All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
53:42
NOTHING TO SEE HERE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep228
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today I'm going to give you five separate reasons why the media is so eager to ignore and move on from the Waukesha massacre, because the facts destroy the leftist narrative.
I'm going to look at the penalty just given to a violent Antifa thug, and I'm going to compare it to the penalties given to non-violent January 6th protesters.
Jussie Smollett's trial is underway, and Jussie claims that he really didn't stage the hoax.
I'll give you the details.
And I'm gonna look at the contrasting attitudes of Woodrow Wilson and Henry Ford about the automobile.
It's a window into the difference between the entrepreneurial mindset and the progressive mindset.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
We continue to hear about the terrible aftermath of the Waukesha massacre.
So this guy, Daryl Brooks, a career criminal with a long rap sheet.
In fact, if you review his criminal record, it's 50 pages long.
This is a guy accused of rape, domestic violence, a whole series of crimes, one on top of the other, including, by the way, using his car to try to run over.
In fact, he did run over his girlfriend.
Lovely man. So this guy, Daryl Brooks, massacred these people intentionally, not accidentally.
Initially, you notice that CNN, as well as other outlets, tried to portray this as, you know, this is a crash, as if this was some kind of accident.
No, it's not an accident.
It was a deliberate act.
And then they tried to say the car did it.
Remember, Washington Post, an SUV made its way.
CNN, it was the car that did it.
They're going to now want to indict the car.
So this is Waukesha.
Six people dead.
And most poignantly, and most recently, this kid, eight-year-old, Jackson Sparks.
He was in critical condition after the attack, and he died.
And over 60 people injured.
Now, I want to talk about why the media has been so eager to distort this, and now that they can't really distort it, to move on from it.
It shows you the nature of news, and I'll come back to that in a minute.
But it's not just because of the fact that Daryl Brooks is black.
That is a big factor.
In fact, think about it.
If Daryl Brooks had been white, This would have been all about white supremacy.
This would be all about the white guy who crashed.
And look, this is the kind of fanaticism that the left has been warning against.
But the moment you have a black perpetrator, a chill runs through the liberal community and the media.
It's like, ooh, we can't touch this one.
This is a little radioactive.
And so that's fact number one.
Inconvenient fact number one.
Inconvenient fact number two is that Daryl Brooks is a leftist with pro-BLM and anti-white views.
This is all over his social media.
Andy Ngo and others have been reporting on it, and the left is furious.
What does this have to do with anything?
Why are you bringing this up?
How do we know that he did this because he's a BLM guy?
Well, again, let's say he was a white guy and he was a member of the Proud Boys.
Don't you think that this would be splashed over the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post beyond CBS News?
Of course, even though no connection has been established between the motive, between his views, and why he did it.
Look at the Rittenhouse case.
Was there a single shred of evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse was somehow a white supremacist?
He had white supremacist views?
No, that didn't stop the left from going on and on about it.
And the trial showed that there was no evidence of it whatsoever.
Not just in the Rittenhouse case.
Also, look at the Derek Chauvin case.
After hearing for almost a year about the fact that the George Floyd, oh, Black Lives Matter, oh, this was a racial case, this man was a racist.
Again, no evidence of racism was even alleged in the trial.
It never came up. And so, in a sense, the public narrative or the media narrative completely divorced from what's happening in the classroom.
Number three, this was a guy who was let out by a Soros DA. This is the part the left really wants to hide.
And they want to hide it because it shows that this massacre wasn't just done by Brooks.
It was done by Brooks, yes.
But enabled by this guy named John Chisholm, a Soros-funded DA, a left-winger, the head of something called the Milwaukee Experiment.
What's the experiment? The opposite of incarceration.
Chisholm calls it decarceration.
And his justification for decarceration is he wants to, quote, eliminate racial disparities in the jail system.
So what he means by racial disparities is that proportionately there are more blacks in prison for violent crimes than there are whites.
Now, that could be because more blacks and whites commit violent crimes proportionately.
But Chisholm doesn't care.
His point is we've got to have kind of the same proportion.
So he wants equity. This is critical race studies as applied to jurisprudence.
And he's been praised for it.
In fact, Jeffrey Toobin wrote a long article in The New Yorker a few years ago basically gushing about this guy.
So this guy, John Chisholm, and his office is responsible for letting this guy, Daryl Brooks, out on a $1,000, think about it, a $1,000 bail to let a career criminal with a massively long rap sheet back out on the street.
Now, the other factor is the weapon.
The left has got to face the fact that this is a guy without an AR-15, so he commits the mayhem with a car.
His car was a red Ford Escape, and boom, the car was the deadly weapon, so you don't need an AR-15 to kill a whole bunch of people.
This is another inconvenient fact.
The left wants to make it all about the gun.
Of course, you remember in Rittenhouse, he had an AR-15.
He carried it across state lines.
Well, first of all, he didn't carry it across state lines.
And second of all, the gun was not illegal.
So that ended up being a kind of, you know, went poof in the courtroom.
And then the final factor that can be missed, which is his target.
His target was a Christmas parade.
Now, the left is not too enthusiastic about Christmas, and people may say, well, Dinesh, why are you bringing that up?
What does that have to do with it? He would have driven through any parade.
Well, he might have driven through any parade, but here's my point.
What if he had driven through an LGBTQ parade?
Well, I bet you we'd be getting long profiles of every LGBTQ casualty.
We'd be getting all kinds of tearful, you know, people on TV like, oh, this is horrible, and so on.
But since it's a Christmas parade, can you even name the victims?
Have you seen anything about them?
Have you ever heard the life stories of any of them told in your local newspaper or in a national publication or on the news?
No. It's almost as if they don't exist.
They've been sort of moved off stage.
And so what I'm getting from all this is that the media is not about covering what's happening or what's important.
Waukesha is important.
More people died in Waukesha than died in Charlottesville on January 6th combined.
Think about that. So if you're going on the basis of casualties or going on the basis of which crime is more horrific in terms of its toll on human life, well, we have the answer to that.
I think we have to think of the media here as kind of an illusionist on a stage.
What does an illusionist do?
He doesn't show you what's there.
He shows you what he wants you to see.
His goal is to create a sort of hypnosis in which you are taken in by the illusion.
You begin to confuse the illusion for reality.
The media is a kind of house of mirrors.
Except these aren't real mirrors.
They aren't showing you things directly.
They're not showing you what's there.
They're refracting mirrors, which means that they give you a distorted, mutilated, and ideologically driven picture of reality.
Guys, if you haven't yet, go to frankspeech.com and check out Michael Andel's Supreme Court complaint. It shows you why Michael Andel is a guy who puts everything on the line.
This guy has been cancelled left and right by box stores, by shopping channels. Why?
Well, not just because he supports Trump, not just because he spoke at the Rose Garden, but also because he has been blowing the whistle and putting everything on the line to expose what happened in the 2020 election.
So he's become a victim of cancel culture.
But here's the good news.
He's not backing down and he's going to take the savings that would normally go to the box stores or the shopping channels and passing them straight to you.
You can get the lowest price in the history of MyPillow for the classic standard MyPillow normally.
$69.98 but now $19.98 with promo code Dinesh.
These pillows, by the way, they won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They maintain their shape. They're made in the USA. Queen size pillows, regularly $79.98, now $24.98.
King size pillows, regularly $89.98, now $29.98.
And MyPillow isn't just pillows.
They've got over 150 products, everything from sleepwear to robes to my new beds.
Go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh.
Take advantage of Mike's special offers, not just on the pillows, but on all the other products.
That number again, 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
I want to talk now about the Antifa guy who took an axe to the office of a Republican congressman and got a very light penalty and, in fact, even got his axe back.
Now, whenever I hear the word axe, I have to laugh because of its...
And Debbie's going to be like, Dinesh, this is supposed to be a serious topic.
I know where you're going with this.
I'm going to the idea of, he axed me.
He axed me for this.
He axed me for that.
And of course, that has a double meaning.
He axed me could mean, oh, wow.
He's trying to block me from continuing with this line of thought.
I'm being censored. I'm being cancelled on my own podcast.
My producer is exercising discretion to censor me.
Let me keep going and let me return to the topic and not go down the axed me detour.
Tempting though it is for me to do that.
Because, honey, as I've told you, this is not a racial thing.
When I was in India, we had kids in my school who said axed.
He axed me. So when I heard it here, I immediately realized that it's a class phenomenon.
Evidently, the word ask is extremely difficult for some people, and they have to go with axed.
And then if you say, no, it's ask, they go, yeah, exactly, axed.
They don't hear it. That's the funny thing about it.
Okay, back to Mr. Antifa.
This is Thomas Alexander Starks, 31 years old, from Lisbon, North Dakota.
So this guy took an axe to the office of Senator John Hoeven in Fargo on December 21st, 2020.
So this guy is Antifa all the way.
I mean, remember Joe Biden.
Antifa is a myth. There's no such thing as Antifa.
It's only an idea. Well, if it's only an idea, you've got to go tell that to Thomas Starks because Thomas Starks is a guy who writes while he was waiting sentencing.
He goes, I am, and in all caps, Antifa.
I am Antifa.
So get it? Joe Biden, here's a criminal.
And here's a guy who is claiming that he is Antifa.
And in fact, he's saying that Antifa is what In fact, he has all these rants about the fact that he's going to use, he's going to, quote, attack fascists, he's going to attack the, quote, nationalism that promotes genocide to fuel a war machine.
He says that Republicans are, quote, the worst humanity has to offer.
Now, this guy comes up for federal sentencing, and let's think about it in the context of the January 6th cases, because think about it, the January 6th shaman guy, this is the guy with the bullhorns, He got a 41-month sentence for obstructing a federal proceeding.
Now, he didn't obstruct any federal proceeding.
The federal proceeding proceeded the very same day.
And this was a guy just prancing around.
That's all he did. 41 months, over three years for doing that.
And then earlier, he was held in detention.
At one point, he was in solitary confinement.
Now, this guy, the Antifa guy, federal guidelines say 10 to 16 months in prison.
That's what he should have gotten.
But what did he get?
Probation, a fine of $2,784, and the FBI gave him his axe back.
Now, this guy actually was boasting about it when he got his axe back.
He posted on social media, essentially sort of, guess what?
The FBI returned my axe.
And he has a right to laugh because his case is a mockery of the system.
It's a mockery of the idea of equal justice under the law.
This is what we're talking about when we speak about the inequity applied based on ideology.
You see it right here.
And if you say, well, those are different cases.
One is, you know, democracy in action.
The shaman guy tried to block democracy, Dinesh.
I can kind of hear the left saying this.
Well, okay, let's take the Antifa guy's case and simply alter the facts slightly.
So we take exactly what Thomas Starks did, taking an axe, walking to a senator's office and smashing it with the axe.
Let's say that was done by a Proud Boy.
And he did it to, let's say, AOC's office or Ilhan Omar's office.
Do you think, for one minute, that the response would be the same?
Do you think that he would have gotten 10 to 16 months, as the federal guidelines call for?
Or probation and a small fine.
And by the way, proud boy, here's your axe back.
So, this is the kind of stuff that drives you, me, nuts.
Why? Because you begin to see that justice is not being applied evenly in any meaningful sense of the term.
Apparently, when the FBI returned his axe, they thought, listen, his axe was a form of political expression.
We better give him his axe back.
So this is the FBI, the chief agency of enforcing justice at the federal level.
I think the FBI has to go.
It has to be taken down.
This has to be part of the—we need to campaign on it.
Let the American people know in advance.
We're going to take down the FBI and get rid of it.
And we're going to—I think this theme of restoring equal justice under the law has got to be a critical one for the GOP going forward.
This theme is more important, along with censorship.
These are probably two of the most serious challenges we face today.
Don't you sometimes get a little sick of the news every day the left is trying to make another money grab, taxing your unrealized gains, and this and that?
There's no shortage to their creativity when it comes to taking your hard-earned money to fund their expensive, far-reaching agenda.
I want to make something clear.
If you're making a mistake, if you're not diversifying your savings, hold gold in a tax-sheltered account or just hold gold at your home and you're safe.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
It's the only company I trust and recommend.
And when you buy gold from Birch Gold by December 23rd, they're going to send you free gold for every $10,000 you purchase.
First time they've ever offered free gold.
Now, with thousands of satisfied customers and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Birch Gold to protect your savings.
So go ahead, text to Nesh to 484848 to claim eligibility for their free gold with purchase offered by December 23rd.
Again, text to Nesh.
I gotta tell you, I am really enjoying the Jussie Smollett trial.
I mean, this is downright entertaining.
And it's entertaining because Jussie Smollett has a completely new narrative, which I'm about to disclose to you.
But before I do, we've got to go back to the original report of Jussie Smollett's reaction to what he claimed was a horrific, racially motivated hate crime.
Here's Jussie in the media.
And when you watch this, you've got to remember, Jussie's an actor.
And right here, he's putting on, I'd have to call it, the performance of his life.
Check it out. I don't know.
Let's just hope that they are.
You know what I'm saying? Like, let's not go there yet.
I was talking to a friend and I said, I just want them to find them.
And she said, sweetie, they're not going to find them.
I just want, I just want the perpetrators brought to justice.
I want to get the guys who put this noose right around my neck right here.
This is, I mean, you can see why this guy, I mean, I would have given the guy an Emmy right there for that performance.
I mean, unbelievable. Now, let's look at what Jussie said at the time.
He basically said, yeah, you know, these MAGA guys accosted me.
They shouted that this is MAGA country.
All Jussie was doing was getting a Subway sandwich.
Apparently, the MAGA guys knew this because late at night, they showed up to get him.
And... And then I mentioned that Jussie took the trouble of leaving the noose around his neck when the police came to his apartment.
So this was then looked into, and the cops discovered that Jussie Smollett, in fact, paid these two Nigerians, Abimbola and Ojabino Osundaro, the Osundaro brothers, one of whom, by the way, who worked with Jussie on the set of his Of his show, Empire.
And paid him $3,500.
And we have all the details.
This video of the two Nigerian guys buying the rope.
They cashed the $3,500 check.
They've talked to the police.
They said, yeah, you know, Jussie Smollett was kind of trying to...
Think about this. Jussie Smollett was trying to advance his career.
That's why he did it. He knew that he would become the poster boy of racism.
And so all these guys, think of how cunning they are.
They know how to play the race card.
And he thought, yeah, this is going to make me...
I'm going to be huge after this because, you know, I'm going to be the guy that, you know, that was victimized.
So Jussie knew exactly what he was doing.
And the two brothers are going to be the star witnesses in the Jussie Smollett trial.
By the way, Jussie Smollett is accused of...
of six felonies for staging this hate crime.
He faces up to three years in prison.
Legal experts don't think he's going to get anything close to that, but the point is just a conviction and some penalty would be very important because it would blow this whole thing sky high.
It would expose what we already know.
It would give legal certitude to something that we know already.
But let me turn to what I think is really funny.
So Jussie Smollett now has a completely new story.
His new story is, this is not about MAGA. This was not a racial incident.
But he was attacked.
Attacked by who? Well, he was attacked, he claims, by the two Nigerians.
Why? Why would they attack him?
Why would they follow him to Chicago and attack him when he's getting a Subway sandwich?
Why would they put a noose around his neck?
According to Jussie, it's because they never liked him on the set.
There was a kind of internal dislike, and to take out their hostility, they did this to him.
Now, this is downright comical.
Jussie, in fact, now has to explain why he paid them $3,500.
And he goes, oh yeah, you know, that had nothing to do with it.
Jussie basically claims that the $3,500 was, quote, for personal training.
In other words, the two brothers are supposed to be his personal trainers.
And also to help them make a music video.
So now what Jussie is trying to...
He doesn't want to admit, I made the whole thing up.
Kamala Harris went to bat for me.
She called this a lynching.
So Jussie has to give up the MAGA story because there's no basis for that.
We have video of the guys buying the rope.
So now he's trying to pin it on those guys.
So just think of how...
How immoral this guy is, Jussie Smollett.
First, he fakes a racial attack.
Second of all, he's not man enough to admit it.
Third of all, he's now trying to pin it on the two guys, the two Nigerians that he found and recruited into this scheme.
In fact, at one point, the Nigerians say that Jussie told him, listen, you know, you guys can punch me and stuff, but don't go overboard.
I don't want you to hurt me.
In staging the attack, Jussie wanted to make sure that he looked hurt, but he wasn't in fact hurt.
So he's like, don't go overboard.
Just make sure that you rough me up a little so it looks authentic for the cops.
This is, after all, a career move by Jussie Smollett.
So you can see the whole thing is just taking on new dimensions, new textures, and for me, new entertainment value.
Davia and our gang, we do a lot of research for our film documentaries, and we certainly don't want other people to know what our team is looking up or digging up.
Now, some of you may be thinking, well, Dinesh, just use the incognito mode when you go on the internet.
But unfortunately, incognito mode doesn't hide your activity.
Your internet service provider can still see every single website you've ever visited.
Now, this is why I use ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN keeps all your information secure by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available.
Most of the time, I don't even realize I have ExpressVPN on.
It runs seamlessly in the background.
It's easy to use. All you do is tap one button, boom, you're protected.
ExpressVPN is available on all your devices.
So go ahead, protect your online activity today with the VPN rated number one by CNET. Visit my exclusive link, expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
You'll get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S, vpn.com slash Dinesh, expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
Jack Dorsey, a leftist who was active in suppressing the Hunter Biden story prior to the election, this was the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, is now stepping down at Twitter and being replaced by another leftist.
And many people think that this guy's worse than Dorsey.
His name is Parag Agarwal, Asian Indian guy by background.
And a lot of conservatives are circulating a statement that he made in which he says, quote, our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment.
Now, this quotation appears in a more in-depth interview that appeared in a magazine called Technology Review, a magazine coming out of MIT. In which Parag Agarwal talks about his view of Twitter.
Now, this is a guy who used to be the information and technology officer.
So he kind of came up on the technical side at Twitter.
But Dorsey evidently has enormous confidence in him.
He said something like, my trust in Parag is bone deep.
Bone deep. So this guy is going to have a lot of power.
And in fact, it seems like over the last...
Several months and perhaps even years, this fellow has been running a lot of things at Twitter.
So it's just now that he's unfettered.
He doesn't have Dorsey kind of looking over him.
He gets to run amok, if you will.
But let's see what his views really are, because I've read this interview carefully.
It doesn't seem to me to be as bad as the guy is being portrayed.
So I want to talk about some of the statements that he makes today.
In the interview.
First of all, he says, we attempt not to adjudicate truth.
He goes, we focus on potential for harm.
I think this is the key to the whole message that he's putting across.
He says, I'm going to quote him some more.
He goes, we don't try to determine what's true or false when someone takes a policy position or when someone says the sky is purple or blue or red for that matter.
So what he seems to be saying here is, look, people are going to have differing points of view, not just on values, but even on facts.
And he says, so, that is not a sufficient justification for censorship.
He goes, there are times, he admits, where, quote, he says, we choose not to flag something as true or false, but we choose to add a link to credible sources or to additional conversation around that topic.
Now, my problem with this, and I think many conservatives' problem with this, is that this appears to be applied in an ideologically motivated way.
So that when they see something that reflects a conservative point of view, they go, well, but have you read this?
But have you thought of this?
Let's attach a link that says this.
This is not an even-handed attempt to clarify topics, where if somebody says X, you're providing more information, more context.
So I don't object to the statement on its face, but I object to the way in which it seems to me Twitter has been applying this principle.
I'm continuing with the Agarwal conversation.
The reporter asks him, who gets to decide what is a misinformation?
And here, Agarwal basically says, we don't try to adjudicate that issue except where some sort of public harm is involved.
I'm going to quote him again. He says, you wouldn't want us to be adjudicating what's true or what's false in the world.
That's good. I'm glad he said that, because we don't want him to do that.
We don't need some umpire of truth at Twitter, either Agarwal himself or some committee that he puts together, typically of some, what, Twitter technology nerds, who are like, I think this is misinformation.
This should not be allowed.
Now, what Agarwal is saying, and I do think this is problematic, is that when it comes to what he calls public harm, and what does he mean by public harm?
He gives two examples.
He gives the example of public health.
And of course, that today means COVID-19.
He seems to be saying we can't let information get out there.
And again, the worry here is that while in trying to correct false information, what do you do?
You try to get true information, but from where?
Well, it turns out you get it from some public authority.
And some public authority, let's say, who's trying to appeal to science?
This is what science says about the matter.
But science doesn't speak with a unified voice.
Science is a process of criticism and discovery and new ideas replacing old ones and new data supplanting old data and positions being elaborated and refined.
So this notion that we want to prevent misinformation becomes very problematic and slippery.
When it's applied to, when science comes down to, let's just listen to what the CDC says and censor everybody who says anything different, because that is alien to the spirit of not just public debate, but science itself.
I think that it is important for us to watch Twitter very carefully, obviously.
I'm not saying to get off Twitter.
I'm not getting off Twitter.
Why? Partly because this is a place to engage the other side.
But it's also critical, I think, for us to...
And this takes a little bit of work because we're all used to Twitter.
We're used to Facebook. You're like, I don't really want to open up a getter.
I don't want to really open up a parlor.
I'm going to learn new stuff.
Well, first of all, there's not a whole lot new to learn.
Those platforms are set up in such a way that they mirror the Twitter formula.
It's very easy once you take the trouble to sign up.
You'll find in getters, I find a very elegant and easy to use platform.
Now, one solution for me in dealing with the censorship issue has been to go to Locals.
Because on Locals, I have...
Well, first of all, I have subscribers.
You can subscribe to my content at Locals.
And you get the no-holds-barred-dinesh.
You're like, well, I thought I was going to get the no-holds-barred-dinesh on the podcast.
Well, you are. I'm going as far as I can go not to get myself kicked off places like Facebook and YouTube and Twitter.
So I take it to the limit.
But let's just say in Locals, I go beyond the limit.
And this is why Debbie sometimes walks by the room where I'm making my videos and she's like, what did I hear?
What did you say? Well, it's a lot of fun on Locals.
And check it out, dinesh.locals.com.
I'm not going to write off this Parag Agarwal guy, as I said.
There's more nuance in the interview than I had originally been led to believe.
But I'm worried that the facile way in which these guys define things like, we're trying to foster public debate, we're trying to protect public safety, even on those issues where a well-meaning guy could say, I understand why you're trying to do that.
There are very dangerous trapdoors and it's very easy to Fall down them.
Want a solution to aches and pains?
I got one for you. Aches and pains come to us all eventually, whether from the normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
But now there's a 100% drug-free solution.
It's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
Now, the vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie's been suffering from frozen shoulder for a couple of years now.
She said, let me give it a try.
She found it works amazingly well.
Her pain went away.
Debbie also knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain's gonna come right back.
So she's made of, I'm never gonna be without relief factor.
Being able to lift her arm and exercise, well, that's super important to her.
Relief factor is the tool she needs.
She's glad she's got it.
You too can benefit.
So go ahead, give it a try.
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 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. I want to talk about a woman named Carrie Barasa, who is essentially, well, Canada's answer to Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren.
Now, The reason I want to talk about her is because I want to highlight the underlying phenomenon that's involved here.
The phenomenon is called passing.
And what is passing?
Passing is a member of one race who tries to pass or pretend to be a member of another race.
Now, Let me start with Carrie Barasa's story itself.
She was the head of the Canadian Institute of Health Research of Indigenous Peoples' Health.
So in other words, she's the top health official for the Indigenous People of Canada.
Canada's Native Americans, if you want to call them that.
Now, Carrie Barasa had been passing herself off as Indigenous and really laying it on.
In other words, here's somebody who claimed to be a member of the Metis tribal nation.
She apparently would dress up in massively and stereotypically Indigenous fashion.
She was asked to give a TED Talk at the University of Saskatchewan.
In Saskatoon, so she appears in full tribal regalia.
All this very amusing, of course, in retrospect.
And she bursts into tears and she goes, My name is Morningstar Bear.
My name is Morningstar Bear.
And she goes, I'm a member of the Bear Clan.
I'm Anishinaabe Metis from Treaty 4 territory.
So see, part of it is when you're passing, you've got to say a whole bunch of tribal gobbledygook because it's a largely white audience and they become super impressed.
Oh man, she's a member of this clan and she goes back to this treaty.
And so this is a woman who's like playing her audience like a violin.
But evidently there was a real indigenous, a real Native American named Winona Wheeler in the audience.
She goes, this doesn't really sound right to me.
So she begins to check out this woman in the full tribal regalia.
She says, you know, can you supply your genealogical records?
And she discovers that Far from being a member of the Native American tribes of the indigenous, Carrie Barasa descends from immigrant farmers who came from Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
In other words, the woman is white.
But when she was confronted, by the way, by the Canadian Broadcasting Network, the CBC, the official kind of state-owned entity of Canada, she changes her story and she says, no, no, no, no, I'm not really indigenous myself, but I was adopted into the Metis community by a Metis, by a tribal buddy of mine.
So, this is, again, this is Jesse Smollett all over again.
Lie number one gives way to lie number two.
But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC, looks into that and they discover that's bogus, too.
I mean, again, this is, you know, Elizabeth Warren.
Look at my high cheekbones!
I'm descended from Native Americans!
And then she takes the DNA test.
Oops, you know, I'm not really descended from Native Americans at all.
Now, this phenomenon of passing is actually a very old one.
If you go back 100 years to the early part of the 20th century, there's a whole literature of blacks who attempted to pass as white.
There's a novelist you can look up named Charles Chestnut because his novels were really about the phenomenon of passing.
And he described it as a tragic thing.
Blacks who were light-skinned, typically mixed race, and they were living under the so-called one-drop rule in which essentially any discernible Black ancestry makes you Black.
But they would try to whiten their skin or just put on makeup.
And the idea was they tried to pass themselves off as white.
And the reason is obvious. It was an era of white supremacy and passing yourself off as white was Produced all kinds of benefits, social benefits, easier to marry a white guy, your children become, quote, lightened as a result.
So the passing to white was a sign of which ideology was prevalent at the time, namely white supremacy.
And the reason I'm telling you this is that now we have passing in the opposite direction for the obvious reason That we're living in an era of Black supremacy and Native American supremacy.
In other words, if you look at our laws, you look at our social practices, if someone goes, I'm Native American, everyone's like, oh, they're Native American.
That's a plus.
That's a political plus.
It's a social plus. It's a cultural plus.
And the same applies to Black.
So today you have white kids who pretend to be Black to get into college.
Today you have Elizabeth Warren pretending to be Native American.
Today you have Hawaiians pretending...
People of Hawaiian ancestry pretending to be of Native American ancestry so they can collect casino benefits that are available only to Native Americans, but not to Hawaiian slash Pacific Islanders.
So this is the race racket.
But what I'm trying to show is that the direction in which the passing goes, in this case, from white to, if you will, colored, is illuminating about the fact that today we don't live in an era of white supremacy.
Contrary to all the ridiculous rhetoric, contrary to all the bogus nostrums of critical race theory, we don't live in an era of white supremacy.
We live in an era of, let's call it, minority supremacy.
Fruits and vegetables are key to any healthy diet, but not that many Americans actually eat the recommended servings of produce every day.
Why? Because it's kind of 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 fruits and veggies, all in six small capsules.
They're absolutely no trouble swallowing, always fresh, nothing artificial. They smell great.
And Debbie swears by the fiber and spice. I was finally convinced to take it. We are really liking So go ahead, 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. I'd like to talk about what's happening at Notre Dame.
No, no, not the University of Notre Dame.
Not the fighting Irish.
Not about to discuss football.
Or Amy Coney Barrett's alma mater.
The other Notre Dame, or perhaps I should say Notre Dame.
I'm talking about the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.
Remember the Hunchback of Notre Dame?
Yes, that's what we're talking about.
Now, you might recall...
That Notre Dame was burned.
Much of it was burned.
There was a mysterious fire in 2019.
Now, the reason this is so disturbing is that although the fire, they never were able to find out who did it.
It was part of a spate of church arsons in France.
Many churches burned across France.
Hundreds of French churches, in fact.
These are deliberate attacks.
And it's quite likely, it seems to me, in that context, that the Notre Dame burning was part of that, was, in fact, a deliberate attack.
Notre Dame has had an iconic history in France during the period of the French Revolution.
They hated the idea of this beautiful church, one of the great churches of the world, maybe the Cathedral of Chartres.
Certainly Westminster Abbey in London, St.
Peter's Basilica in Rome, these are the great churches of Christendom.
And the French revolutionaries hated Notre Dame.
In fact, they converted it.
They decided to sort of secularize it.
And part of the peculiarity of the French Revolution is that they created a kind of religiosity, a sacramentalism around the revolution that was intended to replace Christianity.
I say all this because I'm seeing a similar sacramentalism around woke ideology.
Think of the whole idea of taking a knee and how similar that is to the Christian act of genuflection that is often done in the church, in the pews, as you walk into church prior to, let's say, going to Mass.
Now, the bad news out of France today is that they are apparently sort of rebuilding Notre-Dame.
They're refashioning it into what?
Well, regrettably and disgustingly, into kind of a woke theme park.
Now, this is the view of people who have seen the plans, who are complaining to the media.
There's an article in the Daily Mail here where some of the people involved in this Notre Dame kind of re...
Fashioning have said they're ruining the place.
They're taking Notre Dame, a sacred institution, and instead of very carefully reconstructing the original or contemplating some changes but thinking through what each change is for and why are you doing it.
I mean, let's think about it. This is not only a religious monument, but obviously an historical one as well.
Apparently the French are going sort of Biden-style and they're, quote, building back better.
And what does building back better mean?
Well, evidently they are now...
Creating what's called, quote, a discovery trail that leads visitors through 14 themed chapels, all of them directed to some or other woke proposition.
So one chapel is dedicated, for example, to social justice.
One chapel is dedicated to environmental justice.
Another chapel apparently has African and Asian themes.
There's evidently a Disney element, but in this case a Disney element that is jarring, that's being contemplated, which is special sound and lighting effects to create what the architects are evidently calling, quote, emotional spaces.
So, if this is true, and I'm going to put an if there, this is a desecration.
This is a ruining of Notre Dame.
This is a conversion of Notre Dame into something utterly different from what it was.
And Maurice Coulot, speaking to the London Telegraph, goes, quote, it is as if Disney were entering Notre Dame.
And here they mean woke Disney, not just the old Disney, which is basically, let's make this more public-friendly or let's give this a certain mood.
No, this is Disney married to wokeness.
With very, very bad results.
Apparently the people redesigning Notre Dame want to make it a place where people who have no understanding of Christianity, in fact, people quote, whether from China or Sweden, it's going to sort of attempt to introduce them To these new ideas.
So think of it. Normally, a cathedral is built with the idea that people who come into it know what it is.
It's a religious place.
It is a place where you feel a certain sacred awe.
It puts you ultimately in the mood of the believer.
Even if you are a non-believer and you're viewing it from the outside, you can understand why the believers are there and what they're doing.
It's kind of like if you or I were to go into a mosque.
We're not Muslims, perhaps, but nevertheless, we know why mosques exist.
We know why Muslims go to mosques.
So what you see here is, and I'm actually quoting a guy talking about it.
He goes, this is political correctness gone mad.
They want to turn Notre Dame into an experimental liturgical showroom that exists nowhere else, whereas it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care.
Now... I'm glad we still have the Cathedral of Chartres.
I'm glad we have Westminster Abbey.
I'm really glad we have St.
Peter's Basilica. But if these plans go forward, at least in the traditional sense, we will no longer have the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
I want to challenge you to become a MyPillow super shopper, and there's no time like the present.
Debbie and I don't just patronize MyPillow.
We go all out to support Mike Lindell.
We're happy to do it because he makes such 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, he's offering a buy one, get one free offer on the Giza Dream Sheets.
And he's also offering up to 66% off on other products.
All the MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Call 1-800-876-0227.
That's 1-800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts.
You've got to use promo code Dinesh.
In this concluding segment of the podcast, I want to contrast two different mindsets.
On the one hand, the progressive mindset, which is a statist mindset, a mindset of centralization, of intellectuals planning and running society, on the one hand.
And the entrepreneurial mindset, which is a mindset of creating new things, a mindset of imagining things that don't exist and trying to bring them into being, of creating demand for products that are new and become the result of creativity and innovation.
And my two poster boys, if you will, for these two mindsets are Woodrow Wilson, the country's first progressive president, on the one hand, And Henry Ford, the entrepreneur and the, I won't say inventor of the automobile,
but certainly the guy who made automobiles as a mass phenomenon, the so-called Model T. Now, to illustrate the progressive mindset, I want to talk, there were a series of progressives in the early part of the 20th century, people like Herbert Crowley, Edward A. Ross, John Dewey.
And these were the people who articulated the views that were subsequently taken up politically by people like Woodrow Wilson, later by FDR, later by LBJ. So think of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ as all representing this kind of We're good to go.
Now, I want to talk about Henry Ford in the contrast with Woodrow Wilson and their disagreement about the automobile.
So Woodrow Wilson didn't like automobiles.
In fact, it's not an exaggeration to say that he hated cars.
Now, early on when Wilson was, this is before he became president, this is when he was president of Princeton, he basically attacked the car.
He said, we don't need cars.
I'm quoting him. The car is, quote, a picture of arrogance and wealth.
And it wasn't just that Wilson had a personal aversion to driving a car.
No one was forcing him to drive a car.
He didn't think anyone should have a car.
His point was that cars are just a rich man's toy.
They just exist for ostentatious display.
And he said, basically, who needs a car?
We got the horse and buggy.
This is Woodrow Wilson.
Now, I should note that biographers of Wilson, progressive biographers, like to leave this out of progressive biographies.
Why? Because they don't want Wilson to look ridiculous.
So they hide it from their readers.
These are scholars who obviously aren't real scholars, but you can almost call them propagandists for progressivism.
Now, interestingly, when Woodrow Wilson called the car a rich man's toy, the car was at that time a rich man's toy.
At that time, cars were custom-made.
They were handmade from custom-ordered parts imported from Europe.
It's true that rich people could specify, I want this, so I want that in a car, and the wealthy buyer would then be accommodated.
And at that time, it's also true that the car wasn't really any faster than the horse.
But the point is that Woodrow Wilson lacked vision.
Although he thought of himself as this intellectual who's like, you know, able to see further than narrow-minded businessmen, basically Wilson's approach was, I would call it the argument from personal incredulity.
This is a phrase I lift from the biologist Richard Dawkins, who used it in a somewhat different context.
But here's Wilson. He's basically saying, what's the point of a car?
Here's Wilson twiddling his thumbs in his office, and he goes, you know, can I think of any good reason why people today would want a car?
Well, sitting in my office and twiddling my thumbs, I really can't.
Clearly, there's no good reason anyone should have a car.
Therefore, cars should not exist.
Now, if you think I'm sort of caricaturing Wilson, no.
This is exactly how progressives talk today about things like fracking.
I mean, couldn't you see this statement in a progressive magazine?
Fracking is a terrible idea.
Who knows what it's doing to the environment?
It could be causing earthquakes, for all we know.
So here, sitting in my office and twiddling my thumbs, I can't think of a single good reason to have fracking.
Therefore, fracking should not exist.
This sounds like what we hear today.
So the point about Wilson is he saw the car only as it was, not as how it could be.
He viewed the entrepreneurs making cars as like useless dabblers.
And the irony, as I say, is that Wilson saw himself as a far-seeing intellectual, as progressives always do, people who sort of have a better ability to commandeer the economy than sort of lowly entrepreneurs.
Wilson with Henry Ford.
Henry Ford was a mechanic.
He worked as an apprentice in a machine shop.
He got his ideas for mass-building cars from watching the assembly line in the Chicago stockyards.
In other words, he was looking at ways in which people cut meat and moved from one to another.
And essentially, what Henry Ford does, he invented the assembly line.
And then later he invented a marketing innovation, which was the car dealership, which we have today.
Dealerships that would sell these cars and make them available to the majority of the population.
Now, the interesting thing about Ford is that...
I'd like to tell you that Ford had sort of a deeper understanding of what people wanted, that Ford had a sort of insight into consumer demand for cars.
But no, there was no consumer demand for cars.
At one time, Henry Ford said that if he really consulted his customers beforehand and he asked them, what do you want?
They would say, I want a faster horse.
So the genius of Henry Ford was to envision a society in which not just the rich, but everybody, would own a car.
In other words, to envision a society that didn't exist, but would develop later as a consequence of what Henry Ford did.
So Henry Ford was a supply-sider.
Supply precedes demand.
Make cars first, and then they will come.
So what Henry Ford did was he took cars, which at one time cost $3,000, enormous fortune in those days, and he brought the price of a car down to $400.
And ironically, it was the rich people who bought expensive cars at the beginning that provided the profit margin for these entrepreneurs to then fund innovations and research that brought the price of a car down.
So think about it. Henry Ford Not Woodrow Wilson revolutionized America.
Henry Ford democratized America.
Think of what the car has meant in American life.
Really a symbol of personal freedom.
A huge democratizing force in history.
And therefore, my conclusion is really simple.
It's the entrepreneur, not the bureaucrat.
Who is the great visionary of history.
If you look at it, although Woodrow Wilson calls himself a progressive, he was really a regressive.
He was taking things back to the horse and buggy.
The real progressive, measured here in terms of genuine progress, wasn't the bureaucrat, but the entrepreneur.
Wasn't Woodrow Wilson, but was in fact Henry Ford.
▲
Export Selection