops.
So this is a case where this clever strategy of the name, my name is no man, comes to Odysseus' rather bizarre rescue.
Here's a book by Shiva Naipaul.
Shiva Naipaul is a writer of Asian Indian descent, although he grew up in Africa.
He's the brother of the Nobel laureate of E.S. Naipaul.
And this is Shiva Naipaul's book called Black and White.
I want to read you a couple of lines from this book.
He's talking about a friend of his.
An attorney. And he goes, this attorney is apparently a barrister, an attorney, at the Port of Spain.
The Port of Spain in, I think, Haiti.
In any event, here says Shiva Naipal, he had decided to change his name from Arthur Fleming Lawrence, that was his original given name, to Atta Kufu Obafimi Kujifi.
And there's a quote here that comes from this guy.
He says, you see, once you start thinking African, then a name like Arthur Fleming Lawrence is a plain embarrassment.
And now Shiva Naipaul makes this comment.
He goes, Atta Kujifi did not exist 20 years ago.
Inevitably, there's an element of play of masquerade in the change of name.
Some carnival fantasy is involved.
And yet at the same time, what Naipaul knows is that this kind of stuff is serious.
This is the way that people see their identity.
I'm no longer that guy.
I'm now, you know, I'm now Atta Kufu Uba Fimi.
Don't call me Arthur Lawrence.
I'll be offended if you do.
Sort of reminded many years ago when Muhammad Ali fought against George Foreman for the heavyweight title.
This was the rumble in the jungle, so-called.
It was a fight in the African nation of Zaire.
And you can see the airplane sort of landing.
Out comes Ali, out comes Foreman.
And very amusingly, they've embraced their African identity.
They're wearing these dashikis, these unbelievable African outfits.
But what made me laugh is there to greet them on the tarmac were like 200 Africans in suits.
Looking at like, what the heck is this?
So what we're dealing with here is the way in which names and identity can be critical to the way people see themselves, even though it puts you sometimes in a very strange situation.
The novelist Ayn Rand, in her book Atlas Shrugged, she has a kind of villain.
He's a government bureaucrat, a complete loser.
And she gives him the name Balfe.
His name is Balfe. And one of the running jokes in Atlas Shrugged, and I'm a little surprised I even remember this, is that everywhere he goes, people ask him, well, who are you?
And he goes, well, I'm Balfe.
And they go, you mean you're Ralph?
And he goes, oh, no, no, I'm not Ralph.
I'm Balfe. And this is sort of dumb, but, you know, this joke runs through the novel.
And again, it has to do with this business of what's in a name.
My daughter, many years ago, did a trip, actually traveled through India, and she came back and she goes, Dad, why do you mispronounce your own name?
And I go, what do you mean?
She goes, your name is Dinesh.
It's not Dinesh, it's Dinesh.
And it is true that spoken in the Hindustani language, the D of Dinesh is actually soft.
It's more like a Dinesh.
And the second part of my name is said more like Ash, so Dinesh, not so much Dinesh.
And I'm like, well, Daniel...
The reason I do this is very difficult for people to say my name that way.
And so I have sort of made an accommodation, if you will, to the country I now live in.
I have a cousin whose given name was Vinod.
Vinod. This was his real name.
And he was Vinod.
He moved to America.
He then moved to Canada.
And one day I got an email from him.
And it basically said, my name is no longer Vinod.
And he had given himself a new American name.
So, this is the way in which names change.
In a sense, when locations change, sometimes the old name doesn't really work and you need a new one.
I'll close by talking about a kid who went to high school with me.
Well, actually, middle school, I guess it was.
In India, school is just school.
They don't divide it that way.
And we knew him as Anselm.
That was his name, Anselm.
And one day we had a new teacher who came to our class and she was taking sort of role and she was going through the names and she goes, Anselm, dead silence.
She goes, Anselm, dead silence.
And she goes, she points and says, who is this kid?
And so finally this guy stood up and he goes, well, my name's Anselm.
And she goes, no, your name is Anselm.
And there was kind of a quiet moment in our class because we realized that this poor kid was mispronouncing his own name.
And evidently so were his parents.
They gave him a name that they didn't themselves know how to say.
And he had been saying his name wrong his own whole life.
So to me that was telling and comic and a little bit tragic.
But in the end of the day, names are part of who we are.
And even though we can chuckle at them, even make fun of them, they're very important to our sense of personal identity.
Mike Lindell is always coming up with ingenious new products.
He's got more than a hundred products in his store and now he's done it again with his latest.
It's the MyPillow MySlippers.
Mike has taken over two years to develop these slippers.
They're designed to wear indoors or outdoors all day long.
They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They have this beautiful quality leather suede and for a limited time, Mike is offering 40% off his new MySlippers.
The MySlippers are so comfortable, you're going to want to get some for the whole family.
We actually did.
Here's Danielle, by the way, with her moccasins.
She loves them and of course, Debbie and I love ours.
I got the moccasins, Debbie got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
By the way, deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the Giza Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper and MyPillow towel set.
We've got to support Mike Lindell.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code DINESH. Hey, I hope you're enjoying the podcast.
People tell me this is a podcast like no other.
I'm not sure if that's entirely a compliment.
I take it as one.
If you haven't subscribed, make sure you do.
And please tell people about it and help me get the word out.
It's time for our question of the day.
So, listen. Hello, Dinesh.
Since the mysterious Roswell UFO incident of 1947, and perhaps even earlier, the government's message to the public regarding UFO sightings, findings, and experiences have been one of ridicule and or conspiracy theories.
I'm old enough to remember that anyone who dared to speak of these things was deemed as being a nut.
So why now is there such a change with all the intense media coverage of this topic, including a segment on 60 Minutes?
Do you think there is a new democratic strategy brewing that connects with this?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Know that your show and what you do are paramount, Dinesh.
Thank you for the insights, the great variety of guests, resources, and mixture of clever comedy with profound vision.
You are making a difference.
Wow. I can't say that I'm...
I haven't been in my earlier life like a UFO hunter.
I'm not an expert on UFOs.
It's kind of funny because I used to go, when I did my books on late night shows that run, I think one of them was called Coast to Coast, and they'd be like, coming up, author Dinesh D'Souza, coming up later we have so-and-so who's a UFO hunter.
And of course I would be like, wow, I mean, this is a really strange company to be in and we're going to be having this discussion at like...
You know, in the middle of the night.
Now, the reason this topic interests me is not so much the UFOs themselves, but a sort of a related question, which is, UFOs used to be laughed at and ridiculed.
Why? Because of a sort of prevailing underlying assumption that I want to challenge.
And the underlying assumption is this.
If there is no proof of something that It cannot exist.
It must not exist.
One of my debating partners in the apologetics debate, Christopher Hitchens, used to put it this way, and this is a line right out of his book, God is Not Great.
He says, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And I think this is, in fact, a fallacy.
It's a logical fallacy.
Why is it a fallacy?
Well, try to imagine, for example, the Greeks in the 5th century B.C., The time of Socrates.
If they look up in the sky, they'd see a handful of stars.
And as far as they knew, that was the only stars in the sky.
They would have no way of knowing about other galaxies.
They would have no way of knowing about the unbelievable vastness of our universe.
That is all that they knew, and that is all that they could know.
So ask yourself this question.
For them, was the absence of evidence...
Of other planets, other galaxies?
Was it evidence of absence?
Could the ancient Greeks conclude, we can only see seven stars, therefore only seven stars must exist.
No other stars can possibly exist because we have no experience of them.
This would be, I think we'd recognize now, a kind of bogus form of reasoning.
Just because you don't know about something doesn't make it not exist.
Now... In fact, the absence of evidence, you may say, was evidence of an absence of human knowledge or the limits of human knowledge.
Consider something like aliens.
Let's say I were to say to you that aliens, I believe that there are aliens that exist somewhere in the universe.
Now, my argument for it is not outrageous.
It would simply be, listen, given the unbelievable vastness of our universe, there's a decent probability that the conditions for some form of life might exist, might exist someplace else.
You go, well, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
No, it's not. There could be aliens or there could not be aliens, but the absence of evidence for aliens to date says nothing about not only whether they exist, but even what is the probability that they exist.
Let's come back to UFOs, and I'll close on this note.
That very often when you see a UFO, and let's remember a UFO is an unidentified object, you have to ask yourself, is this a clue to something about the universe that we don't know?
Is this, in other words, an opportunity to learn something more about the universe?
That's the way I would look at it.
When Newton developed his theories of gravity...
And plotted the movements of the planets, there was a slight deviation in the planet Mercury.
The planet Mercury went slightly off its orbit, only by like a hundredth of a degree, and nobody thought there was a problem, but they were like, that's strange.
Later, when Einstein developed his theory of relativity, Einstein, who knew about this, went right to Mercury and tested his theory against the orbit of Mercury, and he saw, wow, his theory predicted this deviation.
So this was a case where you may almost say an unidentified, not object, but an unidentified pattern.
In this case, what's called the orbital precession of Mercury, which was a puzzle since the days of Newton for 200 years, was finally resolved when Einstein goes, hey, this is proof, or at least some form of corroboration, that I'm on the right track.
▲
Export Selection