All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
52:15
THE MULTIRACIAL GOP Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep196
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Democrats think they have a built-in political advantage as the country becomes more diverse, but I'm going to show, I'm going to argue, that what they don't realize is starting in 2022, they're going to be confronting not the white GOP, but the multiracial GOP. Kamala Harris scorns the European explorers, starting with Columbus, for devastating Native American communities.
I'm going to make the case that what's really devastated these Native American communities is Daniel D'Souza Gil joins me, my daughter, to talk about some new episodes in woke culture.
And I begin my examination of John Adams by identifying the problem of cultivating virtue in a free society.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Hey guys, I just want to let you know that I've been revamping my website.
It's looking really good.
And it's a place where you can watch the podcast.
It's also a place where you can sign up for my email list, my e-blast that I send out periodically.
And if you listen to the podcast on Apple, make sure you hit the subscribe button.
You subscribe to the podcast.
Same with YouTube.
Hit subscribe, but also notifications, because then they'll notify you, maybe not always, but a lot of the time, that the new podcast has gone up.
Now, I want to talk at the outset about the suburbs, because it seems to me that this is where the battle for America's political future is being fought.
Notice that America isn't just divided into cities and rural areas.
The cities are overwhelmingly democratic.
Not all of them. There are a few red cities, but most cities are blue and pretty heavily blue.
The rural areas are heavily red.
And interestingly, according to the Pew studies, these trends have been accelerating.
The cities are becoming more blue and the rural areas more red.
But 50% of Americans, 50% live in the suburbs.
These are the rings around the...
The cities. And these suburbs, which used to be overwhelmingly white, kind of white, middle to upper middle class, to some degree reliably Republican for many, many decades, these suburbs are now more diverse, more diverse racially, more Hispanics, more African Americans.
The old stereotype of blacks living, quote, in the inner city, a lot of blacks today live in the suburbs.
They might even live in low-income housing, but there's low-income housing that is not the old tenement or apartment buildings, but in fact, standalone buildings in the suburbs.
So the Democrats think that this is a huge win for them, because as America becomes more diverse, as the suburbs become more diverse, they have a built-in political advantage.
In fact, they think this is how they won the 2020 election.
They won the critical suburbs around Phoenix, around Atlanta, and so on.
But I think what is very interesting is that when you look at this Pew data about the suburbs, you find that there are suburbs that have become quite diverse that nevertheless voted for Trump and voted for Trump by decent margins.
And what that means is that the fact that suburbs are becoming more diverse doesn't by itself mean that the Democrats are going to get those voters.
They assume they are. But in fact, the voting bloc that they're getting most of is the kind of wealthy white vote.
The wealthy white vote, which was again heavily Republican, has now drifted more toward the middle.
Democrats are winning more of those voters.
But the good news for us is that there are large numbers of Hispanics that are moving to the Republican Party, moving toward the Republican Party.
Now, the Republican Party has a lot to do to really win and lock in these guys.
But think of it, Hispanics are working class, they're middle class, they represent upward mobility, the attempt to sort of make your life better, a little bigger house, a second bedroom or third bedroom, the idea of being able to have a good education for your kids.
This is basically where Republicans can win these people, not just the Cubans and the Venezuelans who have memories of what's going on in Cuba or Venezuela, but also Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans.
Now, For the first time, and I saw this really with Trump before, first of all, was the idea of being able to win not just middle class blacks, but sort of ghetto blacks, ordinary, poor blacks, poor blacks from inner city communities and poor blacks in the suburbs moving to the Republican Party.
Why? In a sense, they're moving because of wokeness.
They hate this woke culture coming from the left.
And the beauty of this is that the woke whites who run the Democratic Party can never fix this problem.
Because the only way for them to fix it is to become un-woke.
And that's the one thing they're not willing to do.
So they're going to try to browbeat Hispanics and browbeat the blacks into wokeness.
And this is all just great news for us.
Now, the GOP has a kind of winning formula.
The winning formula is that we are a multiracial party, but multiracial, united around shared aspirations, shared dreams, or united around patriotism.
We're united around the idea of prosperity and upward mobility.
We're united around the idea of choice in education and excellence in education.
And we're united around the idea of having a safe, lawful society.
In other words, A campaign against the defund the police.
The idea here that we need not only free communities, but communities that are also safe for our kids to play in and for people to walk around in.
The Republican leadership, as usual, has kind of last to the multiracial picnic.
They haven't opened up sufficient positions of leadership for Blacks and for Hispanics.
They need to do that.
But there is a window of opportunity here for the GOP to win the suburbs.
And by winning the suburbs, you have a suburban rural alliance against the inner cities, which have become more and more unlivable, more and more infested with crime and drugs and homelessness.
Let that be, let these be the kind of dysfunctional democratic pockets inside a multiracial Republican nation.
Can you have too many towels?
Well, the answer to that is no.
And as for Debbie and me, we just can't stop ordering the MyPillow towels.
We've replaced all the towels in our house with MyPillow towels, but now Mike Lindell is a special that we can't pass up, so we're just going crazy and ordering more for us and for our family.
Now ordinary towels just don't seem to dry you anymore.
They feel soft and lotiony in the store, but you take them home and they don't absorb.
Why not?
Because towel companies typically import the product and they add softeners that make the towels feel good, but they don't dry you very well.
Mike Lindell has solved this problem.
Debbie and I can testify he's created the best towel company right here in the USA.
MyPillow has proprietary technology to create towels that not only feel soft, but actually absorb and leave you feeling fresh and dry.
MyPillow towels come with the MyPillow 60-Day Money-Back Guarantee.
For a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering a ridiculously good deal on his six-piece towel set.
By the way, excellent Christmas gift for everybody.
This includes two bath towels, two hand towels, two washcloths.
They're made with USA Cotton Soft Yet Absorbent, regularly $109.99 and now $39.99.
What a deal.
Call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code DINESH. Vice President Kamala Harris just lashed out at the European explorers who came to America starting with Columbus.
She was speaking before the National Congress of American Indians.
This is their annual convention.
And she says that these explorers ushered in a, quote, wave of devastation for Native Americans.
She talks about the shameful past of America.
And then she goes on to say what this wave of devastation is.
Because she's trying to show that it has an impact not just in the past, but in the present.
She says, Native Americans are more likely to live in poverty, to be unemployed, and often struggle to get quality health care and find affordable housing.
Not for a minute does she ask why that is, because those are facts.
But what do those have to do with Columbus?
What do they have to do with Cabral?
What do they have to do with Cabot?
What do they have to do with Cortez?
Unanswered. She goes on to say, and now she appeals to Biden, who of course declared, he was the first president to declare Indigenous Peoples Day.
And again, Biden goes, for generations, federal policies systematically sought to displace Native people.
And my question is, again, whose policies?
Yeah, federal policies. Were these Democratic policies or Republican policies?
Biden maintains a discreet silence on this topic.
And he goes, today we recognize Now, this is to me the kind of...
I mean, it's intended to be complimentary, but it is so over-the-top and ridiculous.
What is the immeasurable impact on every aspect of American society that Native Americans have made?
I could name 50 areas of American society in which Native Americans have made little or no impact.
So, this is the kind of thing where you are trying to do an after-dinner toast, but you end up insulting the people you're talking to because your rhetoric bears no resemblance to reality.
Now, the simple fact of it is that the Democratic Party has been the scourge of the Indians.
Not Columbus, not Cabral, not Cabot, but the Democratic Party, beginning with its founder, Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson is sometimes called the people's president.
But the reason he was the people's president is essentially he developed a scheme to defeat the Indians militarily, beat them up, chastise them.
This was his favorite word, and for him chastise meant kill.
So he would kill these Indians, he would take their land and drive them west, He would benefit personally from this, by the way.
There's a very interesting book called Jackson Land, which lays this out in sort of shameful and excruciating detail.
Basically, what Andrew Jackson would do is he'd drive the Indians off the land, and he'd know the Indian land is coming up for sale.
Then he would send his own buddies to be surveyors of that land.
They would then value the land extremely low.
Andrew Jackson would put together investors, including himself, to buy that land.
This is how this guy became fabulously rich, became one of the larger slave owners because he bought an expensive...
He bought a... this is a guy who came from nothing, bought a huge plantation, employed all kinds of slaves.
So he killed and ripped off the Indians, stole their land and used the money to buy slaves.
This is the Democratic Party, by the way.
These are the people who are lecturing us now about morality and our shameful past.
It's their shameful past, not your shameful past, not my shameful past.
Now, the murderous policies adopted by Jackson I mean, think of the Trail of Tears.
This was the displacement of the Cherokee Indians who were thrown off their land.
They were essentially put into miserable, well, today we'd call them concentration camps, but they were miserable facilities.
They got sick. They died in large numbers.
This was actually carried out under Van Buren, who was Andrew Jackson's successor.
But that was the second leading Democrat to become president, Andrew Jackson's vice president.
In a sense, carrying out Andrew Jackson's policies.
So all of this history, by the way, the role not of America, not of Columbus, who came 300 years earlier, but of the Democratic Party in destroying these Indian nations, ripping off their land for personal gain.
And if you follow the machinations of Andrew Jackson, it's almost like this is an early incarnation of the Clinton Foundation.
Except, you know, you might say, wait a minute, the Clinton Foundation was basically selling off offices and doing a racketeering with foreign nations.
But ironically, the Indian nations were considered foreign nations at that time.
They were independent of the U.S. They were considered separate nations.
Andrew Jackson often talked of his dealings with the Indians as if it was, quote, foreign policy.
And this was a guy who figured out how to make money on foreign policy long before Hillary Clinton did, long before Joe Biden did.
This is the deeply corrupt history of the Democratic Party.
And in the next segment, I'm going to bring the story up to the present to show how Democrats now continue their tradition of exploitation and devastation.
So yes, is there a shameful past?
There is, and it comes from the Democrats.
Is it true that there is a wave of devastation that has been and is being visited on Native Americans?
Yes, and it's also coming from the party of the donkey.
Aches and pains come to all of us eventually, whether from the normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
Now, you have the choice to feel trapped by aches and pains, or you can fight back against them.
And the tools are different now from a decade or more ago.
Now there's a 100% drug-free solution It's called relief factor.
Relief factor supports your body's fight against inflammation that is the source of aches and pains.
About 70% of the over half million people who try relief factor order more.
Why? Because it works for them.
You have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
Isn't it time for you to get out of pain?
Now, typically, advertisers send us products.
Debbie and I try them. Debbie's been suffering from frozen shoulder for a couple of years now.
And, well, she tried Relief Factor to her amazement.
Two weeks later, boom, she could lift her arm.
Not only could she lift it, but it no longer hurt.
Well, she got busy, forgot to order more, and, well, the pain came right back.
So now Debbie is like, I'll never be without Relief Factor again.
Next week, by the way, I'm going to bring Debbie on the show to give us an update on how she's doing now that she's back on Relief Factor.
You, too, can benefit.
Try it for yourself. Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
Once again, the number 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. It's so characteristic of the left to appeal to the crimes of American history, slavery, the trail of tears, racism, and then coolly blame those on just the white man or on America.
And they always ignored the role of their own party, the Democratic Party, which spearheaded, by and large, these offenses.
This was true of slavery.
It was certainly true of the Trail of Tears.
In slavery, for example, the massive spread of plantations across the American South, that did not occur at the time of the American founding.
In fact, it occurred after Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s.
So it was really the 1810s and 20s when the plantations began to spread.
They had spread enormously by 1860, of course.
And the Democratic Party was formed as the party of the plantation.
So this is what you don't get from the textbooks.
This is what you don't get from the History Channel.
Now here's a little clip from a scene in one of my movies.
Which one, honey? Hillary's America.
Hillary's America. Showing the Trail of Tears, the mass displacement of the Cherokee.
This was done initially conceived by Andrew Jackson, but executed by Martin Van Buren, his Democratic successor.
Watch. Historians celebrate Jackson as a champion of the common man.
But how did Jackson win over the ordinary Democrat?
He did it by seizing the land of the American Indians.
He massacred them.
He burned their homes and villages.
And in violation of treaties, he then sold that land at bargain basement prices to white settlers in exchange for their votes.
Now, you might ask, what is all this Indian removal, as Andrew Jackson called it?
Is this merely just bigotry expressing itself?
No. It was part of a vote-buying scheme.
And I say this because that resonates with what Democrats do today.
The idea is to use the power of the federal government To collect goodies that you then dispense to people, and those people in return will give you their political allegiance, which is to say, their votes.
So Andrew Jackson did this, but he did this with white people.
His basic idea was, hey, white guys, you want to settle across the country, but of course you've got these native tribes, and they claim it's their land.
Here's where I come in.
I will thrash them, chastise them, really, and what he meant was kill them.
I will drive them west.
And I will force them to take the worst land in the country, but that will free up the good land, which I will then begin to parcel out.
Well, some of it's going to have to go to me.
Think of it. Every federal program, you've got a whole group of administrators who siphon off a whole bunch of the benefits.
So here, too, Andrew Jackson's like, well, you know, I'm going to make off like a bandit, but you will also be able to get this land at bargain basement prices.
Because the federal government will put it up for sale, and then you'll be so thankful to me for having made available the land that I'm going to win the election, which Andrew Jackson did in 1828 in a landslide.
So this was the political motivation behind it.
In the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee were the people who refused to go.
And Jackson tried all kinds of schemes.
He bribed the Cherokee, and he found a group of renegade Cherokee who agreed to sign a treaty.
But of course, the real Cherokee leadership and the majority of the Cherokee did not recognize this, and they refused.
And so the whole Trail of Tears was essentially, okay, it's time now to make them relocate.
4,000 Indians died from malnourishment and disease.
This has gone on in American history as one of the Kind of just very disgraceful moments of American history.
But again, even though it's American history, you know, it paints with too broad a brush just to blame America.
Because this was done by a Democratic administration carrying out Democratic policies for Democratic political gain.
These were the Jackson Democrats.
And of course, while circumstances, people say, well, then as you know, why are you bringing all this up?
The Democratic Party today is unrecognizably different.
No. My point is the Democratic Party is recognizably similar in many important ways.
Of course, America isn't an agricultural society.
Of course, we don't have slave plantations like in the old days.
But we still have the same Democratic Party, and they are the same bigoted, lying characters that they were in the days of Andrew Jackson.
So this is a party that has been corrupted at its root.
And ironically, the corruptions it blames on the country, it blames on the white man, it blames on the South, are corruptions that have been undertaken by this party.
Very often opposed, by the way, by the Republican Party, which there wasn't a Republican Party in the time of Andrew Jackson, but Davy Crockett, who was a Democrat, It resisted Andrew Jackson.
Basically said, what you're doing is wicked.
What you're doing is vile. It's immoral.
Ultimately, those defectors from the Democratic Party became Whigs, and later many of those same people became Republicans.
So we, the Republican Party, we are the party of opposing the plantation and opposing the Trail of Tears and opposing the exploitation and exposing, to quote Kamala Harris, the devastation wrought on minority communities by her own party.
It's time for holiday cleaning, guys.
Now, before you replace your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you've got to try Genesis 950.
Reviews? Amazing. This is one product that works.
With water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine and it's green, so it's safe for your family and pets.
Genesis 950 is made in America.
One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, grease stains.
Debbie uses it to clean everything and she's not even a fan of cleaning.
But when she sees how great Genesis 950 is, she doesn't mind when I get chocolate ink or other stuff on the furniture or on the carpet.
Well, she does mind but she gets it right off.
This is a perfect holiday gift for a pet owner.
Genesis 950 has great customer service, always willing to help with problems.
Order one gallon direct at Genesis950.com.
You'll get a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon using the code Dinesh.
That's Genesis950.com.
Coupon only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis 950. It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets or your furniture.
I want to continue my response to Kamala Harris and her claim that it was the European explorer, starting with Columbus, who devastated the Native Americans, creating a shameful legacy that lasts to this very day.
And I want to do this now, not by appealing to history.
I've talked about the Trail of Tears.
I've talked about the depredations of the Jackson and Van Buren Democrats.
I now want to come to the life of Native Americans today.
A few years ago, I was on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, just getting a kind of up-close look at what reservation life looks like, and it was really a shocking sight.
Ramshackle dwellings, filth everywhere, cars sitting on lawns, you know, just wild dogs running around barking, disconsolate native people sitting around, sometimes with, you know, a Coors beer in their hand, just looking as if the world is coming to an end.
Just a picture not only of poverty, poverty is one thing, but of despair.
And I thought to myself, who did that?
I mean, who's created that? Is that Columbus?
Columbus do that? No, it isn't Columbus.
It is the federal government operating through democratically established policies.
By the way, these reservations...
Now, most Indians don't live on a reservation, but there are about 300 reservations in America, 310 to be more precise.
About one in five Indians live on a reservation, but the reservations sort of define the identity of Native Americans.
And you have to recognize that the Native American reservation is the, you may say, the native version of the Democratic plantation.
The Democrats are the party of the plantation.
I've mentioned in the previous segment how they are the ones who created the vast network of slave plantations across the country.
And they've been using this plantation model for every ethnic group.
In fact, they're trying to make the barrios into sort of Latino plantations.
So they've got inner cities now as their black plantations.
They've got barrios as their Latino plantations.
And the reservations are their native plantations.
Now, there are some important differences, of course.
Most of the democratic plantations today in the inner city are urban.
Most of these native reservations are rural.
But there are recognizable similarities.
You know, a lot of, once you demystify some of the rhetoric, the similarities become apparent.
So the Native Americans, for example, say that they are separate nations.
We're independent nations.
We're not part of sort of America per se.
We are self-governing.
But then you ask yourself, self-governing how?
As a practical matter, these reservations are 100% dependent on the federal government.
So, in fact, the Supreme Court has recognized this.
They call them separate nations that are also, quote, dependent nations because federal control of these reservations is...
Near absolute. So the Democrats have almost established, you could call it, democratic paradise on the Native American reservation.
Paradise in the sense that they're able to harvest, in some cases, over 90% of these Native American votes.
Why? Because the Native Americans depend on the federal government for everything.
They depend on the federal government for housing.
They depend on it for transportation, for food, for healthcare.
The federal government is literally the caretaker of these Indian, quote, nations.
Interestingly, in some of these tribes, foreigners, now foreigners are people who are not Native American, can't live on the reservation.
So what do they do? They create what the Native Americans call the compound, a huge ring that is looked on as those are the foreigners.
But who are the foreigners? Well, they're typically teachers and administrators and welfare bureaucrats and government officials and Social workers and research teams and medical personnel.
These are the overseers of the reservation.
And the Native American people view the foreigners with some resentment or even hatred, in part because they get lousy services, lousy education, lousy health care, and so on.
But these overseers don't really mind because their goal is to keep the Native American people poor and dependent.
Think about it. If they were not poor and they were not dependent, they might say, well, listen, we'll run this reservation on our own.
Or we're going to get up and leave the reservation.
We're going to go live in the rest of America.
We're going to get jobs. We're going to move up.
We're going to start companies. They don't want any of that.
And so they like this idea of people living in dependent misery.
There are some affluent tribes, of course, but generally those are the tribes that have casinos.
The other tribes are terribly poor.
And all the cultural pathologies that you see, for example, in inner cities, broken families, gangs, a sense of despair, high crime rates, all of this you see on the Pine Ridge Reservation and indeed on many reservations across the country.
Serious problems with drugs, serious problems with alcohol.
I was reading a book called Res Life in which the author says that on the...
In one of the Native American towns on the reservation, one in six residents has done more than 10 years in prison.
So this is really the Native American version of Oakland and Baltimore and Chicago.
The government has wreaked the same havoc on the reservations as it has in those places.
So when Kamala Harris says, you know, we've devastated the Native American population, she's right.
But the we here refers to her as And her party, and not just her party in the 1830s in the era of Andrew Jackson, but her party now, which maintains these multicultural plantations, almost, you may say, shared misery, but shared misery that redounds to the political advantage of the Democratic Party.
Inflation is already running hot, right at the highs of the last couple of decades, and now the Democrats are trying to push through another massive spending plan, $3.5 trillion.
So here's the deal.
If you think money grows on trees like our government does, well, I guess you can keep living in ignorance, but if you're freaked out as I am about the impact this additional spending is going to have on already high inflation, well, it's time to protect your savings now.
Diversify a portion of your savings into gold and silver Diversify a portion of your savings into gold and silver with Birch Gold Group.
If you haven't reached out to Birch Gold to diversify part of your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA, do it today.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
They have an A-plus rating with a better business bureau, countless 5-star reviews, and thousands of happy customers.
Talk to them.
Have them help you safeguard your investments.
Text Dinesh to 484848 to claim your free information kit and to speak with a precious metals expert on holding gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account.
Again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
Guys, I'm always happy to welcome my daughter, Danielle.
This is a Gil, to the podcast.
She's the author of the book, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America.
She's also the host of a weekly TV show, which appears on Epoch TV. It's part of the Epoch Times podcast.
Daniel, welcome to the podcast.
Let me start by just asking you about, you've now been doing your show for, what, eight weeks?
Talk about the difference between writing a book and doing a TV show.
Which do you like better and what's the experience been like so far?
I really love both, and I think they're just so different because with the book, you end up working on it for about a year.
You spend a lot of time researching it, and most people, of course, don't actually read it or get to experience it until the book comes out.
But with the show, when you work on it every week and people can see it pretty much in a timely manner, and then you kind of move on to the next episode, it's just a different type of Writing and a different type of experience, but I really love both and so I think the combination of getting to do both is really special.
Awesome. Hey, listen, you've sent me a couple of articles that I want to talk about.
One of them, they both deal in different ways with kind of woke culture.
One of them is situated on the campus, and the other one has to do with Hollywood, so the larger culture.
But let's talk first about the campus.
There's a ruckus at the University of Michigan because a Chinese-American, a guy named Bright Cheng, A very talented musician.
In fact, this guy got a MacArthur Genius Award.
He's been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in Music.
This is a guy who got into trouble.
Talk a little bit about what he did that was so outrageous, and then what happened.
Well, it's just, it's so sad.
He is a music professor, and he actually ended up showing a video of Laurence Olivier in blackface in a Shakespeare play in Othello.
And I think that he wanted to show kind of how, you know, more of the cultural side of things.
But of course, the only thing that the left drew from it, the only thing that students drew from it, was the blackface.
That Laurence Olivier wore at that time.
Of course, that was actually like a very old film.
And he's a renowned actor.
And so I think it's really sad that even though he apologized and said, I'm sorry, I understand, you know, the meaning of blackface, they couldn't accept that they couldn't accept his apology.
And they also continue to call him a racist.
And even other professors are getting up against him, which I think is the most sad because of course, these woke students, I mean, they're total idiots.
But These other professors have turned on him and have really said, you know, he's racist.
And the fact that he would even say that he's not a racist means even more that he's a racist.
And so when Breitshing tried to defend himself, he just made it worse for him.
He says that the reason that he played this old film is that he actually wanted to show how Othello, the play, could be adapted into an opera.
So he was obviously interested in the music angle.
The blackface part of it was incidental.
Also, being Chinese-American, he may not have originally grasped the significance of doing that, especially today.
Now, he, as you say, when the students began to protest, he issued an apology, and he said two things.
One is he said, I didn't know, I'm really sorry.
But the other thing he said was, he said, I have, I've always been fair to my students, and I have in fact mentored a number of students of color.
And this is what I find interesting.
They say that his apology is itself racist, in part because he's implying that the success of these students of color is due to him, Well, obviously it's due to him.
He's the professor. He's the one teaching them their craft.
And so, they wanted him to just grovel and not attempt to defend himself in any way.
And I think that's what they seem to have found most offensive of all.
Absolutely. They really just want you to be in self-flagellation mode where there's no redeeming quality to you as a person.
There's no way you can get out of this.
It literally is just pure racism.
That is what they want you to say and admit, which of course is not even true.
So even if he were to say that, it wouldn't even be reflective of the truth of his heart behind that action or who he is as a person.
I think we can obviously tell that he's not a racist, right?
But I think that it just shows that the left, they really never give up.
And these other professors who have even signed these letters saying that he should be, you know, fired and so on, I think just shows just how crazy this entire sphere is.
And hopefully the tables turn on those other professors and they're punished at some point.
I mean, you have the department repudiating him.
You have the Office of Diversity repudiating him.
I mean, listen to this comment by one of his own colleagues.
Probably somebody he knows that he sees in the faculty dining room.
This is a guy named Evan Chambers.
And he says that the apology itself is, quote, a racist act regardless of the professor's intentions.
And that's what I want you to comment on.
How can something be racist regardless of intention?
Let's say his intention was, as he says...
To draw out the operatic significance of this film, so he has no racist motive, how can something be a racist act apart from motive?
Well, I also think that the film in and of itself and showing films from history is not racist.
So I also just completely disagree with the premise that even if his intention was to show historical films, that that's not wrong because there is a lot to learn from history and we learn about all kinds of things that might have been, let's say, wrong.
But I think that Taking this as if it's a personal attack, as if he was showing this film in order to upset students of color, as if he was trying to be a racist or he, you know, it somehow shows his internal intention or even not.
I think it's just so irrelevant.
I think that people should be able to learn about history and be able to watch films from history.
And that's why students don't end up learning anything these days is because everything is just so censored.
I mean, it's worth noting that Laurence Olivier, one of the admittedly greatest actors of all time, and it's also worth noting that this is a film that was...
This is an act done by some guy raised in China, someone who's probably not fully initiated into woke sensibilities, but the students want a safe space.
I think that's the outrage of the whole thing.
Universities are not supposed to be safe spaces.
There's supposed to be unsafe spaces where you actually learn things that are not only unfamiliar to you, but maybe even upset you in some regards.
Daniel, when we come back, I want to pivot to a topic closely related, which is wokeness in Hollywood, in this case led by the star of Thelma and Louise, Gina Davis.
We'll be right back. Just a few weeks ago, one of America's leading nonprofit law firms, this is the first Liberty Institute, asked patriots like you to sign their letter to help stop President Biden's radical scheme to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, since then, a quarter of a million plus have signed, with tens of thousands joining their coalition every day.
Franklin Graham, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, Dr.
James Dobson, the Family Policy Alliance, the Heritage Foundation, they're all on board.
Look, if we don't stop the radical left from installing four more justices so they can rig the system in their favor, it will end the rule of law as we know it in America.
Please sign your name now like Debbie and I both have.
Go to SupremeCoup, that's C-O-U-P. Go to SupremeCoup.com to sign First Liberty's letter.
Again, that's SupremeCoup.com and may God bless America.
I'm back with my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, author of the book, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America, also host of a, well, relatively new show on Epoch TV. It's called Counterculture with Danielle D'Souza Gill.
Danielle, let's pivot to the article you sent me about Hollywood.
I found this really bizarre.
Here's Geena Davis, whom I like, the star of Thelma and Louise and a bunch of other movies.
But evidently, she's now become a kind of woke cultural warrior, and she is working with the company to monitor scripts throughout Hollywood to sort of, you could call it, screen for unconscious racial and maybe gender bias.
Talk a little bit about what's in this article, and then we can discuss what we think about it.
Yeah, I read that she's been partnering with NBC Universal to basically use AI, artificial intelligence, to screen these films, screen scripts, to make sure that, you know, women speak a certain number of minutes.
There's this number of people of different racial backgrounds.
There are even requirements, like if two women have to speak to each other.
For a certain amount of time and not about a male character or things like that.
And so I think that this really just shows the fact that, number one, Hollywood is so off the rails that they're willing to even do something like this with artificial intelligence.
But part of me also feels like I don't actually...
Object that much because I think it's time Hollywood really follow their own standards.
Oftentimes they call for these things and make other people do this, but I hope some of them lose out on these jobs because they have to follow their own rules for a change.
I mean, just think of, this is to me an open declaration of war against creativity because if you or I or anyone sits down, let's say, to write a script or to write a novel, We're going to tell our story our way.
And so the idea that I've got to have a certain number of men and women and where's the Chinese character and, you know, I don't see anyone who's trans in the script, you know, this notion and the idea of using, as you say, artificial intelligence as a counting mechanism to assign point values.
I mean, I can't think of something more alien to the spirit of creativity.
So the reason I support this, Danielle, is because I think it's going to accelerate the already continuing decline of Hollywood.
They already show that they don't know what a good story is like.
They don't understand human feelings.
They can't make a good script anymore.
You've got to go back 20, sometimes 40 years to find a movie that you can emotionally identify with that even has any concept of a coherent plot or Or motive or character or development or climax or any of that.
So do you see this as a way of Hollywood, I mean, signing its own death warrant?
Exactly. And that's probably why the professor we mentioned, Bright Shang, had to show Laurence Olivier in a film because that is when films were great.
But I think it just shows that Hollywood is really not worth watching.
It's not worth us even engaging in them.
And I don't even care to defend them.
I don't even care to defend the...
The fairness of, let's say, other people getting roles and so on because, you know, if they want to live in that world and that's what they want to do, they want to have those standards and make Hollywood all about that, that's fine.
And hopefully people disengage from the culture that they're creating and don't support those films.
Apparently, all of this started with something called the Bechdel Test.
A cartoonist named Alison Bechdel, who was concerned, I think, more about feminism, not so much about the race issue, she figured out a way to kind of allocate point significance to the distribution of male and female roles.
So she was pushing for more female roles.
And now they've taken this concept and expanded it to the race issue, plugging in all these different racial groups and And of course, I think Geena Davis thinks that she's incredibly cool.
She goes, I am heartened by NBCUniversal's commitment and ongoing dedication to systemically improve Latino, Latina, Black, and AAPI. I guess that's Asian American Pacific Islander.
So this is how these people define success these days.
It's virtue signaling.
It has nothing to do with a good script, a powerful story, something that's true to life, something that the audiences will identify with.
They are truly in their own world, and I think you're right.
You and I should just check out of it.
I don't even think all these foreign markets that they're pushing for will care about any of this stuff.
You think the Chinese, the Indians, people around the world care about this nonsense?
They're going to basically say, these people are living on Mars, so let them.
Exactly. It kind of reminds me of walking down the street and passing an athletic store and seeing that all the mannequins are obese.
It's like, does that make me want to go into that store?
Does that make me feel like that's something to aspire to as far as fitness?
I would say probably not.
And honestly, I think that the things that the left is doing is really a turnoff to a lot of people.
And I think the only downside is just that people don't have maybe enough alternatives.
And so that's why people still feel like, well, I have to watch a movie or I have to do something because it's the weekend and I feel like doing that.
So we do need those alternatives, which I think would help a lot.
But other than that, no, I think the left is really pushing people away themselves.
They're turning people away.
And then when normal people see these things, they just think, oh, wow, well, this is really strange.
I mean, most people in the country aren't trans.
So if that's going to be their main character from now on, then that's just odd.
Absolutely. Well, I couldn't agree with you more about the fact that I think as conservatives, we need to build our own culture, our own education, our own comedians, our own movies, really our own Hollywood.
We won't call it Hollywood, and it probably isn't going to be based in Hollywood, but nevertheless, it provides the kind of genuine entertainment, not just a recreation of the past, but an application of enduring human principles to today's world in a way that new audiences can identify with.
Exactly. And I think before in Hollywood, maybe 50 years ago, there were still some films left who were pretty good.
There were still things to watch.
And that's why conservatives might have engaged with a culture that was still dominated by the left.
But now, I mean, what would be even the point?
Because whenever you watch a random movie or a random new TV show, it's just horrible.
So I think that this is really not going to end well for Hollywood.
And that's why a lot of them can't even show movies in theaters anymore.
Nobody even wants to go to them.
People are so disengaged from their culture.
They're only willing to watch it because they're in the convenience of their own couch and can kind of turn it on.
But they don't actually really care to watch these films.
I agree. My message to Gina Davis is keep doing what you're doing.
You're taking Hollywood off the precipice.
And my advice is just keep going.
Thanks, Danielle. Really appreciate it.
Look forward to having you back soon.
Thank you. I want to challenge you to become a MyPillow super shopper like Debbie and me.
We don't just patronize MyPillow.
We go all out to support Mike Lindell.
We do it because of his views, his convictions, his faith, and we're also happy to do it because he makes great products.
Now, Mike Lindell wants to make it easy for you to be a super shopper, so for his part, he gives you great deals.
For example, he's offering a buy one, get one free on his Giza Dream Sheets.
He's also offering up to 66% off On a whole bunch of other products.
All the MyPillow products, by the way, come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts.
You've got to use promo code Dinesh.
If you haven't seen it yet, you should watch my Prager University 5 video series.
Each video, just 5 minutes, on the American founders.
Collectively the videos are called The Making of America.
You can watch them on PragerU.com.
And because it's obviously preposterous to try to cover a founder's life or legacy in five minutes, I focused on each founder with one issue.
So with Jefferson it's equality.
With Hamilton it's capitalism.
With Madison it's the idea of rights.
But I now want to turn to my exploration of John Adams.
And with John Adams, the issue I've chosen that I think goes so well with Adams because he not only talked about it and obsessed about it, but he reflected it in his own life.
This is the idea of virtue.
Adams was a kind of classic New Englander of the old stripe.
A person of unshakable integrity and someone who was suspicious of how do you create a society in which this virtue is not only permitted, it's permitted in a free society, but cultivated so it doesn't begin to deplete as it seems to have depleted across the decades in America.
Look at the state of virtue now, for example, in America compared to, say, 100, let alone 200 years ago.
I'm going to read a couple of lines from letters that Adams wrote that reflect his concern with this topic.
Here's his letter from Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, 1798.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate.
Think of the implications of that remark.
He's basically saying that if we're not a moral and religious people, we don't really deserve to be.
We can't be a free people in the sense that the American founders intended.
Here's Adams again, wondering about the effects of affluence.
Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry?
Will you tell me how to prevent riches from producing luxury?
Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?
Here, what Adams is saying is that through temperance and frugality and hard work, we create prosperity.
But how do we transmit that prosperity to the next generation?
They're not going to be as frugal.
They're not going to be as temperate.
They're not going to have the same qualities of deferred gratification as their parents.
I mean, think of how relevant this is, for example, to so many of us who grew up with so little, Debbie and me included, but with our children, they have so much more and we can tell them about our hardship, but how do we communicate it to them?
They who have been raised under totally different circumstances.
Here's Adams again, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1808.
When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled, when a party is substituted for the nation and faction for a party, when venality skulks and lurks in secret, and much more, when it impudently braves the public censure, almost a clinical description of the Biden administration, he goes, the republic is lost in essence.
Though it may still exist in form.
So in other words, the chilling idea here is that you can lose America even while keeping all the kind of outward structures of America.
Well, yeah, we had an election.
Well, yeah, we do have a constitution.
We don't pay attention to it or it's become so elastic.
Nobody knows what it means.
So, I think today, to understand Adams, we have to think for a moment about virtue itself.
Because when we hear the word virtue today, we hear it from the left and from the right, but I think both in a context that Adams would find unrecognizable.
From the left, virtue is, well, you've heard the term, virtue signaling.
And the key word there is signaling because you don't actually have to be virtuous.
In fact, you don't have to do anything.
What you have to do, this is a virtue that makes no demands on people.
All you have to do is claim victimization.
Not even your victimization.
No one did anything to you, but you are a member of a victim group that was once victimized, and so apparently you're haunted by those memories, and this supposedly makes you virtuous.
Or, if you think about virtue signaling, and think about somebody like Bill Clinton, this is an utterly shameless character.
This is a guy who, for example, is a routine abuser of women.
In one case, he's even accused of raping a woman, Juanita Broderick.
And yet, here's a guy who basically uses virtue signaling to get out of responsibility.
He's sort of like, well, yeah, you know, I may have done those things, but, you know, I do support the Equal Rights Amendment.
I am on the side of women's rights.
I support equal pay for equal work.
And so, the virtue signaling actually is a mode of escaping virtue, of showing no virtue, and covering for your lack of virtue.
Now, on the right... We often hear about virtue, but their virtue is tied very much, I would call it, to the feminine virtues.
It's tied to chastity.
It's tied to the family.
It's tied to abortion.
It's tied to sexuality.
And so these are, well, let's call them feminine, a kind of feminine understanding of virtue because it essentially revolves around sexuality.
Now, interestingly, in Adams' time, when Adams uses, as he frequently does, the virtue, he doesn't mean any of this.
He's actually talking about public virtue.
He's talking about civic virtue.
He's talking about the virtues of a citizen, not just of a private individual.
He believed in the virtues of a private individual, and he in fact practiced them.
But he also believed that virtue needs to manifest itself in patriotic and civic engagement.
Now, why? What was he really getting at?
I think what Adams was getting at, and I'll pick this thought up tomorrow, go into more specific detail about it, is that, yes, we want the abundant society.
Yes, we want the free society.
But we also want the virtuous, which is to say the wholesome society.
Wholesome here is It's wholesome in the sense that we mean it today, morally wholesome, clean cut, but also in the wholesome in the sense that all the citizens have an attachment to something bigger than themselves.
They are engaged in their communities, they're involved in private charities, they're involved in civic enterprises, whether they're volunteer firefighters or they man the volunteer city library.
So freedom for Adams didn't mean mere choice.
Freedom meant we have to educate people, and you see the importance of the role of education here.
Religious education, yes, conducted through the churches, but also moral education conducted by parents and by schools and by civic institutions.
The idea here is not just to have choice, but to make the right choice.
So this is Adams, our kind of man of virtue, distinctive among the American founders in that way, hoping to create in America not just the free society, not just the prosperous society, but also the good society.
▲
Export Selection