All Episodes
Nov. 2, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
56:23
EUGENICS AND THE COURT Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep209
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Supreme Court had a major hearing yesterday on the Texas abortion law.
I'm going to spell out both the procedural and the substantive implications.
Daniel D'Souza Gill is going to join me.
We're going to talk about the eugenic foundations of the pro-choice movement.
Ilhan Omar blames the police for rising crime rates in Minneapolis.
I'm going to be dissecting that one.
And Joel Berry, the managing editor of the Babylon Bee, is here.
We're going to talk about the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness.
This, 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 Supreme Court held an important hearing yesterday in two separate cases. One case brought by the Biden administration. This case was called United States versus Texas.
And the second case was brought by abortion providers in Texas.
This is a group represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a lawyer named Mark Heron.
And both groups kind of allied together, so this is why the Supreme Court sort of merged these two cases.
But the two cases need to be considered separately because there's a different kind of underlying reasoning.
That goes into both.
And this is what the Supreme Court is all about.
We have to remember that courts are not just about determining a substantive outcome.
Hey, is abortion good? Should we have more of it or less of it?
That tends to be how the cases are interpreted in the public mind.
It's a big win for the pro-abortion side or a big win for the The pro-life side.
But for the court, they're going to be looking at things like can this precedent be used in other cases involving, say, free speech or gun rights?
Or what is the government trying to do here?
Is the federal government trying to override the state government's Can the federal government, namely the Biden administration, somehow override something that is decided locally by a state, in this case Texas?
Doesn't Texas have the right to make its own laws?
Doesn't the Constitution allocate power between the federal government and the state?
So let's talk first about the Biden administration.
I think it was Jen Psaki who said in a kind of offhand comment, but one that reflects Biden administration ideology, that federal laws trump state laws.
Now, this is actually not true.
It is certainly not true in all cases.
Obviously, in some cases, it is true.
So the question then becomes, what is the way to look at what's happening here?
Now, in this particular case, I'm looking at the kind of logic that's going on here, and the Supreme Court asks the Solicitor General who's arguing the case, a woman named Prelagar, Elizabeth Preligar, they say, hey, you're talking about the fact that the federal government here wants to override a Texas state law because you claim that you are the custodian of constitutional rights that apply across the country.
And in this case, you're talking about the abortion right deriving from the still standing Roe v.
Wade. And so the justices asked Elizabeth Preligar, Can you give us some examples of some other cases where you have intervened, let's just say on behalf of free speech rights or the right to assemble or the right to religious freedom, where a state has tried to curtail those laws and you, the federal government, have jumped in to try to save the American people from this?
State violation of the Constitution.
And she couldn't give a single example.
She goes, well, this is a very unique situation in Texas because private individuals are being empowered to sue.
The state is not taking any action by itself directly.
Now, I have to pause here to give a salute to Jonathan Mitchell.
Jonathan Mitchell is the one-time Supreme Court clerk who devised the logic of the Texas law.
And you know that this guy is a genius.
In fact, I first learned about him from Texas State Senator Brian Hughes and State Representative Shelby Slauson.
You might remember they were on the podcast a few weeks ago.
And I said to those guys, where'd you get the idea for framing the law in this kind of creative and original way?
And they go, yeah, Jonathan Mitchell is the architect of the Texas law.
And you can tell that this is novel because the Supreme Court was kind of flummoxed by it.
And yet the court took the position that, you know, if the Biden administration is across the board stepping in to enforce rights, it is gonna be odd that they can't point to a single other instance where they have done that.
I'm now quoting Justice Gorsuch.
We don't get to pick and choose among our rights.
If this administration is aggressively defending those rights, show us that you've been doing it across the board.
Well, I guess what he's getting at here is that obviously the Biden people don't care about states that have been violating constitutional rights left and right in many other spheres, particularly under COVID.
You remember Justice Alito talked about how religious freedom has become virtually extinct in the country because it is constantly being set aside by states.
So this is a gross violation of the constitution and yet the Biden administration has been largely silent.
Why?
Because they don't essentially approve of this kind of constitutional suppression.
Now let's turn to the abortion providers and their lawsuit because it seems that here the Supreme Court was on the balance more sympathetic and particularly the Trump appointees.
It may seem odd to say, Justice Barrett, Gorsuch—I'm sorry— Justice Barrett and Neil Gorsuch were...
No, I'm sorry. We're talking about Kavanaugh.
I'm sorry. I got that off.
In any event, Kavanaugh and Barrett were both making the point that, look, if you are an abortion provider, this is not to say that you have a right to prevail.
You obviously don't.
But you have a right to sue.
You have a right to be heard.
You have a right to go to court and say, wait a minute, I have a right to provide this service.
And the question is, where can you sue?
So you have a right to be heard in court.
And I think the Supreme Court was particularly emphatic on this point, even the Trump appointees, because they realized that this kind of creative Texas approach on abortion could also be used by liberal states to suppress other rights, to suppress, let's say, gun rights.
So, for example, in a liberal state, they could say, well, listen, you know, you don't really have a Second Amendment right to own a gun, but the state is not going to do anything about it.
But individuals can now sue gun owners and sue gun stores for $10,000.
And this is going to make it very difficult for those stores to stay in business.
It's going to intimidate individuals from wanting to own a gun because they're facing this legal liability.
So I think the Supreme Court here is coming out with the fact that, look, there has to be some venue We're good to go.
Are you going to sue Ken Paxton, the Attorney General?
Are you going to sue the state judges that hear these cases?
The Supreme Court appeared really befuddled about where these cases could in fact be filed and against whom.
And the most important thing is the court gave no hint whatever about whether it was going to, quote, Set aside the Texas law while these matters were figured out.
This is a key question because so far the court has said, listen, we can figure these issues out.
We can sue all we want, but the law remains in effect in the meantime.
I think that's actually very important.
It would be seen as a defeat by the pro-life movement correctly if the Supreme Court somehow put the Texas law on the shelf or stayed its enforcement.
Pending a battery of lawsuits that could take who knows how long to play themselves out.
So this is my reading on where the court, at least trying to read the tea leaves of where the court is going to come out on all this.
I would say, on the balance, they're trying to find room for a venue for adjudication.
They are not really speaking directly to the issue of abortion rights at all.
Guys, you have helped to build MyPillow into the amazing company it is today.
Mike is very grateful.
Mike Lindell has an amazing offer for my listeners on his standard MyPillows.
This is his classic product.
You'll get the standard MyPillow regularly $69.98 for now, just $19.98.
These wonderful pillows 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.
MyPillow pillows come with a 10-year warranty, so you know they're gonna last, and a 60-day money-back guarantee, so you have nothing to lose.
It's time to start getting the quality sleep we not only want, but need.
You'll receive deep discounts if you go to the MyPillow website on all the MyPillow products, not just the pillows, but the towels, the mattress topper, the robes, the MySlippers, and so much more.
Christmas shopping, guys.
This is the time to go nuts.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh to receive Mike's standard MyPillow for just $19.98.
Or call 1-800-876-0227, 1-800-876-0227, or go to MyPillow.com.
Be sure to use promo code DINESHDINESH. I've been speaking so far about the procedural aspects of the abortion debate, the Texas abortion law, the Supreme Court decision.
But I think you can't talk about this issue without getting to the substance of it.
What is abortion all about?
What is this legacy of Roe v.
Wade that has occurred now for almost 50 years or maybe almost 50 plus years?
Danielle D'Souza, Gil, has written, I think, the definitive book on this, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America.
She's also the weekly host of a TV show on Epic TV, which you should check out.
Danielle, let's talk about this Supreme Court hearing that occurred yesterday.
They're talking about who can sue whom, but it seems to me that the missed aspect of all this is that this isn't an ordinary case about an ordinary issue.
What you have here is Well, and I would use the word a eugenic strategy and a eugenic policy that has driven the abortion movement.
Very often that name has been camouflaged.
They've tried to run from it.
Talk a little bit about the racist and eugenic roots of the so-called pro-choice movement.
Yeah, abortion really came out of the birth control movement, which also came out of the population control movement.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, her goal was to bring about her eugenics ideology for the country, basically to exterminate Blacks, to get rid of anyone who had any kind of mental deficiency, any kind of human weed, she would call them. So that's why she would speak to the KKK. That's why she was a...
A big proponent of eugenics and saw that her organization would be the way to carry out that ideology.
Let's talk about eugenics itself.
The word is a little unfamiliar to some people.
It comes out of breeding, right?
So for example, a dog breeder would cross Two different types of dog to get a dog which supposedly had better qualities.
Maybe didn't bark as much or didn't bite as much.
So it's using the breeding process to create, you may say, a superior population of dogs.
And this eugenic movement was part of the progressive movement in the early 20th century.
Margaret Sanger came out of that.
So she wasn't an isolated individual championing these things.
She represented this eugenic philosophy, which she applied to people.
And it wasn't just, interestingly, it wasn't just Blacks.
It was the poor.
She wanted the poor, the Hispanic, the Blacks.
She wanted to kind of thin out the ranks of those people.
Now, if you use this kind of language today, people would say, well, that has nothing to do with my decision to control my body.
So talk about how, even though people repudiate the eugenic label, how do we know that that eugenic strain is still alive and well, let's say in Planned Parenthood?
We know because Planned Parenthood today still sets up most of their abortion clinics in predominantly Black neighborhoods, predominantly minority neighborhoods.
They don't set them up in these, you know, as you claimed, white, wealthy neighborhoods because those aren't the people that they want getting abortions.
They want to make sure that it's It's the lower-income people who are getting abortions, and those are the people they always even talk about now, even when they tweet.
They say, oh, you know, this person is underprivileged and can't get an abortion, as if that person is the one who needs an abortion, when in reality we know that abortion has only been harmful to the Black family as well as many lower-income families, and it has divided families and really just brought a poison amongst many communities.
But that's Planned Parenthood's goal.
Yeah. What do you make of the fact that in Black communities, there needs to be, doesn't there, a kind of rebellion against this, in which Blacks realize that these people who are posing as their friends, hey guys, it would be really nice for society if there were fewer of you, so you might want to make, we want to make it easy for you to abort.
That this is not advice coming from a friendly source.
It's not coming from a friendly source. And we also see that if they actually thought that that was so great for them, it would have produced better results for that community. Because that's been going on for quite some time, as you said, about 50 years. So we'd be able to measure whether that was effective. And it clearly hasn't been because we've only seen that the out-of-wedlock births have increased. We've only seen that poverty amongst many in that group has increased.
So we haven't seen this lead to a successful outcome for them.
So this argument from the left that that's some kind of thing that's going to help them be a silver bullet, the baby's the problem, this is going to solve it, really isn't the case.
Actually, when there were more intact families amongst Blacks, we saw them succeeding a lot more, and we saw them really raised with fathers, which helped a lot.
Now, Planned Parenthood for a long time, and the left in general defended Margaret Sanger.
She was a heroine.
I remember Hillary Clinton got the Margaret Sanger Award.
She said, I admire Margaret Sanger tremendously.
But it now seems that there's been an effort to repudiate Sanger.
Not to repudiate the underlying eugenic philosophy, but sort of like, we're not going to put Sanger's name on the street, or we're not going to give the Sanger Award per se.
And maybe in that way, the philosophy can proceed further because it's no longer saddled with the...
I mean, Sanger was someone who praised the Nazi sterilization laws.
The Nazis themselves were influenced by American eugenics.
So you've got this sordid history, and there's only so long you can cover it up.
At some point, it's going to come to light.
And so maybe the strategy of the left is to sort of leave Sanger behind, but push forward with what you would call Sangerism.
Yeah, the left was really pushing Margaret Sanger even just till last year.
Hillary Clinton, as you said, you know, said that she was one of her greatest role models, a great honor to receive an award.
Titled the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, even their president, Alexis McGill, who's still their president now, was a huge fan of Margaret Sanger, obsessed with Margaret Sanger, talked about what a great person she was.
And she then later said, oh, I actually take that back.
We shouldn't cover for her anymore.
Which just kind of shows that, you know, for the left, they don't really care about, let's say, you know, Margaret Sanger or not.
They care about getting through their ideology.
So if they feel like they, that she helps that, then they promote her.
But if they feel like, oh, now she's kind of a liability, they don't want to promote her anymore.
They kick her to the curb and basically say, oh yeah, she was a racist.
Even though before, all of the claims that we used to make about her being a racist, really with quotes, real facts, they'd say, oh no, that's really dubious evidence.
That's That's something that's a citation that must be fact-checked on Snopes.
Well, they've now admitted it, so of course now it's a fact because they've admitted it, when in reality it was always a fact.
It looks like it was the Black Lives Matter people who, you know, in their kind of extensive search of finding racism here, racism there, they were like, racism over here!
And then they brought it to Planned Parenthood, and so this McGill woman you're talking about who had been previously cheerleading for Sanger now goes, oops!
So the left is responding to pressure from the left itself, and this is how they begin to modify their position.
And of course, like I said, they don't care about the truth.
They only care about what will get them maybe more people supporting abortion.
Right, exactly. Fruits and vegetables are integral to any healthy diet.
But why do so few Americans actually eat the recommended servings of produce every day?
Well, because it can be difficult to prepare that much produce daily.
But by taking balance of nature, you are giving your body all the nutrients it needs to increase your cells' vitality.
Get the nutrition that can only be found in whole natural fruits and vegetables.
Debbie and I take 10 daily servings of the fruits and veggies, all in six small capsules.
Check them out. They're absolutely no trouble swallowing.
Always fresh. Nothing artificial.
They smell great. Debbie swears by the fiber and spice, and I've finally been convinced to take it.
We are really liking it.
So invest in your health. Invest in your life.
Join me and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself for years to come.
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.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code America.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar thinks that she knows why crime rates are spiking in Minneapolis.
The reason is the police.
The police are to blame for rising crime rates.
Here's a short clip.
Listen. What we must also recognize is that the reduction in policing currently in our city and the lawlessness that is happening is due to two things.
One, the police have chosen to not fulfill their oath of office and to provide This, This, I think you'll agree, takes chutzpah to a totally new level because let's remember that you had Ilhan Omar was in the front of it.
She wasn't in front of it alone.
There was AOC, there was Cori Bush, there was Ayanna Pressley.
All these people were the leaders of the defund the police movement.
And Minneapolis took all kinds of actions in the aftermath of the riots to demoralize the police, to scale back funding.
They didn't do a complete defunding.
In fact, they couldn't.
Why?
Because there had been agreements and laws in place that they couldn't override, so they had to operate within those laws.
But the net effect was to reduce the power of the police, reduce the scope of police actions and also to strike a mortal blow at the morale of the police, the belief on the part of the police that the authorities, the elected authorities were behind them.
So let's follow the train.
You defund and demoralize the police.
As a consequence, you embolden the criminals.
As a consequence, crime rates begin to surge.
And by the way, this has been occurring in Minneapolis, which has become one of the more dangerous cities in the country, with a dramatic surge of violent crimes over last year.
But Minneapolis isn't alone.
And it's really the same cause that's responsible for these spikes that have occurred in many, I would have to point out, democratic cities.
So then when the spike occurs, what do you do?
You don't say, wait a minute, I was wrong.
I shouldn't have called for cutting the police.
We shouldn't have taken these actions.
Instead, you blame the police for not being able to curtail the crime that is the result of a reduced police presence and a reduced police effectiveness.
In other words, this is the problem that Ilhan Omar caused.
And yet she's going around, the Minneapolis Police Department is the most dysfunctional, blah, blah, blah.
Now, interestingly, in the community of criminologists, people who study crime, they talk about what's called the Minneapolis effect.
And the Minneapolis effect is very simply that when you have a...
So when you tell the police they're no longer welcome, they're no longer wanted, they're going to become the enemy, you're going to be quite willing to throw them under the bus, what do the police do?
Well, it's very simple. They kind of stop showing up.
They go, listen, it's not worth the trouble, particularly when it comes to petty crimes.
The police essentially give up on something called proactive policing.
Proactive policing is that you go out there, you create a visible police presence, and you stop things even when they are at the small level.
You do stop and frisk, you do vehicle stops.
And when you don't do those things, then what happens is you begin to see that crime begins to escalate initially at the small level, but it quickly explodes to violent crimes, homicides, burglaries, and so on.
And so the crimes we're talking about in Minneapolis are crimes involving firearms.
The increase in these crimes is not because of the police.
It's because of the people who have been calling for the defunding of the police.
Here's some pretty monumental news.
It was recently announced that Social Security benefits are going to increase by 5.9% in January, the highest increase in 40 years.
This is the government admitting that inflation is out of control.
And yet, the left is still pushing through trillions more in spending.
Wow! What are you doing to protect your savings from inflation?
I protect mine with gold and silver from Birch Gold Group.
And Birch Gold will help you convert an eligible IRA or 401k into an IRA backed by precious metals.
And here is an added incentive to do it this month.
When you text Dinesh to 484848 and purchase precious metals with Birch Gold by December 23rd, you'll get free silver for every $5,000 that you invest.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Thousands of happy customers.
Go ahead and Text Dinesh to 484848 and get free silver for every $5,000 you invest.
The offer ends December 23rd.
Once again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
Many colleges have been getting rid of standardized tests as a mechanism for deciding who should be admitted to these selective colleges.
And this has come in the wake of a massive campaign over a couple of decades now from the left that standardized testing is racist.
Standardized testing is racist because it creates disproportionate outcomes.
For different ethnic groups.
Basically, Asian Americans do the best, whites do the second best, Latinos the third best, African Americans least best of all, worst of all, you could say.
And so what you have is all these colleges saying, well, we don't need the test.
There are other measures of true merit, better measures of merit that will also give us equity.
Now, I was thumbing through.
There's a revealing interview.
This is with CNBC. Now, CNBC is a business outlet.
They're not really trying to examine education per se, but they conduct an interview with Alex Coupe, a C-O-U-P-E-T, a former admissions officer both at the University of Chicago and Stanford.
And Coupe basically talks about what is replacing standardized testing.
Essentially, the argument here is that he makes the point that now what is critical in college admission to selective colleges is the personal essay.
He says that the personal essay is critical.
And how do you write a good essay?
Well, here's Alex Coupe.
He says students should, quote, lean into your weirdness.
Lean into your weirdness.
I'm quoting him now.
We were all adolescents at one point, and there's an emphasis on being, quote, normal.
Normal here isn't quote.
He probably said there's an emphasis on being normal.
But I'm liking the way that students more frequently now are willing to be weird and willing to be themselves a lot more.
Colleges are definitely looking for that.
He goes on in the same mode.
The point, he says, is to, quote, zag when everybody else is zigging.
So, the idea here is that everybody is walking the normal way.
You stand on your head. Everybody thinks this, so you should think that.
Coupe explains that, quote, it is beneficial to be a, quote, angular student rather than be well-rounded.
Now, You have to realize all of this is kind of a disguised attack on the idea of merit because the whole concept of a well-rounded student is that you excel in academics.
You also excel in extracurriculars.
You also have community service.
You're also well-liked by other people.
And so you've got this broad all-roundedness.
Now, why is a student like that somehow inferior to a student who is, quote, angular, who has some sort of weirdness, let's say, omphaloskepsis, by the way, which means navel-gazing.
The student likes to study what occurs inside his navel.
He definitely meets the criterion of weirdness.
Probably he's not the norm.
Most students don't think like that.
And this guy is basically saying that this is the kind of kid that colleges are now looking for.
Part of what you get when you pay attention to this interview is that what he's saying is that college admissions officers are a little bit bored.
They don't just want to see one good student, another good student, another good student.
They're looking for something that will entertain them.
So look how we've moved from a college trying to find good students, the best students, the students who are academically the strongest or have all-around abilities or the best prepared to be leaders of society.
None of that. So the point I want to make is it's very easy to say, you know, we don't want the standardized tests.
Those aren't perfect measures of merit.
But you see what replaces it?
Absolute madness. When you get away from standards, you end up with no standards.
So is this equity? No.
Is it true merit? No.
Is this a system for getting the best students?
No. But could it possibly work at any particular university?
Yes, I can only think of one kind of university where these kinds of students would fit right in, and that university should be titled Weirdo U. We're good to go.
Relief Factor, order more and more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie's been suffering from frozen shoulder for a couple of years now, so she decided to give it a try.
She found it works amazingly well.
Her pain went away, and she knows if she doesn't take it regularly, whoa, the pain comes right back.
So she's made a vow never to be without it again.
Being able to lift her arm and exercise, hey, that's super important to her.
And Relief Factor is the tool she needs, and she's glad she did.
Now you, too, can benefit.
Try it for yourself. Order the three-week quick start.
For the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That number again, 833-690-7246.
So go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. Nathaniel DeGrave is a non-violent January 6th defendant.
He's someone who was trying to create video footage inside the Capitol of what was going on.
He's been arrested. He's written a public letter that is very moving in its entirety.
I'm only going to read a few lines from it, but it gives you an indication from inside of how wicked the Biden DOJ is and the D.C. kind of correctional establishment.
So, the letter is a, he says very explicitly, a cry for help.
He's been nine months detained.
And remember, this is a guy who hasn't even been tried.
He hasn't been convicted of anything.
He says the conditions in the jail are so bad that he wouldn't mind being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
Why? Because there are more prisoner protections there than they are in the so-called D.C. Gitmo.
He says for the first couple of months, there were daily lockdowns for 23 to 24 hours, creating, well, you can only imagine the mental anguish of sitting in a dark room for 23 hours a day.
He goes a large percentage of us are medicated and we need to take anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs.
He goes, anytime that somebody gives a public interview in favor of January 6th defendants, he goes, anytime people speak up about our conditions or have a rally in their name, he goes, the guards retaliate by putting them into lockdown.
Even the one hour of recreation they're normally allowed is then denied.
He says privileged legal documents have been confiscated.
Sensitive discovery, video evidence is watched by prison employees during legal calls.
He talks about medical neglect.
People who need medical care don't get it.
We saw that, of course, with the judge who said that the guy who broke his hand deserved medical care that had been denied.
He talks about how dirty the cells are, raw sewage flowing into the unit, the mold on the walls.
He says white rags turn brown when they're dipped into water.
He says they're suffering nutritional deficiencies.
Their food is horrible. He says some of us, if you don't have commissary, the chance to buy, let's say, a candy bar or a piece of jerky, are forced to starve because I suffer from headaches and nausea on a regular basis, from the malnutrition and constant hunger.
I've lost Almost 15 pounds since I've been detained.
He also says they are forced to undergo humiliating strip searches, often without warrant.
There are people who come in to visit.
Those people are tested.
So obviously they don't have anything on them.
But nevertheless, they strip search the detainees as well.
He goes, male is detained for months.
Religious services are suppressed.
And then he makes this point.
He goes, And to hate America.
And so they will literally, when the inmates are singing the Star Spangled Banner, they will shout insults at them.
I mean, this is the atmosphere that these people are dealing with.
It's absolutely horrific.
And I think he concludes on a very poignant note.
He goes, I don't think there's any doubt that these January 6th defendants are, in fact, political prisoners.
Yes, political prisoners in a free America.
And I also have to say that someone in the end is going to have to pay for all this.
This is not going to go unforgotten.
And if some of us have the say at the end, this is not something that will go unavenged.
It's time for holiday cleaning.
Well, before you replace your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you've got to try Genesis 950.
The reviews are amazing.
This is one product that works.
Now, with water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine.
And it's green so it's safe for your family and pets.
Genesis 950 is made in America.
One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, grease stains.
Debbie uses it to clean everything.
She doesn't even like to clean.
But when she sees our great Genesis 950, she doesn't mind it when I sometimes get chocolate or ink or other stuff on the furniture, sometimes, or carpet.
Perfect holiday gift for pet owners.
Guys, Genesis 950 has great customer service, always willing to help.
So go ahead, order one gallon direct at Genesis950.com.
You 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.
Guys, I've said it before, the Babylon Bee is one of my favorite satirical sites, and I'm delighted to have Joel Berry.
He's the managing editor of the Babylon Bee.
This, as you know, is the conservative and Christian site, but they've given really new oomph, new meaning to the idea of conservative and Christian satire.
The Babylon Bee has a new book out.
I'm going to show it to you. It's the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness.
And I knew I was in for a treat.
Joel, thanks for joining me.
Thanks for being part of the program.
Thank you. Now, this is a book that doesn't seem to have an author.
Does this mean it's kind of one of those, you know how they say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee?
Is this something that eight of you sat around and put together committee style?
Did you vote on what's left in and what gets kicked out?
How did you come up with this guide to wokeness?
Yeah, well, it was very much a group effort.
Me and the editor-in-chief, Kyle Mann, wrote the manuscript, and we worked with our illustrators, Ethan and Gavin, who, as you can see, as you flip through the book, wrote some of the hilarious illustrations and diagrams that you see with it.
As with anything in the Babylon Bee, we have me, Kyle Mann, and then we have five or six part-time writers who will riff and pitch in on jokes that help out quite a bit.
It's definitely not the product of just one person.
Now, this is a book that it's almost fun to just open it up and start diving right into it, you know, almost randomly going from page to page.
I want to start with what does it mean to be woke?
You list a whole bunch of things.
I'm going to read one or two, but then I'm just going to have you comment on them.
You say, basically, one way to be woke is to recognize that all your problems in life are not your fault.
So right away you're off the hook.
That's a pretty good starting point to be woke.
And the other is brainwashing your kids to hate life and be miserable.
That's right. Right? I mean, I think there's some people who are really good at that.
So they're going to be really encouraged by this because they know how to do that.
Yes. Another characteristic of being woke is rioting.
Never ever being satisfied with having happiness but constantly complaining about everything.
And then you say, being an absolutely horrible person to be around.
I think that's a total winner.
Now listen, I'm going to open to another page here.
This is the page that tells me how we know Jesus was woke.
So can you spell out a couple of ways?
Jesus probably didn't think about it.
He never heard of wokeness.
He never met an Antifa type, except maybe Judas.
But how did Jesus know he was woke?
Well, you know, it's important to understand that Jesus, the most important thing to do with Jesus is to turn him into the archetype of whatever political party you belong to.
And in the case of wokeness, you can take Jesus and turn him into the ultimate woke hero.
If you just, you know, maybe tweak a few words of scripture here and there, you know.
So there are a lot of examples, you know, in the scripture of Jesus feeding the 5,000, for example.
That's how we know he was a socialist.
And in order to do that, he raided a nearby village and taxed them at 80% in order to feed that 5,000.
That's what a lot of people don't know.
You know, that was probably in the first draft of the Bible that was cut out in the edits.
That's right. Yeah, before the conservatives got a hold of it and got rid of all the woke stuff, you know, it's very clear that Jesus was probably closer to Antifa, a socialist revolutionary.
Now what about the idea that Jesus was a refugee and he was also a person of color?
I mean, I'm kind of assuming that Jesus was kind of a brown guy who looked sort of like me or like Anwar Sadat.
But maybe that's not even woke enough.
Maybe we have to make him some guy coming out of Cameroon or the Sudan.
He's kind of got to go full person of color in order to be totally authentic.
What do you think? Yeah, well, that's one of the core tenets of wokeness is that being a person of color is not just about the color of your skin, it's also about your ideology.
So if you don't hold to the correct beliefs, you can lose your status as a person of color.
You know, we see examples like Larry Elder, Candace Owens, people who have Not towed the line of wokeness and are no longer considered legitimate people of color.
And the funny thing about Jesus is, you know, he came to transcend that.
He did appear to, and I guess I am speaking seriously now, He came to an oppressed minority, the Jewish people, who were being politically oppressed by the Romans.
And they fully expected Jesus to be a kind of a revolutionary political figure who would lead them out of oppression, and he didn't.
He came and he talked to them about the sin in their hearts that they needed to be delivered from.
And so, Jesus is not someone you can just kind of pull into your own political sphere and make Him what you want.
He is here to address the sin in our own lives, in our own hearts.
Joel, how do you tell the difference between a left-wing woke activist and a modern-day Nazi?
Is there a difference?
Are you saying that Antifa is the same as Fah?
Yeah, well, you know, a woke activist is, you know, the important thing about being an anti-fascist is you have to use fascist techniques in order to fight fascism.
So, you know, if that involves, you know, beating someone to death with a tolerance sign, you know, hitting someone with a coexist bike lock, Whatever it takes to fight fascism, that's what you have to do.
And we see that with the left. What they hate, they eventually become.
And we play on that quite a bit in the book.
We have a chapter that will give you some techniques on how to fight fascism.
We have a few pages of some special moves.
Let's look at some of those special moves because these are not very orthodox fighting techniques as far as I can say.
You talk about things like the body odor blast.
I mean, I'm sure that's been a knockout punch in some cases, don't you think?
That's true. Well, if you've ever been near an Antifa rally, it's probably one of their most formidable weapons.
What about the Twitter history search?
I like that combat move.
You basically check someone out and go after them for something they said when they were seven.
That can take down literally anybody, yes.
Yeah, what about the limp-wristed uppercut?
What about the obscenity-laced lisp?
That's not in your book. That's coming from me.
See, I could have been part of the committee.
Next time you got to call, I'll make a few contributions.
For our next one, we'll definitely need to have you in here.
What about running over the Nazis with a Prius?
Well, the Prius, yeah, absolutely.
If you're going to kill someone, you should make sure that you are protecting Mother Earth while doing so.
So that's very important. Well, here's an important one for female activists, the 14-hour lecture on feminism.
I mean, I think that's enough to put someone maybe to sleep or maybe out for the count.
What do you think? Well, ironically, I mean, the CIA has replaced waterboarding with the 14-hour feminist lecture.
So it's proven to be pretty effective at breaking someone down emotionally, psychologically, and physically.
You know, I got to say, Joel, this is a fun book.
I mean, one thing about it is that it doesn't just have an occasional smile or chuckle.
I mean, you laugh out loud pretty much on every page.
And so for me, it's also the kind of thing that you can kind of keep...
I don't want to say necessarily by the toilet, but you know, by the toilet so that you can always reach over and just open up a page and have a great chuckle.
That's a great point.
It's a great bathroom reader, and we do recommend that you buy one for every bathroom in your house.
And then, you know, if need be, build some more bathrooms in your house and put our book in there as well.
That's an excellent idea.
Hey, thanks for coming on.
I really appreciate it. It's the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness, and boy, this would be absolutely perfect to drop into the stocking for Christmas as well.
I want to challenge you to become a MyPillow super shopper like Debbie and me.
And with Christmas coming, that's not hard to do.
We don't just patronize MyPillow.
We go all out to support Mike Lindell.
And we're happy to do it because he stands up for his beliefs and he also makes great products.
Now, Mike Lindell, the inventor and CEO of MyPillow, wants to make it easy for you to be a super shopper.
How? By giving you great deals.
For example, Mike is offering a buy one, get one free offer on his Giza Dream sheets.
And he's also offering up to 66% off.
All the MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts.
You gotta use promo code Dinesh.
You know, it's highly ironic that we live in an age where digital media engages in censorship on the pretext of correcting lies and misinformation.
And yet, our era is defined by lies.
Lies that are put out.
They often have government sanction.
They are promulgated by the media.
They are cooked up very often in the agencies of the deep state.
And nowhere have these lives been more pervasive than in the events surrounding January 6th.
What makes these lies of January 6th particularly striking is that they are rarely corrected in the public sphere.
The media will sometimes go back and stealth edit something, as in how Brian Sicknick died, or they will quietly stop saying something that they were saying yesterday because now it's become too unbelievable for anyone to go along with it.
But interestingly, on digital platforms, you can promulgate these lies left and right, and they are never fact-checked.
No one ever deplatforms you or flags you or takes you off your platform because you have engaged in these lies.
Even though the lies are systematic, they are significant, and they are demonstrable.
Now, Julie Kelly has made a list of these lies, and I just want to go down the list.
I just want to itemize them.
There are about six of them, and they're all big ones.
So let's go through them one by one.
Number one, the lie that it was...
An armed insurrection.
We still get the idea, this was an armed insurrection.
This was a coup. It wasn't an armed insurrection.
In fact, it wasn't an insurrection at all.
No one's been charged with insurrection.
By the way, and this is just a side point worth noting, it could have been an insurrection.
If Trump had called for an insurrection, there probably would have been an insurrection, and then he would have seen the consequences of a genuine insurrection.
But Trump never wanted that.
He still doesn't want that.
He probably still has the power.
He's probably the only man in America who does to still have that kind of influence.
But it is an influence that he has not exercised.
In fact, I think the striking thing about January 6th is the enormous restraint that has been shown by many, many people who do believe that something went deeply wrong in the 2020 election and that there were massive shenanigans that occurred.
So, number two, lie number two.
Brian Sicknick died Not because he was bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher wielded by some trumpsters.
Not because he was sprayed by bear spray or pepper spray.
These lies have been put out ad nauseum.
The one lie giving way to the other.
When one becomes less credible, the other gets picked up.
But both are false. The truth of it is, and there's medical examiners' conclusions to support this, this poor guy died of natural causes.
Number three. There's all the focus on these militia groups.
Oh, these are very dangerous groups.
This is the greatest threat faced by the country.
These are the most dangerous armed groups in the country today.
They were inside the capital.
The simple fact is that the militia group, so-called, carried no weapons at all into the building.
So think about that. How do you even have a militia that doesn't have weapons?
Doesn't the word militia itself imply you've got organizations that use their weapons when they're trying to, in this case, supposedly overturn an election, take over the government, but they came in unarmed.
What does that tell you that maybe your premise is completely wrong?
There's no evidence of a grand plan to attack the Capitol.
Again, we've seen, and I've just finished reading the Washington Post's very detailed account of January 6th.
It's all written in a kind of hysterical mode.
It's all aimed at trying to suggest, even with tiny grains of evidence, that there was some kind of grand plan.
But if anything... What we've seen from the charging documents of the FBI is there was no grand plan.
There were a couple of ragtag groups that tried to push their way in.
Otherwise, it was just a crowd following, doing what crowds do.
Crowds essentially are moved, you may almost call, by an invisible momentum of the crowd itself.
The guy behind you pushes against you, pushes you forward.
You push forward on the guy in front of you.
And so that's what happened.
No grand plan. Now, FBI informants were working with the FBI that day.
They were part of this operation.
We know that. We don't know how many FBI agents.
We don't know the extent of their involvement.
But the fact that the government was kind of in on this was, in a sense, you may say, pushing it forward, if not instigating it.
That now seems confirmed.
That's been admitted by the New York Times.
That's been admitted even by Merrick Garland in his wriggling silence when asked about it.
I can't comment on the degree of FBI involvement.
When someone gives that kind of answer, you know that there was.
Who attacked first? It appears now from video evidence that it was the cops who attacked the protesters and not the other way around.
The cops fired explosives, they used mace, they used rubber bullets, and all of this is on tape.
Guess why the Capitol Police and guess why the government is reluctant to release the 14,000 hours of videotape?
Because the little videotape that we do have does show this, and it's more likely that there's a How did these hostilities, to the degree that they even occurred, how did they begin?
Who initiated the violence?
Was it the cops? It appears like it was.
U.S. Capitol Police officers allowed more than 300 protesters into the building.
How do I know this? I've seen the video.
You've probably seen the video.
You can't dispute the fact that here you have these guys.
They're standing there. People are filing right by them.
Not only do they make no effort to stop, they don't even say to them, There is a D.C. Gitmo exclusively for the January 6th defendants.
I mean, think about this. A special jail only for January 6th defendants.
And is there a special jail for Antifa?
Is there a special jail for Black Lives Matter in the wake of the riots?
No. And there would be outrage if there were.
But in this particular case, you've got 50 or so defendants who are incarcerated in the D.C. Gitmo and others scattered throughout the country.
So this is a... Partial inventory of the lies of January 6th.
Lies that go, as I say, uncorrected, unchecked.
They're still widely promulgated in the media.
And they are not just not suppressed to some degree.
They're abetted.
They're encouraged on digital platforms as well.
I hope, guys, that you're enjoying this podcast.
And if you are, please make sure to hit the subscribe button.
Do that on Apple if you're listening to the podcast.
And by the way, if you happen to be watching it on YouTube, make sure you also hit the notifications button so you get notifications when the new podcasts go up.
We have a question today, and let's go to our mailbox.
Listen. Hi, Dinesh.
I now follow you on Locals.
I'll follow you anywhere you've got the best podcasts.
Here's my question.
I recently lost my small business of 11 years because of the totalitarians.
Clients still reach out to me because of how much I change their lives with my help, which is rewarding.
Some are extreme liberals who I have to tread lightly.
Their hatred of any conservatives is so visceral.
I try to induce thought, but their responses are so illogical and angry.
One client is a deacon of a church who shares publicly that pro-life is about white male supremacists wanting to control women's bodies.
I refuted him with a question, asking if the Christian church's belief is that life starts at conception, then is their view of abortion considered the taking of a life?
His response was that there is no church's view, because there are many churches with many views.
Do you have any liberal friends, and if so, how do you keep your friendships?
Well, that's a pretty good one.
You know, I don't think I have liberal friends in the sense that these are people I go out to dinner with.
We all have members, relatives, extended family that disagree with us on issues.
And obviously, in those cases, we have discussions, we have arguments, but there's a measure of goodwill typically in those cases.
I have over the years maintained a pretty large pool of liberal and even leftist acquaintances.
And this would extend all the way from the moderate left to, well, you know, you've seen that I've had Bill Ayers on this program.
So guys on the far left that I've debated over the years, and I maintain cordial relationships with those guys.
At some level, I think that when I think about a Bill Ayers I believe that the guy is living on Mars.
Now, I'm sure he thinks the same of me.
He probably thinks, well, Dinesh, you know, he just got off the boat.
I mean, he got off the boat, you know, 40 years ago, but he doesn't really understand America.
I lived through the Vietnam War.
He doesn't know what it's like.
And so my politics were shaped generationally out of that.
I do my best to engage with these guys.
I try to have conversations, and I use the Socratic style that you alluded to, which is to say, instead of trying to sell them on a proposition, you pose to them a kind of incriminating or crushing question that gets to the heart of what they're getting at.
So, for example, years ago when I was in a conversation with Jesse Jackson...
He kept going on about racism and, you know, racism, playing with his mustache, you know.
I may be well-dressed, Dinesh, but I'm still oppressed, you know.
And so all this stuff.
And so I'm like, well, Reverend Jackson, you know, We live in a big country, and I'm sure if you search through the media and comb through history, you'll find examples of racism.
But look, I have a daughter.
You have children.
Show me a racism right now that is preventing your kids or my daughter from achieving the American dream.
Where's that kind of racism? Show it to me!
And then, of course, he can't.
So he comes up with this ingenious and convoluted and, at the end, absurd idea.
Well, you know, the racism may not be overt, Tinesh, but it's covert.
It's gone underground. You can't see it anymore.
And, of course, then you have to start laughing because you realize that what he's pointing to is actually not racism, but the absence of racism.
So I find that when you have people on the left, you are able to engage them in conversations.
Do it. Call them on it.
Make them produce the evidence for their views, and very often you'll see that their mouths fall open.
Sometimes it makes them even angrier, because in a sense what you've done is you've shown that the emperor has no clothes.
And in that case, annoying them becomes your ultimate satisfaction.
Export Selection